Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742

Fine-structure constant

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

---

An IP 172.129.127.235 and 172.130.107.77 is intent on telling the rest of the world that the theoretical physicists that use the ESU statcoulomb and the cgs system are wrong when they say that α = e²/(ħc) without the 4πε₀ (which gets set to 1 when using ESU). This guys is both stupid and proud of it. I put a note in the article talk page, but he doesn't read either. Dunno what you admins want to do about it, but might you lock down the page for a while until he gives up and goes away? Thanks. (From another IP 71.169.191.83 (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)).

You may want to consider very carefully whether it's a good idea to make a blatant personal attack against other editors on a page watched by lots of admins. --Chris (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick check of the history of Fine-structure constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that a) 71.xx's description of the situation seems to be accurate, b) attempts at discussion have been made (mostly via edit summary, granted), and c) at least two editors one editor in good standing from WT:PHYS has been reverting the 172.xx's changes (with the aforementioned edit summary explanations).

The next steps are to issue warnings (either templates or polite hand-crafted ones) on the 172.xx talk pages for edit-warring, and if disruption persists, to report 172.xx to WP:AIV. I'm not sure why this came to AN/I at all.--Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected two weeks (although I've clicked on the wrong reason....protection is still valid). Have noted same on IP talkpage. Next time, try requests for page protection if he's still going at it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please reduce that to semi-protection. IP mischief should not be a reason to prevent productive editors from working on an important physics article. In physics we have a chronic problem with cranks trying to push fringe theories. Everybody wants to be smarter than Einstein. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is only semi-protection - didn't warrant protection. It's the reason that I picked the wrong selection for - it says BLP issues and it should have been your bog standard disruption. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism/edit war on Resource-based economy

An IP using a wide IP-range is making repeated deleted of sourced material on Resource-based economy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

IP addresses used so far has been 175.100.40.163 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.40.104 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.40.92 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.41.47 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.41.37 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.40.10 (talk · contribs · email) and 175.100.40.252 (talk · contribs · email).

This has been going on since the 17th of February, despite two protections of the article, [11], [12] and several warnings: [13], [14] and [15].

The removal of the material has been reverted by OpenFuture (talk · contribs · email) (that's me), Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · email) and Loremaster (talk · contribs · email), so the IP knows that the consensus is against him, but to this he responds with conspiratorial claims that we are all in fact members of the two organisations mentioned that cooperate in what he calls "tandem editing", in other words accusing us of WP:MEATPUPPETRY.

Other than the above accusations the IP does not engage in discussion, although he writes on the talk page. But his writing on the talk page are not discussion, just repeated claims that are patently false, such like the article being a copyright violation, that organisations The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement not being notable (which in that case is a question for those articles, which he has been told), that the phrase is a neologism, and lately when I added more references in an effort to get a stop on this, simply claims that the references didn't support the statements, which is untrue.

There simply is no reasoning with this person, and administrator action is needed to stop this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You mis-represent what happened. If any one here is interested in this I suggest they read the talk page of the article for a true account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy Open-Future originated the article which looks to be an excuse to highlight the 'groups' in question and the information could be in their own articles. Maybe this article would be better as a redirect. It was speedily deleted at least once before.

The two citations added recently by Open-future are not having anything to do with the subject. The information on Venus Project and Zeitgeist and J. Fresco all comes from a Fresco website so it is a primary source. Neologism is no longer an issue and has not been for a while.

Adding two sources to cite information that have nothing to do with the subject is what Open-Future has done. Being called a vandal for trying to improve the article? Lot of name calling on the talk page from Open-Future. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• A problem here is that the article is not very good, no matter whose version prevails at the moment. Those references for The Venus Project simply don't reference: the first is the project's own website, the second has incomplete bibliographic information (and I don't have that publication on my shelf), and the third appears to be a draft of a class assignment (see the very last sentence of the 'book review')--if none of this stuff can be properly verified, it should be scrapped. Having said that, I should note also that the IP's last edit, this one, is no improvement, though that reference might well aid in improving the article. But IP's contributions on the talk page are way too combative, and those COI claims are silly. I'm going to protect the article again in hopes that other editors will help out, on the talk page to begin with. It's obvious to me that the interaction between the IP and Open Future is not producing anything positive, and neither of them seem capable of writing a decent article (anyone interested in perusing this basic Google Books search?

  In case I wasn't clear: unless the two parties here truly cross over into NPA territory, there's nothing more to do for an admin. This requires editing. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The organisations website is a perfectly acceptable source in this case, as the statement sourced is that the organisation uses the term "Resource-based economy" and how they use it. You won't get a better source than the website of the organisation in question explaining how they use the term. Far from being a problematic source, it is the best possible source on such a statement. It does admittedly not support that TZM uses the term. Partly because of that, and partly because the IP complained, I found two scholarly sources that also support this completely non-controversial statement.

So that is not a problem. The IP does not have any real complaint, the statement is not controversial in any case. He just wants to remove it because he has some sort of deep hatred for these organisations, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason to remove material. No amount of editing will fix the problem, because it matters not what sources I find, the IP *will* remove it. He doesn't care if it is sourced, he just do not want these organisations mentioned on this page, something he has made abundantly clear.

(But yes, I see what you mean with assignment. It was credited to Paul Pennings on Google Scholar, but on closer inspection I think that is incorrect. I'll find a better source once the edit protection on the article has been lifted. A protection that again, completely pointlessly, is a full protection, and not a semi-protection, which would have been much better since this is IP-vandalism and not an edit war. It would also have given the IP-vandal an incentive to create an account.) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• OpenFuture, if you think there is no better source than the organization's website, you really need to have a look at WP:RS and at various notability guidelines. Verification here also serves to prove that this organization's use of the term has any encyclopedic relevance at all. As for your comments about the IP, well, let's see if reliable sources verifying the very notability of that use can be found. If not, anyone is justified in removing it. As for the comment about protection: I understand that you believe you are right, and that's why I applied full protection. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved in earlier discussions where people have talked about notability, and from those it has been perfectly clear that notability concerns one and only one thing: If a topic should have an article or not. These organisations are clearly notable, and the concept of "Resource-based economy" is in fact the central concept of The Venus Project. That the usage needs to be covered by Wikipedia is therefore hardly any doubt about, but of course that can be discussed. But that is *not* something that is covered under WP:N. And I've read WP:RS many times, and this source fulfills WP:SELFSOURCE. It is also *self evident* that the best source for a statement that X uses the term Y under the definition Z is the place where X defines the term Y as Z. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the appraisal of Drmies is right but I have to say I have not personal attacked anyone or been strident beyond trying to get the point across that the article appears to be constructed more or less as an excuse for non notable primary sourced information to promote the three other articles about Mr. Fresco and Venus Project and Zeitgeist movement. Having an article dedicated to a phrase which is interpreted in many different ways seems pointless.

Quote Open-Future You won't get a better source than the website of the organisation in question explaining how they use the term. Far from being a problematic source, it is the best possible source on such a statement. It does admittedly not support that TZM uses the term. Partly because of that, and partly because the IP complained, I found two scholarly sources that also support this completely non-controversial statement. So that is not a problem. End quote.

Also Quote I found two scholarly sources that also support this completely non-controversial statement. So that is not a problem. The IP does not have any real complaint, the statement is not controversial in any case. End quote Open-Future.

Mmmm. Two sources that have nothing to do with the issues in question and do not support notability to the three organizations in any way? Claims also of something like that being self evident? Saying articles from Wikipedia imply notability? Wikipedia articles are not sources and are not notable. Articles come and go and change. The article was created by Open-Future, the information that is in question and contested because primary sources with no notability beyond some non profit but commercial group is in question. In previous incarnations of the same titled article it was noted also that it could be spam like or promotional because of lack of notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resource-based_economy , that one ended up being deleted for another reason that does do not apply this time, copy vio. How can people refer to other editors as i.p. vandals? Is Wikipedia that closed of a loop that the obvious can not be pointed out that the sources are not notable on something and not even connected to the subjects and that it looks like the article was made for promotion purposes. No one has written seriously about these in question but themselves and sourcing something to itself that way? 175.100.40.163 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Saying that a Wikipedia article implies notability =/= Wikipedia article establishing notability. What it means is that the notability has been established enough that an article on the subject is suitable. Aviation articles use a similar standard: an aviation accident is presumably notable if a bluelinked person was killed in it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about the IP after his last comment on the article talk page. It is probably not a question of willful vandalism, but of WP:COMPETENCE. Maybe somebody else can explain basic Wikipedia policy for this IP. I obviously have failed, but I suspect I'm not a very pedagogical person. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Banned user editing from IP address

Seems Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as 76.124.43.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - see [16]. This needs a CU and a block, I think. Prioryman (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So why an ANI instead of SPI? Nobody Ent 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What Ent said. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI isn't needed. The IP editor has acknowledged being the banned user concerned - there's no dispute about who it is. All that's needed is a block. Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, your identification seems plausible, but can you provide the diff wherein the IP acknowledges that they are the banned user? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you insist: the IP presents an "example of a bannable post" here, pointing to a Kohs post, and a second Kohs post here, and is identified by two Wikipedians and Jimbo Wales himself as the individual in question. There is really not much point in an SPI when it's that obvious. But you know, since the banned user is a pal of yours, why don't you ask him? Prioryman (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning your identification of the IP as Kohs - it seems probable. What I am questioning is your contention that "the IP editor has acknowledged being the banned user concerned". That is simply not true. You seem to have a problem telling the truth. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note Prioryman has rolled off Drmies close tag, failed to follow standard Wikpedia policy WP:SPI in regards to an account which hasn't edited in over 24 hours. Nobody Ent 01:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Come off it! If it's obvious by behavior or self-admission, SPI is superfluous except to locate other sockpuppets. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So, is the banned user evading his ban going to get his IP blocked per policy or are we gonna continue shooting the messenger over semantics? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason not to block, but there is little point. It's a shared IP and the user has probably already moved on to another. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:LiamNolan15212

I have had a few disputes with this user (LiamNolan15212 (talk · contribs)) about articles concerning television directors. The primary issue as of this moment is the article on Milan Cheylov. The user insists on using a simple sub-section on the director's work on the series 24, when it is completely unnecessary as the article is not that long anyway. A lot of edits this user makes is redundant and unnecessary about 98% of the time. Basically on a "my way or else" emotional trip. If that is not enough, when the user is disagreed with and the issue is brought up in his talk page, the user blanks the content. I hate being in lame edit wars like this. QuasyBoy 23:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Continued Editing After Warn (70.75.162.175)

An IP address was issued a final warning to stop adding unreferenced material to articles a little over a week ago, and is continuing to do so. Is a block in order? TheArguer (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes, he has been given previous warnings as stated. An administrator will make a final decision.--Chip123456 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Race (classification of humans)

I responded to a 3O request for this page, but it turned out just to be an IP copy-pasting from Metapedia.

Thing is, the talkpage is semi-protected but the article not. Is that normal? Could someone take a look?

Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Favonian has protected the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Any problematic edits from Imperial College, London to this article are almost invariably from the banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The racist threats smd foul language on user talk pages[17][18] are typical of his "style" (unreconstructed British National Party). See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mikemikev uses the same pseudonym on metapedia as here. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked an IP from Imperial College he was using to post here and removed his posts. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Provocative attacks from User:123o

123o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Witnesses CT Cooper (talk · contribs) Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) Hghyux (talk · contribs) via Help Desk

Related talk pages User talk:Wesley Mouse User talk:Sims2aholic8 User talk:CT Cooper Talk:WikiProject Eurovision (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I have received a number of provoking/attacking comments over a number of talk pages by the accused. The diffs showing provoking attacks from User:123o

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• and even goes as far as this [28]

The diffs showing responses from the witnesses Sims2aholic8 - part 1 CT Cooper Sims2aholic8 - part 2

During all of this, I find that I'm not the first person that User:123o has posted provoking/threatening comments to. He sent this to Roscelese (talk · contribs) only a few months ago. Ironically, I noticed that his comments are similarly worded to other comments made by Conservative Philosopher (talk · contribs)

Normally I can cope with this kind of behaviour and just sweep things under the carpet, allowing people benefit of the doubt. But when provocation gets out of control from a user, then I have no other option than to report it formally. Wesley☀Mouse 02:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to point out that the time now is 02:25 GMT, and I am about to go to sleep. I shall continue with this when I awaken. Thanks - Wesley☀Mouse 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do not in any way believe that 123o and Conservative Philosopher are the same person. The user seems to repeatedly get into trouble through a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and could at least benefit from a mentor, but sockpuppetry seems unlikely to be among his "crimes." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Seriously: "The diffs showing provoking attacks from User:123o"--NO, they do not show provoking attacks from User:123o. I've read all of them, and provocative attacks they are not. I don't even know if they're erratic or whatever, but this ANI report strikes me as--well, without merit (I'll put it that way, since I don't wish to be uncivil). Drmies (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, I read the discussion on Wesley Mouse's talk page about a template created by 123o (the Albanian thing), and the arguments there do not make a damn bit of sense to me. Wesley claims that 123o's template should not be used because there is an older template, and that 123o's template would make articles redundant. I'm scratching my head, and if 123o is getting exasperated, I can understand. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, this appears to be a language barrier, not "provocative attacks". I don't see any provocation of any kind in any of the links provided. What I do see is someone politely asking why their work is not appreciated and basically being told "someone else's work was here first so yours isn't wanted or desired." The creator of the new work is then politely asking for their opinion to be considered, and they find themselves here at ANI. Or am I missing something? N419BH 03:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• IMHO, one would have to be remarkably thin-skinned to construe any of those to be hostile, let alone "provoking attacks," let alone requiring emergency intervention from administrators. With a relatively small number of edits, it's conceivable that the OP hasn't run into editors ten times nastier ... but if so, I can't imagine that state of affairs persisting. Ravenswing 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning folks. I have read your views carefully. I find it slightly confusing that a handful don't see the comments made by 123o as being provocative. Yet,other editors have done. At first I thought I might have been over-sensitive, and did ask for a second opinion to double-check on the mannerisms of what was being written. Sims2aholic8 (talk · contribs) did the check for me and replied back, that he noticed the comments to be provocative in nature. Furthermore, another editor also noticed that comments where in a provocative nature, via the project talk page - that's 2 people there who noticed the abuse. What is it that some can see, and other cannot? Then there's the difference I provided of a similar outburst (for choice of phrase) between 123o and Roscelese.

• In this post from 123o, I acknowledge he asked why his creations where being deleted. But the use of some capitals as if to shout, was a little strange; although I ignored it at the time.
• In regards to the templates, and the remarks that I am basically saying 123o's work is no wanted here, is untrue. I asked a member of the Eurovision project if such templates where needed, and their response was that they were overlaps and shouldn't have been created without checking with the project first; as there where too many templates on the project alone. It was that information that I tried to put across to 123o the first time he asked why his work was up for deletion. But when I get a reply back stating that I don't know how to read, then naturally I was shocked. I was already in mid-flow fixing language details and adding ref links for them to all 57 Eurovision articles, and despite that I took time out to answer the users queries as best I could. But to be told that I am illiterate by a user I don't know was uncalled for; and not only to be told once, but twice, when I had previously asked them not to use such rudeness, is certainly provocative. I opened discussion on the project page, and CT Cooper worded my point of view about these templates using a different context - now my own reply to 123o was treated with utter disgust, yet the same comment from a different user gets treated with respect. How can this be so? Both comments are stating the same points of view; yet one is wrong and one is right. I'll let you mull over those for now, as I need to head off for an appointment in the next 10 minutes - but again, I shall continue to explain as best as possible on my return. Wesley☀Mouse 09:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You've taken 123o's reply out of context and assuming that there is a personal attack where there is none. It may not be the most civil response, but definitely not a PA. However, he does leave room open for discussion. Blackmane (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been better if 123o had started a discussion at the start on proposed new templates before mass creating them to reduce the risk of his contributions being wasted and to prevent any tension. That said, 123o is a newish user that should be given space and the door has indeed been opened for discussion at WT:EURO. It is a pity that this escalated to ANI, since while there may be disagreements, it is far from the most contentious subject on the project. I am presently trying to reboot the discussion away from personal matters at WT:EURO, and participation from those involved would be appreciated. I do not think administrative action would be constructive here, and I would suggest that both sides try to come to terms with each other, and then move on. CT Cooper · talk 10:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for the second quick leaving of discussion. Prior real-life business appointments took presidency. However, I shall now be available until approximately 7pm (GMT), and may continue to find a resolution to this mater, which is the main reason I aired my concerns here to begin with. In reply to Blackmane's comment, I had originally assumed the comments made by User:123o where uncivil and already stated that perhaps I was taking things a bit insensitively, which was why I asked a fellow member of the Eurovision project for a second opinion on what 123o had written on my talk page. If you notice from Sims2aholic8's opinion, he did point out that even though 123o's comments weren't uncivil, they were in fact provocative in nature. That is how I came to the provoking conclusion of subsequent comments. Several times I politely asked 123o to refrain from making personally directed comments against myself, in the hope of getting the main discussion about these templates back on track. But each time I get told that I cannot read. If one cannot read, then one wouldn't reply to a question. I would never dream of telling a person that they cannot read, it would be very disrespectful, as a person may have literacy problems that I wasn't aware of. A better choice of commenting from myself in situations like that would be words such as 'misread', 'misunderstood', 'perhaps you read incorrectly the meaning of...'. Those are productive choice of words/phrases without coming across as disrespecting towards a user. As CT Cooper pointed out, I started the thread about the templates at WT:EURO, and put across as best as possible what the issues where and also mannerisms of comments from 123o. CT Cooper replied first, pointing out (in different terminology) the same reasons I had previously attempted to point out to 123o via my talk page. 123o, acknowledged Cooper's version far better respectfully than my version. But 123o did also say in the same statement that "other editors shouldn't believe my claims". I defended my corner by providing evidence after that to show I was not fabricating claims, and that things had been said. After that CT Cooper told 123o that he had been provocative, and 123o acknowledge he was being provocative by saying "fair enough". But then 123o goes to Sims2 for what I can only assume as sympathy because he had been caught out using provocation, but Sims2 also told 123o that he was being unfair. It was at that stage that 123o then goes on some sort of rampage posting things on the Help Desk, basically trying to imply that I was a liar. Why do that, when I published facts to show he had said things that he tried to deny afterwards? Is that the behaviour of someone looking to start an argument, or of a person attempting to find a resolution? Discussion about the templates have indeed rebooted, and I am being cooperative with this; but 123o doesn't appear to be reciprocating the same cooperation. Wesley☀Mouse 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him here at all, just pointing it out. 123o does seem to be combatative and disruptive trying to prove his point. To be honest, seeing as he is a fairly new user a somewhat sternly worded suggestion with regards to civil discourse from an admin is about the most you can really expect with respect to this incident. Blackmane (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh Blackmane, don't get me wrong, I haven't raised this concern here in the hope of severe punishments whatsoever. My beliefs are that everyone deserves as many chances as they need; nobody is perfect and we're all prone to mistakes and learning curves. This is something I've done many a time on Wikipedia. An example was when a user uploaded copyvio images, anyone else would have attempted to get them blocked, but I took heart and pointed the user to guidelines to help them understand the mistakes, and learn the correct procedures. Another example was somebody adding information about BLP's which wasn't sourced. Again, in that situation I provided the person with guidelines so they knew exactly what not to do in circumstances like that. I agree with you though when you said sternly worded suggestion with regards to civil discourse from an admin would be more appropriate. 123o is probably a nice guy in person, but some issues on how to avoid directing insults at people, would be most appreciated. Wesley☀Mouse 12:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to improve interpersonal communication, then WP:WQA is intended to facilitate that. Warnings are as valid from a non-admin as they are from an admin, and theorectically hold just as much weight. ANI is intended for situations that require immediate administrator action - requesting a proper discussion is not one of those situations. ANI is not part of dispute resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't 100% certain if it would be a WP:WQA issue or ANI; and instead of raising in both areas simultaneously, I came here first, as it is an incident really, but as you pointed out, an incident concerning etiquette. What happens now then? Do I need to re-raise things over at WP:WQA or leave things as they are? Wesley☀Mouse 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to tell you what you should do, but I can give you some advice here: drop it. Despite your many assertions, and some apparent luke-warm consent from an editor or two, there are no personal attacks in the dozen diffs you cite. There is no reasonable way in which a competent speaker of English would consider the content of this edit as provocative or whatever. You sound as if you are trying to protect your own (favored) templates over someone else's by all possible means. And as it is, the arguments you used to defend those templates don't make sense at all anyway.

If you wish to be "going forward", as the cliche has it, you drop this matter completely and you engage in conversation with 123o on how to improve the templates by combining theirs and yours, such as I did for Template:Albanian Eurovision Representation. I don't know if you nominated all their templates for speedy deletion, but if you did, it would be nice if you undid it--I don't see how the speedy deletion rationale is valid anyway: the only reason 123o's templates aren't used is because you removed them from the articles. And if you really wish to move forward, you apologize to 123o for having started this thread. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on for one moment. As graciously as I accept your comment there, I did mention that 123o acknowledged himself that he was being some what provocative, after another user pointed out the fact to him. So despite 123o putting his hand up to the attack, it still isn't one? My English is fluent, but that statement is contradictory on many levels. I have participated, and still am participating in the discussion about templates at WT:EURO. If you would like to view my recent comments over there, you will see that I haven't said the originals must stay. I have said that it makes no sense having a plethora of templates on articles each of which contain overlapping details. Even CT Cooper noted that in time the new templates would become unnavigable, and talks into finding a way around this would be the best way forward - to which I agreed. It isn't a case of being forced to drop it, as there is nothing to drop. The fact here is that a user come out with comments that have already been described by an admin above as being "combatative and disruptive" in trying to prove a point. The same admin going further to say that a "sternly worded suggestion with regards to civil discourse" would be the option. I agreed on that, as I truly believe that 123o can be a genuine nice guy all round; but directing comments that can be misinterpreted the wrong way isn't the wisest of things for any editor to do. Wesley☀Mouse 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your responses. I would like to say that it seems like every time I try to calm this personal discussion against me this user keeps starting it all over again. Is it possible to rise the question why this discussion keeps rising? I don't understand why he can't close this session. As you can see he wrote several claims against me and now he rises a discussion from the past and blames me of pretending to be someone else? This is not his personal page that he can spread his ideas. Can you please resolve this? Thank you--123o (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the comments were provocative, and I stand by that, though note that I didn't say they were uncivil, a personal attack e.t.c, nor did I personally endorse everything that was said or done afterwards. If editors wish to make their opinions known on what template/format is better e.t.c., then they are free to do so, but that would be better said at WT:EURO, than ANI. 123o has approached me asking what to do now, and I have given an invitation to comment on the ongoing discussion at WT:EURO, and suggested other areas in which help is needed. CT Cooper · talk 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps if both of you put this whole personality clash behind you, and both of you started from scratch, starting... now? How about letting me have the last word, rather than either one of you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• WHY??? This is the second time in less than a week I was part of an incident and this time I was just trying to help someone. UGH! Hghyux (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• OK I agree to a second chance on this occasion, and will send over an olive branch to 123o; although an apology would need to be reciprocated for assuming that I "cannot read". It was as little hurtful, especially when I was trying my hardest to explain about the templates to 123o, which my explanations may have come across as confusing to the user. Wesley☀Mouse 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Okeyes (WMF)

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.

---

Okeyes (WMF) has violated WP:NPA with the attack of, "If and when you decide you'd like to act like an adult"1. This sort of behavior coming from both an admin and WMF employee is unacceptable. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a personnel attack, not a civility violation. Nobody Ent 03:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly ad hominem as described at Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read this IP's edits for today. What we have here is your basic troll - and a boomerang. Rklawton (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not a troll. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you're a whiner. You're not even Resident Mario, who is probably adult enough to complain in his own right if he feels the need to. Oh, and NO, this trite remark is not a violation of NPA. What is this, "come cry to mammy day"? Reopen this and someone might block you for disruption. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor note; the IP may be a troll, but that's certainly not the best way to address one of our best editors. But really, complaints about that sort of thing should be raised elsewhere (i.e. User talk:Philippe (WMF)), not here, because there's nothing we can do about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Can someone help?

I am looking to find out why my username can no longer be found in wikipedia Jamesrand. Who deactivated this account and why? It is strange that it was fine last week but admin Edcolins who was involved in a rather heated argument about the articles Brian Camelio and ArtistShare which involved Jamesrand made an edit and now the user is disabled. I also noticed that another editor TBecham is "red" as well. Admin Edcolins was also in dispute with them. Furthermore I see that the history pages have been modified to hide links when TBeckham posed a question about a certain editor and his connection to the subject [[29]]. The links are now all mangled in the section titled conflict of interest. Is this legal in Wikipedia world, to rewrite history like that? Is there a way we can find out who did all of this? Either way, I would like my account back please Jamesrand. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand2 (talk • contribs)

Jamesrand (talk · contribs) is not currently blocked or removed - there's just been no recent edits from that account. Doc talk 07:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That the link is red doesn't mean the account is disabled. It means it has no user page. The user that you point to seems to exist, and does not seem blocked. You say it was fine last week, and maybe so, but the account has not made any edits since October. Are you sure you are trying to log in with the correct username? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the most recent block of any user made by Edcolins (and the only one this calendar year) was 3 February, and his protection log has a total of 6 actions in over six years, none in 2012.  Frank  |  talk  13:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The personal attack RM closure

Is it valid to vote in an RM, then attack the proposer as "dishonest," and finally close the RM, a move justified by further disparaging remarks? I should note that all of this was done before the minimum seven-day voting period expired. Anyway, I hope someone can look into it: Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move:_Genesis_creation_narrative_.E2.86.92_Creation_story_in_Genesis. Kauffner (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the close - the editor is too involved to be closing. From my knowledge of the situation I think this RM is significantly different to the last to let it run but if someone uninvolved and with more experience of the previous requests thinks this has already been significantly covered by previous recent discussion I won't object to them speedy closing.

As for the disparaging marks, yes they could have used better language but given the heat of the previous discussion and the fact that they (rightly or wrongly) believed you had been dishonest I suggest everyone assume good faith and assume this was out of character and caused by the situation. I think discussion of why they think you're being dishonest could be fruitful as sources appear to go to the root of at least some of this issue. Dpmuk (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for any personal offense caused - that was not my intent. I believe my wording was, "speedy close under incorrect assumption/dishonest use of sources." "under incorrect assumptions/misrepresentation of sources" (I was tricked in to thinking I'd ad hommed more than I did! </sarcasm>). Could I have eventually thought of better phrasing? Probably. I still invite any admin (who dares - the last one to close an RfM - User:Keegan - on that page was torn to shreds and had an AN opened by unhappy editors, plus the fact the last debate was at least 15-20 35-50 normal single-spaced typed pages long, spread over several sections) to speedy close this, as constant RfMs/RfCs are getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia (this seems to be a textbook case for WP:IAR). It is substantially similar to the last RfM, and, in any case, in the section below the RfM (in which you will see of all of the half-dozen votes cast, all are oppose, except for one facetious/sarcastic "keep" by User_talk:Noformation - who, now, on a second look, appears to have quit Wikipedia and had all of his stuff blanked out while I was asleep). I have included the relevant quotes which define the topic as a "creation myth" (as I said in my close rationale, that the sources directly contradict the reasoning of the request) from all of the sources given, and attempted to explain why a plain Google search does not establish what is or is not a reliable source. Again, apologies for any personal offense caused: Talk:Genesis creation narrative isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, for better or for worse (for worse), it's a razed warzone. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Block Evasion User:McJew

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.

---

McJew (talk · contribs) is obviously a new incarnation of blocked account Big.mc.jew (talk · contribs) --HighKing (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Stuff this obvious can also go to AIV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed:

• Johnnyscott9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wehatemillwall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Parsons is a bender (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DannyWade6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Westham4ever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 16:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Improper page move of Kerala High Court

Ppyoonus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved the Kerala High Court article to Malappuram Collectorate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in what appears to be an attempt to start a new article. The move needs to be undone as this has essentially wiped out the article on the Kerala High Court. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done.  Frank  |  talk  15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Both articles currently use the same infobox photo. Are there still problems with the articles? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Themacor

• Themacor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• http://www.utakmica.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I work at WP:COIN and this report came in recently. Themacor has added a website to over 500 articles. The website is completely in Serbian and has no alternate translation (specifically English). Per WP:NONENGEL, the link shouldn't be added unless there are no English alternatives. Not only are there several English alternatives, they're listed in the articles in question. The Serbian website contributes no new information.

The only communication the user has attempted to make with another user is an email sent to user:MER-C here. MER-C replied here and states that the user has a conflict of interest and some other useful information. Themacor responded by [deleting the post. The user has received two warning at this point and removed those as well. I would apply the regular warnings and then seek help from ANI but the user has added the link 83 times yesterday. The regular path doesn't seem appropriate for this case. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You negleted to notify the user of this posting. I have remedied this. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you for correcting it (small thanks, too). OlYeller21^Talktome 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I hit rollback a time or two. I'll place a final warning: this seems like spamming to me. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I just received a message from Hasteur about this. First of all, MER-C and I exchanged several e-mails about this issue some time ago and clear things up so that there was no problems later. After that I had no reason to add new links because there was no changes in Serbian SuperLiga. Second, why am I adding these links? you ask, the answer is simple: There is no better site about Serbian Superliga then www.utakmica.rs. Official site (www.superliga.rs) is terrible and no one else have this much info about Serbian top league. Ok, sites like transfermarkt are good, no doubt, but they can not have such good information like I have, ever. In the meantime, between my two 'waves' of adding-new-links there have been other editors who add links to utakmica.rs and this was no problem, right? So, what is wrong now? It is true, yesterday I changed 83 articles but except that more then 180days I did not change anything and some of changes were just adding sr-logo to identify my site as Serbian. Bottom line, utakmica.rs is right website to be added and it is white-listed [here] and there was no problem with that [here] and I am not spammer because of 83! changes in 200+ days. --Themacor (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• This seems to indicate what MER-C thought of it. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• We exchanged several e-mails and that was just first of them. After all, why would he allow me to add 5x more links if something was wrong? Even better, ask him or someone from this page for opinion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themacor (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, that "white list" you mentioned, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links, it says explicitly that these are not automatically reliable sources, and that also means they are not automatically acceptable as external links. If you wish this to be accepted as OK, you should probably find a consensus for it at WP:ELN. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that info. I will contact people who are moderators and see what can be done.--Themacor (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were used as references to source information in articles that can't be sourced with another website. WP:NONENGEL is fairly clear about this issue. OlYeller21^Talktome 10:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And for the record, you've added the link over 500 times with that account. That addition appears to have been reverted about half of the time. That seems like a clear indication to me that other editors don't agree with its inclusion but can't keep up with the rate at which you add it to pages. OlYeller21^Talktome 10:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User creating autobiography on common.js and common.css

User Elizabethelvington (talk · contribs) has created User:Elizabethelvington/common.js, which consists merely of her name, and User:Elizabethelvington/common.css, an autobiography. I tried tagging these for G6 speedy, but I can't edit someone else's common.js or common.css files. Can an admin please take care of this and educate this user on the proper use of these files? I admit I'm not all that familiar with them myself. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think warning her for creating an "autobiography" is a bit bitey. I moved it to her userpage, but I don;t see the need to do anything else. Though one wonders where she found those pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I'm too thin skinned, but if I were a new editor and got a welcome like that, I'd consider not coming back. "Sneaking an autobiography onto Wikipedia"?? Geez. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of admin authority on Peyton Manning article

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.

---

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I believe User:Eagles247 has improperly used his admin authority in locking down the Peyton Manning article, in violation of WP:PROTECT.

User:Eagles247 is of the opinion that the press conference announcing Manning's release from the Indianapolis Colts must not be mentioned in the lead section of the article. I and other editors reasonably disagree.

Please note that this dispute is not about whether or not we can say Manning has already been released from the Colts. It is conceded that Manning's official release might not have taken place yet. We are talking about a mention of the press conference (all over the news this afternoon, FWIW) that says that the Colts intend to release Manning today.

User:Eagles247 has now blocked everyone else from editing the article, even though WP:PROTECT mandates that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes."

He states that he implemented the block because of the "edit warring" supposedly taking place, even though he was PART OF the edit warring. He describes the dispute as "bullshit": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=480715756

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Terence7 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I protected the page due to the excessive edit warring there. Many editors were changing the article to reflect his being released, which hasn't even happened yet. I believe WP:BLP supports my decision to protect in this case. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your in an uphill battle that you are likely to lose. Give up.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the previous protection, and I fully expect the article to be re-protected until his release becomes official. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would still appreciate hearing others weigh in on whether or not this (mis)use of admin authority was appropriate. I personally believe that this type of heavy-handed use of admin authority is a significant problem for Wikipedia that drives many well-intentioned editors away. Thank you. Terence7 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not appropriate, and I apologize. I clearly violated WP:INVOLVED, and I was in the wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My $.02: I asked Eagles247 for clarification on WP policy as it relates to "the team says the player is cut" versus "the team filed papers that the player has been cut". IMO, waiting for the latter in a case like this is too conservative. I haven't seen that policy, but it's possible more experienced sports bio editors have reached this consensus. Can someone point to the policy?

Further, I think that Rockchalk's comments haven't been helpful, and indeed have fueled this edit war. Rather than saying "WP policy says (does it? ;)) that we don't change this until X, Y, Z", we've gotten a lot of reverts that say "it's not official" -- I feel this has left plenty of editors, myself included, scratching their heads. How isn't it official? It's on the team's site?

But if that's the policy, it's clear that protecting the article needs to happen because plenty of editors (myself included!) didn't know about this policy, and that everything will spiral into a revert war.-- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will admit Irixman is probably right, but the point is repeatedly in the media they are reporting that until 4 PM EST that he is still a member of the Colts. At 4 PM EST he is a free agent.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Manning's been officially released now, per Adam Schefter [30]. I've updated the article as such. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's great, but my question to both of you still stands -- where is the policy that says "colts.com says 'Manning is an unrestricted free agent'" is an insufficient source to say Peyton Manning has been released, but "Adam Schefter's tweet saying 'Colts officially have released Peyton Manning'" is sufficient? I mean, if we have to wait for someone to say "paperwork has officially been sent to the NFL", that's fine, but it would be helpful to write that down somewhere so that everyone can be on the same page. If not, this'll only happen again... -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I know WikiProject College football has an entire set of "project guidelines" which WikiProject NFL does not have. I'll probably get to writing that at some point, as the NFL project overall is a bit inactive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to run this into the ground, but one thing I read there that really jumped out at me was the following: "Project consensus supports that there is often no better source than the school itself for information on who the coach is at any given time."

My edit to Peyton Manning was based on the colts.com quote above that says "Manning is an unrestricted free agent". What criteria are you & Rockchalk applying that is not satisfied by that quote? Where is that criteria outlined? As I read it, the Colts official page says "Peyton Manning is an unrestricted free agent", no if's, and's, or but's -- but that has been rejected because it's not "official".

Again, my motivation here is to clarify this for the future. If the media reports that famous player X has been cut but we have to wait until someone says the word "official" that's cool, but we might want to say that somewhere so there's a lot less confusion. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally team websites cannot be 100% reliable. For the most part, their coverage is decent, but team rosters on these websites, for example, are not always up-to-date and accurate. This really isn't the place to discuss this, but I'll go into more detail in a different venue. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - please send me a follow up on my talk page, because I'd like to see this hammered out. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 21:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) So....mark this resolved and continue discussion on appropriate talk page? --64.85.220.22 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

possible death hoax

An edit was made to Leonardo Cimino stating he died. I removed it after not being able to find any news articles about it anywhere including Google news, and various other sources. The page could use some cleanup too. I am a regular but am on a non secure internet connection--173.49.255.227 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've searched and found nothing to verify it either. I put it in my watchlist, and will monitor it and the news for a day or two. Sounds like you have already done what needed to be done, not sure that admins can do any more than that. This kind of misinformation/vandalism/mistake happens somewhat regularly. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian People page

The IP user 187.141.81.182 has broken the 1 revert per 24 hours edit rule on the Palestinian page after I told him/her they should discuss it on the talk page. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The same IP has now inserted the same extreme POV material in Palestinian people 4 times in the last few minutes. Meters (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked 3 years as a proxy.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Block and revdel over outing?

Can someone block and revdel 65.12.179.252's attempts at outing? The content (and abuse) is also covered under a variety of Eastern European arbcom sanctions. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, semied, and revdeled. Can someone review to see if any of the diffs should be restored? I may have overdone it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored most of the edit summaries. The block may be a bit long—the IP could easily change hands within the next year, and you may have deleted more than was absolutely necessary on the diffs, but even in the innocuous edits, the IP was trolling. Your actions look reasonable to me (though I would suggest reducing the block or perhaps just unblocking the IP after a week or two). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

The talk on my user page: user talk:Jim1138 is getting a little strange. I am not sure who to notify about this notice, if anyone. This is in regards to the article Brookhaven, Georgia history:Brookhaven, Georgia My involvement started with a potential edit war on the page. Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I have somewhat indirectly advised him of this report, it's your responsibility to do so. Have you tried talking with him ... like I just did? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indefblocked pending retraction of legalese and assumptions of bad faith on the part of Wikipedia and/or its editors. Feel free to overturn if it's too heavy handed, but the attempt to intimidate (e.g. chilling effect) is clear enough to me. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BWikins: I am not familiar enough with nor really feel comfortable implementing wp:nlt policy. I felt best to leave well enough alone and report on ANI Jim1138 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by an IP editor

174.97.175.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This anonymous editor is removing templates from various articles with no explanation. The most frequent example is the Luke Cage article. Two days ago, after restoring the templates, I issued a warning to the user. Today, the user responded with a personal attack on my talk page. The user then went the Biohazard (band) article, where I had a dispute and discussion with an editor over something, and made the same exact edits the other editor had removed, as well as some unconstructive deletions. I suspected possible sock puppetry but can't be certain. NJZombie (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• User removes templates for the first time.
• User removes templates for the second time.
• User attacks me on my talk page.
• User removes templates for the third time.
• User makes exact same edits as another user did today and unconstructively deletes part of citation.

Have you notified this person of this thread? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not comment on the matter, but you have forgotten to notify the IP editor about this discussion. (No worries, I've already notified him/her.) --Bmusician 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my oversight. Thank your for doing so Bmusician. NJZombie (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning. If their disruptive behaviour resumes please report them to WP:AIV where the appropriate action will be taken quickly. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor has returned to making the same exact obvious reversions but has taken to using a different IP address (173.226.92.195) as a sock puppet. This now involves vandalism, personal attacks AND sock puppetry. I've reported it on the vandalism board but not sure if I should have reported it as sock puppetry instead. NJZombie (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If necessary we can protect the articles involved. Do you have any idea who the sock might be? EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All I can see is that those two IP addresses (174.97.175.9 and 173.226.92.195) both originate from North Carolina and make the same disruptions. I see no evidence that the user has an actual registered account. As I pointed out earlier, no matter which IP address they use, they're only vandalizing via template deletions and disruption, not to mention making personal attacks against those that warn them that this is not acceptable. So I'm not so sure protecting an article or two is the solution since the user will just use the two IP addresses to anonymously vandalize other articles instead. NJZombie (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because if we have identified socking/block evasion from someone with an existing account, it's something that AIV is quite happy to deal with as long as it's mentioned in the report (it generally bypasses the need for a level 4 warning before action can be taken). If that doesn't apply, and article protection isn't an option, I guess we'll just have to fall back on WP:RBI. The IPs may be dynamic though, so it's a bit late to block the two you've mentioned as they've made no recent edits. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from. As far as the issue about the IP's being dynamic though, I don't think it's necessarily the case. If you look at the editing history of 174.97.175.9, you will see that the user has been editing sporadically from it since January, and all of the edits involved vandalism. I tend to doubt that the service provider randomly assigned the same dynamic IP address to the same person on three separate occasions over a three month period. I think it's more likely a case of one being a home location and the other a work or school location. NJZombie (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You could well be right. If disruption resumes from either or both of those IPs that would be pretty conclusive evidence that they are static, so I'd be happy to jump on them. Feel free to drop me a note if you don't feel like explaining this lot again at a different venue :) EyeSerene^talk 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Tagremover

Resolved

 – User given warning and maybe a block if they persist

--Chip123456 (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover (talk · contribs) has taken a sudden interest in my past edits in the last 6 hours in a type of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, reverting (sometimes some very old) edits of mine[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], digging up other old edits of mine at Nikola Tesla[39] and Head-up display[40] and reverting them three times (Tesla[41][42][43]) (Head-up display[44][45][46]) but stopping short of a technical 3RR each time, probably Gaming trying to get me to bite into a 3RR... and accusing me of it anyway[47][48]. Also uncivil comments[49] and general accusations against me of vandalising articles[50] and vandalising Wikipedia[51][52][53]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he's stopping short, he is still in danger of breaking the rule himself, so I will post a warning on his user page. He maybe Breaching the harassment of users as well, if he has been only reverting a few of your edits. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An administrator may take further action if needed, so that's all I can do. I also hope you notified the user of this section. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, user was notified[54] and removed the notice 14 hours later[55]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is true, i searched in the past edits of Fountains of Bryn Mawr for him deleting large amounts of what he called "commercial" references or links. And i found many, much more than above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr sees especially company announcements and product descriptions as unreliable, whereas i (and others, see his talk page about Fisheye lens and the talk page of the article) think, each ref or link has reliable parts.

And any professional is somehow biased, for example you can´t trust a professor if he states that a research project is necessary. So it needs careful editors to select the parts which can be trusted.

I have an academic education with 3 lectures in Higher Physics and one lecture in Technical Optics, also thats decades ago and i never worked in the field of optics. So i am not really biased, but have limited practical design experience in the optics.

However, the optics articles of Wikipedia are BAD !. Really. There are missing parts, and bad structure, and much work.

Also i am not always the friendliest in my comments (and i know it would be better for me to calm down), i do like references, even commercial, if appropriated, and do like balanced articles, especially introductions. And i done too much, some edits, for example this[56], were probably wrong, and i did not revert it. I simply tried to bring to attention that Fountains of Bryn Mawr deletes large amounts of references and referenced text. If that is done without obvious reason AND repeated on many articles, i called it (now i know: wrongly) vandalizm. And the last part of the introduction of Nikola Tesla is partly unbalanced.

And i am feeling somehow harassed by Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Tagremover (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And I'm about to block you if you don't stop. You are edit warring, you are accusing an editor of vandalism when they are not vandalising, you are being incivil and you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You can discuss calmly whether a particular reference is suitable or not - and there is certainly no general rule about never using a manufacturer's website as a source - but you must stop this campaign now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have stopped. Tagremover (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And i was not aware that you have a different definition of vandalism. Now, i know. Tagremover (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair about who seems to be on a "campaign", though Tagremover has been inappropriate in calling it vandalism, Fountains' widespread bulk ref removals are majorly annoying, and he has been fighting the attempts to restore them. He is the one who should be challenging the refs one at a time, not removing them in blocks and reverting those who put them back. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It may not be a good idea to bring your "axe" against another editor to an ANI? If you think cleaning up OR and other material in Wikipedia articles "annoying" then so be it. If you look at Tagremover's bulk reverts you will see "Fisheye lens‎" was simply the first of 6 done in 45 minutes so it does not look like the editor was thinking about the quality of any one edit.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your bulk deletions of references and referenced text is IMHO not helpful. See also talk of Fisheye lens and give answers about the questioned quality of YOUR deletions. Its not only me questioning your bulk removals. Tagremover (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing refimprove tags without any attempt at improving the article's references?[57][58] Tagging an article as a news release, then removing the tag that you added for the very next edit, when no one else had edited it anyway? Weird. Some would consider that borderline disruptive. Especially with a name like "Tag Remover". Yeesh... Doc talk 08:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tag from 2007 is not related to the actual article, article was improved. New reasons have to be given. And the tag from 2010: Is not related to the actual article, article was improved. And where challenged by other users and seem not reasonable with an article containing nearly 300 refs! Tagremover (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: Template:Refimprove. And i am agreeing with User:Amatulic : 2+2=4 needs no reference. This tag suggests FOR THE READER that the article is wrong. And Wikipedia is MADE FOR READERs, not for some editors who want to gain attention or do not want to invest the time to explain their reasons or understand the article. So there have to be a GIVEN, obvious or minimum recognizable reason for presenting this tag for weeks or even months, in order not to be disruptive to readers. Again: i do like references, even commercial, if appropriated. Have someone checked this [59] ? Replacing reliable refs by "citation needed" is not fine. Tagremover (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And i do not like this annoying discussions. When do they end ? We can start a NEW discussion about the edits of User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if wanted. Tagremover (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Competence

Drift chambers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above-named user appears to be having trouble editing and communicating to the point of disruptiveness and it is beyond my ability to help the user as much as is needed.

The basic issues, with examples, are,

• Quality of editing, particularly writing style, referencing style, article structuring and content relevance.
  • See criticisms here, here, here.
  • Of particular note are the user's edits at Infinity (philosophy), El-Tod, and Isaac Newton's religious views.

• A persistent inability to communicate in comprehensible language (despite a babel userbox asserting a native understanding of english).
  • See an example here. See also responses to Drift chamber's speaking style here and here.

I also note the user has multiple accounts (see here for a summary) but, for current purposes, that's a separate issue and I won't concern myself with that.

As communication with this editor appears impossible, I've tried rewriting their edits in an effort to show them how it's done. But, aside from tidying an article, this has not worked.

Like others, I've tried a straight reversion with instructions to discuss any future edits on the talk page, but to no avail. Anyway, I suspect reversion may not be a constructive way to go.

