Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782

The curious case of Claidheamohmor

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

---

I have {{User wikipedia/Autopatrolled}} watchlisted from a minor fix I made to it a while back, and today I noticed that Claidheamohmor (talk · contribs) had vandalized it [1] [2]; xe shortly thereafter vandalized 2 other userboxes [3] [4]. Here's the weird thing, though: Xe has over 1,000 edits, and has been editing for five years. If xe were currently active, I'd report xem as a potentially compromised account, but xyr contribs show that xe hasn't edited since 2010. And before that since 2009... Turns out, xe hasn't really been active since 5 years ago. Before then, xyr edits appear to have been in good faith, although I haven't looked deeply enough to evaluate whether or not they were generally constructive. But of xyr six edits since March 2008, five have been vandalism (the four I linked to and this one), with one edit to the user's preferred topic of bodybuilding in the middle, to demonstrate that this is presumably the same person. Anyways, I'm not really sure how to proceed. It occurs to me that we might not see hide nor hair of this user again until I'm in college and Chris Christie's president. And, as they say, better the devil you know. So, at face value, my inclination is just to leave it be and check in from time to time. It occurs to me, though, that if you really wanted to game the system, this would be the way to do it: Create a fleet of sockpuppets with tolerable edit histories, and then use them for lolz, spacing each account's edits so far apart that you'd never get blocked. Would anyone be willing to run a check, perhaps? There's something that doesn't really jive between such childish edits, and a knowledge of relatively obscure userboxes that aren't redlocked, but will still disrupt a few hundred pages. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Closed by NE Ent as "AIV filed"; reopened, as my point about the possibility of other disruptive accounts has not been addressed. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there are other socks. If there are, I don't know how exactly they could be found and addressed. The user has been blocked, and I don't see a need for action unless the user requests an unblock. Rutebega (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threats by User:Caramanico

SPA Caramanico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after increased frustration with near-consensus on deleting Alexandre Marcel Simonet (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Marcel Simonet), is resorting to borderline legal threats: diff. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've left a strong warning on the user's talk page, hopefully it'll help him understand and he'll refrain from making such comments and agree to reword. Let's give it some time to see if what happens. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mayumashu

Within the past 24 hours, Mayumashu (talk · contribs) moved Kyoto to "Kyoto (city)" without any discussion, all because he claims that the city was not the primary topic, despite WP:MOS-JA#Place names stating that all designated cities (cities in Japan with a population of more than 500k) need no disambiguation, unless another city shares that name. In the chaos that ensued, I was fixing some redirects (now taken on by an administrator with a rollback script) and I saw that Mayumashu has done many similar moves in the past. He moved PSY from its WP:MOSCAPS compliant title "Psy (entertainer)" to "PSY (rapper)", moved several other Japanese cities' pages, several dozen pages on towns in Nova Scotia, and others that I can't go through his log to find.

Mayumashu has been told about his moves in the past but it does not look like he's learned his lesson and has unnecessarily been moving pages with no discussion beforehand and without consulting any style guide other than WP:Commonname. This should not be allowed to continue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content
The nerve. Someone should teach them a lesson... PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block to prevent further disruption, unless user agrees not to perform any more moves without first asking either on the article talkpage or at the relevant wikiproject. LK (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  There's some balance between boldly making good-faith edits and disruptively going against consensus. On one hand, most editors are probably not aware of WP:MOS-JA#Place names. On the other hand, moving an article without an RM when there was a already a failed RM for that article, unarchived on the talk page, is probably not the best course of action. Has this editor ever been warned about this in the past? I think a block might be premature, although I could easily be missing something. HaugenErik (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  There are several posts in his user talk archives mentioning bad moves he has done. It seems that this is a recurrent problem with him.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:CrimsonBot is malfunctioning

The bot is acting on "Merging Template:CanParlbio with Template:MPLinksCA" when the replacement is Template:MPLinksCA by Template:CanParlbio, which would require no action. Also, this has caused some problems and some edits need to be reverted. --Big_iron (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the replacement is the other way and the intent may be to delete Template:MPLinksCA, it would be desirable to revert all of the erroneous updates. --Big_iron (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot hasn't edited for over 12 hours, and you have started a discussion on the bot's talk page. I would continue the discussion on the bot's talk page once the bot operator returns. I don't see any need for blocking the bot at this point, or any other administrative action, so I don't think it needs to be discussed here. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it should be discussed here. If it appears to be malfunctioning, it should be blocked; it's a bot not a person NE Ent 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around per the merge discussion. Bot's doing the right thing. NE Ent 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot is not doing the right thing - the proposal is "replacing {{CanParlbio}}'s code with{{MPLinksCA}}'s". So, MPLinksCA will be deleted. So, updating article to use MPLinksCA instead of CanParlbio is counter-productive. Furthermore, there was a note on Template:MPLinksCA saying "Please do not use it on any additional pages". --Big_iron (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop the bot Yes, misread the the statement, was thinking "code" referred to the {{CanParlbio}} inclusion code in the articles, not the implementation code. Looking at the two templates, it's not clear to me the substitution is actually botable, as the parameters don't match exactly. NE Ent 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. Bots are...bots. They won't listen to discussion, but you can't hurt their feelings. When they malfunction, we block them indefinitely, and as soon as they're ready to go again, we unblock them. I've pointed the operator here. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure why a block is necessary, as it seems clear that the task is already complete and the bot hasn't edited for nearly 2.5 days (since 7:14 on January 13th). But, I suppose that is one way to get the bot operator's attention. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the task is complete, especially when there are still 1900 instances of the templating it's incorrectly removing? NE Ent 17:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing we should probably revert the bot edits before they get any harder to resolve at a later date.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I am in the process of doing a mixture of undos and rollbacks as many of the pages have been edited since the bot edit. Makes more sense to do it now rather than wait for the problem to get worse and harder to resolve. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow That's a whole lot of reverting. Thanks. NE Ent 02:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Shame my script was only letting me revert 25 at a time. And also having to manually click through Undo after Undo. Ahh well, that's what TV is for. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats by Raptor232

Raptor232 (talk · contribs) continues to post personal attacks[5][6] and threats to my talk page. The most recent being [7] This is I believe due to the fact that I reverted his copypasting content from articles into redirects here & [8]. He is currently under discussion at ANEW for edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User seems to have been blocked for 48 hours by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). However, I'd endorse making his block indefinite. I've also just removed some more aggressive (and unspecific personal attacks) from his user page. – Richard BB 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked him. I went for a temporary block for now, but I have no problem with indef if the community agrees. GedUK  12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with a more permanent block - I can see racist comments in some of the diffs that Darkness provided. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that his first edit was to this article, maybe he meant that term "blow" in a "nice" way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or he is a meatpuppet of Linda Lovelace Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I fully support an indef. His last edit alone deserves it, IMO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've upped to indefinite; this user is not here to build an encyclopedia (or at least only one to his liking). Lectonar (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Raptor's topic on Darkness Shine's user page concerning '...stupid uneducated Tletbrain' contains at least two errors, should I consider that ironic or funny? HalfShadow 05:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hinata redux

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.

---

Original discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#User:Hinata. With the most recent "statement" on their talk page they indicate their wish to permanently retire from Wikipedia. Is it time to also remove talk page access to prevent further use of Wikipedia to promote their positions? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No. They said they want to retire, let them retire. If continued use of the talk page to promote their positions happens, then we can handle it then; no reason to do it now, since it appears to be just a farewell (so to speak) message. The only thing revoking TPA will accomplish at this point is to piss off Hinata even more, possibly inspiring them to actively try to damage the project. And that's the last thing we need. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

They're 'retiring' by repeating their claim that it isn't hate speech to call for the judicial murder of people like me. Frankly, that's bollocks, as well as morally reprehensible. I'd prefer it if the statement were struck, and Hinata's access to talk pages restricted as RPoD suggests. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's a little different from posting it on the LGBT project page. If Hinata repeats it, then yes, you're right, but at this point, I just don't see any benefit from doing so preemptively, and a small but non-zero possibility of harm. We've done the revert phase of RBI, we've done the block phase; I think that, unless it continues (and their pages are on my watchlist so that it won't go totally unnoticed), the best course of action is to proceed with the ignore phase.

You and all other LGBT folks here have my deepest regrets that you have to put up with this shit here, I really mean that, but at this point, the (shocking) abuse is confined to a small, non-public corner of Wikipedia, where you don't have to see it if you don't want (unlike when it was at the LGBT project page). If it continues to fester in that corner, well, we know what to do. Until then... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm usually not a fan of FPP, but given AT's continued engagement recommend revoking tpa and full protection for a week or so. Let's just end this. NE Ent 16:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, after that...nothing good can come from this. *sigh* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Anyone feel free to undo, as always (even more so than usual, in this case.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Blocked user has returned

I am inclined to believe that a blocked user has returned to Wikipedia. According to [9], an IP has blanked the user page, in fact he did that twice. This suggests that he is User:Serafin or he is strongly connected to him/her. This IP is (among many others) Special:Contributions/207.112.105.233. The IP is also a case of WP:COMPETENCE, arguing for inclusion of his own calculations instead of relying upon reliable sources at Talk:Lost years of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to also operate under another IP, namely Special:Contributions/65.95.176.24. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Same for Special:Contributions/70.28.64.86 and Special:Contributions/205.189.94.11. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the IP 207.xxx for 1 month to prevent its use for block evasion. He has been at that address for over a month. Leaving the others as stale for now as he hasn't used them in a few days but if he does those can be blocked also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, just for the record, he also used this IP: Special:Contributions/205.189.94.13. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

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, on my talk page Stalwart said I could go here to get more information about the outing policy. We have a long discussion on there if someone would like to look at it thank you. It is "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia" that we are discussing. Does this include if they put their real name as Author under a picture they upload for instance. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• If Googling someone's username gives you their real-life identity as the first hit, then it is not outing to point this out. There is "poorly covering up ones online identity" and then there is "deliberately using another name people know me by". Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Really. Does that mean that I did not have to strike out the research I did here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013 January 13#Punkcast like Stalwart said here User talk:MarioNovi#Harassment? Maybe it does not matter because you are allowed to edit an article about yourself anyway it seems. I guess I am just curious about policy for future use. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• It would have been nice to get a notification of this thread, as is required. Anyway... The issue here is that MarioNovi undertook some off-WP research about who a particular editor here might be in real life. He presented the results of his "research" when making this AFD nomination, claiming the article should be deleted because he had "discovered" who the original author really was and thus was of the opinion that such person (if the same) would have a conflict of interest. The AFD prompted comments about the COI but not really about the nomination. But when MarioNovi later posted comments about the editor "referring to himself in the 3rd person" and at DRV suggested that the editor was the subject of an article about a website, it became obvious that the intention was to out the editor in question (or attempt to) as "evidence" to back the COI claim. I issued a warning (first at DRV, then on MarioNovi's talk page) that doing so constituted outing and that the harassment policy trumps the COI guideline. MarioNovi responded by explaining (in detail, including at DRV) how his research had led him to conclude that editor's real-world identity (effectively outing all over again). In particular, he suggested that a name linked-to from an account at Commons and a non-WP website that linked the individual and a username on other sites (the same as a WP username but with no direct link to WP) provided proof of the link. On that basis, MarioNovi believes the editor has exposed his own real life identity sufficiently that his own doing so again here (without permission) did not constitute outing. In my view, there is no definative proof that X = Y, let alone the sort of open, self-outing that would ordinarily moot WP:OUTING. MarioNovi wanted a "second opinion" from an admin whether his outing was "outing" and whether my interpretation of his activities was accurate. I suggested that removing his "research" would be enough for everyone to move on (without the need for a formal report) but he would clearly like a second opinion. So here were are. So I suppose the question would be - was MarioNovi's off-WP research sufficient to justify on-WP outing?. Stalwart111 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Let's not get drawn onto the "Googling someone's username" diversion. This is about commons:Special:Contributions/Wwwhatsup, where Wwwhatsup (talk · contribs) identifies xyrself by name as the author of several files. It's also about Punkcast (AfD discussion) (review) and Better Badges (AfD discussion), where really the "Who is the Wikipedia editor?" question is a red herring given that the existences and provenances of sources should be the focus. Frankly, this whole "You're Joly MacFie!" — "Well you are a single purpose account!" — "Stop this outing!" discussion has completely lost the plot. Do independent sources from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy exist that cover Joly MacFie's various businesses in depth? Do the sources indicate that refactoring into a biography of Joly MacFie is appropriate? Those are the focus here, people. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Uncle. That is what I meant above when I said " Maybe it does not matter because you are allowed to edit an article about yourself anyway it seems.", and it is also why I striked out the part about the user's identity in the DRV. You are right people get distracted by it I feel like I keep getting pulled into that issue to defend myself. Anyway I only asked here because I wanted to know if it was an outing or not, not if it relates to the DRV. We aren't discussing the DRV. Does that make sense to anyone? Maybe this is not a good place so we can talk about it on my talk page. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is a single-purpose account, MarioNovi, that purpose being to get a couple of articles deleted which were created by a particular user, named Wwwhatsup, who apparently is open about having a personal interest in creating the article. That can be problematic, but as Uncle G points out, the important thing is for articles to meet wikipedia standards. The nominations for deletion appear to be based on who created the articles, not on article content as such. Meanwhile, while trying to personalize those articles as much as possible, MarioNovi refuses to discuss his own past.[10] So it looks like a personal vendetta. If that isn't bad-faith editing, I don't know what is. And in general, MarioNovi's attempts to define and restrict the discussion are tactics often used by boomerang-wielding editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• MarioNovi's efforts show a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and if not WP:OUTING, it is sufficiently close enough to make me uncomfortable about it. Despite what UncleG says, we should not just be concerned with the retention or deletion of articles based on the presence (or lack thereof) of reliable sources--we must also be concerned with the protection of our editor's privacy. In the area of outing, we should take a strong, firm stance that it is not acceptable, that it is not an appropriate argument at either AFD or DRV, and that when someone gets too close to that line, they should be warned. If they continue, then rapid block is warranted. The consequences of outing are severe enough for some that we should take absolutely no chances, and have absolutely no tolerance for actions in that area. GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you see that after I filed the AFD Wwwwhatsup immediately accused me of having a COI and doing it out of spite. I admit that I found this offensive and it angered me and I did act in a battle mentality because of it. I hope you see why I did this. I believe he started the battleground mentality but it is also my fault for letting him. I let myself be offended instead of looking at policies he broke. I asked to withdraw the DRV. Thank you for showing me the policies, MarioNovi (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear. I never said there was a COI, but I did point out that the account was an SPA that did seem to be aimed at me personally as a user. Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely, I did, and this was explained at the Better Badges AFD. I suggested both had a COI and both conflicted editors should be discouraged from editing related articles. When an editor comes to WP for the sole purpose of "exposing" another editor's supposed conflict of interest (and identity) to the world and then their only contribution is to nominate two articles created by that editor for deletion (then DRV the decision when one isn't deleted), it's pretty obvious that someone is either bringing an off-WP conflict to WP or they are socking with a new account to settle a separate score. Either way, it suggests a conflicted editor who is WP:NOTHERE to build WP. Stalwart111 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Actually it was Wwwwhatsup here [11] by using the phrase "raises question of motive" regarding my AFDwhich implies COI, and he made a comment on the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkcast like this as well, which he was asked to strike. This was his very first reaction to the AFD and is what angered me being accused in this way. I realize my mistake in getting into a battle mentality, I want everyone to be clear on why I reacted that way. Can we end this now? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• And Stalwart many times I have said that I edited before as an anonymous IP editor. Deletion policy states that you need to have an account in order to nominate a page so obviously my first edit with an account created for that purpose will be a deletion. I don't like how you feel you can draw conclusions about me based on very little and being provided counter evidence, and you say it's "pretty obvious", while if I show that Wwwhatsup has credited his own pictures on wikipedia as being by Joly MacFie, and wwwhatsup.com is Joly MacFie's web page, this is weak evidence. You sound biased here to me. Can you please stop harassing me and can we end this? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• *Sigh*. I was the first person to comment at your second AFD, acknowledged the potential COI and then later discussed that in detail with Wwwhatsup while also acknowledging that two concurrent AFDs targetting the same editor along with two attempted outings based on seemingly unprompted off-WP research was strange and suggested a conflict. If you can't see how that conclusion could possibly be drawn then I don't know what to do. If you edited as an IP as regularly as you have suggested then you must know it was unusual or at least that it might be seen as such. Two AFDs, a DRV, ANI and now COIN all focussed on one editor speaks for itself. Stalwart111 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Punkcast. I recuse myself from that discussion. I do believe that MarioNova is acting in good faith, but this is reaching WP:HARASS proportions. So far I've had two articles put up for deletion. Then one relisted. Canvassed against. Outed. Accused of attacking. Then this here. Now the COI. What next? :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Concerted vandalism by multiple editors on multiple articles

I've just blocked Joseffritzl6456 (talk · contribs), 68.1.21.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and Deezfoo (talk · contribs), all of whom seem to be up to the same concerted pattern of vandalism, involving vandalism that often includes the insertion of the same names into multiple articles, including articles about atrocious crimes: note the username of the first account, which is a reference to the Fritzl case. A web search for the term "bill waggoner crew" (referenced in several of the edits) suggests that this is a troll/griefer meme. It's therfore quite possible that other accounts and other IPs may be up to similar activities as part of the same event. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be easy to address with an edit filter modification. Acroterion (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RfD requiring attention from an uninvolved administrator

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 14#Sexual disorders and take any action they feel appropriate, possibly including either closing it as withdrawn/wrong venue or explicitly not doing so. I don't think any of comments there are at the level of sanction but a warning may be required for one or two parties.

Having expressed an opinion on the redirect, and being probably the most prolific editor at RfD I consider myself too involved to take any action myself. I will note the existence of this request in the discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically, what is going on is that Robbiecee2 is a newly registered Wikipedia editor who has run into confusion/other complications while editing this site. I have tried to help him; for example, here at my talk page and here at his. He has since become frustrated and is now accusing me of WP:Harassment, to which I have replied.[12][13]

Thryduulf filed this report before it got to the harassment accusations, however, so I'm not sure why Thryduulf started this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it might not have been the best venue if he seeks a separate article to be created at Sexual disorder, but considering there is ongoing ample discussion about that possibility, as well as the option of a rename, I'll let the discussion unfold to form consensus as to what should be done. RfD isn't only about deletion. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

He was originally seeking to have Sexual disorders (and Sexual disorder) not redirect to Sexual dysfunction, but he went about it the wrong way. He was then advised to take the matter to WP:RfD. And then it developed from there. Things are currently okay between us. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Flyer22 - getting eyes onto a problem before it escalates to sanctionable level can prevent it getting that far which is obviously better for everyone. As I stated, it appeared to me to be getting close to that level but I'm too close to it to make an objective decision, hence my request here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism log

Just came across the following - [14]. It's basically a log of vandalism attempts on WP over the last month or two. Hack (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting read, but isn't that like doing investigative journalism about shoplifting by going into shops, stealing stuff, and then logging what you did? Not exactly big or clever. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked User:Dumbledalf from that page as another sock. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave a quick read and guess most of the vandals are IP-blocked now, excepting a few accounts whose name had been hidden by stars (Example- Account: *****). Wonder why the vandal distributed his passwords? LOL. Wiki4Blog (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To show that he doesn't really care probably. The accounts aren't really anything to him, not exactly a secure password anyway. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous discussion is here, Hack (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Reads like a thesis.--Auric talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

173.14.175.114 and Cisgender

173.14.175.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is presently attempting to initiate a frivolous, disruptive AfD nomination for Cisgender. (This article has been at AfD twice: two keeps, more recently a snow keep, and has notability demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt.) So far they have added two broken, malformed AfD banners to the article ([15], [16], edit-warring same back in after I reverted the first attempt) and edited the first, closed AfD for the article as if it were new process ([17], [18]). It would be nice if they could be blocked before they actually figure out how to use AfD and successfully initiate a process that will waste the time and effort of more people than just me. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the same user has also added an unfounded, and likely malicious "delete" vote to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gunma_Kokusai_Academy. Michitaro (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BITE. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a good case for explaining to the user how AfD works, but I don't have time to do that now. Maybe someone else can do it. There is no case for blocking at all. This appears to be an editor editing in good faith, even if he/she lacks understanding of how Wikipedia works. As for deliberately trying to block the user before he/she finds out how to use AfD so that he/she is prevented from doing so, that is an appalling suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP deleting/changing navboxes

Will someone check the edits of 98.163.235.120 (talk · contribs) please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like just regular updating of templates in line with recent elections. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed - Persistent vandalism on article from hopping IP

There's an IP that's been vandalizing John Ciardi relentlessly for the past 24 hours at precisely the same time window (it's a school IP)... I would normally just request protection on the page, however the range has edited a few other articles and I suspect will just move on. There's also no other activity in the range so far this year that isn't obvious vandalism (or obviously related to it), so a short block on the range 158.165.212.0/24 would have no apparent collateral damage. Shadowjams (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked back to the start of 2012, and found no constructive edits from the range. Given the small range, lack of collateral damage, and clear intent to disrupt, I've blocked it for 48 hours, which based on the timing of the vandalism, should stop it till the weekend. Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As far back as CU can see, there have been no productive edits from that range, logged-in or anon, so I've extended the block a bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus

WP:TL;DR version: Willdawg111 (talk · contribs) has returned to editing MMA results tables in a manner that goes against consensus. This is behavior they have done before, has been asked to stop doing, and has been warned that continuing to make these edits could result in a block of their editing privledges. There are general sanctions in effect for the MMA article space and this situation may fall into it.

Longer Version: Last month Willdawg111 (talk · contribs) started a discussion in regards to the format and contents of MMA result tables. There was not a lot discussion about Willdawg's suggested changes. After a few weeks, Willdawg !voted in favor of his changes and in the same edit declared discussion was closed with his single vote creating a new consensus over the formats[19]. Willdawg proceeded to change the WP:MMA page to his suggested changes[20] as well as editing multiple articles with the changes[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. Their edits were reverted by multiple users who included edit summaries stating there was no consensus for the changes. Willdawg then reverted many of those reverts, including multiple times on WP:MMA[35][36][37][38]. Willdawg has been informed that there is no consensus to make these changes at WT:MMA[39][40][41][42][43][44] and about edit warring on their talk page[45]. The resulting discussion and closure by an admin shows Willdawg's perferred format to not have consensus. However, even with the previous warnings, Willdawg has returned to making these same kinds of edits against consensus.[46][47][48][49][50] As mentioned above there are general sanctions over the MMA article space which may require an admin to step in and determine what actions, if any, needs to be done. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg111 deletes all warnings posted in his talk page by fellow editors, ignoring and disregarding them. Here some diffs: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I can empathize. It is really annoying, after all, to have a small group of people hounding you because your new views conflict with their "consensus". PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I try to keep my talk page cleaned up. I keep only what I need, such as links to guidelines and pages that are pointed out. It doesn't matter if its somebody falsely accusing me of violating a policy or pointing out something positive. Check my talk page history, I clean up the old information that I don't need anymore. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In those cases is better to archive your talk page. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have no idea how to do that. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not violating Consensus There was a consensus to go to this new design. If you read what was closed out, the admin specifically allowed for minor changes to the format, which is all that I'm doing. All I'm doing is a minor cleaning up which is NOT in violation of what was decided. The consensus guidelines speicifically allow editors to voice their opinion as to the current consensus via their editing. I have been very careful to read the guidelines and follow them. Please close this out A.S.A.P. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing This came off of the accusers talk page:
Report of Willdawg editing articles against consensus again

TreyGeek, Willdawg111 (talk · contribs · count) is changing result tables against consensus again. Could you report him at ANI? Here are some diffs: [1] [2] Thanks in advance. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• ANI notice has been started. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Good. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreyGeek
This is clearly the work of somebody violating canvasing policies to get somebody who has a similar viewpoint as to the direction of the MMA project to come after me. There is a big split in the opinion of the project going on on several key issues. I am one of one of the vocal editors on one side, and these two are vocal editors on the other side.
This is the reason that I have been careful to follow the guidelines and do everthing by the book.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not canvassing. Read WP:CANVASS. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's not canvassing. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why was Wilddawg not blocked for the recent edit war here? I've been involved in a couple of the MMA discussions, where Wilddawg basically proposes some major format change, calls for a timeline, hopes no one responds, and then "closes" the proposal saying it passed. They don't appreciate how Wikipedia works and are (as is pretty plain to me) not furthering our project. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• First of all, in order to have an editing war, there has to be 2 sides. Second of all, I did everything by the book, including making sure not to violate the editing rules. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There were two sides: you and the other editors. You have been blocked for edit warring in the past. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Editing wars: If they were editing wars, you would be guilty also LlamaAl because you were reverting my edits.
• WP:CONSJust want to point out that the small changes I've made all fall under Conensus by editing. There is a split in the group and I am voicing my opinion in the split by voting by editing, which is clearly allowed and encouraged under the guidelines of Wikipedia. May I suggest the couple people who came here making accusations, to please read consensus page because there are 2 major issues they aren't understanding. The first is the consesnsus by editing which is just pointed out. The second part is that consensus is supposed to be reached by compromise and working together, where every give a little bit to come to an agreement on guidelines everybody can live with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts. If you look at the project talk page, you will see its me and 1 other person who have been pushing for compromise and working together. I opened a dialog on another admin page over a week ago because these 2 same editors have refused to work together and compromise with the rest of the group. I really hope you can see through their smoke screen and see that it isn't me thats the issue, I'm the one trying to push for compromise, it's these couple editors that inisist everything is done their way, no compromise, and they will do whatever they have to in order to get their way. What they are doing, isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why I would be guilty. I just reverted your edits in a WikiProject guideline because there were against consensus. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• What LlamaAl says. How can I say this? You were obviously edit-warring and should have been blocked on 4 January. You got reverted by three different editors. So no, you did not do everything by the book. I'm not going to block you in hindsight, but if you don't see that you were edit-warring here then you don't know what edit-warring is--and for someone who's been blocked for 3R before, that's kind of not smart. You could, of course, apologize for those past actions, say that you now understand where you went wrong and were reverted by three different editors, etc. Or you could hold on to the erroneous statement that you were right and the even more erroneous statement that your "vote was closed" meant anything at all. For the bystanders: I think Willdawg is referring to the "vote" in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Cleaning_up_the_format; see their comment on 2 January. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Him needing to be blocked on the 4th is just furthering a smear campaign. You all like to bring things up saying "well X happened weeks ago!". Grow up, and move on with life. If the block were warranted then it would have happened then. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks. There is no smear campaign, and telling me to grow up is something that only Mrs. Drmies is allowed to do. The block was warranted then; that you disagree simply means you don't know the rules of the Wikipedia game. He wasn't blocked because no one reported him, as far as I can tell. Also, these little sneers of yours only serve to antagonize editors and administrators against you and therefore against Willdawg. If you had some sense and if you wished to help him, you'd stay out of this. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation I would like to point out that the editor who instigated this is currently under investigation as being a sockpuppet of a repeat offender of a permanently blocked user. Can I suggest this be close out until the sockpuppet clerks can confirm the status of this editor? Willdawg111 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation Willdawg, I say this with the most thinly veiled contempt, throwing every elbow and trick in the book to distract from the matter at hand only proves that your editing and participation in the community is disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing disruptive about my editing. If you are referring to the sockpuppet investigation, this was originally started a couple weeks ago, and I'm batting 100% for recognizing sockpuppets. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@Willdawg111 the editor who instigated this was in fact TreyGeek and there is no SPI on him that I can see, if you are referring to LlamaAl, a CU has confirmed last week there is no link between those accounts. I sympathise with your frustration with socks, WP:MMA has a whole draw of them, and sometimes it may appear that accounts are linked when they are not. For the recorded I would support routine CU checks being run on all participants of MMA related AfD's and WT:MMA discussions. ✍ Mtking ✉ 03:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would second that. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing that this particular ANI is about Willdawg111's editing practices and behavior, I fail to see how an SPI on another user should close out this issue. In response to what Drimes mentioned above as to why Willdawg wasn't blocked during the initial edit war... by the time I got home it appeared that Willdawg was following the correct procedure in discussing the changes on talk pages. I went ahead and wrote up an ANI request for future use. When I found out they returned to the disruptive editing practices I updated it and posted it above.

I attempt to WP:AGF, perhaps too much sometimes. I had hoped that the last ANI/MMA discussion that was focused on Willdawg would have resulted in some kind of action, even if it was mentorship. I've long since come to think that whenever the three letter words "MMA" appears here, admins scatter and avoid it at all costs. That's why I avoided the use of MMA in this section's title. What good are general sanctions if they are never used? Why is condescension and disruption so quickly over looked? Someone is going to need to step in (even if it's to me because I'm too blinded to see my own improper actions, if there are any), or this will never stop, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a couple incidents on not following the rules and guidelines when I first started and didn't know what I was doing, but I have been very careful to follow them. Just because I have a difference in opinion doesn't mean there is anything disruptive or anything wrong with my editing. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonnyBonesJones, which is going nowhere--that is, nowhere good for Willdawg. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I don't like this report (warning: this itself is pretty long). There is a ton of text and a ton of diffs, but I don't see enough explanation or context to judge whether Willdawg is editing (in edits such as this) against the consensus pointed at by TreyGeek, an RfC I closed myself. Maybe I don't understand the nature of the complaint, but first of all I don't see the difference between what is listed as "Current format" and "Suggested Improvements" in the discussion. In other words, as far as I can tell, this edit continues the old format, which was agreed should be changed--but it's not (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is not a revert from "Suggested Improvement 2" in that RfC to the old format ("Current Format"). If that were the case, Willdawg would clearly be editing against the (new) consensus. Nor do I understand (aside from the edit-warring, of course) what is so disruptive about this edit, or what it violates.

  Now, since I closed that RfC and have made a few minor edits to MMA articles (basically removing flags), any action of mine against Willdawg will be perceived as involved and wikilawyered all the livelong day. But this discussion (leading to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts) gives uninvolved admins plenty of discretion to apply sanctions to disruptive editors. In their close of the AN discussion, Salvio said, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the the topic of mixed martial arts, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". That may well, in my opinion, apply to Willdawg: their behavior does not promote collegiality within the MMA set, and they show a rather shocking lack of knowledge of guidelines governing consensus, edit-warring, and collegiality. But their behavior does not yet, I believe, rise to a level of disruption that would be perceived as blockable outside the MMA area--unless a better case is made. TreyGeek, if you had made a case fully explaining a limited number of problematic edits, I might have seen it. But your report is bloated with unexplained diffs and edits that are simply not to the point (it is perfectly alright for an editor to remove warnings etc.), and so I can't say that a block is automatic here. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • More specificity? I can do that:
    • [59] Willdawg changes Wikiproject guidelines without consensus.
    • [60] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [61] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [62] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results and moves judges scores to notes column against consensus.
    • [63] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results against consensus.
    • [64] Willdawg removes information from next to KO/TKO results against consensus.

In each of these recent cases, Willdawg is attempting to change articles and remove information following the guidelines of their failed proposal for changing result formats. They have been repeatedly told there is no consensus to make these changes and that there are a number of WikiProject members who don't want this information removed. They continue to do so, requiring editors to have to monitor their activity to see if they continue to make these kinds of changes that must be reverted. The time spent monitoring their activity could be better spent doing other things (like improving the two sentence MMA fighter articles that have cropped up by the dozen this weekend). In response to comments and warnings about their activity Willdawg wikilawyers with policies and guidelines such as claims of "Conensus by editing". Willdawg has a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that doesn't seem will be easily cured. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tell me: where between 4 January (the MMA talk page edit war) and 13 January (the contested edits) were they told in no uncertain terms that what they were doing violated consensus? Because so far, it seems to me that those 13 Jan edits are almost trivial--whether someone adds or removed "punches" or whatever from some column appears fairly trivial. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, there was some heated discussion on the 4th on the MMA talk page at the bottom of this section that I think was pretty clear but rejected by Willdawg. I don't think anyone bluntly said to Willdawg "This is now the format, you must follow it!". In part I think it could have been viewed as grave-dancing since his preferred format was not supported but also in part since he was insisted that his format had consensus and thus must be followed that he knew what consensus meant and knew it was changed since he was actively involved in the debate. The discussion you closed on the 4th had two proposals. Proposal 1 was Willdawg's preference, Proposal 2 was preferred by most others and when closed was selected as the consensus version. The change to UFC 153 that Willdawg made on the 12th was away from the proposal 2 format to proposal 1. It's trivial but it would be disingenous to suggest that Willdawg didn't know how the result section should be formatted. Rather, I think he simply didn't care and changed the article to his preferred version. Had he not been reverted, I think we'd see more of those changes. The project talk page also has a section started on the 8th talking about the new results format. Willdawg has not participated in that discussion but I'd find it hard to believe he was not aware of it. A strong reminder that he needs to follow the format chosen by consensus should help and may be all that's needed. (Yeah, I'm an optimist). Ravensfire (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, then and now, but again, I don't see how that discussion specifically forbids those (in my view) minor changes they were making on 13 Jan, but the point about your reminder is well-taken, and maybe that will be all that's needed. Ravensfire, I'm glad you popped by--I have the feeling that I'm the only respondent here that's not involved in the complaint and I don't like that position, but I think other admins feel little inclination to delve into this mess. Thus far, then, I get the feeling that no block or sanction is going to be forthcoming, and that a strong reminder will be the upshot of this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly getting really annoyed by all the MMA stuff that shows up here, and Willdawg is certainly at the forefront of a lot of that. That said, I clicked through most of those diffs provided in the OP, and most of them appear to be moving scores around in the infobox... why can't the MMA talk page handle such a simple issue? This isn't a question of MMA notability (as some people below try to make it), but apparently some internal strife about... I don't even know what.

Seriously, this whole issue's absurd. This, as far as I can tell, isn't even a notability issue (although I'm not at all surprised half the people commenting here assume it is and jump in with their comments on that point). It seems to be some esoteric innerstrife that remains not well explained.

How about a topic ban for MMA regular contributors from using the AN boards.... I'm kidding... mostly. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask this question for future advice. If/When Willdawg makes these same kinds of edits in attempt to establish their own "consensus by editing", what should happen?

1. Their edits are reverted and nothing more happens?
2. Their edits are reverted and they ask politely asked, again, to discuss changing the format of results on the MMA WikiProject talk page?
3. Their edits are reverted and they get escalating vandalism warnings until they can be taken to AIV?
4. Their edits are reverted and we all come back here to ANI? (I really doubt anyone is going to suggest this one.)
5. Their edits are ignored and Willdawg gets to establish their own consensus against the desires and opinions of the rest of the MMA WikiProject?

I sincerely would like to know what we are supposed to do in this situation. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know all they have to do is look at the talk pages and they will see that I am the one trying to discuss things on the talk pages don't you? Also, if you read consensus, you would know exactly what you are supposed to do, compromise and work together as a team.

Don't you get it. This isn't a place to try to bully somebody into doing everything your way. This is a group project, meaning you have to take the opinions of every active editor into play. This page isn't here for you to try to force people into complying with your opinions. Everything I have done lately has been by the book. I have followed the guidelines. I haven't violated 3 revert rule, I didn't violate what the closing of consensus. If you read it, the admin specifically opened it up for minor changes, which is all I did. How about trying to compromise and work together with everybody instead of trying to use an admin to do your dirty work and force compliance with your opinion. All they have to do is look at the talk page lately and they will clearly see that I am the one being diplomatic and trying to compromise and work with everybody. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What about this change? it's extremely similar to your preferred format. I thought this was over with the first discussion, but it seems that we should discuss it again on WT:MMA. Although this issue seems to be trivial, it has already generated several edit wars, as this latest on Strikeforce: Marquardt vs. Saffiedine: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Poison Whiskey 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page where the discussion was closed out. The admin declared the new, blue colored table the new table. If you look at his comments, he left it open for minor changes. What would you call putting the scored into the comment section. I'm assuming most people would count that as a minor change. Concensus says that a new consensus is reached by the way editors are editing, and I was using my editing of minor details as my vote for the way the details are worked out.