I'm at the point where I simply do not know how to deal with him/her. I believe the user's intentions are constructive but their editing style is just too bizarre. As their talk page shows, Drift chambers has been asked repeatedly to write clearer but with no effect.

I admit I'm not comfortable raising the matter here as I do assume good faith on the part of this editor; and I emphasise I'm not seeking to commence some sort of warning/disciplinary process. Rather, I'm seeking some assistance (mentoring, perhaps?) for a user in need of more experienced guidance than I can offer.

Thank you. ClaretAsh 14:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder. Is it possible that he's drafting his edits in another language and then babelfishing them to English? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to express my concern over Drift Chambers' edits. Although certainly in good faith, his edits introduce so much work for other editors to cleanup. One of the worst examples was his first lot of edits to cat intelligence here. Jack (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, this user is making an absolute mess of otherwise good articles. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with all the quotes? —SW— ^babble 18:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think unfortunately this needs to be treated the same as disruptive editing, even though it is done in good faith. If someone has little command of written communication, they will do more harm than good around here. I see several attempts at mentoring, all which seem to have been ignored or resisted. The only thing left to do is warn and, if necessary, block for disruption. It's the very definition of a preventative block. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of shameless essay promotion, I'd say this user qualifies as a bull in a china shop. —SW— ^chatter 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the editors that was dealing with Drift at Isaac Newton's religious views. Like others, I originally reverted and then tried to modify the edits [60]. It is not a topic I know a lot about (I only ended up there because it was a Good article with a clean-up tag on it [61]) so apart from the obviously bad edits I found it difficult to judge the value of the additions. Some actually seemed constructive, but the bulk of his edits are unacceptable and it does not appear he is responding to advice or changing his style. Overall I would say he is currently causing more harm than good. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate it when we have to stamp on enthusiasm, but I think our first priority must be to protect both our productive editors and our existing content. I've blocked Drift chambers for 48 hours; hopefully it'll be enough to focus their attention. If it prompts them to slow down and read up on site policy as intended, great. If not, I'm sure an indefblock will be forthcoming in the near future. EyeSerene^talk 11:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not happy with this outcome, although I understand the greater necessity for it. ClaretAsh 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand and applaud your misgivings, but you did the right thing bringing your concerns here. Most of us edit because we enjoy it, and dealing with difficult editors can rapidly suck away that enjoyment and kill any motivation to continue. Ultimately if we have to decide between losing one keen but problematic editor and losing two or three experienced editors in good standing, there's little choice. It amazes me really how much patience and good faith most editors are willing to extend, and how much they put up with, before getting to this stage.

Incidentally, Drift chambers has posted something to their talk page but I can't make much sense of it. It may be (or contain) an unblock request though, so if anyone wants to review... EyeSerene^talk 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke

I'm not sure where to post this, so apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place. I count at least 7 "strong keeps" on this page that are by brand new accounts. There is also at least one "delete" by an account with few other edits. I figured rather than removing or striking these comments myself, I'd ask an administrator to take a look at it first, as I'm not too familiar with AfD protocol. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that such !votes usually aren't removed. Instead we usually tag them with {{subst:spa}}. As I've only taken a quick look, I may have missed something; did I? --NYKevin @121, i.e. 01:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This could also be a {{not a ballot}} situation. Given the amount of media and blog attention Fluke has gotten, somebody's probably issued an e-call to arms, so it could multiple people all creating accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged 10 for spa, and someone has tagged others. It could be just because of the recent attention, but the similarities and volume make me think there is meatpuppet/sockpuppet action going on as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

More a policy question/idea this: I imagine in stead of acting so unfriendly and paranoia we give those new editors a chance to write this article. Not sure how but that is my general idea.

AFD isn't even based on votes, the closing admin should decide. By the time the afd is closed the new users might have additional contributions to consider. As new users are unlikely to interpret the guidelines properly the admin would only look for additional references in the comment.

I don't think it is safe to assume the closing admin is incompetent at that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocking request for TWO users for VANDALISM

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.

---

These two users: 94.96.54.97 and 124.106.150.198 (talk) has been warned several times to stop vandalising the Star Cinema page, the Upcoming releases section yet they still continue to do so. They can adding rumoured movies with unreliable or often fake sources as reference, and I would know as I have checked them as well as being an avid movie-goer. I request that these two would be banned from editing this page. Ifightback 7:29 8 March 2012 (PHT) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

WP:AIV exists for a reason. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And this user doesn't know how to use it, or indeed how to sign his posts, so maybe it would be more helpful if we directed them to it rather than biting them... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Bot archived too soon

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

---

A bot archived an active session last night, [62], which needs to be restored to this page please as it had not been concluded. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot is set, per longstanding tradition, to archive incidents over 24 hours old. This had not been happening consistenly for a while due to technical issues as discussed here. Nobody Ent 13:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a discussion isn't completed after 24, it just gets archived and the issue dropped even if there hasn't been a resolution? Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the 24 hour timer is since the last edit/timestamp in the section. So it is not "24 hours total", but rather "24 hours since anyone has added anything to the discussion". - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. But what about resolution? Usually an admin comes in with some cheery advice and/or action, but what if they don't, like in this case? That is why I was asking for a restore, it was an issue claiming misdeeds but hadn't been closed/concluded/adjudicated/etc. I'm guessing you don't want people continuing a discussion in the archive, that would defeat the purpose of archiving it. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is far from unheard of for people to unarchive incomplete discussions. A new comment added will reset the 24 hour clock. I'm not sure what general policy is on such unarchiving, though. You're not likely to get in trouble for unarchiving once. But if you unarchive something repeatedly, then you are likely to get complaints, or worse. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking for administrative intervention to reopen an incomplete discussion. I'm not going to stomp on the process by unilaterally doing it myself. I'm still unclear as to the actual policy on unresolved issues. Wouldn't make sense to ask for review for something that hasn't concluded. It is a very long and complicated issue that needs administrative conclusion here at ANI, that is kinda my point. Let it go unresolved, from my perspective, isn't a good option. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't need administrative intervention to reopen an incomplete discussion any more then you need administrative intervention to open one in the first place. And reaching consensus to reopen an ANI discussion will usually be a waste of time. As stated, if you repeatedly reopen a discussion people may tell you to stop and failing that, take action. (But this is also no different from if you keep opening discussions considered unsuitable for ANI.) You should also bear in mind it may negatively affect people's opinions of you if they feel what you're doing is unneeded, but again this is no different from opening a discussion in the first place.

Perhaps most importantly, you should consider that a lot of the time the 24+ hour limit works well. Given the activity of ANI, if no one has replied in 24 hours, it very often means the discussion has reached a natural ending point, even if it's technically unresolved. I had a brief look at the very long discussion and from the little I saw, I admit I think this is probably the case here. (From the little I saw,) although there seems to be strong concerns including by largely uninvolved users, I don't think any adminstrative action against the other editor is likely yet, therefore there's nothing more for ANI. Instead, I would suggest an RFC if you feel it's necessary or just let it be and hope the editor reforms. However repeating what I've said, I only had a glance at the discussion, and you're still free to disagree with me and re-open the discussion.

In summary, you're free to reopen the case if you want, you're not likely to be blocked for doing it one time, but consider carefully whether there's any point. At the very least, I suggest if you reopen the discussion, make a new comment making it clear what administrative action you're after, be it a topic ban, an indefinite block, a community ban or whatever. (Generally topic/community ban discussions happen at AN but I think they're allowed here if they originate from a discussion here.)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically, if it falls off the board because of no comment within 24 hours, no admin was going to take any action (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Hi folks. I have been inviting people to an upcoming edit-a-thon. I have previously invited User:Coviepresb1647 to an event, and they said they felt it was able to be considered harassment. I felt terribly, and genuinely did not want the person to feel that way, and they accepted my apology. Months later I promote this current event, and I made the innocent mistake of sharing it on their talk page (there is no place on their talk page until today that stated they did not want to be invited to local events) and they have now threatened potential legal action against me. Again, this was another innocent mistake on my part, but at the same time, I believe legal action is a bit over the top. I was told this was the best method of action, as I'm rather nervous about attempting to apologize again due to them possibly considering that harrassment. Thanks. Sarah (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a message on their talk page.--v/r - TP 15:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a clear and unambiguous legal threat and he/she should be blocked for it. It's also a way OTT response to a very innocent invitation if you ask me.--Atlan (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:NLT is based off the chilling effect legal threats have on article collaboration and editing. "The article says this or I'm going to the police." In this case, an article is not involved so there isn't exactly a 'chiling effect' and so I feel the issue isn't as urgent and can be solved by simply educating the editor. If they don't get the clue right away, I'm happy to block and I've no issue with another admin doing it too.--v/r - TP 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Concur, premature for a block. I've also left the editor note about the uses of talk pages. Nobody Ent 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, the overreaction of this user to a simple mistake is very sad indeed. There is a potential issue here: we have categories and userboxes that identify people's location—Category:Wikipedians in London, {{User London}}, that sort of thing. Given that we've used those in the past to identify people who might want to attend meetups, edit-a-thons, GLAM events and so on, it might be an idea if we could have some kind of universal location thing, a bit like how we've got Babel boxes. These could formalise the userboxes and categories. One of the options would be both opt-in and opt-out for event announcements. Some property like "event announcements" which you could leave blank or set to "always" or "never". And if you'd chosen "never", the message delivery bots that people use could be set to respect that and not deliver messages to those people. This is just a sketch of an idea, but it seems like it might be useful to make this kind of thing slightly more formal and therefore less prone to accusations of spam. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely support this idea.--v/r - TP 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in my archive where I first said and clearly implied that I was not interested and for her to stop sending me messages. I left it in my original talk page for a few weeks before I archived it. Today, I transferred it from my archive to my talk page since it seems that is now an on-going occurrence. So, to say that I never said that until today, I was not interested is a false accusation. I have considered the wisdom of TP's message to me and have retracted and recanted my legal threat. Indeed, sugar is more effective than salt and/or vinegar. I do apologize for my deficient charity/love on my part in this conflict. Further, I would NEVER consider reconciliation (apology and/or dialogue to the effect reconciliation of a conflict) as harassment. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? You don't find a legal threat for someone issuing a friendly invitation an overreaction? Anyway, retraction is good enough for me.--Atlan (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my position. I now see it as an overreaction and do additionally apologize for overreacting to Sarah.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

TomMorris, that is an excellent idea about "opt-in" / "opt-out" of announcements. That would definitely improve wikipedia and benefit both the senders and recipients.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

On my part, some of this stems from overreaction due to deficient charity and some of it stems from simple, innocent ignorance wikipedia's editing atmosphere and its position on litigation and how it negatively effects collaboration and editing. I have already apologized to Sarah for wrongs on my part in this conflict. I do feel bad and sorry for subjecting her to an unwarranted legal threat (and the negative emotions related to that subjection). As for my ignorance, I do appreciate TP's being patient and sharing with me more about wikipedia's positions and policies. I will certainly double-check myself in the future. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Advertising in article

We've got what looks like a publicity agent or something completely changing Hollyoaks and Lime Pictures. Could someone with more time on their hands deal with this user, Special:Contributions/IndieTVIndustryInsider, in whatever the proper manner should be? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Plain and simple advertising. I gave a level three warning, suggest we escalate to level four if it continues, then block. Copying in the TV press release is not writing an encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TeaDrinker :) I think their blatant copyvio merited an additional warning though, which I've given them. If that happens again I'd recommend skipping L4 and just blocking indef until they can show that they understand why we can't have copy/pastes of someone else's work on here. EyeSerene^talk 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea, thanks. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User: DrizzyDrakeFan removing content from articles

After giving a level 4 warning for doing this, he still removed content from Make Me Proud on March 3. Jawadreventon (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure your warnings were overly correct - I see good faith edits ... adding and subtracting. I don't see where you advised him of this ANI report, as required. Plus, how can we block for something done 5 days ago? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin drive hunting

Resolved

 – No admin-intervention needed

Could someone more experienced with policy matters than me (preferably an administrator) look over the past 24 hours or so of edits at this article and let me know if I've done anything against policy or otherwise improper? I'd also like some input on dealing with the recent edits and exactly what should be done when things like this come up. I've read a lot of policy on related matters but I'm not sure this is as clear-cut as some of the situations outlined there. Thanks very much. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also appreciate knowing how to deal with all this; I'm trying to do the right thing Wiki-wise but it is becoming very difficult. Everything I try to do gets removed. I am totally confused. Aravis195 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aravis, you're dealing with a Good Article--all the more reason to keep in mind Wikipedia's normal rules of operation: write it well, with reference to reliable sources. And leave YouTube out of it. Evanh, thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It continued, so this happened. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies - I am just about giving up on pleasing Evanh, who seems to have appointed himself to remove every single edit I make, even some which I know, from checking rules, are legitimate and correctly cited. In fact, he has simply reverted the article to its original state without explanation to me. I am a writer and know how to write articles; I was learning how to write in Wikipedia, but Evanh has made further attempts impossible. This is not a good advertisement for Wikipedia. I am in a group which has deep and wide knowledge of our subject and it would have benefited thw efforts of conservationists of stature round the world. But thanks to one user, it has proved impossible to get past the second paragraph and our time would probably be better spent in a forum where quality and knowledge are actually respected.Aravis195 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's say it once again: leave youtube video links out of your edits; period. You restored that link (as well as a bunch of other non-neutral point of view and items that provide undue weight), so it HAS to be removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You might be a good writer, but Wikipedia has specific rules as to what qualifies as a valid source for citation. YouTube almost never qualifies for that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not good writing, let alone good encyclopedic writing. But it's clear to almost everybody, I think, that this is not (yet) a matter that requires admin intervention. The article is locked now because of this content dispute, and a block for edit warring for Aravis is thus prevented, I reckon; one hopes that Aravis will see that their edits are not according to consensus and not according to our guidelines. Any "deep and wide knowledge" is nixed by the lack of references to reliable source, and further attempts to turn the article into an activist forum are likely to be prevented by editorial consensus. Aravis, continuing down this path will ensure that the article will remain locked and that you yourself might be blocked. Please edit according to our guidelines, not according to what you think is right. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this doesn't really require admin intervention; I did comment at User talk:Aravis195 this morning with some details. There wasn't a need to clutter this board. Whether or not Aravis appreciates the help and acts on it remains to be seen; his penultimate edit (as of now) does not show a desire to continue here in any capacity. A shame, really; passion can often be channeled productively even if this place can be intimidating to newbies.  Frank  |  talk  20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Pay for edits in Wikipedia

I came across a contract here. Together with the history of the article Blazetrak, it looks suspicious. Hermann.129 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted history, it rapidly becomes obvious here WizardlyWho (talk · contribs) is involved... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The job history rings a few warning bells (for example, this and this don't look too hopeful at face value). EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any relation to this? Also MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs). Polequant (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mooshie is definitely the same user, which would make Wizardly a sock of them, since Mooshie just edited the other day. Doc talk 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this account? User:Foxj. Curious because matches the name and deleted the article in a rush.Hermann.129 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

? Foxj is a six year, 28,000 edit admin account. They just performed a WP:CSD. Nobody Ent 13:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The name does match the elance account, though I'd hesitate at this stage to jump to too many conclusions. However, the deletion may have been out of process. It was deleted as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page", but according to this WizardlyWho accidentally blanked the page (also see deleted article history, admins only unfortunately) and was thanking Bentogoa for restoring it. G7 wouldn't seem to apply. I'm wondering if some checkuser input might be useful here. EyeSerene^talk 14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkusers are aware, don't worry - it'll be sorted by the end of today. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) Also, on re-reading my above it's less clear than I intended. By my checkuser reference I didn't mean to imply that Foxj is running sock accounts. I was referring to the WizardlyWho and Mooshie accounts. Sorry about that. EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (and now blocked) socks are:

• BicycleFinish (talk · contribs), WizardlyWho (talk · contribs), WizardA1 (talk · contribs), and MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs) --Versageek 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your alacrity but we shouldn’t rush this. (I got that from The Leader Phrase Book). What are these users being blocked for? Paid editing or sockpuppetry? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The block message for MooshiePorkFace (that fine article's author) says "abusing multiple accounts / promotional editing/COI", which seems about right. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the block was for "Abusing multiple accounts for the purpose of promotional editing" - something we block for regardless of the paid/unpaid status of the individual. --Versageek 15:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, sorry. G7'd it since I figured that blanking was a request to delete the page. I assume now then that the article is to stay deleted since it meets G5? — foxj 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and that is one insane coincidence. Believe me, I live further from Colorado than I care to admit. And my name is Joseph. Weird, though! — foxj 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Denver... Western Australia... one hell of a commute :) FWIW I don't think it's a major issue as it looks like a recreation of a previously deleted article anyway so, yep, possibly even G11 if not G5. I certainly wouldn't argue for it to be restored. EyeSerene^talk 14:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out my comment from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ukhealthman/Archive which is likely related. Quantum Capital Fund certainly also offered a contract on the site for a Wikipedia article.
This seems systemic. Should we watch the page just as systemically? Amalthea 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive. Lot's of socks.
Coming from there I notice the history of Patrick Alain, which has two editors from the ongoing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Questionable pulse. Coincidence? Amalthea 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the Patrick Alain article earlier and tagged it for COI. I'm not sure if it would survive AfD; although it asserts notability, it appears to exist in large part to promote The Leader Phrase Book (which I have AfD'd). Regrettably this does have an unpleasant air of sockfarming about it. EyeSerene^talk 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Alain now also at AfD, after a hard look at the referencing. EyeSerene^talk 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Further to the Blazetrak issue above, this user has also spammed a few articles with that website, although I see the account hasn't been active for a few months. ClaretAsh 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that account or the other sockpuppet investigations; but the fact that the operator of the accounts lies, saying they were "new to Wikipedia" with one account, and claiming to be working on an "ongoing series of assignments that I'm completing for an Advanced Composition English class" with another shows that this user: a) Knows very well what is not allowed and is deliberately trying to deceive other editors, and b) Thinks they are "smarter than the average bear" to get away with it. Nefarious. There's some mighty intelligent bears on this project, I believe, and most of them are none too happy when a hack offers to subvert the rules for profit. Now... who actually is this editor on WP? That's the real prize... Doc talk 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved editors in stopping these sorts of things. I will sleep better now (and soon, 2 0'clock!). Thanks again, roses etc.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• blazetrak.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.blazetrak.com
• thequantumcapitalfund.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thequantumcapitalfund.com
• fournote.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.fournote.com

Tracking. These Blazetrak guys have attempted to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes previously -- Blazetrak (talk · contribs) and JulieMichelle (talk · contribs). Oh, and another SPI. MER-C 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispersion of discussion by User:OpenFuture

I'm currently try to discuss with User:OpenFuture (a kind of Barnstar user), however he/she wrote belligerent long messages on multiple pages to confuse discussion, in my eyes. I've already guided to him/her to use article's talk page regarding public nature of discussion, however he/she ignored my directions.

Please advice him/her to stop belligerent attitude on discussion, and also advice to use article's talk page to avoid dispersion of discussion.

• Starting point on article Clavia: my advice to search image he/she want: [63]
  • his/her immediate reversion: [64]
• Multiple discussion place: User_talk:Clusternote#Edit_warring
  • his/her 1st personal message: [65]
  • my reply and my 1st guide to use article's talk page: [66]
  • his/her 2nd message ignoring my guide: [67]
  • my 1st warning message: [68]
  • his/her 3rd & 4th message ignoring my guide: [69]
  • my latest warning message: [70]
  • his/her 5th message ignoring my guide: [71]
• Proper discussion place: Talk:Clavia

best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified user with this diff--Hallows AG (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for administrator involvement. This is a content dispute about whether some images should be used in an article. The note on your talkpage was a warning against edit warring, and that is the proper place for it. If anything I find your method of communication to be rather confusing not OpenFuture's. It takes two to edit war, so both of you should stop. If you don't have agreement on the content then there are other options such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. Polequant (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A short note: I only did one revert, and I wouldn't have done that if the user had engaged in constructive discussion instead or followed WP:BRD. He is still not engaging in discussion, it would perhaps help if some admin told him to. I don't know how to deal with editors that play the game of WP:IDHT, it's very frustrating. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was troubled very much in the extensive and rapidly offensive messages by User:OpenFuture. I am very anxiety about Wikipedia having overlooked the problem of the offensive messages by this kind of belligerent user. --Clusternote (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of OpenFuture's edits around this topic on the various pages where the disagreement has been discussed. While they are firm, even vigorous, they are not belligerent, extensive or offensive. I can understand that you took offence that an image you had uploaded was described as poor quality - but that doesn't mean OpenFuture has been attacking you. I suggest we close this thread, and the two of you discuss the images needed at the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question for the OP. What's a "barnstar user"? while searching I can't find any previous mentions of this term.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably you can see the barnstar on several user's talk page. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editor needs to be blocked

Penguinluver1431 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been censoring portions of articles to fit a far-right agenda. They have been warned repeatedly and had the guidelines explained, but these warnings and explanations have been removed from the talk page.

• Covering up for Sarah Palin.
• Removing Obama's religon.
• Censorship at Fox News Channel controversies
• Censorship at Ave Maria University, continued, and even outright lying in the edit summary to remove references.
• Censorship at Template:Terrorism, and more censorship at Template:Terrorism
• Acknowledged warnings about this behavior by removing the warnings and removing other warnings
• Resuming edit warring at Ave Maria university
• Removing a final warning from another editor
• Removing the Christian Terrorism category from the Joseph Kony article because it's "misleading" somehow
• Removing more warnings
• Resuming edit warring at Ave Maria University
• Removing Keith Olbermann's American nationality (as if being left-wing revokes it or something)
• Removing an explanation of how to not push an agenda here, which included relevant policies and guidelines
• Removing a second final warning
• Once again removing the Christian terrorism category from the Joseph Kony article, again claiming it's "misleading"

It has been explained repeatedly that this sort of behavior is not acceptable here. Penguinluver1431 removes the warnings, so they have been acknowledged. Time for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The removing of warnings doesn't violate policy, but does indicate he doesn't care about them. Some of these edits fly in the face of prior consensus; others seem to just go against common sense. Plus there's the issue of edit warring. I would suggest something in the two weeks to three months range, and then indeff if he comes back to do it again. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Floquenbeam's indef block--they beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Rather than block for a shorter period and see if that changes their attitude, I've instead blocked indef, and if they can convince someone they've changed their attitude, we can unblock. This account has been POV pushing for a long time, with long gaps in between edits. I don't think a shorter block to get their attention will work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Beat me to it as well. Endorse the indef. Swarm ^X 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that removing the warnings violate policy, but cited them as indicating that Penguinluver1431 knows Wikipedia does not approve of those other actions (if he/she didn't remove them, he/she could pretend they didn't read them). Thanks for the block, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Sundostund and multiple articles on presidents of Egypt

Sundostund (talk · contribs) has been making several reversions without comment about Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (the military junta currently ruling Egypt), being the current "President of Egypt". I have disputed these edits and have repeatedly asked that Sundostund justify the edits on the talk pages of the affected articles, those articles being List of Presidents of Egypt and President of Egypt. You can see the talk page sections here: Talk:List of Presidents of Egypt#Acting president and Talk:President of Egypt#office is vacant. Sundostund has repeatedly reverted without making comments on either talk page. He has also refused to respond to my requests that he address the issues rather than repeatedly revert without comment on his own talk page (see here). Most recently, having again reverted without comment, I again requested that he address the issue at the relevant talk pages. His response was to once again revert without comment ([72], which follows an earlier revert made without comment today ([73]), and then to blank my requests on his talk page (one from a month ago that went unanswered and one from today, [74]). I dont know what else I should do, I would like to refrain from edit-warring but discussion is apparently not on the table with this user. I refrained from bringing this here in the past as I do not doubt the user's good faith, but when he refuses deign to even acknowledge my requests on the talk page I do not see what other choice I have. He may have reasons for repeatedly placing somebody who is not a president of Egypt in a list of presidents of Egypt, but as he has refused to say one word to me about that I am not quite sure what those reasons are. nableezy - 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

After being informed of this report, Sundostund has made yet another reversion without any comment, not deigning to provide so much as an edit summary for reverting (here). nableezy - 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do have my doubts about the user's good faith, and I certainly have doubts about their ability to work in a collaborative environment. In their last 1000 edits there isn't a single edit summary, not a single edit to a talk page. That is not good, and the longer I'm around, the more I begin to think that we should have a blocking template for refusing to talk. Note: editor was been blocked before, for edit-warring. I hope they will respond here soon. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've come across the same pattern of unconstructive editing at List of kings of Iraq and now also at List of kings of Lesotho. On both articles, I upgraded the monarch list to include more information and to standardise the presentation of that info. I was reverted by User:Sundostund without explanation. I've repeatedly requested a talk page discussion. I've attempted to start such a discussion myself, both informally and currently by RFC. All in all, I can rely on this user neither to communicate nor collaborate. ClaretAsh 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody but me, ClaretAsh, and Nableezy seem to care, but I consider this highly disruptive. They've cleared their talk page again, and I've reverted another one of their unexplained edits and left a level-3 warning for vandalism, since there is nothing templated available. I could leave a note on their talk page, but what's the point? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I also had a very unpleasant encounter with Sundostund when I improved the untenable colour scheme of the article List of Prime Ministers of Saint Kitts and Nevis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My edit was reverted without any edit summary, and my attempt to discuss the matter was ignored for two days. When I advised Sundostund that I assumed his silence meant agreement before I reverted his revert, he did not engage on the material points of my argument, stating (I'm paraphrasing) "I don't like it" and removing the discussion from his talk page. This editor certainly does not want to engage in collaboration or communication. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Need a clue

Recently I put a POV tag on the article Mau Mau Uprising and pointed out some specific problems on the talk page. This has been met with some crazy derision on the talk page by the apparent "owner" of that article Iloveandrea (talk · contribs), as well as continued attempts at removing the tag without actually addressing the problems.

In fact, apparently, as a form of taunting the user slanted the article even more in response to the POV tag [75] ("Blacker laughs that Elkins’s figure..." - part of the POV problem is that Iloveandrea is treating one source, Blacker as some kind of holy book, while simultaneously pouring their personal disdain on another source, Elkins (who's a Harvard professor in history)).

On the talk page s/he started off with [76] "Mmm, I would simply reply with the words "shut up and do it yourself", but given your rather delusional take on things, I think I'd rather do it myself." and then went into more taunting [77]. When I asked again for the tag not to be removed (still politely) it got upped a notch:

• "Blah blah blah. I couldn't care less what you think, you arrogant fool. "
• ". I'll find a source to pour scorn on Elkins numbers, if that's what it takes to shut you up"
• "For now, I've deleted your precious POV tag, purely to irritate you. "
• "Do me a favour and take your sneering, magisterial self-regard somewhere else."
• "Seriously, arrogance like you just simply does not merit being addressed in a civil manner. "
• "You think for a second I believe you have a doctorate in economics? Ha ha ha! Get a life!"

etc.[78]

I could care less about the incivility and personal attacks as I've had much worse but I don't want to get into an edit war over the NPOV tag which very clearly belongs on the article. I also think that if the article is to improve then this editor's stranglehold, defended by this kind of belligerence, on the article needs to be at least relaxed a little. Finally, there appear to be some basic WP:COMPETENCY issues here, just with regard to interacting with other people. At the same time this is a little too extreme to just take to Wikiettiquette or whatever.VolunteerMarek 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to defend some definitely over-the-top reactions on Iloveandrea's part, but do I understand correctly that you do not think that you initially approached this like an arrogant jerk? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to the "Clean this up please"? Really?VolunteerMarek 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire intial post to the talk page. If I'd spent significant time on that article, my back would be up too. Of course, Iloveandrea handled it in just about the least productive way possible. I'm sure others will come along and hand out warnings and blocks and opinions of relative blame and such, but the underlying problem is that the two of you have poisoned the discussion so that nothing said there can be productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand the difference between being critical of an article's content, which is what I did - and which is in fact encouraged, particularly in cases as slanted as this one - and attacking another person (over some stuff you found on their user page or whatever).VolunteerMarek 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, I do understand the difference. You started this thread, I didn't; if you don't want outside opinions, don't ask for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion's fine and I'm glad you provided it.VolunteerMarek 16:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'm not trying to start an argument with you here and I feel like we've butted heads recently too, but your statement goes both ways. You replied here, if you don't want to discuss your opinions; don't offer them.--v/r - TP 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good point. Sorry, Marek. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor's user page is mostly their own business but this [79] [80] pretty much shows the editor is not interested in cooperating at all. Like I said, I don't care about the juvenile personal attacks, but I would like to be edit the original article, and that includes de-POVing it and putting in the tag in the mean time. There's no way I can do that unless this editor either "let's me" or at the very least discusses things rationally on the talk page.VolunteerMarek 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant personal attack; I've warned them and would seriously suggest a WP:NOTHERE block as the attitude expressed in that statement is absolutely the antithesis of a desire to operate in a cooperative, civil editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with that. That's absolutely unnecessary and it needs to be ended 5 minutes ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, they blanked the offending text - and the warning, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making that warning. However, now the user has taken to marking all of their edits with the edit summary Undid revision 480943711 by Volunteer Marek (talk) regardless of whether s/he is reverting me (I actually haven't made any edits to the article since posting this many of the edits that s/he's claiming to be reverting), reverting someone else or just making unrelated edits to the article. This is an obvious display of WP:BATTLEGROUND and a violation of WP:POINT. Seriously s/he needs to cut this shit out, it's getting tiresome.VolunteerMarek 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

[81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] - none of these edits are actual reverting of anything I did (last one may be considered a "rewrite"). The edit summaries are pure taunting. I say that if s/he wants to label these edits as reverts, fine, let him/her - and block for breaking 3RR twice over.

I think I've been calm and reasonable about this but my patience is starting to wear thin.VolunteerMarek 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been (mostly) passively observing this situation since it was brought here, and I concur with VM. Iloveandrea has been displaying a nauseatingly immature battleground/OWNership attitude towards the article that is not justifiable by any perceived brusqueness on VM's part; indeed, Iloveandrea seems to get this defensive and clingy towards anyone who tries to insert themselves into the conflict: [90]. Honestly, whatever ILA has in terms of content to contribute is made near useless by this uncooperative and petulant manner of dealing with others. He has been warned of the consequences but has continued with his disruptive WP:NOTHERE behaviour in spite of it; I think it is time that some force be applied to prevent further disruption. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment-tampering by 209.6.69.227

-- and possible "!vote" stacking too. Whatever you think of the merits of having one or two articles more or less about Sandra Fluke (the woman who spoke to Pelosi but not Issa, and who various right-wing pundits have ridiculed), you'll likely agree that the AfD on Sandra Fluke has its oddities. General questions on this are raised in a section above. But here's something specific:

1. 02:01, 5 March 2012: 209.6.69.227 adds a "delete" comment
2. 17:43, 6 March 2012: 209.6.69.227 rewords an earlier "delete" comment by 72.181.154.217

Is the very vigorous single-purpose IP 209.6.69.227 the same as 72.181.154.217, or not? If so, then the second "!vote" should be struck. (Yes, yes, in principle it's worthless even if written by an entirely separate person, but the admin who wraps an AfD sometimes talks of votes.) If not, then 209.6.69.227 shouldn't be tampering. I thought I'd ask (on the IP's talk page). I wake to find no response there, but elsewhere more comment-tampering.

I invite one or two uninvolved admins to keep a close eye on this IP. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

can't possibly be regarded as vandalism. Simple addition of the correct WP reference. No change in content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on IP info, and those changes, I'm actually not certain they're the same person. That AfD definitely's going to get some vote stacking though... from every side. But I don't think this is a sock. Shadowjams (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just commented there but I hadn't been involved before my comment... just full disclosure. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if I understand the "Geolocate" business correctly, the one-time commenter whose comment was tampered with is in Texas whereas the tamperer is in Massachusetts. But I'm not sure that the latter has got the message that other people's messages can't be altered so that they say what you'd prefer them to say. -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, geolocation is usually fairly accurate, but not always. Common sources of inaccuracy include large telcos (which occasionally have a big pool of IP addresses that get allocated to customers across a wide area), coffee-shop wifi (the database might think that your IP address belongs to another outlet or even to the head office of the retailer), and business networks (in the office, you probably get to the internet through a proxy, which could be in a different office or even a different country). bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

again, adding the reference to correct WP category not vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone other than you, 192.80.65.234, mentioned vandalism? -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent spamming of Snuff

An IP Hopper (almost certainly the owner or an employee of the company) has been attempting for two years to add a link to a Swedish snus kit retailer to the page on nasal snuff. The IPs involved so far have been 81.225.49.116, 81.225.51.71, 81.225.52.94, 81.225.48.207, 81.225.48.49, 81.225.54.132 and 81.225.50.164. Repeated warnings have been ignored (one time by blanking the warning from the talk page [91]) and they switch IP addresses when a final warning has been issued ([92], [93]). Apart from the occasional attempt to add the same link to the Snus article, this spamming has been their only contribution to Wikipedia.

Although a week's semi-protection has been added to the Snuff article, would it be possible to place an editing ban on the IP range 81.225.x.x instead ? I think this would provide a more permanent solution. Barry Wom (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That range would block 2048 addresses. Although it's not an excessive number, rather than do that I've added the website to our spam blacklist. Hopefully this will deter future attempts. EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a feeling they will still attempt to mention the product without the web address, but I'll keep an eye on it. Could the semi-protection now be lifted from the article ? Barry Wom (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Done :) A rangeblock remains an option, but I think this is worth a try first. EyeSerene^talk 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• snusfabriken.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Tracking. MER-C 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at the article history without semiprotection, the article is edited much less frequently that the good faith edits a rangeblock would stop. Protection and blacklisting are the best options. WilliamH (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Besse Cooper

Resolved

 – (I hope.) Editor seems to have backed away from the article after an admin caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A user is engaged in a tedious edit war with several of us over whether becoming the 15th oldest human is a "milestone". Since he won't stop and discuss, I'd like the experts here to provide an opinion on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, at first glance I do see three improper uses of the rollback tool on non-vandalism edits by DerbyCountyinNZ. Also, I'm not too crazy about the confrontational tone he takes in discussing the issue but that's just me. I really don't like the term "fanboy". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ron, but I also don't think this is ANI material. WP:3O...WP:EW perhaps, but not necessary here. Let's try User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ first...so far it's only been edit summaries, which hardly ever resolves anything.  Frank  |  talk  13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be interested in the opinions of admins who have actually looked at that user's approach to things. I also notified him, so if he ignores it and doesn't come here, you'll know better what we're dealing with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, Bugs, did you look at the page's history? I know full well the approach; I just don't think the dramahboard is the place to address it. I've commented on the real matter at hand at Talk:Besse Cooper.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that there was an arbitration case surrounding this topic a year ago, so the people in this area haven't always managed to resolve their disputes. It may not be an ANI issue yet, but more eyes there would definitely help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't that more about reliable sources?  Frank  |  talk  15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the major issues, too, but what really brought things to a head was the fiasco that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts. It's not hard to see why. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any comments on that page from Derby, FWIW (which I realize isn't much).  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Distruptive editing of a user

Hollyckuhno] (talk) This user has been editing the Star Cinema page distruptively as they are not accepting the edits of other users and only wants it their way and like the other users I asked to be banned from editing then, this user is continuing the same vandalism of adding films that has no proper references. Ifightback (talk) 10 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.3.47 (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptively?

Hi, you're accusations about me being disruptively editing the article Star Cinema is very malicious. How could you say my edits are disruptive when I am actually the only one who step up to made the article encyclopedic. Before as you know it, the article of Star Cinema sounds like a directory and an advertising than an encyclopedia. Now, if you are referring to your edits about the upcoming releases of Star Cinema, then you might as well know that the sub-article is being reconsider to be remove since the sources are unclear and unverified. Please know your grounds before accusing someone. -Visit Me (message) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hollyckuhno, that is a really confusing signature you have. I strongly encourage you changing it. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• There is nothing to do here for an admin. There's a bit of edit warring going on, and the IP is trying to strong-arm the other editor with threats of "ban notices". Going through the edit history to see who stands where in relation to 3R is much too tedious, so let's say this: both of you stop edit warring or you'll get blocked. Also, to make sure that you don't get blocked too easily, start explaining your edits, both of you. I am going to grace both y'all's talk pages with edit-warring templates and edit-summary reminders, lest you forget. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry about my attitude regarding the issue and I am also aware of the 3RR rule. I am merely protecting the article from vandalism. If you will investigate carefully, the version prior to mine does not conform with the standard and tone of Wikipedia so I revised it. This user is also adding informations that are doubtful] and obviously biased so accusing me of disrupting the article is very hurtful. I will tolerate edits as long as it merit and conforms the standard supported by reliable sources and with a neutral point-of-view. Thank You. -Hollyckuhno -(message) 13:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue

Resolved

 – Floquenbeam blocked IP and tagging and reversion issues have been taken care of.

I am currently (and probably forever) under a 1RR restriction. What so I do when an IP votes in an AFD and I tag it as a SPA? [94] He reverted the tag + the fact that I pointed out he was posting from a proxy server. I reverted this [95] (It is usual to tag such I am sure) and the IP reverted again[96] He has also added an shared IP edu to his talk page, but I see no evidence that it is such? Am I allowed to restore the SPA tag? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. It's not obvious vandalism which reverting again will get you blocked. For the sake of it, I reverted it for you. I do agree with what you have to say though.

I'm adding to the fact that this user is being disruptive and just got blocked. I removed the IP notice as well. Is there anything else otherwise, I would consider this resolved.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,476,228) 01:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the general question, I guess that's one of the annoyances of being on 1RR. I would say just make it someone else's job to tag SPA's, or don't bother reverting if they revert. I wouldn't block for that revert, but others might. To address this specific user, I've blocked the IP to prevent further disruption, but I don't know a proxy server from a... proxy server, so I didn't do anything about that. Someone who knows about technical stuff can block for longer if that's appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks to both of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 02

07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ArchieOof

User:ArchieOof is a relatively new editor who I think needs some counsel and assistance. After what I considered to be a series of hasty page moves, I posted a short (and what I thought was civil) note on his talk page[97] only to experience a barrage of edit-warring, accusations of wiki-lawyering[98][99] and assumptions of bad faith,[100][101][102][103] as well as indications of an intent of future disruption.[104] I think ArchieOof needs to learn about civility and consensus, but I am clearly not the person to help him in this. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, would an administrator be able to move Martha of Bethany back to Martha? User:ArchieOof moved the page without consensus, but it takes administrator privileges to revert the move. StAnselm (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are on the right track. If it is impossible for you yourself to move it back, make sure you get a an admin to do it for you, before you or anyone else initiates a formal requested move discussion. I was involved in a similar situation, but made the mistake of starting an RM before we got the page back to its former stable state. This resulted in about two months of arguing, a mile long talk page, three different votes, a resolution that defaulted to the current page name in the event of "no consensus" which only later was overthrown by an admin after even more lenthy discussions; all just to get the page back to where it was in the first place. It was a monumental waste of time and resources for dozens of editors. --Racerx11 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Co-incidentally, there's a discussion here on this very subject. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This is precisely the issue as your point "b" states: It puts the onus on the editor who wants to fix it, rather than on the editor who caused the problem. The RM process gives an unfair and undeserving advantage to an agressive editor who makes an undiscussed page move. If the RM discussion ends with a no-consensus, the resulting action is to default to the current page name. An unwary editor who cannot move a page back because of technical reasons (non-empty redirect histories) may initiate an RM before successfully convincing an admin to simply revert it back, not knowing they have just shot themselves in the foot or at least caused a lot of trouble down the road for a lot of other editors and admins.--Racerx11 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

PoV pushing of user HudsonBreeze

User HudsonBreeze has been removing cited material from the following articles meaningless edit summaries or stating reasons for removal on talk page;

• List of war crimes
• Sri Lankan Civil War
• Genocides in history

His/her activity seems to be not to be in good faith as comments in another talk page seems to be so. Cossde (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified.--Shirt58 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup

Enough is enough. Quarkgluonsoup (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing from the lead of The Exodus any mention of the lack of archaeological evidence, despite taking part on the talk page about possible changes to the lead. This started when xe raised a '911' call at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard/Urgent and insisted that any discussion of the article be at the 'Urgent' noticeboard and not at the article's talk page. Xe finally relented and joined in at the article talk page, then insisting that User:Lionelt be allowed to talk first. I note that Lionelt posted to Quark's talk page asking that Quark stopped reverting, but this was ignored. The 911 stuff was irritating, but as he's been told several times to stop and I even said it might be time for ANI before this last removal, I'm bringing it here. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

it gets worse. In seven minutes on March 8 Quarkgluonsoup erased over 2000 words of text from the major article on the American Civil War see see log. He merely said in his his half-line edit summaries that there was "way too much detail here" on slavery and on the Constitution. Actually slavery and on the Constitution are the main issues that scholars have been debating for 150 years regarding the causes and meaning of the war. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to revert that but ended up reverting all his edits simply because they'd left a huge mess of red citation warnings. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

His attempt to steer discussion away from the talk page is of course out of line. I can sympathize with his sentiments about the Exodus article to a degree, but he's obviously on a campaign to play up the Christian faith of various politicians and related figures (e.g. retagging Abigail Adams as congregationalist instead of Unitarian, when she can be cited for an unambiguously Unitarian statement of faith). The pattern of his edits is verty problematic. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He reverted Dougweller's fix; I have reverted that and issued a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If he does it again I will indef block for disruptive editing. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Government security badges

Is it appropriate for the project to host scans of government security badges? What about college and university ID badges? Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 27#File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 1.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we don't need no stinkin' badges? Because, I think that's what you're saying. If so, you might be better off saying it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but I may stand corrected. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Spamming by User:Yellowpigeon

Resolved

 – Socky sock

Yellowpigeon (talk · contribs)

Spamming the VP/proposals with some nonsense about linking to some site, the 'only place on the internet' that has discussions forums that s/he likes. Funny enough, the user has commented only on this issue, creating an account within a couple of days of the forum website being created.

I've warned the user about spam. I've removed the spam from the VP multiple times. I've also been called a 'terrorist' and a 'troll,' amongst choice epithets also leveled at others.

I reported to ARV but nobody seems to be watching, and the user is becoming increasingly abusive. Permablock needed. User will be notified on my next edit of this discussion. → ROUX ₪ 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Longer blocks left to the discression of other admins. — Edokter (talk) — 15:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubts that Yellowpigeon knew what he was doing all along, and isn't the innocent new user JamesBWatson would suggest he is on his talk page (no offence, James). I think it's a clear-cut case of this needing to be indef; my suspicion is that when the block expires he might well just go back to his same previous behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. There is no way in hell this is a new user (witness the repeated comments about usual Wikipedia behaviour and terrorists and so forth), nor is there any credible suggestion that the proposal was made in good faith; the user is very clearly affiliated with the website in question and is attempting to drive traffic to it by leveraging Wikipedia's umpty-million daily pageviews. Edit-warring to retain spam, while disingenuously claiming that it's a valid proposal? Please. I wasn't born yesterday. → ROUX ₪ 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The following are  Confirmed:

• Kukfittrovas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yellowpigeon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• As such, I changed Yellowpigeon's block to indef. Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Urnfield culture numerals

(I have no experience in the English Wikipedia, as I usually edit on the Spanish Wikipedia, and don't know where this dispute goes. If this is not the correct place, please tell me where I should put it.)

This is a dispute over Urnfield culture numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) between:

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• ecelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I'll make a quick review of what has happened until now:

1. User Dbachmann modifies the article Urnfield culture numerals, eliminating large parts of the text [105] and the source [106], asking for sources. Dbachmann comes then to my talk page and accuses me of making up a hoax [107].
2. I included the source 5 days later [108]. Then answered on my talk page to the accusation of Dbachmann, adding some more information about the source [109].
3. The next day user Dbachmann moves the article to Frankleben hoard [110] and effectively overwrites the article [111] with what seems to correspond to the German article de:Bronzehort von Frankleben (not unrelated, but not the same subject as the Urnfield culture numerals at all).
4. A discussion ensues in my talk page (complete thread).

There are several issues in this dispute:

• as the accusation of making a hoax, which to me is against WP:GOODFAITH,
• or the the clear breach of WP:ETIQ, when user Dbachmann applied to me Hanlon's razor [112], calling me stupid or a crook (I can choose).

I could go on, but I'd like to centre the question on what I think is an evasion of Wikipedia rules: Dbachmann has effectively deleted a sourced article without using the tools that he is supposed to use. I don't know why he didn't directly delete the article, as he seems to be an administrator, but the correct way of handling this would have been a WP:RFD. God knows the article was not perfect, and there could be a dispute over the relevance of the subject, but the way this has been handled seems to me a way around the rules of Wikipedia, around the way Wikipedia should work.

Let me make it short: is it allowed to delete an article by moving it to another subject and then overwrite it with another text corresponding to the new title?

Thank you for your time. --Ecelan (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On Monday, I protected the above page for a week because of a long-standing content dispute between editors. Some of the editors requested via my talk page that the article be unprotected on Friday, which I promptly did, switching it down to semi-pp. Since then, it's all gone rather pear-shaped, with lots of invective on the talk page and so on. I'm not wild about fully protecting the article again, but it'd be nice if another admin could have a look over the article and see if there's anything we can do to nudge the contributors towards productivity and away from the path towards the dark side. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This has to be a mistake

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

---

Resolved

 – Image restored. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Banglapedia.svg was deleted as F5 in 29 December 2011, while it was used in the article Banglapedia consistently. I checked the last version before that date, and it was removed after it was deleted by a bot. In no way it could have been F5, and, I, the major contributor to the article was never notified (Arman, the uploader is long inactive).