Looking at the section below this, you guys are astonished and upset at the negative view that this project has. Have you ever thought that it gets a bad reputation by the way you are acting. I have been trying to discuss issues and trying to work out a compromise that everybody can live with, but there is only a couple of us that want to be civil and diplomatic. There are a few editors who want things done their way, and have no issue trying to bully the rest of the project. What do you think this looks like. You don't like my opinion and my vote on consensus. You have tried to link guidelines that don't even come close to applying, you have tried to tell me and other people that we have violated rules that we haven't violated, you have threatened to get us blocked or banned, and when we still don't fold and continue to voice our opinion, you resort to trying to get an admin to help you out. It's only a couple of you editors but you are making this project look like a bunch of cyber bullies. Take a step back and take an honest evaluation of your actions and how they reflect on the project. The truth is that the way you guys are making this project look, Wikipedia could step in, shut this project down, and I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't blame them either. How about give up trying to dictate the project and work together as a team. Another editor and I have been trying to get everybody to compromise on solutions to the problems. How about being a team player and compromise and work out a solution that everybody can live with it.Willdawg111 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping if I can get all needed templates created to match the format we'll be able to circumvent some of this. It's not perfect as the templates are really simple. If I went crazy we'd have separate parameters for decision and judges votes so the formatting can be changed but honestly that's getting a wee bit crazy to me, especially with MMABot around to (eventually) help out with formatting changes. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would still love to hear suggestions from any, mostly neutral, person about how to handle this situation moving forward. It can be one of the five options I thought about above or another option I am blind to. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been missing the correct option for a month now. It's called COMPROMISE and work together with everybody as a team. If you are looking for options on how to force everybody to see everything your way and do everything the way you want it, it isn't going to happen. There isn't any guidelines that allow you to do that. All you have to do is accept the fact that all active editors are equal and their opinons are equally important. Compromise and work with everybody. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is already a group of people working on the new format for presenting event results. You can find that discussion here. I've had relatively little input on that avenue other suggesting some minor tweaks and offering the services of MMABot to help convert the 800 or so event articles to use the new format. I notice that Willdawg hasn't bothered to join in that discussion. Just because no one has seen the merits to Willdawg's suggested changes doesn't mean there isn't an effort to discuss the upcoming changes and work as a team by members of the Wikiproject. There have been a number of times over the years that my suggested changes and formatting hasn't been accepted by the project. I accept that it wasn't accepted by others and work on other things. Willdawg seems intent on not doing so. So again, I'd like to hear suggestions from mostly neutral editors on how I should handle this situation going forward. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I voiced my concerns about 1 person programming something that will edit all the article within the project and he deletes it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history . This is a perfect example of his unwillingness to accept and attempting to surpress any opinion other than his own. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed a message from a user talk page for one of my accounts (an alternate account that I opened as per Wikipedia's policies) as per WP:REMOVED. There have already been multiple people giving support for MMABot to continue its efforts (not that I thought there was a lack of support for it).(link) This suggests to me that if the WikiProject doesn't bow down to Willdawg's desires/wants/opinions we're the bad guys, all of us in the project. I'd be happy for an admin to close out this ANI, that I started, if I could get feedback on how to handle Willdawg moving forward. I honestly don't know what I should do or what the WikiProject should do. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What you need to do is keep on keeping on. If a discussion gets out of hand, pull in an administrator. Play by the rules and make sure you have consensus for whatever you want to do. This thread is not going to lead to a block or anything like that, so move on. We'll keep an eye on matters, or we'll try to. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A more fundamental question

This is really not helpful; we could all pick a topic area we dislike and make the argument that it should be deleted. However, that doesn't resolve the issue at hand and is really only providing an outlet for rants... so lets move on :) --Errant (chat!) 16:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are many respectable meanings of the abbreviation MMA, but it appears that instead the meaning mixed martial arts is intended – as was the case in more than 30 other ANI reports since May 2010. I also found out that this 'sport' is so brutal that it cannot be shown on German television. Given the significant trouble once caused by even a single editor with an unhealthy interest in dog-baiting and related 'sports', I am not at all surprised that the existence of an entire WikiProject of editors with interests of such a nature has negative side effects. Has there ever been a fundamental debate on whether we really want to afford detailed coverage of barely borderline encyclopedic information (basically everything that goes beyond a single article on each major topic) relating to physical activities that appeal primarily to the most violent and least literate parts of American society? It would appear to me that the ratio usefulness/(effort+inaccuracy) is probably never going to become acceptable for such topics. Hans Adler 19:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Formula corrected after Uncle G pointed out the problem. Hans Adler 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Your comment is laughably ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 19:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Is that supposed to be a yes or a no? Or are you just outing yourself as someone who thinks that tables and entire series of articles on "MMA" constitute indispensable encyclopedic content that Wikipedia cannot possibly drop over considerations of practicality in times of dropping editor numbers? Hans Adler 20:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC) “This is not something that smart young people look down their noses at.” -- Robert Thompson, Syracuse University. NE Ent 20:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) So Hans Adler takes the view that MMA is a horrible activity, the people interested in it are horrible people, the editors who edit articles on it are horrible editors and the articles they edit are horrible articles: and that there should be a fundamental debate on whether Wikipedia can survive all this horrbleness. How refreshing. Others might take the view that the whole dispute is a waste of electrons. Cold run bozo (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC) The reason, in my opinion, that mixed martial arts has developed the entrenched, hostile, and battlefield-like demeanor is that several fan sites (Such as Bloody Elbow, MMAJunkie, MMAWiki, the MMA sub-reddit) all have regular "Crusades against Wiki-Tyranny" with specific instructions about how to "vote" to save articles that they want. It has been explained on multiple occasions the rules we operate under. Several attempts have been made to go to the source of these crusades to explain how the wiki works. The time for education/acceptance is over. It's time for the school of hard knocks. The above mentioned editor has been warned that their conduct has been lacking on multiple occasions, yet we still have to procedurally walk through each step of the warning system to get the application of the community endorsed sanctions Hasteur (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Slow your roll. MMajunkie is apart of USAtoday. Your complaint is meritless. Arguing over tables? Go home. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC) If the label fits... Yes there's a MMAJunkie section with news, but the majority is user contributed opinion and forums for enthusiasts to echo chamber about how wonderful the sport is. So yes I cast MMAJunkie in the fan site category. Your rebuttal is meritless, how about you go home? Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I suggest you take your complaint up with USAtoday. Someone has to cover these events. Thats' what it is called. Coverage. Like ESPN editors have opinions. MMajunkie has opinions that are given in the name of USAtoday. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) PO, We don't have to take their editorial and content choices up with them... We mark it as a entry vector for Single Purpose Accounts and discount their weight when considering them for various content judgements. Hasteur (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Oh it's "we" is it? How impressive. Moving right along, I see a wealth of mma articles with much less than an MMAjunkie ref to their name. I think you have some work to do, otherwise you are in danger of being wrong again. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Can we add a moratorium on articles about war? Why on earth would we want detailed coverage of such horrific human activity?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC) It appears to me that $usefulness/(effort+accuracy)$ isn't the correct formula, unless minimizing encyclopaedia accuracy is somehow the goal. Have you been consorting with economists again, M. Adler? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out the problem in the formula. I have replaced "accuracy" by "inaccuracy". I hope that you can accept that as a ratio (of course really just a metaphor) for something that we would want to maximise. Hans Adler 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I think MMA is a horrible phenomenon that ought to be banned and is far overrepresented on Wikipedia, but the implications of the post above (and again, I'm sympathetic to the ideas behind it) are rather troublesome, as others have pointed out. Against the current (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC) We got pokemon, we got rassling, we got K-pop, we got so much of that shit. At least, Hans, MMA appears to be more real than rassling, which is also a huge thing here. It will prove to be impossible to come up with some clear demarcation (trash on the one hand, encyclopedic content), if only because it will leave some editors with nothing to do. What can be done is aggressively edit those articles and trim for trivial, non-notable, poorly verified, fan-like stuff, and to support editors who do that. Enforcement of the regular rules, and participation by serious editors of the old-fashioned type on such boards as WP:RSN, might help as well. Unfortunately, that something can't be shown on German TV isn't much of a criterion. Consider that boobies etc. can't be shown on American TV. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) "Enforcement of the regular rules, and participation by serious editors of the old-fashioned type on such boards as WP:RSN, might help as well." Well said. My 2p is that the MMA articles have gotten far out of hand with regard to the Pillars and the policies that support them. A return to reliable sourcing, notability, and civility would (could?) turn that part of the project into a useful resource. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to happen without some very hurt toes along the way. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC) One area that would GREATLY help the MMA project would be some outside help nailing down the notability guidelines for individual fighters and for events. Having an admin or two moderate the discussions and several outsiders familiar with notability (especially sports notability) to offer outside views could help somewhat reduce the drama level. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC) That highlights the issue clearly. We don't need special guidelines for MMA. We have WP:SPORTCRIT, which is pretty clear. Unfortunately, we also have WP:NMMA which appears to ignore GNG almost entirely. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) While I don't see Hans' first paragraph as particularly relevant to a "do we cover this stuff" discussion, his second is highly relevant. Where are the books covering this phenomenon? Where are the academic journal articles? Where are the other stable reliable sources? Virtually everything I've seen of MMA articles is just sports news, coming from things that either aren't reliable or aren't chronologically independent of the event or both. If we want to heed our Wikipedia-is-not-a-newspaper policy more consistently, we need to start trimming MMA coverage substantially and restricting it largely to the core subject of MMA, which is covered by reliable chronologically independent sources. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Nyttend, I agree with you. This is a lot like K-pop, where a group of editors hold on to the fiction that fan sites, portals, and forums (many of which started by the companies producing the product) in addition to "entertainment news sites" are taken as reliable sources that add notability to topics that have no relevance other than as a commercial product. I'm trying to figure out precisely what those notability guidelines for MMA are--there's something about three major fights, but those fights take place in pay-per-view events and such, not in venues that are sanctioned anything like track or football or other sports (I almost said "real" sports, oops--and by "real" I mean "not a commercial product as shown on an MSNBC special)). These organizations (see my recent edit to Strikeforce) are bought and sold; they fold or get merged from one day to the next; their notability and credibility is dependent solely on whether they get a TV or a PPV contract or a good deal with a promoter. They aren't sports that are recognized in colleges in the US or exist at a club format at other places in the world. I could go on. I do hope that something will come out of this. And then we tackle rassling articles, with their own ridiculous amounts of trivia and walled-garden style referencing. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with Nyttend. MMA articles need to be covered by reliable independent sources. The few articles I've encountered aren't and other than to MMA, the subjects don't appear notable....William 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Really? - This ANI discussion was supposed to be about disruptive edits by one user, but has devolved into a conversation about Pokemon, K-pop and why Mixed Martial Arts isn't discussed in academic journals? If you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then that's your own issue. But many editors have done their best to use reliable, secondary sources to back up information about a legitimate sport sanctioned by athletic commissions in almost all 50 states and practiced in dozens, if not well over a hunderd, countries and territories across the world. Before demonizing a sport beloved by millions of people across the world, at least have a basic understanding of it. Luchuslu (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC) This "side question" by Hans is nothing short of ridiculous. Please close this ridiculous tangent and let us do what ANI should do... the MMA stuff itself is more than enough to deal with, not polemics from people that don't like boxing. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC) FYI: you can watch plenty of MMA and similar in Europe on Extreme Sports Channel. Carried by UPC in many EU countries. I don't have first-hand experience of this, but according to the article it is carried by Kabel Deutschland. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/110.33.241.238: Grudge?

Not sure where the rage is coming from here; unless User:Matthijsvdr is a sock, I don't see why edit summaries such as "Can you please actually just go away and die?" and "Reverted edits of Matthijsvdr because he is a retard." could in any way be construed as constructive. ⁓ Hello71 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

110's edit summaries are calming down, it appears. If you think they are a sock, the correct place to file is WP:SPI, not here. On the rudeness, I would like to see what 110 has to say here first. KillerChihuahua 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, after Hello71's warning, he's stopped editing. He protested on Hello71's talk page that User:Matthijsvdr had somehow done something to warrant such incivil fury, which he had not from what I can see. After that, there's nothing. If he doesn't take any further action with regards to Matthijsvdr, Hello71, or this thread, I'd say the warning did its job and with any luck he'll assume good faith in the future. (It might be a good idea for someone to very politely give him a nudge in the right direction with links to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, just so he gets the whole picture.) Rutebega (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when some user who I can only guess registered for the sole purpose of undoing edits on each season page of American Dad! messed them all up? I don't understand this concept of "good faith" Wikipedia editors are supposed to assume. Those edits were not in good faith to me; they showed blatant disregard for work anyone else had done on the pages. And no, I haven't stopped editing; I went to sleep. To be honest, I wouldn't have blown up and oh Lord, used a profanity on Wikipedia if the other editor hadn't been so reckless. I think a lot of other Wikipedia editors are rude and stubborn in ways that don't always result in such outright statements. It's a line of thinking like, "I'm a registered editor, I'm going to revert your edits because you're an IP address and I automatically assume you're wrong"; I'm just more open about it when I see someone who must be braindead to make such unconstructive edits. Also, I don't understand Hello71 saying "unless User:Matthijsvdr is a sock, I don't see why edit summaries such as [...] could in any way be construed as constructive". Is that supposed to imply that if the user was a sockpuppet, those edit summaries would somehow be "constructive"? That was a poor choice of words. As was "grudge", because a grudge is usually a long-term thing. This was a fuss over a few reversions in the space of a few minutes. You can all let it go now. 110.33.241.238 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to let it go, but I don't think you understand that your actions were deplorable. "What AN/I hath wrought, let no man attempt to smooth over". Matthijsvdr made several mistakes in editing. That happens. He's new. Your reaction, however was in blatant violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Not only had Matthijsvdr done nothing to deserve your incivility, our policy on wikipedia is to extend civility to all, whether they deserve it or not. You have failed to express any legitimate regret for calling Matthijsvdr a "retard," or any of your other incivil comments. If you intend to continue editing wikipedia, you will experience many editors who make edits you disagree with, and the way to deal with that is through civil discussion, not with personal attacks in edit summaries. I honestly hope you can understand that other users are not to be treated that way, no matter their infractions. If you see edits that appear to be erroneous or nonconstructive, assume that the editor merely made the edits out of ignorance or an honest mistake, rather than out of malice or ill intention. As far as I'm concerned, the next time you display gross incivility, you will receive one final warning. Do try to keep your name away from AN/I in the future. Rutebega (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I know quite well that you want me to express regret and I fully understand that I'm supposed to act civil, but I can't lie and pretend I feel regret for my actions when I don't. It might not look it from where I'm making these comments, but I've been editing Wikipedia for over eight years under various IPs (as they do vary with time), so trust me when I say I know the way editors are supposed to act and I know I went beyond that. However, as humans, not automatons on computers, I think we can all admit we get caught up in the moment. I'm not trying to make an excuse nor get you to sympathise, but that's my reasoning. Honestly, there's only been a handful of times I've been caught up in voraciously editing to the point of an infraction. You'd probably say that I should know better, but it's a matter of principle at this point in sticking by what I said (what I view with hindsight as insulting another editor for their very misguided and frustrating edits). Also, my IP address is not a "name", and trust me when I say I do intend to keep away from this page in the future—primarily because this supposed mediation never changes anything, and only proves my point that editors can pretend to act civil and "welcoming" to IP editors, but when it comes down to it, they feel superior. Reply if you want, but I feel like there's nothing left to say. 110.33.241.238 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as WP:YOUMUSTAPOLOGIZE, and I won't ask you to. As long as you understand that what you did was in violation of policy and that there will be consequences if you repeat the infraction, then I'm satisfied. As for a systemic bias against IP editors, I don't think anybody would claim it doesn't exist, and as much as we may desire to change that, it will always be present. You are, however, free to create an account at any time if you can't put up with the discrimination. Thank you for participating in this discussion. Rutebega (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that was the first and last time i did something on wikipedia, and probely will delete my account. All the changes i made i placed in the edit summary the following link -> http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/ with some text, showing that wikipedia information about american dad is not matching with the official show website. But i guess trying to correct this gets reverted right away so why the hell bother right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthijsvdr (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA country of birth this time ISO codes

• List of current UFC fighters (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Beansy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would appear that Beansy has found a way round the removal of the flag icons from MMA articles, this time inserting the ISO codes for the country of birth into List of current UFC fighters, this I believe is a clear attempt to circumvent the spirit of the RfC on on flags, namely as there is no national representation in MMA highlighting a competitors place of birth in such a way is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it is only important to dedicated fans (WP:FANCRUFT). I have brought this here instead of the article or project talk page as it is clear that no attempt at the talk or project page will not be respectful of wiki wide MOS, guidelines and policies. I have reverted the article to the state it was at prior to the addition. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Beansy is also claiming in the edit sum of this edit that s/he is "implementing ISO country codes per an admin's specific suggestion" I can find no such admin suggestion. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrator Kww made the ISO suggestion as an alternative to flags in the ongoing conversation here: WT:MOSICON#RfC_on_MOS:FLAG. It was also made as a direct reply to a comment I made. Yes, that is quite a lot of text to dig through, but Kww is clearly suggesting ISO 3-Country Codes as an alternative to flags that is more user-friendly to the visually impaired. As for the Flag Icon debate, that relates to flags specifically and not text information. This is not a "way around" the flag debate, unless your objective is to delete information outright. Either way, I am acting in complete compliance with an admin's direct suggestion to me and unless you can cite how this if violating WP guidelines without torturing the interpretation of a guideline that is already inherently subjective to the point of absurdity, I find it very difficult to see your argument as substantive. WP:FANCRUFT is about extremely esoteric information. Fighter nationality, which gets cited ad nauseam in MMA media articles and books on the subject, is anything but. Obviously if an admin comes here and says differently I will respect their ruling. Beansy (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, in addition to the above, I would note that I did obtain permission of the article's author and longtime caretaker Thaddeus Venture on his talk page before making the change, in order to respect his work. Beansy (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beansy is now clearly edit warring on the page, why is Beansy not blocked for this, he knows about the discussion yet he still continues to do just as he pleases, showing no respect and just total contempt for the community editing process; this fixation over place of birth is pure MMA fancruft, and yet another example of how the MMA fan base just rides ruff shod over the rest of the Wiki. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't get "permission of the article's author", as articles do not belong to anyone. ✍ Mtking ✉ 09:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You started reverting the edits before I even completed them (sorry if I didn't feel it was prudent adding ISO country codes for nearly 400 fighters in just one single edit). If you wish to accuse me of initiating and edit war then please cite a clear reason why ISO country codes in an info table are in violation. Putting it on the ANI board, you certainly seem to think a serious offense has been committed. I will certainly respect the ruling of an admin here but I was acting off of an administrator's suggestion for what to replace flags with in the first place in the very discussion you are citing. As it were, MOS guidelines state that when interpretations are unclear and edit warring occurs (I would think that your deletion of information would denote the start of this particular edit war) that formatting then reverts to the first major contributor of an article or set of articles. As such even though the edits was based on an admin's suggestion I got the permission of the creator and caretaker before making any changes out of deference. If you wish to continue edit-warring until there is a verdict here, that is up to you. Until then I have no other way to view your edits than arbitrary reverts at best. I'm trying not to escalate the drama here and would appreciate it if you did not try to conjure it out of thin air. Beansy (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what Bruce Buffer is talking about when he says stuff like "fighting out of Las Vegas,Nevada by way of Curitiba, Brazil..." every single fight? There was also a UFC event branded "UFC vs Canada". They also had a USA vs UK Ultimate Fighter. Not to mention TUF Brazil, and the upcoming TUF Mexico. TUF Phillipines will siphon all fighters from OneFC. Anyways, seems nationality is important to the UFC.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What is it with the MMA issue that everyone runs to ANI at the first hint of trouble... and apparently can't find consensus on even the tiniest issues? Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically, MMA articles have been a war zone for years. There's intractable differences that have resulted in no real progress. ANI shouldn't be the first place people go, but it's becoming more and more common as peoples nerves wear thin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to introduce strict sactions on all MMA articles, as we have for WP:TROUBLES, WP:ARBMAC etc. GiantSnowman 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Already authorised... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'mma re-phrase - maybe it's time to start actually enforcing them. GiantSnowman 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, this one really should have been discussed either with Beansy directly or on WT:MMA. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire and I discussed this separately, and I don't take any offense at what is an easy typo (h next to j on the keyboard). I just wanted it to be clear to anyone looking just at this thread though, I'm not involved in this debate directly nor am I involved in the MMA debates on the merits. I think Ravensfire mmisunderstood my comment to indicate I was involved. I was merely making a more general statement about the frequency this stuff shows up here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ShadowhamsShadowjams, because WT:MMA has become so toxic a discussion hub that the supporters of MMA topics refuse to accept any compromise, that the adherents to WikiRules refuste to budge from "The Blessed Rules", that the community has already authorized general sanctions to deal with disruptive editors, and that ANI is the place to request enforcement of the general sanctions. That no administrator is willing to pick up the toolset and use them suggests to me that the community authorized General Sanctions have not been successful in stemming the disruption of the topic space and Wikipedia at large. It has been suggested in the past that perhaps a ArbCom case may prove fruitful in explicitly authorizing ArbCom sanctions that can be dispensed with expediently at WP:AE rather than the festering sores that are now coming up on a weekly basis because one side on "The MMA question" sees the actions of the other side as violating consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there is some sort of in-joke I'm not getting, otherwise both of you identically misspelling his name like that might seem a bit insulting. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) _{(Edit: Wrong "i" word. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC))}

Oh wow - I did bork that up. Thank you for spotting that so I can fix it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, struck the old version and put the right name inHasteur (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I've given both of these users the discretionary warning template with a "buck up" note (and suggestions for moving forward). If they continue to spat we can deploy blocks. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How you think it is resolved is beyond me. ✍ Mtking ✉ 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

An admin should have banned mtking long ago, that would have put a stop to all of this stupid antiMMA crap. Mmajim (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are just a brand new user, not here to grave-dance, are you? I'm sure your welcoming and open viewpoint towards things will contribute towards a positive editing environment. Ravensfire (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the admins are just afraid to be outed by some 15 year old from the sherdog forum. I can't blame them. I guess I pissed off the wrong people around here. Now I understand why there is a list of admins who "make tough blocks". Next time I will seek one out the next time I'm having an issue. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment to Hasteur, in my opinion this was an effort by a members of WP:MMA to step back from using flag icons, but retain the content. It's frustrating that this isn't seen as compromise. If there is anything I can do as a member of that wikiproject, please let me know. I would, if possible, like to help to remove the negativity associated with WP:MMA. Kevlar (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just happened to notice that I had been mentioned here. To clarify my input to any of this, I am of the opinion that flag icons should be eradicated from Wikipedia, and that if people need to include a fixed-format nationality identifier into a table, they should use an ISO code, not a flag. ISO codes are easier for screen-readers and accessible to the colourblind. I did not, and will not, issue an opinion as to whether any particular MMA table should include a nationality identifier at all. If consensus is that the table should indicate nationality, it should use ISO codes, not flags; if consensus is that the table shouldn't include nationality, it should include neither an ISO code or flag.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DarkGuardianVII apparently not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

In the three weeks this user has had an account, their contributions have been almost entirely to the talk pages of two articles: Homophobia and Heterosexism, as shown here. Their edits have been almost entirely forum talk, bordering on trolling. The pattern of disruption is oddly similar to that of Acoma Magic and began shortly after Acoma Magic's sock puppet, Zaalbar was blocked.

They were warned not to continue using the article's talk pages for discussion, several times:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

There is also an ongoing tacit refusal by this user to sign their many posts, in spite of several requests to do so. It seems that they have a divergent purpose on Wikipedia than the rest of us. Could an uninvolved admin please look at this an take appropriate action?

Thank you. - MrX 04:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming I am a sock puppet? Also, isn't this account older than three weeks? I can distinctly remember it being older, but maybe that is one of the accounts I lost. I would actually prefer a ban since the incompetence of this administration has shown me that it is all based on assumption and not on facts. Also, I did not refuse to sign the posts. I do not know how. I am still learning here, and yet this is not a friendly site to learn how to do things. I would also suggest you actually read what I say and stop using attacks like "Border-line trolling" or just delete my account. I do not need this drama from a website that is supposed to be an information 'conglomerate' so to speak. I requested sections and also government sources be added. All you considered what I have done is trolling apparently, which could be, but isn't. The talk page was about "Phobia". If you cannot read, then I do advise you to please delete my account ASAP. Do not even bother banning, just delete it. DarkGuardianVII (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DarkGuardian - there's an entry on your Talk page instructing you how to sign posts. Did you notice it? I've also taken the liberty to indent your post above with a semi-colon. It's something else we do to help keep things readable. And re that phobia discussion, it's considered bad form to regurgitate old conversations, and ignore our FAQs, which you had explained to you on that page, yet you persisted. Do try a little harder to be part of our community by following our conventions and advice. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. It's colons for indenting. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"isn't this account older than three weeks? I can distinctly remember it being older, but maybe that is one of the accounts I lost."

That's puppetmaster-speak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

^Example of why I want my account deleted. I do not need mindless assumptions pointed at me. The account I used to have I think was IceLight, DarkInferno, LightGuardian, or something similiar. There goes your theory. I do not think it was banned. I remember creating an account and not posting, but I could be wrong.DarkGuardianVII (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Accounts don't get deleted - if you don't want to use it any more, you can just log out and stop using it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@DarkGuardian, you created this account on December 25, 2012. [72] As for your other accounts, might I suggest you find them, and place the {{Retired}} template on the user page, with a link to your current account, since sock puppetry is something we take very seriously around here. (If you would like to retire yourself, you can place it on your own userpage too.) Whatever you do, however, the discussions/rants on the Homophobia talk page need to stop. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've indeffed DarkGuardianVIII for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. As for the socking issues, I'm not convinced that he's Acoma Magic. DG's editing style is much more aggressive. His English expression isn't anywhere nearly as good as AM's. I thought about the possibility of him being a sock of User:Glynth who stopped editing on December 27, almost at the same time as DG started editing. Also, if you look at Talk:Homophobia, you'll see that just as Glynth drops out of sight, DG comes into the picture. However, again, a comparison of expression styles doesn't suggest (to me) that they are the same individual. All that said, the block was justified in my view without any evidence of socking. I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to contribute to further discussion for a while. If another uninvolved admin feels my actions were offbase, feel free to do whatever you deem best.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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

No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"

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 believe that some of the parties engaged in the discussion at section "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote" in Talk:Paul Krugman are failing engage in rational argumentation and are desplaying some of the problematic behaviors described in WP:CRUSH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:Boomerang. Insomesia (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRUSH, is it now? Deicas, I've had nothing to do with any of this, but I took a look at Talk:Paul Krugman and the dispute resolution noticeboard, and there you argue mainly by hurling policy citations like brickbats, and by failing to engage with what anybody else says. Wikipedia:Wikilawyer is merely an essay, but you have already been warned about it by a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Seriously, instead of replying with more wikilawyering, that should have made you reconsider your style of communication. (P.S. Please sign your posts.) Bishonen | talk 10:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

This belongs here why?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  10:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, OP has just over 300 edits, and while able to cite policy left and right, has not fully grasped the usual sequence for dealing with issues. As I am involved, I don't feel I should close this, but I think it is at best premature.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas can indeed Wikilink to policy pages but most often the pages linked aren't relevant to what's actually being discussed or don't address the objection raised. Personally I'm most frustrated with Deicas's consistent failure to get the point. Genuine policy-based objections have indeed been raised by multiple editors, and all that happens is the objections get ignored or hand-waved away and Deicas simply repeats their statement, "Absent a cogent challenge to the assertion, above, I will subsequently assert that is The Consensus that..." is typical. The highly legal-ese language Deicas uses ("dispositive", "probative", etc.) isn't helping with good communication or collaboration either. Deicas has been asked to stop but it continues... Zad68 14:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas and I went around on this material in an earlier section. I actually listened to the podcast from which the quotation was taken (and I note that there's no transcript of it, as far as I can tell, other than the partial one that I included on the talk page from my own listening), and it's blatantly obvious in context that Becker isn't trying to say something negative about Krugman not doing research at the moment. They are simply two economists from rival schools (Becker practically defines the Chicago School, Krugman is a Keynesian) who naturally disagree about a stimulus package (the topic of discussion) because they have ideological commitments to do so based on what they rival theories say. Including this statement as if it were a criticism is an obvious misrepresentation. Deicas's response to this was very long-winded and featured a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the points I made. I cut that off because there was plainly no progress to be made. His re-raising of this issue amounts to him arrogating to himself the adjudication of what goes in and out of the article. As I've said several times, the big problem with the article as far as Krugman being a figure of controversy is that he is so not for his personal beliefs, but because he is at the moment the main public voice for Keynesianism (which is the school espoused most plainly through Obama's policies), and thus everything he says is attacked by all the Chicago and New Classical economists out there, not to mention every passing Libertarian. The only way to deal with this is to junk the present controversies section and quit pretending that Becker and the various other people mentioned as Krugman's critics speak for the field as a whole, because they don't. Anyone who is a unbiased observer of the economic world can tell you this. Deicas's response to this is to bury us in process; I don't know whether he is doing so as a tactic, but in any case the effect is to keep addressing this issue from happening by crushing every attempt at discourse under a mountain of wikilawyering. If he wants to keep pushing this here, he's going to be buried in WP:BOOMERANGs; he's the one who is really making a career out of obstruction on this article. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the items in the thread, above, but it's going to take me several hours to get to it. Please bear with me. Deicas (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence. I will now create an annotated listing of these failures. Stand by, this might take a couple of hours.

If anyone is unsure of the meaning of "respond dispositively", above, then ask and I will provide more detail.

I call to your attention my posting: "Logical argumentation in disputes at Wikipedia?" Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) Deicas (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that this ANI was started while a DR/N was still in progress, also filed by the OP here. Since no progress was being made there, I have closed the DR/N case.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct* not *content*. Per User:Amadscientist's statement at the DRN [73] "Content disputes are resolved here ... Conduct disputes can be submitted to AN/I".

Per User:Amadscientist's comment, just above, "As ANI was started while a DR/N was still in progress ..." has *no* bearing on this AN/I discussion, I ask him to: 1) strike-out the comment and; 2) refrain from making further irrelevant comments. Deicas (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I call your attention to my questions and statements on the talk page[74] about which this AN/I was filed, quoting therefrom ...

I just scanned the sections, above, "What Becker actually said" and "'undue weight for off hand remark dismissal of Gary Becker statement?"

...

I found *no* other claims above that are probative for the removal of the Becker quote, cite an applicable Wikipedia guild line, and offer evidence to support the claim. If User:Zad68, or anyone else, finds something to the contrary, in the reference sections, then cite the item, quote it here below, and I will issue a whimpering mea culpa. Deicas (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Later I asked:

I assert, yet again, that the Becker quote and associated citation meets WP:PROVEIT, within WP:VERIFY, the criteria for inclusion in an article. Ok!? If you want to dispute that assertion go ahead and do so. Be sure to cite the applicable Wikipedia guide line(s) and applicable fact(s).

I further assert that, in the section above, no substantive argument has been offered dispositive to the exclusion of Becker quote. I someone wants to claim "But I already said ..." then please quote the applicable argument. Deicas (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that, just above, the burden of proof was shifted to those who *repeatedly* claimed that an complete argument for the removal of the quote had been made. This is the way logical argumentation operates. If anyone wants to make the claim that the principals of logical argumentation do not apply to this dispute, I encourage them to make that claim *explicitly*.

Note that I asked repeated good faith questions trying to get an answer that I could reason from. Instead all I got was not dispositive hand-waving.

The argument that was asserted to exist, but I shouldn't find, would look something like this (note this is only an *example*): "The Becker quote citation is UNDUE. It is UNDUE because the Becker does not speak with authority on the nature of Krugman's work. Therefor the Becker quote citation is to be excluded from Paul Krugman".

Please do not, in the course of this AN/I discussion, make *new* arguments regarding the Krugman quote. This AN/I concerns the conduct of the discussion as it stood at [75] when I filed the AN/I request. Deicas (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE? Especially this part:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

You were referred to WP:UNDUE many many times, but keep coming back with WP:V counterarguments. Nobody is arguing the content isn't verifiable. This is the source of the "I didn't hear that" frustrations that several editors have brought up. Zad68 03:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion deals with issue of *conduct* associated with the discussion at [76].

It does *not* deal with any *new* claims for the exclusion/inclusion of the Gary Becker quote. As User:Zad68's comment, just above, does not bear on the *conduct* issue I ask that he: 1) strike-out his comment and; 2) refrain from making further irrelevant comments. Deicas (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE isn't a new claim for the exclusion/inclusion of the Gary Becker quote. In fact, "undue" was the reason given to you in the very first revert (edit summary "undue weight for off hand remark") of the content a few hours after you added it. The conduct issue I'm bringing up with my question "Have you read WP:UNDUE" and the few sentences that follow it (did you miss them?) is that they highlight exactly the troublesome WP:IDHT behavior pattern we're describing here, and in fact your response to it is another example of WP:IDHT--you skipped right past the point regarding behavior that was being made. Can you see why several of your fellow editors are finding your editing behavior frustrating? Zad68 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To person(s), in a position of authority, should I direct procedural questions regarding this AN/I? Deicas (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You can post them right here. But you seem to be ascribing a formality to the process - here and above - that isn't really here. This is a noticeboard and discussion board, not a formal case filing etc. Once an issue is notified people often expand to examine many new aspects of a situation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert: Thank you for your response. Please excuse my unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I've read, or think I've read, the pages about dispute resolution, but I bet I missed pieces.

I note your "... not a formal case filing". In the last 10 days, or so, I I've been through interminable discussion at Talk:Paul Krugman, the BLPN, and a DRN [77]]. During those discussions I've observed a great deal of talking and no progress. I've also observed a *great* deal of failure to engage in logical argumentation and failure to respond dispositively to good faith questions. I view the observed pattern of conduct problems as highly problematic.

With a view toward expeditiously resolving the issues, above, I request that this AN/I be escalated to a higher level in the dispute resolution process. If this isn't the correct place to make the escalation request, then would you please point me to the correct location?

I accept and acknowledge that the conduct accusations that I am making, should they be unsustained, could result in me being sanctioned (Nb. comments "WP:BOOMERANG" comments above from User:Insomesia] and [User:Mangoe]).

How should I proceed? Deicas (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For starters, you should back off from trying to stage-manage the discussion. Too many people object to you doing it, and it doesn't have to be done by you, and if people are behaving well, it often doesn't have to be done by anyone. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone look into closing this? I am involved so should not, but this is a place to ask for admin action, and no admin action has been requested. It is not an admin function to ask editors to engage in rational argumentation, which is the original request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Stupid admin requires assistance from clever tech

I've just blocked a vandalism-only IP, 212.44.42.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months. I don't usually block IP's for that long, unless I can see in their log that somebody else has done it before me, because I'm not really clever enough to figure from the whois (or from anything) whether it's static or dynamic. I can tell that this one isn't some entire developing nation, but that's about it. From their interests, it does look like one person since at least October, probably longer. Could somebody please just check for me that three months is all right in this instance? (And do give them more, if that's all right, be my guest.) Bishonen | talk 16:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

• Near as I can tell (which is of uncertain worth), it's static. So, yeah, s'fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/212.44.42.226 tells us that this is a static IP address.
  2. If it is clear that the same person has been using the same IP address for a long time, it doesn't matter much whether it is technically a static IP address, which can't be reassigned, or a dynamic one, which theoretically could be reassigned but actually isn't: it's one user, and if that user needs blocking then block. If there is any doubt about whether it's the same user, then it makes sense to give more benefit of the doubt for a dynamic than for a static IP, but where there is no doubt the distinction is largely immaterial.
  3. Even if it isn't one user, if all or virtually all editing from one IP address is disruptive over a period of months or years, then it needs to be blocked. (This is a very different situation from an IP address which has just been vandalising for a few hours, where for all we know either a different user or the same one may be about to do some constructive editing, so we give only a short block, often 31 hours, sometimes less than that, to give the benefit of the doubt.)
  4. In my opinion, a three month block is about minimal in this situation. I probably would have done the same, and I certainly wouldn't have done any less. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Cool, thank you both. In that case, James, I think I'll up it to 6 months. Clearly, if it had been a name account, they would have been indeffed long ago. And I'll use the "Geolocate" link on the talkpage another time, good tip. (Actually, I did use it, but wasn't sure I could trust it. I'm a pusillanimous admin when it comes to IPs.) Thank you again. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
  • "http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/212.44.42.226 tells us that this is a static IP address" - That also says it's a dial-up, and the idea of static dial-up IP addresses sounds unlikely to me. It is operated by Redstone, who mainly provide managed telecoms for businesses and organizations, so I'd be surprised if they provide dial-up at all (they do provide domestic fibre-to-the-home too, but that's definitely not dial-up). I suspect there's at least one error in that whois report - but whois reports can be inconsistent between different sites, and there often are errors. But anyway, I think it's safe for a long block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm pretty syre that I've seen that site list an obviously dynamic IP as static before, but in this case, it's fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • FWIW, a static IP on a dialup is unusual but far from infeasible. I myself used to sell them. I think a total of two customers, ever, needed one. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It's ancient history, but when I got my PPP account (back when such distinctions mattered) in 1995 on dial-up, I had a static IP. --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I accept that Whois type sites are not 100% reliable. However, here is some more evidence. If the IP address is dynamic, and different people have been assigned it and used it to edit Wikipedia, then other nearby IP addresses, from the same pool of dynamic addresses, will presumably also have been used. In fact, while 212.44.42.226 has made dozens of edits over the course of almost a year, no other IP address in the range 212.44.42.128/25 (i.e. 212.44.42.128 to 212.44.42.255) has ever edited Wikipedia. (See here, and click on "Next set" to check further back.) It would be a remarkable coincidence if a number of different editors using the same pool of IP addresses only ever edited Wikipedia when they happened to be allocated one particular address out of the pool. It is clear that it is one person who has an IP address that has been allocated to one user for a long time. However, I still think that "is it static or dynamic?" is a far less important question than "is there also constructive editing from other editors?" to which the answer is "no, not only not on this IP address, but not even on nearby IP addresses". As far as I am concerned, that means there is no problem with the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • WhatIsMyIPAddress isn't the first (by a long chalk) to mis-use "dialup" to mean "ISP customer", and almost certainly won't be the last. It's a common error. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous IP - Potential vandalism.

Sorry, I am resonably new as a Wiki editor. I have spotted an edit on two pages from User:131.251.254.236 which may be vandalism. Is this the right place to report it? How does it get investigated / managed? Sorry if this is the wrong place. --Camayoc (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First we give them warnings (see WP:WARN). Then, if they vandalise beyond their third and final warning, they are reported to WP:AIV. I'll give them a warning now for you. Thanks! – Richard BB 16:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

True -- however normally it's probably not worth the effort if there's only a couple edits from the IP ... just revert and/or annotate, as Camayoc as already done. NE Ent 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just been delayed by the temporary read-only mode. Upon inspecting his edits it seems that his edits aren't obvious vandalism. I don't think I'll give him a warning; it's better to assume good faith in this instance, I imagine. – Richard BB 16:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New user edit warring on Youreallycan‎ talk 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.

---

user:Smugs999 seems to be trolling YRC and is edit warring and being very sarcastic with it. I posted on his talk page to stop but he has not. Would an admin give him a warning please. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by Fut. Perf. 28bytes (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Thanks - I have also reported the user to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User:Smugs999 - Youreallycan 00:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this Socking, ?

Major changes have been made to Alternative Medicine over the last 2 weeks[78] by experienced editors who have decided to use ip address[79]. All other significant contributions are immediately reverted[http://en .wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=533407841&oldid=533407493], [80], [81],[82],[83], I've changed a few back myself but with no impact [84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90]

There is an active discussion on the talk page but it seems to make little difference to what the ips decide to do. The article is heavily monitored so presumably this is all being done with the consent of the community and it may well be how articles evolve on wikipedia but it feels dishonest to me.

Why are controversial articles not permanently semi-protected ?Aspheric (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

First, let me say that I sympathize with the people that have been reverting you. "Alternative medicine" doesn't merit sugar-coating of terms. It is the result of superstition and ignorance, and there's no need to tap-dance around that.