P.S. Where else do I report a problem like this? Our goddamn "process" has become too labyrinthine for our own good. No wonder the project's growth is slowing down so much. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, I suppose if you're looking to review a deletion, you should go to the outrageously named deletion review? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a regrettable mishap. An editor temporarily deleted the file to get rid of an old, corrupted version. While the image was deleted, a bot removed the reference to it from the article. When the image was restored, it was orphaned and tagged for deletion. Not ideal, but no reason to exaggerate the consequences. I have restored the file and the link from the article. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Adding LGBT material to BLPs

Pass a Method (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Pass a Method has been adding POV material related to LGBT rights to various articles, including Brad Pitt, Daniel Radcliffe, George Clooney, Miley Cyrus, and Michael Lahoud. He has been adding material to the body of the articles, but more seriously, he has been adding material to the infoboxes and adding categories, including saying that someone's occupation is LGBT-rights activist (for example, [113]). As in the preceding example, he's also been using a bizarre edit summary: "temp", whatever that means (template?). I've been removing most of his edits, although in some cases, I've reworded and adjusted them rather than completely removing them. I've posted a message to his Talk page, but his only response has been to edit yet more articles in the same agenda-pushing manner.

I'm not sure what kind of administrative intervention is appropriate, perhaps just a forceful warning from an admin to see if that's sufficient to get him to stop. He's not an inexperienced editor, although his edit history is a mite strange (lots of articles related to male sexuality and religion).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Temp is short for template. I have explained the rest on my talk page. Pass a Method talk 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen User:Pass a Method engaged in POV-pushing like this before, essentially adding material that is sex-related in some way, which is unsourced or improperly sourced, synthesis, or with undue weight. I've looked over a lot of the recent additions, and they are at the very least presented with undue weight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a mite strange to only or mostly edit sexual and religious topics, but Pass a Method is problematic when editing sexual topics at least. He is an inexperienced editor when it comes to this and some other aspects (such as policies and guidelines). Boing! said Zebedee became aware of this problem through me, when I reported some of Pass a Method's troubling edits to another editor. Among other things, Boing! said Zebedee saw inappropriate category placement, as well as inappropriate additions to the Elvis Presley and Priscilla Presley articles.[114][115][116] Here are other recent examples showing Pass a Method's problematic editing with regard to sexual topics, which led his temporary block and eventual threat to create a new account.[117][118][119] I've been suggesting that he be topic-banned from sexual topics for months now. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The threats to open other accounts and to avoid recognition are very troubling.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just to keep it in one place, here's Pass's explanation on his Talk page: "Radcliffe and Pitt are possibly the most notable LGBT rights activists, but neither the template or lede acknowledged this. This is why i felt it should be added to either the lede or template. As for adding it to the "occupation" line, i had since corrected myself and added it to the "known for" line."

I don't know what "most notable" means in this context. Obviously, there are people who spend their lives in political activism. Perhaps Pass means that Pitt and Radcliffe are more notable than some other actors. Even if that's true - and I don't know how to source something like that - as Boing says, there's a problem with weight in the lead. If you're going to report on the non-acting aspects of Pitt or Radcliffe in the lead, then you have to do it in a neutral way because both are involved in other causes besides just gay rights. And putting it in the "known for" field is almost as bad as putting it in the occupation field. I particularly like this edit where Pass equates Radcliffe's acting to his LGBT activism. It's pretty weird to say that an actor is known for, uh, acting. To me, the edits to the infobox and to the cats are the worst because they put labels on the subject without any context. The lead information is more a function of weight and balance. The Radcliffe article has been locked because of Pass and my battle over content. If this had just been a content issue in one article, I, of course, would not have taken it here, but it was being systemically applied to many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is also him under an IP.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not him, that's a sock of someone else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks like him to me also .. who is Pass a method a sock of ? Youreallycan 20:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• In case anyone is interested, this is the latest block im aware of in a long list of blocks of the above IP. Pass a Method talk 20:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what proof you have of a connection between the two IPs, but rather than create a distraction here by making claims without any apparent evidence, why don't you go to WP:SPI with your allegations?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea if the 68 IP and the blocked proxy are related. The editor I blocked was not using the proxy. If someone feels that Pass a Method has a previous incarnation, do start an SPI. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have reported him numerous times, and he's been blocked numerous times, but he eventally returns with a new IP so i no longer see the point of reporting him. Pass a Method talk 20:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And to return to our original topic, PassaMethod, note the following -

• Do not refer to someone as an activist (any kind) unless the source supports it (that's misuse of sources)
• Do not refer to someone as an activist as their job in infoboxes and ledes, unless they work for Stonewall or Greenpeace or are chained to a tree/railings somewhere (that's WP:UNDUE
• Do not edit war. Should I find you edit warring over this again, this will be blockworthy.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I responded to Pass a Method as that IP. Seeing as we were carrying on the same discussion, it's obvious that it's me. I have never tried to hide the fact that I always edit under a proxy, and in that discussion I mention that I only proxy-edit as well. This is why I keep getting blocked, and why Pass a Method thinks it always automatically makes my concerns regarding his editing invalid. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And, no, I'm not IP 68. I don't edit like that. Pass a Method does, as previously stated in this section. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the admin who fully protected Daniel Radcliffe (for three days). I had not looked at the editors' contributions to realize the same things were happening at other articles. Bbb has asked me to consider unlocking the articles, based on this discussion, but I don't yet see enough resolution here to feel comfortable with that. However, if another admin does think it's appropriate at this point, I won't object. LadyofShalott 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, PassaMethod, please try to use more informative edit summaries. The edit summary you used on the Radcliffe article after Bbb asked what temp meant was still unintelligible. LadyofShalott 22:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User Ajax42

See the refactoring of my comments on the talk page of Ajax42 (talk · contribs). His article edits have been editwarring and were oversighted, and my warning has been twice turned into a travesty of what I wrote. If he did this to someone else I'd block him, but as I'm the one he's refactoring... Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Any admin is free to extend or overturn. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Money220 and User:Money2200

It appears as though User:Davis100/User:Davis1000 has once again returned as both User:Money220 and User:Money2200. Money220 has already been given a one month ban for disruptive editing, but Money2200 continues vandalizing pages. Obviously an indefinite ban for both users should be given. But may I also suggest that the article Romeo discography be locked indefinitly as it seems that most of his edits seem to revolve around vandalizing that page? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Both User:Money220 and User:Money2200 have been indefinitely blocked for sock puppeting. --MuZemike 23:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Uboater at Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine#Connection_with_trust

Dealing with UBoater

Editor objecting to inclusion of sourced content now says "Unless you remove the section, which is clearly in breach of the british law of subjudicy, I will have no alternitive other than to persue a libel by litigation cace against you." PamD 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And a direct threat of litigation has also been made directly against Wikipedia and myself here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. As usual for LT blocks, it is indefinite. But the user may be unblocked by any admin (without prior consultation with me) if they determine that the threats have been sufficiently withdrawn. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else please keep an eye on the blocked user's talk page. I've been in discussions with him, trying to get him to understand that he has to withdraw the threat without trying to renew it in the next sentence. The discussion is ongoing, but I'm going to need to leave the computer for a hour or two, and will thus be unable to respond in a timely manner to any more responses from him. So if one or more other admins would keep an eye out for further responses, and continue to assist him, including unblocking if the other admin(s) feel that a sufficient withdrawal has been made, it would be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at his talk page, and I praise higher powers that I didn't press F7 (spellcheck) by accident. Had I done that, my computer would have self-destructed. It must be some sort of unofficial world record. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's perhaps worth noting that Uboater self-identifies as "Capt.Richard Williams", the person the disputed content is about, so it's natural that there will be an emotive element to this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Their statement "I was arested, but have not been charged with any offense." makes it clear that it it is a personal matter. They are thinking in terms of British law, not Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't think you are going to change their minds on this. The user's contribs show they have a singular interest at Wikipedia, and their interest is in their own reputation. I don't see this getting to the point of unblocking because the user's self interest is greater than their concern about the process here, and they are basically giving an ultimatum that if we do thing their way, they will consider not seeking legal action. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Back. I agree that it looks unlikely now that they will withdrawal the threat sufficiently to meet WP:NLT. Should a heads-up be given to the WF legal team? UK vs US or not, I do not see him giving up on this, and that means that there will possibly be something or other coming at the project at some point over this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how his last statement ends, "Simply remove the ofending comments and I will withdraw my legal challange," shall we simply ignore him? He's not abusing his talk page so I don't know if there's reason to block access to it, yet there's apparently nothing to be gained by continued engagement. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I left a note, in one sentence. I propose we simply leave this be until the captain retracts. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accepted a withdrawal of the legal threats, and unblocked Uboater, with a warning to avoid any more mention of any potential of future legal actions on his part. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with the article

• Legal threat though it is, the material is improper and a violation of BLP Do no harm. The arrest is over the tax concerns of the owner of the Uboat replica in an unrelated venture. Apparently it happened on the boat, but as our article explicitly says, it has no other connection. I can not see keeping this material here, and I have deleted it. if he wants to think we removed it as a result of his threats, we can not stop him, but he did have a justifiable complaint no matter how improper was the way he pursued it, and the removal is in accord with our policy. TransporterMan justifies the sentence on the basis no RS says it is unconnected. The true policy is that it must be removed until there is a RS saying it is connected. We do not include negative information of this nature while awaiting a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a certain irony to all this, given that the editor in question first came to the attention of many editors by spamming another story about himself onto Royal Armouries Museum and various other articles. He is now unblocked and has the sourced news item removed - he appears to have won. PamD 08:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a cut-down form of wording: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat when a man was arrested on board in January, 2012, in connection with an alleged multi-year £1 million VAT fraud." be acceptable in BLP terms, with the existing sources? It was the boat which made the headlines - if he had been arrested in an ordinary house the press would not have been interested. PamD 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Or the form the editor himself said he would be "quite happy" with: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat on January 26th 2012, when Capt. Williams was arrested on board the boat and his personal possessions were searched. This arest was in connection with an alleged £1 million VAT fraud, dating back 7 years, involving false sales of disability equipment. The only connection with U-8047 TRUST, which is just 10 months old, is that Capt. Williams was on board the submarine museum at the time of his arest" (spelling, date format, and self-awarded title to be amended)? PamD 09:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pam, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the user is happy with. It matters how we handle unimportant criminal events that happen to get a little publicity. If he wants to hide his arrest or flaunt it--presumably for publicity, it doesn't matter. He can be as foolish as he likes outside Wikipedia. We have our own reputation, and we're not a tabloid. Let's say of the the faculty whose bios I often work with wants to put in his bio, possibly for his street cred with his students, that he was involved with drinking or drugs as an undergraduate. It doesn't go in, unless he's so famous that everything about him is pertinent or its actually relevant to what he's famous for--e.g. Kary Mullis DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a bio. It's an article about a (probably only marginally notable) minor tourist attraction. It featured in newspapers apropos of an arrest; an editor added that fact; a WP:SPA editor removed it; it was replaced (several iterations); the SPA threatened legal action if it was not removed; he was blocked, he was unblocked, it was removed. Ah well, there are more important things to fret about than this pretend submarine. PamD 22:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP material is BLP material, regardless of what kind of article it's in. And it's not about whether or not he "won" - if he got what he wanted, and the result is what we would want in line with Wikipedia's policies, everyone won. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Mr. Williams is quite right in that the arrest is incidental to the submarine. For pity's sake, we don't include in building or location articles when arrests take place there, even of famous people, never mind of folks without articles. Were Williams to qualify for his own article, sourced info of his arrest would be pertinent. In the sub article, it's well below superfluous. No one would dream of including the info in, say, the Buckingham Palace article were he arrested there.

Beyond that - and worth an "Ahem!" - we are here to determine what is right to do, not to score points off of other editors. Of course WP:NLT violations are pretty much at the top of the scale for misconduct here, but to not apply perfectly reasonable edits to articles because someone who narked us off could claim victory? To use an uncle's pithy phrase, we shouldn't get our asses in it that much. Ravenswing 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The subsequent history of the article is quite interesting - the original editor replaced the BLP content at one point as it had some of the little Reliable Sourcing for anything about his boat. The article is now much shorter and includes much less promotional content about a rather minor tourist attraction. PamD 11:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing, personal attacks and edit-warring

User: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ERIDU-DREAMING is a single purpose account that edits almost exclusively on "Right-wing politics". He has edit-warred on the main article and posts long essays on the talk page, without providing sources and is offensive to other editors. Other editors have discussed these issues with him, but there has been no change of behavior. I would like to seem him warned against soap-boxing and personal attacks. (Edit-warring if it continues can be handled at the edit-warring noticeboard.)

Examples of soapboxing: SPOT THE SOPHISTRY, A Leftist Definition, False Definition, Do Leftists comprehend the Right? These are just discussion threads begun by ERIDU-DREAMING within the last month. All of them are expressions of opinion, hostile attacks on other editors and without sources for improving the article. A review of the talk page and archives shows that this is part of a consistent pattern.

Other examples of personal attacks:

• "a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the manifestly Left of centre Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry)"[120]
• "Your judgement about which sources are reliable and mainstream seems to be entirely determined by your Leftist political beliefs, which is also Falconclaw's observation. I would add that it is pretty evident that your knowledge of the "Right" is approximately zero. I suggest therefore that you limit your contributions to Left-Wing politics"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-wing_politics#Why_was_the_bias_tag_removed.3F

Another editor and I have have discussed the matter with ERIDU-DREAMING.

• I would appreciate it if someone would just close this section down with the Wikipedia "hat" template, because it is so obviously intended as a soapbox - and these are opposed by Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[121]
• The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article not the subject in general. Your comments are soapboxing and I request that you stop. TFD (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[122]

TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is true that I have contributed rather more to the talk page on Right Wing politics than planned, and in the last few days I did get excluded for a day because I reverted a controversial change to the article. The Four Deuces (as usual) tried to get me banned for life (later he made up the claim that I was taking on different identities even though he knew this to be false given the nature of the edits) and he succeeded (for a time) in getting the ban extended to a week - until this was reversed) and I recall that it DID take several weeks of discussion on the talk page a few months back before the claim that the Right = Fascists was addressed. During that time The Four Deuces hid my posts, deleted my posts, accused me of being a sock puppet, in fact it is hard to think of something he has not accused me of, in order to promote his claim that the Right are extremists. It is to the VERY GREAT credit of Wikipedia that somebody eventually enforced a process that corrected him.

I took him through the major scholarship in this area but anything which contradicted his (I have to say) extreme views was dismissed by him as marginal scholarship, even though I used the leading scholars in the field!!! To avoid being accused by him of being a sock puppet I registered as Eridu Dreaming.

I ask any disinterested reader to view the section about which The Four Deuces and R14 are objecting on the grounds that it is soapboxing to see if they agree with them that it is not an attempt to directly address a substantive question (namely is it correct that Classical Liberals can be described Right-Wing) and instead is nothing more than an emotional and irrelevant outburst which justifies R-14 moving the text, hiding the text, and in the case of The Four Deuces, bringing me to this tribunal, in order to get me banned. I DO admit that I said that Rick Norwood (one of the editors) hates Republicans, but he assured me some of his best friends are Republicans, and so I withdrew it! But my intention (at all times) is fairness and accuracy. I DO believe that some are importing (unconsciously in most cases) their political prejudices into this particular article.

All I can say is that it is much better than it was!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a curious mixture of truths, half-truths and untruths. Could you please provide differences to support the statements you make. For example, I did not try to get you "banned for life". I reported you to the 3RR noticeboard and the blocking administrator considered an indefinite block.[123] You need to be careful when making accusations against other editors, which is why I have brought this matter to ANI. TFD (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to be careful when making accusations against other editors TFD that is rich to say the least coming from you. You accused both myself and ED last year of being one and the same person, and pursued other false claims against myself. Your primary motivation in doing this appeared to be that you couldn't countenance the idea of other editors of a perhaps right-of-centre persuasion contributing to certain articles. Your accusations, of course, proved to be false and you refused to apologize. So here we are again, with another round of allegations, which now appear to be motivated by the fact that you cannot handle the fact that ED has bested you in argument, and as "revenge" you are seeking to have him sanctioned or censored in some way. Vindictive, childish, and unpleasant. Jprw (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that it PRESERVES the editing record (yes that means your record The Four Deuces) and so you had better be very careful if you start playing the innocent, or for that matter accusing me of half-truths and falsehoods. To address your specific example, if your intention is not to get me banned for life, fine, but it certainly WAS your intention when you (falsely) accused me of being a Sock Puppet, and as soon as only a couple of days ago you were (again falsely needless to add) accusing me of being a dynamic IP, which sounds a pretty serious allegation to me, even though you knew full well that the IP in question could not have been me since that editor took a different position from me, and as far as I am aware carried on after you had got me blocked! I appreciate that you do not like having your Right=Extremists view challenged, but Wikipedia is (or at least should be) about trying to give fair and accurate account of the topics (including political topics) in question, not using them as an opportunity to express your prejudices. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is what is called a LIE. Why would I say I was a sockpuppet if it is untrue? Why if (as you claim) I confessed to being a sockpuppet was no action taken? If you feel obliged to make false accusations try to make some sense. I used to make a few contributions to Wikipedia (it never occurred to me to formally register) but when THE FOUR DEUCES started deleting my contributions on the grounds of his completely made up charge that I was a sockpuppet (of somebody called "Yorkshireman" I recall) I decided to formally register as Eridu Dreaming to stop this happening. I have made no attempt to pretend to be anybody other than myself, why would I do such a thing? Does sockpuppetry mean the time (before I registered as Eridu Dreaming) when I would every now and then contribute to Wikipedia? The charge (not for the first time) is completely made up.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am another user who has noticed that ERIDU-DREAMING's contributions as noted by TFD above are all examples of disruptive editing and repeated uncivil behaviour. ERIDU-DREAMING has violated Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing - particularly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by denouncing the opinions of users he describes as left-wing, he has been hostile to users he has described as left-wing - including launching personal attacks against them and refusing to consider their input which is in violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and has essentially stated that users he deems to be left-wing do not have valid points because they are left-wing and assumes that users are acting in bad faith to misrepresent right-wing politics, this is blatantly discriminatory. He has called users "far-left" and called one user a "Republican hating Democrat" - though he since withdrew this when I complained that this was extremely offensive. He asked a sarcastic and condescending rhetorical question "do leftists comprehend the right?". ERIDU-DREAMING has engaged in slandering, condescending, and offensive behaviour and is in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that R-14 is charging me with 1) Disruptive Editing 2) Uncivil Behaviour.

No doubt R-14 will denounce this as grossly patronising (and he may be correct but it is that is not my intention) but in my opinion R-14 often makes thoughtful contributions to the "Right-Wing" article that directly address some of the issues. However (as he has admitted) he does sometimes lose his temper and resort to shouting (so to speak – typing in bold letters) if he does not get his own way!

The "disruptive editing" claim relates to the fact that I deleted a sentence which claimed that it is “generally accepted” that the Right = advocacy of hierarchy justified by tradition and natural law. Now the irony is I originally put in that sentence (or at least its original version) but now realise that it is false, since it does not apply to ALL on the Right; which now also has the meaning of Classical Liberal. R-14 uses a couple of sources which claim that the Right is a preservationist politics which seeks to defend privilege, and got very cross when I pointed out that if somebody says something (even in a sociology textbook!) that does not mean that it is not controversial. What he calls “disruptive editing” another editor might call an attempt to improve the accuracy of the article.

As for “uncivil behaviour” I personally have NOT been offended by R-14's outbursts, accusing me of “cheap emotional sophistry” of “worthless crap” of being a supporter of Thrasymachus (a proto-Fascist) and of course of “soap boxing” (justifying it seems hiding my text, moving it, but failing to address any of the points raised by it) although I am guessing that had I behaved in the same way towards him he might have accused me of uncivil behaviour! The strongest thing I called him I recall is that he is on the “moderate Leftist” which since he had earlier identified himself as such hardly seems to amount to an insult.

I do believe that there is a problem if a few editors assert there is a “consensus”, when there evidently is no such thing, especially if the topic is inherently controversial, as politics tends to be; and I am concerned that the small group who agree amongst themselves about the definition of the Right are all on the Left politically, and they have ignored (SEVERAL) editors who disagree with their “consensus” about the meaning of Right-Wing.

P.S. As for the "insult" that I described THE FOUR DEUCES as "Far Left" I think his latest comment "As I said before, the term "right-wing" entered the language (both French and English) c. 1900 to describe the faction that sat on the right in the French assembly. Following the Second World War it was used by (left-wing) social scientists to describe groups they saw as fascist. These groups denied they were right-wing and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing." gives a fairly clear idea where he is coming from politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERIDU-DREAMING (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that the talk page is all-too-frequently used for soapboxing - and not just by ED. Comments such as That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs. and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing by other editors would seem, IMHO, to be "soapboxing." So much for this mal-use of this noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that ERIDU-DREAMING was alone using emotional sophistry, the user Rick Norwood that ERIDU-DREAMING identifies as left-wing has used sophistry commonly during heated arguments between him and Falconclaw - Falconclaw is the primary culprit of sophistry on the article, almost every comment he has posted has been sophistry. So ERIDU-DREAMING's accusation that I have personally attacked him is false, I have criticized the improper discussion behaviour of multiple users. I never said that the right-wing necessarily "defends privileges" as ERIDU-DREAMING alleges, I provided scholarly sources that state that right-wing politics accepts social hierarchy (as an inevitability and reality) based upon natural law and tradition.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING has repeatedly personally attacked users due to his characterization of them being "left-wing", he now is making excuses for calling TFD "far-left" simply because TFD takes a very traditional outlook on what right-wing means - the original right-wing of the post-revolution French legislature. This doesn't prove that TFD is "far-left", and even if that was his political persuasion, why does that enable ERIDU-DREAMING to denounce him and all the users he labels as "left-wing" as automatically having invalid arguments and should be ignored because they are as he says "left-wing" and therefore must be trying to discredit the right-wing - that is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith because is assuming a conspiracy by left-wing users, and calling for ignoring left-wing users is calling for censorship. This is purely uncivil discriminatory behaviour that is completely against the policies of Wikipedia:Consensus and his repeated use of soapboxes that are designed to specifically denounce those particular users who he describes as "left-wing" is not only a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus, but is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that this whole business smacks of a cabal of editors ganging up against another editor who is simply standing up for his own views and not afraid to question those of others. Unpleasant. Jprw (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to exclude me from the charge of sophistry, fine, but your source DOES claim that to be Right-Wing is to seek to defend privilege "contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

I think that is pretty clear. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)).

And the incivility in the other direction is also apparent (calling anyone a "nut job" is, I rather consider, "incivil") The fact is that all who engage in such incivility on that article talk page should be stopped from such behaviour, not just one person on one side. And the issue boils down to one simple fact: There is no "one size fits all" definition of "right wing" in the first place, and no "one size fits all" definition for the "political spectrum" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just warned User:Rick Norwood to stop his aggressive and disruptive sophistry against right-wing people he has characterized as "nut jobs" and I have also warned User:Falconclaw5000 to also stop his aggressive sophistry. I have told both of them that if they continue their disruptive behaviour and inability to pursue consensus and NPOV, I will report them. Now then, back to the topic here, ERIDU-DREAMING's edits.--R-41 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment from Rangoon11

Resolved

 – 13tallinn blocked as a sock of Edinburghgeo. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have been harassed by being called a troll, to go-away, and being a sock-master, alleging I am some part of a large sock operation under the name edinburghgeo, because earlier I was cleared as a checkuser was denied due to total lack of evidence, and I deny having any connection to. Can someone please tell, and ideally block Rangoon11 for these actions. thankyou 13tallinn (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

link to discussion below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edinburghgeo

• The investigation was declined on technical grounds rather than the merits, asking for diffs of the sockmaster, which means a CU may still be issued. I have no opinion on the validity of the claim there. If his submission to SPI was in good faith and he was just mistaken, that isn't really actionable. We all make mistakes. If you think the submission wasn't a good faith submission, you would have to explain a little better why. If the submission was in good faith and we are just left with "troll" and "go away", that would be more of a case for Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, or better yet, ignoring. What is at the heart of this seems to be content disagreements, which is what the talk page or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is for. Seriously, the differences you two seem to be arguing about are minor, differing in style, rather than content. Surely you can both work it out rationally on the talk pages of the affected articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

incoherent editor forcing changes through

Resolved

 – Drift chambers, Neutral current, Furkahocean, and Furkaocean all indefinitely blocked

—Kww(talk) 03:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor has been consistently inserting massive changes to the infinity article which are borderline incoherent [124]. The talk page is also full of his mostly incoherent ramblings. The users talk page is also full of his incoherent ramblings. These mass additions have been removed several times by different editors and several attempts have been made on his talk page to try and get him to engage (including an offer by me to provide some sort of mentoring which was ignored). It is almost as if the editor is editing by using google translate so that the meaning in his edits are lost. The editor has already been blocked for his incompetance already [125] ANI discussion [126] and is back at it again with the mass insertions: [127]. There may be something of use within is contributions but his additions are so close to incoherent it would be a massive job to try and sift through the 100k lines he had originally added (which he has now dumped on the talk page for some reason: [128]). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you neglected to notify him (his Talk page is utter chaos), so I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw the latest at his talk page. What on earth is he up to? Really, someone needs to give a helping hand or something to the poor soul.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the same thing. I see a lot of using WP:IAR as excuses, but the actual conversations drift from confusing to incoherent in at least half of the conversations (and perfectly fine in many), which raises some interesting issues. I don't think he completely understands the system here, but it is his language skills that deeply concern me. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of using psychological terms of art, I think he's bananas. Based on the last ANI discussion, where an indef was threatened if a short block didn't work, an indef seems warranted ("I've blocked Drift chambers for 48 hours; hopefully it'll be enough to focus their attention. If it prompts them to slow down and read up on site policy as intended, great. If not, I'm sure an indefblock will be forthcoming in the near future.").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If I could make heads or tails of his talk page I'd do it myself, but I'd strongly suggest a WP:COMPETENCE indef... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to be the first one to make this claim (my last one is still running loose) but I have to agree with you. The erratic nature of the communications can't be attributed to just being drunk one night on Wikipedia, and seems to be since day one, albeit, worse on some days than others. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the history, sadly it seems that a long term block is probably needed at this point. It has been going for a while, several editors have tried coaching the user and nothing seems to help much. There is the languange barrier for one, but I think the social competence line in the competence essay hits home: Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves,... well the rest is pretty harsh but unfortuanately it's probably what has to happen.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User Amarru

I have reason to believe that the user Amarru is the exact same person who was behind the user called Seaboy123 who was banned from Wikipedia.

In the Wikipedia page (Football records in Spain) he is commiting the exact same vandalism as the user Seaboy123 did.

Moreover he has called me an communist fanatic without any reason in the revision history of that Wikipedia page.

Thank you in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one has replied, I will just tell you that if you think someone is a sockpuppet, the place to report it is at WP:SPI, not here. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Point of view edits

Resolved

92.40.214.87 (talk · contribs) and others in that IP range have made several edits in recent days to three articles, Help for Heroes, 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt and The Spectator that offer views on recent events, and which I personally find extremely distasteful and offensive (see [129], [130] and [131] for typical examples). The user has been warned about their behaviour by myself and others, but is regularly hopping to a different address so I don't believe reporting it to WP:AIV would do much good. Paul MacDermott (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

see also 92.40.249.158 (talk · contribs) and 92.40.230.10 (talk · contribs) Paul MacDermott (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the person in question appears to only care about those 3 articles, I have semi-protected the trio for 1 week. This is preferable to a range block given the targeted nature of the vandalism. Let me know if problems return after protection expires or if it moves to other articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now from a fresh IP he's just insulted my grandfather, who was killed in Korea. [132] I mentioned it in the hope it might give him cause to think about how his actions can impact on others, but in retrospect it doesn't seem like such a good idea. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked by ThaddeusB. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - Disruptive Editing, Hounding & Forum Shopping

With great regret I must report that an editor Dennis Brown is commiting disruptive editing in violation of WP:HEAR pretty much thumbing his nose at admins who have settled and [133] archived an AFD case and closed two redudant ANI charges based on the same AFD case (his & "others" forum shopping for duplicate outcomes) [134] and [135] where he again tried to bring up the same argument a THIRD time. In addition to the disruptive editing (which I will discuss below) by him that has happened after the AFD was settled, this clearly was forum shopping by him to try to get an additional result after the initial AFD discussion and other redundant/duplicate ANI discussion was closed. He attempted on that (third complaint/second ANI proposal) he called "Bot archived too soon" to resusitate the first case after multiple admins basically told him it was over.[136]. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful. It doesn't help that he is trying different forums in the hope of finding one where his constant complaining about ONE issue will get multiple outcomes he is looking for.

It's been hard, but I have restrained myself and held my tongue hoping that this one sided attempt by him to harass me would end. Clearly it has not. I have patiently waited and not reverted his malicious edits and I haven't responded to his repeated attempts at forum searching (even when he did not notify me that he was doing this third attempt at regurgitating the same dead horse argument, as required by ANI). But it is clear that this is a pattern and that he does not plan to stop because he did not get his "my way or the highway" desired outcome from ANI and dispite he got what he wanted from AFD, which was a very good article being deleted (which I have my suspicions was done by a faction that sided with him through false consensus).

He is told (by) Nil Einne (talk) at 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[137] that:

"As stated, if you repeatedly reopen a discussion people may tell you to stop and failing that, take action...You should also bear in mind it may negatively affect people's opinions of you if they feel what you're doing is unneeded, but again this is no different from opening a discussion in the first place. Perhaps most importantly, you should consider that a lot of the time the 24+ hour limit works well. Given the activity of ANI, if no one has replied in 24 hours, it very often means the discussion has reached a natural ending point, even if it's technically unresolved. I had a brief look at the very long discussion and from the little I saw, I admit I think this is probably the case here...I don't think any adminstrative action against the other editor is likely yet, therefore there's nothing more for ANI."

But he won't let it go.

I'm coming here because in the last discussion I tried to reason with this very angry editor Dennis Brown who told me not to talk to him on his talk page (he has a warning on his user page for no one to leave messages for him on his talk page). I cannot go there and leave a message for him, because he will get angry an spin it into an attack. So that's why I am coming here.

After the closed AFD Discussion and and after the closed first duplicate ANI discussion, and during his third attempt to cause trouble on the ANI board by trying to drum up a third forum, Dennis Brown tracked this user's recent contributions and blanked or reverted many of them clearly as part of his vendetta against this user. I am concerned not just because he seems to be hounding this user specifically and selectively reverting my contributions, but because on the articles he is changing, he is making gross deletions to biographies of living people. He is randomly blanking huge sections of content even on a page of a well known Academy nominated actress, another well known actor, and an Award winning film distributor:

• Here he blanks all the credits off a biography page [138] that I had originally created here [139]

• Here at he blanks the entire credits of an Academy Award nominated actress that have clearly been built up by various users over a long period of time [140]

• Here at he removes major credits from a cult actor's page with no regard as to the cult value of each credit he is arbitrarily deleting [141]

that I had contributed here on 14 Feb 2012 01:38 [142] and here [143].

• Here he removes more content from another page I contributed to and which he then tags as a stub: [144]

• Here he removes another credit from a page [145]

• And this morning he has started blanking sections of another page I have contributed to, removing titles and credits at will to another living biography:

• here [146]
• and here [147]
• and here blanking an entire columns of credits [148]
• here [149]and
• here [150]

These edits show a pattern of targeted disruption and an unwillingness of this editor to accept the outcome of the AFD and ANI. While editing of content on Wikipedia to make it more encyclopedic is encouraged, deleting valuable content and basically vandalizing of articles especially biographies of living people is not. I think he is in violation of "no angry mastodons" WP:NAM trying to bait this user into reverting his hostile and vengeful edits, in order to try to stir up more trouble. The user is clearly Wikihounding by singling out one editor, and going to multiple pages or topics I may contribute to and/or create, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit this user's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to this contributor because he didn't get an outcome he wanted out of a duplicate complaint that he made on an ANI forum.

One reviewer Ravenswing said here: [151],

"Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either.

Because this problem is continuing, because this user is well versed in Wikipedia and knows the damage he is doing (he is not unaware) and because he is clearly out for revenge, because he also doesn't seem to listen to admins who have continually suggested to him that his AFD case has been resolved and that his blatant forum searching is not a good idea and that basically he should "let it be." I think this user needs to hear from admins, possible be blocked and his reverts (and possibly those of others who are in his faction) need to be restored. This is tendentious behavior in that he continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point, which is to drive away a productive contributor per WP:DEPE. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment For reference, the recent ANI regarding Catpowerzzz can be found here. It may also be helpful to review Nil Einne's post on Catpowerzzz talk page following the ANI discussion:

"Whatever the 'wrongs' of others you've been involved with, it seems clear several uninvolved people, upon looking at the history, have concerns about your behaviour and your explainations generally haven't helped (if anything they appear to have made things worse)."

The AfD to which Catpowerzz refers can be found here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is our collective fault, really, for not solving the problem in the last ANI thread, but foolishly hoping that things would die down after the AFD ended. I suggest correcting that error now by telling Catpowerzzz in no uncertain terms to stop this, and back it up with blocks if it continues. The report above is so full of unfair descriptions and mischaracterizations of other people's comments that it can't be the result of errors in judgement, it is the result of intentional misleading. I do not see any problematic edits on Dennis Brown's part in the diffs above. When an editor has shown that their edits are problematic, it is not harassment to look at their edit history and fix the problems they're causing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Here we go: Catpower blocked for 12 hours by way of the boomerang--i.e., persistent disruption and now a bogus charge. Immediate cause is this edit and its summary--a false charge of vandalism. Given Catpower's editing pattern I have no reason to assume that they won't persist in such vindictive edits, where a content dispute is turned into a vandalism accusation. That the ANI report here is without merit is clear enough; perhaps Catpower will now understand that this should be over, that they should start listening to sound advice (some of which was removed here). As for the block and its length, I encourage your scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not long enough. I suggest one hour for each word in his OP as an appropriate formula.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Nodding at Floquenbeam's description), I previously characterized this behavior here [152]--I've never used quite that language before, but there's a persistent and even malicious misrepresentation of events. Thanks to Drmies. As a betting man my money is that this will continue until the blocks become more severe. Then I'd suggest keeping an eye peeled for socks, especially at Chris Innis and associated articles. JNW (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, more eyes on those articles, please. See also the conversation at the editor's talk page: this combination of promoting and playing the victim really bothers me. Also, JNW, thanks for bringing this to my attention in the first place. Seriously: fuck thank you very much. I'm going to need a very expensive Belgian tripel. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Anything I can do to brighten your day. Belgian it is. JNW (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• I figure I should at least weight in for the record, being the object of the complaint. I feel that the edits I did to the articles were proper and improved them, and I still do. Many of the movie links were actually pointing to different movies by the same name and the article was more list than prose. I did exactly what I would have done with any article, adding a reference, turning lists into prose, etc., taking extra care to make it obvious that the edits were contribution, not retribution. I did ask about reverting the ANI archive here, but concluded that if an administrator didn't feel it should be brought back, I wasn't going to be aggressive and do it myself, even after I was basically given formal "permission" to do it. While disagreeing with the lack of conclusion in the prior ANI, I do understand the reluctance to formally close it: it was a long, messy, ugly and long-winded affair, with everyone agreeing on the problem, but with no simple, obvious solution. All that matters is how we move forward. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Holy crap, do I resent my advice to Dennis being brought in to attack him ... the more so in that his response to it on my talk page was "Yes, you are correct that I can get a bit too wordy and perhaps redundant at times, and your point is well taken. I appreciate your direct but polite input." Funny, it doesn't seem that Catpowerzzz mentioned that response. If, as he implies, he might wash his hands of us on this account ... well, I can live with that. Ravenswing 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• I was alerted to this ANI by Catpowerzzz, after he/she noticed that Dennis Brown had recently done some edits on a stub article I started.[153][154]. There's clearly a pattern of behavior here on the part of Catpowerzzz that works against his/her case. I've been had the experience of being accused by others [Yakushima adds] of "vandalism" in what was actually a content dispute, and I find that kind of behavior repulsive, needless to say. However, I have to wonder if Dennis Brown is utterly blameless in how inflamed these disputes have become. In the accusatory edit that resulted in a previous block against Catpowerzzz[155], Dennis Brown appears to me to be violating WP:PRESERVE -- a policy. A list that might violate some style guideline is not ipso facto a candidate for simple deletion. WP:PRESERVE says "If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented. Was what Dennis removed in that edit to Karen Black "good information"? Did it "have some value"? Yes: it's filmography, for a significant actor. And Wikiproject Film has put significant effort into how to present so much of what is (as Dennis Brown puts it in his edit summary) "already at IMDB" -- see e.g., Filmography Tables[156] at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I've come to expect filmographies in WP articles about film actors, and I believe that's true of most users. The guidelines for filmography say nothing about the percentage of red links, or about which works qualify for inclusion or exclusion. I suppose that if a film has somehow not, in the years or decades since release, become the subject of an article, one could reasonably say that listing it is not "good information". But even on such reasoning, Dennis had the option of simply deleting the red links. To be clear: There's no question Catpowerzzz needs to dial back the wikidrama. I won't defend to the death the right to complain in such a manner -- it's indefensible, and I'd support progressively longer blocks on Catpowerzzz with each such transgression. But that's not actually the issue raised in this ANI. Dennis's behavior (which includes wholesale deletions of information from articles) is. And here's what I see: Dennis needs to learn to not simply hack significant pieces out of articles in violation of WP:PRESERVE. I've experienced this first-hand. In the case of a recent edit to Paving Wall Street that removed references, his edit summary was "not about this book".[157] In fact, at least one of the references he removed actually does contain significant material about the book[158]. Now, admittedly, Boston Globe's pay-per-view summary didn't reveal that fact. But when in doubt (and when an article has clearly been put together by someone who's trying to be careful about having reliable sources), it's better not to swing the axe quite so impulsively. This issue of overzealous deletions is, of course, quite apart from how Dennis tagged Paving Wall Street. I stand by the edit summary on my revert: in that case, the "tagging was somewhere between overzealous and non-sensical".[159] C'mon, Dennis: you're saying I'm supposed to supply inline citations in a one-sentence stub article about a book that (at this point) says little more than that the book exists, when the references are mostly reviews of the book in reliable sources? Just to pick one absurdity in that tagging. Yakushima (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You've brought up the issue with Catpowerzzz in two different posts, [160], [161] and now here. In a nutshell, I tagged an article, you removed the tags, I never did or said anything about it. You then chewed me out on my talk page [162], and I just let it go without reply. This is the first time I've replied to anything you have said, ever. You have only talked at me, or about me. You never bothered to ask me about it on my talk page or the article's talk page, which has yet to exist. You instantly assumed bad faith or incompetence in my actions, using phrases like "overzealous" and insults like "Dennis Brown apparently suffers the imperfection of a need to hide his mistakes." It is almost like you are trying to pick a fight with me, and I'm just not interested. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are incorrect about chronology here. I "chewed you out" on your Talk page BEFORE (3:08-9[163]) I took down your tags on Paving Wall Street (3:11[164]) -- the way you portray it, I was unsatisfied that you were insufficiently provoked by my removal of your tags, and therefore went to "pick a fight" with you. I was admittedly a little snide in that "chewing out." However, being a little snide and asking sincere questions in the same post are not mutually exclusive; assuming that they are (as you apparently did in your edit summary [165] is an WP:AGF vio. In any case, if you really thought your tagging was correct (as your edit summary's implicit claim of having an "explanation" clearly indicates), it would only have taken you a few seconds to revert my change. I did not "instantly assume bad faith or incompetence". I noticed some incompetence, remedied it, and then asked why you didn't take more competent action. There's still some possibility, I suppose, that I'm wrong on one or more of the several points I brought up. In any case, the major issue here is: why do you serially violate WP:PRESERVE on contributions made by an editor (Catpowerzzz) you have some bad history with? Two wrongs don't make a right. If you didn't know about WP:PRESERVE until now, then fine: own up to that, and under WP:AGF it's quite an acceptable excuse. If you did know, but misconstrued it, ditto: just explain your misunderstanding. If you believe you have an interpretation of WP:PRESERVE that's superior to mine, then by all means, let's discuss it. But bear in mind that you really got off on the wrong foot with me: bad tagging and a WP:PRESERVE vio on an article I have in progress, on a subject that you apparently know nothing whatsoever about. I could (and probably will) be in favor of banning Catpowerzzz for life, and I'd still have a problem with your behavior. Yakushima (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave the sincerity of your "questions" to the reader to decide. The chronology you describe is irrelevant, all your actions took place the day before I removed your comments 3 minutes apart, making them simultaneous for all intents and purposes. Chronology wasn't my point anyway, your over-reaction is. You could have simply reverted me with summary "rm tags, don't apply, take it to talk if you disagree" (what most editors would have done), but instead added your own wikidrama with all the posts. This is an ANI, it isn't a talk page for an article. If you want to discuss the content of an article, you should have done it there but you chose not to. If you seriously think that anything that I have done rises to the level of misconduct, or as you state above "incompetence", then by all means keep talking here in this forum, or better yet, appeal this ANI and demand action be taken against me for the edits you describe. I'm confident something good will come of it. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You still fail to respond to the main problem I see: serial WP:PRESERVE vios on material supplied by an editor you had very recent unpleasant history with. Now you've used incorrect chronology to characterize me as wanting to pick a fight with you, but when I point out it's incorrect, you don't apologize, or even admit error, you just say "it's irrelevant." FYI: I wrote to you directly about your tagging on Paving Wall Street, on your talk page, because it really looked like you simply don't know how those tags are supposed to apply -- and if so, well that's not a good thing in a new page patroller. Taking it to the article's Talk page might have meant you'd miss out on a lesson you clearly need. I have not (until now) accused you of actual "misconduct". However, if your recent comment on my talk page is any indication (where you say Karen Black was such a "bloody mess" that it would have been better to have no article), you clearly still don't understand WP:PRESERVE. Whatever the "mess" was, a simple (if overstocked) filmography is just a simple list. It seems to me that, at this point, there's only one way you could fail to understand such a simple policy as WP:PRESERVE: you still haven't bothered to read it. No matter how many times I point it out to you. And that's as troubling as anything I've seen from you so far. This ANI is about your behavior with respect to articles Catpowerzzz edited. The unpleasant fact: what little merit there might be to Catpowerzzz charges depends on whether WP:PRESERVE was knowingly violated. All you have to do is say, "I didn't know about WP:PRESERVE." Fine. This is Wikipedia: under AGF, ignorance is an excuse. Well, you do know now. Go read it, then tell us (if you can) why what you did doesn't transgress that policy. It's really that simple. Yakushima (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are doing exactly what Catpowerzzz did, mischaracterize my contribs and words. I will leave it to any admin to simply read and respond accordingly. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the diff you forgot to include with your quote: [166] Dennis Brown (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, your chronological framing couldn't be clearer (or more in error): "In a nutshell, I tagged an article, you removed the tags, I never did or said anything about it. You then [i.e., supposedly after I removed the tags and you didn't say/do anything about it] chewed me out on my talk page". No, I "chewed you out" on your talk page, and at the end of that very same statement, I said would immediately afterward remove your tags on Paving Wall Street. THEN I removed your tags. Look at the chronology again: "Chewing out": 3:08-9[167]), tag removal: 3:11[168]. If anybody's "mischaracterizing" here, it's you. And the mischaracterization makes me look as if I was hoping the tag removal would provoke you, and then, not getting the satisfaction of a response from you, went and baited you on your Talk page. When I pointed out this error on your part, you claimed chronology is "irrelevant". In fact, in this case, chronology makes all the difference in the world. AGF requires that I assume you're still haven't looked carefully enough at the evidence to see your error. My AGF about you? Now hanging by a fraying thread. Yakushima (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since my comments were brought in to this discussion by Catpowerzzz (but I was not notified) I'll offer some clarification. My suggestion to Dennis Brown was intended to convey that I felt it unlikely any decision for action would be reached at ANI barring new evidence or new behaviour, so it would be pointless to re-open the thread. He? seemed to take this onboard since the thread was never reopened. In fact AFAICT, Dennis Brown didn't open any action against Catpowerzzz since my suggestion they drop the issue at ANI, although I did suggest an RFC as a possibility if necessary. So there doesn't seem to be any real relevance of my comments to Dennis Brown, all evidence suggests my message was taken on board by him. (Note my comments didn't discuss interacting with Catpowerzzz outside ANI in any case, nor did I intend to suggest Dennis Brown should avoid any articles Catpowerzzz had been associated with.) On the other hand, as Ckatz pointed out, I also suggested on Catpowerzzz's talk page that from a quick look at the ANI thread, things didn't look good for them. They needed to take the advice they'd received on board or would likely find action taken against them. Unfortunately unlike with Dennis Brown, it doesn't sound like my advice to Catpowerzzz was taken on board, hence them opening this ANI thread and leading to the boomerang block. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus of editors conflicts with wikipedia's NPOV policy.

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

---

On the one hand, the editing of wikipedia articles is to be based on Wikipedia:Consensus.

On the other hand, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy states:

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

What should happen when the majority consensus is in conflict with wikipedia's NPOV policy?

My question is not hypothetical. I have multiple real examples where the majority consensus at Presidency of Barack Obama is in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policies.