However, and it's an important however, I firmly believe that an IP that edits that way in order that "your edits, not you, are what is looked at by others" is violating WP:ILLEGIT. We are supposed to be able to evaluate the edits in context of the editor's editing history.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP editing at Alt. Med. is undoubtedly disruptive in the way Kww mentions. Will admin make suitable intervention please. Qexigator (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send it to CU. Illegal alt. account (logged-out editing on purpose). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a CU issue, actually. I'll just soft-block, permitting him to edit with his account.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Softblock him for what? Editing logged out? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For intentionally doing so to avoid scrutiny. It's hard to interpret his comments in any other way.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good hand, bad hand accounts are not allowed. I think the person still needs a head slap on the main account for that, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything that approaches avoiding scrutiny here. You can't claim a good/bad hand account without establishing both hands, that is pure conjecture. It would be inappropriate to block here. An IP can be used as an alt account for privacy, and there are legitimate reasons for undisclosed alt accounts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the IP doesn't have a log-in account, then he's fine. If the IP does, though - given the advice s/he gave to Widr, I must conclude that he himself took his own advice and edited logged out. I think CU would make sure which case it is, and we don't have to block the IP if it's the former case. This, though, doesn't feel like a legitimate reason for undisclosed alt account. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK#LEGIT, Privacy section, and the notify section below. We shouldn't be treating the IP any differently than a registered alt account here. If there is a reason to block otherwise, that is fine, but I don't see any violation of socking by virtue of an IP editing. For that matter, I don't have any proof this IP is even acting as an alternate, or at least none has been given here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ergo, a CU check (w/o linking to the account) would confirm which way it is, which is what I suggested originally... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you can talk a CU into checking, go for it, but that is a dynamic IP and unless you can show abuse, it is highly unlikely a CU would jump on it. That is the de jure definition of fishing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Which of those reasons at WP:SOCK#LEGIT would cover "so your edits, not you, are what is looked at by others", Dennis? I don't see that any of them fit. I'll temporarily drop the block until I see further discussion, but I think you are wrong.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I pointed to the Privacy section as one POSSIBLE reason for an alt account use. What you haven't done is convince me or anyone that I can tell, that this IP is actually an alt of anyone. If this was at WP:SPI, it would have been closed for lack of evidence. Who is this is a sock of? Were they tag team editing? What is the "abuse"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• By this same logic, I can block any IP editing a contentious article because they are "hiding" behind the IP instead of registering. You can't block someone for a "well, I know they are socking" gut feeling, there has to be some actual evidence. I'm all ears, and I look at sock evidence all day here, I just don't see any presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• We've both blocked on the basis of "I know they are socking, I just don't know for who", Dennis, and I will admit that is the basis of my argument for blocking. I see his comments as evidence of avoiding scrutiny. Other editors commenting have the same opinion. You apparently don't. That's why I lifted, and why I'm not in a rush to put it back. I do wish you would drop your insistence that he has to edit the same articles as the only reason to be treated as a sock, though. That's not what WP:SOCK says. His own words indicate bad intent, which is the underlying basis of our policies. This is also under the umbrella of pseudoscience, which gives admins more leeway.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• We don't permanently protect articles for being controversial. If anything, that is a good reason to leave the UNprotected. We do permanently protect a few articles that are magnets for vandalism, but the IPs edits here are in no way vandalism. As for socking, if they aren't editing the same articles when they are logged in, it isn't socking. Socking requires abuse, ie: overlap, appearance of more support than exists, etc. They don't look like an open proxy either. If all else fails, maybe full protection can be tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An editor may edit from an IP because of association with an author of a source who is an expert witness in a criminal medical fraud action off wiki, so they will not be trolled off wiki (i.e., stalked), in a context where others were so off-Wiki trolled". There may be many other reasons. The reasoning behind "look at the edit, not the editor", might not be in bad faith, as appears to be being assumed, rather than AGF. Admin powers were never intended to be a hyper-Stanford prisoner experiment, where if their is any possible bad faith interpretation possible, all AGF possibilities are immediately abandoned. If there is a problem with an edit, then voice it at talk. Otherwise, AGF. "64" is the ATT&E hot-spot IP that just got range blocked for two days for an entirely unrelated reason. So far, there are no policies, guidelines, or even essays, pointed to being violated, in hundreds or more edits. There appears to be a desire to finally improve the alternative medicine is article to Wikipedia standards. Not that questionable hyper-prosecutorial admin actions at Traditional Chinese Medicine, ended with all mention of it even being an altnernative medicine, or in any way being unscientific, being totally scrubbed from that article. How is that improving Wikipedia in any way? 64.134.222.106 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to drop evidence of that final complaint on my talk page. I'd find that highly problematic, and a quick look at the article makes me suspect that there's significant truth in your statement about Traditional Chinese medicine.—Kww(talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

[91] The TCM itself is empirical evidence that admin blocks are out of control and not improving Wikipedia. This end product article is all the evidence anyone should need. Where did alll the reliable sources go and why? Why is TCM no longer a alt med and how did it happen? Something is wrong with the way admins are weilding blocks in assumptions of bad faith, and insanely prosecutorial accusations as if any edit error is a "crime', with flimsy to nonexistant "evidence" in "trials" that no reasonable person would bother to be in. Why should they "volunteer" to be an accused in a witch trial with secret evidence leding to an arbitrary and pointless block? It does not improve Wikipedia, and no reasonable person who does not want to live their life on WP, will tolerate it for long. cAdmin blocking power and witch trials with secret evidence and arbitrary "discreation" always ends up going to the same place, adn the curent block, made without a single accusation of anthing being done other than improving Wikipedia, is an example. TCM is an alternative medicine, not based on science, dangerous, and based on traditional superstitions combined with Mao's fraud and Communist propaganda. But one would never know that by reading that article. Something is wrong. 64.134.222.106 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags

Despite the warnings that I posted on Livelaughlovehi5's talk page, the user continues to remove speedy deletion templates from an article that he/she has created, which clearly meets the speedy deletion criteria. Not sure if this is the right place to report the user. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, not really, but that's OK. I'm going to give them a final warning, and on top of that I will delete that article for you. The way to go is to give them (vandalism) warnings and when they continue after a fourth warning, you report them to WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I didn't know removing relevant tags constitutes vandalism, thought it was just considered disruptive. Cheers! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a twinkle message for that. FYI Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Noodleki

Noodleki has been deleting massive amounts of text from the 1934 article. There has been a back and forth; I have responded to his or her questions and referred him/her to the right forum. He/she has basically communicated with me through increasingly unhinged edit summaries ([94]); has not raised the matter at the WP:RY talk page; has gotten no noticeable support from any other editors, and has not even responded to my points on his/her talk page ([95]), all whilst complaining that I am not explaining myself to him/her. I do not want to violate WP:3RR. One concern I have is that his/her deletions are subjective and will be be followed up, if given a clear signal, with other years (i.e. 1920-1939). Quis separabit? 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki notified of AFI discussion. Quis separabit? 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours by User:Alison. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate action has been taken, but what I'm surprised about is that multiple IPs were also involved in this saga, doing exactly the same things as Noodleki, and yet they haven't been specifically brought up here. [96] is one with an edit summary that is pretty much the same as Noodleki was using, [97] makes mention of the talk page without ever having edited elsewhere with that IP. I'm not completely accusing Noodleki of being these IPs, but I'm highly suspicious (they did precede her). I suggest the page is semi-protected or even fully protected pending further discussions - either Noodleki is socking, or there are a couple of different POV-pushing people involved. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, some of the mentions removed there aren't even American: the FA Cup final, Dionne quintuplets, Stanley Matthews' England debut... so the original IP's edit summary is a bit vague considering the quantity of content deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually have a substantive reason as to why you disagree with the proposed edit? There are guidelines for notability that have been set down which are clearly not being met here. The entire contents of the US article have been copied over including events lacking in notability. For example, should the opening of a rodeo in Mississipi be mentioned? Or an anniversary of a Civil war battle? How about the results of a boxing match?Noodleki (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Have you read my post above? You, and those IPs (are those you as well?) have deleted things that aren't American as well. Some of the things you deleted I'd agree with: many of them, I would not. I can see you have a lot of negative history, with previous blocks. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those other IPs were me as well, and no it wasn't some evil and grand conspiracy, I just forgot to login. Deleted things that aren't American. Well, yeah, buddy that's the whole point. Non notable events don't get in regardless of country - it just happens to be that US events are particularly endemic. If you don't agree with some changes, then that's fine, but we seem to have a consensus that 'some' changes should be made...right? So why is everything being reverted? Oh, and your nasty allegations about my 'negative history' show that during your snooping, you didn't bother to actually read the block, as it was finally made clear that a misunderstanding had occurred.Noodleki (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you continue your content dispute on Talk:1934? Unless you require an administrator to do something else, it doesn't need to be discussed here. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Given the enormous history of IP vandalism (which wasn't what you were blocked for, by the way), I've taken it to an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noodleki Lukeno94 (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote""

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I call to your attention the recently closed AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"". I have several procedural questions. If I'm not asking these question in the correct forum then, please, point me to the correct forum. Disclaimer: I apologize if the language that I'm using sounds legalistic. The only way I can come up with to get traction on the issues, described below, is to use careful logical argumentation which, to some people's eyes, looks distastefully lawyer-like. I am attempting to address persistent problems that I observe associated with disputes about editing the Paul Krugman article. These problems are associated with a simmering, but untagged, POV dispute. In the course of attempting to reason through the issues with other parties to the dispute I observe some of the problematic behaviors described in WP:CRUSH. I filed the now-closed AN/I item[[98] with a view toward trying to solve the persistent problem of some parties to the dispute(s) failing to use logical reasoning and respond dispositively to good faith questions. I am confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". It should be *clear* to anyone reading the AN/I that my concern was *conduct*. Quoting myself therefrom: "The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence" and "This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct* ..."[99] I seek a authoritative finding(s) that: 1a) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning and dispositive responses to good faith questions are correct and; 1b) many parties to the dispute have *conspicuously failed* to comply with same; OR 2) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning are *incorrect*. With a clear and authoritative finding of either #1 or #2 I will know how to proceed with my attempts to edit Paul Krugman and I can stop banging my head against the wall. I have not yet notified the subjects of this complaint. If, indeed, I am posting this in the correct location would someone let me know? I will then notify the subjects of this complaint. I accept and acknowledge that the conduct accusations that I am making, should they be found to be without basis, could result in me being sanctioned (Nb. comments[ht: tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#No_rational_argumentation_at_Talk:Paul_Krugman_.22Consensus_on_inclusion_on_the_Gary_Becker_quote.22] "WP:BOOMERANG" from User:Insomesia] and [User:Mangoe]). Deicas (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) WP:Administrators have the ability to protect pages and block users. The Paul Krugman page is already fully protected. So who do you want blocked? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Per my comments above and in [100] the issues are good deal more complicated than just blocking a few users. By way of example of "more complicated": I seek a authoritative finding(s) that: 1a) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning and dispositive responses to good faith questions are correct and; 1b) many parties to the dispute have *conspicuously failed* to comply with same; OR 2) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning are *incorrect*. With a clear and authoritative finding of either #1 or #2 I will know how to proceed with my attempts to edit Paul Krugman and I can stop banging my head against the wall. Deicas (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid you're going to have to keep banging away. You aren't going to get a broad endorsement of any of that. If you have a specific behavior issue that you believe merits an administrator to use one of their administrator tools (to block someone, protect an article, or delete something) then this is where you get that done. If you're looking for resolution to a conflict, then please go somewhere like WP:DRN and start a discussion there asking for outside input. However, if I were you, I would change the way that you expressed the dispute; the above explanation of the dispute is almost impossible to parse in a way that allows outside people to contribute to it. What you've essentially done is posted a mildly incivil critique of people who disagree with you, couched in as a fake set of questions. You're not asking for input, you're making accusations against those who disagree with you, but hedging it as a question so it doesn't look like you are. Instead, explain what you would like the text of the article to state, show your sources, and sit back and let others evaluate your case. If others present alternate versions, present a dispassionate reasoning as to why their version is incorrect. However, do this at WP:DRN, not here. This is not the place to get a broad, nonspecific endorsement of your editing approach. --Jayron32 23:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC) The user:Deicas has already tried his hand at DRN, yet another forum where he didn't get the answer(s) he wants. His obtuse verbiage is a serious impediment to talkpage discussion, especially that sort of false-choice phrasing you see above ("#1 or #2"). I'm not quite sure if it's intentional, but I agree with Amadscientist (below) and I suggest that user:Deicas needs to work on other, less contentious pages while cutting his teeth so to speak. El duderino (abides) 06:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) That's not a straight question. 1) has about five different sub-sections and you could agree with some parts and disagree with others. Tigerboy1966  23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see article probation in the future for this article. Is it possible that the behavior of this editor warrents some warning? I am not sure, but clearly they don't seem able to understand the policies and procedures even after they are explained to them. Seems like clear WP:ICANTHEARYOU. They seem to wikilawyer at every turn and I have found it nearly impossible to discuss any subject at length with the editor. They are quickly becoming very disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, it is always reasonable to want "logical and dispositive responses to good faith questions" but you need to consider the possibility that questions may need be seen as asked in good faith and that reasoning may be logical but go unrecognised because of clarity problems, unrecognised / unadmitted biases, etc. I make no comment on whether these caveats apply here, but I do note that your phrasing carries the unstated assumptions that your responses are always logical and dispositive and that your questions are always expressed in good faith and those assumptions may be open to challenge. IF you presented evidence that an editor was violating behavioural norms by deliberately avoiding reason, ignoring logical expressionm obfuscating, etc, then you could ask for a warning or block for disruption. However, asking for admins to act means making a case that this needs evaluation in a specific case, preferably with diffs and evidence and a minimum of unsupported assertion and generalised complaints. Perhaps you are correct - I haven't checked, I'm talking abstractly - that there is a behavioural rather than a content issue here, but the presentation so far does not clearly express that view and certainly does not concisely present it in an evidence-based manner. If this is really a content issue and behaviour is not at issue then this is not the place to discuss it. By the way, though you might not like my suggestions, continuing the way you are going without altering your approach is potentially evidence of disruption, so I strongly advise urgent reflection and reconsideration. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC) EdChem: thank you for your response. 1) I believe that in [101] I provided the evidence speaks to your concern regarding "...preferably with diffs and evidence and a minimum of unsupported assertion and generalised complaints" 1b) If someone want to claim deficiencies in the specific evidence that I've presented and say "Insufficient! Prove more!" -- that is a challenge I can and will respond to. 2) I am disinclined to go into more detail, right here, and right now, until the prerequisite procedural question, below, is answered. I hope this is understandable. Once that *is* answered I'm ready to have at the topic in what ever forum is determined to be correct. Deicas (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Does no one here want to address my procedural question? I contend that an answer to this procedural question is a prerequisite to the discussion of the substance of my complaint. Procedural question as quoted from above: I filed the now-closed AN/I item[[102] with a view toward trying to solve the persistent problem of some parties to the dispute(s) failing to use logical reasoning and respond dispositively to good faith questions. I am confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". It should be *clear* to anyone reading the AN/I that my concern was *conduct*. Quoting myself therefrom: "The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence" and "This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct* ..."[103] Deicas (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I have no idea why you insist on making your comments in small print, but whatever. The reason the dispute was closed is because you have not indicated which Wikipedia rules of conduct or behavior requires administrators to intervene in the form of blocks. This board really serves no other purpose. This is not the place to accuse others of being illogical or whatever you are trying to do here. Instead, what you need to do is to do exactly what I explained above: indicate exactly what you want the text of the article in question to say, and provide rationales and sources for what that text should say. Anything else is needless distraction from improving Wikipedia. We aren't here to mediate your personality disputes with other editors, and if you can't keep from personalizing this, then perhaps you misunderstand the mission of Wikipedia. If you are in a dispute with other editors over what you want the text of an article to say, the correct venue to resolve that dispute is WP:DRN. And I recommend that you do so in the manner and tone that I have recommended here and above, and not by making odd arguments about "failure to use logical reasoning", whatever that means. Instead of worrying about that, instead make your argument entirely and solely about the text of the article, and the sources that back up the text. Anything else is needless distraction. --Jayron32 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC) User:Jayron32: 1a) You say, above, "The reason the dispute was closed is because you [Deicas] have not indicated which Wikipedia rules of conduct or behavior requires administrators to intervene in the form of blocks". I have difficulty reconciling your statement with the closure block on the prior AN/I[104]: "NO ACTION: Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum User_talk:NE_Ent" 1b) I will contact User_talk:NE_Ent and see if he can cast some light on this matter. 2) Per you objection: "I have no idea why you insist on making your comments in small print" -- I was using small text for chunks of quoted text, to make it easier to see what was new text and what was quoted. As you find this objectionable I will stop the practice. Deicas (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what the this editor's complaint or issue is. I have no idea what administrative action is being asked for. I ask the editor to state, plainly, succinctly, with extreme brevity, and with as informal a wording and prose as possible, what he/she is asking of this board. If this is not at all within their ability, it may well be that they lack competence to edit at Wikipedia. This does not mean they lack intellegence, just that they are not showing any ability to work in a collaborative manner, lack the ability to understand our policies and procedures and seem to ignore the advice being given.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Disclaimer: I prefer to not quote such big chunks of text below but I see no other choice. Sorry. In deference to User:Jayron32 concerns I'm not using small text for the quotes User:Amadscientist: If it is your good faith understanding that "I [Amadscientist] have no idea what the this editor's [Deicas's] complaint or issue is": then suggest that you write something to the effect of: Deicas says that "a prerequisite to the discussion of the substance of my [Deicas's] complaint" is that he is "confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: 'Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum'. It should be *clear* to anyone reading the AN/I that my [Deicas's] concern was *conduct*. Quoting myself [Deicas] therefrom: 'The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence' and 'This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct*'" What? I don't see what Deicas is confused about! What is the difference between his stated concerns and the AN/I closure reason? Why is he asking a "[p]rocedural question"? Deicas (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Per Amadscientist, the reason that you aren't getting satisfaction Deicas is we aren't here to engage in silly debates over who is or isn't being logical or anything like that. The prior discussion was closed because no admin is going to take any action based on it. Period. That's the end of it. Administrators only have the tools to block and editor, protect an article from editing, or delete an article, so unless you can show clear evidence in the form of diffs and simple explanations that one of those actions is required, you are not going to get any satisfactory resolution in this forum based on what you show is the nature of the dispute. The prior discussion was closed because it was clear that none of those actions was needed. This is not a hard concept to understand, so please stop being so obtuse about it. Now, just because no one needs to be blocked etc. doesn't mean that there isn't a dispute. There may be. But this forum is not the appropriate one to solve it, and till now the methods you have attempted to solve the dispute are not productive methods. I'll try one more time to explain how to solve this: explain how you want the text of the article to read, and show sources which support your text. Allow others the opportunity to evaluate your requests. But do that in other venues than here. This is not the venue for the problems you are having. --Jayron32 07:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC) User:Jayron32: You assert above that "[t]he prior discussion [the prior AN/I] was closed because no admin is going to take any action based on it. Period." I am having a good faith difficulty in reconciling your assertion with the with the AN/I closure disposition of: "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". Would you please explain your reasoning? If, indeed, this was a case of a admin deciding not to take any action wouldn't the disposition have been something like "Not proved"? Does my good faith assertion that "[t]his discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct*" count for nothing? Deicas (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, you are laboring under a misapprehension: Admins do not "rule" on content disputes, that's not their purpose or function. They deal with behavioral problems. An admin has no more or less authority in regard to content than any other editor of similiar experience. So when Jayron32 says that no admin was going to take any action, it was because what had been presented was a content dispute, and these are handled by discussion on the article take page or by dispute resolution, not by admin action. Now you may have thought it was a conduct issue, but apparently nobody else agreed, leaving a simple content dispute and therefore the close of the thread. There is, however, a potential conduct issue here, and to avoid it, I suggest you read WP:IDHT, which will describe a type of disruptive behavior called "I didn't hear that". which you are beginning to display. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Beyond My Ken...Deicas knows all of this. They are just not listening. He has been to DR/N (I was the volunteer that took the case) and advised the editor on the process. Before me, others have explained as well, including Steven Zhang. If you notice on the post to Zhang, there is no wikilawyering and is a straight forward, albeit slightly confused set of questions that were defered back to the volunteers. It is my belief that Deicas is no longer working in GF. He seems to have become an SPA account begining in January of 2011, centering in on the Krugman article. He has become disruptive at DR/N to the point that he had to be warned. I am thinking it is time for a topic ban from the Krugman article for Deicas and a mentor.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Wow! Looking into Deicas' contributions and comments, I'd say that you are correct. (And I find it interesting that someone who is so concerned about "clarity" and "logic" writes in such an unclear and illogical manner.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I'm about ready to !vote on such a proposal as well. Anybody feel like starting it? Zad68 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, from my reading of what you wrote, I think you are asking for a more rational discussion on Talk:Paul Krugman. I agree that it is a legitimate concern. But it something that admins in their admin role cannot enforce. In answer to some questions and contentions you wrote: Does no one here want to address my procedural question? Yes, it appears no one here wants to address your procedural question. I contend that an answer to this procedural question is a prerequisite to the discussion of the substance of my complaint. If a condition of addressing the substance of your complaint is addressing a unilateral ultimatum, then it is doubly going nowhere. See Wikipedia:Consensus --Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC) At this point, it's clear that the OP has been advised how to proceed by multiple people, consistently. There's no further point in keeping this open. As a suggestion, the OP would be well advised to follow the advise of several people, to drop this specific line of questioning, and instead work towards more constructive means of dispute resolution. I'm closing this. --Jayron32 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Germans

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 think attention here is warranted, a consensus is forming for redefining Germans to "ethnic Germans" a concept that has no working definition but which is depends entirely to subjective and bigoted criteria and which would leave millions of German citizens outside of the scope of the article on their own nationality. I had to unwatch the talkpage myself though, I couldn't stomach it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazing -- a section heading "Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are not Germans" - people arguing they should be removed from the infobox because they are Jews and not ethnically German. I'm not sure what we should be doing about this but it needs more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Guitar hero on the roof

It turns out that Germans is not the only article where this user has been pushing the POV that Jews cannot simultaneously hold any other ethnicity. (He justifies this using what appears to be a thoroughly racist definition of ethnicity that cannot be reconciled with the definitions in ethnic group.) He has also been working to skew articles on Austrians and Poles. Apparently, Talk:Germans is merely the location where his agenda of exterminating Jews from other ethnicities first encountered serious opposition. (Apparently Marx and Einstein wasn't German as well as Jewish, Freud wasn't Austrian as well as Jewish, and two Polish Jews cannot possibly have been Polish as well as Jews.)

Someone should check his contributions to articles on Jews in various countries. It appears he mostly added infoboxes. They should be checked for POV problems.

There are also serious behavioural problems that may warrant direct admin intervention. The situation is unlikely to calm down without some kind of restriction on this user, and the longer they are active, the more cleanup work may be required afterwards. Hans Adler 14:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion its content issue and thus should be decided on relevant talk pages.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing, it already was. The article talks about ethnic Germans (we had people who didn't agree with that claim that eventually agreed with it), when ethnic Germans=Germanic people who formed together by union and assimilation the German ethnicity during the Holy Roman Empire, therefore we, Jews, are obviosuyl not a part of that ethnicity because we are a separate ethnic group. This guy came, didn't read or take part in a discussion which lasted for 2 weeks and not suddenly starts his weird destruptive behaviour calling people racist and neo-Nazis. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call canvassing several other wikipedia users when you couldn't win the discussion you were having, then ganging up on the sole person who opposed you, accusing him of being racist and telling him he had mental problems and he should get help until he ragequit, saying he just wanted to 'get it over with' a consensus; or someone agreeing with you for that matter. - Rex (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a "content issue" spans many pages, it becomes a behavioral issue. I would point out that Guitar hero has—and continues—to engage in canvassing, with odious comments at that. See User talk:Malik Shabazz#Claims Jews are not an ethnic group for one example. More recent examples include these, made today. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was canvassing this clearly a behavioral issue. Did the user canvassed after being warned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Twice after the first warning. See my warning on user's talk page. Hans Adler 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you are such a weirdo running here. On Poles and Austrians I stoped because the articles are aimed at nationality (which I said ages ago). The Germans article is talking about ethnicity, which was discussed on the talk page. We actually reached a concensus until you came and try to use your private definitions. I am Jewish myself and me and other Jews brought up a fact that Jews are a separate ethnic group, you are being racist by trying to play with those facts so please stop lying :-) We brought quotes by Einstein on the page saying he's not German and doesnt like Germans. I'm a Jew who had ancestors who faught against the Nazis or died at the holocaust and their adler guy dared to call me neo-Nazi, while the querstion is what was his great-grandfather doing in 1941! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. What any of our ancestors may have been doing during WWII is irrelevant; nor do I have any way of knowing whether you, or Hans Adler, or anyone else here is fairly representing their own ethnicity. You are in no more of a position than anyone else to determine who is or is not German. It is not at all widely accepted that each person is uniquely a member of one ethnic group - quite the reverse. Jewishness does not preclude membership of other ethnicities. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The main problems are racist POV pushing / IDHT (the user simply ignores the modern definition of ethnicity and pushes a 1930s purely genetic one) and canvassing (see my warning on user's talk page). Hans Adler 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also edit warring to restore the non-neutral talk page section heading [105] that featured in his lates canvassing campaign: [106] [107] Hans Adler 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike admonished me for calling the user racist, but Talk:German is full of evidence and it's relevant in this context. Example:

"A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." [108]

This is not any official modern definition of ethnicity, but an obsolete, racist one. Hans Adler 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are tendentiously advancing a modern "PC" definition rather than a historically correct one. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't know what you are talking about. The "historically correct" one was outphased fifty years ago because it is nonsensical and cannot be implemented in reality without absurd consequences. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you want to get involved with the ethnic group article. Incidentally, the corresponding German article agrees with the English one that the way people think about membership is much more important than any genes, and even says explicitly that the members of national minorities in Germany (Danes, Frisians, Sinti and Roma, Sorbs) are considered to be of German ethnicity even though they speak different languages (and obviously belong to other ethnicities as well). Hans Adler 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I actually very recently had the occasion to insert a link to Germans in the current piece I'm writing; I made the actual link-words showing in the article "ethnic German" rather than "German" because that is exactly what I was trying to say. There is no need to give the page the title "Ethnic Germans" although that is precisely the topic of the piece. Ethnic Jews are ethnic Jews, ethnic Germans are ethnic Germans. Karl Marx would be a "German Jew"... This is neither difficult nor racist but somehow there are a lot of Americans in particular who have trouble with the concept that the Hebrew nationality (to reuse a really old word) and the Judaic religion are not one and the same, even though are both called "Jewish." The Holocaust was an attempt to wipe out a nationality; Israel is the nation-state of a nationality, not a religion, etc. The matter of ethnicity matters less and less over time in biography writing, Early 21st century figures exponentially less than early 20th Century figures... But it is absurd to pretend that there is no such thing. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you got the point. There is no disagreement on whether ethnicities exist. The disagreement is on whether you have two of them if your family has been mixing freely with both of them for a few generations, whether it is ultimately about genes or about behaviour, and whether "German Jew" always means ethnically Jewish but happens to live in Germany, or can mean ethnically both German and Jewish. But this seems to be a content discussion. Hans Adler 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more or less a content discussion. Cultural assimilation muddies the waters, to be sure. Like I say, noting ethnicity in a BLP is orders of magnitude less important than noting ethnicity in a biography from three or four generations ago... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about the content issue - the content issue is solved by the fact that no-one has been able to produce a source saying that it is impossible to be an ethnic Jew and an ethnic German at the same time. This is about tendentious disruptive editing from Guitar hero. If he had at any point backed his views with sources instead of merely repeating flat statements about wehat is a fact regarding the complex topic of ethnicity then this wouldn't have been a problem. If he had also refrained from misrepresenting statements of others and falsely claiming that his views is backed by consensus and further discussion should cease then we would have less of a problem still.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll help you out one comment down... Carrite (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Marx is actually a pretty good example for your point, come to think of it, being both a "German Jew" and "German-Jew" (mama was ethnic German, daddy ethnic Jew)... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Marx's father was not an ethnic Jew - he did not consider himself to be Jewish but in fact changed his name and his religion in order not to be associated with Jewish ethnicity/identity. This is exactly what Einstein did when he dissasociated himself from his German identity - which is the reason we are reaching a consensus not to include him in the infobox. Marx himself was an anti-semite and an atheist, and clearly and unequivocally identified as a German so also not an ethnic Jew by a long shot. He was baptised and celebrated christmas, didn't speak Yiddish or study Hebrew, didn't wear a yarmulke, didn't study the torah, and didn't practice anything associated with a jewish cultural/ethnic identity. The only way to consider Marx a Jew is by implmenting a blood criterion for group membership in which case Marx and would still be BOTH Jewish and German.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhhhh, that's pretty much a fringe view from where I'm sitting... I'll refer you to a book by one of my professors at Oregon State U., the late Murray Wolfson, god bless him: Karl Marx: Economist, Philosopher, Jew. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you leveled an accusation of "PC" and assumed the mantle of "historically correct".

Pray tell, do continue.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Leaving aside cultural assimilation issues, it ought not to be controversial, or regarded as unduly PC (whatever that means) to point out the existence of mixed-ethnicity people like Marx. To return to the user behaviour issue, rather than the content issue, I think it is highly tendentious of 'Guitar hero on the roof' to suggest otherwise, by claiming that being (ethnically) Jewish disqualifies you from also being (ethnically) German. We rely on Reliable Sources here, not the uncited claims of individuals that one user claims to know. I would also draw attention to their battleground mentality, and their attempt to implicate Hans Adler's ancestors in WW2 atrocities. (His great-grandfathers, no less. How young are you all? My grandparents fought in WW2.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to digress there into content issues.

The fact that there is a somewhat repugnant personal attack, which you have diplomatically drawn attention to, is perhaps indicative of the reason for the existence of this thread.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Indicative for the reason" maybe, but it's not the reason, in case that's not clear. Such attacks are only pseudo-personal and can't hurt me as much as historical knowledge does. On the other hand, in this case they seem to be a symptom of an unhealthy approach to editor interactions in which consensus is seen as something to be manufactured through canvassing and timing tricks and then enforced against the losers, rather than the result of a debate in which everybody learns and everybody wins.

I am still optimistic that we will get to such a point eventually, but the current climate at the talk page is absurd. When you think you have seen it all, someone comes along and claims that the number 88 is always automatically a WP:UPOL violation, regardless of context. The level of suspiciousness is mind-boggling. Hans Adler 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I think there might be some merit to this dialogue. I don't suppose any article on peoples must include a portrait of a specific individual. Their pics (like all pictures in an ad-hoc gallery of loosely connected individuals) have more-less sentimental value, and therefore feed into a variety of personal pride among various editors. Replacing any thumbnail in a hand-made collage will not change the actual biography of anybody, obviously. For example, quite a few photographs I once added to Polish Jews have long been replaced by other names. I accepted that (with only a brief comment in talk, once), and never looked back. Can you do the same? “Put a bandaid on it... and stop the bleeding now” (John Lennon, Double Fantasy). Poeticbent talk 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about whether there is merit to the discussion it is about Guitar hero's behavior in the discussion. There is merit to the discussion but not to his arguments which rely entirely on unsupported claims that his definition of ethnicity is right and the majority of editors who disagree with him is wrong but which he nonetheless keeps repeating ad nauseam.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So will the result of this discussion be that there can't be anyone designated as American because there is no such ethnicity as American? RNealK (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I thought the subject of this discussion was supposed to be the behavior of a certain editor. Isn't the rest of this content discussion more appropriate to some article's talk page? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Guitar hero's editing is disruptive and tendentious in the extreme, he repeatedly misrepresents statements by other editors, he falsely claims consensus when the discussion doesn't go his way, and repeats unsupported claims and definitions ad nauseam without ever providing a shred of sourcing. The fact that many of his statements are borderline racist woudl be less problematic if he would at least show which sources he get them from instead of merely repetitively claiming that it is "a fact". He needs some serious talking to about how we do things around here at wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, my behavious is disruptive :-) ? That's funny coming from a troll like you who goes psycho when people don't agree with him. I think you need a tralk regarding the fact you don't own Wikipedia. My quotes have no racism at all, much less then your dictator views. What I say is ethnicity is based on identity and common origin, and where is the racism? I always said all ethnicities are equal as humans and deserve equal rights. Also, being of different ethnicities doesnt effect your nationality or rights as a member of a nationality. Being Jewish doesnt prevent you from being German by nationality and doesnt mean you have rights, but it doesnt make you ethnically German. I am Jewish with roots and Germany and I am not of German ethnicity.

This quote was used against me: "A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." Where is the racism in what I said? it's true! Regarding Einstein, he actually said he wants nothing to do with Germany or Germans and he is a Jew and that is his identity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was I not clear when I asked you to refrain from personal attacks? Please, permanently, stop referring to other users as trolls, dictators, and 'psycho'. It's disruptive and unhelpful, and it harms your case. If you want to argue the question about ethnicity, do it somewhere else, bring reliable sources, and be prepared to accept the existence of people with multiple ethnicities. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone calls me racist or neo-Nazi it's fine, but when I use dictator and troll it's wrong? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone has called you a neo-Nazi then I think you should provide the diff here and then I am sure the user who did so will be reprimanded, because that is of course a personal attack.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would all you admins & other who should know better please heed Gtwfan52's suggestion to stop talking content and address the behavior? NE Ent 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

yes you are right. Sorry for losing track. Guitar hero's behavior is disruptive and he needs to be told not to canvas, not to repeat unsupported arguments ad nauseam, not to misrepresent statements by others on talkpages, not to claim consensus in order to close ongoing discussions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They've been told all that. Can we just skip to the part when someone with sysop bit finally gets fed up enough to apply a block? NE Ent 16:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In the least there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed so the discussion can proceed as calmly as possible. I.e. Guitar's disregards the attempts to hat off-topic discussion as can be seen here. If hatting doesn't work, then it just goes on and on. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If Guitar hero on the roof really thinks that ethnicity is "your genes", and wishes this absurd statement to be reflected in article content, he/she has no business editing any article where ethnicity is of concern, and should be topic banned on the grounds of promoting wilful ignorance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say that, but he should be expected to back his claims up with sources, and when unable to do so to simply shut up and let others move on, and failing to do that, then yes he should be blocked.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said it's only genes. I said it's origin (genes), history and idenetity. And no, ethnicity is not changable. And it's not my definition. What makes me a Jew? I'm not religious and don't consider myself to have a religion, I speak English, so what makes me a Jew? The fact my ancestors were Jews and belong to the ethnicity which came to be known as Jews.

Yes you did. It is even quoted above in this discussion. Here is the dif, which mentions nothing about "genes, history and identity", it just says "genes", several times in fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care what is reflected in the article. If you read the discussion you will see my point was: If Germans are about the ethnic group, that Marx and Einstein should not be in the infobox (Einstein himself said he hates Germany and Germans). If the article about Germans as nationality, it's racism not to include a Turk due to the fact Turkish people are the second largest ethnic group in German nationality. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user 48 hours to allow pondering of the complexity of race and ethnicity to take place. I have proposed the user avoid the area which led to so much disruption entirely in the future. Do these actions enjoy consensus? If not I will be happy to reverse them. --John (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If anything he should be blocked for canvassing and violation of WP:NPA but not for having his own legitimate WP:YESPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Noone has suggested that he should be blocked for his POV, just for the way in which he was seeking to implement it with no recourse to rational argumentation or backing by sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm at least as concerned about the personal attacks, including several right here in this thread, such as "a troll like you who goes psycho" - this is not acceptable. KillerChihuahua 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that Guitar Hero's conduct has been disruptive here, and I have purposely avoided reading the talks. Calling Mannus a troll is way over the top. However, have you all failed to note that this is a user that has less than a month's experience? As Shrike has pointed out, this editor's POV is perfectly valid; he just needs to learn to argue it. Would he consider coming back from his current block to a one month topic ban during which time he takes on a mentor? He can learn to argue a position talking about the Maryland Terrapins football team, or some other less volatle (for him) topic while having someone to guide him. Just one man's opinion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also this violation didn't happen in vacuum when someone implying that you might be a Neo-Nazi[109] this may rise the heat up.Of course this doesn't excuse him for violation of WP:NPA but the user:Hans Adler should get some administrative sanction too as he far more experienced. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler does not call anyone a Neo-nazi in that diff - he makes the point that we cannot know eachother's identities in an internet discussion and therefore cannot use claims about our identities as leverage in a discussion. Guitar hero had himself been going on with personal attacks for two weeks when Hans Adler appeared, and had to apologize to User:Illraute for equating German users with perpetrators of the holocaust.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, 'it's not changeable.ì It's your genes, where your ancestors came from.

That's not only a personal view, but dangerously simplistic and ideological. Identity/ethnicity/ etc are extremely difficult concepts to handle, and the only appropriate way to edit aricles regarding this is by restricting edits to paraphrases of the content of quality academic sources bearing on the subject. I was reminded, reading the tripe above, of the Holocaut survivor, emeritus biologist and author Alain F. Corcos's The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View,

‘

All my life I discovered that anti-Semites are not concerned about personal beliefs or even religious doctrines. Rather, they regard Jewishness as inherited, just like original sin. . As a trained biologist and geneticist, I am convinced there are not and never were human races, because groups of people have never been isolated from one another long enough to form distinct races..p.10 Years ago I accompanied my brother Gilles, and a young couple with two boys.on a hike in Point Reyes National Seashore, 25 miles north of San Francisco. The mother of the two boys, who knew that Gilles and I had escaped from Nazi France during World War 11, asked us:”Why did you escape? Was it because you were Jewish?” Gilles answered very quickly: “I am, but my brother is not.” I was amazed at his response because a few years before he would have simply replied:”Yes, we are Jews.” Such as answer is consistent with the idea that Jewishness is inherited. . .That concept was pounded into our brains during our youth by racist propagandists. It took years to rid myslf of this false and deadly idea. On that afternoon in California had Gilles finally realizd that being a Jew was a personal choice and not, as we were told, due to a specific biuological characteristic? . .Like Ashley Montagu, I define a Jew as someone who professes the Jewish religion.’ Pp.15-16 Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

topic-ban?

I've left a longer comment at the user's talk page. I am happy to enforce the topic ban going forward, as long as there is not a consensus here that this is too heavy-handed. I do take Gtwfan's point about this being a relatively new user who we should not bite. However, as I've pointed out, I don't think for the moment that they can help us in these sensitive areas. There may be other areas where they can. What do folks think? --John (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• If behavior continues after block expires, topic ban is badly needed. (it is, btw, the most reasoned and well-defined rationale for a topic ban I've read) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - on both points. Very well written indeed. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree per Seb az86556.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with both the block and subsequent topic ban. Guitar hero's demeanour here on this page strengthens my conviction that these actions are appropriate, especially his statement just above, "I really don't care what is reflected in the article". If you don't care about that, what are you doing on the article talkpage at all? (Yes yes, I'm being rhetorical: I am aware that Guitar hero can't reply here.) Did I misunderstand that statement in some way? (It seems oddly disconnected.) You have never edited the article as far as I can see; just the talkpage. That points to your using it as a forum, which is not what it's for. The talkpage is a place for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for people to promote their opinions and ideology, as is clearly stated in the template at the top. You might want to study the talkpage policy while you're away. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC).
• Support block and topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban. Not seeing any other way forward with this editor at this time. KillerChihuahua 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious battleground behaviour compared with SPA-symptoms. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - His comments in this thread seem on-point and historically accurate. Stop the fucking steamroller. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I support the block, but not the topic ban. His personal insults and canvassing are things I have repeatedly warned him about, and yet he continued. I think a short vacation will do him some good. However, he did make some very good points in that thread and I feel that he might be a valuable contributor, if he can learn to keep his temper in check.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban - This is the kind of editor we have no need for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The topic ban has nothing to do with his accuracy or content in any way. This is about his behavior. There is no "fucking steamroller" to stop; there is an editor who seems a bit too passionate about the topic. He can make all the "good points" in the world, but if he combines that with personal attacks, he needs separating from the topic which results in his lack of respect for his fellow editors. If he cannot control his passion, he needs to be elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 05:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban. Unfortunately seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block, support topic ban if he continues to fill article talk pages with insults and other irrelevancies. Guitar, successfully editing Wikipedia articles, and prevailing in content discussions, depends on the quality of your sources. If you can't find a recent very high quality source that says exactly what you're asserting, say nothing. Assertions that you're Jewish and therefore can't be racist are rightly sneered at, and epithets such as "troll", at least on article talk pages, will get you at least topic- if not site-banned. Improve the quality of your rhetoric. Dramatically lift your game. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I do not support topic ban, he made very good points regarding the issue, the way how he presented it was wrong. However, he is far from being lonely on this issue here as well as sadly in other articles. I agree that his personal insults were unacceptable. That is why he is blocked and that is enough.--Tritomex (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Support short term block for canvassing and violation of WP:NPA.I don't think that topic ban is needed.Also I think that this user should get a mentor.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - His latest remark on his talk page is to tell Adler that the last person to assert that the Sorbs are German was Hitler. Until this user stops wilfully associating German-named editors that he disagrees with to Naziism, I don't think he can be relied on even to discuss this topic productively, much less edit on it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree as per John.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree -the user has shown no willingness or abilty to discuss or support his POV with suitable sources and does not seem to understand the point of doing so. His understanding of ethnicity is valid, but extremely one-sided, and he does not acknowledge the complexity of the term or allow any deviation from his opinion. Until the user has shown that he acknowledges that alternative definitions of the term do exist, Guitar hero should be banned from the topic. A mentor might be a good idea also. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree as per John and others.