This has already been discussed on the article's talk page for years, but the problem is still happening, so I am coming here for some answers.

As one example, the article states:

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment."

I'm not complaining about that. I have no problem with that.

What I am complaining about, however, is that the majority consensus is against allowing the following additional information to be included:

"Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status."

Not allowing that second part is a clear violation of NPOV.

As another example, the article quotes Obama as saying:

"There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period."

However, the majority consensus is against following up that quote with this additional information:

"In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble."

Again, to not include this second part is a violation of NPOV.

As another example, the article includes a section called "lobbying reform," which cites some of Obama's claims and policies to reduce the influence of lobbyists..

However, the majority consensus is against including the following:

"In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.""

To not include that information violates NPOV.

Likewise, the article has a section called "Wall Street reform," but the majority consensus is against including this:

"Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, in 2011 it was reported that he had raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In addition, as a Senator he voted in favor of the $700 billion Wall St. bailout. Also, in October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall St. lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry."

Again, to not include that violates NPOV.

The article includes a section called "Ethics," but the majority consensus is against including the following:

"Although Obama had promised to have 'the most sweeping ethics reform in history' and had often criticized the role of money in politics, after he was elected he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers."

The article also contains a section called "Transparency," which contains multiple wonderful sounding promises and policies from the president. However, the majority consensus is against including these third party criticisms:

"In April 2009, antiwar activists who helped elect Obama accused him of using the same "off the books" funding as his predecessor George W. Bush when Obama reqeusted an additional $83.4 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a provision which Obama had voted against when he was a Senator."

"In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work."

"Although Obama had promised to wait five days before signing all non-emergency bills, he broke that promise at least 10 times during his first three months in office."

"In December 2010, Transparency International reported that corruption was increasing faster in the U.S. than anywhere else except Cuba, Dominica, and Burkina Faso."

"In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency."

"In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here. Fox News host Glenn Beck gave Walpin an on-air state certified senility test, which Walpin passed with a perfect score, meaning that he was not senile."

To not include these things violates NPOV.

Each and every one of these examples is something where the majority consensus is in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Since this has been discussed multiple times on the article's talk page for years, and the problem is sill happening, I am raising this issue here.

What can be done to get the article to follow wikipedia's NPOV policy?

Peas 447 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't necessarily appear to be an incident that needs specific admin attention. This appears to meet the prerequisites for a posting to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You may well be better served there. Rgrds. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a tl;dr, but let me try to address some of your concerns. To the best of my knowledge, I've never edited the Obama article, except possibly for the occasional huggle revert.

• "Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status."

  This is synthesis, creating the connection between what Obama said and what happened where it doesn't exist in the cited source. The source says "The website used to track stimulus spending does not meet the transparency requirements laid out by the administration last year, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).", which is not at all the same thing as your proposed text, which basically says "Obama promised this but has failed to live up to his promise." The source says nothing about Obama in particular, nor does it support the 25% figure you attempt to use.

  "In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble."

  Again, synthesis, combining what the source says with that the person who wrote the text believes. The cited source does not say that house-flippers or speculators "caused" the housing bubble, and the cited sentence picks out one element of the story - that speculators may get some bailout funds - and ignores the actual story, which is that the administration (again, the administration, not "Obama") is extending the availability of mortgage assistance in general, not that it'd adding property speculators in particular to its program.

  "In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them."[3]"

  Synthesis and perhaps a tad of wishful thinking. Nowhere in the cited article does it say that these meetings are being held "in order to avoid" disclosure requirements. It says that some meetings are held at a coffeeshop, that meetings held at coffeeshops are not part of the visit log, ands that "some lobbyists" think this reveals a disconnect between what Obama said and what he does. That is most emphatically not what the test you propose for the article reflects; your version is tailored to introduce "facts" not present in the source - that this is being done on purpose, with nefarious motives.

I could carry on, in regard to each of your proposed sentences, but really the response is the same for each one: you are attempting to introduce synthesis into the article by writing sentences subtly representing (what I assume is) your point of view and then backing them up with sources that support bare facts but don't support the interpretation you're attempting to perform on them. Please re-read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, if WP:NPOV isn't helping you understand what the issue is here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent posting on free republic.com with the exact same list done in Wikipedia mark-up. That probably explains where this material is coming from this "new" editor. (can't link directly due to spam filter) Yobol (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The "activism" thread is at that website dot com /focus/f-news/2853412/posts. Banned user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recruiting meatpuppets there to help him force his POV/OR-synthesis version back into the Presidency of Barack Obama article. I semiprotected it last night to put a temporary halt to this. Antandrus (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This page is not the content dispute appeals court. Work this out through the usual process. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• It does appear that there is a attempt to bash Obama in the transparency section. If it is the recent BOLD work of a single editor, just undo it. If it's the work of multiple editors, start an RFC about it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Those accounts are not proxies of Grundle2600 – those are  Confirmed socks of Grundle2600, along with:

• 55 fifty-five (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Friendly Freeper (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Peter 2539 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr. Jackson 1952 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Chess King Winner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Peas 447 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And Grundle2600 has now succeeded in storing his crap in a way that it cannot possibly be deleted. Also, Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy has been deleted per G5 and corresponding AfD has been closed. --MuZemike 23:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, would you or another CU mind cleaning out whatever drawer contains his newest incarnation that appeared on my talk today? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

An identical thread has been started on WP:NPOVN. Yobol (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

HiLo48 used foul languages and personal attacks at Talk:Republic of China (both in the talk page and in edit summaries) to criticise my edits that fixed his wrongly-placed comments. He insisted not to follow what points 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Indentation provide for. I would like to request for an administrator to judge on: (1) His uncivilised behaviour, and (2) The application of Wikipedia:Indentation. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On (2), also on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices: Keep the layout clear, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:Talk page layout. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments is the part you should be reading. Kanguole 23:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, 202.189.98.131, HiLo did use foul language. I'm thinking HiLo was frustrated by your insistance on refactoring the comments of others. Please stop doing that. I'll leave a note on HiLo's user talk, but I'm sure they understand the situation. Tiderolls 23:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your actions. "your insistance [sic] on refactoring.." That's what I never did. I only move mislocated comments to correct locations to facilitate discussion. No actual content has ever been changed. I don't think foul languages and personal attacks are ever tolerated on Wikipedia. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• 202.189.98.131 warned. Tiderolls 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Foul language is tolerated, although frowned upon, as it can be disruptive. However, shifting comments of the same level up or down won't affect layout at all, and continuing to move comments after being told not to is probably as disruptive as foul language is. CMD (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@202.189.98.131 When a editor places a comment directly under another to indicate a response to that comment, you have to leave it there! Moving it from that spot can and will change the meaning. It is more important to maintain who is talking to whom, than to have a perfert chronological order. Putting the inappropriate foul language aside, user HiLo is correct in the comments made to you on this matter.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change it according to "perfect" chronological order. HiLo48's comment is still (and more neatly) responding to Niyaendi's comment after the move. What I did was consistent with Wikipedia:Indentation. What he did was inconsistent with both Wikipedia:Indentation and the practice that Eraserhead1 and John Smith followed. It's natural and indeed more desirable for all responses to the same piece of comment by Niyaendi to follow the same rule. But he refuses to understand the Wikipedia rules and usual practices. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the subject of this report and have only just now been advised of this thread, and not by 202.189.98.131 (if that's still his IP address - he ignores advice to register, so it could be anybody). That alone should show other editors the level of his incompetence, lack of genuine knowledge of the rules and recommendations here, and lack of interest in the advice of others. His efforts at Talk:Republic of China have been genuinely disruptive, despite repeated polite suggestions to change his behaviour by several other editors. They were obviously having no impact. I tried a more intense approach. At least he noticed, so I achieved something, but he's still behaving like a dick. I have never reported anybody. I always hope that clear and honest conversation will get the results that are best for Wikipedia. But in this case I'm really beginning to wonder. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are completely inappropriate comments about any editor, let alone an IP. Registering is NEVER a requirement. We do, indeed, have a good percentage of positive edits from anonymous users, and therefore it does NOT show a level of "incompetence". You will have the appropriate level of respect for ALL editors to the project. I acknowledge that their contributions are not fully within policy, but trashing the editor because they choose to edit anonymously is grossly inappropriate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm still editing from this IP address. Registration is only an advice not a requirement. It isn't an inherent sin for having no registered account. I tried my very best to explain the background of Taiwan and of the ROC to editors like HiLo48. They ignored it outright. They simply resist to understand the topic that they're voting on. HiLo48, in particular, uses foul languages and personal attacks extensively in the talk page and in edit summaries (and now here at WP:AN/I). He doesn't respect different views, and he labels whoever he doesn't like as disruptive. This damages Wikipedia and jeopardises consensus building. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP, this is not the place to make comments about content. This is only for behavior issues and you have now been instructed to leave others' comments alone and stop rearranging. --Taivo (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• 202.189.98.131 blocked. Tiderolls 03:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And now still editing, from their latest IP address ... and @BWilkins you may not be aware of the background there. We have hundreds of contributions on that page from a series of IPs, posted in multiple threads at any one time, many of whom are clearly the same editor (something they do not always make clear), which constitute borderline trolling. They derail conversations, revive dead threads, lead editors off into irrelevant tangents and ask the same "what if .."/ "why does .." questions over and over again like a four year-old. They have now progressed to repeatedly refactoring the whole talk page. It's quite possible that it is also a long-banned user. They have been advised to register for the sake of clarity - and for their own benefit - and so that everyone can see who is saying what, but refuse. I don't see a problem with HiLo asking on the talk page "what the fuck are you doing" (re the comment moving) and suggesting again here - not demanding - that they register. If anything, everyone on that page has been too indulgent in answering their relentless queries and tolerating their disruption. N-HH talk/edits 17:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what dispute he is in, I believe HiLo48 should act a bit more civil than he is now, as some of his comments have been fairly incivil. For example, in this diff, he tells another editor to "piss off". On several occasions, HiLo48 has resorted commenting on editors in the dispute, rather than focusing on the dispute at hand. (Examples: [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]) HiLo48 claims that civility by other editors is actually POV pushing. [174][175] He has also expressed dismay at the fact that he is unable to spend a lot of time in discussions due to real life. While this is understandable, some of his comments have been very close to incivility. It would be nice if he kept his talk page comments on the actual article content, rather than the contributers participating there. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BullRangifer harrassment of user

I enclose this text posed on my talk page. This abusive adminis hell bent on harrassing me for launching a complaint against one of his WP:meatpuppets User:Ronz. Ronz threatened me with this action during my original complaint against him instead of offerring an apologie or peace offering. It started with accusations from BullRangifer of sockpuppetry from another similar IP.

"Are you attempting to deny that you have deceptively used multiple IPs in violation of our anti-sockpuppet policies? My mentioning that you have done so may be offensive to you, but it's within the bounds of what is allowed here. OTOH, your response is WP:Battleground behavior, which only adds to your offenses. I offered you an olive branch above and this is your response? This is going to end up with your IPs blocked, and if necessary the article(s) protected to block your access to them. I suggest you back off and refactor/delete all of your negative comments which attack me or accuse me of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. If you won't do that, then immediately start an WP:SPI against me. You have to either put up (prove I've done something wrong) or shut up (change your behavior). Once again I'm offering you a way out. If you don't refactor, and don't start an SPI against me, then I'll get you blocked for deliberate and deceptive sockpuppetry. If you want to stay here, please choose the following three-step peaceful solution: 1. refactor; 2. create an account; 3. stop the battleground behavior. BTW, please remember to always sign your talk page comments by using four tildes. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"

99.251.114.120 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This report seems to have no serious merit to it. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 06:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

99.251.114.120, thanks for the (non-existent) notification of this thread. Let's get a few things straight:

Notice is not required according to WP rules and stated in the titles. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. It's in RED letters! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not an admin, but I do have over five years and 34,000 edits to my credit, none of them using bots. I've even survived a spurious RfA, which resulted in my adversary being indefinitely banned by the Wikipedia community. Sometime later I was even vindicated by a revision of an erroneous portion of that RfA. So, yes, I've put in my time and learned a bit around here. I currently have over 7,000 articles on my watchlist (I delete many from time to time), and they are in all types of areas, not just quackery and health fraud related topics like alternative medicine, homeopathy, chiropractic, and TCM.
2. This has nothing to do with anything done by Ronz. I haven't been following his edits closely for some time, so if I ever knew of a complaint, I had forgotten it. This happens to be between the two of us. Nothing more.
3. Ronz isn't a meatpuppet of mine, or vice versa. We just happen to share many of the same interests.
4. When you make a charge against a long-standing and experienced editor like myself, you'd better be able to back it up, so please, pretty please(!!), file that SPI against me! (I'm the peace lover here, and I'll let you continue on your warpath...) I've gotten to the point where I'd love to see you hit by a wikiboomerang, rather than the proverbial doorknob, on your way out.

Doc9871 happens to be right. Indeed, this has no merit. The two IPs are indeed the same person, and the deception became evident when one referred to the other in the third person. I have offered this IP several chances for a peaceful solution, instead of going straight for the throat by filing an SPI. I'm more interested in resolving this peacefully, but will do it if necessary. Right now I hope they just do as you, GenericBob and I have suggested. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, this latest attack on me started here:

• User_talk:BullRangifer/IP_comments#Tit_For_Tat

Check out the links there and follow this user's edits on both IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This happens to be one instance of deception (note both IPs, one referring to the other in third person as "(s)he"). -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As odd is it may seem, there's an outside chance that "162" and "120" might be different people. Both IPs are static and geolocate to different suburbs in the Toronto area. "162" has been editing the article Alkaline diet and its talk page since last August. Then in mid January, "120" drops out of the sky and joins the dispute. It's possible that they both know each other in real life and this is a case of someone "helping out a mate". It's either this or they are the same person. Two random editors living so close to each other using the same ISP who just happen to share the same POV on the same article participating in the same dispute at the same time is just too much of a coincidence to accept. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They locate to the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood area, which is a bit north of Toronto, and not far from Barrie (where I once fell in a motel bathtub and nearly ended a nice vacation in a bad way!). You're right, and there is a bit too much of a coincidence here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IP editors are not allowed to launch sockpuppet investigations. BullRanger attempts to ram thins down my throat that are based on ignorance of WP:rules. This harrassment started when I attempted to make public the editing bias of article Alkaline Diet and Ronz came forward to defend his editing of the edit summaries and the threatened me with various actions. BullRanger started the sockpuppet post on my talk page. I attempted to discuss this with him but he only got nastier. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Another good reason to create an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this misunderstanding was just a misinterpretation of terms by myself (newbie). My apologies to Brangifer for my trangressions and misinterpretations of his apparent helpful and patient responses. Please disregard or remove (close) this section.99.251.114.120 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

All forgiven. The written medium isn't always the best for communication. Let's move on and try to communicate better. Assuming good faith and asking questions is a good way to overcome difficulties. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious editing of new editor?

Resolved

New editor user:Barrot0114 reverted edit on Anti-Pakistani sentiment which is a little unusual since that was his first[176] edit.Diff is given here.[177] The edit summary reads " rv indiscriminate pov push", which is Wikipedia jargon, unusual for a first time editor. Please take necessary action. Barrot0114 has been informedYogesh Khandke (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This user is already added to an SPI for a CU (maybe you want to add your comment there instead), so this would be duplicate report. Btw, even IPs use that jargon. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A SPI as I understand needs a sockmaster, I don't have the vaguest idea who that can be, and I cannot make wild accusations. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about registered or non-registered user; it is about experience, and this bloke looks experienced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You should look at the investigation and the claimed sock master. Then, you should determine whether you think this user is a puppet of that master based on evidence. If you think so, you should add comments to the investigation, paying close attention to DQ's responses to the investigation so far. If not, you should leave it alone. If everything you're saying is based only on your belief that this new account is "experienced", that in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything. The editor could have obtained experience as an IP before registering the account, or, much less likely, could just have paid close attention to how Wikipedia works without editing. Unless you have evidence of sock puppetry, I'd stick to the propriety of the user's edits now.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF - did you stop to consider maybe it was an ex-IP who is now registered, explaining the "experience"? GiantSnowman 17:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant when I said "even IPs use that jargon", but I guess this one is not one of those after all given the SPI comments, though it's not the accused user either. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat. He basically admitted it here[178] He is also edit warring across a lot of articles. Usual stuff for this fellow. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone please block this sock? He has admitted it twice now[179] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Charming comments. Both of the diffs seem to indicate he's a sock, but I don't see him mentioning User:Nangparbat. In any event, you've opened an SPI, so an admin will decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• User has been blocked as a sock. He targets me on a regular basis so there was no doubt in my mind who he was. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

user re-inserting content and against consensus

The SPA User:Persephone19 is re-inserting text where in a discussion a third party also commented against the insertion. A discussion was held on the talk page where a third party agreed with the removal [180]. He has been asked repeatedly to get consensus ([181][182][183]) for his insertions but keeps inserting it. Warning I gave him: [184]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

His re-inserts: [185] [186] [187]

The user is fully aware the material is undue: His original text had the phrase These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available. which is the definition of undue weight to include them [188] as I pointed out to him on the talk page [189]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I know zip about this subject matter. It looks to me like Persephone is trying to push a particular theory or theories into the article that are reflected on their website. They are willing to discuss the issues on the Talk page, but they don't accept your view (and the view of some others) that their theories are "fringe" and unsupported by reliable secondary sources. As an aside, they also remove any warnings from their Talk page. The biggest problem I see for IRWolfie is not enough editors have commented, so it looks more like an argument between IRWolfie and Persephone. The most significant support I see for IRWolfie is from User:Salimfadhley. My instincts tell me that IRWolfie is probably largely correct and Persephone is behaving badly, but it's hard to condemn editors based on instincts alone. I'm also not sure it belongs here - perhaps WP:DR would be more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The main issue is that the editor keeps re-inserting the content when no consensus exists for its insertion; i.e two editors object to it with relevant policy based reasons whilst one is pushing for it. It would be beneficial if he was given some warning to actually engage on the talk page and not re-insert the text whilst consensus does not exist as per WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise dispute resolution also dealt with users. I will bring it over there instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If the essence of your complaint is a content dispute with Persephone involving one article, then it probably doesn't belong here. If you believe there is a pattern of conduct, then it probably would (I'm hedging only because there are always exceptions). Note, too, that there is a separate section in WP:DR on user conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Threat to continue edit war by Mr. J. Lane

In this edit, the user Mr. J. Lane (talk · contribs) threatened to revert back in a few hours which would continue an edit war for which they had previously been warned. I'm about to log off, so wanted to ask others to monitor the article Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to ensure the user does not move on their threat. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The user needs to explain his removal of nearly all the templates from that talk page. --MuZemike 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User also started adding maintenance templates to the article and restoring them with hostile edit summaries after they were deleted, immediately after being warned of 3RR. Sindinero (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dammit! He's already blocked. Good block, whoever did it. OK, thanks, MuZemike--but I was going to click "indefinite" since the user has done nothing but promote some kind of POV, and edit-war. One wonders who this user is, BTW, since it is clear to me it must be an old hand. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

He formerly edited (and was blocked) using this IP:

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

Because of the previous block and return to such behavior so fast, a much longer block would be proper, maybe a month. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

He also admits to being CentristFiasco, who was also blocked for edit warring. He should know that this behaviour is not acceptable by now, and if he doesn't, WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So this is his third account? Send him to Siberia for a year! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Propose indefinite block for both accounts. New account with old pattern is a violation of CLEANSTART if such was ever in the cards; accounts are used only for edit-warring and soapboxing. User seems to have no desire to contribute to the project. Given the doubts already uttered on CentristFiasco's talk page, perhaps a CU should be in order to see if there's any sleepers. PS: If I hadn't declined their unblock request I'd indef them myself, perhaps, but I don't really want to overrule MuZemike and I think the community should speak out (hopefully it can do so quickly). Drmies (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Editor now admits to having been here for two years already (so that's before CentristFiasco) and breaking the rules on purpose. Oh, we're also a bunch of fascists, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree to indef block. He says he's leaving, but it should be on our terms in such a way that he can't return in the near future. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Total support - He just said "I know the Wikipedia Policies all too well and to be perfectly honest with you, I've been here for two Years. Why do I consistency disobey them? They're merely a joke and fascist in nature, that's why." Went on to refer to the idea of consensus as bullshit. He says he's not coming back, but let's help make sure he doesn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Results are in, there's also TheCentristFiasco and XCentristFiasco. This is a long term problematic user, and indeffing all accounts appears to be a good idea. 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As well as asking for a CU, you told him Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco. How are you suggesting that he should do this? He is, after all, blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Blame the template message, not me. Also, the main account was unblocked at the time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't and won't blame the template message. You are responsible for the content of the messages that you leave, whether they are typed by you or come via a template. Please go back to the talk page and add an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And Ian, please try not to gloat. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I seriously only just went to my memopad, copied the template {{subst:uw-socksuspect|SPI subpage|Additional text}} ~~~~, filled in the pagename and removed the additional text field, saved the page and went back to my watchlist (and pie). Could we please assume a little good faith that any laughter I might have made was gleeful pie consumption and not villainous cackling? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions of faith and laughter aside, I am about to take a shower (yes, now it's bathos); when I emerge, I hope to see your explanation appended to (or replacing) the template. If I don't, I'll add one myself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I should be in trouble for using a template on a blocked user, but now that the SPI is pretty much over they need an explanation? What's the point? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You should not be in trouble, yet. As you did not deign to provide an explanation, I did. ¶ What's the point? The point is fairness and reason, and a demonstration of both. ¶ I return to Drmies's point above. In this edit, you appear to suggest that this user would fit 4chan. I doubt that I have a higher opinion of his potential as an encyclopedist than you do, but our opinions are by the way: clearly he takes himself seriously. Lumping him with 4chan on his talk page looks to me like baiting. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Torietoff

Request that an administrator (preferably with some awareness of UK and US politics) review the contributions of Torietoff (talk · contribs) and determine whether further action need be taken. User's contributions have been wholly unsourced, exhibiting a strong point of view expressed in a non-neutral fashion, and in the case of at least two edits ([190], [191]) have strongly resembled outright vandalism, for which they received a final warning some days ago ([192]). --Several Pending (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: User is a serial POV-pusher, and is yet to make a single constructive edit, and displays no sign that they ever will. Shows a tendency towards edit warring as well. An indefinite ban is appropriate under the circumstances. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 07:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated ban vio

Moved to /Top Gun & Darkness Shines

08:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky racist vandalism

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

---

On 24 February, Rí Lughaid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked indefinitely by Jehochman for "Antisemitic, sneaky vandalism"[193] Following discussion on the editor's talk page, he was unblocked on 25 February, with a warning to avoid contentious edits, and not to alter the neutrality of articles.[194]

Since returning, the editor has continued with similar edits; though, as they are interspersed among scores of edits about medieval Irish history, the pattern could be missed. For instance, he added to one article a comment describing LICRA (the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism) as a "Jewish lobby group".[195] On Karl Marx, he argues that to describe Marx as a German is "a great slander against the German people", and that he was really "an internationalist of Jewish ancestry".[196] In several comments on Talk:British people, he argues that novelist Salman Rushdie is "not actually British", a "controversial/hated figure... (who) doesn't even belong to one of the native British ethnic groups", and a "a very controversial person (essentially a polemicist and trouble maker who earned a fatwa and the hatred of most of the Muslim world)". On the article about British deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, one of whose ancestors was a Russian aristocrat, he is demanding that we make sure that this person was "of Germano-Slav Christian stock", since "real Russians don't consider Ashkenazis to be Russian".[[197] On the article about Isaac Bonewits, a leading US pagan of well-attested Polish Catholic origin, he is arguing, with no evidence whatsoever, that he must be described as Jewish rather than Catholic in origin, since he looks Jewish, has a Jewish name, hates conservatism and sells sex toys.[198] On the article about British political activist and journalist Sunder Katwala, he is repeatedly removing the description of the subject as "British". On the article about Sean Penn, he is repeatedly removing the category "people of Russian descent" on the grounds that "by standards of russian culture, (Jews are) not regarded as russian".[199] This editor has made edits to other articles and talk pages of a similar nature.

Although each of these edits may not, in isolation, be sanctionable, there is a clear pattern here, over many articles, of a racist argument that Asians are not legitimate residents of Britain, and that Jews are not legitimate and equal members of any society in which they live. It is clearly repeating the tendentious editing which led to his earlier indefinite block. There is also some evidence of serious sockpuppetry, which I will be happy to provide to any checkuser.

In short, I believe that this editor is a liability to Wikipedia, with an unwelcome racist agenda. He should be blocked, and not permitted to return. RolandR (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RolandR is stalking me around Wikipedia talkpages on any article where I enquire in ambigious cases, whether the subject of the article is of Russian/German/Polish or instead Ashkenazi Jewish descent and that should be mentioned. These groups have specific Wikipedia categories for their different ethnic identities/nationalities; in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews are considered an ethnic heritage and thus if somebody in America or Britain, take David Miliband for example, is of Eastern Europe Jewish background, instead of the rooted nation itself (ethnic Polish/Catholic), then it is standard to put them in such a category. The admin User:Jehochman advised me to raise on the talk first, when I want to change something in this direction and that is all I have done there since being unblocked.

Roland's bizzaro stalking behaviour extends far beyond this however and his other statements outside of the issue of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are deceptive and malicious half-truth, he reverted a simple change I made to the article on Sunder Katwala, who is the editor of New Left magazine and was a leader of the Fabian Society, where I added that the subject is an activist of the "left-wing" in the introduction. On the article on British people, I was confused to see an imagine of Salman Rushdie, somebody born in India of non-Brit ancestry who is very controversial (because of the fatwa against him, he is widely hated in the Muslim world) and enquired on the talk why such a person was in the box and other people agreed to change it.

Roland's oddball behaviour and personal grudge in regards to myself seems to be moviated by his own political views (he openly states on his page that he is a communist) and his racist chauvinism and bitterness against European Christians. PS - One more thing, I almost missed, LICRA is an unambigiously Jewish lobby group in France, similar to the ADL; it is specifically and openly Jewish orientated. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Without going into the ins and outs of this further, I must point out that Rí Lughaid's statement that "if somebody in America or Britain... is of Eastern Europe Jewish background, instead of the rooted nation itself (ethnic Polish/Catholic), then it is standard to put them in such a category" is just plain wrong. We supposedly have a policy of not categorising people by ethnicity (or otherwise) at all unless it is of direct relevance to their notability - sadly though, far too many contributors consider ethno-tagging (based often on nothing more than opinion) to be a legitimate pastime. If this policy were properly enforced, a great deal of unproductive bickering could be avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Although it's tempting to ask Rí Lughaid to provide evidence of Roland's purported "racist chauvinism and bitterness against European Christians" just for the comedy value of it, I think it would be better if an admin made Rí Lughaid go away and have a bit of a lie down for a while before they make any more patently ludicrous statements about other editors. Perhaps Rí Lughaid could be persuaded to focus on other topics. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Taking into consideration that this is his second appearance in three weeks here's the last one, and he was only unblocked on condition of improving behaviour, I have instituted a second indefinite block. Sometimes life is too short. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I've just found [200] which had convinced me that we don't need this editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I believe that this account is a sock of Yorkshirian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). RolandR (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

His unblock appeal stated "I have been unfairly blocked for completely political reasons at the behest of a stalking campaign by European-hating communist Jew (User:RolandR) and a gaggle of Brit'ish co-idealogues". We definitely don't want this guy. I'll take away his talk page privileges, if anyone thinks they should be restored feel free, but that was not a good faith appeal, simply an attack. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:XHolmes claiming to be someone he is not, and uploading images without permission

I posted a message about this at Commons, but I'd like to make sure that the user's Wikipedia account is blocked, so I'll discuss the matter here, as well.

Anyway, User:XHolmes has been adding various images to Chicago-related articles. He claims that the images are his own [201], but at least a few are definitely not. As I wrote at Commons, some of the pictures were previously uploaded to Flickr by a user named Brule Laker. I have emailed Brule Laker, and he told me that he is not associated with XHolmes, and has not given permission for his images to be used.

I suspect that XHolmes' other image uploads are problematic, and his textual contributions may contain copyvios, as well. His editing style reminds me a lot of User:ChicagoHistory1, a blocked user with many alternate accounts. Zagalejo^^^ 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your suspicion is correct: Julia C. Lathrop Homes copies from [202]. MER-C 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. We don't need that sort of behavior here, especially from a clear sockpuppet (whether the master is Chicagohistory or not). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Users vandalising a page

These users: 112.198.90.17, 122.52.137.227 (talk) and 121.54.54.41 (talk), who coincidentally have been warned by many others to stop their vandalism acts. These users have consitently change and mocked up the graphs and sections in the List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines article. They all keep deleting secrtions and replacing them with other movies deeming them as "succesful" eventhough they failed in the box office receipts, they also use unreliable or rather fake sources just so they could try and keep what they have written. I request that you guys ban these users from editing this page or any page at all as they seem like they vandalise other articles as well, I would see ban them for 3-4 weeks tops. Thank you very much :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifightback (talk • contribs) 06:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Prior to looking further into this, the first thing I notice is that User:Ifightback appears to be a self-declared single-purpose account. I also note that the user has not notified the subjects of this discussion, despite being advised to do so at a previous ANI discussion. I'm notifying now. ClaretAsh 06:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And it seems that we have an 'article' which cites no sources at all. None. Nada. Zilch. Please try harder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not unreferenced, there's a "Source' column with links, just not done as references. Dru of Id (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent accusations of vandalism

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

Despite me placing a warning not to (diff: [203]), the above user has persisted in characterising my contributions as "vandalism" (diffs: [204], [205]). He needs to understand why he should stop doing that. -- de Facto (talk). 11:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That second diff doesn't describe your contributions as vandalism at all. Do you have the right diff there? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have pointed out that it is implicit because of the noticeboard it was posted to - the "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" notice board. -- de Facto (talk). 11:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that DeFacto was blocked for the vandalism reported, and has been unblocked subsequently on the basis of his undertaking not to continue the edit-warring which led to the report. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I was blocked for edit warring and NOT vandalism (diff: [206]). -- de Facto) (talk. 11:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto is correct to say that his/her continuous re-insertions against consensus are not vandalism. They are not, as WP:VAND makes abundantly clear. They are however disruptive and tendentious editing which can lead to a block just as easily (and has done, it seems.) This is an editor who is clearly being disruptive - why not just describe his/her edits as such, rather than as vandalism? At any rate, I see no reason to take any admin action here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly cut and dried case here. Charles, stop mis-labelling vandalism - it's clearly not, there's no "intent" to harm the encyclopedia. De Facto, you've been blocked for disruption and have agreed to stop edit warring, I'm glad to see that - but I don't see any sanction is going to happen for Charles here. (Oh, and I suspect this was the second diff you were after [207]) Worm^TT · (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that extra clarification - and the elusive diff. -- de Facto (talk). 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at my editing history. Look at DeFacto's editing history. Draw your own conclusions.--Charles (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked at the diff and the article's edit history and drawn a conclusion: You used Twinkle to give a boilerplate warning. That's a bad idea. For starters, it results in exactly the situation as here. People pick the nearest Twinkle boilerplate, or accidentally hit the wrong selection, or simply pick a choice with no thought at all. This isn't some drive-by person randomly blanking stuff. This is another editor in an article where you yourself have more than just anti-vandalism participation. Don't use Twinkle here. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, we're drawing our own conclusions: as the user of ANY automated tool, you are 100% responsible for the edit. If you're mislabelling things using an automated tool, you're using it incorrectly. Nothing beats good ol' fashioned communication (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

4th Nomination for François Asselineau deletion

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

---

Hello, it is been 4th time that François Asselineau is proposed to deletion by French Wikipédia Admin on the English Wikipédia. If you would like to pronounce yourself on whether the article is well sourced and respect the politician admissibility or not, it would be helpful. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination) Thank you --Lawren00 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the nominator, Jean-Jacques Georges is not administrator in french Wikipédia. BTW, I don’t understand why you created a section here, administrators have nothing to do with editorial issues. Schlum (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No reason for this to be here, though I fixed the link, which pointed to the first AfD over a year ago. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:SadSwanSong

SadSwanSong (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

I have noticed over at Libyan civil war's history that this user has POV pushed something in the aricle 4 times and was reverted by at least three diffrent editors today, part of an ongoing conflict I think, just somthing I thought to bring up here, this was also brought to the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The accusations against me are unfair. I only reverted the deletions of my text three times yesterday. I was engaged in a lengthy discussion about my additions in the article, but some editors continue to with their hard positions of deleting the content that I've added. They claim that sources and materials that are in favor of the Libyan Government cannot be added, but everything that I've added has been clearly attributed and presented only as pro-Gaddafi. Biased sources that represent prominent viewpoints can stay as long as they are attributed, which some editors do not seem to understand. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I cant speak for other editors here but looking at your edit history you appear to be going against consensus alot and making edits breaking WP:3RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he was edit-warring at Libyan civil war but stopped just short of violating 3RR. He made three reversions, not four. Some editors will count the first change, but in this case his first change only added information (although he did move one chunk to a different location without eliminating it); therefore, it didn't "undo" another editor's work. This is a hypertechnical point, though, and doesn't really go to the heart of the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems to be more troubling than the battle at Libyan civil war is a pattern of large edits by SadSwanSong that, at best, are controversial, without first reaching any consensus on the articles' Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This editor is constantly pushing the envelope on every single page to which he contributes. Many of these "contributions" are simply the deletions of large chunks of sourced material without consensus, such as on Genocides in history. Additionally, when asked to discuss edits or called on his POV-pushing, the editor invariably either ignores the request or becomes irate and refuses to negotiate in any way, simply insisting he is right and the other editor should stay out of it. This editing behavior has been consistently disruptive on every article on which I've seen him active. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another edit-war involving the same editor has erupted at German reunification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the central problem here is that the editor seems to feel that making a post on the Talk page telling everyone else how biased they are is a substitute for obtaining consensus. I also notice that all of his edits are markedly biased toward Communist or socialist perspectives. It all combines to indicate an editor who is principally motivated by pushing a particular POV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO this editor thinks that adding a good dose of heavy-handed state propaganda to an article is equivalent to balancing the article. I don't think this is an effective or nuanced approach. You can't balance an article by using a sledgehammer. But back to the point. What remedial action are we seeking from the admins regarding this editor? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say a block for disruptive, POV editing. The duration is up to the blocking admin. If he comes back after the block and continues, then he should be indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the admin inaction so far, I am not seeing it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, sometimes it takes a bit for an admin to respond (unless it's really urgent or immediately grabs someone, there is a tendency to wait for the issue to be fleshed out), and sometimes no one ever responds, and it automatically archives after 24 hours of inactivity.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor just got reverted for adding negative BLP information in a football player's article calling the player a "flop" and re-started the edit-warring on German reunification even as this report is still ongoing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Another BLP-related edit on another football player with partial edit summary: This guy is a FLOP and laughing-stock.. Yet another player called a "flop". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And continuing to edit-war now on National Transitional Council. Does anyone seriously think this wording is an edit made in good faith? Or this? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The allegations above have abused my good faith and have falsely accused me of pushing a point of view. The user above Kudzu1 made the politically motivated remark "Gaddafi was a proven liar" , yet I'm the one who's being accused of pushing a POV? It's interesting that the editors above have not provided their own input in the articles I have edited, but instead resort to insults about POV-pushing. SadSwanSong (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting my edits, Kudzu1. Everything I have cited is well-sourced and clearly attributed. If you don't like a passage's wording, then change it instead of indiscriminately deleting simply because the edit was from me.SadSwanSong (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• CheckUser practically  confirms that this is Jacob Peters (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and given that editing topics match I have blocked the account. Tiptoety ^talk 05:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, problem solved for now. The editor was a sock of the disruptive banned editor User:Jacob Peters. I'm sure he'll be back under some new identity to waste our time some more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found another: 75.80.110.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). See these two edits (seems he forgot to sign in). Made edits to Felix Dzerzhinsky (reverted in full here), same SoCal location as other IPs found to be connected to JP. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And 132.239.90.194. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavenliness

Tonight, I discovered a series of vandalizing edits to Look at Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These all seem to stem from the actions of Heavenliness (talk · contribs)/Dj Heavenliness (talk · contribs), and his multitude of IPs: 2.146.40.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.178.164.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 2.146.194.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). A huge chunk of the histories of Look at Me and now Look at Me (Mirrors song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) probably need to be scrubbed of this guy's self promoting edits, and Third eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Third Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Third eye (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. This guy also made Template:Suffix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is just a copy-paste of wikt:heavenly.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And he just vandalized Look At Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is clearly not someone here to build an encyclopedia. Can he be taken care of?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had to report him to AIV. However, I still believe there needs to be a cleanup effort of he mess he has made, or an indefinite block if the AIV admin is lenient.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was just hit with his attempt to post his self-made album.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours - which can and should be escalated if the editing does not improve after this time. I realise in this case the editor would likely not have heeded, but they really should have been told about the report here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I notified User:Heavenliness, as that was the account he was currently editing from.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, we still need to clean up all the crap he's made in page histories.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed

• Wiqi55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since I had Wiqi55's page on my watchlist, I happened to notice that he had broken 1RR again at Islam on March 11. You can see the details at User talk:Wiqi55#Your unblock condition from December. Wiqi55 was at the center of a lot of turmoil in late 2011. Since he has broken a 1RR that he accepted as a condition of unblock in December 2011, and this is the second time it has happened since December, a decision is needed on what (if any) admin action to take. My idea would be to restore last year's indefinite block with the right of appeal in three months. I am planning to notify the admins whose names appear in his block log to see if they want to comment here, but except for that I'll leave the decision to others.

Articles about Islam tend to be controversial. We are better off applying sanctions in that area as uniformly as possible. Restoring the indef would (on paper) be fully justified and I am unaware of reasons that might exist for mitigation. Per the unblock condition, "Any 1RR violation after warning will result in a reinstatement of the indefinite block." There is already a complaint at Wiqi55's page about 'showing leniency' to Wiqi55. An alternative would be a topic ban of Wiqi55 from Islam. That seems impractical since that's the only area he contributes to.

The box below contains all the links of previous noticeboard discussions.

Links to ANI and AN3 where Wiqi55's behavior was discussed

ANI, June 2011 3RR, 11 October 2011. First occurrence of the dispute at Abdullah ibn Saba'. ANI, 18 October 2011. Second occurrence of the dispute at Abdullah ibn Saba'. (See Talk:Abdullah ibn Saba'/Archive 1 for background on this dispute. Search for Wiqi55's name.) 3RR, 20 October 2011. Third occurrence of the dispute at Abdullah ibn Saba'. 3RR, 9 November 2011. Blocked 60 hours for edit warring at Abdullah ibn Saba'.

— EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

• As the admin who gave Wiqi55 his first second chance in November, I think it's pretty clear he has violated the terms of the unblocking then. His habit of removing talk page sections[208][209][210] where his behavior has been addressed and his recent denial of any wrongdoing is troubling as it seems the intent is to cover it up. Can't see any way out but restoring the indefinite block at this point, he's been given a few second chances and goes right back to the same behaviors. --WGFinley (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• If i had violated the 1rr rule, admins would ban me straight away, as that is my unblock condition. if he isnt banned, i hope that if it happens that i somehow break the 1rr rule, then i should be shown leniency like wiqi55. if not then wiqi55 should be banned indefinitely ! I hope for some consistency and fairness from mods. Isnt Wikipedia supposed to be 1 rule for all? sigh..--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• The next steps were obvious: he knowingly broke a 1RR restriction that was a condition of unblock. I have blocked indefinitely according to those agreements. They acknowledged that they 100% understood what 1RR meant, so there's no chance to claim ignorance here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't recall interacting with this user directly, but I've read some archived discussion in which he was involved. His contributions struck me as pretty tendentious and quite out of line with respect to NPOV. As some have said in the COI RfC, we should take action against editors which do this repeateadly, regardless of whether they disclose a COI or not. I wasn't aware of any restrictions he might have been under until I saw this thread, but to see him violate past agreements does not surprise me much. I support administrative action seeking to reform him. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:89.150.149.210

I am seeking your advice on how to deal with an anon editor that insists on inserting his own preferred formulation of a sentence in an otherwise rather innocent article. The story concerns all the IP's contributions, which consist of inserting the same phrasing again and again.

To summarize: I have reverted the IP's first edit, stating that the change was unnecessary, and got myself reverted without explanation. I reverted again and posted a warning on the IP's talk page, explaining that the change was not constructive. Yet, the IP reverted me again, this time stating that "Saying " Scandinavian capitals" Is the same as saying European capitals.", which really does not make sense to me. As I reverted once more I explained in the edit summary that the article would already say it was "Scandinavian capitals", and which – as it already specifically points out Oslo and Stockholm – was more than sufficient, and I further explained that the proposed change to "the two Scandinavian capitals" would imply that there were only two Scandinavian capitals. I also posted a 3RR warning on the IP's talk page, further explaining that "Your text is neither necessary nor helpful nor even correct in its formulation, stating that there are "the two" Scandinavian capitals when there are three. It is also a violation of WP:UNDUE." To no avail. I was then seeking third-party input, posting on the talk page and asking for WP:3O, the latter which resulted in an advise to try resolve the issue here instead.

Let me stress that my seeking for advice is in a lesser part on which formulation is better. It is more on how to deal with an editor that does not contribute constructively to an article but insists on rewriting parts of it in his own preferred way. Nageh (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems to be trying to parallel "in the two North American capitals of Mexico City and Ottawa"; not that they are the only two, but not the only two. Imperfectly, but frustrated (and knows the point he's trying to make is right). Some count Copenhagen as a fourth. Dru of Id (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP WP:BOLDly inserted text for clarification, you Reverted, and didn't post to the talk page; reverted a second time, then warned them; reverted a third time and warned the IP to use the talk page (when you hadn't yourself); posted to talk, asked for a third opinion and notified the IP, responded to the IP, started here, and notified the IP. Note that you've been 1 revert ahead of the IP since the beginning. Dru of Id (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Duh, how can anyone think they are the only Scandinavian capital cities? Yes, I am aware of the different geographical and political interpretations of Scandinavia, but there are at least 3 capital cities. Well, I didn't see that, particularly because the edit was grammatically wrong (they are not the two of the Scandinavian capitals as the IP had it). So I reverted the IP's edit both for this reason and because the second change, adding the country names to the capital city names was unnecessary and bad writing style, particularly in the form of putting them in parentheses. So I think stating the reason for reverting in the edit summary was appropriate, and it was not out of ignorance of WP:BRD. However, simply reverting without providing a reason, as the IP did, was inappropriate, IMHO.