The user has not been receptive to engaging with new information presented to them by other users in relation to their POV. In this case, the schools of though on ethnicity described under Ethnicity#Approaches_to_understanding_ethnicity have been introduced to the user, assuming that he read the section. Even so, he continues to argue in an exclusionary manner solely for a position that would probably fall under the "Essentialist primordialism" category, providing no sources to support specific claims he makes, and resorting to personal attacks when met with rational disagreements made in good faith.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose topic ban. If he agrees to apologize to others for the insults and promises to focus on content, this might be more constructive than topic-ban with no apology to anybody required. Please take a look at a lively discussion on his talk page with good comment by KillerChihuahua. We all need to learn to argue our points properly, as necessary also in the real world. Editing Wikipedia is a good venue for learning that. A hot debate is not the same as the disruptive editing in main space, sockpuppetry with ulterior motives, or the 3RR violations in controversial areas. I would support behavioral blocks only but growing with an arithmetic progression in case there’s no improvement. Poeticbent talk 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support but I think discussions on his/her user talk page should not fall under the topic ban as the problem is a combination of extreme activity and WP:IDHT rather than anything more immediately serious. That would also provide a chance to demonstrate a learned lesson about the fact that different people mean different things when using the same words and similar problems related to WP:AGF, potentially allowing a lift of the topic ban. (I responded to Maunus' ANI report and am now highly involved – like many of those opining above.) Hans Adler 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note:I think there is a consensus here already. I am counting 14 (incl. John) in support of the topic ban, 3 supporting it under certain conditions, and 4 opposing it. As it doesn't matter much any more due to an indefinite checkuser block [110], I think someone who hasn't commented yet should close this discussion. Hans Adler 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. He's now both indef-blocked for socking and indef community topic-banned in parallel to that (with the topic ban obviously applying to all, past or future, user names.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Block extended, talk page access revoked

I noticed Guitar hero had not really addressed his poor behaviour but was continuing to use his talk page as a chat room to discuss his theories on race and ethnicity, exactly as I had instructed him not to. I have therefore extended the block to a week and revoked talk page access. --John (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent call. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Per Maunus's appeal I have restored the original block settings. This user needs to realise he has just about exhausted our patience though. --John (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for undoing your last action. It was the right thing to do and I would have asked you as well. Also thanks for taking the initiative with the block and topic ban. Let's hope the situation calms down now. Unfortunately the situation is still much more adversarial and full of suspicion than seems reasonable to me. Hans Adler 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Fry1989

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 am a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Fry1989 made a request for dispute resolution there which I have closed as premature. In the process of investigating the background of that dispute, I noticed that Fry1989 had made this edit at 18:11 today in which he says to, and in reference to, AussieLegend,

"Why should I give a source to someone with such a delightful (there's a better word I can think of) outlook that he rejected a perfectly valid one over the birthplace of his politician(s)?"

apparently in reference to this edit by AussieLegend. I subsequently discovered that Fry is under editing restrictions in lieu of an indefinite block which extend through March 15, 2013 (6 months from 15 September 2012) in which one of the restrictions is:

"All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages".

Unless I misread it, the comment quoted above is a clear comment on individual editor AussieLegend. A prior allegation here at ANI involving Fry's restrictions can be found here. I am not suggesting or requesting that any action be taken, but am only reporting this event as a neutral party for whatever action, if any, that might be appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what exactly I have said or done that breaks my restrictions or has caused an "incident"? Sure my use of the term "delightful" was sarcastic, but that's hardly an attack or comment on the user, and considering my entire paragraph on his talk page, you're quoting me out of context. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See also concurrent AN discussion. A user talk page is a noticeboard to discuss a user's behavior and the instructions at the top of this page clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The purpose of the unblock conditions was to provide a means to allow Fry to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, not set up a gotcha booby-trap. NE Ent 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly acknowledge that the comment is mild, but it is negative — sarcastic, as you admit — and the restriction is about an individual user: "someone with an outlook". The last discussion here ended with a recommendation of "a warning to Fry that they need scrupulously follow both the spirit and letter of their unblock conditions going forward". Even a compliment to another editor could, in theory, violate your restriction under that strict application (though I wouldn't have raised a compliment or other positive remark here, of course), but that's not what has happened here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fry came to DRN looking for help. They opened a request on WP looking for help. Perhaps we could follow the spirit of dispute resolution and find a way to help them? The very act of opening at ANI thread on someone is never a neutral act. NE Ent 22:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge and understand, and will consider, your criticism, but neither accept nor reject it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sort of a cross between "No comment" and a "Non-denial denial." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the two admins who drafted those unblock conditions Fry is under, technically it is a violation (as would be a complement also, as TransporterMan pointed out) because it's a comment about a person. However, it doesn't cross into incivility, nor do I believe it rises to the level of a personal attack. Those things are what I and the blocking admin Bbb23 had in mind when we all agreed on the unblock conditions. The restrictions are strict, to be sure, but as NE Ent correctly pointed out, they weren't intended as hair-trigger booby traps. I don't consider this incident actionable other than to remind Fry1989 that his edits are under intense scrutiny at all times, which I have done. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, Fry went to DRN without making any attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page before hand. The matter was discussed on the article's talk page in 2006. Fry made a change in 2010, which was reverted with a direction to the talk page discussion. He then made the same edit only hours ago, and this was reverted. After a "discussion" on my talk page consisting of only 2 posts he headed to DRN, and then to WP:AN because of the "shortsightedness" of DRN. All of this happened within only two and a half hours of my first response to his post on my talk page. Fortunately, he's now discussing the matter at Talk:New South Wales. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DR/N requires EXTENSIVE discussion before a filing. It also states clearly that an AN/I filing and DR/N filing should NOT be made at the same time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I apologize for adding to this after the close, but I have looked further into the matter and sought the advice of others and have concluded that I should, indeed, have brought this matter to the user's talk page before raising it here. I apologize to the community for having done so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jprw/Stephen Leather

Hi, I'm not too sure whether this should actually be posted on the BLP noticeboard, the sock puppet noticeboard or something under paid editing, so my apologies if it is entirely inappropriate to post it here. User:Jprw appears to be insinuating I am either a paid editor, a sock puppet or I'm undertaking 'dubious goings on' by his recent comment here [111] on Talk:Stephen Leather as the only previous comments he highlights were mine. Anyone is welcome to check any editing I have done as I completely refute all of these accusations.

Jprw has asked for an editor who has not been involved with the article for 12 months to comment but I don't know if he has brought it to anyone's attention.

I did not post my comment on January 17 twice, so I think he has inadvertently pasted it again. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a serious violation of BLP to make unfounded accusations against a living person. It is also a personal attack to accuse other editors of being sockpuppets. I suggest that an administrator strike out these comments and Jprw refrain from repeating them. TFD (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe somebody is a sockpuppet, take to WP:SPI - simple. You do not make unfounded accusations. GiantSnowman 17:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed in search results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASteven_Spielberg/archive

I looked up Spielberg in relation to Aspergers and was greeted with several totally unscholarly diatribes justifying AS as being "normal" and ok This is not what I looked for.I just wanted information

Very very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.187.45 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi 2.222.187.45. The page you linked to is a "Talk page", a place for discussing Wikipedia articles. It should not be considered content like Wikipedia articles, and it is not required to be accurate, unbiased, or helpful. You can tell this page is not an article because it starts with "Talk:" in the title. Prodego ^talk 23:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't all talk pages be no-indexed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I took this as being a search in the internal searchbar on Wikipeddia, not from Google or another engine. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(another non-admin observation) I don't think so. When I google for Spielberg Aspergers, that talk page archive is the second result. Deor (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I no indexed that page - but, really, shouldn't they all be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just remember that if all talk pages are no-indexed, they won't show up on a google search of "site:en.wikipedia.org", which can be useful. Prodego ^talk 06:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe all talk pages are supposed to be automatically noindexed, Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing doesn't mention it. BLP talk pages with a BLP template are noindexed. So I guess we have a problem in that BLP talk pages are noindexed but once the stuff moves to the archive it's no longer so. I'll probably bring this up in BLP/N Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that current protocol requires talk pages to be no-indexed, I meant that it might be a good idea if they were. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A user unaware of the distinction between Talk and Mainspace knows how to find this board... ah, the mysteries of life. PhnomPencil (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 India–Pakistan border incident & proxy servers

Being used to edit the article in a very disruptive fashion. I have reported the proxies[112] but can we get semi protection on the article please? I have asked at RPP but it looks a bit backlogged. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please link to articles you want us to do something about? See also WP:GRA.  Sandstein  23:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is in the title of the section 2013 India–Pakistan border incident Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I just protected it for a week. Let me know if socking issues resume there when that expires. BTW, please be careful about your edit summaries when you're reverting other editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting re-hatting of off-topic digression on VPP

I asked a policy-based question on WP:Village pump (policy), using as an example an article related to an Arb case I'm involved in. Two editors, instead of addressing my question, are yelling at me to keep it in the Arb case. I hatted the digression, but was reverted by one of the editors. I would prefer to keep the policy discussion on track, and that if anyone has an issue with it to raise it here or at the case, instead of derailing a legitimate policy question with personalities. Could someone re-hat the digression, please? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate policy question? ROFL!

It's a work on progress. We've had enough editors leave because of jerks tagging their drafts rather than leaving them to work in peace.

And the article just happens to be by Doncram.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a work in progress.

This is a godawful mess. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented out the unformatted unreadable raw data on the George Hancock article. There's no way that was an acceptable way to leave an article. Doncram created it in 2010 and last edited it in August 2012, there's been plenty of time for him to get it into better shape. The long gap argues against it being an active "work-in-progress", it is rather an unfinished article which has been abandoned by the creator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that I was mistaken and thought link that Sarek provided was the current state of the article, so I've reverted my edit back to the previous version, where the raw data has been formatted into a Wiki-acceptable list. My mistake, my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, my fault -- I should have made it much clearer that I was only referring to the initial creation state, rather than the way the articles looked now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty stupid to use an example related to the case, wasn't it? If, in fact, it's a sufficiently widespread problem worth discussing at VPP there must be examples from editors that are not parties to the same AC case SoV is involved in, right? NE Ent 03:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that SoV try to ignore peripheral problems relating to Doncram while the Arbitration is underway, and if egregious problemns arise, the ArbCom case is the correct venue to raise them. The policy issue he raised at VPP will still be relevant after the case is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Being that he is heavily involved in the Doncram case I think opening up 2 different discussion relating to an ongoing Arbcom case is a pretty dirty tactic. I would expect an admin with as much experience as SoV to be better than that. You thought my other note was forum shopping, this is nothing more than a subversive way to do the same thing. Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, it's no "dirtier" than your canvassing on AN and VP to get more people over to AE to help out Rich Farmbrough. Your hands are hardly clean here, so I think it's best that you back off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Starship9000 Constant disruptive editing

OP came here 5 mins after posting on S9000's talk page, did not wait for a response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Starship 9000 has been blocked from editing twice this week, and he is right back to his disruptive editing ways. He is constantly vandalizing articles on Wikipedia and he clearly still does not get the point, even after two blocks. There was also a previous discussion regarding him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Can you please provide diffs and a link to the previous discussion? Or at least a link to their talkpage? Sadaam Insane (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor Wee Curry Monster moving my comments around

There's currently a discussion ongoing at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Editor Wee Curry Monster somehow thought it would be appropriate to move my comment about the removal of a section to a new section called "Separate section for comments on individual editors", which he alone came up with, with the summary "move rambling personal attack to appropriate section"[113]. I advised him to not mess with my comments again or I'd report him here [114] and then I moved my comment to the right section again. He swiftly deleted my message at his talk page [115] and proceeded to move my comment once again [116] with the sarcastic summary "WP:IAR". This is not acceptable and needs to stop.

The comment I moved is nothing but personal attacks against editors. Yes I did move it to a separate section, since it contained nothing about content and filibustering is a problem with this editor (see below). I would normally not move a talk page comment per WP:TPG but considered this a case per WP:IAR as an exception. If that is criticised I won't be doing it again.

WP:BOOMERANG, which Gaba p has been warned about:

Frequent personal attacks eg [117],[118],[119], [120]

Edit warring constantly, never follows WP:BRD eg [121],[122],[123],[124]. Noting the comments from the previous ANI session I have endeavoured to avoid edit warring with the editor by using tags to bring attention to other editors to address issues but he will edit war to remove those [125].

WP:FILIBUSTERS. Classic tactic, text demanding detailed answers [126], disputes response [127] then claims no response obtained [128].

Most edits rely on WP:OR or WP:SYN, constantly pushing WP:POV and working in a WP:TAG team with User:Langus-txt to force material into an article.

Abusive edit summaries [129], cherry picked quotes and partisan sources. This is an editor who is single minded about conducting his editing in a disruptive and confrontational manner. I believe given recent comments he has been deliberately seeking confrontation in order to have himself and several other editors topic banned per the last session here. Likely this editor is a sock of the bannned sock puppet master User:Alex79818. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ADD: [130] diff of my edit, which he claims has a sarcastic edit summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarify. There are so many examples of disruptive behaviour by User:Gaba p this took 5 minutes to compile. Per the previous WP:ANI thread usually tactic by User:Gaba p is to fling many accusations, combined with diffs, notably the diffs rarely support the accusation but gives the appearance of such to those that don't check. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you had this prepared, that's ok. I'll be adding some examples of your behavior next. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I encourage Gaba p not to bother posting dirt on WCM -- if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors. NE Ent 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent I don't understand what you mean by "if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also encourage Gaba to stop trying to run Wee off of Wikipedia with his constant harassment from article to article which has now gone on well over a year. When I tried to warn Gaba, he and Langus made very inappropriate remarks to me which I could have reported but chose not to. Despite the remarks, I have briefly edited on these articles and have only had only brief remarks with Wee, always over Wikipedia matters. I find it unsavory that you Gaba would follow him everywhere to the exclusion of all other articles and harass him and then you and your alter ego make extremely unsavory remarks to anyone who sees it and tries to defend the Wikipedia:Assume good faith ethical standards of Wikipedia. For once and for all, please desist and resume good-faith editing again. I am sure with your education that you have more to offer Wikipedia than this. Mugginsx (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice editor Mugginsx has been following me around since september when she stopped by my talk page to make uncivil (and untrue) comments about me [131]. She did it again a few weeks ago [132]. I note that up to today I have never been involved in a discussion about content with Mugginsx, she simply shows up to defend Wee whenever needed and nothing else. I've requested her to stop following me around to no avail. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An indefensible untruth. I have the diffs too. [133] Mugginsx (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What is that supposed to prove? Would you please stop disrupting the discussion? This is about Wee's unacceptable behaviour. You did the exact same thing in September to the extent that you got in a fight with another editor about some remarks you made about him. Could you please stop? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW if you examine the diffs presented by Mugginsx, they are neither uncivil nor untrue; which goes back to my comment of making accusations and presenting diffs, which don't back up the claim made (how many editors simply presume they do?). And as for the comment they have never touched on content see [[134]] and Mugginsx's edits on Self-determination. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil: coming out of nowhere to accuse me of stalking [135] and again recently [136]

Untrue: accusation of being blocked due to sockpuppetry when the block was proven to be wrongly applied [137]

I repeat: Mugginsx and I have to the best of my knowledge never discussed content on any article. Wee's link [138] shows only Muggins commenting in the talk page, not me. I request any admin/editor reading this to please go and check the links for yourself and tell me if I'm lying about any of them. This is just an attempt by Wee to throw mud at me once again. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Presenting diffs without all the information again? See [139] where User:JamesBWatson refused to unblock as he was convinced the original block for sock puppetry was well proven. User:Gaba p conveniently finds a diff that I know the personal details of the banned editor User:Alex79818 (I do but only because in harassing me in real life he accidentally revealed them). After providing this information in confidence to James, he cautiously unblocked User:Gaba p see [140] only for a few days later to have to issue a warning for incivility [141]. I note that in this diff that James considered there was still compelling evidence of sockpuppetry but sufficient doubt to give you the benefit of the doubt, User:Nick-D also considered there was evidence of sock puppetry [142] but also gave the benefit of the doubt. There has been plenty of suspicion of sock puppetry and it was not mentioned as a personal attack. I remain convinced on the basis of the types of edits, the subject matter, quirks of grammar and spelling and the fact you're constantly hounding and attacking me in exactly the same way that User:Alex79818 did, that you are one and the same. On past performance it is likely there are other sleeper accounts. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On accusations of sock puppetry: in early 2012 Wee accused me of being a suck puppet of blocked editor Alex79818. The life-time block quickly imposed on my account was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to one of the admins who checked I was not the same person (Wee knows this blocked user's real identity). Notwithstanding this, Wee has continued with his accusations. At the previous ANI he did the same accusation and I offered an admin to reveal my identity once again ("have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith") [143]. Admin User:Nick-D has said verbatim: "Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing".[144] Who's selectively quoting Wee?

I will once again repeat my offer to reveal my identity to an admin here so then can check the identity of this user to see I am not that user. Please send me a private message and I will gladly do so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments around is not allowed per Talk page guidelines , further Wee Curry Monster is moving them from a section he started, thus making him involved.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we also have WP:IAR and if his comments were about content and there wasn't an issue of paralysing discussion by filibustering, then I wouldn't have done so. I did think twice about it and was attempting to reduce disruption. As other editors have noted he has followed me from article to article frustrating any attempt at editing. Note I did not refactor his comment and btw it was in the same section just moved to a sub-section for personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. You were attempting to reduce disruption by disrupting my comment?

Care to give links to which other editor has accused me of following you around? As I remember only Mugginsx has done so and as I have stated already, she only shows up to defend you whenever needed. For the record: some time ago I added my name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group so as to make it clear that I would be helping in Falkland related articles. This hasn't stopped Wee from accusing me of hounding (he is present in virtually all Falkland/Gibraltar related articles). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wee Curry Monster, please don't move the posts. I do not see egregious attacks, nor was the post off topic. Gaba p; please don't accuse other editors of vandalism when it isn't clearly vandalism, that merely escalates and does not resolve any problems. And anyone can remove anything on their talk page, unless specifically prohibited from doing so by an ArbCom decision or due to issues such as being an indeffed sock account. WCM can remove posts from anyone and that's perfectly fine. Don't "warn" people you'll take things to ANI, that's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people with ANI. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so. You say the attacks were not egregious, sorry but the effect of constant attacks of lower level incivility are cumulative. You may like to review the fact this has been constant and unremitting. I have also moved articles, only for User:Gaba p to follow me there. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the mention of "anyone can remove anything on their talk page", I never complained about him deleting my comments on his talk page, I simply pointed to it to note that he had taken notice of my warning. I warned him about ANI in an attempt to get him to stop moving my comments around and avoid this report. Is it not polite to warn an editor that further disruptive editing will be met with ANI? I note I had already warned him to not mess with my comments earlier [145], is this not enough?

I assume good faith always Killer. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors who sometimes disagreed with me and sometimes agreed. I did this from 28 Dec to 3 Jan and I had no problems with the rest of the editors involved in the editing. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [146]. Who's not assuming good faith here? The issues appear the moment Wee shows up.

He needs to stop the personal attacks and he needs to stop accusing me of being a sock poppet, I've asked him this more times than I can count now. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, your warnings are not "enough" they are far, far too much. You're not politely informing another editor, you are threatening them; this is combative. If you wish to complain about WCM accusing you of being a sock, and of you requesting they not, you must provide diffs. Regarding always assuming good faith, I see Kahastok, below, has provided two diffs of you attacking another editor and accusing them of lying. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments on soap boxing refer to content, in which a quote is used to add a political statement not for merit. It was a comment on content NOT the editor. I have been a regular contributor to ARA Belgrano for years but chose not to comment on most of User:Gaba p's edits for the simple reason he would turn it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Gaba's behaviour in these discussions has really been dreadful.

He has been fairly continually accusing other editors of lying and issuing repeated personal attacks on multiple articles over the past couple of weeks. Curry Monster has only provided diffs of four such instances - it's not difficult to find others. Curry Monster has already pointed out that, after issuing me with several personal attacks (apparently for having the temerity to disagree with him) he was completely ignoring any objection made to the edit at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, claiming that I hadn't made any. This is why I ended up just posting "I remain opposed for the reasons already expressed" - I saw little benefit to the encyclopædia in detailing the objections over and over again only so that I could be subjected to personal attacks and then ignored.

Worth noting that in many cases where he accuses someone of lying, the point is not even whether a given error is in good or bad faith (though he should be assuming good faith). He at least twice accused me of lying - and also threatened to bring me here (a threat that I did not consider particularly significant because of WP:BOOMERANG) - when I suggested that this proposal had the effect of substantially increasing the weight given to the Argentine position in this particular dispute while only downplaying the British position. Now, I've looked at that diff several times, and I'm afraid I can't find any way that I can look at it in which the point I made was even inaccurate. It appeared to me that he was trying to intimidate me into accepting the proposal. Kahastok talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Wee lied at an admin's talk page [147] (see point two of my first comment) about something I had supposedly done, which was simply untrue.
2. He lied at ANI about me removing a citation ("Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [142] sorry but the article history tells a different story") [148] which I proved to be false again.
3. Wee's latest string of personal attacks [149] (accusations of "disruptive behaviour", "butchering an article", "edit warring" and making "untrue" statements") where fueled by a lie as I proved beyond doubt below the title "Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster".
4. He lied just now at an admin's talk page [150] about me adding tags to a section when it was him who added all the tags in said section (!).

What else could I possibly call this actions by Wee? Repeated "mistakes"? Should he just get away with his constants attacks and untrue statements directed at me without me calling it for what it is? Assuming good faith can only be done for a while.

Regarding the accusation I made of Kahastok lying, please see [151] where Kahastok accused me saying "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain". I politely asked him to either provide a link where I proposed such a thing or take back his words. He did neither (he actually repeated the same accusation again) so I warned him that any new unfounded accusations by him would take us to ANI. Is this also a "mistake"?

I note that both this editors (Wee and Kahastok) are used to work as a team backing each other's edits and defending each other whenever something like this comes up. Not long ago both editors were topic banned from editing Gibraltar related articles (another former British colony) [152], Wee in particular was "warned against bad faith accusations and further disruption." [153]. He is doing the same thing now in Falkland related articles. Gaba p (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but can someone really repeatedly allege at ANI I am a liar and not be sanctioned for repeated incivility?

Typical example Point 4, he claims I'm lying about him adding tags disruptively. See [154] where rather than edit warring I tagged his edit to bring attention to other editors. Another editor reverted to an earlier consensus and [155] please note the edit summaries.

Sorry but this is too much I am fed up with the constant incivility and I really shouldn't be expected to put up with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason why you - or I - should have to put up with any of this. In my case, admins might note that my response did provide a link to his proposal - the same link as I provided above (in fact I copy-pasted it), which I believe I described accurately. One might also note in there detailed objections to Gaba's proposals (and not the first) that Gaba still claims even in this ANI that I never made. Kahastok talk 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One more instance of Wee making a "mistake". See my point 4 where I comment on how Wee complained at an admin's talk page[156] that I had added disruptive tags to a section. This is what he said:

"You'll of course note that he even revert warred over tagging and added un-neeeded tags to be disruptive in retaliation." (bolded by me)

Please follow the link to the admin's talk page and you'll see that the discussion revolvs around the article Self-determination where it was Wee who added all of the tags[157]. Please notice the state of the section with the three tags added by Wee which he tried to pin on me.

Wee's response here refers to a completely different article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute where once again he added the NPOV tags[158] later on removed by Kahastok by reverting the article's section to an old version. I then proceeded to add the very same tag Wee had added earlier[159]. This tag was removed by Wee [160] saying that I "previously considered this [section] neutral" when I never said anything of that sort. As you will notice the tag is gone from the article since I saw no point in adding it one more time only to have it reverted again. Once again, Wee makes a mistake by assigning to me something that just isn't true. What should I do about his constant behaviour? Just let it slide?

Do also notice Kahastok response where he accused me again of "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain" (something of course I absolutely never did) and gave no link to prove that I had said such a thing. What should I call this? What should I do about his? Should I just keep quiet?

It is just not acceptable that these editors get to bend the truth the way they do with no consequence whatsoever. Even worst, if I say something about it then I'm being the disruptive editor. Please do tell me: is their behavior acceptable? Gaba p (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment(s) by long time observer(s)

• I have been witness to Wee Curry Monster and Gaba p behavior towards each-other for some time now. I have a few times tried to intervene by way of trying to re-direct the argument towards a solution - this has not work - So thus recently (yesterday) I have removed the disputed text on the sub page Self-determination and have had that page locked 2 times this month. I am in the middle of trying to help again as seen here - however I dont see how these 2 will ever get along - the situation is has been so degraded for so long that I believe an interaction ban between these 2 is the only solution to stooping the disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have been following this for a while, and I don't think an iban is called for or necessary. My opinion is that Gaba p's behaviour on several articles pertaining to the Falklands dispute, and their talk pages, is causing a great deal of trouble. It's obvious at this stage that he has a very well established opinion on the matter, and his editing serves mainly to further that viewpoint. Much of the classic behaviour of the tendentious editor (as linked by WCM above) is evident - slow edit warring, breaching the spirit if not the letter of 3RR, threats to report others to noticeboards and demands that other editors self-revert, statements that he'll revert others if they don't themselves (as if this somehow makes it ok), filibustering in the manner outlined by Kahastok above (demanding unreasonable levels of detail and lengthy explanations for the actions of others, challenging any explanation given and later denying that any explanation was ever made) etc. etc. This is the classic wikipedia problem of one disruptor being able to hold an entire swathe of articles and talk pages to ransom, even in the presence of multitudes of opposing reasonable editors, if they are fanatical enough. I'm involved here and so won't be taking any action, but those are my thoughts. Please note I don't think WCM's behaviour is perfect, but I don't think he's the root of the problem here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On Basalik's accusation of filibustering: I recently made four different small edits to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee and Kahastok repeatedly blanket-reverted all edits giving as reason only vague statements of OR and POV: [161] [162] [163] [164]. As the talk page proves I asked them to please comment on why they thought the edits where inappropriate separately so we could work on them and to please stop blanket-reverting, many many times. They did not and Wee is now asking for the whole section to be removed. Basalik accuses me of filibustering when all I did was to bring current, relevant and properly sourced information to a section in that article. Editors Slatersteven and Langus were working with me on each of those edits with the aim of improving the article while Wee and Kahastok kept repeating the same mantra of "OR" and "POV". I have never opposed an edit when the majority of editors have agreed on something, can you provide a link where I have? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, can I ask you to please note that the antagonism is one way, one of those occasions where a two way interaction ban is distinctly unfair on one party. You might also care to note that the same editor is attacking others, even here. User:Gaba p appears fixated on me but it isn't reciprocated. I know all too well from past experience that such a ban would be flung in my face as evidence that I'm a problem when I am not the one creating conflict here. I actually believe that to be Gaba's objective here for that very reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not concern over who did or said what to who - I am here concerned about the disruptive editing going on. I am sure even you agree that the interaction between you two (despite who's at fault) is at a point were behavior is being discussed more so then content. Both should take a break from each-other and from the topic all together in my opinion. Page after page after page after page of a debate were no-one is listing to the others position is pointless. For over a year nothing has changed - just getting more and more personal taking up tlakpages that are to be used to helping the articles. Section like "Personal attacks by Gaba p" and/or "Lies by Wee Curry Monster" is not helping the article at all - just putting more fuel on a fire. If you believe its all Gaba p fault and that its a problem all over see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or more specifically Wikipedia:Editor review .Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes indeed you should concern yourself over who did what to who. Could you point to an occasion where I have been unjustified asking Gaba p to comment on content not myself? Equally comparing a comment on a personal attack, with a whole section dedicated to making a personal attack I would suggest shows you're not being entirely fair. Yes I agree its not healthy and whilst I don't claim to be perfect or faultless, I've not been disruptive in my editing. I have remained civil, tried to follow WP:DR and my comments have been based on content. To suggest a sanction where one editor has done that and the other has done everything to create conflict simply rewards disruptive behaviour. Even here he is continuing to make unfounded allegations that I am a liar with impunity. I ask you a straight question, if an editor followed you around calling you a liar repeatedly and when it came ANI I suggested you be sanctioned too, would you not consider that unwarranted? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me just note that on September 2012 a dispute came to ANI after Wee broke the 3RR by reverting an edit agreed on by 3 editors [165]. The discussion ended with an admin proposing an interaction ban between us and a 4 month topic ban (relating to Falklands) for both of us, which I accepted. WCM on the other hand did not and instead left an uncivil comment ("like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here")[166] and "retired" from WP. He never actually stopped editing and certainly not on Falkland related articles.

If the ruling here is an interaction ban and/or a topic ban I will again accept it, noting once again that an ANI report caused by Wee's actions is one more time spilling over to give sanctions to other editors. If Wee were a new editor any of his actions I commented on above would have had him blocked for sure. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note Wee's WP:CANVASSING: [167] [168] [169] Gaba p (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Gaba accuses Wee of provoking him (Gaba) of filing this ANI just to throw dirt at him. How messed up is that? Here is the comment from above: I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. I believe this provides insight into Gaba's mind and his unexplainable dislike for Wee and anyone else who does not agree with himself.

With all due respect, an interaction ban for both, in view of the proof here of Gaba's constant attacks, not only on Wee, but anone who disagrees with Gaba, who even anyone who tries to suggest anything constructive to him is unfair. Gaba has made it clear he is more interested in attacking than improving the articles. I would suggest a ban on Gaba for all of the Falkland Island articles so they can move forward. After I and others who have commented here trying to help Gaba but instead getting attacked, I have concluded that this is his motis operadi, not just to Wee but anyone. Mugginsx (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's Wees comment about him moving my edits around: "No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so." Everything else he has said here are simply attacks on me (just like yourself), the fact that he started this by moving my comment twice after I had told him to abstain from such actions is now completely buried under a pile of accusations against me.

I have no idea why you started attacking me so ferociously a couple of months ago but I'd like you to stop. You are most definitely not an un-involved editor and your past behaviour shows you have been trying to get me blocked for a while now (see Mugginsx's comments on previous ANI, [170]) so viciously as to even call the attention of an editor [171]. Could you please drop it? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you seem to feel that anyone who does not agree with you is out to get you. That is not true. You have a fine education but instead of using it to create great articles as you probably could, you use it in this manner. It is realy too bad. BTW, Wee reverted some of my edits on these articles, I did not start a vendetta against him. When I saw the argumentative editing on the articles, I decided to step away from them. That was quite awhile ago.Mugginsx (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Mugginsx, I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is out to get me. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors from 28 Dec to 3 Jan. After a short discussion it was clear that the majority consensus was to remove an edit I had made which I gladly did[172]. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page regarding that very same edit was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [173], notice the difference with the rest of the editors?

You and I on the other hand have never crossed paths in a discussion about content. Ever. I have never disagreed with you on anything other than your constant lobbying to have me blocked. I have a vendetta against no one, but do note that Wee still accuses me of being the sock puppet of a blocked account, even after I revealed my real life identity to an admin once and am willing to do so again. This accusations by Wee have been happening for a full year now. Who has a vendetta here? Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edits and talk page discussions and I must say it is you and not just with Wee. This is the first time I remember asking that you be blocked and that is only on these articles that frustrate everyone. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I gotta tell you your memory must be failing: "I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [49] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [50] even after they were verified at [51] and not acting in good faith.", " I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team.", "I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them", etc..[174] Pretty much every comment you made on that ANI is an attack to either me or editor Langus or both of us. You have never been involved in a discussion with me and yet have repeatedly asked for sanctions against me at every situation possible. Once again I'll politely ask you: would you please stop it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, on these articles that frustrate everyone. I am finished arguing with you. You must stand on your record. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If this means you'll stop attacking me every chance you get, then I'm glad we are done. Hope to see you around on better terms. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - Am I allowed to casually call another editor a liar repeatedly?

I ask this because for months User:Gaba p has been repeatedly calling me a liar, he has continued to do so here. He has been allowed to do so and is becoming bolder and bolder in his incivility. Has WP:CIVIL been simply abandoned? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you repeatedly tell untruths about other editors behavior you should expect to be called a liar. The solution would be to apologize and not repeat the untruth, in which case I am sure Gaba p would retract his claim that you are a liar. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course he's not typically permitted to repeated call you a liar. Was he able to refute your statements in some manner with a diff? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he presents a diff out of context claiming this shows I am a liar. Look above. He is effectively calling me a liar at WP:ANI with impunity. He gets away with it by loudly making accusations of misconduct, chucks in a couple of diffs and no one questions it. If we've abandoned WP:CIVIL at this point I would feel it beneficial to be allowed to vent, because I've been subjected to incivility for months now and as noted previously have remained civil throughout. Also excuse me, where in WP:CIVIL is it ever acceptable to call another editor a liar constantly? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is allowed to call anyone a liar.Its a clear violation of WP:NPA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba has usually backed up his accusations of lying with links/diffs to a previous interactions/discussion. Not checked all of them, but on the face of it, I find this to be interesting. Probably should take a close look at all of Gaba's provided links. (Well-founded accusations of lying are not against Civil if its evidence of problematic editor behaviour). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

More self-determination stuff, I think WCM 'I didnt break 3rr' claims here are certainly misleading, if not outright lying. And certainly not in the spirit of 3rr Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fairly straight forward. Saying an editor did one thing when they did not can only be excused as a 'mistake' so many times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if some of the edits and/or assertion of certain editor its not true.Only thier edits should be discussed as WP:NPA is clear on this." Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, factual descriptions of editor behaviour when backed up by evidence is not a personal attack. However repeated accusations of someone being a sockpuppet when its been proved to an admins they are not is a personal attack. 'Only their edits should be discussed' doesnt extend to disregarding edits where they are stating something they know to be an untruth. (The above is meant as a general case, not applied specifically to WCM) Fortunately since Gaba has helpfully included links and diffs we can look at them and see exactly what the case is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike and what should I do when the untrue assertions by an editor are used in a discussion about content to gain an advantage? I note that I'm not even counting the times Wee has purposely misinterpreted sources to favor his position (the Reisman case at Self-determination is quite telling, if you want I can fill you in) I'll gladly comment on every link I presented here about Wee "making untrue statement". When is it acceptable to say "I can no longer assume good faith and this editor is simply lying"?

The accusations of sockpuppetry have effectively been going on for a full year now (starting from the moment my block was imposed and then lifted). He has directly called me "Alex" twice now on different occasion while discussing content: "You've been given a chance you didn't deserve Alex, don't blow it"[175], "Stop being utterly confrontational in every aspect of your edits on Falklands topics Alex please."[176] Is this civil behavior? I remind you that in order to have my account back I had to give away my right to anonymity and I am even willing to do so again if needed.

Just for the record, I never called him a "liar". I simply noted the particular instances where I caught him lying. I believe there is quite a difference. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't talked specifically about you but really talked in general terms that making personal comments about editor is never a good thing even if you think that you 100% right.If there are some problems with this user conduct there are appropriate forum to deal with it-this board and WP:RFC/U.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On this I agree Gaba, if you think there are long-term issues, raise it as a WP:RFC/U and make sure you back up accusations with diffs/links to evidence that supports it. Secondly, as the original complaint here was regarding moving your comments, and WCM has been told not to do that, you might want to back away now and get back to editing. ANI is for immediate issues, not long-term behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a "liar" or even saying that they are "lying" are both actions that are bound to ruffle feathers, and escalate a situation needlessly. "That's not exactly what you said earlier" - followed by a proper in-context diff - will actually say the same thing, in a far more useful manner. When it comes to using sources, if they misuse/misquote a source, that does not mean they're doing it on purpose or doing it maliciously - in that case, give them the benefit of the doubt and propose a better interpretation of the resource on the article talkpage. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone say something about me which is not true and which I can demonstrate is not true, and yet when confronted with this untruth does not retract but in fact repeats the untruth, then I will call them a liar. Lying about someone's actions or views is a classic uncivil move, and pointing that out is necessary to address the problem. Using the word liar to point out that someone has been lying is not comparably problematic to the actual lying.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is Gaba has just been accusing people left right and centre. Gaba has repeatedly accused me of lying [177] [178][179][180] - not always in so many words - based on a point that so far as I can tell is entirely accurate: specifically, that what was proposed substantially expanded upon support for the Argentine claim while only downplaying British side. I'd like some outside feedback here - is my description of the proposal inaccurate? Because I can't see any way that it is. Does it appear malicious to any uninvolved editor? In the view of outside editors, can this description be civilly characterised as "a lie" (emphasis original)?

Because it certainly appears to me that the accusation of lying was not being used as you describe, but in attempt to intimidate me into accepting Gaba's position, a position that I opposed (and oppose) on the grounds - among other things - that I considered it POV (a suggestion that Gaba dismissed as "childish"). And frankly, it does not appear to me that Gaba is learning from this discussion. Kahastok talk 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What Bwilkins said. We should always be mindful of behaving in ways that reduce conflict and don't inflame emotional responses to situations. If someone says or does something that contradicts an earlier action on Wikipedia that have done, it is fine to demonstrate the inconsistency in their behavior with diffs and non-emotional language. The problem comes when you label someone a liar or when you label their behavior lying. Instead of doing that, just say "In this diff [1] you did blah blah blah, but in this other diff [2] you said you did yada yada yada" That is sufficient to demonstrate an inconsistency in a person's behavior without calling them names or being insulting about them. --Jayron32 14:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. A determination of "lying" depends on a state of mind that is generally unknowable by outside observers. Making untrue claims you believe to be true does not make you a liar. Comment on the contributions (I'm fond of "I don't think that is correct", but have been observed to venture into "that is plain wrong" when provoked ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to take exception the comments of User:Only in death, show me where I have made in excess of 3 reverts in a 24 hr period. I have even self-reverted on a vandalism edit to avoid Gaba p making a frivolous 3RR report after he edit warred to force one of his edits into an article. I rarely make more that 2 reverts, I stretch to 3 reluctantly when there is a clear problem with an edit. You can bet your bottom dollar Gaba p and Langus-TxT would have skipped gaily over to the WP:3RRN to make a report had I done so. When you've checked those diffs and find its not true, I expect an apology for calling me a liar and backing up Gaba p calling me a liar.

There are many occasions where I could have pointed out edits that were blatant lies but I have never resorted to calling an edit a liar. But thank you guys, if I find someone lying again I will be sure to make sure I call them a liar repeatedly and if called up on it I will refer to this thread as justification that such conduct is condoned officially by this noticeboard.

I am not a liar, I have not lied and I am fed up to my hind teeth of being the focus of this guy's constant incivility. Thanks for all the navel gazing and backing up of an uncivil editor. It just convinces me that being civil is a waste of time on my part. Because as Basalisk notes above one editor can paralyse an entire topic area with personal attacks and filibustering and no action will ever be taken. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What in the above comments leads you to the conclusion that "this thread as justification that such conduct is condoned officially by this noticeboard." Three people immediately above have stated unambiguously that no one should call anyone else a liar. So, your conclusion does not follow directly from the comments you are responding to, because those comments all agree that no one should be calling anyone a liar. --Jayron32 07:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as you ask, I have been subjected to persistent incivility from this guy for months, he continues to call me a liar here in blatant breach of WP:CIVIL. I demonstrate with an example his diffs don't support his claims. And yet other editors join in calling me a liar and no action is taken. A number of editors have commented that this is an example of a disruptive editor and no action is taken. And he is continuing to do it. Could you avoid any other conclusion that his conduct is condoned? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I have to prove I did not lie

An example.

Gaba p claims I lied at an admins talk page stating "You'll of course note that he even revert warred over tagging and added un-neeeded tags to be disruptive in retaliation."

He alleges this refers to Self-determination. No it doesn't and I never actually said at any point it did. Gaba p has been disruptive on multiple articles. I was actually referring to this and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, another article where Gaba p is filibustering and paralysing any discussion.

Rather than indulge Gaba p in a revert war, I tagged his edit for NPOV [181] the edit summary is ‎International position: identify section where POV problem is, in the hope of bringing other editors into the discussion. This is a suggested means of resolving editing disputes is it not. He was reverted by another editor so he added a NPOV tag see [182] the edit summary is (→‎International position: identify section). The tags are unneeded, he was previously involved in the discussion that resulted in that text see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 8#2012 Summit of the Americas. You'll note the striking similarity in the two edit summaries and my conclusion is not exactly unwarranted. You may try to accuse me of not WP:AGF but AGF is not a suicide pact and I have seen too much of this guy's disruptive edits.

On Self-determination, Gaba p and Langus-TxT, edit warred in a WP:TAG to try and remove a NPOV tag. [183] and [184].

My comments about revert warring to remove tags and adding tags disruptively clearly have basis in Gaba p's actions. I did not make them up, I did not lie as he claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example.

Gaba p claims I lied and that his edit did not separate a statement from its original cite [185]. He later suggested removing it as the cite did not support the edit. He repeats the claim at ANI. Sorry but the history of the article shows different [186].

Again my comments about Gaba p's edit were accurate, I did not make them up, I did not lie as he claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• It does look like Gaba p is not himself sticking very closely to the facts. He clearly does remove the Lopez source from the claim it supports adding a CN tag, and you clearly restore the source to where it belong. Whether the source was later found to be unreliable is not really relevant. I also do notice that your edit summaries are fairly combative and probably weren't conducive to making Gaba p accept them as valid. Often time we overstate the facts when we are angry and instead of considering that someone may be acting in good faith we ascribe bad faith right away so that "being wrong about something" becomes "lying" and restoring a source to its correct place becomes editwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ·ʍaunus going through all the history from those articles can be confusing. Let me try to make it clear. After a couple of days of editing the Falklands section (both me and Wee) at Self-determination, Wee introduces a version of the section which uses the Lopez book to source the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination."[187] Right after this is done the article is locked by an admin[188] and the issue goes to RS/N where the Lopez book is found to be unsuitable for its use. After the RS/N is done, with the mandate not to use that book, I go back to the article and remove it leaving a cn tag instead.[189] Wee immediately reverts this edit bringing back the unsuitable source to the article.[190] Another editor rv's Wee and removes the unsuitable source.[191] Wee for a second time brings it back.[192] Once again I remove the unsuitable source[193] and Wee brings it back for a third time.[194] I rv his edit nothing that he is introducing back to the article a source we were told not to use.[195] What Wee said of this episode at an admin's talk page is verbatim: "I have posted at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN, which concluded the source Gaba p was using was not reliable. Today he went straight back to the article, re-introduced the same edit and attributed to the same unreliable source."[196] He effectively assigned to me the re-introducing of an unsuitable source to the article when it was him who did so three times. See what I mean now? How else could I call such an action? Please tell me if something is not clear. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Actually you're assuming they are combative but I am a Glaswegian and we have a blunt way of speaking. As text is an imperfect method of communication because it does not convey nuance well and can easily be misconstrued I do not pay much attention when editors express an opinion in a forthright manner. I do however object when they flat come out and call me a liar, especially when as you politely put it, they're not themselves sticking very closely to the facts. If I was being combative, as anyone who has drinking if Glasgow would know, you would know about it. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated allegations I breach 3RR and this is simply untrue.

An example, Gaba's reverts [197],[198],[199],[200] 4 in less than a 24 hr period. He tries to wikilawyer the 3rd revert as an "edit" to game the system.

Mine [201],[202] and [203] thats 3. To be utterly honest I had earlier reverted a borderline vandalism edit [204] but I self-reverted [205]. Thats the closest I've ever come to breaching 3RR, the vandalism edit was later reverted by another editor but not for weeks.

No I wasn't happy about reverting but for anyone familiar with the history of the Falkland Islands would realise this is a mistaken reference to an earlier event the Lexington raid of 1831. I even said so in the talk page [206]. You'll not however I have been more than honest in presenting the one occasion when I was close to breaching 3RR but did not.

Gaba p claims I was the only editor to breach 3RR [207], the above diffs show this to be untrue.

Gaba p claimed to be awaiting a reply on his 3RR warning [208], I'd already replied [209] and I note he had read it [210]. Gaba p's claim to be awaiting my reply were untrue - he'd already had it.

Gaba p's allegation I have lied about not breaching 3RR are untrue, I've shown it with diffs. The maximum is 3 and I did so reluctantly because common sense and knowledge of the subject led me to conclude it was an error.

On this occasion, Gaba p's allegations that I lied are false, he also made several claims that are demonstrably false. What would we call an editor repeatedly making false allegations and claims in the talk page. Answers on a post card please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First I'll note that I had no desire of entering this exchange of commentaries about another user behavior but was forced to do so after Wee commented on mine.

I have posted here four occasions were Wee "told things that were not true". If any editor/admin is unsure about any of them and wishes to go trough them I'll explain exactly what makes them "untrue" (avoiding the use of "lie" as advised here), like I did above with the Lopez book and his claim that I was "bringing it back" to the article when in fact it was him who did so on three occasions. Before ending this let me comment on an example of an untrue statement by Wee done in the comment right above this one:

Gaba p claimed to be awaiting a reply on his 3RR warning [211], I'd already replied [212] and I note he had read it [213]. Gaba p's claim to be awaiting my reply were untrue - he'd already had it.

So Wee presents a diff were I supposedly were awaiting a reply on my 3RR warning[214] and my claim to be awaiting a reply "were untrue". Please check the link for yourself and you'll see that I say verbatim: "Once again I reiterate to you my proposal that you self revert your last edit given that you have breached the 3RR. Otherwise I will be forced to report you. I'll await your reply. Regards." Wee says I already had a reply[215], in which he said he did not "intend to make any further reverts". In fact it was after that reply by him that I reiterated my proposal that he self-rv (please check the time tags) and it was the reply for that reiterated proposal I was waiting for because I wanted to prevent a report for breaking the 3RR. He effectively self-rv'd after I asked him to, so the report was finally not presented.[216] See what I mean? Who is making "untrue statements" here? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gossip may need revdel

Resolved

 – Rev-deleted and blocked.  Sandstein  08:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Antwerg (talk · contribs) has just added another link to gossip associated with a BLP subject despite advice from several editors at their talk. Previous edits have recently been revision deleted. Would someone please check the latest contribution (which I reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• The user has again posted a link in an attempt to force a BLP violation onto at least the article talk page, and that is after some clear explanations and warnings at User talk:Antwerg#Enough. Here is a diff of the most recent addition (previous additions have been revision deleted).

  Would an admin please take the necessary action.

  Feel free to delete this message if you like (although the gossip is all over the Internet, and is near the top of Google searches for the subject's name). Because it's all over the Internet, the issue can be viewed as minor—however, it is a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:DUE to use Wikipedia to highlight that the police have interviewed someone who worked with a person responsible for very serious abuses (with the obvious yet false implication that the BLP subject is suspected of abuse). Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The user's talkpage may need to be revdel'd too. A person is being named there in several history versions. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you link to or mail me the diffs, I'll rev-delete them.  Sandstein  14:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at DGM

URL references from the good-article Discipline Global Mobile are being removed, because they comply with DGM's terms of service, which prohibit links to internal pages. Apparently DGM's ToS has no weight on Wikipedia, alas.

A WP-compliant action would be for editors to add url information, if they wish.

Unfortunately, apart from one edit by Pigsonthewing, editors who advocate complete urls to internal DGM pages are not inserting such urls. Rather, they are disrupting the article with improperly used dead-link tags, messed-up formatting with misplaced plain-text urls, stray [], etc.

At least they should be required to use the preview function before inflicting their edits on the world. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As the unnamed editor who damaged the article in an attempt to remove clearly incorrect links claiming to source information about living people; after failing to comment out the offending material, I removed it entirely. I thought it would be less disruptive to comment it out than to delete it. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor adding material to supply a source. If a URL is to be included, it should not be misleading.

This being the fourth or fifth place he's commented on this, perhaps something should be done.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Disruptive editing seems to have descended into a slanging match between Kiefer and Andy, I think it does deserve attention here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

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 cannot help but wonder why User:Xerographica would add this section to User_talk:Xerographica#Removal_of_Relevant_Sourced_Content (See: [217]) and title the section "Removal of Relevant Sourced Content". S/he is referring to another specific user. While I am unfamiliar with the various aspects of Trolling, this seems to qualify. Xerographica has been blocked in the past (for a total of over 4 weeks, 96 hours) for PA related comments. This latest edit, in my own opinion, is another effort to be disruptive. Why should such a note be posted? It does not indicate willingness to cooperate with the community. --S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you ask them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

When content of article isnt about title of article

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed an article that is supposed to be about a certain historical song, but once you enter to read about it, there is only 1 sentence about the actual song, and even this single sentence does not include any information about the date, context and reason it was composed, but a claim that is missing a citation. Following this is a header about a recent event from 2 days ago, and a whole paragraph about that citing newspapers. This of course is related to the song in question, but seeing that the song has an 80 year old history, it would seem that this paragraph (if at all) should find its place at the end of an article under controversies, after content about the actual song.

In addition, the article has been locked for editing 2 days ago, right after the event in question took place. I have posted on the conversation page a number of times to inform that the page is biased, as well as that it contains a number of falsities that can easily be checked, and the article still remains as it was. In addition, one editor's answer to my post raised my nationality into question.

I would like to know what to do in this case.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centarpsr (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment):

A good start would have been to include the name of the article . It is presumably March on the Drina.

After reading the article, your description above does not seem correct. The article describes the event about which the song was written, its history, includes lyrics in 3 languages (!), and cites many versions that have been produced. It seems to flow well as written.

I don't see any posting by you to the talk page, unless you are the 212.* IP editor (you should make sure to log in always, and to sign talk page posts with ~~~~), and I see no responses by anyone else to that editor's posts. The page does not seem to be edit-protected in any way. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Centarpsr Thanks for the quick reply! The English version is ok, and yes, I also contributed to it. I am referring to the Croatian version of the article. I didn't name it initially since I wanted to be sure I was on the right track first. —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's an article on a different language of Wikipedia, there's nothing we can do here - each language has its own processes, administrators, and discussion pages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lords of the New Church

I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs but does this qualify as a BLP violation removal, is it a legal threat or something else? Qualified input would be appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the user's contribs, it sounds like they've been in contact with WMF legal/community departments and are perhaps confused about how to act on whatever response the WMF gave them. Their behavior is a bit weird, but I suspect they're fumbling around in an effort to do things by the book. Saddhiyama, it doesn't look like you've notified the IP editor of this ANI thread yet. When you do, hopefully they will come here and we can help them sort out what it is they want to see done, and why. IP, if you do decide to participate in this thread, please remember that while we're happy to help you, if you make any threats of legal action against Wikipedia or its editors, you will be blocked per our policy until the legal action is over or the threat is withdrawn, whichever comes first. It's nothing personal, it's just for the protection of all parties that if someone wants to use a lawsuit, they have to pursue matters through the lawsuit rather than on-wiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)IP notified. The section doesn't seem to be in violation of WP: BLPGROUP. I don't think they are particularly insinuating legal action, but, looking at their talkpage, it's possible they may have their own anti-LOTNC WP: AGENDA. Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm here and I'm trying to protect the band brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a stakeholder in the band and I'm only concerned over ommitted historical information and new misinformation that may cause harm to the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot "protect the brand band name" here. If there is information that is valid and properly sourced, it's going to be in the article whether or not the band approves of it. Our restrictions on BLP aren't an excuse for censoring information you don't approve of.

I suggest that you have a serious conflict of interest in regard to this subject, and need to follow the most stringent requirements of the COI policy: that is, please cease to edit the article directly, and instead make editing suggestion on the article talk page, to be acted upon by neutral editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Eliminating a listing of band personnel with a thinly veiled legal threat as a rationale? Hmmmm. Good luck with that. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat at talk:Amble

Resolved: Blocked for 48 hours per NLT. m.o.p 21:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Any more defamatory comments from you will result in legal action. Posted by a representative of the amblenorthumberland.co.uk website"
I guess that's a very clear threat and should be dealed with accordingly. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

not a threat, a promise ; short nlt block anyone? (dynamic ip) NE Ent 19:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother blocking me - I wont be bothering with this site again - its a joke! it protects people making defamatory comments yet threatens those who attempt to stick up for their good name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.222.22 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, we work hard to remove defamatory statements; it's simply Wikipedia requires using internal processes to do so rather than legal action. Admittedly the processes are very messy and perhaps not well documented / explained to new editors. If you simply make an affirmative statement you do not intend to take legal action against Wikipedia or any of its editors you welcome to contribute as best you can. NE Ent 21:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100 adding unsourced material / original research

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.

---

Back in December, Earth100 was brought to AN/I by myself for disruptive editing, consisting mainly of original research and adding unsourced material ([218]). At the end of December, he was blocked for personal attacks ([219]), and after that, his edits became very productive again. Unfortunately, tonight he has started again adding unreferenced material ([220], this one I showed my edit, where I put in a citation needed tag, as it makes it more clear what was unreferenced). I have tried explaining to him again why this is not allowed ([221]), but he has responded by saying that apparently, while he has a source for the information (that he did not add to the article when he added the information), he is engaging in original research, which he continues to deny. It's just getting a little bit ridiculous how many times people in the project have to tell him that he cannot simply engage in editing like this. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Inks just being too aggressive on me, on just wants to make a report on me, and there's no significant problem with me. Just ignore the message, Thank You.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 11:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100, that isn't a response to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem--you aren't even acknowledging that you're doing anything wrong. Multiple users have tried multiple times to explain why you cannot add unsourced material or original research, but you continue to do it anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, I proposed one of his articles for deletion 2013 North Pacific Super Storm, as it failed WP:GNG, and we've already had an increase in desire to make articles for non-noteworthy winter storms since The Weather Channel started naming them (but that's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this), and he removed the PROD tag (which is fine), with the edit summary, "Only STUPID users like INKS don't find any thing likes news and true information." He then apparently changed his mind and re-added the prod tag back, but this is not his first time making personal attacks. This has to stop; I have tried to be helpful and explain what needs to be done to properly source things, but Earth100 has refused to take my advice and has only resulted in being hostile. I didn't bother putting a warning on his talk page for the attack, as he already knows personal attacks are not allowed (as that was the reason for his last block), and it will probably just end with him deleting the warning anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because an editor repeats problematic behavior and deletes warnings from their talk page doesn't mean you should stop posting the warnings. They serve a purpose and they make a record. My impression, although I know little about the subject matter that interests Earth100, is that he does some good things and some bad things. Calling you stupid, of course, is one of the bad things, but even you acknowledge that he can make productive edits. The issue is how to get him to reduce the bad stuff. He apparently has strong views on things and some of them are at best counterproductive. For example, he created a userbox (I think he means "skunk") in which he announced his hatred for the Communist Party of China. It's not as bad as the userbox he created in which, if my memory serves me, he said he hated the Japanese - that one I deleted and I'll probably delete this one, too - but it's obviously not a productive use of Wikipedia's resources (and it violates userbox guidelines). The last block really got his attention. Not only did he improve after the block expired, but during the block he became quite communicative and friendly. And none of what I'm saying addresses the issue of adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to articles (he was warned about that before, particularly by User:Qwyrxian). So, what do you suggest? Another block? Perhaps a mentor? I'm tempted to block him now, mainly because he's not really responding to any of this in any meaningful way, and his behavior is mostly a repeat of previous behavior, but I'll wait for some more input.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added the warning for a personal attack. As for what I think should be done, forced mentorship would probably work, if Earth100 is willing to go along with it. But first he has to acknowledge that he's doing something that warrants it, otherwise we'll just be back here when the mentorship ends. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship, of course, would have to be voluntary and, obviously, he would have to acknowledge it is needed; otherwise, it's meaningless. As an aside, your warning is incorrect in that it says the uncivil comment was "removed". More important, he's not responding here or on his talk page, even though he's edited since I urged him to do so. I know next to nothing about the subject matter, but it seems that his edits to Kármán vortex street are at least partly WP:OR in that he appears to be interpreting the pictures he added without any secondary sources in support of his interpretations.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I worded myself improperly when I said "forced mentorship". I meant he is given the choice between mentorship or a block, with the instructions that if he stops his mentorship, he would be blocked (that's something I thought I've seen before - if I'm incorrect, please let me know.) My apologies on the incorrect template. Is there a proper template to use for personal attacks in edit summaries? (Although, he's requested deletion on the page, so I tagged it with G7, so it won't be up very long and it has been deleted.) As for the Kármán vortex street, there shouldn't be a gallery at all, as it clearly goes against the policy of WP:IG, which I pointed out on the talk page (full quote here, as it's not really relevant to put the whole thing on this AN/I) Inks.LWC (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't a personal attack template for edit summaries. One option is not to use a template that doesn't really work. Another option is use the template but then edit the expanded text to conform to reality.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK; I'll keep that in mind for the future. Regarding the mentorship, is my proposal permissible under the policies and guidelines? Inks.LWC (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are not intended to be punitive. Therefore, if there's acknowledgment by the editor of the problem(s), a promise to contribute appropriately, and an agreement to be mentored to assist the editor in adhering to their promise, that could be an acceptable solution. Obviously, an editor's promise loses some credibility if they've promised before but return to the problematic conduct. Here a mentor hasn't been tried, so it would be a new component.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, and I think/hope this can be resolved without a block. Although, from the past AN/Is, Earth100 typically has not participated in the AN/I until being told again that he should participate. Perhaps you could encourage him to come here and participate (as I think it would be much better coming from an admin, rather than myself). Inks.LWC (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I already told him. I wasn't happy that subsequent to that he edited articles but failed to respond. Still, I'm willing to give him a bit more time, but if he continues to edit as if nothing has happened, he'll leave me little choice but to block him.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Earth100 for 2 weeks. His "response" was to delete all the comments and warnings from his talk page, including my request to respond to the claims against him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that he responded on InksLWCs talkpage denying that he had been involved in any personal attacks.Jason Rees (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • So what happens when he gets back? The block doesn't really address the issues at the heart of this (or the last) AN/I. Each time, he's been blocked for personal attacks. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • At this point, we'd wait for the block to run its course. If he comes back and starts editing productively, great! If not, he can be blocked for a longer time (or indef) as necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN/WP:HARASSMENT, and childish name-calling by User:JoshuSasori

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 about a month now User:JoshuSasori has been making it very difficult for me to make any edits to articles on Japanese cinema. Virtually all of my edits to Kuroneko, Tadao Sato, Double Suicide of Sonezaki and numerous other articles have been subjected to excessive scrutiny, and if not blankly reverted have been gradually whitewashed out. He has been generally unwilling to compromise on issues where we disagree, and when I don't let him have the articles exactly his way he starts calling me names like "hound"[222], "orientalist"[223][224][225], "troll"[226][227][228] and "insane loon"[229]. (Those are just the ones that he wrote in his edit summaries and the most recent one. There are plenty more on the various talk pages.)

I would very much appreciate some administrative oversight, preferably someone giving the user in question a good talking to and explaining to him that he doesn't "own" articles he has created or contributed to on Wikipedia, and he shouldn't treat he should call talk page comments by his fellow Wikipedians "troll droppings".

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:JoshuSasori does indeed seem to be consistent in his personal attacks. I especially enjoy his dodging attitude at WP:DRN. He is pulling a classic WP:NOTTHEM behavior. Comments like "I strongly advise you to look through Elvenscout742's edit history." and "I'd like to emphasize here that I warned the person trying to resolve this conflict to carefully read Elvenscout742's edit history before attempting a resolution." display a pattern of blaming others for their incivility. Not once does JoshuSasori offer a single diff, instead expecting the DRN volunteer to comb through the OP's edits and determine what's wrong.--v/r - TP 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to deal with it? elvenscout742 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

On the dispute resolution page, we are asked not to discuss user conduct. Thus lengthy descriptions of Elvenscout742's behaviour would not be appropriate: "It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." JoshuSasori (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour". Whether he provided detailed examples is really beside the point, because he focused on ad hominem attacks against my supposedly harassing behaviour. Note, though, that I never called JoshuSasori a hound, or a troll, or an insane loon, or referred to his talk page comments as fecal matter.[230] elvenscout742 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour - This quite simply is not true, I didn't say a word about your behaviour. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm - what difference would Elvenscout's behavior make? Diffs presented show pretty clearly JoshuSasori's incivil behavior bordering on personal attacks. NE Ent 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 has been following me for the last month. Do you want details? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what we want. Please show us.--v/r - TP 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori above claims I have been following him. In reality, I have been simply trying to edit Wikipedia articles on Japanese films that I am interested in. Some of them, I already edited before JoshuSasori even registered on Wikipedia, which I pointed out in my peace offering to him on December 24.[231] He is the one who has been following me around these articles. Most of my recent edits to articles on Japanese cinema (too many to list) have been either reverted or followed closely by JoshuSasori. He has also showed up at several unrelated discussions (1, 2, 3) I was involved in and opposed my point of view, apparently just because. One of his recent comments also resembles a professional threat.[232] elvenscout742 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 initially interacted with me via the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan talk page where I initiated a discussion about macron usage in MOS:JAPAN. He then followed me to the talk page of Ryo Kase. After that, he began a campaign of multiple article moves of fairly obscure articles which I had created: Reiko, Ryoko Nakano, Sonezaki Shinju, Kindai Eiga Kyokai. I have been watching virtually all Japanese cinema articles for eight months, and he had not edited any prior to these moves, I had never seen him before that. Following this, and further disputes about WP:HOUNDING, he started "editing" these articles with minor edits, often WP:OR. When asked to provide a citation or corrected in a minor way, he immediately posts long screeds on the talk page of the articles. I do not know of any substantial edits by this user on any cinema articles, instead he makes gigantic contributions to talk pages only. However, I can understand the above about his work may have caused him distress. I have no intention of professionally threatening this person and will remove those remarks. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for calling him "an insane loon". If someone called me an insane loon, certainly I would think it was a humorous joke, but perhaps he did not take it that way. The context of this remark was that he told me that I had not seen a film called "The Hidden Fortress". Since I have seen the film, and since Elvenscout742 does not know anything about me or what films I might have seen or not seen, his comment struck me as being extremely odd, as if he had some kind of paranormal knowledge about me, which is why I made that crack about him. Frankly I don't think "orientalist" is very insulting but I apologize for that too. Also I called him a "hound dog", in the style of Elvis Presley. So I will apologize, once again. I've recently been looking through the edit history and noticed that when I told Elvenscout742 that he was being ridiculous or being absurd he took that as a personal attack. What I'll do from now on is to try to avoid this kind of talk with him. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I happened accidentally upon a move request JoshuSasori had participated in on 15 December[233] and he responded to me 20 minutes later.[234] The WikiProject Japan discussion to which he is referring does indeed seem to have been going on between him and my WikiProject Japan colleagues at that time, but my involvement in it began on 21 December[235], almost a week later. After this, I did indeed notice that he had created several articles based on his POV that Japanese names on Wikipedia should not have macrons: a number of these had no real justifications (Kindai Eiga Kyokai, for instance, was based on unrelated third party DVD covers[236], even though their official website[237] uses "Kyoukai" to mark the long vowel). I was not "hounding" JoshuSasori by moving these pages, I was merely doing what I believe is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. JoshuSasori's apparently taking personal offense at my moving articles he "created", and immediately moving to undo all of these edits, indicates a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia collaboration is all about. It is completely false to claim that I had never edited any articles on Japanese cinema prior to moving "his" pages: I pointed out to him early on[238] several specific examples of articles I had edited years before he arrived on them, and several more articles (mostly the animated films of Studio Ghibli) have been edited by me and never touched by him. He seems to continue to believe that my interest in Japanese cinema is a fabrication that I use to undermine his edits, despite this overwhelming evidence. His above accusation of OR is entirely disingenuous: I made a minor note on the Japanese title of Kuroneko, and provided numerous sources. He also reverted my addition of a Wikilink to the article on a historical person who is mentioned in the film, based on a ridiculous assertion that the Minamoto no Raikō who appeared in the film is different from the Minamoto no Raikō of Japanese legend, despite the character's dialogue specifically alluding to said legends in the first person. It is difficult for me to make "substantial edits" to cinema articles when he has been working to undermine most of my edits, however minor. However, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that I was the one who started the articles Twenty-Four Eyes and Ukare Gitsune Senbon Zakura. (I will assume by "cinema" above he means "Japanese cinema" -- Musa (film) and Bichunmoo are just two other articles I started.)

I would like to acknowledge my appreciation for JoshuSasori's removal of the above-mentioned comment and retraction of "insane loon". It was difficult to take the latter as a joke, given the other names. Honestly, though, "orientalist" is far more offensive to me personally, because I majored in Japanese translation in university, I have written critiques of orientalism in general. One of my only four edits in 2010[239] was to alter a slightly POV statement that had previously been biased in favour of the orientalist Arthur Waley. (I am not proud of my pre-revival failure to understand Wikipedia's sourcing rules, but my edit summary provided justification.) "Orientalist", to me and to other scholars, implies a lack of serious acquaintance with the so-called "cultures of the east", and a Poundish dismissal of scholarly research into these areas. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, my above response sounds kind of confrontational. I of course did not mean it that way. If I can take JoshuSasori's above inaccurate representation of history (paragraph 1) as merely the good-faith misunderstanding I initially took it to be,[240][241][242][243][244][245] and his apology for the name-calling (paragraph 2) as an indication that from now on we can work on collaborating on Japanese cinema articles peaceably, I will go back to my initial state of offering peace.[246] JoshuSasori, are we on the same page here? I am willing to believe that JoshuSasori's move of Double Suicide of Sonezaki to an unofficial/inaccurate title was just good-faith ribbing if he accepts that my interest in Japanese cinema is genuine and that I am only WP:HERE to help build Wikipedia. (And that my DVD collection is bigger than his is!フフフ) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found a funny precedent for my being bold in moving articles relating to Japanese cinema.[247] And I think I was probably right, since the move request that later reverted this move neglected whether the film was the primary topic or not. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Elvenscout742. The above is a mere sample of what I have been putting up with, every day, for the last month since he started hounding me. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what?? I just gave you yet another peace offering, despite your continued false assertions that I am the one who is doing the "hounding". elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm missing your point JoshuSasori. You're upset because he used actual diffs to illustrate his point? Please, offer something better than "just look". This thread is about to close with your indef block for the below veiled threat. So I suggest you offer an explanation quick and change your behavior.--v/r - TP 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should note that while this has been going on JoshuSasori has considered making irrelevant, sarcastic arguments against me and referencing my ANI posts on another move request debate where he doesn't have a real argument.[248][249][250] elvenscout742 (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Intimidation attempt

So why hasn't User:JoshuSasori had his ass indefinitely blocked for this rather crude attempt at intimidation? --Calton | Talk 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

What?

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 this user keeps undoing my edits from this user because of sillyness. Carson is a sockpuppet of me and someone else said to blank my talk page so I told Carson and the user undid it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alameda15 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You can blank the talk page of your primary account, but the notice on the sock account will stay unless you can get the admin who posted it King of Hearts (talk · contribs) to agree to remove it. NE Ent 19:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have tagged the user page as a sock and redirected the talk to it. This is the normal method of dealing with sock accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. There's an open, two month old request for closure on that vary topic, in case any admin/senior editor has time on their hands.... NE Ent 20:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by user Flyboyguy

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.

---

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

When challenged about changes made to the article Reichen Lehmkuhl this user has replied with a legal threat, alleging defamation and claiming a relevant power of attorney. William Avery (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed him as the threat was clear. I've also removed the promotional edits added by the editor to the article, which also made the article look like an unholy mess. At the same time, I've severely pruned back the section that I imagine the editor found objectionable. it was miserably written (tabloidy), and almost every source was dead. It was too problematic from a BLP point of view to have all those dead links. The section is now short, neutral, and sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Block review request

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

---

This was my first block in so I'm posting this for review. The Fake ID (talk · contribs) was created seemingly just to review a good article candidate which had previously been reviewed by an involved editor. I have reverted their edits and blocked them. I am open to any administrator undoing my actions if I made a mistake. I have also opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suresh Elangovan. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you inadvertently omit some words above ("my first block in")? In any event, the block and the undoing of the user's edits seem reasonable to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2013? Anyway, the block is fine per usual standard around here which, unfortunately, is often crappy. Why not first ask the user if they're an alternate account first? What's with the FPP on J Milburn's user page? Tacky. NE Ent 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Gee, NE, crappy and tacky in one short response. That's crusty even for you. I see no point in asking The Fake ID who he is. What kind of response would be helpful? It doesn't surprise me that you know more Wikipedia acronyms than I do, so I'll bite: what's FPP? Flying purple pundits?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My first block in a while, I was meaning. FPP? J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good, I'm not the only one.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Free picture promotion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Full page protection, although I don't see that it's related to the block. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had it like that for several years. It's never been mentioned before as I remember, and has never created any issues. Before it was protected, it attracted a lot of vandalism. Is it really a problem? I'm certainly not seeing what's "tacky" about it. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, either. It might be problematic to indefinitely lock your talk page, but generally except for removing vandalism, no one should edit your user page but you. And I agree - tacky is an odd word to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I don't make this stuff up -- FPP is periodically used to stand for full page protection 1 2 3. Thought maybe J Milburn was newly minted mop wielder, went to user page and the first thing that popped was the "view source" in placed of the usual "edit this page." Contrary to the gestalt of wikipedia -- "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia."NE Ent 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not pre-emptive, and my userpage is not an article. I'm not a new admin, I just don't hang around this noticeboard. This thread reminds me why. J Milburn (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that this thread is not giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling? I confess I'm not one of those admins who's smart enough to stay away from here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

JM, would it cheer you a bit if I said that I assumed "FPP" stood for "Frowning Philosopher Picture"?--Shirt58 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they're an editor who doesn't want to be associated with a minor religion in India for some personal real-life issues. How the heck would I know? That's why you ask the question. I thought there was a good faith thing around here somewhere, you know? NE Ent 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all assumptions, including good faith, are reasonable depending on the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the time I've been active on Wikipedia, when it comes to AGF I have observed that you generally tend to reap what you sow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good and obvious block. I've deleted the GA review because not only is it obviously created by a sock of the original GA author (who shouldn't have been reviewing it), but even a cursory examination of the article shows that, generally well-written that it is, it doesn't reach GA yet - there are a number of prose issues. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as an obvious block given what happened. FurrySings (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

topic ban

I was topic banned from the aspartame controversy page about 17 months ago. The first topic ban was for 3 months. I waited 3 months and assumed that when 3 months passed the ban would be lifted. It was but The administrator had the option of reinstating the ban at his whim. I had no chance to even present a case. Consequently when I signed on I was quickly topic banned for 1 year. Now one year has passed and I am allowed back on. My concern is that I am now forever subject to another topic ban on a whim of some administrator with no chance to even present a case. This is not fair. What option do i have? Can I get the original topic ban reversed. Will this stay with me for years?

Also before the original ban I was told by Kingoomieiii that i would not be banned if i was not impolite. i was polite but this advice was wrong. You should not give out false advice. Also before the original ban was in place i tried to change and all the warnings stopped..... or so i thought. In fact they moved to my talk page where i neglected to see them ( yes this was my fault) Arydberg (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Myself and many other editors have explained to you over the last year that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX on which to stand and push an anti aspartame POV. So long as you don't attempt to push a fringe POV on aspartame then you won't get topic banned, but you've made it clear that you believe it is a bad substance and therefore feel the need to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You were not rebanned at an admin's whim, you were rebanned because you continued the behavior that got you banned in the first place; so long as you don't continue your previous behavior then you won't be rebanned, it's really that simple. Sædon^talk 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above, I see no real reason to repeal the topic ban on Aspartame. You clearly don't yet get it. Saedon has condensed the entire situation pretty well. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Saedon; also, don't ignore messages and warnings on your talk page in the future, and it won't seem so surprising if and when you're blocked or banned. KillerChihuahua 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to block MMAbot

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MMABot#MMABot_v3.0_Task_Proposals_and_Notes. If you look through the talk pages of the project, you can see that the MMAproject has serious disagreements on formats and guidelines. At this point there hasn't been compromise or agreement reached by the entire group as how proceed. One of the editors, TreyGeek has has history of trying to impliment his viewpoints by falsely linking guidelines that don't apply, threatening to get editors blocked that refuse to agree to his point of view, and he has even went as far as trying to get admin to step in and make people do things his way. Now he is attempting to circumvent the viewpoints of the entire group by programming a bot to change the articles to match his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history. If you look at the talk page for the bot, I have tried to voice my opinion and he keeps deleting it and saying its his talk page. Well if its his talk page and he is refusing to accept input from anybody who doesn't share an opinion, then it innappropriate for him to be using a bot to change formats to match what he wants. The bot is serving his interests and not the interests of the group, and I respectfully request help from somebody who had the authority to temporary block use of the bot until the group can come to a compromise that is satisfactory to all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is unhappy with the consensus that formed at WT:MMA#Cleaning up the format. TreyGeek posted a notice on the MMA WikiProject talk page about creating a new task for MMAbot regarding table formatting. Trey is simply asking for input from the WikiProject about the task, and so far Ravensfire and I have asked questions about it. Willdawg is attempting to stonewall the discussion, claiming that a compromise is what matters, rather than consensus. Users PoisonWhiskey and SubSeven have asked him why he has a problem with it. He opposes "somebody who has stirred up so much controversy and refuses to compromose being the one to do it". I don't think Willdawg understands that this bot task being discussed is still in it's infancy, and is nowhere close to going live yet. Ishdarian 19:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read consensus, CONSENSUS IS COMPROMISE. You can't seperate the two. You are also wrong about me having an issue with the Conensus. The Conensus was to go to the blue tables, and I have not expressed any issue with what was agreed upon. The admin who closed it out specifically said that the consensus didn't indclude minor changes. I have an issue with the table being too fluffed up and hard to follow, which is why I am suggesting a couple minor changes to make things look better. I am looking for a little diplomacy, I don't object to the major layout, and in exchange, they agree to a couple small, minor edits that would make the table easier to read. This is the problem with the group. There are a few editors who keep refusing to accept opinions and viewpoints that are different than their own and they have to get their way. I'm willing to compromise and drop the issue if they are willing to compromise on a couple really minor edits (The way the columns end up spacing out, the judges scores make the table look better if they are put into the comment section, and 95% of fights that end in KO or TKO end because of strikes, so its redundant and fluffing to add anything behind the TKO unless its something like a physician stoppage or something out of the ordinary). You be the judge. Am I really asking for them to compromise that much? I'm willing to give in to the majority of what they want in a format but they can't budge just a little bit on a couple minor issues. Really? What they are doing isn't consistant with a CONSENSUS. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor issues? may i remind you why the discussions about the format began? (tip: Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven and [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259]) Poison Whiskey 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who are new in this drama, just take a look at the section "Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus" above. Poison Whiskey 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know that section is going to show exactly what I'm saying, that there are a couple editors who are trying to use admin to circumvent the COMPROMISE portion of CONSENSUS and have tried everything including trying to get admin to tell me and other editors that we have to bow down to their viewpoint and to stop requesting that the project be a group effort. Take a look, it appears you have a case of the IDIDNTHEARTHAT that you like to point out. Weren't you told that I was following the rules and there wasn't any action to be taken in that complaint. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from someone involved. The discussion Willdawg is referring to is for a proposed task for MMABot, reformatting result tables in MMA events (where possible) to use the consensus format. The bot does not do this right now and probably won't for at least a week, probably several weeks. There's a discussion on the WT:MMA page about the proposed change where he's already posted. Leaving essentially the same comment on the MMABot talk page doesn't help and could fragment the discussion. I think he's mistaken in his comments and aggressively pushing back on attempts to use the new event result layout. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I want is for everybody's opinion to be taken into consideration and for everybody to compromise on issues. Remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a couple editors are trying to force the rest of us down, then yes, I will push back, but the difference is I am only pushing back to the point where all the editors are equal and can have their viewpoints treated equally. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Beyond My Ken, I have restored Willdawg's messages on MMABot's talk page. Willdawg has raised no specific complaints other than I shouldn't be operating MMABot. I don't know how to respond to that kind of complain other than to say I have the support of a number of people in the MMA WikiProject to operate this bot and its tasks for v1 and v2 have been approved by the WP:BAG. I am open to suggestions or guidance in regards to this issue. I've been asking at ANI for two days now at this thread for guidance as to how to deal with Willdawg and I have been ignored. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Right. It really is time to start enforcing the discretionary sanctions here. If no uninvolved admin objects, I'll be topic-banning Willdawg111 for a couple of months, shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Crazy idea, since I'm one of the people with a headache from interacting with WillDawg. They're a relatively new editor that does some good work but I don't think they've got a good understanding of policy and their interaction style is causing problems. Rather than a total topic ban, perhaps a restriction for MMA related areas to edit only articles and article talk pages but may not change any existing format in the article nor revert format changes that others make, maybe for a month or two. After that, restrictions are lifted but they're on an interaction probation to force them to be more congenial in how they interact with others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a chance of him becoming a solid editor but a topic ban would probably chase him away or, when it's over, result in a backlash where he gets blocked. A wake-up call might work here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a revert restriction is going to work. As evidenced at the MMA wikiproject talk page WT:MMA, other editors have observed that Willdawg111's behavior is not only restricted to article space format changes. Personal attacks have been called out, snide remarks are ignored, and objection to any sort of forward movement (because a Bot is operated by someone on the other side of the MMA debate) indicates that they are engaging in a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and therefore their actions (including this thread) show that it may be wise to cut our losses with this editor. Hasteur (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping that there's a good editor in there that's fallen in line with some of the ugliness that's in MMA. With the right shock (from some admin he doesn't know and who's never stepped foot in the MMA area), it might be enough. Right now the pain is from his behavior on WT:MMA and refusal to accept the formatting consensus. Okay, end his ability to do that while still letting him work on MMA articles. If that fails, he gets the hammer. Ravensfire (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for sanctions to be applied now, but I'd like to note that Willdawg111 has not yet had the MMA riot act read over them. They've been "suggested" at a couple of times, but no official delivery of warning yet. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, more MMA drama? It's time to put a stop to this. It's bad enough they've driven Mtking away. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great news! Evenfiel (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disgusting. RNealK (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban This situation is really annoying. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Okay, I've topic-banned Willdawg for three months. I don't think the lack of a more formal warning should be really an issue here, because throughout this whole thread and the preceding one, discretionary sanctions had been mentioned multiple times, as had the idea that Willdawg had deserved a block already for his behaviour a couple of days ago; it must have been clear to every participant in this discussion that such sanctions were on the table. I have also blocked Evenfiel for 48 hours for the nasty personal attack just above here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dang. That seems a little harsh. I could see a month, but 3? Sure, I haven't been following most of this. But in the interactions I have been involved with that feature Wilddawg I don't recall him making snide or less than subtle insults. He just seemed like a genuinely good intentioned editor who was being stymied (along with myself) by an incredibly small group of people. A vocal minority if you will. The ANI is the last stop when people are unable to see (in our view) reason. Or at least be open to consensus, which wilddawg pointed out was not being followed because these folks would not allow for any compromise to be made. This is all compounded by the fact that mma is a relatively small topic, and the ones who are here but not participating have probably been driven off by the same person who outed me. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wilddawg's frank admission that he will not accept a consensus that does not incorporate a "compromise" towards his viewpoint is evidence enough, even in isolation, that his continued involvement is disruptive. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• He has already been banned. No need to grave dance. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if that's the way it came across; I had no intention of "grave dancing". I was simply indicating to FPaS that I supported his actions (it is not uncommon for admins to comment on each other's actions at ANI). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this too, reluctantly, since I think that Willdawg has good intentions but a lack of knowledge, or a lack of interest in knowledge, about how Wikipedia should work. Besides, I urge Portland to stop making these claims of conspiracy theories. I suppose Portland is making reference to JohnnyBones or whatever the hell is name was, with the suggestion that the editors who are commenting on this and other threads are somehow swayed by that now-blocked editor and the ones who aren't are driven away by Johnny. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Moreover, both Willdawg and Portland repeatedly accuse "the rest" of the editors of unwillingness to compromise; I see no evidence of that either, and it is time to put a stop to the "consensus=compromise" fallacy. Consensus does not necessarily entail compromise. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  In response to you claim about "no evidence", this is because I don't like to spend my free time digging around for an "AHA!" quote. Even if I did, you would just repeat what you already said. In response to your last sentence: But it could, and it's a shame that they won't because If I had the nerve to resort to sockpuppetry there wouldn't be a need for compromise. Maybe that is where this JBJ character comes from in the first place. Either way, the mma project is just that, a project in the same vein as those in Chicago.

edit: This is also not about me, as I did not participate in the majority of these issues such as formatting( I think I said I liked elements of both and left it at that), nor did I follow the mmabot conversation. But in the arguments I have had with the others regarding The Ultimate Fighter, and the whole tier system all there appears to be blocking me is a massive stonewall. This is how teenagers compromise. I also liken mmaprojects version of consensus to "America; love it or leave it!" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Kyntale

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:Kyntale has violated 3RR here. An admin please step in and take the necessary action. The content he's added wreaks of COI from a non notable magazine and affects article neutrality and undue.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ernst, it's been reverted again. But there was nothing on the editor's talk page until you posted there: if any of the reverters had left a 3R warning, I could easily have blocked for the next time they reverted. I've warned them, and no doubt they'll be blocked if there is a next time. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

He's reverted 9 times!!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, was getting fed up with reverting him.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

IP following me and possibly threating

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: Offending editor blocked. m.o.p 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of his edits [260]. He probably left the message at my talk page, like he is anonmymus and he doesn't forget. What can be done about this IP? And please, check if this user has any connection to User:San culottes, as his sock puppets often made similiar edits concerning me only. --Wüstenfuchs 19:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a clear violation of the wikihounding policy due to edit warring and personal attacks and I think that the IP should be blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). m.o.p 20:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Ihardlythinkso's disruptive conduct

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.