And I need to reiterate my question: If there is no improvement in article text are we forced to accept an unconstructive edit simply because the initial reverter will always be one revert ahead? I am referring to the second change here. Nageh (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not important, in the context of wireless communications, that the cities are capitals at all. I am taking that bit out. Hopefully that will end the edit war. Your question is one of the imponderables of the wiki; how to deal with users who cannot or will not be reasoned with? I know not. You should have notified the IP that you brought the problem to this board. I have now done so. --Dianna (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the article edit! A simple yet elegant solution (hopefully)! Nageh (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

202.176.14.74

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hrs for edit warring Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

202.176.14.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be rather abusive in his edit summaries of Royal College, Colombo history/edit summaries Jim1138 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also this on User talk:Anna Frodesiak [211] Jim1138 (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He is indeed being abusive. He keeps undo-ing reverts constantly. He is not contributing Nobletripe (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Tomtomn00

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:Tomtomn00 received several complaints about misusing an automated tool (STiki) (reverting good faith edits as vandalism), and about revealing too much personal information about himself on his userpage; user continues to do the same things and even wonders if he'll get to be an admin if he continues to make 500+ edits a day. I don't know if a block is warranted right now but he needs a serious warning at least. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not belive in getting admin by that cause, or by bad edits. Also, I have had some comments about the edit summary I used at first with STiki, which was the default. Due to this I changed the edit summary I use currently. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And something also needs to be done about the watermarks on the images he has uploaded. →Στc. 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am currently removing them. Hopefully my Wi-Fi will be fast enough. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am one of those that has put a notice on Tomtomn00's userpage. I have since checked his edits after I put a couple of notices on his talkpage and he appears to be taking note of what I said. He needs to go slower, he needs to consider his edits and he needs some mentoring. Although I concur that he has made some bad edits, I think with guidance he will make a good editor in due course. I am sure the fact he has been listed here will also act as a salutory lesson. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried as well as I could to follow that advice you gave me. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:TROUT for Jeraphine for posting to this forum advertising the userpage of a young editor who revealed too much information about themselves and "continues to do so" (this seems an increasingly worrying trend, twice in the last week already, do you people not think before posting here?), cookies for Richhoncho for giving positive advice and then following up on it in a positive way, and Tomtomn00 advised to spend large amounts of time learning about Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Resources (Depending on how fast that works, re-read WP:NOTVAND in the meantime). Then I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As if posting here actually increased any dangers; yalls seem to think it's a-okay to keep his userpage the way it is. Makes sense. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

His userpage is under considerable scrutiny from a sufficient number of people who, by all accounts, know what they're doing. And yes, posting it here brings it to the attention of maybe a hundred times more people, of whom some don't know what they're doing, and some would be better off not doing what they do. Possibly you weren't to know this - I'm sure it was mentioned in earlier versions of the editing notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about "scrutiny", I brought this here for action to be taken. I made my own judgement call and decided that posting about the issue here won't do any additional damage. Either way it's pointless to keep arguing about that now. I vote that it would actually be insisted this time that he wouldn't post personal information about himself and that the existing material be oversighted. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The oversighters have substantial leeway in identifying material that needs oversighting (there are means for appeal, of course, and I've assisted successfully in that process before). This is not the place for debate as to what material should or should not be oversighted (for obvious reasons); you see the email address for oversight every time you edit this page, together with advice not to discuss such material here. (Did you miss that advice?) If you have emailed oversight and your insistences are rejected, then you should write in confidence to the arbitration committee, who are entrusted by the community to deal with such difficulties. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You "vote" - but Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I know. It's just a way of saying "this is my (final) stance on the matter". Whatever the consensus is, I've made myself clear. Won't argue here endlessly. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To get back on topic, the user in question has asked me to adopt him, which I haver gladly accepted. He looks like he does want to improve and be constructive, which is great and we should certainly encourage that. If no one else minds, I'm closing this discussion, as Tomtomn00 is now taking positive steps and to improve as an editor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Lawrence Goldfarb

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

---

I've been in an edit war for months with User:Popandlockitfool in regard to the content of the Lawrence Goldfarb article. He has been doing disruptive edits, blanking out sections, and at one point also flagged the page to be deleted. I've invited him to peaceful discussion on the talk page, but I am usually met with an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Somehow it seems like this person has a personal vendetta against the Lawrence Goldfarb article. I've contacted the administrator Slon02 on 3 separate occasions for advice, and at one time it was even required that the page be protected from edits. He's finally suggested I come here to discuss the issue. Is there any way to ban him or somehow prevent him from continually doing disruptive edits? Feversleeved (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both of you seem to have only one interest here--Mr. Goldfarb. Fool's edits seem to mainly remove stuff from the article, whereas you are also adding things like links on Amazon for his books. I wonder what the actual article looks like. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• OK, Fool is not going to get banned for anything. If anything, they deserve a barnstar for reverting this edit of yours--it is clear that you are consistently confusing Wikipedia with a social networking site or a resume database. I think this case can be closed: there is no administrative intervention required here; if anything, we need the occasional eye on the Goldfarb article. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for backing me up here Drmies. Goldfarb and his employees have been trying to turn wikipedia into his personal vanity page for months and I would apprechiate the occasional eye. Every time I left a pretty fair page and every time they complained. If you thought the edit I reverted before was bad, check out the way the page looked before I ever touched it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_R._Goldfarb&diff=456087630&oldid=456080042. Look at the external links, the awards table, and the first paragraph. I mean COME ON. --Popandlockitfool (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Mr. Goldfarb has over twenty years of expertise in investment banking, trading, and law. He is an avid skier, tennis player, and equestrian, as well as an accomplished jazz pianist." That's pretty sweet for a lead. The only thing missing from that lead was a description of his sexual prowess and his philanthropy. Fool, if you wish to avoid the perception that you're a Goldfarb h8er or that you have nothing better to do, you can always consider a note on the appropriate noticeboard if things get out of hand again, or a note on the talk page of BLP warriors such as User talk:Youreallycan. I propose that the next admin who walks by closes this. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Persephone19

I started a previous ANI where I was directed to DRN. DRN [212] are now redirecting me back here as the user is still edit warring without discussion. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Quantum_mind Here are his re-inserts: [213] [214] [215] [216]. Here is the talk page discussion about the re-inserting text against consensus: Talk:Quantum_mind#Bad_Style. Here is the warning I gave some days ago: [217]. I can't find the original ANI discussion in the archives for some reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Orginal discussion can be found here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I feel bad about this because I was the one who suggested to IRWolfie that he try dispute resolution. User:Lord Roem directed him back here because he said it was "a disruptive pattern of a user's conduct" (I believe Roem means a "pattern" in one article). I'm not convinced Roem is correct, but there's no doubt that IRWolfie is trying to do the right thing. In the previous ANI discussion, no admin responded. Perhaps an admin could respond this time - or at least another editor besides me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sock on a proxy

Resolved

[218] I have reported him at SPI but I would like him blocked now please. There is no doubt this is Nangparbat, first edits are to revert me and restore the content of his last sock Barrot0114. His edit summaries are also the same revert vandal He also has a habit of writing Stop vandalizing Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sock + proxy blocked by Reaper Eternal Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oldsunnygirl

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.

---

For the last nine months or so, User:Oldsunnygirl has been repeatedly including content like this Spanish orthography, which are both factually inaccurate and contrary to the intended presentation of the table in question. Requests to discuss the issue or cease re-introducing the edits have been ignored. I'm not really sure what sort of action would be necessary to stop the user's I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• There was no other option, in my opinion, also given the block log: editor is indefinitely blocked. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request IP block for naughty school

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.

---

208.108.91.156 contribs talk

A block until the end of the school year (or more) in that location is indicated. Maybe next year the teachers would be supervising the little darlings, or they can just sign up. Penyulap _talk 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. One edit of minor vandalism (the first in nearly 2 years) is not grounds to block. Add to that the fact that long-term IP blocks are discouraged, and it's not the time. Neitehr is is the place - in future, should it continue, please use WP:AIV. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

no problem, thank you. Penyulap _talk 19:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Youreallycan

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:Youreallycan accuses me and User:Silverseren to support pedophiles.[219] I see that as an serious insult. Could someone help him to get some manners or at least remove this kind of comment from the history? --Niabot (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Tarc (talk · contribs) was the original accuser, Youreallycan (talk · contribs) just translated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally nothing here. Collect (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Related but not related to the discussion on Jimbo's page, the statment remove yourself from the entire wikipedia project as imo your contributions are a net loss is pushing the WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA definition a good bit further than it should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think CIVIL violations are anything but an old hat in relation to Youreallycan/Off2riorob. *shrugs* A simple ANI archive search proves that one. Silverseren^C 20:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• - I would as is usual prefer notification if I am to be reported or discussed at ANI - anyway , I support all my comments and the discussion complete is here - please read the whole report and discussion in situation and in context - User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Global policy on child protectiion - Youreallycan 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • But really, YRC, can't you just assume that you're being discussed at any given time on ANI? *gd&r* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do keep an eye out, as in the past - in the early days of my editing, an email from (****) to his mate (*********) and I was blocked before I had been reported at ANI never mind I even had time to comment or had been notified - all those users have been dysopped or left or been severely restricted at Arbitration now though - happily - those days from two years ago are behind us and imo general NPOV uninvolved administration is greatly improved since then - Youreallycan 21:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about my statements in that discussion either. Niabot's disgusting attitude at Commons regarding Beta M have now come to en.wiki. It needs to be called out. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Bad behaviour by an admin

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

---

See User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Collecting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, Alan needs to explain how an article that contains an entire section on how it is 'collectable' doesn't belong in the collectables category; amongst many others. And yes, I said tough shit.Dreadstar ☥ 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And I will if you give me a chance. I am having trouble getting a word in edgeways on my talk page because of the edit conflicts. Anyway you behaviour is appalling, even more so since you are an administrator, and it is preventing me from doing the actual work of improving WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, I hate to go up against one, maybe two heavy hitters, but what is this doing at ANI? Alan, do you want us to block someone for being a jerk? (I take it that's your take.) Drmies (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What do I do about the behaviour that I am being subjected to? By an administrator no less! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

HOG OILERS this is about? Talk about WP:LAME.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The behaviour of Dreadstar is completely unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've only just begun making a list. Dreadstar ☥ 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just an edge away from a threat to continue disruption. Please consider this a warning (which will be duplicated on your talk page). - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no idea what you are playing at. Do you think editing is some sort of game? Is this a vendetta? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Alan has been removing the collectable category from many articles that clearly fall under collectables, if any of you think my reversal of those removals is disruption, a game or a vendetta, then I invite you all to ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What I think is that your responses here are not helping to get the content issue solved, and are making it less likely that an appropiate outcome will, err, come out anytime soon. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And I clearly explained my rationale at Category talk:Collecting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaron, I'm not sure what you expect, I didn't bring it here and I feel Alan is wrong. I have no idea what you're threatening me for. Please explain to me exactly what I'm doing that is sanctionable. Dreadstar ☥ 23:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Blindly reverting Alan's edits, including edits which have nothing to do with your collectable dispute, is certainly disruptive. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(I really hate that this is in two places.) If you really want, I'll go and dig up ArbCom principles about how we're supposed to respond when someone says "admin abuse." The fact that you haven't actually used the tools, or that you didn't bring this here, are les important than the fact that you're fanning the flames. Someone is upset, don't go out of your way to make them more upset. It's disruptive. Disruption is "sanctionable". - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll let you folks handle it. Have fun. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be reopened, Dreadstar has not stepped away, so the reason for its closure is patently false. 86.** IP (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that prolonging this discussion was unlikely to lead anywhere productive. I have warned Dreadstar that further tendentious editing of the sort seen over the last few hours would lead me to block him. He has not abused his admin tools, but can you imagine him/her passing an RfA after tonight's display of disruptive editing? I believe admins need to set a good example to others and this was not it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Kumioko block

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.

---

• Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ShmuckatellieJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.163.243.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.162.8.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kumioko has been abusing multiple accounts, and I have just blocked him for it. I'm requesting a block review; if the community feels I'm being too harsh I'm happy to reduce any of blocks. Essentially, since he "retired" on February 27, he's been trolling and rehashing old battles as 71.163.243.232 (sometimes referring to Kumioko in the third person, sometimes not) while simultaneously "clean-starting" and pretending to be a new user as ShmuckatellieJoe and 138.162.8.58.

In accordance with the sock puppetry policy, I have:

• blocked the (new) primary account, ShmuckatellieJoe, for a week.
• blocked Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot (the "retired" accounts) indefinitely.
• blocked 71.163.243.232 and 138.162.8.58 for a month. I would have blocked those indefinitely were they not IPs, and if, after the blocks expire, Kumioko continues to use them as good hand/bad hand IPs, I plan to reblock for longer.

I don't care if he takes a clean start with no connection to the Kumioko account, but he can't simultaneously do that while trolling and fighting with Kumioko's old foes as an IP. One of many examples is on this page, where he first approaches User:Markvs88 as "new editor" ShmuckatellieJoe/138.162.8.58 ("Question about a reversion"), and then comes back as 71.163.243.232 ("I hope your happy") to rant at Markvs88 about Kumioko. I think a 1 week block for the (now) primary account and longer blocks for the socks is quite reasonable but as I said above, I'm happy to reduce them if there's consensus for that. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I disagree with is not blocking the new account indef as well. An actual cleanstart account is one thing; this was just a sock created to further old grudges. This person, whatever account they're using, should be blocked. Period. → ROUX ₪ 19:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot haven't edited since February 28. Kumioko has stated that he is 71.163.243.232 and this IP started editing after the last edits of Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot. Is ShmuckatellieJoe actually Kumioko? I don't know, but it should be taken to SPI before a block is handed out to that editor. Long story short, if Kumioko, ShmuckatellieJoe and the "old foes" just stop responding and placing messages on each persons talk pages, this thing will go away. It takes two to tango and everyone is dancing. Kumioko and "old foes", please don't respond here, it just will make things worse. Just walk away.... Bgwhite (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person. Kumioko has accidentally edited logged in as ShmuckatellieJoe a couple of times, "ShmuckatellieJoe" has accidentally edited logged out as 71.163.243.232, and 71.163.243.232 has stated plainly that they are Kumioko. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oi vey as I shake my head in disgust. You were right to put a block on. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I'll defer to User:28bytes as to the block itself. I AGF that 28bytes was doing appropriate mopping. However, I'm confused as to the length of the block, raised the point on that sysop's talk page, and was cordially invited to comment here. To my eyes, Kumioko (an editor of legendary bot-like productivity, if sometimes dramatic) has burnt out, needs and deserves a good long rest. If the editor chooses not to return, then we can all look back on his 300,000+ edits and say he really helped the pedia. But if several months or even years from now he feels his gumption rise enough and misses the back-and-forth, I'd like to think the editor could choose to edit under his original account name. A cleanstart after 300K edits seems absurd. I'd ask 28bytes to modify the block length to a shorter period, say 30-90 days. If the editor has chosen to work under a different name or an ip and has been abusing the policy, then a block is certainly in order. An indefinite block seems harsh to me, given the editor's long and positive history here. BusterD (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I keep wondering how to bring Kumioko back into the fold, but right now it doesn't really look like he wants to. Agree with everything 28bytes did, including the 1 week rather than indef block on the new incarnation, but I have a sinking feeling I know where this is headed, and if old fights continue to be re-fought, we shouldn't let it go on. An SPI wasn't needed here, as the new account self-identified, but if someone wants to file one for posterity, no one is stopping them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - obviously, Kumioko has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and use sockpuppets to disrupt the project. We should never let old fights go on and I have a bad feeling about this. I support 28bytes' reasoning behind his block of Kumioko's accounts. So with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - and I'd be concerned that Kumioko's userpage verges on being uncivil in places, especially with regards to photos and captions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Clearly an appropriate block. Being a long-term editor does not give you leave to make abusive sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Wow could this guy make a bad situation any more worse...first he says he is going to keep edit warring....then he uses his bot account to evade the block....now socking....If he would have just relaxed and discussed none of this would have been necessary. Such a shame that he couldn't hold his temper or whatever it is that has lead him to this. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block I reverted the IP edits and semied his userpage --Guerillero | My Talk 20:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• {{Checkuser needed}} Per Floquenbeam's suggestion and ShmuckatellieJoe's comment here, I believe that a checkuser would be good for posterity and/or alt sleeper accounts.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me (which is my way of saying "I probably wasn't clear"). This edit shows pretty convincingly that they're the same person. I don't think a checkuser is needed to link these accounts; all I meant is that if someone wanted to tie them together for posterity in an SPI, instead of here, they're welcome to. A checkuser might be willing to check for sleepers, but (and I could be wrong) that doesn't strike me as Kumioko's style. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd still do a checkuser even though I hear a flock of ducks quacking. It's good idea to do everything proper while handing out a block just in case... Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I've declined ShmuckatellieJoe's unblock request, and locked his talk page for the duration of the 1 week block. Anyone is free to overturn that without my acquiescence if they think it wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Good choice, Floquenbeam -- that level of "who, lil' ol' me" shouldn't be encouraged.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: Kumioko and I have had our differences, but I've respected his contributions as a fellow editor. I would welcome him back to the community at a later date, but he needs to let go of this grudge. In short, if he can let the past be the past, he's welcome back. If he decides to make a clean start to come back, that's fine so long as he makes a clean break with the grudges and drama. For now, regrettably based on his own actions, the blocks are appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you, this was long overdue. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• It saddens me it has come down to this, but I'm not wholly surprised. I was on the receiving end of some ranting, distortions, and accusations from him not so long ago. I didn't bother responding because I thought he was just stressed out. Alas, using sockpuppets for WP:THERAPY is taxing the other Wikipedians too much. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Kumioko should not have socked to continue a fued with others, so the block is valid. -BUT- I've read through all the stuff that happened and I could see that Kumioko was hurt. Deeply hurt. Xe almost certainly felt that enwp had his back, and when that didn't happen during the recent WPUS kerfuffle, xe got upset. Not excusable, but certainly understandable. Kumioko is a long time editor with a good name. Here'e the BIG FAIL. Kumioko was sanctioned, but nobody else was. We, as experienced Wikipedians, should have broke up the fight and sent everybody to their respective corners, not just a single combatant. Kumioko is a good Wikpedian who has done a lot of good work on articles, but more importantly, xe's been kind and helpful to new users and IPs and that is a great value to the project.
  

Suggestion: I'd like to see an interaction ban between all the participants in the recent kerfuffle to hopefully end this drama. I'd also like to see people offer words of encouragement to Kumioko after the block is over rather than threats of sanctioning. Yes, enwp is not WP:THERAPY, but maybe it could be just this one time. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for your understanding. 64.40.62.84 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why other sanctions are needed here. Unfortunately, while Kumioko was a good Wikipedian, and I was one of the ones who respected him, that went downhill in a sudden blaze of fire. The pun to 'burning your bridges' is intended. I think we would need plenty of diffs before any sort of sanctions on others were applied. And incidentally, who are you? Did you edit while logged out? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a talk page restriction for a short while? I think all the messages, even the well-intentioned ones, are only enflaming the situation. I'm not logged out, I never wanted an account, so I show up as an IP (dynamic). I just chacked and much of this is me, for those that are curious. 64.40.62.84 (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. Period. Either you contribute or you don't; we're not the psychiatrist (not even Lucy) and we're not a social network. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Al-Andalusi not participating to resolve conflict (on purpose in my opinion)

In the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article, Al-Andalusi added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute on the talk page, but wanted to here al-Andalusi's view first.(see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved and hasnt even responded even in last 8 months.

Given this user is not trying to resolve the issue, just blatantly tagging them (to get me to revert it, which is why i think his doing it, like he did last time which got me banned due to edit war), I would like this user to be either banned from editing that article or forced to participate to resolve the issue. We can hear all his arguments here for tagging.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No-one can draw you into an edit war: that's entirely your choice. It's highly concerning that you've returned to the same kind of disputes which led to your two indef blocks, and seem to be picking up where you left within days of the most recent block being lifted. I can see no evidence of you having discussed this anywhere, and coming straight to ANI to demand that admins either ban Al-Andalusi from this article or be force him or her to discuss it with you is rather unhelpful. Your posts on my talk page and the talk page another admin asking that we block Wiqi55 (talk · contribs) ([220], [221]) are also concerning, as are your posts asking admins to weigh in on a content dispute ([222], [223], [224], [225]) instead of first trying to resolve this with the other involved editors. As a very blunt warning; you are on a path to having your block reinstated as you have returned to the conduct which led to the blocks in the first place and are basically in breach of your restriction against disruptive conduct. There is no need to generate all this drama as you are asking for admins to weigh in on matters you haven't properly tried to resolve for yourself. I strongly suggest that you move away from the areas in which you're involved in disputes, and focus on writing articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am assuming you did not read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expedition_of_Ghalib_ibn_Abdullah_al-Laithi_(Al-Kadid)#Dispute , it shows i have been trying to resolve this issue for 8 months (he never participated or even comments) ! Where did i return to the same actions. I am trying to PREVENT returning to the same action ! "

"I strongly suggest that you move away from the areas in which you're involved in disputes, and focus on writing articles", good advice, that is what am intending to do. I am just putting this in the back of my head. I am going to concentrate on creating more military related articles to be featured of wikipedias front page. Once I finish Muhammad's military history related articles, i plan on moving to some other areas.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Al-Andalusi says on his talk page:

My concerns were clearly stated at the time on the talk page (which I started btw). In addition, another editor (Wiqi55) raised another issue regarding the references. So I'm afraid I don't have time for this "he got me banned" drama.

I dont think this is a helpful attitude, he says he contributed and participated, that was right at the start, here, and it was just an argument. No dispute resolution. This was actually a dispute resolution where someone offered to mediate. He refuses to take part--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss the matter with them. An eight month old post followed by an ANI report lodged almost as soon as your block was lifted isn't dispute resolution: it's disruptive conduct. See also WP:STICK. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked 1 month by Floquenbeam. If talk page abuse occurs, you know the drill.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This IP, 71.195.125.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just threatened the life of an editor.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As death threats are considered personal attacks, which are not tolerated, the IP must be blocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I saw that; did you report to emergencywikimedia.org? Honestly though, obvious troll is obvious. Immediate block please, per Sjones23.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Troll or not, death threats like the one he posted should always be taken seriously and reported. Salvidrim! 04:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Typical childishness as indicated by the latest edit to that user's talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• It's just vandalism, I wouldn't bother with WMF's emergency email. Blocked for a month; they've been doing this for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks. I was not aware of any history of the user.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Also, I have already reported the death threat in question to the WMF. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless these kids start abusing the talk page, I think we're done here.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I guess that's fair enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • yeah that's fine. Just for the record, I did not send anything to the WMF's emergency email. Racerx11 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, closing.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Thomas Jefferson

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

---

Without initially naming names, the Thomas Jefferson talk page has, in my opinion, been difficult concerning the discussion of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Discussion has often turned into caustic argumentation and bullying of opinions on dissenting or differing opinions. Personal attacks seems to be the norm rather then respectful discussion on the subject matter. Editors team up on other editors and appear to be in collusion of opinion with each other. What can be done to stop the bullying, sarcastic argumentation, and Ad hominem insults? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Probably nothing short of empaneling several experienced editors who don't particularly care about the subject to come up with a consensus on some of these phrasings. Ravenswing 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ravenswing. This has been attempted many times without any conclusions. Certain editors accuse the article is biased and will not compromise until their views are in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best remedy is having an administrator or administrators monitor the Thomas Jefferson talk page and control the situation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not the job of administrators to be arbitrators of peace. Admins are only equipped with tools to enforce policy and consensus. Yes the situation has gotten out a bit heated on that talk page, but if policies such as WP:Civil or WP:3RR have been breached, then perhaps those situations should be dealt with individuality. Until then just keep up the discussion and eventually a compromise should be reached.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If administrators are not the arbitrators of peace then who can be? If Wikipedia asks people to be nice in the discussion page without enforcing the policy that would be an open door to bullying and teaming up on other editors. Yes, things would be nice if editors obey Wikipedia rules, however, without enforcement rational conversations are impossible. Editors who do not listen to reason and act without kindess are not going to change on their own. What then is the point of being an administrator, if other editors are allowed to control the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any Administrators who can enforce Wikipedia policies that forbids personal attacks and ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's with the bickering. Jefferson's having a child with Hemmings, isn't an impossibilty. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is control of the article and personal attacks. I believe there needs to be a referee to monitor the article. At least an administrator could ask people to be polite. I can't edit in the article, since I believe editors are ganging up on other editors. I believe there needs to be some support from administrators to get the talk page under control. Jefferson having children by Sally Hemings is a huge controversy in the U.S. among historians and Wikipedia editors. Enforcing Wikipedia policy would be extremely helpful for the article discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are any Wikipedia administrators going to enforce ownership prohibition and or stop personal attacks on the Thomas Jefferson talk page? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not. This. Again. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the personal attack. Could you link to a diff of the personal attack that violates guidelines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Cmguy777, if you have specific examples of WP:OWN or specific examples of personal attacks, those can be dealt with here on an individual basis. If you want sanctions against such behavior in general, that would be an ArbCom matter, but only if you've already exhausted the dispute resolution process. Admins can't really just hover over an article to jump on every PA that happens there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is when cmguy's sourcing or wording is questioned he considers them personal attacks and article ownership, but never answers the questions. In some cases he's posted things that I've asked him to clarify because they're confusing to me. Those are ignored too. He recently stormed off the talk page because of these perceived policy violations. Brad (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked at a couple weeks' worth of commentary and find nothing extreme or actionable. It seems to me that the complainant filed this thread as a consequence of not getting this way; they are encouraged to accept whatever consensus is reached there and to drop the stick. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for User:DeFacto

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

---

Hello. Some more drama, perhaps, to get less disruption. User:DeFacto is having a hard time understanding that "consensus" doesn't mean "everyone has to agree". They've been wanking on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom for days now, refusing to accept a complete and utter consensus on some minor issue in the article. In the meantime, Todd came by to close two discussions there, and then was nice enough to nip another attempt by DeFacto in the bud at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. DeFacto doesn't seem to get that there isn't a dispute, and they are taking up too much time and community resources. I request that DeFacto be issued a topic ban requiring them to stay at least a Swedish mile away from the Metrication article and its talk page. Of course, if anyone finds it in their hearts to add a block for a couple of weeks for persistent disruptive editing, that would be nice as well. But please, tell DeFacto to stay away from that article and its talk page. Tack so mycket. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we make that a topic ban on metric v imperial units in any article please? Otherwise he will just take his flying circus of disruption to another page as he did to Hindhead Tunnel.--Charles (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This editor has caused immeasurable disruption over a prolonged period, not just at Metrication in the United Kingdom and Hindhead Tunnel, but also in numerous other places such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Introduction to the metric system. Never before have I seen such a clear example of WP:IDHT. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like a WP:Witchhunt, and is unseemly. I disputed that a consensus discussion had properly finished, yes, that was my strong opinion at the time. But let's move on now, there is still a lot of work required on that article. -- de Facto (talk). 07:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I would support a topic ban for DeFacto on topics broadly constructed having to do with metric v imperial units. I realize DeFacto says he's learned here, but his/her rejecting such a broad consensus so emphatically and in such an indurate manner was an extreme position that a minor correction won't change. It caused significant disruption affecting numerous editors and has continued for months an extended period before it was forced to a head. It speaks volumes about the interpersonal skills or perhaps more succinctly, the lack of on-wiki communication skills of this editor. I don't think this is a witch hunt, rather a measured reaction to an extremely problematic situation. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That event though is history now, and lessons have been learnt. The discussion, resulting in the removal of a paragraph from that article, lasted about 5 days. Last time there was a proposal to remove that same paragraph, from that same article, the disussions lasted about 2 months, and the paragraph was kept. It is a paragraph that uniquely seems to divide opinion and disproportionately stir the emotions in many. Not excuses, just mitigating circumstances. -- de Facto (talk). 13:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Modified proposal: DeFacto be topic-banned from articles (and their talk pages) which, broadly construed, involve a discussion of metric vs. imperial units. This is supported, if I read them correctly, by all three (III) editors who have weighed in so far--User:Charlesdrakew, User:David Biddulph, and User:Toddst1, besides myself. I encourage tweaks. My first proposal was an ell off, but I feel we're inching towards the proper phrasing. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Support perhaps a slight reword towards any content changes that broadly construed, involve a discussion of metric vs. imperial units. But the wording is almost there. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that User:Toddst1, an administrator involved in this action and in the dispute that preceded it, has resorted to canvassing all the editors (diffs: [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231]) who opposed my views in the recent bitter consensus dispute in Metrication in the United Kingdom for their opinion on whether I should get a topic ban for that article! This, I would say, is with the intention of influencing the outcome of this discussion in a particular way. -- de Facto (talk). 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's why I included VsevolodKrolikov and Alpha Quadrant who are not folks that you have made your adversaries. Unfortunately, the number of folks with experience on this issue that you've made your adversaries far outnumbers the others - which speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Six to two then (and one of the two is inactive!). So why didn't you also invite all the editors who have agreed with or supported my edits on these articles in the past? There in one obvious reason - you have made your mind up which way you want this vote to go - and that is indefensible. -- de Facto (talk). 16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure a topic ban will solve the problem. DeFacto needs to be able to identify then a discussion has reached a consensus. He needs to understand that once a consensus has been reached, he should disengage from disputing the particular issue. While a topic ban would solve the problem on this particular article, it won't resolve the main issue. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but tackling the very apparent WP:Competence issue that you refer to head-on is much more difficult. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- Discussion never hurt anyone. We don't need to continue trying to topic ban every editor who holds a minority opinion. This is starting to become the first response rather than the last resort this page is covered with these topic ban discussions by editors who continue to feel that anyone who holds an opinion other than the majority opinion must be a disruptive editor. JOJ ^Hutton 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I support the proposed topic ban on DeFacto.

I bore the brunt of his actions in the "Asda" topic last year when he (in which he was supported by User:VsevolodKrolikov) refused to accept that the addition was made to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom was not encyclopeadic. He initially placed this "addition" in the article Metric system, mentioning it once in the lede and twice in the body of the article. I did not have time to examine it properly, so I moved it to Metrication in the United Kingdom and after I had looked at it properly, I tried to remove to. DeFacto objected. The discussion ran over six talk page topics, three of which were attached to the topic:

• Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2#ASDA (105 replies)
• Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#Asda_report_-_12_October_update (30 replies)
• Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#MedCab_mediation_offer (197 replies)

There is no need to read these threads fully, just count them – together they contain over 300 responses of his and VsevolodKrolikov’s WP:wikilawyering during which time he refused to concede that the results of an in-store survey was unencyclopeadic, as was an announcement of a short-lived product launch. I had support from a number of other editors, all of whom eventually gave up in disgust.

DeFacto has also been active on a number of other articles connected with metrication – in all of them he has tried to belittle the metric system by introducing adjectives that are inappropriate in the context (for example using the word "certain" to represent "100%" in the articles gallon and stone (unit) - this edit and in this edit), or by inappropriately pushing hard to promote sloppy use of metric unit symbols (in a manner often by market traders, but actively discouraged in schools) in article ledes. One such example was equating "kilo" with "kg" as a shorthand for "kilogram" (approximately 80% of Talk:Kilogram is devoted to this topic) or by introducing the abbreviations "ltr", "mtr" into the article Introduction to the metric system. Revoking these changes is such an exhausting business that I would wait for a week or two rather than enter into a tedious edit war with him. Meanwhile the quality of Wikipedia has been compromised.

After he had been rebuffed on the Hindhead Tunnel and WP:MOSNUM articles, he “attacked” (I can think of no better word) the article Metrication in the United Kingdom by deleting one section of the article and adding banners to three other sections (My reinstatement here). This is the sort of behaviour I would expect from a two year-old. After I reverted and he again reverted and then rewrote the section "Legal Requirements", replacing a summary of the law with his own summary which bore no resemblance to the law whatsoever. Again we had an edit war and he reverted my text with the comment "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (DeFacto’s revert diffs) I demanded an apology for abusive language, but none was forthcoming. Moreover, when I was preparing an argument against him for piublication on an appropriate noticeboard, he twice deleted my work from my own user area (other editors kindly restored it for me befor eI was aware of what he had done).

Finally, I have wasted a considerable amount of time having to deal with his wikilawyering, reverting of text and abusive language when he is pushing an untenable argument – to the extent that I have wondered whether it is worthwhile spending time as a Wikipedia editor. I believe that an outright topic ban would be appropriate – something along the lines proposed by User: Drmies.

Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of us sympathise with the intolerable treatment which you have received at the hands of this intransigent disruptor of Wikipedia. Many people stayed away from the affected articles because of his attitude and actions. It now looks as if the proposed topic ban will be a moot point, as he has now been indeffed. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. It is pretty clear that it was going to have to come to this; sooner is better than later. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban if block lifted. If DeFacto's block is lifted, please can it be replaced with a topic ban on metrication in particular and on engaging in editing and/or discussion on the merits or use of metric and/or imperial units in any article? I'm sorry to say that this will need a wide scope; Defacto pays particular attention to wording; his interpretations can be surprising and might be regarded as testing boundaries, finding loopholes, wikilawyering and just plain looking for any way to win. For example, I can easily imagine Defacto injecting additional measurements in imperial into articles that have been using metric, using inappropriate metric units or abbreviations in order to demonstrate the flaws he sees, or selecting inappropriate units when originating articles, and then bogging us down in further arguments. So please, can we have broad phrasing and an emphasis on following the spirit as well as the letter of such a ban? NebY (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, took too long to write the above and only saw the discussion was closed after I pressed Save. NebY (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also reported as a possible (anon ip) sock of an unknown pupeteer (as the two attack messages are the only contribs from this anon ip. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. For the record, we have something called AIV.... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[moved 'archive bottom'] To be fair, if Gaijin42 had reported personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry at AIV, they would have probably been told to bring it here. This was the correct forum, I think , although I have no problem with a 4im warning instead of a block, especially since the editor was probably not going to edit from that IP anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To be more snarky than a responding admin, we also have something called not bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume this is in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (4th nomination). FWIW, I agree with Floquenbeam and Nobody Ent. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

WarriorsPride6565

I have recently had to revert User:WarriorsPride6565 addition of an old image at the Human article a few times over the past weeks or so. As see by this consensus a new image was chosen. I have informed WarriorsPride6565 of this talk (that he/she has joined). However he/she is simple reverting saying things like The changing and talk is not necessarily. I do not want to see the user banned over a simple image. The "I dont like it" agreement by one individual does not override even the smallest local consensus. Looking for help in how to proceed without having anyone blocked or the page lockup. Basically I not sure what to do or were to go as the user has stated they may report the page (is this a threat of some sort?) Moxy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As seen below the editor is not willing to go about this in a mature manner.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Moxy

I have recently had to revert User:Moxy of an image at the human article a few times over the past weeks or so. While in the talk page most users prefer to use the old image like me, because the old image is an really bad representation of human figures. Moxy decides to replace to replace the old image (which shows 2 moderate human figures) with the new image (which shows 2 very anorexic figures), at the same in the new image it shows the Asian guy that has an penis problem ( of all picture, moxy insists to use this one). Which I believe is partially motivated with bias racism. I do not wish for Moxy to get banned, I just wished the wikipedia keeps it's old image and stop these exaggerated stereotypes. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 5:56, 12 march (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Pls dont call me or anyone a racist as you did here Moxy (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I too would appreciate it if those of us (which seem to be most of us) who think the new pic is fine would not be referred to as racists. It is a very nasty personal attack. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• WarriorsPride, a couple of notes:
  • There is consensus for the new picture, so stop reverting to the old one unless a different consensus develops.
  • If you imply that using the new picture is motivated by some kind of racism one more time, you will find yourself blocked.
  • This copy/paste/modify gamesmanship with the ANI report is annoying; while not blockable, it's generally considered poor form to be annoying when you post to ANI.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• WarriorsPride reverted the image on Human again, so I've blocked him for 31 hours. I restored the page to the version before the edit war started. If disruption resumes when their block expires, let me know and I'll just block indefinitely; their talk page indicates numerous not-quite-blockable problems before this, and they're starting to add up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I have not seem many productive edits from this editor, and I've given them a final warning before, for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Update: talk page access removed for continuing the "racist" meme, and I'm fast losing tolerance for this crap. So unless someone objects, if this resumes when the block expires, the next one will likely be indefinite with no talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest there's actually a worse problem then the 'racist' meme. WarriorsPride6565 keeps insisting the model who is a living person identified by name in the image description has a 'penis problem'. To diagnose someone has having a penis problem solely based on one photograph and possibly from a misintepretation of that photograph (WarriorsPride6565 says that the penis is erect but this isn't stated in the description and it seems to me it's easily possible it's simply looks a bit like it is from the angle) is rather offensive and IMO violates WP:BLP. In other words, if WarriorsPride6565 wants to come back, he not only needs to stop accusing people of racism without evidence, he needs to stop claiming medical problems in living people without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From his ranting on his talk page, it seems that WarriorsPride's issue is that the model's penis is not large enough to suit him. Further, deponent sayeth not. Ravenswing 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

TWSS. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass canvassing, meatpuppets or botfarm

I spent some time this morning looking into an issue of suspected canvassing relating to Talk:Republic of China. From what I can determine, 131 editors across enwiki and zhwiki have been canvassed to participate in the move discussion currently running on that page, by 71 different IP addresses in the 61.18.170.* IP range.

The canvassing has targeted editors that the IP believes either come from Taiwan, or have sufficient interest in Taiwan that it has been mentioned on their userpage. Typical canvassing messages are as follows: [232][233][234]. This surely violates our WP:CANVASS guideline on scale (mass posting) and audience (partisan).

For background, several IPs in this range have been blocked both on enwiki and other wiki projects for being open proxies, and recently there have been a number of unblock requests made on some of these IP addresses claiming the IP is not an open proxy but simply dynamically allocated. As the timestamps in the evidence below will show, this is a false assertion - at numerous places in the table, the IP addresses are in use simultaneously. IP address reallocation typically takes a few minutes to take effect in the ISP's DHCP system, making it temporarily unavailable for use, but this user has been able to switch between addresses instantly (eg. [235][236][237]). Further, there are no ISPs anywhere in the world that I'm aware of that reallocate IP addresses on a 60-second basis. Such changes would render the user's internet experience almost unusable. It's simply not possible for this evidence to be explained away as simple dynamic IP allocation.

I believe there is strong evidence that there is either mass meatpuppeting or (more likely) an open proxy/botfarm running on this IP range. The canvassing alone is highly inappropriate, but the posting behaviour demonstrated by this IP range is downright worrying.

Evidence as follows:

Evidence

Canvassed user Canvassed by Date Diff User:Butterfly0fdoom 61.18.170.186 Mar 11 11:57 [238] User:Gorden Cheng 61.18.170.222 Mar 11 12:03 [239] User:Hsinhai 61.18.170.130 Mar 11 12:12 [240] User:James8312201 61.18.170.117 Mar 11 12:17 [241] User:Marcushsu 61.18.170.227 Mar 11 12:20 [242] User:Minkuo67 61.18.170.204 Mar 11 12:21 [243] User:OnionBulb 61.18.170.25 Mar 11 12:24 [244] User:Pryaltonian 61.18.170.131 Mar 11 12:25 [245] User:Ronline 61.18.170.113 Mar 11 12:27 [246] User:Ronald Chien 61.18.170.10 Mar 11 12:30 [247] User:Shang2 61.18.170.10 Mar 11 12:31 [248] User:The alliance 61.18.170.78 Mar 11 12:39 [249] User:Yhjow 61.18.170.166 Mar 12 10:24 [250] zh:User:殷浦藤熙 61.18.170.130 Mar 12 10:28 [251] User:Wctaiwan 61.18.170.216 Mar 12 10:38 [252] User:虞海 61.18.170.216 Mar 12 10:39 [253] User:Nyttend 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [254] User:Edouardlicn 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [255] User:Rennell435 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [256] User:ASDFGH 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:41 [257] User:Tommyang 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:41 [258] User:Peterkingiron 61.18.170.76 Mar 12 11:00 [259] User:Sussexonian 61.18.170.79 Mar 12 11:01 [260] User:Matthew hk 61.18.170.79 Mar 12 11:01 [261] User:Courcelles 61.18.170.250 Mar 12 11:06 [262] User:RevelationDirect 61.18.170.223 Mar 12 11:10 [263] User:Good Olfactory 61.18.170.212 Mar 12 11:12 [264] User:Johnpacklambert 61.18.170.206 Mar 12 11:13 [265] User:Northernhenge 61.18.170.66 Mar 12 11:20 [266] User:Jim Sukwutput 61.18.170.66 Mar 12 11:21 [267] User:TaerkastUA 61.18.170.121 Mar 12 11:56 [268] User:Andyso 61.18.170.104 Mar 12 11:57 [269] User:ConorOhare 61.18.170.78 Mar 12 12:00 [270] User:Sgt Simpson 61.18.170.198 Mar 12 12:03 [271] User:Presidentman 61.18.170.168 Mar 12 12:05 [272] User:Jsc1973 61.18.170.150 Mar 12 12:09 [273] User:Allentchang 61.18.170.83 Mar 12 12:10 [274] User:Paul Benjamin Austin 61.18.170.83 Mar 12 12:11 [275] User:Silverhorse 61.18.170.142 Mar 12 12:12 [276] User:Tuckerresearch 61.18.170.36 Mar 12 12:14 [277] User:Kintetsubuffalo 61.18.170.36 Mar 12 12:15 [278] User:Ominae 61.18.170.214 Mar 12 12:30 [279] User:Imdabs 61.18.170.189 Mar 12 12:33 [280] User:Timberlax 61.18.170.33 Mar 12 12:38 [281] User:BilCat 61.18.170.23 Mar 12 12:39 [282] User:Therequiembellishere 61.18.170.6 Mar 12 12:41 [283] User:Think777 61.18.170.250 Mar 12 12:43 [284] User:Dirtybutclean 61.18.170.230 Mar 12 12:46 [285] User:W Tanoto 61.18.170.27 Mar 12 12:47 [286] User:Marbles 61.18.170.64 Mar 12 15:19 [287] User:Nimora 61.18.170.112 Mar 13 14:18 [288] User:A. Exeunt 61.18.170.108 Mar 13 16:46 [289] User:H2ppyme 61.18.170.209 Mar 13 16:48 [290] User:Thew ent dan 61.18.170.83 Mar 13 16:48 [291] User:MichuNeo 61.18.170.209 Mar 13 16:49 [292] User:Paul Benjamin Austin 61.18.170.180 Mar 13 16:51 [293] User:IJA 61.18.170.8 Mar 13 16:57 [294] User:Canadian Bobby 61.18.170.47 Mar 13 17:02 [295] User:Spesh531 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:04 [296] User:AlexanderKaras 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:04 [297] User:Jamiebijania 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:05 [298] User:Qcomplex5 61.18.170.236 Mar 13 17:08 [299] User:MichiganCharms 61.18.170.117 Mar 13 17:09 [300] User:Holy Santa 61.18.170.85 Mar 13 17:10 [301] User:Mouramoor 61.18.170.146 Mar 13 17:18 [302] User:Veyneru 61.18.170.136 Mar 13 17:21 [303] User:Ken Takahashi 61.18.170.206 Mar 13 17:21 [304] User:Smsagro 61.18.170.206 Mar 13 17:21 [305] User:Njcraig 61.18.170.119 Mar 13 17:23 [306] zh:User:櫻花公主 61.18.170.188 Mar 13 17:27 [307] User:Sf46 61.18.170.168 Mar 13 17:28 [308] User:Xabiereus 61.18.170.6 Mar 13 17:30 [309] User:Base64 61.18.170.57 Mar 13 17:37 [310] User:Noblesham 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:38 [311] User:Bolegash 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:39 [312] User:Nerdygeek101 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:40 [313] User:Obaidz96 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:40 [314] User:Cradel 61.18.170.91 Mar 13 17:41 [315] User:Czar Choi 61.18.170.91 Mar 13 17:43 [316] User:The Bushranger 61.18.170.41 Mar 13 17:46 [317] User:Petero9 61.18.170.161 Mar 13 17:47 [318] User:Cargocontainer 61.18.170.115 Mar 13 17:50 [319] User:Scriberius 61.18.170.115 Mar 13 17:51 [320] User:Ipatrol 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:53 [321] User:The Great Duck 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:53 [322] User:Lunar Dragoon 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:54 [323] User:Tanzhang 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:55 [324] User:SGCommand 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:55 [325] User:Laci.d 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:56 [326] User:Unobjectionable 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:56 [327] User:Smart30 61.18.170.66 Mar 13 17:58 [328] User:Vasko Kelich 61.18.170.66 Mar 13 17:58 [329] User:Boniek1988 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 17:59 [330] User:Beggarsbanquet 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:00 [331] User:Iune 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:00 [332] User:SergeantGeneral 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:01 [333] User:Typhoonstorm95 61.18.170.26 Mar 13 18:30 [334] User:Ferox Seneca 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:39 [335] User:Ngchen 61.18.170.228 Mar 13 18:42 [336] User:Srnec 61.18.170.229 Mar 13 18:42 [337] User:Kevinhksouth 61.18.170.223 Mar 13 18:43 [338] User:Visik 61.18.170.223 Mar 13 18:43 [339] User:Pi 61.18.170.228 Mar 13 18:43 [340] User:Bigmorr 61.18.170.214 Mar 13 18:44 [341] User:Justincheng12345 61.18.170.202 Mar 13 18:46 [342] User:WhisperToMe 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:46 [343] User:Jsjsjs1111 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:46 [344] User:Jj98 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [345] User:Nlu 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [346] User:刻意 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [347] User:Tyle4ful 61.18.170.76 Mar 13 18:48 [348] User:MtBell 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:48 [349] User:Pmanderson 61.18.170.67 Mar 13 18:50 [350] User:Night w 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 18:51 [351] User:StoneProphet 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 18:52 [352] User:CWH 61.18.170.26 Mar 13 18:53 [353] User:Michaeldsuarez 61.18.170.128 Mar 13 18:58 [354] User:Deryck Chan 61.18.170.129 Mar 13 18:58 [355] User:Mys 721tx 61.18.170.116 Mar 13 18:59 [356] User:Cobrachen 61.18.170.116 Mar 13 19:00 [357] User:Zazaban 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [358] User:T-1000 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [359] User:Aronlee90 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [360] User:Σ 61.18.170.173 Mar 13 19:04 [361] User:Danaman5 61.18.170.173 Mar 13 19:05 [362] User:Avanu 61.18.170.205 Mar 13 19:06 [363] User:Ohconfucius 61.18.170.224 Mar 13 19:06 [364] User:Icarus the younger 61.18.170.199 Mar 13 19:07 [365] User:Jabo-er 61.18.170.183 Mar 13 19:11 [366] User:BritishWatcher 61.18.170.171 Mar 13 19:12 [367]

I'm not sure what the appropriate admin action to request would be. A range block? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I blocked 61.18.170.0/23; slightly bigger range than the one used above but still small. Maybe a CU wants to poke around a bit and see who is behind it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of the users were definitely selected because they expressed opposition in one or more community discussions on whether to move pages from "People's Republic of China" to "China". Some of the relevant polls are here.[368][369][370] This has been orchestrated by a user who has been following these discussions for a long time; possibly the same user who has been operating under a rotating Hong Kong IP, sabotaging and filibustering every related community discussion and trying to force a 'no consensus' result. If the botmaster is not User:Instantnood, then his behavior is close enough to be indistinguishable from it. Shrigley (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the cavassees were selected because they had the phrase "Republic of China" on their user pages, usually as a flag. Kauffner (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if there are any brave, uninvolved, admins out there who would like to help with closing this discussion (which has been raging for nearly a month), I've reiterated the request for closure (here). I think it's probably a good time to wrap this one up. As in the PRC / China move, we think it's a good idea to have a "triumvirate" of admins close this one, if possible. Mlm42 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely this needs wrapping up.