---

Ihardlythinkso is calling my edits as "close to vandalism" and "baiting"!! please see this diff. All that I did replace - (hyphen) with N/A (Not available) to this section of Chess960 article. Is this not a personal attack?! Ihardlythinkso says in edit summary that "lost AGF with you". (Please take a look at history if you want evidence). When did I do any bad faith edit? All that I did was an effort to improve articles that need improvement. Ihardlythinkso calls me as intentionally dense and enjoys pissing other editors!! I just tried to clarify the article. The editor also describes my edits as unnecessary edits. Forgot to put name 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to feel WP:BRD and collaborative discussion, when there is disagreement about change, doesn't apply to him. [261]. It's been near impossible to get him to article Talk, he prefers to force his changes, he'd rather revert-war. On the current change disagreement, I opened a discussion at his User talk, which he totally ignored. Excuse me, but I thought this was a collaborative project where discussion is entered into when there is disagreement over a change. User:Forgot to put name knows when there is disagreement, but prefers his steamroller rather than any discussion or collaboration. Yes, I've lost patience with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the discussion that you opened at my talk page. I pointed you the meaning of N/A at Wiktionary and then made the change. You tell that the meaning of N/A is "ambiguous" since it has nearly six definitions. OK, let's write the meaning of N/A at the end of the table. Is it OK now?? Or let's convert the hyphen into em dash for clarity (—). Let's stop the "revert-war" here. I'm suggesting use of em dash because hyphen is used only for connecting two words. But I think N/A is more appropriate here because readers are likely to get confused. I would like to tell why I didn't come to article talk page. I didn't come to article talk page because it's nearly impossible to establish consensus on talk page. (Almost noone is watching the page). And to establish consensus more than 2 people should be there in discussion. The talk page is not well patrolled too. That's why I didn't go to the talk. I admit that I edit-warred a little bit, but I never talked impolitely (which Ihardlythinkso did). Forgot to put name 09:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot to put name, you ignored the fact I had clear disagreement with your change at your User talk, and your response there even lead me to believe you accepted & agreed with my objections. Then, w/o having engaged in any discussion points, you went back to the article and reverted twice, leaving somewhat belligerent edit summaries. Now you are trying to conduct content discussion *here* with me, for the first time at any location, at an ANI you opened for my blood! This is not the place for content discussions. (But apparently you think it's a good time/place, now that at ANI, the "blocking gun" is placed to my head!?!?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot to put name, you admit to edit warring, you admit to disfavor discussion at article Talk, and you admit to awareness of WP:BRD, but prefer to ignore it. But you object to impoliteness in the face of all this, and bay for my blood at ANI, which is supposed to be a last-resort mechanism. And you misuse it further, by trying to carry on content discussion here when you think I'm under a gun. Please take a hard look at your own Wiki-conduct first, before complaining about others'. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You two: We've had templates for marking table cells, for some time, now. There's a whole list of them at Template:No/doc#Templates in this series, and they let editors and readers distinguish between cells that haven't been filled in yet and cells that are intentionally empty. Use {{n/a}} for inapplicable cells and {{dunno}} for unknown data. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx for pointing out. (I was looking for conventions re empty cells, but couldn't find anything in HELP:TABLES or MOS.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle G for the suggestions! Forgot to put name 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• It would be desirable for Ihardlythinkso to use calmer language—there are ways of expressing an opinion in a more subtle manner, and apart from being nice, that avoids distractions from the underlying topic when people inevitably complain about a WP:CIVIL violation. However I happened to notice this edit by FTPN at WP:VAND. I reverted the change since the original was obviously correct (and the change made no sense), but FTPN restored the edit before asking exactly what the problem was. I don't feel like taking the time to work out the rights/wrongs at Chess960, but if similar issues are occurring at that article, I can understand Ihardlythinkso's concern. Also, raising an ANI report over this incident is not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thx for your comments. I know I lost some cool. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments! @Ihardlythinkso, I was not discussing about content, I was discussing about your conduct towards me (See header of this thread). Forgot to put name 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about?? (Read what you wrote. You attempted to conduct content discussion with me here, at ANI, after baying for my blood. I do not know why you have such a problem with facts that are right in front of you. Also your just-now edit sums, "please don't violate the civility policy again", are hypocritical: you ignore your own incivilities, namely edit-warring, distain for WP:BRD, and informing everyone you have no use for the article Talk. You also leave belligerent edit sums. Do you care to point more fingers at who is uncivil?? You can get off my back now, yes?? Because it's gotten downright creepy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I have no use at article talk. But I have explained why it's so. I never lost my cool as you did. Let's end the lengthy discussion here. Compromise? Forgot to put name 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
          • You have already been told that opening of the ANI was inappropriate. So you have no basis for continuing to levy accusation against me as you did in your recent edit-summaries here. You claim upfront you have "no use for article Talk", as though it is some sort of virtue, even though it flies in the face of fundamental WP principles re collaboration between editors, and WP content dispute resolutin policy & guidelines. So on what basis do I "compromise" with you?? (Your behavior is rather "uncompromising" -- wouldn't you say?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Using article talk for content disputes isn't really optional -- you're required to use it if there are disputes. NE Ent 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To Admins: How am I supposed to work collaboratively with this editor, when he has no problem admitting he doesn't plan on using article Talk for content resolution discussion?? I'm all ears. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By not working mano-a-mano for months with a new editor until you lose your cool. Wikipedia is a numbers games (e.g. consensus). At some point when you recognize you're just not going to agree it's time to get help (e.g. WP:3RD, WP:DRN,WikiProject Chess. Also, article talk is way better than user talk for content discussions. NE Ent 13:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm all confused. Don't know what to do now. This has received 3 third-party comments and they have said that you are rude towards me. (Aren't you?) They tell that they have no time to examine whether my edits are problematic or no. Whatever be the condition, you mustn't lose your cool. (As you said another: "uncompromising", but my edits were not so problematic that it's uncompromising, actually your behavior towards me is very rude). If you say so much that my behavior is problematic, then why don't you see WP:3O? Already received a third opinion that we should use the {{n/a}} or {{dunno}} templates. Because I am little bit new at WP, I may have misused this noticeboard. If you feel that my behavior is little bit problematic, then you are free to educate me (Educate me if you want to do so). You are telling to admins that how to work collaboratively with me, then work collaboratively with me by compromising and using the templates mentioned above. If consensus supports you, then I will agree that I'm uncivil and a problematic editor. Forgot to put name 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Forgot, you've been told that using article Talk is not optional. You've been told the ANI thread was inappropriate. You admit edit-warring, but will you continue in that vein? (Revert-warring is inherently incivil.) "Consensus" isn't needed to see the behaviors problematic. No one is turning the ANI around on you. IMO you need to work on more ability engaging discussion, taking a view & convincing the others, listening to their side too & remaining objective. And I have my own things I need to improve as well. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, much of this seems to stem from Forgot's poor understanding of WP Policies and Guidelines. The rest is largely attributable to Ihardlythinkso's inexplicable and combative incivility. The content matter has been resolved, so all that remains is to correct behavior. To Forgot, I would say that while WP:BRD is not a policy or guideline, it is widely regarded as best practice. You might also want to read up on WP:EW, as simply reverting and re-reverting will never get you anywhere. In addition, please remember that discussion is extremely important when there is a content dispute such as this one, so if your edits are reverted, go to the talk page and talk about it. To Ihardlythinkso, please refresh your memory on WP:CIVILITY, because making unconstructive edits in good faith is not incivil. Commenting on editors instead of their edits is incivil. When another editor makes a mistake, your attitude should be trying to help them learn, not beating them down and making accusations. Helping them to become a better editor is worth a lot more to the project than even reverting their bad edits. If Given that you're here to build an encyclopedia, I hope you'll respect that more in the future. —Rutebega (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rutebega for the advice! Forgot to put name 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would add a couple of comments to Rutebega's advice. First, both parties were edit-warring, not just Forgot. Second, Ihardlythinkso is under no obligation to help other editors, but if he elects to interpose himself in the dispute, he must behave appropriately. Many of his comments on Forgot's talk page and here have not been constructive. I'm closing this now as I don't see anything more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to User:Rutebega

User:Rutebega, "inexplicable incivility"??? I've got an explanation for you: after trying repeatedly to discuss and work things out with the user, his crass response in reverting without consensus, and leaving belligerent edit summaries, broke down my patience. And that is because I am a human, with limited patience, and not a machine or a god, with infinite patience. (Does that help you now, because I'd hate for things to seem "inexplicable" to you.) Secondly, you seem to think that I said or believe that "making unconstructive edits in good faith" is incivil. (Where did you get that idea?? What did I say to lead you to that conclusion?? Do I have to repeat here what I called incivil from User:Forget, or, can you spare me that and go re-read what I wrote??) "Commenting on editors instead fo their edits is incivil." I already knew that. Your reminder is in no way helpful (but of course, it perhaps makes you, as 1+ years editor, feel better to lecture and treat other editors as naughty children!?) "When another editor makes a mistake, your attitude should be [...]". Well Rutebetga, there are behaviors to look at too, it is the behaviors that were attached to the mistakes, like belligerent edit sums and in-your-face reverts without discussion, that broke my patience, not any good-faith edits of themselves. The attitudes that User:Forgot displayed, with his distain for WP:BRD and article Talk, are intentional, choices deliberately made. They are not "innocent mistakes" made out of some knowledge I can offer to correct. (For example, in earlier contact with this editor at the article, when I pointed out WP:BRD to him, he asserted it was an essay, not policy, and therefore he could ignore it. Even in this ANI thread he has taken the position of "justifying" no use of article Talk. Did he say that he learned anything about this? That he should correct that? Where? Did I miss it?) "If you're here to build an encyclopedia, I hope you'll respect that more in the future." That is pretty insulting, Rutebega! To accuse me of "not having respect", when it was a simple case of my patience wearing thin and then breaking, because I am human and not a machine, after trying to work and collaborate with this bullying user, over time at that article. (And if you like to tell someone they should "show more respect", wouldn't User:Forgot be a good candidate for those messages, seeing that he feels emboldened here to unrepentingly explain why he doesn't believe in using article Talk or WP:BRD?? Is that being "respectful" to "bulding an encyclopedia"?? You haven't accused User:Forgot of showing disrespect, even though he's aware of the policies but chooses to ignore them, yet you accuse me for showing disrespect, and having a bad attitude, toward encyclopedia-building, when it was a simple case of my patience breaking down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to prevent you from posting to a closed discussion, not only as a matter of procedural principle, but partly because I felt that any continuation of this discussion would be unproductive and actually be to your detriment. Your multi-pronged attack (really more like a rant) is a confirmation of my view. My suggestion to Rutebega, whose advice I thought was even-handed and temperate, is not to respond, but that, of course is up to them. I will leave this "new" discussion open for a bit in the unlikely event that it becomes helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, I can see that you are taking an antagonistic view of this, since this seems to be your response to my good-faith Qs at your User talk, which you ignored. To characterize my responses to User:Rutebega's comments as, I guess, part of a "multi-pronged attack", is a wholescale mischaracterization, false and untrue. It is an aggressive accusation. The fact you have opinion his comments were "even-handed and temperate" is your opinion. I agree that some of his comments were as you described, but some weren't. I responded to those I objected to. The fact you don't like my response, does not give you the right to mischaracterize them as "attacks". User:Rutegega chose to come to this ANI, his is not an Administrator. In my view you should have closed this ANI earlier, since all issues were already efficiently handled by the two Administrators responding. The fact the ANI was left open and User:Rutebega decided to come voluntarily here and leave comments is not my responsibility, and I am entitled to my own opinion on the quailty of some of his comments when they relate to my character as editor. Let me remind you that it was not my idea to be at ANI at all, the responding Administrator felt the opening of it was inappropriate. Why wasn't it closed then? The fact this is a public board and comments were continued to be directed at me by User:Forgot and User:Rutebega, is not of my doing, not my choice, nothing I asked for, and nothing I deserved. So there will be responses. I'm aware the comments here are public view and are retained forever, and I endeavor to be limited and careful with my own. But I'm not particularly happy with the constant burden of having to leave defensive comments, when I never asked to be at this inappropriate ANI, and never solicited the followup comments from User:Forget and User:Rutebega. So stop blaming me for that, and stop calling my responses to unsolicited comments a "rant" and "attack". The commentary and irresponsible culture at ANI was established long before I came on board as WP editor, and I am not responsible for it; neither do I participate in it. As a result you will never see me open an ANI, and, I don't much like being here to defend myself from condescending comments either, in this public forum. The fact I have to be here defending against unfair comments is total disruption to my time as editor here, if you want to know a good defiition of disruption. I could have been working on articles, instead, I've been here nearly one day, defending myself from unsolicited, unfair comments on a public board where comments are kept ... forever. A fine day. And a total waste of my time. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with some basics. Which editors involved here are not trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? Ø
Which editors are trying? Bbb23, Forgot to put name, Ihardlythinkso, Johnuniq, Rutebega, Uncle G listed alphabetically
Unfortunately ANI has been convoluted since the well meaning but boneheaded Wikiquette Assistance shutdown, 'cause now it's a mix of actual incidents requiring admin permissions to address and good faith editors who could use some help getting along. This thread could've / would've / should've been over after Johnuniq's well thought out comment and Ihtso's admission they "lost some cool". Unfortunately the thread continued and things ramped up again. Rutebega's comment, while obviously made in good faith, was problematic in that it lacked finesse -- it was decent through "Commenting on editors instead of their edits is incivil. " but phrases like "beating them down" are escalatory rather than deescalatory, and "If you're here to build an encyclopedia," is horribly offensive bad faith. 14000 mainspace edits, 67% article -- is there any possible question this is an encyclopedia builder??
So if an editor who hasn't participated could be so kind as to close this no harm, no foul? NE Ent 23:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araksi Cetinyan

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:Sue Rangell, known for a history of disputed AfD closures (she got warnings by about a dozen of users though never conceded) closed this highly contested AfD as keep. I request an uninvolved administrator to reopen the discussion since here an administrator closure is required. The user will be now notified.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion belongs in DRV. It looked pretty straightforward to me. With only a single !vote to delete (by an IP account), and five !votes to keep (by well established editors citing Wikipedia policy), I wouldn't call it "highly contested". I get a lot of negativity for closing discussions because I am not an admin, but if you look through my closes, generally the disputed ones are followed up by an admin who closes it the same way, or otherwise says I did nothing wrong. I have been on Wikipedia a very long time, and I am trusted with permissions that some admins do not have. I think I can be trusted to close a few discussions, especially ones as obvious as this. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, in contrast to your opinion, mine is that you should be topic-banned from AfD despite your advanced permissions. In this particular discussion, there are at least two users proposing merge and redirect. The result could be merge, or no consensus. If the result is keep, it should be at least justified which you as usual failed to do. I could easily find couple of dozen of examples of your doubtful AfD closures, and there are many in the history of your talk page, but just to save space this is another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan (note that I was not involved).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Your explanation concerns me somewhat. It certainly implies that you just counted votes. You made no reference above that implies that you looked at E4024's arguments. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr Vesey, I hope there was nothing wrong in my arguments... --E4024 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, E4024, I thought you made powerful arguments. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty apparent that the closer here just doesn't get that they should not be closing AfD's like this, despite a page full of advice to the contrary. I agree that a topic ban on closing AfD's is appropriate here. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• If it's deletion review you're looking for, please take this case to DRV.
• If it's a topic ban you're looking for, make a clear-cut case (with plenty of citations) for why you feel the editor in question should face restrictions.

Neither of those discussions belong on ANI; please take the former to DRV and the latter to AN, if you're so inclined. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Feel free to re-open said issues in the appropriate channels. m.o.p 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wasn't clear keep, reverted closure -- let an admin do it. NE Ent 21:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong OBJECTION - Non admins reverting a close is illegal under WP:NACD. The proper way to dispute a close is via WP:DRV --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Boston Legal; STRONG OBJECTION isn't helpful (caps generally aren't) and we don't have laws. In any case, I have (as an admin) re-opened the discussion. Ironholds (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but the reversion was vandalism under WP:NACD. Which reads: "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is not "anything that doesn't follow an ambiguously written policy"; "can be reopened by any administrator" != "no non-administrator can re-open it". Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oliver. Indeed, thankfully we are not in a courtroom --Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think it would be very dangerous to apply that to other guidlines where Administrators are given responsibilities. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, the core problem here is not whether we apply it to other guidelines but simply that you don't seem to understand what is and is not vandalism. With that in mind I'm removing your rollback tools. You may re-apply for them at any time. Ironholds (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:NAC is very simple: non-admins close only very uncontentious deletion debates. If you feel you need to post something like this to explain your close, then it probably isn't something you should do a non-admin closure on. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sue, the bottom line is that our policies give administrators discretion in closing XfDs that the policies don't give to non-admins. This is because non-admins have not been community-vetted as far as their abilities to do things like close discussions, and therefore policy lets them close only uncontentious discussions. If you feel that you're particularly competent at closing discussions, the proper thing to do is start an RFA so you can prove it to the community's satisfaction, not do continual end-runs around policy because you're personally 100% sure you're right. I usually think I'm right, too - and that's less because I always am than because, you know, I live in my head, so I tend to agree with things that come out of my head. Having been here a long time gives you no precedence over anyone else, and I would suggest you focus more on whether your choices match those the community wish non-admins to make than on whether you're more or less special, experienced, or powerful than someone else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• I will not re-apply for my rollback priveleges. Wikipedia will have to do without my anti-vandalism work...and I am through with this discussion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quick note, to settle a part of this -- NE Ent's reversal of Sue's NAC of the AfD in question had been opposed because he's not admin; I support the reversal of the close and would've done the same. I'm not voicing an opinion on how it should be closed, merely that it is a not a clear-cut case that would be eligible for a NAC. Salvidrim! ✉ 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

However, I strongly believe Sue is trying to help and will happily trout anyone who claims she's acting in bad faith. The only thing you can blame her for is trying to help too much. I strongly hope Sue will continue striving to help clerking AfDs, and I believe a topic ban is premature -- has anyone offered help or mentorship, first? Salvidrim! ✉ 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggested she's acting in bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas

Note: Please compare the closed and collapsed thread "Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"" above, which was started by User:Deicas. It is highly relevant to this request. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC).

He has been here twice, and both times told that admins are not going to intervene in a content dispute. He has a a whole section on Talk:Paul Krugman devoted to uninvolved admins telling him that his arguments are not holding up. He has been told over and over about to cease his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetitions of his oft-rejected arguments. So what does he do now? He posts yet another point-by-point argument for inclusion of material that half a dozen people have already said is inappropriate because it's an off-hand remark taken out of context. Nobody should have to put up with this; I haven't measured it because nobody should have to work that hard, but I would guess that half if not more of the discussion on this article is devoted to his obstinate refusal to accept that everyone rejects his arguments. We could make progress in improving what is a pretty badly broken article if we didn't have to deal with (a) his bone-headed refusal to admit that his arguments are not being accepted, and that in fact people have specific (and in my opinion utterly valid) counter-arguments which he needs to address instead of brushing off, and (b) his propensity to fill the page with line after line of pseudo-logical bloviating which turn what should be one sentence (or at least short paragraph) responses into huge tracts of badly-formatted text which defies reading. I would take this through RFC/U were it not for the agony that would put us all through of having to repeat every last rambling word of this, poring over every bad argument at least one if not ten times; this has been hammered on so much that I don't see why we have to be tormented so. Please tell him he has to edit something else and leave at least this article alone. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet ready to support that proposition, although I am very sympathetic to the frustration. I wish there was some way to get through, because facts, polices, guidelines, analogies, rational arguments, and other approaches have failed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to hurry off somewhere, so I don't have time for a detailed response. But I've looked over the talk page, and don't think the behavior yet justifies a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• How successful was your WP:RFC/U? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• "I would take this through RFC/U were it not for the agony that would put us all through of having to repeat every last rambling word of this". Right there. just above these lines. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In reply to User:Mangoe's request that I be topic-banned from Paul Krugman I respond:

In the course of contentious discussion at, and associated with, Talk:Paul Krugman I have observed a number of editors engaging in:

1) Extensive violations of WP:TEDIOUS, notably

"One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" and;

2) Extensive violations of WP:GOODFAITH.

If anyone wants to see examples of these acts of WP:TEDIOUS and WP:GOODFAITH violations then ask and I will provide them below.

In response to this use of WP:TEDIOUS and violations of WP:GOODFAITH, and in the apparent absence of any other way to respond, I have engaged in close and careful logical argumentation with a view toward reasoning out the issue(s) in dispute. This "reasoning out" effort is *entirely* consistent with the best Wikipedia standards. If someone disputes my claim of "*entirely* consistent" I encourage them to do so.

If there are disinterested observers who believe that User:Mangoe's request, "PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas", on it's face, possesses *any* merit then please say so and I will address the accusations in detail. If there is a particular claim in User:Mangoe's request (e.g. "pseudo-logical bloviating", "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" "obstinate refusal", "bone-headed", "badly-formatted text", "uninvolved admins telling him that his arguments are not holding up", "bad argument" ) that you would like me to address then please mention that portion. Deicas (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that Deicas wants "logical argumentation" and "reasoning out" - which are good things of course - but to him these basically mean "badgering people until they agree or give up". Deicas seems to confuse "using logic and reason" with "agree with me!". A logical and rational person is, by definition, open to persuasion. Here what we have is more of a rhetorical tactic which seeks to mimic logic and rational argument to win a dispute in favor of an already arrived at conclusion. I believe that kind of behavior is called "sophistry".

Basically what happens is that someone says "X is Y". Then Deicas says "can you please provide evidence that X is Y". Ok, fair enough, here's the evidence. Then Deicas responds with "can you please provide evidence that your evidence shows that X is Y". Huh? What? Ok, let's try that. Here's evidence that the evidence provided is evidence. Then you get "can you please provide evidence that the evidence you provided to show that the evidence showing X is Y is valid?" etc.

Or someone says "Wikipedia policy says Z". Deicas says "can you please show the Wikipedia policy which says Z". Sure, here it is. "Can you please give a link to a policy which says that the policy you quoted is applicable". Etc. etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure Deicas would respond to my above characterization of his attitude with a "can you please provide evidence where I have done that". Well, the talk page of the article on Paul Krugman for one. But of course it's somewhat of an exaggeration, meant to illustrate the point (another rhetorical trick - to take what someone says ultra-literally). But the point is valid.

I guess it's possible that Deicas is acting in good faith and that he sincerely believes he is the only "rational and logical" person around on this article. Still, for all practical purposes, this is nothing but obstinacy and tendentiousness which is essentially indistinguishable from straight up bad faithed POV-pushing and "defending the truth". Both phenomenon - whether done in good faith or not - suffer from a good dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE, which is the essence of the problem here. And apparently, Deicas has been at it for two years [262] (albeit, I think, with a break), which has been noted by several commentators on the talk page.

Topic ban from Paul Krugman would be justifiable though honestly, I expect he'll just pick another article to do the same thing on. That's sort of the problem with people who are convinced that they are the only "rational and logical" ones around.Volunteer Marek 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is insisted that we put this through WP:RFC/U I will bow to that insistence, but I really am more inclined to let Deicas have his way on the article than make it three times in three months. We'll just repeat everything we've done here and on the talk page, and my stamina is not limitless. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the point of wearing down the opposition, everyone gives up and leaves allowing whatever changes one wishes to go forward. Insomesia (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An RFC would be pointless bureaucracy in this case, as there's already plenty of evidence regarding behavior and plenty of feedback on same. Just take a quick skim of

• The article talk page in question, particularly this part
• This trainwreck of a Dispute Resolution attempt
• This ANI thread
• This follow-up when Deicas didn't get his way on the original thread
• This bit of forum-shopping.

So, is further bureaucracy needed? --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas topic ban proposal

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

---

This proposal is to ban the editor from the Paul Krugman article and related subjects broadly construed.

The user Deicas has become an SPA account since January of 2011 [263] (accounting to more than half of this editor's contributions). The editor has become extremely disruptive on a number of venues (including this one) and has a number of issues including WP:ICANTHEARYOU where he has been advised a number of times on policy, procedure and guidelines, but refuses to "get the point". The user has been edit warring and disrupting the Krugman article to such a point that the article has been locked until January 20. A recent AN/I was hatted by Admin User:Jayron32 with the heading "OP has been advised on how to proceed". Unfortunately, that does not mean the editor has or ever will take the advice. The editor does not lack the ability to communicate, but refuses to do so in an informal manner and continues Wikilawyering at almost every turn, making it nearly impossible to understand the basic question or concern, which appears to be purposely devised.

Support as proposer.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Amadscientist. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I am having a very hard time seeing what benefit Deicas could be to Paul Krugman specifically and Wikipedia in general. Deicas insists that editors opposing Deicas' suggested changes are making "no rational argumentation". What's really happening is that editors are making normal informal but logical arguments in supporting or objecting to suggested changes. Deicas does the exact opposite of both of those things: Deicas makes illogical arguments but with a highly "formal logic"-sounding format and in legalese. Additionally, Deicas insists that other editors conform to Deicas' own pseudo-formal logic format while totally overlooking the easily accessible points in the straightforward, plain-language arguments others make. And, when other editors refuse, as it's unreasonable of Deicas to require other editors to reformat and restate and reformat and restate their points to Decias' satisfaction, Deicas simply declares whatever the other editors wrote to be invalid, restates Decias' own position, and declares that Deicas' position is therefore "The Consensus". This one of the worst cases of WP:SOUP I've run across in a while. Zad68 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above which I think echos Zad68's pretty closely (and that WP:SOUP essay - man, I wish I've been aware of this earlier).Volunteer Marek 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my examination of D's contribs during the previous thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, this bullshit has gone on long enough. What's the over/under on him being indeffed?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  05:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- we've had far too much disruption on Krugman from Deicas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I've been wondering how long the others at Talk:Paul_Krugman were going to put up with his disruptive nonsense. I've noticed at least two other editors giving him advice and guidance, only to become discouraged and frustrated (as we all are) by his puzzling comments -- which seem to be a nearly laughable form of wiki-lawyering. He does not appear to know the meaning of collaboration, he takes disagreement personally (and annoyingly asks everyone to strike comments he doesn't like), and I believe that he's violated wp:canvassing more than once. Also I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that in those two years absent from editing (Jan. '11 to Jan.'13), he was using a different account. El duderino ^(abides) 07:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support following the reasoning of the proposer and the supporters. Alternate solution: restrict Deicas to fifteen words or less comments at Paul Krugman and related topics.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as someone who would like the talk page to contribute to making the article better, instead of endless arguments about the same things over and over again. FurrySings (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - xe may be annoying and in the minority, but that's no reason for a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, classic wikilawyering and attempting to get one's way by argumentum ad nauseam goes far beyond "annoying", Nathan. It hugely wastes the time and energies of good-faith contributors who could be doing something useful. I support the topic ban, but I actually think it's a mild measure here. I could see an indefblock, per Little green rosetta. Thanks for reminding me of the WP:SOUP essay, Zad; that's exactly what this is a bad case of. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

Indef would be fine with me. I think topic bans are useful in a very narrow range of situations, of which this is not one. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, blocks require admin intervention and, as yet, they do not feel such action is needed. A topic ban (here) is a community sanction when an editor is disruptive in a specific area but may yet be able to contribute positively elsewhere. I don't think a block is needed right now, but may be in the near future if the editor cannot contribute in a constructive manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, broadly construed, this is not opposition to the editor themselves but in the way they have conducted themselves rendering all discussions hopeless. We are here to build content collaboratively not to engage in endless discussions and wikilawyer each other. No one has rejected reasonable points of discussion, in fact, they have been repeatedly addressed. That the editor is defending problematic edits to a BLP bringing Wikipedia's credibility into question needs to be taken seriously. Insomesia (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It a classic example of polite tendentiousness. I'm not sure if Deicas realises it, but he's wasting a lot of people's time. LK (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

RFC/U

Given that there was at least one call for it, I have prepared Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deicas should people feel it a necessary prelude to action. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't necessary, enough ink has been spilt. Look at the support for the proposal above. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

User:Dunkmack9 on a fringe theory tear

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.

---

Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been a problem for a while now and I'm surprised he hasn't come up earlier. He has a long history of inserting material that is unsourced, or is personal opinion and analysis, or which comes from well-known fringe sources which are rejected by the mainstream. For example, he has done a lot of editing of Rudolf Hess, partly inserting his own analysis, sometimes pushing the theory that the Hess at the Nuremberg trials was an imposter substituted by the allies. Pretty much everything he adds eventually gets rolled back. He marks every edit as minor (with occasional lapses), even though most of his additions are hundreds to thousands of characters long. He is not particularly communicative, and there are several attempts recorded on his talk page to dissuade him from his campaign of fringey editing, to which he hasn't replied. He has become particularly active of late. I don't know that a short-term block would get through to him but it would be nice not to have to revert everything he does. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, has already been given multiple warnings by Dianna NE Ent 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion from what I saw on the Hess article is that he's more interested in inserting a fringe conspiracy theory into the article than undertaking actual improvements to the page. He wants to contribute, but I am concerned, because he seems unable to identify and make use of reliable sources, choosing only the material that's the most far-fetched, and in Hess's case, most certainly incorrect. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If he had persisted in editing the Hess article in spite of the warnings, he might have been blocked at that point. But because he moved on elsewhere, he was not. But being disruptive over a number of articles rather than persisting in the one place is just as disruptive, maybe even more so, and it has allowed him to fly under the radar for some time. I'm not convinced it's severe enough to warrant a block at this point, but adding opinions (Diff of Rudolf Hess; note especially the very last sentence) and editorialising about the quality of the articles in the articles themselves certainly has to stop. I welcome him to this discussion and hope he is prepared to improve his editing skills. -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He has moved on to the Day of Deceit article from the Hess article, but the editing pattern has remained; should he further ignore the warnings given, from this point forward, I would say a block is in order. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's where he came onto my radar. Stennett's fringe theory book is an SPA magnet and has to be watched assiduously. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

...And he's just POV'd it again, adding positive reviews out of balance with the severely negative scholarly reception. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone uninvolved could assess whether the current problems warrant a block, that would be best. I feel I am involved, as the Hess article is my new project. My opinion as an involved editor is that the current behaviour warrants at least a temporary block to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. -- Dianna (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm uninvolved(I've also removed his conspiracy edits on Hess and other articles), but the user seems agenda driven, combative and unable to edit in a reasonable manner. I don't believe this editor is any benefit to the project. Dave Dial (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Binksternet needs to call 911 right away as he has obviously lost his mind is a pretty clear personal attack: Can an uninvolved admin please block? -- Dianna (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All right. I am not involved, but I have asked Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, about this matter here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block, with no objection if anyone wants to try negotiation. My guess is that this editor is so devoted to his special POV that any negotiation with him won't be successful. He has been notified of this thread and has edited recently but has not responded here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block. This user doesn't understand or wish to follow basic content policy, and is causing widespread disruption. LK (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Done. Those ridiculous comments in Day of Deceit and the attack on poor Binksternet on the talk page are enough: editor is NOT HERE to build an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Page moves by User:Bananas Monkey

User talk:Bananas Monkey is littered with admonitions not to engage in unilateral page moves, reflecting a contribution history where he has frequently moved pages with large numbers of incoming links to parenthetical titles, creating disambiguation pages of questionable utility in their place. Some of these moves have been reverted. I commented to this user about the mess created by such moves on his talk page, and he replied on mine that "Unfortunately, there may be too many pages with links to the article that I can't help not doing that"; he shortly thereafter engaged in another page move along those same lines. I do not seek a far-reaching sanction, but I think that this user should have his ability to move pages restricted until such time as he can show that he can handle this ability responsibly, by achieving consensus through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. bd2412 T 02:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Is there really a technical way to restrict's an account ability to move pages, or are you proposing a community ban on the user moving pages? Salvidrim! ✉ 03:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You could use the abusefilter, but I suspect BD2412 means the latter. Prodego ^talk 06:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bananas Monkey has been warned, over and over, not to make page moves without discussion, period. And yet he continues to do so with no signs of stopping. He has also been blocked before (full disclosure, by me) for 24 hours for this, however he edits in fits and starts, and likely never even saw the block while it was in effect. Given his continual movings despite multiple final warnings - including one that came as the result of an AN/I discussion - I have blocked for a week. Perhaps this will cause them to realise the degree of disruption their unilateral, undiscussed moves are causing and cause improvement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Revdel needed for malicious link

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.

---

Back in December a discussion took place at AN that arrived at the decision to remove the URL from Silk Road (marketplace). For research purposes (seriously, I'm writing a paper on it - the only drug I take is cannabis and where I live it might as well be legal) I needed a link to it so I went to the history for it and found this diff. Unfortunately this is a phishing operation. The real address is a few revisions back and the first thing you'd notice is that the real site doesn't ask for a PIN. Since I didn't have a PIN I just typed in some random numbers and luckily I got a form submission error that showed me it's redirecting to a non onion site owned by a named individual who is not the owner of Silkroad. Point being, people who look in the history for the URL are likely going to get scammed, although based on the specific error I got it's also possible that the scammer's account has been deleted. The account which added the link has already been blocked as a sock so nothing to see there. Thanks. Sædon^talk 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed them from the history; I'd appreciate another admin checking. Now, can I get a hit off your weed? Drmies (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. I didn't even notice there was more than one, and now I've found one more here. *Passes Drmies the bong* Sædon^talk 05:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes...I'll put the blunt down just for a second. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Copyright issues

A number of copy and paste addition where added to our article on Graves' disease a couple of years ago over a few dozen edits by a single editor as per here.[264] On Jan 3rd, 2013 I reverted back to the last clean version of the article [265] and left a note on this editors talk page. I than proceeded to fix a bunch of other issues. This editor has now returned and reverted all the new edits and restored the copy and pasted text. Than made a few adjustments to the wording. I am not convinced I found all the concerns and IMO think we should move forwards from were we where before the copyright violations. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed cleaning up archiving SNAFU at Talk:Medical uses of silver

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

---

Resolved

 – All done. Graham87 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A malformed archiving template caused the bot to create archives for every month, whereas the archives had just been arranged incrementally before, and the page is not nearly active enough to merit monthly archiving. Requesting deletion of all pages not of the form Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive # (basically all the month pages) at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Medical uses of silver under criterion G6. Intelligentsium 03:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hang on - discussing the best method of archiving on my talk page, don't delete just yet. Intelligentsium 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, resolved, refer to my original post for the pages needing deletion. Intelligentsium 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk assistance required: we need an admin to perform speedy deletion on archives following the monthly scheme. We will be using incremental archiving instead. All the other stuff has been fixed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All done. Monthly archives can create an awful mess (slightly NSFW). Graham87 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at WP:V

Resolved

Please protect Wikipedia:Verifiability. See [266]. Core policy pages should not have eight reverts in one day. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Had just done this before seeing this post. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend discussing an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough

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.

---

Explanation of the problem - User:Fram is a well respected Admin with years of experience on Wiki however his conduct in interacting with User:Rich Farmbrough has escalated way beyond that of his role as an admin.

Fram does not like Rich or his edits and has continued to follow and harass Rich and has been trying to get Rich banned from Wikipedia for the last 2 years. This crusade to get his pound of flesh has been going on since way before Rich had a restriction and needs to stop. Multiple editors in multiple discussions on multiple venues have asked Fram to back away but he has vehemently refused. These have occurred on his talk page, on Rich's talk page, at ANI and on Rich's Arbcom discussion. Fram routinely picks through Rich's edits looking for something to submit, there is no other explaination for how he could find some of these obscure topics Rich has worked on.

Additionally, when editors disagree with Fram he bullies them to the point where they stop commenting on discussions because otherwise he follows them too. One example is here where he commented to a user about their comments in this discussion but he has bullied many others who have sided with Rich including me, Magioladitis and others. This needs to stop.

Recommended action - I would like to ask for an interaction ban to be placed on User:Fram regarding his conduct with User:Rich Farmbrough. If Rich is such a problem then other admins and users can and will bring it up. Wikipedia has no shortage of editors who are willing to notify the proper authorities of problems. Fram doesn't need to be the hall monitor.Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose all i-bans in principle anyways, but in this case this oppose is quite firm. What we have here is an admin doing their due diligence regarding a long-term disruptive user, and one cannot expect 100% sainthood when having to deal with such a user or their cheerleading section. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• With respect Tarc, Rich is not a disruptive editor, I am not a cheerleader (I'm much to old and fat but maybe for the Redskins :-)), I am not the only one who has asked Fram to back away and Fram is not, by far, the only editor/admin who can submit if Rich does something wrong. But yes to be honest this last submission claiming the use of Excel as automation was really pushing it for me. This has been going on for years and needs to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note that Rich claims to only have used Excel to sort a table, I don't believe him and all the evidence points to him using a script or macro instead. This belongs at the AE discussion basically, but it is not true that I started an AE case because he used Excel, I started an AE case because he clearly used automation and screwed up big time. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough is the (now closed) case concerning this. Fram (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)I think the lengthy block log (with a precious few unblocks) and numerous Arb appearances belie the "not a disruptive editor" assertion. This will stop when Farmbrough is indef'ed for good. It's coming sooner or later, his wiki-personality is more "Betacommand malcontent" than "Malleus roguishness. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You have not provided one piece of evidence to support your claims of a vendetta. An admin., knowledgeable in a specific problematic area, aware of the case history and willing to provoke personal criticism by bringing stuff to attention through the proper channels, I would expect no less from any Admin. That Fram is willing to do it when others are not might say more about their unwillingness to get involved that it says about Fram. This is a horse that will not run and you should get off Fram's case with your personal attacks such as this [267]. Leaky Caldron 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• No problem I'll go dig through the hundreds of discussions for some links. Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The essential point that you appears to wish to avoid is that RF would have ended up in precisely the same place though his own actions, not through the actions of particular Admin. Leaky Caldron 12:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would urge all editors to look at the single diff presented as evidence of me bullying editors "to the point where they stop commenting on discussions". I then would ask the same editors to take a look at the following: Kumioko claims: "That is an intimidation tactic plain and simple. That is telling the user I'm an admin so watch your back. Intended or otherwise that is the effect of that sort of notice." Does my post really have that effect? Fram (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here Fram is that you have hounded Rich incesently for years. You have then found a reason to go after other sho supported Rich. Whenever Rich edits you always seem to be there. Enough is enough. Maybe I am not the right one to start this discussion and maybe I need to find some more evidence. The bottom line here is, as Leaky put it above, I am knowledgable about this matters at hand and I am bringing it up. The difference is that you are an admin so somehow your actions are justified but since I am just a regular editor I am "involved". These are just clever wordings to trick readers. The bottom line is you are bullying and harassing editors you don't like or feel threatened by and it needs to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"You have then found a reason to go after other sho supported Rich." ? I'ld like some diffs for this (I suppose you are referring to something else than the post at Zero's talk page here?). Fram (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. Explaining to another editor where they are factually wrong is not 'bullying'. There is no aggressive posture in that diff you linked to on Zero0000's talk page. 2. Pretty much every interaction by Fram & Rich is about the latter's use of automation. Given he is currently banned for two months and will still have that restriction when he returns, if he finally gets it, obeys it, and stops pushing the envelope - any interaction ban would be redundant. 3. Why dont you take it to ARBCOM like you threatened to at the Arbitration Enforcement discussion? Then you can make your case there for an amendment to the wording of the restrictions or placing an IB between the two. Bear in mind at the previous arbcom case no interaction ban was placed despite the same issues you claim are a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Because Arbcom is a waste of time. The process is crap. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course there's no evidence, there can't be any evidence, considering that AE just banned Rich on the basis of Fram's evidence. What this is about is that Kumioko is (for reasons I don't understand) pissed about the ban on RF and wants to get back at Fram for bringing to AE the evidence that Rich had broken his editing restrictions, which got him banned. But if Rich had followed his restrictions, there would have been no problem, so I don't know why Kumioko considers him to be be a cause celebre to get behind. I am pretty sure of this -- if Kumioko doesn't go about his business editing Wikipedia to improve the project, he's well on his way to being blocked himself fro being disruptive. (That's a prediction, not a threat - I'm not an admin and I can't block anyone, even thoose who are deserving of being blocked.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• AE banned Rich because Fram provided assumptions and Rich was honest enough to say he used Excel. Excel is not automation any more than Cut and pasting a URL is. Listen Ken, I am not disrupting anything. I am just trying to have a discussion about Fram's interactions with Rich. That's it. If you don't agree, fine. It has nothing to do about getting back at Fram. What I am a little pissed about is that Fram is allowed to follow every edit of an editor looking and searching for a way to get them banned completely who is trying their best to participate in the project. It also pisses me off that I am being made to look like the bad guy for bringing it up. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If a user stays within his editing restrictions, there will be no cause for banning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict × x2) Reviewing RF talk page discussion it's clear Fram was aware of prior violations of the ArbCom restriction but let them slide under the what's best for Wikipedia gestalt. RF broke his restriction and admitted it; that's on him, not on Fram. NE Ent 12:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - A look at Farmbrough's repeated violation of editing restrictions is very telling.[268] Following him around, if that's what Fram is doing, is probably necessary to protect wikipedia from a frequent restrictions-violating editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Johnny Squeaky

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: Johnny Squeaky has been engaged in disruptive editing at Cornell University. He has been introducing non-neutral and unverifiable language into the article [269], failing to engage in discussion about his contributions, assuming bad faith of other editors [270], edit warring, labeling third-party editors' BRD reversions as vandalism [271][272], and accusing editors of sockpuppetry [273] and stalking [274] [275]. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For what it's worth, I can support this claim of disruptive editing based on my own interactions with the editor. I usually do not include old edits, but their editing behavior and quality of interactions has not really changed at all over the past year. The editor has repeatedly engaged in edit warring on articles such as 40/40 Club ([276], [277], this revert after my urging a third opinion which was ignored, [278] and Whisper Systems ([279],[280], [281]) Attempts to discuss matters on the editor's talk page are usually removed with claims from Johnny Squeaky that we are "stalking" or "harassing" or wikilawyering where there is no evidence for such a claim ([282]). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and forum to speak. I make my edits based on common sense. My edits are by-and-large without much to-do. This is as I like it. If there is any controversy with my edits, I encureage you to look at them with conservatism as an idea. Thank you, Johnny. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .

I'm not sure what you mean with common sense, and the rest of this post here is pretty incomprehensible and not to the point. There is, however, some righteous to-do over your edits, your accusations of socking, your false claims of vandalism, your edit-warring, and your disruptive editing (failure to abide by consensus). I'm not a fan of civility blocks, but you're awfully close to reaching my limits. I have removed the puffy language from the article (puffy because it is deemed puffy by a consensus of editors on the talk page), and right here, right now you have the opportunity to apologize to ElKevbo about these ridiculous accusations of stalking and socking (and there was nothing objectionable about their choice of words--"now move on" is rude? suck it up), and to the other editors on the CU talk page for edit-warring with them over puffy language. Another admin might not look so kindly on those accusations of yours, which make editing articles and improving the project a drag rather than a joy. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, care to explain this, a revert of my revert of your revert of a valid edit? Drmies (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the content that I am reverting to is supported by valid references that are known to be acceptable to Wikipedia. Also, Drmies has a COI here, and should not be allowed, as an Admin, to use his Admin rights to level "punishment" at my account. Drmies seems quite "angry". His edit comments are very aggressive. He need to resist the urge to change Wikipedia articles based on personal feelings. One wonders if perhaps he is a Yale guy, or perhaps was rejected by Cornell, or maybe you he don’t like these “snooty” Ivy League schools? Whatever the case may be, the combination of his comments and his edits indicate a POV that may be inappropriate as the basis of edits on this article. As well, I’m thinking that eventually he will use your “Admin” rights to push your POV. This would be a clear COI, and not a particularly honest thing to do. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "using" my admin rights. I would have blocked you already for your personal attacks and your accusation against ElKevbo of socking. Your conspiracy theory is ridiculous: you said you're from Oregon--well, maybe you're pissed at me because Auburn beat Oregon in the 2011 BCS National Championship Game? Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've had it with Johnny Squeaky. They reinstated the "boosterism" again, though there is a clear consensus on the article talk page (4 to 1, now 5 to 1) that it should be removed. Please see the talk page. I would like to ask another admin to look into this: I'm a bit involved with the article right now (on a side note, it sucks--it's twice as big as it ought to be (see Harvard University, for instance), and sections will need to be split off or, if there is a main article, seriously condensed). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note Johnny Squeaky has been blocked by BWilkins. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  After this, maybe talk page access should be removed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  He's been warned that if he does it again, no talk page for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Faster2010 potential serial subtle vandalism and sock puppetry

I have noticed many questionable, unexplained minor changes to information in articles such as:

• Changing the BloodRayne release date from the correct date of May 2003 for the Mac to September 18, 2007
  • I found this source confirming the correct date to be May 2003
• Changing the number of songs on this DDR game page from 122 to 124
  • I had to use Google to translate this page and confirm the correct number of songs to be 122.
• Changing the runtime of CyberWorld from 47 minutes to 50 minutes
  • Later reverted
• Changing the runtime for Armitage III

Looking at his talkpage many users have warning him for this behavior, and looking through some of his history I have seen many reversions telling him to stop adding unsourced material and original research. I see random edits such as this that are just sloppy.

Additionally I believe he may be a sock of User talk:Hugosworld92. Both users have an inordinate amount of speedy deletion and deleted articles notices on their talkpages, neither use edit summaries, both were inserting, back-to-back, unsourced material on Armitage III. Also she has been on for 3 years, but almost 99% of her edits are to articles almost nothing has been posted to chat or any other namespace. Both of them have multiple user warnings on their talkpages for removing material and adding unsourced material.

Additionally I believe he frequently vandalizes with different IP addresses:

IP 66.31.4.213

• Random prediction of future, something I have noticed as a pattern
  • This was an article created by Faster2010
• unexplained deletion of text
  • Also on an article Faster2010 was editing.

IP 71.37.18.96

• His only edit, deleted content right after Faster2010's edit got reverted

IP 76.170.226.19

• Deletion of cast members for Atlast Shrugged
• Deleted various releases for Romar Entertainment after an edit by Faster2010

I haven't bothered to link everything I'm seeing. I just continue to frequently find low quality, grammatically incorrect edits, sometimes randoms predictions, subtle changes to info about release dates, etc. Many have been reverted by other users. I would continue to post more examples but I must get to sleep, I will be back tomorrow.OakRunner (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to make some things clear, I am not affiliated with this user User talk:Faster2010. I did not create that account. Furthermore, I am a male. Around the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I was not aware of any of the rules for editing, since then I have many times to always cite my sources and claims and I have a tendency to make small corrections, but hey that's what you get for not double checking. I have no idea this happened, but I just want to make sure that I am not doing any sock puppet activity. As I have said, I only have this account and I am not responsible for these actions. Hugosworld92 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be throwing around spurious accusations, and apologize if that is what I have done here. I've become a little paranoid so please forgive me for the hasty conclusion. I'm just trying to bring User:Faster2010 into some sort of discussion so we can decide what to do here.OakRunner (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noted some strange behavior from this user as well, over the months and years. Here's a non-thorough picking through of some contributions.

• Addition of uncited speculation:
  • Kratos in "KoFXIV"
• Weird redirects:
  • Creating and repeatedly redirecting "Winx Club Hybrid" to "Mortal Kombat"
  • "Street Fight" redirect to "Digimon"
  • Joke redirect "Call of Duty: Modern Flame War 3"
  • "Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin" another joke rd
• Insertions of links to Faster (2010 film) in inappropriate places:
  • Template:.hack
  • Can't seem to find any more but I distinctly remember at least a few more occurrences in my interactions with this user (which is what initially set the flag off for me as a potential stealth vandal/SPA advertiser).

That's all I have time for, for now. Troublesome. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved with Faster2010 before at some point and have been involved in removing unsourced and dubious content as well. Looks like this has become a major problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I found you reverting him on a few occasions. He has become a problem due to the particular difficulty of noticing some of his factual mistakes and correcting them. In the DDR example above, his edit stood for several months until I reverted it, and I had to go to a Japanese source to find the correct amount. I find it had to accept honest mistakes being the motivation behind his edits since he appears to be changing release dates, and other random bits of information just randomly, and these mistakes are ultimately very difficult to pick out.OakRunner (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Another TungstenCarbide sock

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

---

User:టంగ్స్టన్ కార్బైడ్ (translate the name). Please block. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, quack much? Blocked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What language is that? GiantSnowman 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Telugu. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Backlog of protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests has a backlog, modest in number, but in some cases over a week old. Could one or more admins take a look, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They're all requested edits to templates or MediaWiki pages, and I understand the reluctance of admins to dive into generally complex code. I myself am not intimately familiar with it all (yet!) and am still learning, but I'll still try to help out with the requests. There's no better way to learn! :) Salvidrim! ✉ 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive new user(s)

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

---

This afternoon, users Jude caird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Filippo campione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have vandalized the following pages as their only edits since the accounts were created:

• Soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Harris's antelope squirrel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wild boar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Grenade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP address 208.123.157.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalized Harris's antelope squirrel in a similar way. From the similarity of these edits and the short timeframe in which they occurred, all of these users may be the same person.

As I write this, all of the edits have been reverted. Jude caird has made 4 edits, Filippo campione 9 and the IP address 2. The users have not made any edits for a few hours but the accounts have been used for nothing other than disruption. Is a block appropriate? Dricherby (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the future, you may report vandalism-only user accounts at WP:AIV. As for the IP, they have not been warned yet; I've issued a warning and will watch them for the next little while. Thanks for the report! m.o.p 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Anonymous IP is reverting my sources edits and personally attacking me

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 anonymous IP is reverting my sources edits and personally attacking me calling me a "Turkish nationalist" and accusing me of making sockpuppets.

[283] [284] [285] [286]

It seems that he somehow managed to delete some of the evidence above.

"his IP which "forgot" to sign its comment is probably a sock puppet of E4024 or DragonTiger to support their nationalistic POV."--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He is also constantly changing his IP

I am a serious contributor to wikipedia. I am not a (Turkish) nationalist or biased. It seems to me that they are the ones with nationalistic and biased edits.

Also this

He is accusing me of "pushing islamic and neo ottoman pov" you came and push your islamic and neo-ottoman POV. And E4024 is helping you with his sock puppet IPs.]--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are some of the IPs he is using:

[287]2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268

[288]2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941

[289]2001:4CA0:2201:1:D9A:9802:5B67:94A3

- above comments added by DragonTiger23

Hey, I have no sock puppet IPs. (Nor IP sock puppets :-) You have begun editing WP only today (21.01.2013) and only around one specific issue, if a "historical personality considered a national hero in Turkey" has had interest in same-sex relations! First of all I recommend you to stop being homophobic; it's the 21st Century! Secondly, do not accuse me of anything you are not capable of knowing. Thirdly, as you already know everything about WP (well, almost everything :-) you should know that if you suspect I abuse sock puppets you should ask an SPI about me. (Interested admins: You can realise a checkuser on me, openly or not; no problem. Should the result be negative I believe this IP newcomer should be given a good warning so that they would come back with a better attitude.) --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He also accuses me of making non-neutral edits, while in fact the only thing I did was adding the criticism of WELL-KNOWN TURKISH HISTORIANS on Babiners assertions from an article of one of Turkey's most known newspapers Zaman (newspaper). In his version he presents as if Babingers assertion was a fact, while the only thing I did was changing the sentence to : Babinger asserted....DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see this [290] - comment probably added by DragonTiger (not going to even look)

It is not forbidden to be anonymous. And it is you who reverts Edits and edit-wars against several users. Stop that, thanks. I nver said that you are a turkish nationalist but your edit is not neutral. Use reliable sources and stop trolling by inverting your personal point of view in other's articles. DragonTiger i also noticed that your English isn't quite good. Please stop ignoring answers of other users and just ANSWER correst.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And my friend, it is not forbidden to use IPs.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You did personally attack me. See links above It seems to me that you are constantly changing your IP to bypass potential block/IP banDragonTiger23 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, i didn't. See my explanations. Are the changes made by you the "spectrum of mainstream" then? We reached consensus above and now you are coming and changing it without any real explanation. Please read the Discussions and look at your edits.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WHERE ARE THE ADMINS??? PROBLEM ABOVE IS STILL NOT DEALT WITH!DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• This thread is a mess, and DragonTiger, it's largely your fault for not signing your posts and scattershot adding of comments. Also, don't shout at anyone here (use of all caps). There's enough drama on this board without that kind of nonsense. As far as I can tell, DragonTiger and the IP are both hurling insults at each other and edit-warring as well. And I see no basis for the accusation of sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't insult anyone. The only reason I wrote it in capitals was because after some hours still not one single admin responded. I understand that admins are busy. I didn't do sockpuppetry, in fact the IP who is constantly using different IPs is sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Go to the history of the article to see what the dispute is about.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't sockpuppetry because 1 - he/she isn't using it for vote-stacking or evasion of sanctions, and 2 - IPv6 addresses like these are often determined by stateless autoconfiguration, which means they are subject to change even more quickly than most IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not going to respond nicely to YELLING IN ALL CAPITALS, are we? You say he's calling you a "Turkish nationalist" - wow, is that considered to be an insult? The edit summary "the only ones who agreed were you and two other turkish nationalists" may or may not be calling you one - depending how you parse it. Nevertheless, it's not overly blockable - uncivil maybe, but not blockable. Accusing you of being a sockpuppet without having the guts to file an WP:SPI report is uncivil, but again, not blockable. Realistically, although you claim to be editing with a neutral point of view, I do see some tinges of non-NPOV overall, so his comments may appear to be valid in-face, based on what I read. That does not excuse incivility, but again, the level of incivility is not blockable yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article was recently locked by User:Favonian for a week. Because the dispute continued after expiration of the lock, I've locked it again, this time for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang

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

---

Could somebody block User talk:BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang without the ability to edit their Talk page? RNealK (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You neglected to notify the user of this discussion, so I have done so in your stead. Not that it makes much difference with him being, you know, indeffed. —Rutebega (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Liefting's imposition on WikiProject Philosophy

Resolved

 – Template hidden from talk page. (Resolved, at least to my satisfaction.) Greg Bard (talk)

User:Alan Liefting has proposed to delete a template that is used for WikiProject Philosophy's talk page. This template was constructed and amended with the input of the members of WP:PHILO, of which Alan is not one. He did not see fit to bring the issue up on the talk page itself, but rather is attempting to involve the wider community first. Alan has been making these types of proposals that affect the area of philosophy, and has had mixed results depending on the political climate for each. This is a formal written request that Alan, and any other person who wishes to make such proposals make them originally at WT:PHILO. His current proposal interferes with the discussion itself, and I am posting this notice here at ANI publicly and conspicuously that I will be removing it myself for cause. I realize that this is strictly speaking not how it is done, and thatis why I am making this post to ANI. If Alan, or anyone else would like to make the same proposal again please do so in a manner that is respectful of the groups which it affects by bring it up at the talk page of the group first. Greg Bard (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement to consult with a project before tagging a template for discussion; the reason a tag is used is so that it will pop up on the watchlists of concerned editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, so let me get this right. You are saying you're going to close a deletion discussion for a page that you self-admittedly strongly want to keep because you don't like that it was been nominated for deletion? KTC (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." NE Ent 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For further application of this broad-consensus rule, see Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the template states that "this page is being considered for deletion" and it shows up on the talk page. This is direct interference with the discussion. If you were a new editor wanting to bring up an issue, would you post it given such a notice. This is a serious and compelling reason to handle this proposal some other way, which I have invited his to do. Greg Bard (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregbard's sense of ownership over pages he considers philosophy-related is high-handed and excessive. I haven't had the time yet to deal with his persistent and from what I can see erroneous tagging of certain articles as relating to fundamentalism, but his behavior in this Cfd was objectionable enough to draw comment from the closer. It's ironic that Liefting's proposal so far is having no takers but the notion that GB should dare to close that discussion is so plainly wrong as to make we wonder what they are teaching in philosophy departments these days. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that the very reason he is so insistent that the notice be removed from the template is evidence for the merger of the template back into the page. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea ... but that's a limitation of the template, not a reason to prematurely close a Mfd. NE Ent 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Gregbard, you're not going to close that discussion, but let it go. ... Maybe this should be merged into the one page it is transcluded on, as is suggested by Alan. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's only used on one page, and is considered useful by those who use it, why does Liefting demand its deletion? Wouldn't it make more sense to bring up the matter on the talk page on which it appears? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The template is interfering with the discussion. That is a serious and compelling reason. My claim is that I absolutely have every right to address the issue somehow. Perhaps I will replace it with a temporary template until the discussion is over. I am open to other ideas. However it is unacceptable as it currently is. Greg Bard (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That addendum to the template makes it look like the talk page itself is up for deletion. The problem should go away on its own, as Leifting has no valid reason to delete the template, and there isn't any support for deleting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as a pragmatic matter, you may be right. It just so happens that the support is to keep it overwhelmingly. But what if it wasn't that way, and the discussion dragged on forever? Are you telling me, I would have no recourse to do anything about it?! If I went to the to the top of this page and proposed to delete {{Noticeboard links}} just because I didn't like how it looks, that discussion would be closed down immediately. I brought this issue to ANI before taking any action in good faith, and , and all I got was a lot of attitude (not from you BB). Greg Bard (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Beetstra fixed it with <noinclude> tags. NE Ent 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all I really was wanting to address.Greg Bard (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we discuss Categories, Articles, Templates, but delete Files and Miscellaneous. For me, this MfD is more up for discussion (as a candidate for subst-ing). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tradition! -- or, for the video version Tradition!NE Ent 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just have a question on using noinclude tags to hide the deletion discussion information. While it doesn't matter too much now because keep votes are unanimous, aren't people from WikiProject Philosophy the ones who would be most interested in knowing the template was up for deletion? I'm not sure that using noinclude tags in the future would be a great idea. Ryan Vesey 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a no-win situation. If you hide the tag, people get hysterical about having things "hidden" from them. If you don't hide the tag, people get hysterical about how the tag is ruining the page layout. The correct solution is to stop having editors get hysterical. Gregbard is not exactly new to TfDs over his header templates, so should really be learning not to crank it to 11 every time a new one turns up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Would it be feasible to amend policy/guidelines regarding talkpages/templates so that local-project talkpages cannot be designed to a stage where wikipedia-wide processes interfere with them? Or just not worth the time given the minor issues it occasionally crops up? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • In practice, proposals which don't have a very good rationale behind them (such as this one) fall flat pretty quickly and can be snow closed. That already happens. We don't need a special rule to prevent people from making dumb TfDs, because it will affect good ones. For instance, last year I TfDed a massive number of WikiProject-specific duplicates of {{page tabs}}; the result was a massive cleanup of redundant code, and an improved appearance for a lot of crufty-looking Wikiproject pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Chris, you copy pretty well my thoughts in your last two comments (though I think it is a lose-lose situation ... unfortunately). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 12:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • not worth time, NE Ent 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by anon after warnings

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 will not include the earlier comments from the anon or efforts made to warn the anon not to engage in personal attacks, but the anon's current IP talk page contain part of that record as does Talk:Contemporary Christian music and a few other articles I watch.

• [291] This is my first request to stop making personal attacks and discussion the editor and not the content.
• [292] Anon refers to me as "the only 'trouble maker' over the years" and having a double standard among other comments in a long diatribe against me.
• [293] Anon refers to me as a fraud, and possibly everyone else as well.
• "[294] Content in which the anon elevates themselves over me and presubably the other editor who objected to the material the anon added.
• "archive & avoid fake "christians"" a direct assault against my faith.
• [295] another attempt that I made to show the editor that personal attacks are not acceptable.
• "[296] Content in which the editor basically states that I will be condemned to hell by my actions [against him] on Wikipedia
• "re: cry baby enemy"
• "guy group; i "met" a couple of recent cry babies"
• "contradictions and lies by heretics! yeah, i "said" it..."
• [297] A direct warning to stop the personal attacks
• [298] The content here is a personal attack
• talk about a "poor editor" who doesn't know the rules! take your own medicine..." The content added here is also a personal attack
• Another request to stop personal attacks
• "fallacy, manipulation, inept, sabotage and narcissism... and a "stalker"!"
• "more lies by wiki editors"

The sad thing is anon has stated on several occasions that he (assuming male, but I'm sorry if I am reading too much into the behaviour) is done editing and will not be engaging any further only to resurface a few hours later. For the record, this is the edit that I made to revert the content added by anon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, there's not much anyone can do; IPs are free to insult others and behave like that. They'll simply switch IPs over and over again. You're gonna have to put up with it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Seb, and assume that your comment was meant in jest - if not, I strongly suggest you review this before you say "IPs are free to insult others".

Walter: I see that EdJohnston has warned the editor in question for edit warring, but there haven't been any clear-cut warnings against personal attacks. I left one here; it is up to the editor to decide what they do next. m.o.p 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant it. It's true for all practical purposes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

With WMF having lolno'd Sign In To Edit, that's not going to change any time soon, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, blocked for 72 hours. Don't really see a need for an official warning first; it was made abundantly clear to the editor that his conduct was objectionable and he made it abundantly clear that he didn't care about behavioural norms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good call; thank you; if I didn't have this personal thing against betting, I'd bet you he'll be back in 72 hours... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From the content of the edits, it seems that the anon has either had an account before or was at a different IP. I have not seen the editor for a while and don't recognize the behaviour. I'm not a betting man either, but suspect that he will be back as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

petition

Expressing heartfelt opinions about de-WP on en-WP is no more productive than expressing heartfelt opinions about de-WP to the ducks at one's local park. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm a bit tired of the German baboons camerillas (Robert Sapolsky). You canceled my accounts yesterday but I would prefer to have a complete filter set. As I told you, the German administrator and Multi-Burokrat Seewolf is the indicated person to get the best data to implement this filter. I'm still not on his list of the Villains within the Wikipedia-Universe. Those people prefer to spend the raised money for projects like "Limits of paid editing" as if the community is able to solve this by a project undertaken by the "In-Group" and the wikimedia e.V. Germany. This is a serious problem, one of many, an indicator for corruption. This project envolves from a "free" project into a project dominated by people which do not expose their own interests clearly. Apart from this I'm tired of demanding respectfull treatment. And yes, I used en.wiki for rather emotional replies. But I'm tired and a bit addicted. :-) It's a soap opera, too.--95.23.230.189 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You may be able to add insightful comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#What the user of de:WP think about en:WP Regarding this noticeboard, what action from English Wikipedia administrators are you requesting or suggesting? (See also WP:GRA). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC) I indicated that this is even personally for me a problem. As I used en.wiki as a platform of indirect communication, I want to stop this, that's better for everybody. As you are thinking about international filter rules, here is the perfect candidate... (I would argue, bad idea, as a humanist, but as a person I feel in my right to ask for a ban and you should not ask you should act. To some degree this is also an adiction problem... I stated this.)--95.23.230.189 (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Abusive emails (Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis)

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 received three emails this morning from User:Nero1990, an account with no contributions. There is no clear place to report an incident like this, so I'm posting here to receive administrator assistance. They are all identical, and read as follows (email addresses redacted):

from: Nero1990 <[email protected]> via wikimedia.org
to: Siafu <[email protected]>
date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:22 PM
subject: GAS THE ANTI-SEMITES!
mailed-by: wikimedia.org

LONG LIVE ISRAEL! DEATH TO THE ENEMY!


--
This e-mail was sent by user "Nero1990" on the English Wikipedia to user "Siafu". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

As per this you should not paste an email on-wiki, not sure whether we can do it on ANI also an admin will be able to help you. --sarvajna (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the email addresses, so no outing is occurring. As for not posting emails, I find this to be a strange thing to say to me, as I'm receiving weird offensive emails from someone I don't know, being delivered by wikimedia.org; the inappropriate behavior is not mine. There's no copyright violation in posting this, either. siafu (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had similar in the past - it's someone who creates accounts just to send email abuse. I expect the answer will be to block with email access removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently a lot of editors who participated in the discussion at talk:Germans andthe ANI discussion surrounding the block of User:Guitar hero on the roof received this kind of abuse yesterday. I received 20 death threats myself. They were not from the same account who sent the email to Siafu. Blocking these throw-away accounts is not really an effective solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This sort of crap has been going on for at least a year and a half with many prior discussions, see User talk:RolandR#Hundreds of threatening messages for example. RolandR is a frequent victim. It sounds like some progress has been made in that a throttle has been implemented of 100 emails per hour [299] but there's still no proposal to better stop the problem. There is a plan bto allow emails to be controlled by the abusefilter [300], but if people have other suggestions, they may want to make them in an appropriate place. (I don't think discussions at ANI are likely to achieve a solution since the prior 10 or so haven't really.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I received several this morning from User:Liandarnody. It's obviously JarlaxleArtemis again, using an extremely offensive hmamail account name. The subject line of my messages was "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, CommuNazi scum". Account now blocked. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given (WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps I should clarify when I say there's still no proposal I mean there's still no proposal that seems likely to be implemented. There have been some other proposals which don't look likely to be implemented for a variety of reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I recieved the same mails as quoted by the OP this morning sent by a User:Nero1990. And yes I also (briefly) participated in the discussion at Talk:Germans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a message (happens to me quite often but I just delete automatically) from the some idiot this morning, only it read 'Gas all Arabs' to judge from the heading, since I didn't open it (probably also telling me I'm euroscum). Wouldn't have mentioned it had it not been raised here.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I just deleted them and moved on. Although I can understand that the possibilites in the present system for constant email harrasment by trolls needs to be curtailed. I support the idea of removing the email function for editors with no edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the one I got in December, from User:Enemy of the Jihadis was titled "GAS THE ARABS!". I reported the abuse to hmamail and they quickly blocked the account, but that doesn't stop the creation of lots of throwaway ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I got more of these than anybody else. :-) In analogy to WP:DENY I originally decided not to mention them on-wiki, but simply notified the email address given at WP:Functionaries. It think this is the preferred reaction; if not, maybe one of the functionaries can let us know. Hans Adler 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one liked to know I wasnt the only person to receive these. Email disabled now though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its rare that I see a good idea on ANI, but disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution qualifies. I would raise it to a minimum of 50 or 100 edits though, or maybe only autoconfirmed accounts. nableezy - 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its user:grawp and I agree with user:nableezy--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that must be the first time I have seen the above comment! It is indeed a good proposal, and one I have raised before. However, I have been told that this is impractical, and reasons have been given for not introducing this. In particular, it has been argued that victims of BLP violations sometimes need to contact an editor for changes to be made. I'm not convinced that this therefore requires a facility which enables a serial abuser to send thousands of racist death threat emails to scores of editors. Nor why a user is allowed to send via Wiki mail emails from an address threatening to kill another editor. This really needs to be addressed urgently: I have received more than 1500 of these in the past 18 months. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it naive of me to suggest that the sending of so many abusive and malicious messages and death threats is a police matter? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the subject line and Wikimedia Foundation well knows: This is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. One editor reported he received an email in my name which doubtless is from JarlaxleArtemis who has been making up offensive User names with my name in it on various Wikimedia projects. (Is this the email people are referring to here?? Feel free to send me a copy if so.) So he WILL escalate his behavior when he decides to really come and get you. If he finds out you live near him in Southern California, you might really be in trouble.

As you can see, he's been at it a long time and Wikimedia Foundation has made efforts to stop him, including contacting his family. Please add your complaints to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis under current activites, favorite pages, or anywhere else you feel it is necessary.

Obviously if anyone bothered to go to the feds (and this is not a threat since I won't), a whole case could be opened. The stupid kid probably would face decades in prison under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Threatening the government officials of the United States, Terrorism or any of the zillions of other laws there are out there. Instead of getting the psychological help he obviously needs. But he's no Aaron Swartz so it's not like Wikimedia Foundation has a duty to protect him. CarolMooreDC 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out one of mine and send it to you, I've been meaning to do something about it since I saw your name on it. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, do I really need to mention that since these incidents are all related to editing in the Israel-Palestine area (or more recently against editors who questioned a WP:OR definition of who is German or Jewish), that this is political terrorism plain and simple? Does it matter if the person does it because they are oppressed, or because they think they are oppressed, or they are pushing some nefarious political agenda of a state? It's something Wikipedia has to deal with. If there is war vs. Iran it will get much worse on articles related to that topic. So it should not be just written off as hijinks of bored trolls. CarolMooreDC 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's stretching a point to call this terrorism, and I think predicting a war with Iran is not reasonable to guess at. But what Grawp is doing would certainly be illegal in UK law, and if I were in a position of influence I would recommend throwing the book at him. We're not here to provide a hosting service for bigots and promoters of hate-speech and death threats. But this is a matter for the discretion of the the Wikimedia Foundation, and so my opinion is worth approximately what you've paid for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt these actions violate any federal law but they almost certainly violate a number of state anti-harassment and anti-cyberbullying laws. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus H. Murphy, Grawp is still around and trolling? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ai-yai-yai-yai-yai! Grawp is on the loose again? Not good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New policy proposal?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Email policy proposal

NE Ent 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of JarlaxleArtemis violent threat .gif

WMF is aware, thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Which was just posted on my talk page and I'm deleting now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carol..gif Please save a copy for Wikipedia's legal dept. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Also ban User:Tablorprizerna who put it up again after I deleted it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

An apparent attempt to smear minorities by systematic abuse of 'See also' sections.

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 some time now, a small number of contributors have repeatedly added links to our articles on the Sydney gang rapes and Ashfield gang rapes (both incidents occurring in Australia in 2002 or earlier) to the 'see also' sections of our articles on the Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Derby sex gang (refering to much more recent events in the UK). After I deleted the Australian ones from the Rochdale article, with an edit summary of "no connection", User:Darkness Shines started a talk page discussion, with a partial quote from WP:SEEALSO, which omited the salient point: that 'The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.' I have asked Darkness Shines to provide a proper expolanation as to why these particular articles should be linked, but no answer has been provided. Given Darkness Shines' previous editing habits, and given the only evident link between these particular articles - that the offenders were from Muslim backgrounds - I can see no reason to assume these links were added unless with an intent to smear an ethnoreligious minority - a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Such behaviour is surely grounds for at minimum a topic ban - unless Darkness Shines can provide us with an explanation as to why, of all the Wikipedia articles concerning rape (see e.g. Category:Rape) these are deemed to be of so much significance.