Its so sad there has been so much disruption :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Operation Storm

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

---

Hello ! In article Operation Storm I placed references to youtube which are directly connected with article subject. However them constantly delete. I ask managers to pass the decision on the matter. Links from Youtube:

• Capital of Serbian Kraјna Knin under bombardment of the Croatian artillery 4 august 1995
• CNN video reportage from Serbian Krajina after operation

Best regards ! 78.153.134.178 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually we don't link to YouTube because of copyright and other reliable sourcing concerns (see this guidance which specifically mentions newscasts). However sometimes a YouTube link is okay. I think the best thing you can do is to ask on the article talk page why other editors have been removing the link. It might be that the links are not suitable and are being removed for a good reason. You also need to be careful not to keep adding them back on the article. We call that edit warring and it can get your account blocked. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The second link at least according to the title is CNN footage but is hosted by some random user so will likely be out. I'm not sure about the first link but the fact it's from the same Youtube user doesn't inspire confidence it's not a copyvio. However I agree with EyeSerene, feel free to discuss it in the article talk page if you feel they aren't copyright violations. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ! Best regards ! 212.119.226.91 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Odiriuss

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:Odiriuss has repeatedly accused me of vandalism,[371][372] arrogance[373], misuse of administrator power,[374][375] and had implied I have no reason.[376] He has also been reported for edit warring. He has stubbornly disregarded reliable sources and the opinion of his co-editors at Talk:2Cellos and pushed his own view at 2Cellos, disregarding the opinion of others. I'm sorry to have him reported here, but it just seems something has to be done about his behaviour. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accused Eleassar of vandalism because that is what he is doing. I have not disregarded opinions of others,just the ones that were blatantly false. I have also provided evidence for my claims,evidence that Eleassar cannot dispute in any way,shape or form thus he is using his admin power to block my account and because all of that i request that he be punished by any means necessary. I will post my evidence here,so there is no confusion,again evidence that Eleassar cannot dispute and is using his admin power because of that to try to ban me. All what i have written,under logical conclusion states that he is unreasonable,as i have also stated.

Here is the evidence i have provided,which Eleassar cannot dispute (copy from the 2cellos talk page):

I am done arguing with you. You cannot prove your points,you have no evidence for your claims and you refuse to accept valid evidence such as: In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 0:55 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:40 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss most about that beautiful country ).

A better question would be why didn't he say he was Slovenian in both of those interviews if he was.

Or why didn't the host announce them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia rather then just Croatia in the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related . Luka would feel insulted if he was Slovenian,to have his country not mentioned not once,not twice but at least three times, wouldn't he?

Or why does it say in the article on Elton John page they are both Croatian? The man they are currently on tour with would surely know? http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498

Or why does their OFFICIAL facebook page say hometown: Croatia, instead of hometown: Croatia and Slovenia? http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info

When you can answer all of those questions and find video proof that says otherwise,you can change the article. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Missuse of admin power

Related threads merged EyeSerene^talk 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Eleassar has been using his admin power for making false articles on 2cellos article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos) and trying to get me banned User:Odiriuss because he cannot cope with the truth and does not accept valid sources and evidence i have provided and continues to neglect them all,shaping the article as he sees fit,even though it is false. He has already reported me couple of times even though he cannot dispute the evidence i have given forth. The evidence i have provided is sufficient for any reasonable person,but he does not seem to be one.The evidence:

In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 0:55 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:40 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss most about that beautiful country ).

A better question would be why didn't he say he was Slovenian in both of those interviews if he was.

Or why didn't the host announce them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia rather then just Croatia in the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related . Luka would feel insulted if he was Slovenian,to have his country not mentioned not once,not twice but at least three times, wouldn't he?

Or why does it say in the article on Elton John page they are both Croatian? The man they are currently on tour with would surely know? http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498

Or why does their OFFICIAL facebook page say hometown: Croatia, instead of hometown: Croatia and Slovenia? http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info

Numerous other articles all over the world state they are both Croatian,only Slovenian sites make Luka look like a Slovene. Because all of this i request that User:Eleassar is stripped of his admin rights and banned,and that the 2cellos article is locked to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add that a third opinion was provided which was in my favor,again shows that User:Eleassar does not care about wikipedia protocol. Odiriuss (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Odiriuss (talk · contribs) ought to calm down. He's a bit too confrontational for a day old account. It sounds like a case for as much as consideration at WP:RSN, where Odiriuss would be well advised to listen as much as he writes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The real question is, whose sock is he? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be 78.1.187.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was going to be blocked for edit-warring though that apparently didn't happen. Other IP suggestions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.138.76.254 - David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Odiriuss, it looks like you don't know that Youtube and Facebook are not reliable sources (as they have no editorial oversight) and that self-published sources can only about themselves (in this case the Elton John website could only be used for information related to Elton John, and not for others). Also after a second look I don't see any admin action by Eleassar either to the article or against the user, thus there is no case for "Missuse of admin power". Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  I made this account today because i wanted to have full access to present my case on the 2cellos article,and i have behaved in a cool manner,presenting evidence and sources which Eleassar cannot dispute. As for the reliable source it clearly states : there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material,and there is no doubt that their official facebook page is theirs. Furthermore it does not state nothing about youtube,as it has a wide variety of videos,and the ones that i sourced were form TV stations,which do have editorial oversight. I am not a sock or whatever,as i stated i have made this account this morning so that i could present my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• As per the reliable sources most reliable source is that of Matica Hrvatska (http://www.matica.hr/www/vijesti2www.nsf/AllWebDocs/ciklus202?OpenDocument),a cultural institution which clearly states Luka Sulic is Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This source is contrary to all others stating that Šulić was born in Maribor, including two interviews where he states this himself. However, this discussion belongs to the article's talk page, as already explained. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Armbrust, B.Ed. who do you not see missuse of admin power? The changes he made are in dispute with every single article and video there is about them.ONLY the articles from Slovenia state he is Slovenian.

Evidence: http://www.mtv.com.hr/vijesti/2cellos-luka-sulic-stjepan-hausar-izdaju-album , http://www.matica.hr/www/vijesti2www.nsf/AllWebDocs/ciklus202?OpenDocument , http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/105855/hrvatski-violoncelisti-potpisali-ugovor-sa-sony-music-entertainmentom , http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/ocio-y-cultura/20110607/los-chelos-del-pop/1034351.shtml , http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10196/1/2-Cellos-Luka-Suliae--Stjepan-Hauser-2-Croatian-Geniuses-conquering-the-world.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws (the Ellen show which has editorial oversight) . There is not one source out of Slovenia that claims he is Slovenian,if you can find me one show it to me. And in the end a Slovenian site telling the truth : http://www.rtvslo.si/zabava/zanimivosti/video-hrvaska-violoncelista-videlo-na-milijone-americanov/256245 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• And as is stated their official facebook page is not in conflict with reliable sources as there are no questions that it is theirs. Furthermore according to : Template:Infobox musical artist, the "origin" section of the Infobox is for "the city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career, should it not match the location of their birth)" and he changed that to write Croatia and Slovenia. If tampering with articles after being warned is not vandalism i do not understand what is.Odiriuss (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore User:Eleassar lied in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos stating :"It seems like we disagree about what is a reliable source and that we won't be able to solve the dispute by ourselves. I think the Slovene-language sources are completely valid, contrary to the YouTubes that are one-sided and not detailed enough, and there are also other non-Slovene sources listed in the article Luka Šulić that is already locked due to an edit war there." If you have a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_%C5%A0uli%C4%87 there is NOT a snigle source outside of Slovenia stating that he is Slovenian,on the contrary they all say they are a cello duo from Croatia.And it also proves that he is neglecting ALL the sources all over the world except the ones from Slovenia,does that sound objective to you?Odiriuss (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a report about the abuse of administrative powers. As far as I can see no admin tools such as blocking, page protection etc have been used (never mind misused...) What we have is two editors in a content dispute, one of whom happens to be an administrator. This is not an incident requiring AN/I, but a content dispute for WP:DRN or a question about sources for WP:RSN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have provided my sources at the relevant talk page and the reference for the claim in the article Luka Šulić that I had in mind has No. 3. If Odiriuss or anyone else needs a source based outside Slovenia, it is e. g. [377] or [378]. Nonetheless, in my opinion the interviews (cited at the talk page) where Šulić said that his home is Maribor, Slovenia, have greater weight. I have yet to see at Facebook written that Luka Šulić comes from Croatia, contrary to the band, for which we have agreed to list Croatia as the country of origin (per third opinion).

Dear Kim, this post was in the first place (see the top of the section) about Odiriuss attacking me and claiming that I'm irrational, that I'm lying and that I'm abusing my rights. It is also about him edit warring and his controversial usage of multiple IPs and accounts. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

He has not provided any sources that can dispute mine,also his first outside source also states they are from Croatia (http://www.bangkokpost.com/arts-and-culture/music/278479/the-pains-of-being-pure-at-heart) ,how about that? :D User:Eleassar clearly does not understand the difference between place of birth and nationality,as i have stated before i was born in Tokio,Japan but neither me or anyone else has ever considered me to be Japanese.And I have not been using multiple accounts,there he lies again. I have been using this account since this morning,made all of my replies with it and not with another account. This is what i have been saying all along,he cannot dispute the evidence i put forth thus he is trying all he can to get me banned,that is the reason i titled this page Missuse of admin power,that is what i was talking about. He is the only admin that gave me warnings,and accused me of vandalism and without any sufficient proof of his claims or any attempt whatsoever to dispute my evidence,which he clearly cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you have another non-Slovene source claiming Šulić is not only Slovenia-born but was also raised in Slovenia.[379] I think he being in born in Maribor, raised in Slovenia, saying that his family lives in Maribor and that the town is his home surely disputes your unbalanced sources stating that he is Croatian - the rephrasal Slovene-Croatian was legitimate.

That source actually says Šulić was born in Croatia (but raised in Slovenia), and also describes him as Croatian. Number 57 15:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps not the best source, I'll try to find a better one. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:ILLEGIT states: "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles." and it did, per: "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history" and contrary to "Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts". As for lying, I'm not sure that you're telling the truth, and I suspect you have been using more than one account, that's why I have used plural. Is this account (Iconda) perhaps yours? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also User:Gaijin42 a deletionist has put forth croatian reliable sources that state they are both Croatian on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos . If User:Eleassar actions after this are not against wikipedia policy i do not know what would be considered as such,since he cannot dispute any of the sources,and an overwhelming number of them (only the ones from Slovenia state otherwise) states they are Croatians. I have not posted under different ip,i posted from this account from the moment i created it this morning.Your lies are just getting bigger,you have no shame whatsoever do you User:Eleassar ? And again in the article you provided http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-27/elton-john-grabs-croatian-cellists-with-hot-guns-n-roses-video-on-youtube.html , you can see in the URL they are Croatian! Seriously i do not understand you User:Eleassar , again it clearly states in the article you provided they are both Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• User:Eleassar clearly cannot accept the truth,i beg of an admin after all of this evidence put here,both by me and User:Eleassar (even though he did not plan to boost my case) in which it is clearly stated that they are both Croatian,birth place is one thing,nationality another. Please lock the article and make it so that he cannot use his admin right to change it,that is what i am asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. No administrator action is necessary or appropriate. resolve this on the article talk page or if that has been tried and failed, take it to WP:DRN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you, what about insulting people, edit warring and sockpuppetry? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not insulted you once,i have not made edits after the warning and i have been posting from the same account all along. I shall take this to the WP:DRN and after that if he tries to make changes again i will be forced to report him here once again. Odiriuss (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have. And I hope you will really take it to WP:DRN. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No i haven't,but i won't discuss it in here with you anymore,my evidence is sufficient and more. Oh i will,i have no doubts in the outcome of it. Odiriuss (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have. The links have been provided at the top of the section. You don't have to discuss it here anymore, we can discuss it elsewhere, if you wish. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The more we talk the more you confuse me. You must be aware those are the precise reasons why i reported you here? Anyway,see you on WP:DRN . Odiriuss (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For insults, please go to WP:WQA. For sockpuppetry, please go to WP:SPI. For content disputes, WP:DRN. For disputes about sources, WP:RSN. I haven't seen any other regular posters here weighing in to disagree that this is the wrong place. But I suggest to both of you, wherever you take this, tone down the rhetoric and win the argument by coming across as more measured and calm than your opponent. I will mark this as closed shortly, unless any other uninvolved editor wants to chip in. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and calm words. As you stated above, no administrator tools were abused. I think you can close the report. Just for the sake of principle, there are at least two non-Slovenian sources describing Šulić as Slovene cellist.[380][381] Another source says he is a Slovene-Croat.[382] I'll try to find more. In addition, there are several Slovenian sources, cited at the article's talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Quarkgluonsoup at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal & The Exodus

This is a continuation of [383]. He continues to editwar slowly at The Exodus, but the last straw for me is his misrepresentations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal of my conduct. Now if I've been out of line I'd like to be told, but I believe I've been acting in good faith at Talk:The Exodus and his comments about my reversion of his edit at American Civil War, particularly after the discussion of them here a few days ago, are an attempt to discredit me. Oh, and any advice as to how to solve the problem of the lead at The Exodus would be welcome, it's just getting worse with time. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Sandra Fluke

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

---

I want to request that Sandra Fluke be edited to redirect to Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy. The page currently redirects to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, which redirects to Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy. I would use the editprotected template, but the redirect is fully protected, and the talk page is salted. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Harris Media LLC

Harris Media LLC is a U.S. PR firm specializing in local, state, and national political campaigns. For several years it appears that they have engaged in coordinated long-term abuse of Wikipedia, using countless IPs and sockpuppets to create campaign-brochure type articles on their clients and attempting to control those articles and existing articles for SEO, copy editing to make the articles as laudatory and positive as possible, deleting negative information about the clients, and various other abusive practices such as inserting the claim that a journalist critical of their client is a communist.

I discovered this about a year ago while working on a local senate candidate's article that I originally assumed to have been created by his campaign personnel. But I found that many of the IPs and sock puppets fighting me were also editing bio articles for other individuals across the country, all of who seemed to have currently or recently been political candidates. Googling the names lead me to find that they were all clients of a single PR firm, Harris Media.

I started accumulating evidence at a SourceWatch page before real-life events took me away from Wikipedia. Returning recently I have found that the activity is ongoing but I've realized that it's far too much for me to even thoroughly investigate on my own, much less combat against.

This seems like a complicated issue because it's not simple spam or vandalism: these users are adding a fair amount of legitimate content, often with citations, so it shouldn't necessarily all be reverted; it's just of a spammy nature and terribly POV.

So... how to handle this? I note from searching the archives here that other PR firms have been observed doing the same sort of thing. SourceWatch tracks some of that, is there anywhere else? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking just at the article you mention above, it appears that various people who have worked on it have been making what amount to minor and cosmetic changes. (What I think is the most appropriate thing is to watch all political articles for promotional editing, and, when it is seen, do some drastic cutting back to the basics, 'd say this regardless of who it is adding the articles. The goal is to convince the PR agency and other PR agencies that only proper articles will be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not involved in it, and haven't given my attention to it, but I've seen User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch mentioned in several discussions. Some of the people listed there may or may not be able to help you. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the responses, guys! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale edit reverts by User:Tagremover

Resolved

 – both editors blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover is again (old ANI) making wholesale reverts of (my) edits. The editor has 3 Reverted[384][385][386] in Fisheye lens ignoring this and this unrelated edit he/she is also reverting. Editor notified on article talk page about removing un-related content[387] and here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm having some problems of my own with Tagremover, first at Sukhoi Superjet 100 (over flags, of all things, and they took it as far as they could), and then at Nikon D700 (they insisted on having a gallery with a dozen pictures of the camera). Drmies (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Brickell4 complaint

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

---

Resolved

 – Brickell4 blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi ;) I am being personally attacked by Beeblebrox User:Beeblebrox as can be read here "....self-proclaimed experts dictating what can and cannot be used to verify that content based on their own prejudices, and by resorting to petty name calling when they see something they don't like." This behavior began because I started mentioning in the talk page of an article that the article was over politicized in nature instead of containing real substance about the subject, (hog dogging). Thanks and if there is any other way I can help with this let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you need to slow down and use the "preview" button. This is at least the second time you've inserted your comments in the wrong place. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, you have a bit of nerve to complain about "personal attacks" from anyone while making comments like this. A look through your contributions suggests that you do not yet have the competence necessary to edit here. 28bytes (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) You are not being personally attacked, you are being given advice on how to behave if you wish to edit here. It's good advice, I suggest you listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• He isn't interested in editing here. Blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, good block. The real aggrieved party here is User:Chrisrus, who has been trying to fix this article, only to be met with unending contempt and unjustified condescension from Brickell4. We've both been very patient with this abusive user, but they simply refuse to acknowledge even the simplest standards for behavior and content. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Talk page privileges now revoked. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the article Hog-dog rodeo, where they were causing this disruption, could really use some help now that this angry obstructionist won't be allowed to try and own it anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, when you finish that article you will have done a good thing for mankind, and you can die knowing that it was not in vain. Good luck, padner. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by an IP

I came across these two edits on Maybach Music Group by 199.15.170.150 while patrolling for vandalism. They seem to be legal threats, so I figured they should be mentioned here. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked for other reasons (vandalism) - the "legal threats" are incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, a minute ago I blocked them for vandalism. 31 hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good block. This edit is an assertion of ownership of the article, which is not the case nor is consistent with our policies on who can and cannot edit. Mind you that I did not mention legal threats in any way, though that is most certainly blockable in its own right. --MuZemike 03:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:DeFacto

Administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has invited six editors, who opposed me in a bitter dispute at "Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story" recently, to participate in an WP:ANI against me, to put forward their views as to whether I should receive a topic ban from that very article (diffs: [388], [389], [390], [391], [392], [393]), with, I believe, the intention of influencing the outcome of that discussion in a particular way contrary to the provisions laid out in WP:Canvassing. Note: he did also invite two other token editors to contribute, one who was a mediator in a previous dispute in that article and one who was involved in a previous dispute in that article, but who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for several months (contribs: [394]). He did not however invite any of the editors who have supported my edits or made similar edits to me in the articles in question.

This breech is all the more serious because:

• a) he is an administrator
• b) of the aggravating circumstances; that if he is successful with this, I will lose my freedom to edit.

Note: I did first warn him about this (diff: [395]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [396]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I notified all the folks at the most recent DRN as well as AQ who moderated a dispute on the same topic related to this user as well as the person identified as aligning with DeFacto. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote; but none of the other editors who have also worked on that, or any of the other articles now also implicated in that action, in the meantime. -- de Facto (talk). 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrongful in Toddst's actions; they complied with policy. As he was not acting as an administrator in this situation, that is not an aggravating factor. Also, Wikipedia does not do due process, so that is not an aggravating factor either. If DeFacto continues this tendentious behavior in his interactions with other editors, I will block him as a separate action apart from the topic ban being discussed above. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on. This discussion should be closed already. Calabe1992 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing predominantly amongst those known to be likely to support your favoured result is in direct conflict wiyh WP:Canvass. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And now asking another administrator, one involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action, to support him here (diff: [397]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [398]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [399]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, but lay off. Calabe1992 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Block review request

• Actually, I'd prefer for this thread to be left open, at least for a little while, for review of my action and for discussion of any possible compromise.

  I looked at the above thread yesterday and considered indeffing DF, but decided to see if things would improve if the topic ban was enacted. That total misrepresentation of a situation above (JamesBWatson actually unblocked DF, yet DF calls him an admin involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action) was, however, the final straw. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

de Facto's responses so far to your block aren't the sort that should lead to anyone unblocking. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was writing a careful and detailed comment about the problems with DeFacto's editing, but I have just turned to Special:Contributions/DeFacto, and found that HJ Mitchell has indef-blocked the account, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that I think HJ Mitchell was quite right. For some time it has been a matter of when DeFacto would be blocked, not whether, and I agree that the time has come. DeFacto has been given as much AGF and ROPE as anyone could reasonably expect, if not more, and has persisted in his/her disruptive and time-wasting nonsense. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• JamesBWatson's remark about "when" is on the money. DeFacto had more rope than anyone ever needed to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is this not the sort of situation where a topic ban would be helpful? DeFacto has been here a long time with only one previous minor block prior to this mess. I agree that their behaviour has not been acceptable and has been a big timesink recently but would a topic ban on anything to do with metrication (including commenting on talkpages) be a way to keep them on the straight and narrow? Polequant (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (eta) I realise this was being discussed above when DeFacto shot themselves in the foot with this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the disruption is limited to metrication issues or if there are other problems as well. Polequant (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge WP:Competence issue. It wasn't limited to metrication. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Their recent responses don't show any evidence that they've spent any time or effort trying to understand why they were blocked—largely I think because the necessity hasn't even occurred to them. Such a lack of perception and self-awareness, wilful or otherwise, is impossible to reconcile with working in a collaborative environment. EyeSerene^talk 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that someone who's been here for 6 years and only been blocked the once before has been indeffed without things like RFC/U or evidence of previous ANI threads etc. If they were as bad as you are saying then I would have at least expected something prior to all this. Either they've slipped under the radar for a long time (which is certainly possible as wikipedia is normally crap at dealing with "civil" disruption) or their behaviour has got worse recently. This seems like they were at least willing to think about what they were doing, and between that and getting indeffed their only action was complaining that there had been some canvassing going on in the topic ban discussion. They clearly aren't correct with the canvassing but I can't see that it was particularly disruptive to start that section.

In general it doesn't work very well expecting people to apologise for their actions. If the block had been for a week then that shows that what they are doing won't be tolerated. It would give the opportunity for them to modify their behaviour when they come back without being forced to make what they might think are humiliating retractions. They shouldn't have to agree with the reasons for blocks and why people are getting frustrated with them so long as their behaviour changes. Polequant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned a need for them to prostrate themselves, that would be silly. Rather, the issue is that they've become so fixated on their notion that the block was an "abuse of power" that there seems to be no likelihood of them even acknowledging, never mind addressing, the real reason they were blocked. While that 'it's everyone else that's the problem, it's not me' attitude stands, unblocking would serve no purpose because we'd just see the same problematic behaviour repeated. EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

People lash out when they feel threatened, which isn't an excuse but a reason at least. A week block together with a broadly construed topic ban from metrication is a pretty severe penalty and has the potential to at least keep someone who has contributed considerably. Unless the majority of their contributions haven't been helpful I don't see why it wouldn't be worth trying. I don't care what someone's attitude is unless it colours their editing and in that case it would be easy enough to block again. Polequant (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this editor is that they seem to be unable to grasp one of the basic concepts here: Wikipedia is a team effort that necessitates consensus building and the acceptance of consensus. That they haven't been blocked earlier is because such disruptive tendencies don't automatically lead to blocks--they are not easily templated, and require a measure of judgment on an administrator's part that can be challenged in ways a block for vandalism can't. I'm glad to see that Todd and others stuck their neck out, and I'm glad to see that for the most part HJ's decision is supported by the community (including me). Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And to think this all started over some damn strawberries :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block: In case it wasn't clear from my comment above. It's clear that this editor has some serious issues interacting in an unstructured environment and a profound lack of self-awareness that has led to protracted disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block I reviewed the situation by skimming a couple of pages, but just browsing User talk:DeFacto is sufficient to show that the reports above are correct: the user is currently unable to participate in a collaborative project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Fine block Nobody Ent 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We've got a serious problem here...

Despite numerous warnings on his/her talk page and discussions of the notability of the video game characters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Once again Metal Gear characters, 194.145.185.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly engaged in incivility and personal attacks in the Wikiproject discussion, the discussion on the Tekken character list talk page, the talk page of the Metal Gear characters, demerging articles without showing consensus while discussion is taking place and has attacked other editors such as myself, MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs) ([400]), Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), Tintor2 (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs). He has also called other good faith edits vandalism and has repeatedly breached the relevant policies: WP:NOR, WP:OWN, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOTABILITY. Today, the IP readded the unsourced material to the Onimusha: Warlords page, unmerged the Shadow article from the Final Fantasy VI character article without consensus again and has engaged in uncivil and disruptive activity in the Wikiproject discussion. These issues have gone out of hand and I cannot tolerate the IP's disruption any longer as the attacks and incivility are particularly urgent. What is the best possible solution to help resolve the situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• In am mostly uninvolved in the discussions mentioned above, but I have spoken with the user about two weeks ago. After this edit (which I only happened to see because I had recently tagged the article with the WP:VG banner), I left him a note on his talk page about what appeared to me as a revert of a revert with no visible discussion, and also about the innapropriate edit summary. I pointed him to WP:BRD; he presented a few instances where discussion was being held (or at least sparked). I realized this was nothing recent nor short-lived, but rather a lengthy, sometimes sour debate. Having no interest nor particular knowledge of the subject matter I did not involve myself further, but haven't had much of a choice but to see the discussion evolve (maybe "devolve" would be more appropriate) since it was held at WT:VG. While I believe the original intent had at least a healthy measure of good faith, the editor has shown incapacity for proper discussion, and an inability to accept that people may disagree. Salvidrim! 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've tried to work with him and discuss things with him multiple times, but he gets so wound up in these long, rambling responses, where he talks about various outrages and injustices of Wikipedia, and I can't follow what he's even talking about, let alone have a real discussion with him. I've left several messages on his talk page and several other places saying that he comes off way too aggressive and that it's not helping him out any addressing people the way he does, but he never outwardly acknowledges what I say postively or negatively. I'm tired of his antics, but he, for whatever reason, at least doesn't repeatedly revert any of my edits (though he frequent instructs me on what to do), so I don't need any specific help with him. I'm just tired of his antics in general. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Supporting the statements above. User responds to conflicting views by attacking the editor in question and suggesting that they re-read their post until they "get it" and go away. User repeatedly states that his actions are just to 'get things started' on various stubs and "it's up to the rest of you to fix it after that" as he has no interest in doing anything further. User disregards concensus, and continually seeds his edits and edit history with exclaimations such as "jesus don't you get it?" -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Although at first I thought the user had good faith attempts, his civility was intolerable. Edit summaries use capital, continuously says "rewrite", tags every article (see Jax (Mortal Kombat) and discussions he starts lack formality. Moreover, when he created three articles, Liquid Snake, Hal Emmerich and Meryl Silverburgh, all of them were empty and reverted an edit by AxelTantium (who was returning them to their own sections) calling it vandalism. I would have liked the anon to be more constructive and civil, but I have seen him for several years with the same attitude with another account that was blocked because of wp:sockpuppet.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't personally engaged with this anon yet. I might have inadvertently sparked this rant by carrying out the "revert" step of WP:BRD. I did not participate in the extensive discussion at WT:VG but I did read through it a few days ago and was impressed by the amount of civility and rational discussion that other WP:VG members showed in trying to deal with him. From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to be interested in improving articles so much as he thinks his favorite characters deserve to have articles and wants everyone else to prove it for him. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for six months. This may seem harsh but I feel given the level of exasperation expressed above by multiple editors in good standing (and the supporting evidence on talk pages and contrib histories), it's warranted. The IP editor does not appear to be a net benefit to Wikipedia and dealing with that is actively detracting from the efforts of other editors who, I'm sure, would rather be spending their time more productively.

Incidentally, the IP has been blocked previously as a sock of HanzoHattori (talk · contribs); this may or may not be unrelated. Hope this helps and review welcome as always, EyeSerene^talk 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You might as well check IP 50.99.109.185. Few hours after commenting here, I received some sort message that I was being inconstructive and few insults by such anon.Tintor2 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are only two edits from that IP and they're from nearly 12 hours ago, so it might be premature to block now. However, if no-one overturns my earlier decision, future disruption "in the style of" can always be dealt with as straightforward block evasion. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of the talks I've had with the originaly 194-- IP was his/her misuse/overuse of the term "constructive editing" on wikipedia. So, considering the 50-- IP used that term, and also ranted angrily, makes the two IP's approach to communication pretty similar. But regardless, thanks for the help, EyeSerene. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they are the same person. What I really meant, but didn't explain clearly, was that the 50.99.109.185 IP may be dynamic so a block might be unnecessary. At the moment there's not enough evidence to go on but time will tell :) Apologies for my lack of clarity. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnsc12 on the page Humat al-Hima

This user has repeatedly made the same disruptive edits without explanation. I've tried a few times to discuss with him on his talk page but I have been completely ignored and the user has kept on repeating his edits. I'm not sure what else I could do except report the issue here. Thanks — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 06:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article to prevent further edit warring. However, I'm not an Arabic speaker so some additional information would be useful. I see you've made an attempt to communicate with Johnsc12, which they've ignored, but at the same time you've both been edit-warring on the article. I guess what I'm asking is why were those edits disruptive? If you could point to some policy/guideline/consensus that would support your repeated removal of their edits that would be helpful. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's true I've been edit warring, but that's because his edits were plainly wrong. For one thing, the transliteration he used was not consistent, whereas my edits followed a standard that you may find on WP:AMOS. While WP:AMOS is not a rule to follow per se, it certainly gives coherent guidelines on how to transliterate Arabic. Actually it would be fine if the user used a known transliteration system (ALA-LC, DIN, etc.) but as far as I know his edits were not following any rules. But beyond that, in the section Humat al-Hima#Original poem, the user kept on changing the word Egypt (Misr) for the word Tunis even though the Arabic lyrics mention Egypt. For that reason, I could not let his edits remain unchanged. Please tell me if I can help you any further and thank you for taking care of the issue. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 20:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. This appears to be essentially a content dispute. I'll warn Johnsc12 about non-communication and edit warring, and obviously you know you were edit warring too which mustn't happen again :) However you did try to talk to them and I appreciate that it's difficult when one side doesn't respond to discussion. If Johnsc12 makes more disruptive edits and fails to respond to communication when article protection expires I'd suggest you revert no more than once or twice, then if they keep reverting report them back here or to the edit warring noticeboard, where I expect they'll be blocked. If you like you can drop me a note on my talk page too.

I notice that WP:AMOS is marked as inactive. It could be a lot of work, but it might also be worth considering redeveloping that or coming up with another guideline for Arabic transliteration. I don't know how common a problem disagreement over translation is, but an active guideline demonstrates support and consensus and is therefore much easier to enforce than an inactive one. Best, EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If the problem continues I won't edit war as much :) As for WP:AMOS, perhaps one day I'll try to reopen the case, but for now I haven't really come across many problems regarding transliteration, and it seems as though reopening the case would rather stir more trouble. We'll see! — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism

Hello, I'm personally insulted by Dzlinker User:Dzlinker, as you can see here ("you stupid peace of shit"), in addition to attacks in arabic [401] ("yal bagra aqra shuiya" for "read a little bit stupid cow", "bagra edits" fot "cow's edits"...).

The reason of these attacks is a war of edition (on "Kabyle people" article) resulting from vandalism behaviour (page blancking) of this user, of whom I note that he's a regular customer of this kind of process (blocked several times for similar facts). Nabilus junius (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dzlinker blocked a week for edit warring (there was a previous edit warring block) and pretty over-the-top personal attacks, which don't appear to be a new issue either. Nabilus junius blocked one day for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• According to this edit history you were both over the three revert limit in the past 24 hours. I was thinking of protecting the page and going back to The Wrong Version to give you both incentive to use the talk page, given the irony of edit warriors saying "go to the talk page" in edit summaries as they edit war. But revoking privileges is an alternative. Floquenbeam beat me to cleaning your user talk page, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dzlinker has a Waffen-SS userbox on their user page, but I can't find the template. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be User:Dzlinker/Userboxes/waffen-ss. 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I was probably supposed to go thru MFD or something, but I just deleted it instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Floquenbeam. Next time, I might take a page out of your book if I run into such stuff. I've never claimed IAR, but this seems like a perfectly valid invocation thereof. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica and escalating POINTy conduct related to Libertarianism

Hi. User:Xerographica (notified) appears to have some worthwhile content to contribute in relation to an American electoralist political movement, however, they have problems with pointy editing ([402]). In addition to pointed behaviour, they have a continued problem with ascribing political beliefs to other users. A recent WQA discussion hasn't produced any change in conduct, despite advice from editors. Could administrators have a chat with Xerographia about productive editorial relationships, and/or refer me to the venue appropriate? Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again - it is time for a cup of tea. Xero is not doing anything which requires multiple noticeboards for sure - and the WQA thread did not appear to find anything heinous at all going on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

2.224.215.196

• 2.224.215.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP has continually made edits to several The Bold and the Beautiful pages ignoring the rules of Soap Opera WikiProject. And despite warnings and warnings, they've ignored everything. And at this point, it's tedious. I tried simply reporting their IP, but they told me to come here. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved

This ANI discussion was closed without being resolved. Can it please be un-archived for further discussion and resolution? Thank you. ClaretAsh 02:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It was completed with a level 3 warning. Unless something new occurred, it was over (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. As another user commented after Drmies mentioned the level 3 warning, I assumed the discussion was ongoing. Thanks for replying and clarifying. ClaretAsh 12:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Bwilkins and anyone else passing by, please note that the Sundostund has removed the warning and is editing still in the exact same manner. I'd love to slap a level-4 warning there, or better yet a block notice, but I really, really want someone else to look at this and see if this is actionable or note. I'm fed up with the editors flying solo and completely disregarding community discussion--this is one of the worst I've seen in a while, and that a lot of their edits are good doesn't change the fact that they refuse to be a team player. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with Sundostund on List of Presidents of Tunisia and Prime Minister of Tunisia. What is the right course of action? — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While you are free to revert now (presuming you're not at 3RR or been further limited) I would suggest wait a few days and if they don't offer any explaination or take part the discussion, revert to your version. If they continue to revert, come back to ANI and ask for them to be blocked (presuming they haven't already). Also although you've initiated discussion on their talk page, it may be better to copy it to the article talk page and direct them there for the benefit of others and of future editors and also to avoid confusion from admins. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have implored Sundostund to start discussing and given a final warning. I did not use a standard template as I don't want to get in to a debate over whether their edits qualify as vandalism. Sadly as I was composing my message Sundostund repeated some reverts but continued to offer no explaination. I reverted some of these edits. I agree a block is needed soon if it's not already, due to their complete failure to discuss even when requested and when others have initated the discussion but willingness to continue to revert despite the lack of discussion. Looking thru their past 1000 contrib history, the only talk page activity I saw was creating talk pages adding templates and removing stuff from their own talk page 8and also some stuff from moves), which is far from ideal for someone who has been repeatedly asked to discuss or offer some explaination recently. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, editor has again performed a large number of substantial edits without even a word of explanation. I have no choice but to block for disruption since it is clear from discussion above and on his talk page (look in the history) that these edits of his are not minor or undisputed. I invite the scrutiny of other administrators and editors. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The block ran out, and the editor made a few more edits, only one of which had an edit summary: apparently, my explanation of why I blocked him was nothing more than trash. I'm tired of this. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies, when I edit an article, I almost always forget to made an edit summary because I'm too much preoccupied with editing itself. I accept blame for that, and I will do my best to correct it in the future. Apparently, you're completely unable to see results of my editing, because you're too busy checking whether or not I leave edit summary. As for my editing in general, anyone can check my edit history (more than 24,000 edits and 49 created articles since March 2010) to see that I'm not an vandal who ruin articles, make disruptive editing etc. Sometime I engage in edit warring, but it's not my modus operandi on WP. As you can see, I didn't engage in some crazy edit warring on disputed articles (leaders of Egypt and Tunisia) when my block ran out. I bet that disappointed you, eh? Anyway, if I do something wrong, I can take punishment for that anytime, like a man. As for my comment in edit summary on your explanation, I only can say you obviously can't take a joke. Tired? Believe me, I'm much more tired of this then you. I constantly try to avoid engaging with people like you (without sense of humor and flexibility) both in real life and on WP. Believe me, I'm very successful in that. I truly hope this is the end of this futile discussion. Sincerely, yours truly Sundostund (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Sundostund, if you think I lack "humor and flexibility". I find nothing funny in perusing your edits. In this response (the first time, I think, that you actually deign to respond here), you are wrong in more ways than I can count, and I will mention only a couple of things: I have remarked earlier that many of your edits seem productive, and if I didn't think so (and didn't actually judge them on content) I could have reverted the lot, which I haven't. Why you'd "forget" to make an edit summary is a mystery to me. I never called you a vandal (nor did I question your manhood, ahem), so just drop that. No, I was not disappointed when you ceased edit-warring (for which you've been blocked before). And I'm not the only one who was bothered by your disruptive patterns, as is attested by the very persistence of this thread. I think it is time that you start engaging with other people, even if they're stiff and not funny (pff), that you stop treating other editors as antagonists, and that you start accepting some responsibility.

  And seriously, you have been removing anything even remotely critical from your own talk page--so why would I think that your edit summary was funny? Cause of the smiley face? It's simple: start explaining your edits. This is simply expected behavior, not some cross you have to bear. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies, you proved yourself that you lack humor and flexibility. I don't care about your humor, but it's a problem if you think that edit summary can be important same as edit itself, or even more than edit. I repeat what I said before: Every one of more than 24,000 edits I ever made on WP can be seen, and is open to judgement of other editors. I'll accept any punishment for my behavior and my mistakes here, now and in the future (although I'll give my best to avoid incidents like these in the future). --Sundostund (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• What editors have been asking for is that you communicate--if you wish to prevent further unpleasantness, that's what you need to do. As for humor, I got a joke for you: two Serbs and an Irishman walk into a bar--and they all turn out to be nice guys. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your advice, I'll try to implement it in the future. As for your "joke", it's the best example of "your sense of humor" (which is non-existent, obviously). --Sundostund (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• The funniest part of this discussion for me is that Drmies is actually uproariously hilarious in real life. Aside from that, I can only echo Drmies – communication is really key here on-wiki. Otherwise people can easily read incorrect motives in your actions, leading to situations like this. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, Ed, I don't know Drmies in any other way than by this interaction with him, so I have no clue about his real life. I'm not interested in it anyway. For me, the funniest part of this discussion is that my ability to communicate and collaborate with others came under scrutiny. Anyone who know me in real life know very well that I have no problem with that. Cheers, Sundostund (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on Sundostund you got to laugh, don't be such a stick in the mud. I've been told the joke is not racist (even though it mentions two separate races and would make no sense without doing so) and you've been told that guy is a blast in real life. Me I'm pissing myself... Bjmullan (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan, you and I obviously don't have the same sense of humor, I don't like the joke, but it's by no mean racist nor I claimed that anytime. I'm not offended because a Serb is part of it, it's just too simple for my taste. In fact, here in Serbia we have many popular jokes involving Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenes etc. and nobody claim they're racist. --Sundostund (talk) 0:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sundostund and unexplained reverts (again)

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742 § User:Sundostund and multiple articles on presidents of Egypt

Sundostund has simply waited until the past complaint was archived to resume making the same unexplained reverts on multiple articles. His last six edits are all reverts that he has repeatedly made without comment, with 2 edits prior to that also being edits but with the oh so helpful edit summary of That's your opinion being given to explain those. The user refuses to discuss any of the edits, either on his talk page or on the article talk page, ignoring the article talk pages and wiping away any attempt at raising the issue on his user talk page. He has, since the last ANI thread was archived, twice reverted at both President of Egypt and List of Presidents of Egypt, as well as reverting at Prime Minister of Tunisia and List of Prime Ministers of Tunisia multiple times. There have been exactly 0 edits to any talk page by this user during this time. Can somebody explain how I should collaboratively edit with somebody who has zero interest in anything other than reverting without comment? He ignores the article talk page, he ignores his user talk page, and he ignores this board, just waits until the section is archived without resolution so that he can go back to inserting incorrect material in an "encyclopedia" article. nableezy - 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I had not noticed that this is also discussed in a section above, #Unresolved. Sorry for that. nableezy - 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We've got a serious problem here...

Despite numerous warnings on his/her talk page and discussions of the notability of the video game characters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Once again Metal Gear characters, 194.145.185.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly engaged in incivility and personal attacks in the Wikiproject discussion, the discussion on the Tekken character list talk page, the talk page of the Metal Gear characters, demerging articles without showing consensus while discussion is taking place and has attacked other editors such as myself, MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs) ([403]), Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), Tintor2 (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs). He has also called other good faith edits vandalism and has repeatedly breached the relevant policies: WP:NOR, WP:OWN, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOTABILITY. Today, the IP readded the unsourced material to the Onimusha: Warlords page, unmerged the Shadow article from the Final Fantasy VI character article without consensus again and has engaged in uncivil and disruptive activity in the Wikiproject discussion. These issues have gone out of hand and I cannot tolerate the IP's disruption any longer as the attacks and incivility are particularly urgent. What is the best possible solution to help resolve the situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• In am mostly uninvolved in the discussions mentioned above, but I have spoken with the user about two weeks ago. After this edit (which I only happened to see because I had recently tagged the article with the WP:VG banner), I left him a note on his talk page about what appeared to me as a revert of a revert with no visible discussion, and also about the innapropriate edit summary. I pointed him to WP:BRD; he presented a few instances where discussion was being held (or at least sparked). I realized this was nothing recent nor short-lived, but rather a lengthy, sometimes sour debate. Having no interest nor particular knowledge of the subject matter I did not involve myself further, but haven't had much of a choice but to see the discussion evolve (maybe "devolve" would be more appropriate) since it was held at WT:VG. While I believe the original intent had at least a healthy measure of good faith, the editor has shown incapacity for proper discussion, and an inability to accept that people may disagree. Salvidrim! 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've tried to work with him and discuss things with him multiple times, but he gets so wound up in these long, rambling responses, where he talks about various outrages and injustices of Wikipedia, and I can't follow what he's even talking about, let alone have a real discussion with him. I've left several messages on his talk page and several other places saying that he comes off way too aggressive and that it's not helping him out any addressing people the way he does, but he never outwardly acknowledges what I say postively or negatively. I'm tired of his antics, but he, for whatever reason, at least doesn't repeatedly revert any of my edits (though he frequent instructs me on what to do), so I don't need any specific help with him. I'm just tired of his antics in general. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Supporting the statements above. User responds to conflicting views by attacking the editor in question and suggesting that they re-read their post until they "get it" and go away. User repeatedly states that his actions are just to 'get things started' on various stubs and "it's up to the rest of you to fix it after that" as he has no interest in doing anything further. User disregards concensus, and continually seeds his edits and edit history with exclaimations such as "jesus don't you get it?" -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Although at first I thought the user had good faith attempts, his civility was intolerable. Edit summaries use capital, continuously says "rewrite", tags every article (see Jax (Mortal Kombat) and discussions he starts lack formality. Moreover, when he created three articles, Liquid Snake, Hal Emmerich and Meryl Silverburgh, all of them were empty and reverted an edit by AxelTantium (who was returning them to their own sections) calling it vandalism. I would have liked the anon to be more constructive and civil, but I have seen him for several years with the same attitude with another account that was blocked because of wp:sockpuppet.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't personally engaged with this anon yet. I might have inadvertently sparked this rant by carrying out the "revert" step of WP:BRD. I did not participate in the extensive discussion at WT:VG but I did read through it a few days ago and was impressed by the amount of civility and rational discussion that other WP:VG members showed in trying to deal with him. From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to be interested in improving articles so much as he thinks his favorite characters deserve to have articles and wants everyone else to prove it for him. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for six months. This may seem harsh but I feel given the level of exasperation expressed above by multiple editors in good standing (and the supporting evidence on talk pages and contrib histories), it's warranted. The IP editor does not appear to be a net benefit to Wikipedia and dealing with that is actively detracting from the efforts of other editors who, I'm sure, would rather be spending their time more productively.

Incidentally, the IP has been blocked previously as a sock of HanzoHattori (talk · contribs); this may or may not be unrelated. Hope this helps and review welcome as always, EyeSerene^talk 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You might as well check IP 50.99.109.185. Few hours after commenting here, I received some sort message that I was being inconstructive and few insults by such anon.Tintor2 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are only two edits from that IP and they're from nearly 12 hours ago, so it might be premature to block now. However, if no-one overturns my earlier decision, future disruption "in the style of" can always be dealt with as straightforward block evasion. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of the talks I've had with the originaly 194-- IP was his/her misuse/overuse of the term "constructive editing" on wikipedia. So, considering the 50-- IP used that term, and also ranted angrily, makes the two IP's approach to communication pretty similar. But regardless, thanks for the help, EyeSerene. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they are the same person. What I really meant, but didn't explain clearly, was that the 50.99.109.185 IP may be dynamic so a block might be unnecessary. At the moment there's not enough evidence to go on but time will tell :) Apologies for my lack of clarity. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnsc12 on the page Humat al-Hima

This user has repeatedly made the same disruptive edits without explanation. I've tried a few times to discuss with him on his talk page but I have been completely ignored and the user has kept on repeating his edits. I'm not sure what else I could do except report the issue here. Thanks — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 06:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article to prevent further edit warring. However, I'm not an Arabic speaker so some additional information would be useful. I see you've made an attempt to communicate with Johnsc12, which they've ignored, but at the same time you've both been edit-warring on the article. I guess what I'm asking is why were those edits disruptive? If you could point to some policy/guideline/consensus that would support your repeated removal of their edits that would be helpful. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's true I've been edit warring, but that's because his edits were plainly wrong. For one thing, the transliteration he used was not consistent, whereas my edits followed a standard that you may find on WP:AMOS. While WP:AMOS is not a rule to follow per se, it certainly gives coherent guidelines on how to transliterate Arabic. Actually it would be fine if the user used a known transliteration system (ALA-LC, DIN, etc.) but as far as I know his edits were not following any rules. But beyond that, in the section Humat al-Hima#Original poem, the user kept on changing the word Egypt (Misr) for the word Tunis even though the Arabic lyrics mention Egypt. For that reason, I could not let his edits remain unchanged. Please tell me if I can help you any further and thank you for taking care of the issue. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 20:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. This appears to be essentially a content dispute. I'll warn Johnsc12 about non-communication and edit warring, and obviously you know you were edit warring too which mustn't happen again :) However you did try to talk to them and I appreciate that it's difficult when one side doesn't respond to discussion. If Johnsc12 makes more disruptive edits and fails to respond to communication when article protection expires I'd suggest you revert no more than once or twice, then if they keep reverting report them back here or to the edit warring noticeboard, where I expect they'll be blocked. If you like you can drop me a note on my talk page too.

I notice that WP:AMOS is marked as inactive. It could be a lot of work, but it might also be worth considering redeveloping that or coming up with another guideline for Arabic transliteration. I don't know how common a problem disagreement over translation is, but an active guideline demonstrates support and consensus and is therefore much easier to enforce than an inactive one. Best, EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If the problem continues I won't edit war as much :) As for WP:AMOS, perhaps one day I'll try to reopen the case, but for now I haven't really come across many problems regarding transliteration, and it seems as though reopening the case would rather stir more trouble. We'll see! — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism

Hello, I'm personally insulted by Dzlinker User:Dzlinker, as you can see here ("you stupid peace of shit"), in addition to attacks in arabic [404] ("yal bagra aqra shuiya" for "read a little bit stupid cow", "bagra edits" fot "cow's edits"...).

The reason of these attacks is a war of edition (on "Kabyle people" article) resulting from vandalism behaviour (page blancking) of this user, of whom I note that he's a regular customer of this kind of process (blocked several times for similar facts). Nabilus junius (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dzlinker blocked a week for edit warring (there was a previous edit warring block) and pretty over-the-top personal attacks, which don't appear to be a new issue either. Nabilus junius blocked one day for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• According to this edit history you were both over the three revert limit in the past 24 hours. I was thinking of protecting the page and going back to The Wrong Version to give you both incentive to use the talk page, given the irony of edit warriors saying "go to the talk page" in edit summaries as they edit war. But revoking privileges is an alternative. Floquenbeam beat me to cleaning your user talk page, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dzlinker has a Waffen-SS userbox on their user page, but I can't find the template. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be User:Dzlinker/Userboxes/waffen-ss. 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I was probably supposed to go thru MFD or something, but I just deleted it instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Floquenbeam. Next time, I might take a page out of your book if I run into such stuff. I've never claimed IAR, but this seems like a perfectly valid invocation thereof. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica and escalating POINTy conduct related to Libertarianism

Hi. User:Xerographica (notified) appears to have some worthwhile content to contribute in relation to an American electoralist political movement, however, they have problems with pointy editing ([405]). In addition to pointed behaviour, they have a continued problem with ascribing political beliefs to other users. A recent WQA discussion hasn't produced any change in conduct, despite advice from editors. Could administrators have a chat with Xerographia about productive editorial relationships, and/or refer me to the venue appropriate? Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again - it is time for a cup of tea. Xero is not doing anything which requires multiple noticeboards for sure - and the WQA thread did not appear to find anything heinous at all going on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism-only IP, personal attacks on another editor

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. — foxj 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

IP address 50.53.216.65 has made three edits, all of them offensive, the most recent one today. Two are on another editor's user page: here and here. The history of that user's page is also fraught with vandalism from other socks. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. If this recurs, the best board to report this to is WP:AIV rather than this one. However rathr than being bureucratic about it, it seemed quicker to just do the necessary here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The bureaucracy is very discouraging. This IP has been used only intermittently, so 1 week is unlikely to be noticed. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocks aren't designed to punish, they are designed to prevent. — foxj 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So wouldn't blocking longer prevent this from happening in the future? Especially when the edits are so sporadic/intermediate? A week block seems more punitive than preventative in this situation.--Zaiger (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fightloungemike

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:Fightloungemike is being reported here for having little or no regards for the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The main areas of concern are canvassing for the keeping of OMMAC 1 using an external website. After this request we had the following new users appear on the scene and voting to keeps the articles: Brashleyholland, London84tfl, Starwar1, Redbaronfury. The Afd can be seen here.

The second breach is the continual use of personal attacks against other editors. See here, here, here, here, here and here. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• yes, I did ask other people to vote - but I had no idea at the time that this wasn't allowed. The people I asked are a few MMA fans, who have a vast knowledge of the sport (journalists etc) and who I knew would appreciate wikipedia having OMMAC pages. Personal attacks? Stating the obvious more like. Wikipedia has a bunch of editors voting on MMA articles when they don't know much about MMA. I promise to no longer say anything about the other editors on Wikipedia anymore, but the policies on this place need changing. I apologize to the car-mad Bjmullan for calling him a worm. I'll also apologise to the worms when I next see them.--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Careful. Saying recalcitrant, combative things "Personal attacks? Stating the obvious more like." and "I'll also apologise to the worms when I next see them." is a fast track to WP:SANCTION-land. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holy moly. I guess we can forgive the canvassing, but those personal attacks are unacceptable. I have left them a templated final warning with a brief note: I hope that will be enough. Some eyes on the AfD will be helpful as well. Fightloungemike, you can try to bully people into agreement, but experience shows that it rarely works. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• The problem here is that Fightloungemike does not understand the guidelines, policies and culture here. Wikipedia isn't a forum where you can vent like that. While I admire his passion for the topic, he needs to learn to read the actual policies more carefully, and not reply to every comment in the thread (a problem I occasionally have, so I understand). Wikipedia isn't a free for all, no matter how much it looks like that at times. He would benefit from reading about assuming good faith, and learn to step back just a little. If I could choose a "punishment", it would be a 2 week course on guidelines and policies, with a written test. That would at least solve the problem in the future. Hopefully, he will just admit that he was upset and took it too far, apologize for the name calling, so no further action would be needed. Maybe go outside, read a book, watch a cartoon, just get away for a few hours and give yourself some distance from the situation. The AFD will still be here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Judging from Fightloungemike's comments after Drmies' warning, it doesn't sound like he particularly gets it. That being said, I'm surprised he didn't get a wake-up-call block. Calling those who oppose him worms and replacing the user page of opponents with repeats of "I'm a fucker!" - more than once - is not the mark of a passionate editor. You don't have to be familiar with Wikipedia civility rules to act like a civil human being. Ravenswing 19:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, I hadn't seen those user page edits, sorry. (BTW, I doubt your optimistic reading of human nature and civility: a lot of people don't care anymore--people don't even cover their mouths anymore when they yawn in class.) As far as I'm concerned there's no need to block at this time: edits since the warning reveal some misunderstandings and a heated spirit but no NPAs that I deem blockable. In the meantime, someone (whom I may have called a "meathead", for which I gladly stand trouted) saw fit to out Fighting Mike (or whatever), which doesn't help. Folks, settle down. It's just a couple of articles. An insult is easily reverted, and further insults will be blockable instantly. As for those AfDs, not all admins (despite rumors to the contrary) are morons, and most of us should be able to gauge what's valid in an AfD and what isn't. Your servant, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What a great night - accused of having the IQ of the pigeon, called a worm, accused of underhand tactics, the the warden on The Shawshank Redemption and a Meathead, and all I'm trying to do is improve this project. You know where my talkpage is and you can apologise there. Bjmullan (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And while your at my talkpage Drmies you can also apologise for this racist joke as it turns out I'm also Irish. Bjmullan (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

BJ, I'm an Irishman myself (my brother's name was Patrick), and I didn't see that as a racist joke; if anything, it was mocking racist jokes. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (looking forward to Saturday, of course)

I'm the kind of anti-racist who gets attacked by neo-Nazis, but there is NOTHING racist about that joke at all. GiantSnowman 21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've already apologized to you BJ, you can apologize to me now. Oh and I have never deface any users page at all, so that is a blatant lie by the person above. I'm very passionate about MMA, more than anybody could believe. After 18 years in the sport - it's safe to say that MMA, along with my daughters, is my life.--Fightloungemike (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, nobody could doubt that you're passionate about MMA; indeed, it seems to be your biggest problem in understanding that most of the human race does not care a rotted fig about them, and probably half of humanity never even heard of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• MMA is the fastest growing sport in the world and people have predicted it to be the biggest sport soon. That is why these articles are important. Just because you don't know your Anderson Silvas from you Lee Murrays doesn't make it not important to people--Fightloungemike (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sweet Jesus--the torture never stops. Orange Mike, you are completely correct in your reading of my "joke" (which is the worst I've ever told, though the one about the people with the speech impediments who all share a hotel room in Brussels is pretty bad too). Bjmullins, if I offended you by telling an obviously non-racist joke in a context with which you have nothing to do, also given that I've never met you before and didn't check your user page or your DNA, let alone your entry at ancestry.com, then I truly apologize. As for calling you "meathead"--well, what would you rather have: a rather honest assessment of your meatheadish outing of an editor, or a block for harassment (check out where WP:OUTING redirects to)? Take your pick.

  OK, so one editor tells me I got no sense of humor, another accuses me of telling racist jokes--and the nicest words have come from the person to whom I gave a final warning for NPAs. I think it's time for another session in the pool, which is at roughly 70 degrees. You all have a choice: you can carry on with this here and see who gets blocked first or who can make the biggest ass of themselves (not you Orange Mike, though perhaps your Orangeness is a blatant attempt to brown-nose me since I'm a Dutchman--ha! as Dutch as the Lumberjack), or you can let this die a slow death and do something useful with your fingers, like cook dinner or plant gardenias. Let me summarize: Bjmullins has been chastised for outing someone. Fighting Mike has been chastised for calling other editors bad names. If Mike does that again he'll be blocked, and I think he knows that. The AfDs will run their course--and in the meantime the wiki won't be broken. Cheers everyone. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Two things Drmies, trying getting my name right and if it's a choice between being called a Meathead and a block, I'll take the block every time. Next time use Dutch rather than Irish in your jokes.... Bjmullan (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nice Peter Aerts reference. I'm not going to call names anymore, you have my word. People need to realize that I could be a valuable commodity on Wikipedia when it comes to MMA - My knowledge of the subject is scary/geeky. I'm sorry to everybody--Fightloungemike (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

2.224.215.196

• 2.224.215.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP has continually made edits to several The Bold and the Beautiful pages ignoring the rules of Soap Opera WikiProject. And despite warnings and warnings, they've ignored everything. And at this point, it's tedious. I tried simply reporting their IP, but they told me to come here. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:213.148.166.210

This guy is an IP user. He keeps messing with pictures on the Russians infobox article, because of conspiracy theories he believes about Vladimir Lenin.

I've already told him that he believes these, then he should start a "conspiracy theories" section on the Vladimir Lenin article or perhaps on the talk page. Shouldn't be too severe of a punishment, but it's just not good.

I've also explained to him, that Wikipedia is a place for neutral information. Not bias information against Jews. But however, he is allowed to make a Wikipedia post regarding the awaraness of conspiracy theories which is why I told him to simply start an article about Lenin conspiracy theories.

User:213.148.166.210

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

You must go and tell 213.148.166.210 (talk · contribs) that you are talking about him here. leave a note on his talkpage. Penyulap _talk 05:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done so already in case User:PacificWarrior101 did not continue to monitor the discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please read up on discussion we had on Talk page of Russian article, this editor just keep keep vandalizing articles, not just Russians but also Slavs and keep inserting non-Russians into article infobox even though article itself clearly states that it's about ethnic Russians, not citizens of Russian Federation/Empire/SovietUnion. He basically undoes/reverts every single of my attempts to remove Lenin, who is obviously not ethnic Russian and replace him with ethnic Russians. His logic is utterly broken as he thinks ethnic Russians from outside of Russia apparently not "real" Russians and cant be used as an example for infobox, even though infobox itself shows that there are more than ten million of Russians living outside of Russia. I'm fed up with his insane troll logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rescind Troubles restrictions

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.

---

NOTE: this proposal is not the remove all of the restrictions, only the additional restrictions added by the community in 2008. The current ArbCom levied restrictions would still apply in full.

The initial 2007 Troubles restriction was that: "...any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." This was extended by the community in 2008, when a 1RR restriction and direction "to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions" was added. In 2011, these articles were placed under discretionary sanctions and the initial 2007 sanction was rescinded.

In an attempt to promote normal editing practice, I propose that the 2008 community restrictions be rescinded as well. Instead, enforcement can be through discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. These may include the current 1RR restriction but instead of affecting everyone, and thus hindering normal editing practice, the restriction could levied against disruptive editor(s) or a specific article(s) (possibly for a fixed period).

My concern is that a blanket and indefinite 1RR (and a blanket direction to "get the advice of neutral parties") puts good editor off and doesn't promote normal editing practice. Additionally, the majority of recent enforcements are of the kind covered by discretionary sanctions (e.g. topic bans, interaction bans, blocks for gaming, hounding, etc.) and not the 1RR restriction.

Nonetheless, I suggest that the current blanket 1RR would still apply to anyone blocked for violation of it in the past 12 months with this restriction being lifted 12 months after the date of their block (i.e. if the block was 12 months ago then the restriction is lifted from them). An uninvolved admin may extend or reduce this restriction for individual editor(s). --RA (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose this suggestion - editors in the troubles sector have shown themselves to be so strongly nationalistic and so unable to edit from a NPOV position that removing sanctions will simply increase POV pushing disruption. This is also imo not the correct location to suggest such a thing. Ask Arbcom ? - Sadly sectors of humanity are unable to get over their personal bias and in relation to historic issues and look on life from a fresh uninvolved neutral aspect and the troubles and climate change and Serbia - Bosnia and others you all are aware of need heightened levels of control because of that fact. Youreallycan 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I edit in the Troubles sector :-) (or at least some affected articles)

A very small subset of editors are so strongly nationalistic that they are unable to edit form a NPOV, I agree. However, the 2008 community restrictions are placed on everyone. The 2007 ArbCom resolution contained no such restriction. The immediate reason for the 2008 restrictions has passed and several of the editors involved have moved on or have been topic banned. Additionally, the majority of enfacements for case are now for non-1RR issues, anyway, or could be dealt with just as easily through the new discretionary sanction. So, there's no need to hinder the vast majority of constructive editors with unnecessary restrictions that are open to gaming by a troublesome minority.

Incidentally, the 2008 restrictions were adopted here, that's why I am proposing to rescind it here. I've notified the relevant communities. --RA (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I am not proposing to lift all of the Troubles restrictions, only those added by the community in 2008. The ArbCom levied remedies would (and should) still apply in full. --RA (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the 2008 restrictions were adopted here, that's why I am proposing to rescind it here. I've notified the relevant communities. --RA (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. Normal editing practice should be given priority, and the 1RR restriction was never intended to be permanent (or as permanent as it currently is). There will be problems. But the community should have faith that good editors exist, and place those editors who are unwilling or unable to adhere to policies under restrictions. Comments and positions such as editors in the troubles sector have shown themselves to be so strongly nationalistic and so unable to edit from a NPOV position... are lacking in AGF and unfairly cast aspersion at all editors working in contentious areas. While some editors have difficulties, others do not. --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Sadly , in that sector a troublesome majority is closer to the reality - tag teamers roam the sector and reducing any editing restrictions will simply allow them to push their NPOV violating opinion into the whole sector - many articles in the sector are already unworthy of en wikipedia publication from a NPOV perspective - reducing the control will open the nationalistic, partisan floodgates. Oh noes User:HighKing is here already ... with his worn out good faith allegations - a sign. Youreallycan 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, if anything, tag teaming is easier under 1RR. --RA (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am inexperienced in tag team editing, how is it easier under 1RR? Youreallycan 23:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the scenario: You make some change. An "enemy" of yours revert you saying you lack consensus for the change. You revert (possibly adding a reliable source to support the fact). A tag teamer then mysteriously appears and reverts you suggesting you take it to the talk page. Blam! You're locked out for 24hrs. The next day the same thing repeats, possibly with an edit summary "advising" you not to engage disruptive content while talk page discussions are on going. Repeat ad nauseam.

Under 3RR, it takes more reverts to breach the bright-line rule so disruptive reverts are more obvious making tag teaming more difficult. Under 1RR a tag team of three can effectively control an article indefinitely (although two is enough in many practical examples). --RA (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. My original reaction was "oh hell no", but on reflection, the discretionary sanctions should be sufficient to handle continuing disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose God no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  Why? The only practical difference it will make is to remove the 2008 community-placed 1RR restriction. The ArbCom sanction will still apply. Have faith. The ArbCom sanctions are sufficient and working. --RA (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In a area of intense conflicted users such as the troubles, 1RR is a third of the reverts and disruption that 3RR is. Youreallycan 23:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagine two editors working on an article together over the course of a day. One adds a paragraph. The other changes the order of two sentences in it. The first then corrects some statement of fact. The second then flips clauses in a sentence. The second editor has just broken 1RR. In ordinary wiki-land, that's not a problem. In areas of conflict, however, if the first editor didn't like you, you could find yourself in blocked by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for simply trying to collaborate in good faith.

Not all reverts are edit warring. The 1RR puts a chilling effect on collaboration because editors are afraid to engage in this kind of everyday collaboration we see across the 'pedia. Speaking personally, I would not consider engaging in the normal kind of collaboration like the above on Troubles-related articles. It's too risky.

Ironically, over extended periods, 1RR drives good editors away, discourages collaboration, and gives trouble editors a new means to push their POV and a weapon to attack their enemies. --RA (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Er...the scenario you just described is not a 1RR violation. Because no reversion has taken place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs). ISTB351 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not The 1RR works perfectly to prevent groups of editors (of whatever persuasion) skewing articles to their position. See also the British Isles naming dispute, etc. Whilst RA is correct in his above claim (that numbers make a difference under 1RR), merely shifting back to 3RR only ends up with longer edit wars. If we're going to change the sanctions, topic bans would be better. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Since October, almost all enforcements have been topic bans. Topics bans are more than sufficient to deal with the issue. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Support proponents buttress their position with the premise that 1RR restricts the normal and customary editing practices prevalent across Wikipedia. Indeed, they're right ... and this would be a problem if these were normal and customary articles. They are not. They are articles dealing with a conflict that has been bitter for centuries, and on form will be a touchy, bitter subject for many decades to come. If instead of free and easy swashbuckling, the restrictions compel all edits to be careful and deliberate, what exactly is wrong with that? I do not believe, as Rannpháirtí does, that such restrictions drive away good editors. I imagine they deter casual editors ... and given the snakepit these articles could once again easily become, I can live with that. Ravenswing 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Add to this RA's suggestions on the Northern Ireland talk page that politically controversial issues should be resolved by direct editing of the article rather than using the talk page and we have a license to edit wars, sock puppets and all those other "good" things that so plague the issue and which the 1RR restriction has dampened down. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not every edit is controversial and politically controversial issues can be resolved through direct editing. That's normal. It's what we should be encouraging. I'm not going to apologies for assuming good faith in the vast bulk of editors or for wanting to see a healthy editing environment. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor should you apologize. But that being said, this is no different from semi-protection of vandalism-prone articles. No doubt most anon IPs are trustworthy and edit within the rules, but there are articles contentious enough to require such protections, a fact long recognized. Ravenswing 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree. For example, today I did a copy edit of large parts of the Northern Ireland article. Nothing that should be controversial but the sort of thing that takes several edits to work through. Now, if another editor had also happened to edit those sections while I was working on them, we would both have had to down tools for the day because neither of us would have been able to continue without breaching 1RR. I genuinely had a worry while doing it that I would accidentally revert someone without getting an edit conflict. That sort of thing debilitates article development if 1RR is left in for an extended period.

There is also the simple experience that some content is best developed through a series of quick rewrite between editors e.g.:

• Editor one: "The moon rotates around the earth."
• Editor two: "The moon orbits the earth."
• Editor one: "The moon orbits the earth once a month."
• Editor two: "The moon orbits the earth once every 27.3 days."

In the above example, editor two just broke 1RR. Some disputes are best resolved in this way too, with editors quickly arriving at a "good fit" for their contrasting POV. Consequently, 1RR actually removes an avenue for dispute resolution.

Don't get me wrong, 1RR has its purpose, but it is not appropriate IMO as an indefinite solution. I'd prefer to see normal editing practice being re-enabled and problems being addressed as they occur through discretionary sanctions (including 1RR when appropriate). --RA (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In your example no one has broken 1RR and if that type of editing took place on non-controversial issues then there is no problem. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"If we're going to change the sanctions, topic bans would be better."

This comment by Black Kite caught my eye because topics bans are currently the most frequent means of enforcement on these articles. Just to be clear, there are currently three restrictions in the area:

• A direction to "get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions."
• A 1RR across all affected articles, affecting all editors and edits
• Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

The first two of these are not part of the ArbCom ruling. They were added by the community and I say their time as past. What I am proposing is:

• That direction to "get the advice of neutral parties" be dropped because it is ignored anyway. (It is impractical to get outside opinion for every edit. I have never seen enforcement of it.)
• The 1RR be removed as a general sanction and be replaced by a 12 month 1RR for editors who breached it in the past.

Instead, as is currently happening, the use of discretionary sanctions (e.g. topic bans, indefinite blocks, 1RR on specific articles) should become the normal means of enforcing the Troubles. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at present. The idea that you're planning to "handicap" anyone who's breached 1RR in the past is only guaranteed to create more problems that it will solve. If you want to do away with 1RR, do it across the board and issue sanctions to people as and when needed not as some pre-emptive measure that will just cause more strife. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What I suggested above was "that the current blanket 1RR would still apply to anyone blocked for violation of it in the past 12 months with this restriction being lifted 12 months after the date of their block (i.e. if the block was 12 months ago then the restriction is lifted from them). An uninvolved admin may extend or reduce this restriction for individual editor(s)."

My motivation to suggest this was as a transitionary measure mainly to head off worries about opening a flood gate of warriors. It doesn't appear to have achieved that (i.e. commenter above worry opening a flood gate of warriors). In any case, I don't foresee that and would be happy to simply drop it for everyone and let discretionary sanctions deal with issues as they arise. --RA (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, you have already opened a threat on getting rid of 1rr above why raise it again as a ub thread? Topic bans etc are already used on the Troubles, so that is already in place. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For clarity. You and I are familiar with the Troubles sanctions but I got the impressions that some comments above thought I was suggesting we rescind all of the sanctions. --RA (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per black kite --Guerillero | My Talk 20:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments in previous section ----Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral: I'm neutral on this. Yes it is annoying at times but there are those who would abuse it if the restrictions are lfited. I won't make a decision either way but I will say that it does need clarification at times and could do with some better implementation. For example the page Belfast West by-election, 2011 was considered for some reason to be under the 1RR qualifications. I failed to see how when the only way they can is because it includes the slightest mention of the former holder of the seat, the former Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - It may be annoying, but it's working. It ain't broke, let's not do like the only-half-joking description of Congress and 'fix it until it is'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It's clear consensus is against lifting the 1RR. CoE's observation is good though. Another perplexing example is Carlingford Lough, which is tagged as being under the Troubles restrictions. There may be good reason for these but as a long-term solution, where does it end and how can an article return to normal after (what may be) a temporary trouble has passed?

All Troubles-related articles are under 1RR and the advise is, "When in doubt, assume it is related." I doubt Gibraltar, for example, is Troubles-related but should I assume that it is? If it did become Troubles-related (because, for example, of the shooting of IRA members there in 1988), how could the 1RR ever be lifted again? Would 1RR apply to that article indefinitely because of a temporary trouble involving a handful of editors? Where does this end?

So, as an alternative proposal:

• Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions
• Additionally, all articles tagged with the {{Troubles restriction}} are under 1RR
  • Any editor may add the template to an article.
  • Only an uninvoled admin (or someone acting on behalf of ArbCom) may remove it.

This would introduce clarity about which articles are under 1RR restriction and allow a path for articles that are no-longer flash points to be return to normality. Genuinely Troubles-related articles would remain templated indefinitely. The ability for uninvoled admins (and ArbCom) to take sanctions against Troubles-related billigerants anywhere on the 'pedia would be unaffected. --RA (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the 1RR is that occasionally a well-intentioned editor gets caught in the crossfire and receives a block for breaking 1RR; on the other hand IPs often get away with it as was the case with the Shankill Butchers when the 1RR was broken by an IP and no sanctions were levelled against him. The problem with such a draconian restriction is that if an experienced Troubles-related editor such as myself happens to accidentally break the 1RR, I could be busted by anyone and receive a hefty block. I think it's understood that anyone who edits Troubles articles does not lack their fair share of enemies. No matter how hard we strive to remain neutral we're bound to piss others off. Honestly, I don't know who my nemies are but I'm sure they're out there waiting for me to slip up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is that articles that do not have 1RR restrictions can easily abitrarily be decided to be under the troubles restrictions by any editor. The Belfast West by-election page was a prime example where no discussion took place and a non-admin took it upon himself to just apply it anyway because it was slightly linked to someone involved in the troubles. As for this proposal, I would support a change of the "any editor" in number 3 to "any admin" to avoid something like this again. Other than that, it seems OK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both of the comment above. They both cut to the real heart of the problem for everyday, constructive and collaborative editors. The unknown and is a chilling effect that at times seems to serve the needs of belligerent editors more than constructive ones.

No problem with changing "any editor" to "any admin" (presumably uninvolved). --RA (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Concerns of "tag-teaming" are just the same when an article has a 3RR rule, you just get away with more reverts before action is taken. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is now time wasting. Discretionary sanctions are already covered in the Troubles ruling, adding the template or removing it has never been a major issue and current process is fine. I can't think of any example where a draconian block has been applied to an experienced or new editor who accidentally broke 1RR in all my years of editing in the area, if there are some lets look at them ----Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Failures in Troubles restrictions rest at admin's feet

In theory the 1RR is an effective dispute resolution tool in hot topics. If reports were followed up properly, and reporters/violators monitored for how they conduct themselves both before and after violations, then resolution in the best Wikipedia traditions would be possible.

In practice, in the area of the Troubles at least, all the 1RR restricton has done is is codify the already bad practices of the (mainly Irish) established editors in the topic area. As has already been said, with just two or three ardently republican editors (so, basically Domer48, Mo ainm and BJMullen), using 1RR it is very easy indeed to 'win' disputes across the whole encyclopoedia, and lock all of its articles down to the Irish world view, rather than resolve issues in a way that creates high quality neutral works.

All it takes t succeed is a lazy admin with the mindset that all they are there for is to count diffs and issue blocks. What is happening in this area is that the experienced POV pushers are simply giving the mandatory warning and phoning in the reports. They follow each other around to each dispute to ensure this tactic works, and have done so for years, in total disregard for the supposed distaste this site has for such obvious meat puppetry.

The idea that 1RR has encouraged meaningful and respectful discourse on talk pages, for the mutual benefit of creating neutral wordings based on considered argumentation, is frankly laughable. Look at any average talk page at any one of these areas (where it has even been used, as it more often than not isn't). It normally reads as a perfect 'how not to engage others' guide. Evasion, diversion, distortion, cpov, gaming, it's all always there in glorious technicolour. This is why not one single article toiched by these people will ever be raised to the verified level of being some of Wikipedia's best work. But they are of course fine with that, because creating neutral articles is not their goal.

HJMitchell should be commended for his recent actions in blocking one of the regular pushers who tried to win one recent dispute in this manner. But most of you are not as dilligent as he is, and clearly balk at the idea of investigating the events surrounding any one of these reports for an eye to all policies relevant to how consensus is supposed to be reached. Still, that's what happens when you build a site where the 'policemen' are all volunteers, who can amazingly get away with saying 'screw you, I don't have to do shit around here, you're luck I even looked at this for 5 minutes'. Infact it's hilarious to see how often many of you openly declare that you've abandoned this area to hell and won't touch it with a barge pole.

It's not surprising your collective dilliegence is so lax though when you even have an arbitrator who has no issue in enabling one of the regular abusers of this tactic to hide his past identity, in order to present to the more gullible among you, a supposedly clean his block log (which as we all know, is very good thing to have if you intend to spend your time on Wikipedia reverting to 'stable versions' and filing 1RR reports).

Infact, whern it comes to the whole British-Irish topic area, the administration of disputes is frankly laughable. I nearly fell off my seat when I saw HighKing was finally forcibly removed from the whole British Isles topic, having been for years conducting a one man English language modification programme on Wikipedia (although it continues through the diligence of fellow patriot BJMullen). I was not amused when it turned out that HighKing had supposedly been topic banned from the whole topic area all along - when this ban was enacted he had switched from removing the term to tagging it on that very day, a clearly tendentious tsactic that he continued to use for months until somebody noticed. That shows just how crap you collectivly are in dealing with these very determined POV pushers.

In short, 1RR is a good idea, but it's only as good as the admins behind it. So how about you start doing you jobs properly? Treaty19239 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By blocking the obvious ban evading sock? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

MoodBar Feedback spamming

Resolved

 – Accounts blocked. Developers disabled the function. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what to do about this; as you can see from Special:Log/Superwikiman01 it seems to be possible to spam thousands of these things and I can't see a way to delete them efficiently. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs to be mass rolled back and the account indef'd. Blackmane (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't even possible to delete them. He was using a bot to mass-spam these things because the WMF was so desperate to push these "improvements" out without any safeguards to prevent this type of abuse (5000 submissions in 7 minutes). Be prepared for more of it. I've blocked the account without talkpage or email access, and am going to file a bug report with bugzilla. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And I've just nailed another vandalbot. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another:User:KingMolestia. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, and blocked User:WikiPrefix 2 hours ago, I've hidden the feedback dashboard contribs of the latter, but the edits are not rollbackable (or I'm not savvy enough to do it). Help would be appreciated, as I'm on smartphone (User:Lectonar).109.45.0.93 (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't possible to rollback or delete them. I am in contact with the developers at the moment to try to get this fixed quickly. (I've also created an edit filter to stop the vandalbots that were attacking pages.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, the developers have disabled the moodbar to stop this flood of vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to hide MoodBar comments, but only one at a time; not efficient for that type of spamming. Maybe Special:Nuke could be adjusted to take care of MoodBar comments too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

carlingford lough "international border"

The term "international border" was removed from opening of the Carlingford Lough page. I have tried to revert but this has been met by further revert telling me that I need to discuss the edit to revert back to the original. Very bizarre. I am conscious of not starting an edit war as the page is under 1RR. Please read talk page topic - Remove term "international border". Please adviseHackneyhound (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder what relation this account has to One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). Coincidence, or WP:HARASSMENT? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My money is on the latter. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the only relation is that we both have "hackney" in our names. Please do not diminish this request with an unrelevant point. Sarek, if you are an admin, can you look into this please?Hackneyhound (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What is heavens name is the problem? It is clearly stated that it "forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south.". The word "international" is plain superfluous, as the context makes clear that it is a border between two countries and thus an international border. It may take a while (a few centuries I guess), before it is an internal border. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Needless repetition of an idea without imparting very much additional clarity. It is tautology. Leaky Caldron 14:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I raise this issue is that a suggested change has already been made to change the location field in the infobox to include "Northern Ireland". This has been blocked so far as we require consensus. The same users who are blocking this useful edit removed the term "international" without consensus because they do not consider Northern Ireland to be a country. This page is littered with inconsistencies and POV. I don't think this edit should stand if no consensus was reached. Hackneyhound (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Austereraj

There has been a long discussion at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights, and it clearly seems to need a attention from ANI. Austereraj is back with multiple IP's + registered new name, User:Researchfir. Please do what is necessary. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

problem in the online ambassador program

Since Summer 2011 the WMF has been expanding a program to connect the Wikipedia community with university professors, who in turn would ask each of their students to contribute to Wikipedia. To make this work, the WMF set up a system of "campus ambassadors" who physically go to classrooms and "online ambassadors" who support the students online. There is not much screening or oversight for this; people just volunteer.

It seems to me that being an ambassador is similar to having a Wikipedia community endorsement, much in the same way that being an admin is. I think it would be especially problematic if there were trouble with an ambassador, but I am making no judgement about the situation to which I am about to link. Recently someone made a serious complaint about an online ambassador. We in the ambassador program got into this program expecting to help professors and students and did not establish the system with an internal complaint review process. It seems like we need one, and I thought ANI could help me find people to comment on this. Here is the problem stated on the outreach wiki; that page links back to some English Wikipedia articles.

Thoughts? I notified no one about this post because I do not think discussion ought to be here on this board and because I am not sure who all is involved. I am not involved in this other than by trying to get others to comment on it. Could I request input, please? What should this person with a complaint do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I and others have unsuccessfully searched for a chain of command in both the IEP and general GEP. Repeated requests for said chain have been met with vague dismissals and general gnashing of teeth by staff members. I'm not sure even they know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at here, this is definitely not something that the English Wikipedia can resolve. I understand your frustration. The Foundation should have had a complaints procedure in place, but people always forget this. They need to put something in place now to deal with this - I can't see anyone else who has the authority. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I've posted a bit of the background behind this issue at the link given by Bluerasberry. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• More generally, it's a difficult balance to strike; the ambassador system (and outreach generally) is a fairly small young project and hasn't yet had much chance (or pressure) to build internal process & policy. We all know what can go wrong if you try to fit a small young project to a procrustean bed of bureaucracy in the hope of getting better quality. Until this disagreement, I had genuinely believed that there was enough (or more than enough) in place already, what with selection and deselection processes for ambassadors, a steering committee, and vague WMF background presence... bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think the lack of bureaucracy is the problem, it's the lack of clarity. No one seems to know who's doing what right now, all the way up to Frank Schulenberg. If we could get our shit together and just determine who's supposed to do what in the system we already have, I think many of these types of problems would disappear. But we've been after that for months now and haven't gotten any closer, so I won't hold my breath waiting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. I had a concern about "globalisation" of the project and USA-specific stuff but, err, apparently the best solution is to email some WMF person and ask to be a regional ambassador, and that person never replied anyway. BOLD may be a virtue here... just go ahead and change stuff, create policy pages &c and then the rest of the community will either go along with it, or replace it with something better - either way, the project wins. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I feel like I've burned far too many bridges with the WMF people for them to seriously listen to me (except Jalexander, who I've met IRL; great guy), but I may take you up on that if for no other reason than to see what happens. I'd love to be proven wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• The lack of accountability in the Global Education Program (and the WMF in general) is stupefying. I think we should take matters into our own hands -- the clearest signal we can send to the WMF that we have lost confidence in a ambassador/WMF staff member is to impose topic bans. Hand out a 6 month topic ban from the Global Education Program and let the internal review process sort itself out. MER-C 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Or we can let the internal review process work, then decide if the Wikipedian community needs to take further action... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no confidence whatsoever (see my second point and the lack of response) in the ability of the Global Education Program to hold its staff members and ambassadors accountable. Passing the buck on the close paraphrasing complaint does nothing to alleviate that. MER-C 03:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

      I'd be all for that, except I think we'd run into a Worcester v. Georgia problem when it comes to implementation. If you can find a way around that, do let me know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

      • You're confusing the IEP disaster with the Online Ambassadors, which are mostly two separate organizations. OAs are Wikipedians and the the group is run by the same; the WMF (specifically Sross (Public Policy), also known as the highly respected Wikipedian Ragesoss) created it, helped it mature, and spun it off. Let us address these concerns. Contrary to what you think we're doing – 'passing the buck', I believe – we're working on it right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hey, I sit on the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee. We have been furiously discussing this issue since it first came up both on and off wiki. It came up at our past IRC meeting as well as over our email list. Looking at my email inbox, I have two extensive email exchanges about this issue. As it stands, there is a recall path for all levels of the ambassador programs, for a Steering Committee member follow the Regional ambassador path. At this point in time, Mathew needs to either attempt to recall cindy or drop the issue. (The opinions expressed here are my own and should not be taken as the opinion of the Ambassador Program, Steering Committee, or the WMF ) --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not to pile on, but my one encounter with a Wikipedia Ambassador left me deeply unimpressed.[406] This editor unashamedly viewed Wikipedia as an activism platform for his pet topic - his contributions to the encyclopedia were replete with edit warring, meatpuppetry, and namecalling. Perhaps the program could incorporate better quality control, or even cursorily glance at applicants' edit histories. Skinwalker (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I just heard this discussion has now also spilled into ANI and decided to take a look. To clarify, the Foundation is not responsible for the Steering Committee that manages the online ambassadors; the Wikipedia community is. And to echo Ed, I personally have seen no evidence that the issue is being ignored-- quite the opposite. Also, the ambassador Skinwalker mentioned, is no longer with us. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... so, the WMF creates this program, then tells the en.wikipedia community it's our responsibility to police it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the WMF created the program with the intention of turning it over to the Wikipedians recruited into said program. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had several, ah, sub-optimal episodes of late. User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Wikipedia:Request for Comment/WMF - WP relations is pretty empty right now, but I do think that it's time for a centralised discussion on this. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please make this happen, it is long overdue. MER-C 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This has little to do with the discussion at hand... the Online Ambassadors are Wikipedian-run now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• This job description for Rob Schnautz (WMF), posted on his page, says: "This contractor will help ensure effective communication with the Wikipedia community regarding the Program working closely with Online Ambassadors as well as the WMF staff involved in the program."[407] Also, the Online Ambassador I originally asked about is still in operation. She just had the same article turned down at GA review again for close paraphrasing, indicating she hasn't learned anything. It has been noted that she caused significant problems last semester especially in psychology articles, per SandyGeorgia. It has been several weeks since I brought this matter to attention, but as far as I know that Online Ambassador is still clueless. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• addendum. I've notified Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Ambassador Recall Process that I wish to file a formal complaint, since that was suggested above. I'm curious to see if I get any response. (There's no place on the project page to file one, so I did so on talk.) I'd also like to see where the en:wp community gave permission through an rfc (or however it's done) for the Online Ambassadors Steering Committee to set itself up as an independent entity with no community supervisor. Where/how was this done? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Steering Committee, elected by Online Ambassadors, oversees the Online Ambassador process, similar to how coordinators, elected by Military history Project members, oversee the project of the same name. Nothing groundbreaking there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• The Indian Education program seems to be run from meta. I proposed a very challenging target for them over a month ago. No-one seems to have objected to it, so I suggest we try and find whatever target the WMF has given the ambassador program and propose an equally tough target. How about "To be considered a success, the editors recruited through the online ambassador program should generate no more copy vio and overly close paraphrasing than other newbies." ϢereSpielChequers 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • WSC, Online Ambassadors are (supposed) to be experienced editors here, so I'm not sure this is a terribly difficult goal to reach. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • 2% plagiarism and copyvio is a goal I'd like to set for the program, not just the ambassadors. However good the ambassadors are, some of the students will commit copyvio, and the program could be a success even if some of the individual students were to do bad edits. But if we made a low proportion of copyvio one of the main targets of the program then there is a greater chance that the WMF and the Ambassadors would take copyvio seriously. With the previous targets the WMF could declare the program a success however bad the copyvio problem was. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Everything the military history project does is under the review of the community: every rule they make for what should or should not be in articles, or what articles there should or should not be, or the quality rating of articles, is open to the immediate review by the community. Anyone who chooses can join, their operations are internal to enWP, and have a long history of acceptance and success. The ambassador program is essentially autonomous, selects and limits their own members, is not subject to review by the community (though their articles their students produce certainly are--and a good many have been rejected, or sometimes tolerated only to avoid discouraging the students in the middle of a class), and represents WP to an outside constituency. It has had a very mixed record of success, even in the US. (The results in India I think are more specifically the fault of the Foundation, which tried to run an editorial project whose needs they did not understand.). It's time the community effectively removed their autonomy. Now that the WMF has confirmed the project is not under their direct control, we do not have to argue about whose jurisdiction it is. Anyone writing at the English Wikipedia does so under the guidelines of the overall community here. There are no privileged contributors. Very few ambassadors are experienced editors here: it has proven impossible to get sufficient people experienced here to volunteer, and we need to consider why.In the meanwhile, we should deal with them here as with any other editor. The principles are NOT BURO and that we are a single community. (I have been a member of the project , but no longer actively participate formally, though I will give talks, advise people, or look at articles on request, for them or for anyone who asks me. I have no further patience in my life for formal organization, and from the start I have thought the programs goals unrealistic and not sufficiently subject to modification. ) DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And the structure of the ambassador program drives at least some experienced editors (I speak here of myself) away from it. I was an Online Ambassador for two semesters...I had some positive interactions with the professor, and he seemed to be a very savvy person who transformed from not getting WP at all into someone respectful of our rules and caring about his students. The students, on the other hand, simply failed to listen to me. I later left the program when an article from a different class was nominated for deletion, the professor not only spoke in the AfD, but notified the Ambassador mailing list about it (calling for assistance), and another ambassador closed the AfD as a snowball keep (in part using IAR to justify the closure since the continued AfD, likely to be closed keep eventually, was damaging the outreach goal of the ambassador program). I had no interest in being part of a program that was attempting to circumvent normal WP rules just to do "outreach" (despite, as far as I know, no evidence that this outreach was getting people to edit WP at all beyond their class assignments). Now, this was 6 months ago, so maybe they've shaped up since then, I don't know. But DGG is right: if WMF is not claiming this as a privileged, special project, then we should manage it through our normal internal processes. If someone wants to establish a centralized consensus that the outreach programs get special treatment (above and beyond normal WP:BITE and WP:AGF) concerns, then fine, but until then, they're all normal editors who perhaps need more watching than others, since they're under a real-world pressure to "finish" a contribution in order to achieve a measurable reward. Heck, I've even argued before that we need to treat these outreach students as being somewhat similar to paid-editors (that is, allow them, but recognize that they have a goal that is not necessarily concordant with the 'pedias). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing promotes a product (or degrades its opponents). Class projects, on the other hand, can be supporting the subject and critically analyze the subject (they are not mutually exclusive). So I think your comparison of class projects with paid editors is fear mongering or at the very least, stretching it out of context. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, in context with my wider view on paid editing, they're identical. That's because I'm one of the people that likes paid editing, so long as its declared and reviewed by uninvolved neutral editors. However, you are right, they're different: the class outreach can be, if not well-monitored, worse. For a paid editor, their job is to make a good page that passes long term scrutiny; for the best paid editors, that means accepting that the page is not under their control and may well include negative coverage if that exists. A student, on the other hand, in most cases, just has an assignment to do, no different than any other homework, and needs to get it done by a certain date. I have had students assigned to write on Wikipedia actually say "Just leave it up for one more day so I can get my grade." A student has no long term motivation, nor any reputation to protect. Now, with good ambassadors (campus and online), and fair treatment, this can result in some wonderful improvements to Wikipedia (if nothing else university students have probably the best access to sources of anyone, assuming they're willing to use them). So I don't want the outreach programs to stop. I just want them to 1) be kept at a reasonable level that we can manage, 2) be accountable to us internally, with the understanding that those editors get no special treatment beyond what we would give to any new editor, and 3) any ambassadors giving bad advice or not doing their job will no longer hold ambassadorships. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to the students, their job also is to make good content - the better the content the better the grades. Of course some students will be only putting in enough effort to get the grade they need, but I suspect that some paid editors won't have their heart in it either. The difference in my view is that the students are supposed to be working to Academic standards which should be similar to ours. Paid editors by contrast have an employer who wants more favourable coverage than they'd get from neutral wikipedians. ϢereSpielChequers 15:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this doesn't need to be at ANI, but I think you're wrong on both points. Academic standards are in fact nearly the opposite of ours, because academic papers require original research, and generally favor POV (even many "scientific" papers, since they often assert that one scientific position is correct and others are wrong). Additionally, many paid editors (and their companies) merely want their article not to be filled with inaccuracies, complaints from blogs, and generally poor writing, and accept that we merely cover what other sources have already said. Are there exceptions on both sides? Yes. Can both sides be taught to act well (i.e., per our rules)? Absolutely. So as long as the WMF or the Ambassador project isn't going to interfere with normal editing behavior, then I think everything should be fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, paid editing is a red herring. We should be looking at content, not who produces it. The problem with the Online Ambassadors program is that no one's in charge. They appear to be an independent setup. Somehow oversight needs to be exercised over this program. Right now they appear to be independent. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a proposal regarding greater transparency and community involvement in the Ambassador selection and removal process at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors#Increasing community involvement and transparency in ambassador (de)selection processes. MER-C 03:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That needs to be split into two RfCs. There are two issues here. RfC/U are almost never used to remove someone from a position. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I might not have been totally clear there, but the process is analogous to formal administrator recall (RFC/U, no improvement => ArbCom). I have edited the proposal accordingly. MER-C 04:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

alternate names bias

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

---

• The setup
• We have a tennis player named Sasa Hirszon where it was decided to keep the name at it's foreign diacritic spelling rather than at the English common spelling. Arguments for English were the usual: ATP (Association of tennis professionals), Davis Cup (International country vs country tournaments), English newspapers and English television overwhelmingly use Sasa Hirszon. The ITF (the governing body of tennis) "requires" all players to take an Anglicized English alphabet name upon registration, and has had in its bylaws "English language only" since the 1920s. The obverse reasons for placement at Saša Hiršzon are also the usual: It is his accurate birth-name and it is the name used in his home country. We all know the divisive diacritic arguments that happen at wikipedia and the fact they results go every which way depending on what editors happen to find the vote being taken in a particular week. I'm a follow-the-English-sources guy... If those sources show diacritics then that's what I go with, if not then we go with the English alphabet. Editor User:Joy would need to tell you himself/herself his views of diacritics. It seems to me they are use at all times. I was quite unhappy with this Sasa Hirszon result but it's what happened after that has me perplexed and upset enough to bring this here, because it affects tennis articles of the past and future that work on to some degree.
• The problem
• At tennis project we tell editors to make an alternate name in the first line like wikipedia policy tells us to do. As an example, if a debate lands a player title on his English alphabet name we would put the following to this fictitious player: Zen Zeliski (Franistani: Zĕn Zełĭski). This is to let readers and editors know that player has another version of his name in the Franistani language that could be common depending on the reader. Of course we have redirects from the foreign spelling also. It seems only fair that we also have the obverse if the article name lands on the franistani spelling, so: Zĕn Zełĭski (English: Zen Zeleski). This is what I did to the Saša Hiršzon page Here. It was reverted by Joy where he promptly put in a new section titled "repetitio ad nauseam" to tell me I was wrong. I discussed this with another Administrator who told be what I did sounded reasonable to him, so I went back and changed "English" to what I thought would be more palatable "Common Name" Here. This was reverted by a different editor but confirmed by Joy once again. You can view the full dialog Here. I even suggested we could do something like Zĕn Zełĭski (Alternate name: Zen Zeliski) to no avail. I also suggested, since Joy didn't want any alternate name, that we also remove the alternate naming when players wind up at the English Alphabet version so instead of Zen Zen Zeliski (Franistani: Zĕn Zełĭski) we'd just have Zen Zeliski. That way at least we would have consistency amongst our many tennis articles. I told him I'd need his support if I I remove that from other tennis articles and I got no reply. I find this a ridiculously biased stand by a wikipedia administrator. I had thought of maybe (ITF name: Sasa Hirszon) but that only covers part of the alternate name reasoning plus many casual readers of wikipedia tennis may not understand what ITF stands for. With new tennis editors at the project we won't know how to explain the discrepancy of handling these situations. Would I rather this article be at Sasa Hirszon?, of course... but it's not. Therefore my preference is to have Saša Hiršzon (English: Sasa Hirszon) or Saša Hiršzon (Common Name: Sasa Hirszon) just as we have Andrea Petkovic (Serbian: Андреа Петковић, Andrea Petković). It seems only fair to our readers to let them know and keep things on an even keel and it seems to me that Joy is overstepping his authority. There may not be many administrators here that really have no thoughts on tennis and it's diacritic situation but I'm not sure that matters as this is really a content equality issue on the policy of alternate names. But it affects so many new player articles and I certainly don't want to go through this over and over. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• So is Joy using or threatening to use his admin tools in some way? If not, this sounds like a simple titling/naming disagreement, which is something AN/I can't really help with. 28bytes (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No he is not. But we are getting different opinions from different Administrators on an issue that could easily turn into edit warring. I came here for a decision on how to proceed when it seems wiki "policy" is being violated by a biased editor. If Joy had blocked me or others for reverting it, then that would be an abuse of power. It has not come to that. If this were a basic silly editor like myself it would be different, but Joy being an administrator is a bit intimidating to figure out where to take it, and when. I felt we went as far as we could go. I thought this wasn't just a content dispute, this was an unbalanced judgement where I had already asked for advice. Are you saying that this would be better served at a place like Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or perhaps Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. If you feel that is the proper placement I'll close this and open it at a suggested local. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That being the case I'd suggest starting at WP:DRN. Keep in mind that while administrators may (and usually do) have opinions on content issues, their opinions should be not given more weight than those of any other editor. 28bytes (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Then please close this up (or whatever the term is here) and should you or I let User:Joy know about this, since it was placed on his user talk page? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• What is the point of adding "(English: Sasa Hirszon)"? That's already deducible from "Saša Hiršzon" and does not add anything of value. If it were "Sasa Hirszon (Croatian: Saša Hiršzon)", that would at least add info on the original spelling. It's deducible one way, but not the other. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably best not to get into such formatting discussions at AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request for review of block by EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) had a content dispute with WP Editor 2011 (talk · contribs) on the Book of Habakkuk article over WP:ERA dating. However, EncycloPetey's last edit was to revert WP Editor 2011's "illegal changes" and then to immediately block WP Editor 2011 for edit warring for 48 hours, presumably so that EncycloPetey's edit would not be reverted. 48 hours just seems a bit much when WP Editor 2011 has had no previous block, and has (from what I can tell) never been warned about edit warring in any capacity. The blocking administrator also failed to leave a block template on the blocked user's talk page, so the blocked user likely has no idea how to appeal their block, or even that they can do so.

During the past two days, each of them made two reversions back to their preferred versions, each of them explaining on their talk pages why they made the edits, so I'm at a loss as to why WP Editor 2011 was edit warring, and EncycloPetey was not. Looking at the article's contribs, it looks like somewhere around a third of the edits to that article have been made by EncycloPetey, so the user doesn't appear to be WP:UNINVOLVED by any means.

I'm not involved in this dispute, but an editor with administrative privileges using their tools during a content dispute to maintain their preferred version and block the other editor concerned me, so I would greatly appreciate it if administrators could take a look at this and review both WP Editor 2011's block and EncycloPetey's actions. I left a message on EncycloPetey's talk page ~15 hours ago asking the editor to clarify why they made this block, but as of posting this message, EncycloPetey has not edited further and their contribs show relatively infrequent editing, so I wanted to bring this here so that this could be reviewed in a more timely manner and the block adjusted if doing so is appropriate. - SudoGhost 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Editor 2011 and EncycloPetey have both been notified. - SudoGhost 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow.... I've unblocked WP Editor 2011 as this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call to unblock. Entirely agree that this was a textbook case of an involved admin. Does the unblock put this report to bed? In my view it would be good to hear from EncycloPetey before we do. I'd want to hear that he accepts this was a breach of WP:UNINVOLVED, and an undertaking to be more careful in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spot on Kim - unblock was entirely correct, and it would be beneficial to hear from EncycloPetey on the matter. GiantSnowman 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that WP Editor 2011 was simply lying in his edit summary "Undid revision 481432198 by EncycloPetey (talk) since this was the same change made against the rules by this editor on 12 Dec 2011". [This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Habakkuk] was the condition of the article before EncycloPetey made any edits on 12 December. As you can see that version of the article contained both era styles, which is clearly against the MOS, which calls for one style per article. EP simply made the article consistent throughout. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How was he lying? This was indeed "the same change" that EncycloPetey made on 12 Dec 2011, there's nothing untrue in the edit summary. They were both "making the article consistent", and WP Editor 2011 was making it consistent with the first version of the article. Not saying WP Editor 2011 was correct, but this was not some critical disruption that caused for an immediate block by an involved administrator, it was a content dispute. Nor was it "illegal", which is an odd choice of words for an administrator to make in an edit summary. - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I missed the "against the rules" part. However, I don't think it was a matter of lying so much as a misunderstanding. - SudoGhost 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[I've re-opened the discussion, which seems as yet unresolved--if an admin made a wrong and "involved" decision this board can comment. If this gains no more traction, it can be closed in 24 hours, maybe. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently this issue isn't resolved. EncycloPetey apparently doesn't think this is an WP:INVOLVED issue, stating that "all my interaction on this particular issue has been in the capacity of an administrator". I don't see how blocking an editor for having a content dispute with you isn't a violation of WP:INVOLVED, and this statement seems to suggest that this problem will potentially repeat itself in the future. - SudoGhost 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did that edit go? But also, the thread was just about the block itself or not? It's not like ANI can make someone listen short of community sanctions. Is it thought that this is serious enough for escalation? - 124.148.170.131 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • He undid it a few minutes later with an edit summary stating "undo my edit - I had not spotted that the issue was closed before I had a chance to respond". --64.85.220.19 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

An administrator using their tools in a content dispute to block an editor to win an edit war for an escalated period of time when the user has no previous blocks, without warning the user or so much as placing a block template on their talk page? To top if off, that administrator makes no comment that this will not happen again, quite the opposite, not seeing that it is even an issue by egregiously misinterpreting their actions there as somehow not being WP:INVOLVED? Yes, I do think that this is a serious issue. - SudoGhost 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've reviewed this, and agree that it was a clear-cut case of an involved admin using his tools in a dispute. Indeed, it would have been a poor block if he hadn't been an involved admin. Whether it should be escalated further depends (a) on whether EncycloPetey takes on board the opinion from multiple people that this was a serious misuse of his admin tools, and agrees not to do it anymore, and (b) on whether this is a one-off, or a pattern of behavior. The first has definitely not happened yet; I don't know about the second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If I may, I've known 'Petey for a few years and have never seen him abuse admin tools, so I think the comment about a pattern of behavior is unwarranted. I've only ever known him to be a polite and dedicated editor. I have not reviewed the particulars of the case, so I can't comment on it. I would say, however, that there's clearly no evidence that EncycloPetey is going to go on a rampage abusing the tools, so can we tone down the rhetoric here, give him some time to reflect and respond? From someone uninvolved, the discussion here, on his talk page, and at Talk:Book of Habakkuk#BC/BCE could be perceived as piling on. Just a kind reminder to WP:AGF. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this a general comment, or did you indent this correctly and it's a response to me? If you re-read my comment, I didn't say it was a pattern, I said I didn't know if it was a pattern or not, and that would affect whether it should be escalated or not. I also said we should wait to see his response. You've misused AGF to mean "don't criticize someone who did something they shouldn't have", and the "tone down the rhetoric" comment, if made as a general comment, I find puzzling (I don't see anyone in this thread making any rhetorical excesses), and if directed at me, I find insulting (I probably took that in a way it wasn't intended) (because I guarantee I'm not making any, and I have not made any comments about this anywhere other than here). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bring it to ANI to WP:ABF, but out of a concern that the block should not have been made, and that this behavior might continue, especially because EncycloPetey's last comment on the matter suggests they don't see anything wrong with their actions. - SudoGhost 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've reviewed and would also agree that they were definitely involved. I can see no way that edits like this and this could be considered admin actions, hence they are involved.

Looking at recent blocks there's another that stand out as problematic. User:EncycloPetey blocked User:Drphilharmonic at 04:27 on 17 Jan for edit warring on Brassicaceae despite them apparently being one of the people that Drphilharmonic was in an edit war with - for example this edit by EncycloPetey which he made with the edit summary "Undid revision 471764899 by Drphilharmonic (talk) - incorrect grammar and incorrect hyphenation". This is clearly a content dispute not an admin action and was made at 22:51 on 16 January well before the block.

I am also worried somewhat by the block of User:86.164.252.184 which must have been for edits to Chlorophyll. Unless there's some previous edits with a different IP I don't think edits like this warrant a block for spamming especially as the IP was not warned and EncylcoPetey just used the default undo edit summary so the IP could find out no information in the edit log either as to what they did wrong. Even when EncycloPetey blocked they did not leave a message to explain the problem.

EncycloPetey has only made seven blocks in the last 11 months and I thought it unfair to review further back given the time scales involved. Personally I find 3 of their 7 blocks to be at least debatable and think this is a worrying proportion It would appear that EncycloPetey has a different understanding of involved than the wider community and, at a minimum, I'd like to see them admit this and make an undertaking to not act in the same way in future. Dpmuk (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is that this might happen again, and if there's a pattern of this then I certainly think it needs to be addressed. I think the easiest and most satisfactory way to address this is by EncycloPetey acknowledging and understanding that this was an inappropriate use of the administrative tools, and promising not to repeat this. However, as of their last comment on the matter, they apparently don't think that this was an WP:INVOLVED issue, which would seem to suggest that they would have no intention of stopping this behavior, which I think is very problematic. - SudoGhost 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey still hasn't edited, but I think some sort of comment by EncycloPetey would be needed before this could be considered resolved. - SudoGhost 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Newsy anachronisms

As a frequent copyeditor, I often see potential anachronisms of the form "X is currently . . .", and have commented on one here. Is it not high time WP barred such constructions, which have potential to be a serious blight on the project? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language; note that Wikipedia:Time-resistant grammatical forms redirects there. Dru of Id (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. So there is the option of tagging offending statements with the template {{as of}}, which generates a patrollable list that is capable of regular review. I will make use of this in places where the problem can't be edited away. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjenks, as right as you are, the MOS is not enforceable via blocks or bans, at least not currently. I personally think that anyone using the phrase "going forward" or "having said that" should be banned from the community of mankind. You could propose an edit filter that blocks the word... Drmies (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, an edit filter might be appropriate? grins, ducks, runs... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish more people used {{as of}}; it can make it much easier for us to ensure the encyclopædia is up to date. bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to have a bot run through articles looking for certain phrases that lack the {{asof}} template, weed out the false positives, and then have the bot run through the appropriate articles and add the template? I dunno. --64.85.214.132 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

24.132.2.224/Misternumber1987

• 24.132.2.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Misternumber1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (per the duck test)

Would someone like to apply the banhammer to this IP/account please? Despite multiple warnings their appalling edits are continuing. Yesterday's examples include this addition about crime in Amsterdam blaming it on foreigners and "loverboys" (I kid you not!), similarlly more about foreigners and crime here, this addition to a film article ranting on about an area used for filming blaming crime on foreigners again and even using Stormfront as a source. Then to cap it all off we've got this addition they've been trying to make at Maryam Hassouni's article for over a month. "Although critical acclaim she had won the Emmy Award. Many Dutch citizens did find the timelife of her acting career and getting the Emmy award too fast. Hassouni barely played then in Dutch Movies & already gained international famous without stepping into Hollywood USA. For winning the Emmy Award she was a guest on Dit was het nieuws, but could barely underbuild her questions threw her career randomly" - really???? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(Tangentially; I'm not at all defending these horrid edits) The term "loverboy" is much more sinister than its light-hearted name might suggest - see De Wallen for some details. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I still don't understand what, if any, difference there is between a loverboy and a pimp though. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Loverboys typically are younger men who get girls to fall in love with them and then put them to work. At that moment they are pimps, but it's the stage that precedes it that makes the loverboys. It's a pretty serious issue--so serious that I don't understand why Loverboy links to some hair band. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(shudder) Actually, they really weren't bad at all. Doc talk 13:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to the initial subject, since the IP is still adding unsourced xenophobia to Amsterdam, would anyone like to do the necessary please? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

While it isn't really our place, perhaps explaining to the editor that an Emmy Award for Best Performance by an Actress isn't actually a lifetime achievement award will help? Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I had totally missed this--I just ran into the IP's xenophobia in Amsterdam-Noord (which isn't a Garden of Eden, but I wouldn't blame it on immigrants from Ghana). The IP is blocked, and I'll re-read this thread again to see what else needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• The account is indefinitely blocked: a talk page full of warnings about uploading unlicensed content and BLP violations, coupled with an edit history full of soapboxing and xenophobia--this user is not here to improve the project. I had blocked the IP, which appears to be static for 72 hours. As you know I'm no geek, so I don't know if there's an autoblock that would apply to the IP as well, if that's where the editor was editing from. If the IP needs to be blocked longer (or again, after the block runs out), please take appropriate measures, and feel free to drop me a line. Hackney, I think you've been all over this, for which I thank you; do keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick, please

How do I do a mass rollback of everything an editor did? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You get the mass rollback tool - its in my monobook - importScript('User:John254/mass rollback.js') - Ask User:HJ Mitchell as I have seen him use it with a degree of regularity. Youreallycan 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I borrowed a mass rollback line from that script but can't find added functionality. I'll ask HJ. Thanks You, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It shows up at the top right on an edit page/diff - I will do it for you if you like - whose edits are they? Youreallycan 15:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think mass rollback works with Firefox browsers since the wiki software upgrade a few weeks ago, in case that's the issue. I used to have it, but not since the upgrade. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used mass rollback with Firefox in the last few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass rollback works with my Firefox. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the correction. Maybe it's something in my configuration then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And mine. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just be careful with the amount of available RAM on your computer as initiating mass rollback quickly shoots up RAM usage and loads every single rollback action on new tabs. It gets kind of annoying especially when doing 500 rollbacks at a time.—cyberpower ^Talk_Online 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The mass rollback will only rollback the number of edits showing on the current contributions page. In my case I only show 50 contribs at a time, so it's not too much of a load. Rollback last 50 edits, open next 50 edits, rollback...and so on. This is also a nice check for me to make sure that all of the edits are problematic and I'm not reverting too far back in the history. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've only used it once so far. What I do, and find very easy is I drag the open Wikipedia tab out to a new window, have my list show as many contributions that need to be reverted and then hit rollback all. I then drag the open Wikipedia tab back to the Firefox browser which leaves all of the action complete tabs open in a separate window allowing me to easily close them all at once. The drawback of such a mass rollback of over a 100 rollbacks is it slows the computer and hogs RAM as it tries to load those pages at the same time.—cyberpower ^Babble_Online 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are actually three different mass rollback scripts; User:Splarka/ajaxmassrollback.js, User:John254/mass rollback.js, and meta:User:Hoo man/smart rollback.js. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What do they do differently?—cyberpower ^Soliloquize_Online 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the John254 script performs a mass rollback of all edits on a contributions page. The Splarka allows you to rollback all edits made by a user in a given amount of time (default 7 days). It has an option to selectively rollback edits. The Hoo man script works similarly to the John254 script, only it allows you to mark rollback actions as bot edits (requires sysop flag) and it also permits custom rollback edit summaries. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I use Hoo's script fairly often and it's very well done and works fine in FF 3.6.x Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing

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

---

I feel I am getting mistreated by this person and he is abusing his rights. Not only has Ravenswing lied about me editing user pages and swearing, he has also deleted my posts when I brought up the subject and then give me a warning for abuse when I haven't abused since I promised not to last time. If this person has lied about me then he is a liar. I've been on here just over a week and, while I admit I haven't been a total angel, I have already be outed by BJMullan and now had pure fabrication made about me by this guy. He needs sorting as I believe him to be dodgier that dodgy dave from dodgeville He hasn't even had the decency to apologise.--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) He also deleted posts on the UK MMA Awards afdl that could have helped in the decision to keep. totally unfair--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend WP:MENTORSHIP for Fightloungemike (talk · contribs) (FLM). As FLM states, he has been here for only about a week. In that time, he has been argumentative, combative, and, at times, abusive towards established editors which has resulted in his own ANI and multiple 4im warnings due to WP:CIVIL. He has also been involved with WP:CANVASSING of AfDs (here and here) to the extent of meat puppetry. FLM has repeatedly apologized for his actions and blamed them on his unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. FLM's WP:BLUDGEON debates in the AfDs also shows FLM's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. And now, FLM has started this ANI about an accusation Ravenswing made in the prior ANI and Ravenswing's attempts at keeping off-topic discussions out of AfDs, which to me seems to be a bit WP:MOUNTAIN. At this point, I think WP:MENTORSHIP would be best for FLM to learn about Wikipedia, its guidelines and policies, and learn how to be more diplomatic in dealing with fellow editors. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since Drmies gave FLM a level 4 warning (after which he stated he would make no more personal attacks), following his actions as detailed in the ANI thread above, these are some of his subsequent diffs: [408], [409], [410], [411], [412], [413]. The last one is a diff of the redacted comments from the AfD he's referring to, which other than Dennis Brown's comment on the personal attack, contain nothing but FLM's personal attacks; how he believes launching personal attacks would materially affect the outcome of an AfD in his favor I'm unsure. The fresh level 4 warning to his talk page came after those diffs.

  Given his behavior so far, I'm not as sanguine as TreyGeek about the ability of FLM to interact in a civil fashion - other newbies have been indef blocked for a good deal less - but if some editor wants to give mentoring him a go ... Ravenswing 17:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did you lie about me Ravenswing? Answer the question?--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I personally feel that a block is the only way of demonstrating to FML that bullying tactics don't work here. And by the way FML if you are wondering why the discussion is about you and not the person you reported I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. Bjmullan (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• You would say that since you broke the rules for outing me. There was an ANI about me where you all had a chance to warrant your problems - that is now closed. Can you please keep to the subject at hand - which is Ravenswing lying, deleting posts and giving false warnings. He lied again above saying that I have been abusive since the last warning - I have done no such thing--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• The diff's above tell a different story... Bjmullan (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Best recommendation for FLM right now? WP:CHILLOUT. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, there is no abuse since, so you can stop lying too--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fightloungemike, should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent point GoodDay...I should be blocked for having lies made about me, posts deleted for no reason, and given warnings for abusing when I haven't abused since the last warning.--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• If you want, we could all settle this like men out of wikipedia? That's not threats or anything just an idea?--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a final final warning to Fightloungemike. Hopefully a word to the wise will be sufficient.  Frank  |  talk  18:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fightloungemike, please dial it back multiple notches, right now, so someone uninvolved can look into this without spending valuable time blocking you and then arguing with you about it. You have made your point now, a dozen times over, I get it so you can stop now. Ravenswing, you mentioned earlier that FLM had replaced people's user pages with "I'm a fucker". I'm not seeing that anywhere. Was it a mistake, or could you point out where that happened? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  The diff was posted by another editor in the ANI thread above, and I noticed it when I reviewed all the other posted diffs. I couldn't find it an hour ago, but there's an oversighted diff removed from one of the pages, and that may be it. That being said, I'm unsure what the good of a "final final warning" is. I've yet to see anything from FLM that shows that he has any handle on civil behavior, respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or willingness to learn the same. I don't know whether demonstrating that we actually do mean final warnings when we issue them would work, but it couldn't hurt. Ravenswing 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  It could hurt a tiny bit if we drive away a user who might otherwise be convinced to contribute productively. Nevertheless, another admin might decide to block anyway. I think FLM has calmed down; whether he will actually be convinced to become and remain civil is well beyond our control. And I've hopefully made it clear that I will block for further such accusations without supporting diffs. We shall see. Regarding the oversighted edit, it appears to be unrelated.  Frank  |  talk  20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  OK, so it appears that Ravenswing was mistaken about this issue. (I don't see any diff like that in the thread, and I've been through FLM's userspace edits and can't find even one instance of it. Perhaps it was in another thread and you confused the two?) FLM, if anyone ever brings up the "you wrote I'm a fucker" on someone's userpage, you can point to this statement in rebuttal. Although I suppose it would be nice if Ravenswing apologized for the mistake, or struck out that portion of the comment, my own opinion is that you're in no position to demand one. For one thing, demanding apologies is a mug's game. For another, there is a difference between being wrong, and lying, and I'm fairly sure Ravenswing was wrong, not lying. And for yet another, you've thrown out so many rude and personal comments in the last few days, and rather miraculously not been blocked, that to demand an apology for one mistake coming the other direction defies logic. Let's end this with a simple agreement that you didn't post anything like that, and that you have agreed to change your approach to editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) If we are discussing FLM's behavior and editing practices WP:OUTING, as was done in the oversighted edit, is related. I'm doing my hardest to WP:AGF about FLM's actions and that is why I advocated WP:MENTORSHIP. He's new and doesn't know much of what goes on in terms of being a constructive editor. Regardless, I think FLM has been given as much WP:ROPE as he deserves at this point and truly hope that things will change. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am remaining calm. Can I add that Ravenswing can't find the diff because there never was one. --Fightloungemike (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment from totally uninvolved editor: I can't condone all this, but I can definitely understand it. I can see Fightloungemike's point of view, as a newbie; I can see everyone else's point of view quite clearly, too. I don't have time for any full-time mentoring, but if FLM wants to chill out and chat to the inhabitants on my talk page, he's welcome. My talk page is a Mandatory Truce Zone (all weapons to be left at the door), but I have a load of talk-page stalkers with sense, experience, and one who successfully managed to work with me when I was an overly-passionae HFA relative-newbie myself. FLM: I'm sure you will be of immense value to the 'pedia; it can just take a while to settle in here, and that first bit can be a very rocky road. Pesky (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Pesky - thank you very much for the offer, and I'll like to take you up on it buddy. --Fightloungemike (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome! Be warned – I'm a mad British granny, lol! And I talk a lot (as others will no doubt confirm!) Pesky (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ha ha that's ok, I'm a mad scouser with three mad little girls and a mad wife. we should get along fine ha--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • FLM, I'd be careful with that grannie. She's a mean old broad--I've been told. Hey, three girls, that's nice. I'm hoping my number three will be a girl as well. Also, Pesky may actually well be a commoner, so I hope you're a Motorhead fan. (Thanks Pesky.) I'm not going to close this, since I like Mike (and I don't know Ravenswing very well, but they got a really cool user name), but I hope someone will. And on the serious tip, I hope we don't have to keep doing this. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• ROFL! [badass granny tacklehugs Drmies] Pesky (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ravenswing was mistaken about some things and needs to just apologize (his faith was good, his reading of diffs wasn't), but the bigger issue is FLM. I haven't responded to being told I have the IQ of a pigeon (Drmies did a better job than I could), as I understand that FLM means well but is way out of his element here. I think Ravenswing is correct that some mentoring would be a good idea. I do believe last time I recommended a two week course, with a test, which was my way of saying the same thing. FLM probably should be instructed to not create any new articles until after some mentoring. After that, I think he can be an good contributor, assuming he can pull back on the attacks. That would be more productive than blocks, I think, if he would agree to it. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am unable to find an edit by FLM that consists of repeated obscenities, so right now I believe he has a right to be upset by that. However, a slew of other users have an even greater right to be upset at FLM for his repeated insults of those who disagreed with him. He's had repeated warnings (and how many "last chances" does one get?) and continued to abuse people after being asked to stop. I believe in WP:AGF, but after several warnings on his talk page and many more comments at various AfD discussions, I believe he's lost the benefit of the doubt. I believe a temporary ban on FLM is appropriate for his behavior. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignorance can't be claimed after a dozen comments telling him to read the policies and stop attacking other editors. We went through something like this when user Bigzmma started out and he bordered on a permanent ban. After his several short term bans he became less combative and has been a eager contributor to MMA articles. I believe ths same can happen to FLM. All editors need to realize that improper conduct will have consequences. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA is a reason why I think WP:MENTORSHIP would be a better option than a complete block. (I think we may have done Bigz a misfavor by blocking him versus teaching him.) If FLM were told not to create new articles for the time being, as someone above suggested, and with a mentor work on improving existing articles, he will learn how to be constructive editor. The MMA WikiProject has many, many articles that are classified as "start", "stub" or "unassessed". With the knowledge that FLM claims to have about MMA he should be able to improve any of these articles; then, given guidance on citing reliable sources and other guidelines he will learn quite a bit about being a Wikipedian. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As one of the users who was subject to attacks and threats from Bigz, as well as dealing with his many recreations and attempts to sabotage/circumvent AfD discussions, I think his bans were clearly earned (and he's become a better Wikipedian). I don't oppose mentorship, but I also don't condone the abuse FLM has dealt out. Consider a short ban to be the cooling off period others, including yourself, have said he could use. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree and a week ago I was feeling much the same as you when you were ready to go on a permanent wiki-vacation (if you haven't looked, take a peek at the crap I was taking on my talk page from multiple directions). The only problem I see is that FLM hasn't been blocked yet and it appears no admin is up for blocking him at the moment. The block should have come days ago if it was going to come. Short of FLM going on another rampage I don't see one happening in the near future. So, I'm trying to come up with a possible resolution with the options that I think are left on the table. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys; FLM's had an invite over to my talk, which he's said he'll take me up on. I have a good bunch of helpful TPSers, including one who could actually cope with me, and between us all, we can give him most of the help and friendly advice he needs here. He hasn't posted anything at all since 20:09 last night (our time), shortly after he responded here last. Blocks should be preventative (y'all know this), not punitive, and as of now there's nothing more to add to what was said earlier. I appreciate there's a lot of bad feeling about, and people want to get it off their chests, but once it looks as though we're settling into something more productive, any more venting (no matter how tempting, and I appreciate that people need to vent sometimes!) is just piling-on, and no longer necessary. I'm sure FLM has calmed down enough to see that a bit of climbing down and apologising might be in order at some point soon, but give the guy a chance! It's 05:01 here at the moment, and he's probably fast asleep. Let's see what we can do without any more drama, shall we? Let my mad crew see if we can help him and everyone else out before pushing for anything else. Pesky (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MiraLatina

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.

---

Account appears to belong to a PR representative. Makes zero constructive edits, and although used infrequently, all of the edits emanating from the account are of a promotional nature. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Editor isn't very active right now, and the edits on Rosario Marin don't trouble me much. I'm about to have a look at Joachim de Posada. It seems to me that the articles can be helped through normal editing, and perhaps with some help from the kind people at WP:BLPN. If the editor then starts becoming disruptive one way or another, then this board can step in. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• OK, the external links made it clear: all her articles plugged bestkeynotes.com. Will block. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Duck duck, go

Inconclusive checkuser findings aside, I'm overpowered by the smell of duck in this SPI. I'd block "Encyclopedist J" myself, if it weren't for the fact that I'm sleepy and might be misjudging something. (But I really doubt it.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is awfully an abuse of the Power of Priviledge, Hoary and though I give you credit for letting me know of this matter beforehand. Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible technically means quite a few things. But it surely cannot be the reason for a block. Wait for future behavioral evidence. Till then, nothing can be done. Wifione ^Message 14:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment by "Encyclopedist J" above -- or, if it has been rewritten by the time you read it, the comment as it was originally made -- wonderfully exemplifies an observation that Equazcion and I make in the relevant SPI. ¶ Being the edit-warring sockpuppet of a blocked user can be the reason for a block. ¶ (And good night.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That video made my day, thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe WP:DUCK is an excellent reason to do something. There's already plenty of behavioral evidence. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:44, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

*Comment IMO the user would qualify for a block for edit warring based on nothing more than his recent activity at Occupy Wall Street. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Encyclopedist J is definately CentristFiasco. Compare with this edit by another sock. Check out "Causes," "Methods," and "Sides." It's all identical. Also, the username. One of CentristFiasco's other socks was Mr. J. Lane. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DUCK says block. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking now; despite him shouting "It's rabbit season!" I rather think it's duck season. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would second Amalthea's findings. My view = technically possible and behaviourally likely. Good block. WilliamH (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, a good "nutshell" statement on the whole WP:DUCK concept might be "you did what he did so you got what he got". This makes the question of whether or not X is Y a little less important. It's the "quacking" that gets someone blocked more so then the issue of whether or not he's a "duck". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors are deleting support votes on Taiwan discuss page

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

---

I just checked the Talk:Republic of China page and saw that several editors were trying to delete votes that were in support of the move. They seem to trying to rearrange the Opposing votes to make it look like they have more when it was the support votes that won. You can check for yourself, there were 49 Support votes against 44 Oppose votes. But it seems they have alot of people in their gang just purposely trying to alter the page to prevent passage and the subsequent article move by closing the talk page before other supporters can respond. The following editors are deleting support votes and rearranging the talk page in favor of Opposing votes:

Guerrilla of the Renmin [[414]]
Materialscientist [[415]]
Jeffrey Fitzpatrick [[416]]
Chipmunkdavis [[417]]
JohnBlackburne [[418]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGandy123 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority consensus is indisputable, the support votes have won with 49 Supporting vs 44 Opposing votes. Please confirm for youself. They have blocked the page from editing in order to push their agenda, I am requesting a removal of the block also. Thank you! RachelGandy123 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, relax. I know it looks like a vote, and quacks like a vote, but I'll let you in on a secret: it's not a vote! Mlm42 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Those votes are perfectly valid, they were removed and deleting by the opposition on purpose in order to prevent the Republic of China article from being moved to Taiwan. The majority consensus is very clear, everyone supports using the common name Taiwan, which is also in full accordance with Wikipedia's official policy, you cannot deny that, please read here WP:COMMONNAME. RachelGandy123 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the discussion is over, and has been archived.. the closing admins will sort it out, don't you worry. Mlm42 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you need to understand that the opposition editors were tampering with the support votes prior to their so-called "closing" in order to deceive people into thinking that the Oppose group has more votes when in reality it has far less than the support group. There were

49 votes in Support of the move and only 44 valid votes in Opposition to the move, so it's very clear that majority consensus supports using the common name Taiwan instead of Republic of China which no one knows about. So now we have a tampered and altered vote that the opposition closed and blocked in order to prevent supporters from correcting their deletions of the 49 Support votes. RachelGandy123 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no votes. This isn't a vote. It never was a vote. Wikipedia doesn't make such decisions based on votes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit! Then what do you call "majority consensus". Besides it was clearly a vote in which people knowingly participated, with two specific categories, one for Support and the other for Oppose, and it turns out the Support group won with 49 majority votes vs. the minority 44 opposing votes. Undeniable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelGandy123 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide diffs. of the alleged rigging. Regardless of the result, if editors are intentionally altering other's comments/votes or whatever, that is serious. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here is the talk page as it was supposed to look like before the altering with 49 Support votes vs. 44 valid Oppose votes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_China&oldid=482417651

And then here is the current "archived" talk page which the above editors managed to alter so that the Support group only shows 43 votes vs. 45 votes for the Oppose group. They subsequently closed and blocked the page before any supporters could correct it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_China/Archive_20#Support

RachelGandy123 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• We don't call anything "majority consensus", just "consensus". The consensus will be decided on the arguments made, how they tie in with policy, etc, and not on a vote count - it is entirely possible to "win" the vote but "lose" the consensus. Have a read of WP:Consensus to learn about how it works. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You're being hypocritical, the "consensus" as you say is loud and clear in favor of using the common name Taiwan which everyone knows instead of Republic of China which most people confuse with the People's Republic of China which is also using their common name of "China." This is official Wikipedia policy, read here to confirm for yourself. WP:COMMONNAME

Eh? Cool down please and stop being so insulting. I have made no judgement of the consensus at all (in fact, I haven't even looked at it), and I'm not even remotely suggesting that you're wrong about it - I'm just trying to help you understand how consensus works. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

From the look of it, this was all made clear at Talk:Republic_of_China/Archive_20#Decision-making_process. It never was a vote. As for allegations of vote tampering, or of any other inappropriate attempts to sway the decision, we need diffs, and we need to see the full context. BTW, have the people named above been notified? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the two diffs above, this report is correct. Support !votes 44–49 (and Oppose !vote 44) have been removed when copying to the archive. Although the !votes themselves look dodgy, I fail to understand why they would be removed in this way and believe the closing admins should be able to make a decision with them there. Number 57 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why are we wasting time with what appears to be an obvious SPA? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because you know that the Supporters won the "consensus" with 49 support votes vs the 44 Oppose votes. Don't deny that! RachelGandy123 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Without reading all 93 reasonings, I can't say whether consensus is decided. Although it's likely that such a slim margin could wind up being a decision of no consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Plus, we assume it's 93 distinct users. Sockpuppets are traditionally excluded from consideration (collapsed into the parent account), and unregistered users and single-purpose accounts may have their reasonings discounted, especially if they're weak. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Plus, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Also, having worked with MaterialScientist, I can only assume that the votes he (and probably others) removed were sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very obvious that those users are indeed distinct users, there is no reason to even say they not distinct users. That's sounds like an excuse just to push the opposition agenda. You can even check the logsRachelGandy123 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• RachelGandy123 reminds me of Grundle2600. Is that quacking I hear? 67.117.144.57 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell is Grundle? Stop trying to say that I'm a sockpuppet whatever, you're just causing problems to disrupt the move of the ROC page to Taiwan. The majority consensus has already been established in support of moving the article so your argument has no validity! RachelGandy123 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI might be a fine place to visit. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts. I am in support of that move, but, although there were more support "votes" than "oppose" votes, and clearly many people treated the process as a "vote" (because they offered nothing else to the discussion), there's no way it should be treated as a vote. The decision should, and hopefully will be based on the quality and content of contributions, not their quantity. I must also say that the behaviour of many opposing posters there was the biggest and worst example of bad and bad faith editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The quality and logic of the opposing arguments was appalling. Most were clearly politically motivated. Many posts of supporting editors were moved and changed. There was pretty obvious canvassing and sockpuppetry. I have massive sympathy for the administrators now trying to sort out the mess. I know that many of my posts are now nowhere near the posts to which I was responding. There were masses of IP editors, arguing vehemently that not registering was fine because it wasn't against the rules, and ignoring all good faith advice that they would achieve more by registering. But we now have hundreds of posts from numbers, not names, and I know how hard that makes it to follow the conversation. Summary - the worst debate in which I've ever participated here. [Oh, and a PS to Grumpy Andy after two Edit conflicts - there are hundreds of diffs, but many are now hidden because of the subsequent unethical moving of posts. Five minutes looking at the History will show you dozens of examples of bad behaviour.] HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with HiLo48 (talk), this talk page was deliberately hijacked by a bunch of politically motivated people trying to prevent the move when they realized that they were losing the vote. 49 SUPPORT vs 44 OPPOSE. So they scrambled together a gang of their friends to delete, rearrange, and then subsequently close and block the archived and altered article to push their opposition agenda. I posted the link above to show the administrators here what they are doing, i.e. moving around and subsequently deleting Support votes and rearranging the page to make it look like the Opposition had a majority consensus when they never did. It was the Support group that had the majority consensus and also the best rationale for making the move. For example, why does the People's Republic of China get the right to use their common name of "China" when the Republic of China is consistently denied usage of their common name Taiwan? This is violating Wikipedia's official policy of requiring the use of common names, read here WP:COMMONNAME. Let's not have a double standard and do things fairly and unbiased! RachelGandy123 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There were clearly more votes in support of moving the articles than those opposing it. And the arguments that were given by supporters do show a much clearly thought out logic as opposed to the political rhetoric and propaganda being spread by the opposing side. So we have to take that into consideration when deciding a consensus on the article. MacnoldMcHarry (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There were clearly no votes. It wasn't a vote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note that initiator of this section, RachelGandy123, is a sock account of AkramBinWallid. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkramBinWallid. Amalthea 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting. How significant is the "sin" of using a sock account when what you are doing is quite correctly pointing out the seemingly much worse sins of others? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A big one. Typically, all edits and articles created by socks are wiped clean, to insure there is no reward for that activity. There are good arguments either way, but in the end, if you "reward" sockpuppeting in any way, you encourage it. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

      There is no evidence to show it is sockpuppet. Can you prove your slandering accusations? Besides, what HiLo48 saids is correct, this user your accusing of being a sockpuppet was actually the "whistleblower" who exposed all the negative vote deletions and other bad things being done by those who oppose the move. MacnoldMcHarry (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

      Can you explain why a newly-registered user, with no contributions to Wikipedia other than your two comments here should be so keen to get involved? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

      I've already opened SPI. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

      Another confirmed sock of course. You are not helping your case, AkramBinWallid. Amalthea 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

      • Only if created in violation of a block, FWIW, and circumstances always matter. Amalthea 21:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't read the above discussion, but if valid points were made then they should still be followed up on. From my point this is only an FYI, for context. Amalthea 21:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Fabrice Muamba

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.

---

Footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed during a match today - he's believed to be stable, in hospital. That info is in the article.

Reafad (talk · contribs) has recently moved the talk page for Fabrice Muamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from "Talk:Fabrice Muamba" to Wikipedia:Fabrice Muamba (See log).

I don't know why it was moved. The user has previously been warned for problematic BLP edits. 88.110.242.152 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate relisting?

In this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus an editor, User:Trevj relisted the debate despite it shows, as far as I can see, a clear consensus for keeping the article, so I reverted his action with the edit summary "relisting based on what? I see a clear consensus... anyway no objection to a relist-action if made by an administrator" but the AFD creator re-reverted my action as "inappropriate" so, could an administrator assess whether there is or not a consensus in the discussion and eventually relisting with an adequate rationale? Thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the relisting comment, I think the consensus is clear there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a breakdown of the AfD process; what does one do with a discussion running at 4-0 (The IP is discounted) keep where the 4 keeps have been effectively refuted (werldwayd, cirt), devolve into rote ARS dogma (Schmidt), or dismissed as a WP:VAGUEWAVE (Cavarrone)? Tarc (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note; the relist is restored and I have entered an opinion to delete. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that removing a relist by an uninvolved editor of longstanding is quite unusual, and this departure from usual practice should certainly not have been done by an editor who participated in the AFD. As Tarc argues here, it was certainly quite reasonable and accurate for Trevj to conclude the discussion was unsatisfactory for establishing consensus, and relisting was called for, particularly since none of the keep !voters could provide any reliable sourcing for the article or any explanation for the unavailability of such sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear , if mine was an unusual practice, it is clearly more unusual that a non-administrator user put a relist in a discussion that shows 5 valid keep-votes (the IP is not a spa-account) against 0 and doesn't provide any rationale for that. In my revert-edit (and here, too) I just requested an administrator's action, and if the same thing would be made by an administrator I've had nothing to point out. That's all. Cavarrone (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc, that's not how I read the discussion. I read Schmidt and Hullaballoo's arguments as being roughly equivalent and the other points as being weaker, that said I considered it pretty damn unlikely to close as anything other than keep or no-consensus (which in this case results in the same thing).

That said now there are additional comments the relist should stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only was the resisting appropriate, Schmidt's fillibuster should earn him some community finger-wagging. The bit with linking to his own shortcut is particularly egregious. Is this normal behaviour for this editor? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Psst! Some of us remember the Aaron Brenneman who also used to regularly link to essays in deletion discussions. It's linking to an essay to further explain one's argument, and shouldn't be considered "egregious". We all do it, even you. And at least MichaelQSchmidt is linking to something that xe xyrself wrote, rather than the useless and counterproductive boilerplate block voting using the same pre-prepared wording from somebody else that the schools discussions came to involve, if you remember. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Ahh, good times.
  While my opinion is that linking to your own essay is wildly disingenuous, we're a broad church I suppose. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see how MQS did a filibuster: he made a !vote, and when it was challenged explained himself in some detail, as appropriate for an expert in the general subject . That doesn't prolong the process. I consider the relisting appropriate--if the comments seem to inadequately address the issues, a relisting can correct the situation, and give the opportunity for others to make better comments, as Tarc did. And fwiw, MQS has now suggested a merge with the director. A complain here was inappropriate--the better course is to wait for the result, and, if one disagreed, then use deletion review, which is intended for the purpose. (or wait a few months and then renominate, which is considerably easier) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  As per my response to Uncle G, I'll simply duck my head and say (with respect) that we see it differently, then. My reading of his edits is almost identical to that of Hull, that they are mostly content-free walls of text. If I were closing that, I'd have disregarded almost every word as pure "filler" and having no strong policy-based arguments. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even though the consensus seemed clear, I have no problem with the relist, as my careful and reasoned and polite responses are what they are. It was not I who repeatedly insulted others with whom he disagreed, as a lack of civility is never helpful in a discussion. And yes, I am fine with a merge and redirect to the filmmaker... but THIS is not the forum to offer !votes, insult others, nor re-argue the merits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • • It's been pointed out to me that Mr. Schmidt's statement that "It was not I who repeatedly insulted others with whom he disagreed" is rather plainly counterfactual, given comments he's made elsewhere like "shouting and insults reminiscent of a bully in a 2nd grade schoolyard. However, when one considers the source of those insults, they may be dismissed as sour grapes", "only to have been rudely filibustered by its nominator", and "pointedly ignore its other parts if doing so serves a personal agenda" are far more accurately characterized as impolite, insulting and uncivil than any of the comments he inchoately alleges (without any specificity) have been directed at him. He plays the spurious victim far too easily, like a schoolyard bully who complains whenever his victim fights back. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And a sidenote in not being able to see inside the relister's head to determine his reasoning, I do agree with Cavarrone that the relisting was not per the instructions set for doing so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • From that page, relist a debate when "it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy." Spot on relist. Lots of words <> policy argument. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It all stems down to how the relister judged the discussion's policy and guideline supported merits and, in not knowing the relister's mind, it might be that he felt as you do. That others may have felt points were well made and simply offered "agreements per" rather than restate the arguments they supported in their own words, while not as helpful, is certainly allowed and is something a closer will take into consideration. It could just as easily be argued that consensus was reached. That said, and as all we are doing here is discussing the fine points of something done, undone, and redone, I propose we close this ANI as moot and let the AFD conclude as it will. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The ongoing repetition of the claim that the relist was somehow unusual or aberrant in policy terms is without foundation. Here, for example, we can see an AFD with a stronger case for consensus being relisted without generating objections [419]. There was something quite odd about the insistence of so many of the !keep voters in disregarding both the copyvio problems and the article's extensive, virtually exclusive, reliance on promotional sources, to say nothing of MQS's peculiar sourcing practices (eg, identifying a press release as a staff-written article in an industry trade magazine ([420], ref5), which at least borders an an outright falsification or his most peculiar argument that an unexamined list of Google search results (not even involving the key term) somehow justifies the article's characterization of the actor as an "iconic" figure, even though the term appears to be parroted the actor's own PR copy. Personalizing disputes rather than dealing with them in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines is neither helpful nor appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
          • "Personalizing disputes rather than dealing with them in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines is neither helpful nor appropriate" is a reason why your own response here to re-argue your AFD comments or cast asperisions on me is decidely unhelpful to the issue at hand. The relisting is done, is accepted and is essentially a closed issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Move to close this ANI as moot and not requiring adinistrative action. 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I just noticed that nobody bothered to clue in Trevj that this relist was causing all this drama. There's not a peep about it on his talk page. I was waiting to hear his rationale for it. I will say this though, any relisting that at first glance doesn't seem to be justified by the numbers should be followed up with a relisting comment to keep the participants from scratching their heads wondering why the AFD was relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the notice on my talk page. If it's of some interest, I'm able to offer the following comments:

  1. The discussion as at 11:47, 14 March 2012 was relisted by me because the keep !votes didn't appear to be based on any policies and were countered by follow-on points (although I admit to not reading such arguments in depth - bear in mind this was simply a procedural relist, not a close)
  2. I didn't feel that I had a personal opinion either way on the article content or its discussion (hence was uninvolved) and consensus did not appear to be reached (because of the follow-on points) despite the discussion being >10 days old: further discussion seemed to be the logical way to proceed
  3. The reasons for not providing any rationale in connection with the relisting are that
     • The tool (I guess it must be Mr.Z-man/closeAFD) doesn't require/prompt for one
     • The only mention of additional relist reasoning being required at WP:RELIST is Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation [...] (my emphasis)
  4. The discussion has evolved significantly since its relisting (probably due in part to its being brought here), demonstrating the validity of the relist was greater than that of the keep !votes at the time
  5. {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} includes {{Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss}}, which clearly states You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. This was an oversight on the lister's behalf, who would be advised to pay more attention in the future.

  Anything I've missed? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)