I would also like an uninvolved third party to look into the issue of possible sockpuppetry as far as these edits are concerned - at least one editor involved (User:Micro Filter 750) appears to be an account used solely for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain how its not a content dispute?Did you tried to resolve the matter on talk page?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)(I am not talking about User:Micro Filter 750 that should probably be check-usered)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A gross violation of WP:NPOV is not a 'content dispute' - and yes, as I state above, I tried to address the issue on the article talk page, though DS refused to provide any explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ATG reached 3RR on this article today, I posted on the talk page before reverting him explaining why I felt these belong in the see also section. ATG responded but did not address my reasons for inclusion[301] He then moves onto ignoring my first post and makes a personal attack in accusing me of trying to smear a minority. I tell him I do not care what he assumes and to address the substance of my first post His response, rather than discussing the content issue was Ok, see you at WP:ANI What we have here is an editor refusing to discuss, making personal attacks, edit warring and then coming to ANI to try and get his own way. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK then, give us a clear explanation as to why two articles relating to incidents in Australia in 2002 are of such particular relevance to articles concerning incidents in the UK some 6 or so years later. I asked for this, you refused to give any. So where is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem that is not the first time that ATG use this board for content dispute [302]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• ATG is correct. The gang rapes in Australia have no connection with the ones in England, and the See also links appear to be only due to the Muslim background of both. Unless DS can explain how they are relevant (other than race), they should be deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not but this not place for discuss it.There are pretty clear WP:DR process that should be followed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Even so, I would echo GregJackP's question. Resolute 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, this is the correct place to discuss gross violations of WP:NPOV policy in regard to efforts to smear enthoreligious minorities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy appears to be pointing to a behaviour problem: an editor trying to make a point about Muslims and rape. Does Darkness Shines have form for this sort of thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Obviously not, [303][304][305][306][307] I have written many articles about rape, and I always adhere to NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact why would I have insisted on this[308] edit remaining in an article if what ATG is trying to imply is even remotely true? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So where is your explanation for your adding the contested 'see also' links? If you have a legitimate reason, tell us what it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I already did, on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Since that is demonstrably false [309] - you have provided no explanation whatsoever as to why you insisted that those particular articles were of such significance, I think people can draw their own conclusions regarding your intent - and on your apparent contempt for appropriate standards of behaviour when asked here to explain your actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

[310] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Child grooming by people of Pakistani origin is a racially charged debate in the UK; there are often several fascist "protests" that claim to be against child grooming in concept (yet they're nowhere to be seen outside Television Centre...). It often enters the mainstream political sphere through people such as Jack Straw. Obviously, caution is advised. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I checked the discussed articles and the talk pages quickly, and apparently Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) did nothing wrong in my opinion. He is just linking analogous cases, which is the right thing to do per see also links. If someone disagrees with them being germane to the article, the dispute resolution process is that-a-way, starting from WP:3O. If Andy feels that there are different articles that should be included in addition or in alternative, he's better pointing them out. Viceversa, the insinuations by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) that Darkness Shines is trying to make a smear campaign look like serious personal attacks and gross violations of WP:AGF, instead, at least if this is the amount of proof he's giving of this "campaign", and this kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.--Cyclopia^talk 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How are gang rapes in Australia more 'analagous' to the events in Rochdale or Derby than any of the multiple other articles on such incidents that could have been linked? Given that DS seems to have written much on the subject, one would assume that he would be at least aware of Category:Rape, and of the multiple other articles - including many relating to the UK (see Category:Rape in the United Kingdom) Instead, he links articles relating to Australia for no reason given - and refuses to explain why they are of such significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing a reason for including the links in the See also section. I'm also not sure about the diffs that you posted, for example, this diff [311] indicates that the raped Muslim women may have been "complicit" in the attacks. Does that mean that they asked to be raped or were to blame for being raped? And why were just the Muslim women "complicit"? The other articles all predominately feature rapes by Muslims or Muslim groups, none of which go towards explaining the behavior issue being raised. Finally, the explanation on the article talk page is not satisfactory to answer the question on why the links are relevant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you not know how to read? "The rape of Muslim women by Hindu males during this period is well documented, with women also being complicit in these attacks." where do you get "they asked to be raped or were to blame for being raped" from? And I should like you to post a diff from any of the other articles were I wrote Muslims are responsible for rapes. And how you get "predominately feature rapes by Muslims or Muslim groups" from Rape in India and Rape in Jammu and Kashmir is beyond me. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusing Greg of not knowing how to read seems pretty harsh. If you mean that there were women among the attackers or their accomplices, then say so. As it is, the only women you've otherwise specified are the victims, and that is unclear. I have no view on this dispute, except to observe that it is mostly a content dispute, and that the relatedness of items is not so self-evident that no source is ever required. But writing about rape and sexual abuse is hard; both draining on the writer, and difficult to get right with the appropriate balance of accuracy and sensitivity. It seems from the way you are engaging with one another on this topic that that is getting badly lost. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your correct, I have struck the offending comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: once again, Darkness Shines has refused to provide a specific explanation as to why the particular articles linked were of such significance, and is instead resorting to bluster in the hope that the issue will go away. [312]. At this point, it seem only reasonable to assume that my initial supposition was correct, and this edit was made in an attempt to smear an ethnoreligious minority. Can I suggest that the discussion moves on to what particular sanctions are appropriate here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can suggest it, but no-one has to take you seriously. I see no sign of anything like consensus here. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time ATG has violated AGF & NPA with his vile suggestions that I made this edit for reasons of race. I must insist these attacks be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have at no time suggested that your edits were motivated by race (religion seems to be the issue with you). Anyway, why did you make the edits? . AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm troubled by Darkness Shines's behaviour in this See also case. Contrary to Cyclopia's view, I can't see any reason to include those links other than to make a point about Muslims and rape. Can someone (Cyclopia, Darkness Shines?) explain to me what it is saying other than, "See, Muslims do this in Australia too" or perhaps, "Typical Muslim behaviour"? If that's not what's going on, if the purpose is to make some as yet unspecified point about the existence of gang rape elsewhere, can I suggest Darkness Shines uses gang rape articles that involve other ethnicities, so as not to inadvertently smear an ethnic group? There are probably a few gang rapes every day somewhere in the world. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please point me to the articles on gang rapes carried out by gangs over an extended period of time which got such massive attention? I will add them to the see also sections quite happily. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you're in danger of implying that there is something about Islam that makes them more likely to engage in gang rape? If so, does that concern you at all? Do you think it is in fact the case that Muslims are more likely to engage in this kind of behaviour than other religious groups? Is that what's going on here? And no, I'm not interested in editing that article. I'm interested in your behaviour. And could you please answer Andy's reasonable question? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. And I do not think any group is more likely to commit rape than any other group, that is a fucking hideous question to ask. And I have responded to andy's question. My response is on the article talk page and is linked to twice in this thread. Another response is directly above your post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have responded to Andy's question. You haven't explained what the point of the links is. I can't see any point other than those I mentioned. I see you do a bit of writing about Muslims. [313] Do you have a particular view on Isalm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What troubles me about you is, it's been pointed out that putting those see also links at the bottom of those articles can be seen as, is in fact, making a case for "Typical Muslim behaviour". Far from rearing back in horror at that possibility and quickly removing the links, you're arguing to keep them there. Again, you're making the case for "See, this is what Muslims do." I was willing to believe it was inadvertant, but the longer this goes on, and the more you dig in your heels, the more I begin to believe that this is your intention all along. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks accusations of bigotry are going a bit far considering what's actually happened here? While Darkness Shines has not yet specified specifically why he believes the see also links are appropriate, I don't think it's reasonable to assume it's because he hates muslims. Is it possible that the events are related (if tangentially) because they had a similar effect on their respective communities, perhaps even in part due to the religion of the offenders? I imagine that in both circumstances, people were desperately trying disclose that the attackers were muslim without sounding racist. Perhaps the attacks heightened prejudice or discrimination in both areas. There are countless possible links between the articles that don't prove Darkness Shines hates islamic peoples, so why would you assume that just because Andy suggested it? I can't tell you exactly why Darkness wants the links there, only he can, and when he finally gets around to it, it had better be good. But in the meantime, let's keep this as civil as possible why don't we? —Rutebega (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the only one Rutebega. Firstly - given that ATG and anthonycole seem to want Darkness to answer 'content' questions, take those back to the article talkpage. Secondly - if ATG is going to seriously allege that DS is smearing a religion/minority by the use of see-also links, I dont know where to begin with that. Short of any actual diff to that effect, he should retract his comments as personal attacks. ATG seems to be the one making it about religion and minorities. All I see is DS linking other notable gang-rape articles. If you think that its (anti)religiously motivated, you need to put up evidence to that effect rather than dragging someone here and demanding they defend themselves. You asked a question, DS has answered. That you dont like the answer is not his fault, its reasonable under the circumstances and you can now choose to address it with good faith and work towards consensus on the talk page. The act of linking two articles that have similarities is not evidence in itself of non-npov editing. By its nature 'see also' sections are going to have common themes! 'Smearing minorities' is a serious accusation. It needs to be backed up with serious evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Darkness Shines has already explained his reasoning, that these were both high profile gang-rape cases that occurred over a lengthy period of time, and as he argues, that makes them tangentially related enough for the See Also section. The main issues brought up against him so far have been that both examples are of Muslims, and that neither example is geographically related, although Britain and Australia share many obvious socio-cultural similarities. Are there even any other examples that could be put into this See Also section that would be more relevant? Without any evidence that he is explicitly ignoring other notable gang-rape instances that occurred over long periods of time, or that his is singling out Muslims it is dubious to make a case of him trying to smear minorities.OakRunner (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• ATG's worry was entirely legitimate considering the larger editing patterns of the editors in question. But unless we are talking about the larger edit patterns then this is a content issue. I would note that editors have been topic banned in the past for focusing on providing negative information about specific ethnic or religious groups.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Folks, this is an edit war over a "see also" section. I'd suggest that given BRD the addition should be reverted and then discussed on the talk page with the default to be to exclude the link. Given how obvious that step is for experienced Wikipedians, I'm a bit worried that there are some other issues here (personal, religious or whatever). Given this discussion I imagine there will be enough participation to get consensus. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. I note the additions are no longer in the articles; they should stay removed unless/until there is talkpage consensus (amd, frankly, a damn good reason) to include them. The addition of the Rochdale link is IMO seriously problematic; there's no real link between these gang rape articles and that article where the main issue was grooming for prostitution, apart from the religion of the perpetrators. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'content disputes. Can anyone explain how one is supposed to engage in a discussion regarding content with someone who refuses to state why they want particular content included? This is elementary stuff - disputes regarding Wikipedia content can only be resolved by consensus, after discussion. A user who refuses to state why material merits inclusion, but insists it should be included, is clearly not participating in any discussion in a meaningful way - and to let this continue without sanctions is to invite further obstructionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor says they are similar crimes, and therefore would belong in the see also section for tangential info. Oddly, you both seem to see similarities, just not focus on the same ones, so either you both agree there are enough similarities or that there are not, but that is a content dispute, and you get others involved for a consensus to break the impasse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This cannot be a 'content dispute' if an involved party refuses to state why particular content should be included, while insisting that it should. And no - I see no reason whatsoever why the Australian articles should be linked in the UK ones, or vice versa. Or at least, no reason compliant with WP:NPOV policy. Remember, this is not an isolated incident - multiple editors have attempted to link the two sets of articles, and at no time has any justification whatsoever been provided. If this was a 'content dispute', one would expect those who were in favour of the links to explain their actions, rather than engaging in a slow-motion edit war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

They do state why: "similar crimes." Similar crimes are often linked in the media, or in peoples minds, or in criminological study, so the question becomes is there enough there per rough consensus to put in See also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has refused to say why these crimes in particular are more 'similar' than all the other possibilities. And no - no source has been offered suggesting that there are any links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss the other possibilities you mention there, in doing so, it is hoped you will reach a consensus on that. If the editor does not make his case, he does not make his case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has refused to discuss anything. Nobody else has proposed anything. The links have been deleted. What am I supposed to be 'discussing'? And what has this got to do with the issue I raised here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who raised a question about how to deal with a content dispute, which pretty much everyone on this board sees this as. Because the diff you have provided shows a content dispute, that is the consensus on this board. If no one is now editing the article, than yes there is nothing you need to discuss there, and nothing more to discuss here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has already said why. Alan gets it, Oakrunner gets it, Rutebega gets it, I get it. We might not necessarily agree with his reasoning but we understand it is a reason. You asked, he answered. Repeatedly. You have admitted there are similarities which you seem to think fall foul of NPOV. Given that they are not his stated reason for including them, you are attempting to exclude content based on a reason for which he hasnt given. Content dispute. Go discuss that on the talk page or the NPOV noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are suggesting that if someone violates WP:NPOV, but won't say why, it should be treated as a content dispute? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are suggesting that someone is violating WP:NPOV but not providing any evidence? Ridiculous... But should you come up with an argument, its a good thing we have a noticeboard for that where some experts can help you determine if there is an NPOV violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. WP:NPOVN can only function where both sides of a dispute are prepared to account for their actions. And yes - I've provided the evidence that DS has refused to explain why these links in particular are merited, and suggested why DS refuses to provide such an explanation. If I'm wrong, let DS explain why I'm wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOVN can only function when both people are engaging in discussion, so please stop side-stepping discussion with allegations of DS not participating and instead start engaging DS's argument. It's not a hard case to make, just argue that these articles aren't likely similar enough to be of interest to readers visiting them. Argue that the Sydney gang rape article is likely only of interest to people geographically related to the incident and that no particularly significant criminological similarities exist between the different gang rapes.OakRunner (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be a behaviour problem here. Has anyone looked at the edit-war only account that Andy pointed to? (I haven't.) Regardless of the fate of this thread, I'm going to take a look at this editor's history. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have, very few contributions. Articles appear to be related to Islam. Looks like it encountered DS at the Rochdale article and then either followed/was followed. (DS has subsequently reverted a couple of its additions elsewhere. Make of that what you will) Doesnt ring any bells, but I am unfamiliar with sockmasters in the I/P/Islam area, so if anyone has an idea, better take it to SPI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean I'm looking at Darkness Shines. That red-linked edit-warrier doesn't seem very significant. I'm worried DS may be editing tendentiously. I've just looked at his history on one article though, and see no problems. This'll take some time and I wouldn't keep this thread open waiting for me.

I see we're now exchanging See also links between Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Derby sex gang. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be some rhyme or reason while the articles are linked. Sadly (horribly), repeated gang rape is not a rarity [314], [315], [316].NE Ent 03:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So, discuss those on the article talk page, if as you seem to argue they suggest something with respect to the relevance of the edit, or the validity of the inclusion argument. (As an illustration with respect to "See also" and crime I happened to be reading, yesterday François Ravaillac where See also mentions another defendant from a later century and despite multiple similar crimes by others, so perhaps these issues are only hashed out in editing discussion under current policy) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Like at least some others, I see no explanation at all in this oft-cited edit. "Gangs of men were attacking women" is hardly unique to the articles Darkness Shines is linking to, methinks. "Content dispute"--sure, but some content disputes are about content that maybe should be discussed here. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If the editor has drawn a poorly reasoned connection, than so much the better for refuting it. But no, administrative action and intervention is not the way to address poorly reasoned content arguments. Refute it on the article talk page with better reasoning like any other content editor. This particular "incident" is not something that is amenable to administrative intervention, so why discuss it here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If further evidence of Darkness Shines' POV-pushing regarding this issue is required, I'd recommend looking at the history of our British Pakistanis article, where DS was one of several editors attempting to insert [317] a large (3,427 character) section on the Rochdale gang into the article, with blatant disregard for weight, relevance, or neutrality. In fact, it appears that DS was amongst the first to raise allegations of 'Child sex abuse' in the article e.g. in this edit: [318] Note that it was citing the U.S. Christian Broadcasting Network's 'terrorism' expert, and a notably anti-Pakistani India-based-source (somewhat confusingly named the Sunday Guardian - a confusion that DS did nothing to clear up) as sources for what was supposedly going on in Britain - hardly the best of sources, unless one is looking for hyperbole. This is the sort of editing that first made me question DS's neutrality - and I have seen nothing since to suggest that my initial suspicions of a clear bias against the British Pakistani community was incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your a liar, Henrik.karlstrom was blocked or accused of sockpuppetry when I did that revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right - someone made a false accusation of sockpuppetry, resulting in a block shortly followed by an unblock and an apology [319]. I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that you were amongst those responsible for inserting POV-pushing badly-sourced material into the British Pakistanis article though. Anyway, are you still claiming not to have a bias against the British Pakistani community? or is this another question you'd rather not answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fuck all against any community, and should you imply it one more time in your fucking smear campaign against me and I will delete every fucking post you have made those bullshit allegations in. This is not the first time you have attacked me in this manner, it most certainly will be the last. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And with that threat, I think I'll call it a night. The evidence can stand for itself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS, one more outburst like that and it won't matter what, if anything, anyone else is doing, as you will be blocked for making personal attacks. Even if somebody is attacking you (which I am not judging one way or the other), that does not give you grounds for "an eye for an eye". In addition, you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - consider yourself fortunate you're not blocked right now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not made a personal attack. Per TPG I have the right to remove any personal attacks, that is not trying to prove a point, it is policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, then, and I've struck the second part of my statement. This, however is very much a personal attack, not to mention a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hereby wash my hands of this business, as I can tell it's only going to get messier from here. Good luck to the closing admin. —Rutebega (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This should be closed as content dispute as clearly there will be no administrate action --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that as Shrike is a significant contributor to more than one of the articles discussed here, his repeated attempts to close discussion need to be seen as those of an involved person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not much is going to come out of this--ANI is probably not the best venue since it is not quickly, easily, or clearly established that an underlying pattern of problematic behavior is the root cause of the "See also" dispute. (By the same token, pace Shrike, this is not simply a content discussion, at least not in the eyes of a number of editors in this discussion.) Wikipedia:Request for comment/Darkness Shines is still a red link, and that's probably the way to go. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an un-involved party, but for anyone who wishes to question the motives of Darkness and the editor above AndyTheGrump, please take a look at this page where Darkness bullied an IP over a period of time (notice the extremity of Darkness's actions and then the IP's responses which are quite unusually, civilized.). Darkness seems to believe the evolution-denying, climate-change-denying network, otherwise known as Fox News, is considered a reliable source when it's clearly questionable as has been stated before by Wikipedians (See Archive 27 which the IP linked). Asked by other editors on WP:RS why he's gone to such extremities re-adding Fox content without discussion, harassing the IP - when the IP begged for a discussion - and why he avoids any type of dialogue Darkness has produced nothing, again hoping the issue would go away. Darkness has claimed he knows nothing about Fox News or Bill O'Reilly yet he's avoided all discussion and re added content and has even tried to get the IP blocked. He's clearly got a hidden agenda. I recommend a total topic ban if Wikipedia still has those things around. I've nothing more to say but this: it's editors like these that made me quit Wikipedia. It's turned into a fucking talking shop where right wing fights left wing. I'm glad I retired years ago. Looks like the same old shit again with a new face. I knew one day this was going to happen. And it looks like the declining number of editors over the years is really taking it's toll. Wikipedia used to be so welcoming, and then came this political nonsense. Goodbye people. 92.22.66.240 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source as much as any other news organization as far as Wikipedia sourcing is concerned, period dot. Anti-conservative rhetoric is not needed in this discussion. Goodbye.--v/r - TP 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)That would not be an inaccurate position on how people feel about FOXnews. Would be best to say if reliable published sources do not include the information that someone has found only at FOXnews, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may be an editorial and thus should be indicated were the info comes from. We need to build in reliability to our articles and lets face it FOXnews does not have a good reputation and other sources would be best -but are not a must.Moxy (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News meets Wikipedia's WP:RS. If we are going to start censoring what a reliable source is based on our political affiliation, then I no longer want to be involved in this project. If, instead, we intend to adhere to WP:NPOV, then we are not going to ignore a conservative news source because it disagrees with our opinion that it is an "evolution-denying, climate-change-denying network."--v/r - TP 20:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Pls reply in a manner that express the concerns raise and not just threaten to leave or label our editors that raise legitimate concerns. I would be concerned if any news sources was used feverishly and without concerns for content. Dont care If you like or dislike something or think others are wrong for there POV on a certain source. We are not children - we do not not live in a land of fantasy and thus we all should represent situations accurately and not just point to policy as if its not a source of contention. I am sure you agree that FOXnews is a source of contention not just here on Wikipedia but in the general public overall?Moxy (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I'd agree with that. I've boycotted Fox News twice in the last 3 years.--v/r - TP 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes IP, you are so uninvolved. What with having the

Yes IP, you are so uninvolved. What with having the same ISP, both static and both in Glasgow, also I did not try to get your mate blocked, if I wanted him blocked I would not have withdrawn the ANEW report. I see several editors agreeing that my reason for reverting you pal was reasonable. I obviously have heard of Fox News, I never said i had not. I said I had never heard of O'Reilly. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't hear about him unless you watch Fox News on TV. He doesn't write on FoxNews.com, only on his own blog.--v/r - TP 20:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow DS, he and I must obviously be the same person then, I mean out of population of 3,000,000 people the majority of whom use Opal Telecom Services in the area, which has a very large dynamic IP range anyway, we MUST be the same person then. You have much to learn.I won't be editing this website any time soon, and I don't care if I get blocked. I just want to get the facts straight, and they're pretty clear to me I can assure you, you can't insult my intelligence (it's laughable you "haven't heard" of Bill O'Reilly but know about Fox News). 92.22.66.240 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said you were the same editor, I said he was your mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
please note - the attacking IP user 92.22.66.240 (talk (a probable involved socking disruptive user avoiding attribution to their opinions and comments, imo , meh) has been blocked for his comments in this thread for one week for multiple egregious personal attacks by User:Jayron32 , as such his comments should be struck or as a minimum - ignored. - as a maximum, checkusered to associate possible wikipedia user account to the IP address - Youreallycan 21:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) By the same token you yourself should be ignored.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Sadly, for you ... you appear to be unable to get over our little discussion where you attacked me yesterday. Youreallycan 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC) And of course you never in your life attacked anyone, you just found it to be natural to suggest that my opinion was just based in my religion and ethnicity (about which you know less than nothing). Well, your armlength blocklog tells a different story.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You are embarrassing yourself - Youreallycan 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC) As for this thread its unseemly as ever on the dramah board - its a couple of see also links - they have been removed - the user that added them is unlikely to make similar see also additions now they are aware of the objections - so - back off - move along - have a nice evening - try to all get along better and close this thread as resolved - discussed , removed , nothing to action - regards - Youreallycan 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 'Closure reverted - please note - I closed this report , diff edit summary of, "resolved - discussed , removed , nothing immediate to action - as per Drmies - if there are issues worthy of community discussion - Wikipedia:Request for comment/Darkness Shines is still a red link. " - in an attempted to reduce disruption - but was reverted by User:Maunus, an administrator, who accused me of being involved diff - such a drive by reopening by User:Maunus won't make any difference at all and this administrators reopening of the thread sadly serves to only continue the disruption - .Youreallycan 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You should be blocked for your involved, nonadmin and disruptive drive-by closure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You are embarrassing yerself and your WP:Admin status - Youreallycan 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Abuse in multiple pages / 3RR / Sock-puppetry

Ricojellyfro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP's 93.33.243.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.66.209.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 93.33.250.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 93.34.1.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be same person.

This person is deleting sourced material and replacing it with OR. Examples: [320] [321]. Explanation of how he is inserting OR and deleting sourced material: [322] [323]. He was warned by me and and an admin yesterday [324], but still continues same behaviour [325]. He has also exceeded 3RR in Genetic history of the Turkish people Cavann (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:IronKnuckle maliciously creating plainly invalid AFDs for disruptive purposes

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:IronKnuckle created an account this morning and has since done nothing but create grossly inappropriate AFDs about organizations and individuals whose politics he objects to. Anyone who claims the New Yorker is not a reliable source (actually calling it a primary poor source in the Tom Diaz AFD) or claiming that Americans for Democratic Action is not notable is obviously not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Clearly a sockpuppet as well, given the expertise shown is WP processes. Indef ban called for, and all the AFDs should be summarily closed as keep to avoid further waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a false, bad faith accusation. I am not taking a side on any issue, I just saw the articles as non notable. There is no disruption, it's an AfD debate. This was also taken to ANI with no warnings, and this was also taken to AfD without going to the dispute resolution process. Also calling me a sockpuppet is a personal attack. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I also never said Tom Diaz's page had primary sources. check the AfD yourself if you dont believe me... IronKnuckle (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You called it a poor source. which is barely less idiotic. Keeping track of all the misstatements you're spewing out is both distasteful and time-consuming. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC) And I didn't keep two similarly titled AFDs straight, which really hasn't helped here. IronKnuckle called The New Yorker a primary source in the Thomas C. Wales AFD. He called The Atlantic a poor source in the Diaz AFD. Both of these claims are patently absurd and go to the issue of his competence, motivation, and good faith, but I really didn't help by mixing them up in my haste to try and keep this mess from metastasizing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If Americans for Democratic Action is so notable, then why is the article so poorly sourced? IronKnuckle (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to leave more than a minute between your insistent demands. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've glanced at this and it would appear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is correct. IronKnuckle looks like an SPA sock out to delete articles on gun control advocates and groups. Suggest an immediate block. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing alot of personal attacks directed at me. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Where? I see a highly plausible suggestion that you may have another account. That's not a personal attack, it's a matter for investigation. If you can't tell the difference, that is entirely your problem. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Awwwwwwww..... I sorry man. I don't mean to make you feel bad. It just looks very odd when someone makes a new account and launches a bunch of AfDs rapidly. I'm not saying you're a bad person. Socks are people too.... NickCT (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet and calling me idiotic is an obvious personal attack. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, possibly it's because disinterested reviewers of your nominations see a relentless pattern of trying to get gun control advocates and their organizations deleted. If you don't understand why Americans for Democratic Action is notable, it's because either (a) you are too ill-read or haven't bothered to do the basic research on one of the chief progressive organizations in the USA, or because (b) your nominations show ill-intent. Of course, both of these could be true. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Expressing concerns of sockpuppetry may be in bad faith but it's not a personal attack.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculating on some being or not being a sock is not in any way a personal attack. Saying that someone is "idiotic" may very well be, depending on the interpretation of the analyzing admin. I would strongly suggest that people in this discussion refrain from speculating or commenting on the intelligence of other users, lest you find yourself crossing a line that is better not crossed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't ever think of a genuine new editor whose first edit was a {{subst:afd2}}. Therefore, per WP:DUCK, a sock investigation sounds reasonable. If you're not a sock, chill out and relax - you've got nothing to worry about! Kick up a fuss and it'll only make things worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Again they are good faith nominations. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." for AlexTiefling. Your argument is invalid. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Declaring 'your argument is invalid' is a purely rhetorical device. But I see you quoting, or paraphrasing, WP:SPI. You do know an awful lot about the bureaucracy of this site for someone who just joined this morning. Would you like to account for this? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's not very often a new user starts off right off the bat as a nominator of articles for AFD. It usually takes a while for someone to learn how Wikipedia works, how AFD works, and how nominations work. So when someone starts right there, it typically suggests that a person has previous knowledge, commonly leading to being a sockpuppet. Then there's the problem that there's a pretty clear agenda to your nominations. Put that together and there's plenty of reason for doubt, which is where the good-faith accusations come from. (Not personal attacks.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What efforts did you make to improve these articles before nominating them for deletion (which is, after all, a last resort)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz called me a sock puppet, and idiotic. Also I did have an account til this morning because I was too lazy to make one in the past, but I have read wikipedia's policies throughly. I assume you those weren't bad faith nominations, those articles were not up to snuff. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not up to snuff" is not really a convincing argument. Try "I did a news search for 'x', 'y' and 'z' and found no hits, couldn't find anything in Google Books, nothing in my local library, everything on a web search is self published or unreliable". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no way I saw to improve them, deletion appeared to be the only option. They should have an AfD debate. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing very strongly against your competence, IronKnuckle, in trying to get the ADA article deleted. GBooks shows 150K hits on it, even GNews gets a few. If you can't do that most basic research, you have no business proposing deletions. But the fact that gun control is mentioned in every article you've gone after, and indeed is the only area of notability for a number of them, tells everyone that you're on a mission. Badly argued AFDs on a single side of a controversy from a brand-new user: it's hardly a positive sign. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's also Maydewsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only contribution was to support one of IronKnuckle's obscure AfDs. I'll file at SPI, but it seems to me that a CU shouldn't be necessary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If a sockpuppet investigation is opened, could someone look at User:Maydewsl, a newly-created account whose only edit was a keep delete !vote at one of these AfDs? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Again calling someone a sock is not a personal attack. Wiki has been around a while so it is possible that this user did edit as an IP, I will agree that it is odd for a new editor to hit AFD immediately but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I would instead focus on the issues with the nominations of AFD until you have a conclusive theory on who the user might be a puppet of if indeed they are. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch ★ Bald Zebra ★. That's likely a sock. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The false accusation is a personal attack, and are you saying calling me idiotic isnt a personal attack? So you think anyone who agreed that terrible article should be deleted is a sock puppet? That seems quite biased. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What I actually said was that describing The New Yorker as a poor source or an unreliable source was idiotic, and I think that's a fair comment. Reasonable people occasionally say idiotic things (as do unreasonable ones) as well as dishonest things, malicious things, etc. I think that IK's repeated invocations of various WP standards and principles to divert attention from his deliberately disruptive behavior and his less than sincere, accurate, or good faith comments demonstrates that he's at least a moderately experienced editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Posted at SPI already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IronKnuckle. Not sure of the sockmaster, but Maydews seems obvious. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't delete articles because they're "terrible". I don't like Anne Widdecombe - can I delete her article, please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"I did have an account til this morning" - paging Dr Freud... - And your conduct was described as idiotic in one specific case, IronKnuckle. If you think that conduct characterises you entirely, please feel free to believe that you, personally, have been called an idiot. If you don't, well, calm down. But I'd strongly reiterate that you appear to have ignored WP:BEFORE, that your choices for deletion show a clear political bias, and that 'I couldn't see how to improve them' is an absolutely lousy reason to argue for something to be deleted. Your own incompetence and ignorance about the subject-matter of these articles should be a good reason not to touch them, rather than to start calling for their deletion. And bluntly, I don't believe that this is your first account. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

By terrible I meant terribly inconsistant with wikipedia's policies. Also AlexTiefling I consider you calling me incompetent and ignorant a personal attack as well.

Personal attack By Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IronKnuckle (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your extensive amateur knowledge of WP policies and procedures, I'd have thought you might be familiar with 'Competence is required'. You are not displaying that competence. Again, if you feel attacked, that is your problem. As long as you undertake a plainly political campaign of arguing for the deletion of selected articles, that is our problem. You have still done absolutely nothing to convince me that your choice of articles to delete is anything other than political, contrary to your unconvincing claim to support NPOV, and your constant bluster about personal attacks looks like an attempt to distract us from that. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The AfDs aren't on articles in my area of expertise. I've only commented on one, and having found 20 possibly reliable sources in 10 seconds, I don't fancy your chances at getting that one deleted. But what I will say is that having arrived on ANI, there will be many more eyes looking at your nominations, and people will be strongly motivated to research sources and improve the articles. And of course, woe betide you if the Article Rescue Squadron get hold of this.... ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done in this edit --Senra (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

All of these should be snowball kept. Not liking a topic is not a valid reason for deletion, and your "non-notable" arguments are clearly without merit. I'd support banning the user from AfD topics (though that won't be necessary if we get positive results from the SPI). The "personal attack" arguments are without merit as well, as the AfD nominations are patently ridiculous and pointy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I never gave a partisan political reason why they should be deleted. I gave a reason based on wikipedia's policies. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would advise you to give this noticeboard a break (where, after all, kittens get drowned on a regular basis by everyone), and start contesting the AfDs you've created. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. You're plainly not stupid enough to state a political reason, and I wouldn't insult your intelligence by claiming otherwise. But there is a clear political pattern to the range of articles you've selected, and you haven't really been able to account for that adequately yet. And the reasons you've given refer to Wikipedia's policies, but the few users who've responded so far seem to think that they do not do so in a relevant or convincing manner. Your response to this has generally been loud and forceful rejection rather than improving your case. While this kind of behaviour comes up quite a lot at AfD, it does tend to support the 'political' hypothesis in your case. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that people are trying to give you the chance to back off your campaign yourself without a block, but you may find their patience runs out quickly if you try to treat them like idiots. Nobody is being fooled about this being anything but a dedicated attempt to remove pro-gun control topics from Wikipedia. Resolute 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If they feel like idiots, then I am deeply sorry they feel that way. And wouldnt I be going after the Brady Campaign if that was truly my mission? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So it is a complete coincidence then that your nominations are all centred around articles associated with pro-gun control advocacy? I don't think so. Resolute 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. I looked at some and they had 45 sources, and I was like, ok that looks good. Then there were some with primary sources and no sources and few sources. I nominated those. If I had nominated the articles with 45 sources THEN you could possibly say I was biased. But I am neutral on this issue. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this remark enforces any notions of your neutrality. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to take time out for a second here. To be fair, a couple of the articles I looked at didn't have particularly great sourcing, so I would be very hesitant to leap in and say all the articles should be kept. I would advise everyone to simply improve the articles if they can and !vote accordingly one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly Richie, thats why I nominated them, I'm glad you agree. I am not perfect, but a broken clock is right twice a day as they say. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I agreed with you, I merely suggested a calmer form of resolution for everyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You implied it. But whatever makes you feel better. I think the people who were using personal attacks should be held responible. I did warn them not to do it. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You warned us? How imposing! You've gone on and on accusing me of personal attacks, and ignoring my replies. You opened a talk page discussion with me (note to others: the first post of this was on my talk page, and I've now deleted it, but it's there in the history), insisted that I prove a negative, and then tried to shut me down when I suggested that you could demonstrate your own good faith with a single diff if you chose. Then you accused me of harassment for participating in the discussion you'd started. Let's try this again: (1) Can you tell the difference between a criticism of your work or posting patterns, and an attack on you as an individual? (2) What rationale do you provide for having chosen the range of articles you have attempted to delete? (3) Can you provide even a single diff showing that you have added new content to the main article space, other than AfD templates? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No I said you were harassing me because I asked you to stop contacting me on my page and you persisted on still doing it! IronKnuckle (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide unilaterally when to start and stop a conversation. I already pointed out that you were free to delete the whole thread if you felt like it. Now please oblige us, and do something to restablish belief in your good faith, by answering the questions. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, now quit trying to give me orders, I answer to God, not to you. IronKnuckle (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's keep religion out of this. God doesn't have an account here. I'm not giving you orders, although you've given me several, as well as a warning. I'm making a request, because I genuinely think it is in your interest to give full and honest answers to the questions I've posed. At the moment, your situation here looks quite bad. An explanation of your actions would go some way to improving that. I've been enough of an arrogant asshole myself, in enough places, to know how it goes otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am concerned that a 30 day restriction on AfD's will not resolve the POV pushing noted above. It's clear there is a gun related agenda to the serial AfD nominations and an unlikely position to change. Furthermore this editor has not expressed any attitude in that they have made a mistake in interpreting the notability guidelines. Mkdw^talk 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose that IronKnuckle be topic banned from starting Afds for one month and all current Afds be speedy declined.

• Rather than consume Wikipedia time for one or two decent articles. A broken clock is wrong the vast majority of the day. NE Ent 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  You think ALL those articles should be kept? You're kidding me... Btw you gotta admit, me AfDing those poorly sourced articles put some fire in the ass of people to improve them, so I think I helped improve some. But some are not notable enough for wikipedia yet. This is why there are AfDs, so people can debate and figure it out. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  You need to take the time to learn more about the WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE, and be more selective with your nominations. One has already been closed as Keep, and several others are looking like WP:SNOW Keeps anytime now... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It's time to stop with the silliness. Ishdarian 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Comments like this do not inspire confidence that they are here to collaborate with others or to improve Wikipedia, and AfDs like this one suggest that the editor needs to become more familiar with Wikipedia's criteria on reliable sources and deleting articles before nominating articles for deletion. AfDs are not here to "inspire people to improve articles". - SudoGhost 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for a 30 day period. , I'd say until he understands AFD is not a suitable way to make someone improve an article. Deletion is truly for subjects that are not notable not as "A way to light a fire" under anyone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• No idea why we're numbering this cos WP:NOTAVOTE, and shouldn't we wait for the SPI to come back before considering any/all sanctions? GiantSnowman 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you ban them from a topic. There are people on one side of the issue, people on the other. And people in the middle. I'm in the middle here. I'm neutral on the issue. I just nominated the articles that I felt violated policy and gave my reasons. And for that I get personally attacked and brought here? Ridiculous. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The nominations are exactly why this proposal was brought forwards. It's got nothing to do with your position on anything, but the fact that you feel articles "violated policy" when they came nowhere close to doing that. An editor that comes to Wikipedia and on the first day makes a nomination like this doesn't need to be nominating articles until they get a grasp on what they're doing. It's got nothing to do with your personal opinion on some political matter. That you got called an idiot by another editor was inappropriate, but (1) that doesn't make the nominations suddenly okay, and (2) when you said "If they feel like idiots, then I am deeply sorry they feel that way" you lost the ability to pull the "I got personally attacked" card, because now it's a pot calling a kettle black. - SudoGhost 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not, because thats not a personal attack. I said I was sorry if they felt like idiots, however I didnt call them idiots. That one guy called me an idiot, and that is a personal attack, and it's astounding that after I warned him about it he still did it and nobody wants to hold him accountable, they are all concerned about my neutral nominations... IronKnuckle (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What you said is as much a personal attack as "you're an idiot", the only difference is that you beat around the bush with yours and that doesn't somehow make it better. There's also this ad hominem comment you made on your talk page. Your nominations may or may not be neutral, but that's ultimately irrelevant because even if they are neutral there still are critical issues with the nominations and "but I got called an idiot" doesn't fix those issues. - SudoGhost 17:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - So far he has made no indication that he understands the problem, which means he'll repeat this behavior unless precluded from doing so. Until he's able to demonstrate an understanding of why this is not ok, he shouldn't be disrupting the AfD process. We can close the AfDs for now, with no prejudice to restarting any that have merit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Changed numbered list to bullets per GiantSnowman.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It is obvious that these AFDs are agenda driven. A topic ban will prevent a continuation. And speedy close does not preclude a neutral editor creating a new AfD if the stopped clock happened to be right. Resolute 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Though, I believe the current AfDs should run their course (some of the articles to have some issues, though not as severe as warranting deletion) and the scope be narrowed to IronKnuckle being prohibited from starting/participating in an AfD relating to gun control articles. This will allow him space to work on other aspects of the project. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support- this is all very suspect and an abundance of caution should be applied. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - If User refuses to cooperate or even acknowledge these complaints, then it seems such a sanction is necessary. Beyond the obvious agenda, it seems like if the user were truly acting in good faith, they'd be a little more cooperative. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Dream Focus 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – User:Sergecross73 puts it well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I want to assume these AfDs and the apparent lack of understanding of our notability guidelines were made in good faith, but the fact that all of these (coupled with the comment attacking gun-control supporters) relate to one side of an obviously heated debate indicates that this user is not maintaining a neutral point of view. Also, his earlier comment stating that the AfDs were good because they "put some fire in the ass of people to improve them" is also troubling - if he sincerely wants these articles improved, he should either attempt to do it himself, or add the relevant template message so that it gets flagged up for others. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support it's pretty much impossible not to see these nominations as agenda-driven. Extend to indef if it continues after 30 days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: (read-only mode conflict) if I wanted to create a list of supporters for a given POV, the creation of a raft of AfD's in the manner that IronKnuckle has done here would be one way of doing it. If I was able to vote on this board I would recommend a speedy close of all affected AfD's to prevent such nonsense --Senra (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Partial Close In my opinion, there is more then enough support here for closing the AfDs, and their continuing to be open is an ongoing problem, so I'm going to go close any that are still open on the basis of the above. I'm not closing the whole section, while it has strong support for a topic ban, it has only been open 2 hours, half of which was read only, and as the editor is blocked for 36 hours, I see no reason not to leave the topic ban discussion open a bit longer. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse closed many obvious ones such as the BLP's of Attorney General of the United States' etc. under my below support statement below. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support After reviewing his nominations, it is clear he is intentionally targeting articles with a pro-gun agenda. I have closed many of his AfD's under WP:SK #2, WP:SNOW, and clear lack of understanding or thoroughness in reading policies. Mkdw^talk 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support except that I would make the bar higher. Perhaps 6 months and at least 500 constructive edits. IronKnuckle needs to earn back the trust of the community. - MrX 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and echo MrX, otherwise we return here in 30 days. Insomesia (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

LOOK

At least someone agrees this should at least be redirected: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Americans_for_Gun_Safety_Foundation I guess my nominations did have some merit huh? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Stop shouting, and stop with the attitude, you need to keep calm rather than jumping on every-bloody-body. WP:AGF only stretches so far, even for the saints amongst us. GiantSnowman 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now blocked IronKnuckle for a period of 3 days for disruptive editing and a lack of competence. The behaviour shown in this discussion alone has become disruptive, and to prevent further creations of possibly baseless Afds I have acted before a topic ban is confirmed. On this note, the SPI has shown that at least per checkuser there are no technically related accounts. De728631 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops--De, I thought you had indeffed them, and I marked a few of their AfDs as such (I speedy closed a couple of them, and I'm about to check if there are any left). FWIW, I have no problem with an indef block since they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And let's note the contributions by IPs 118.6.164.91 and 122.17.60.88. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I was also thinking an indefblock; judging by a quick survey of their edits, all of them are nominating for deletion articles which in some way mention support for gun control, on fairly generic grounds. However, we can afford to pull our punches a bit here; a topic ban on AfDs will force them to find something else to do in a hurry, so it should solve the problem one way or another. No need to be hasty, as they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but there's more than one way to push a POV...I'm not necessarily advocating an indef block at this point, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think IronKnuckle's AfD stats are not looking too great. (Well, certainly not compared to mine, and presumably, most people's here). Who wants to speedy close the remainder? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like all his Afds have now been closed. As to the topic ban, there seems to be unanimous support for a ban on afds as such but let's keep the discussion for another day or two to sort out the details like duration or minimum number of edits. However, if anyone feels inclined to indef IronKnuckle for obvious reasons, please go ahead. I won't mind it. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

References

References

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.

Semi-Protect My User Account

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 would appreciate an admin temporarily semi-protecting my user and user talk pages because of ongoing vandalism by User:Mangoeater1000. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of vandalism would be helpful, particularly since he's currently blocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A few of his over 80 sockpuppets have been hounding me on my user page here, here again, and on my talk page here and here. It's growing tiresome. 72Dino (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have indefinitely semied your userpage; I'm not protecting your talk page at the moment, however, because I'm not seeing the high level of disruption that's usually required to do so. I'm sorry. If a passing admin disagrees, feel free to protect. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It goes in waves with him on my talk page. I'll let you know if it become problematic again. Regards, 72Dino (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done by Salvio Guliano and me. Your user page has been indefinitely semi-protected and your talk page has a semi'd for two weeks (by me). De728631 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassing, island-hopping IP editor

This individual, who seems to hop IPs every few edits was blocked for similar (although more aggressive) behaviour in November and has long been back with a vengeance. Although this person's editorial mishaps extend beyond mere edit-warring to harassing, I felt it would be easier to single out a single behavioural issue. Also, at Tainan this editor showed his/her true intent of tracking me down by reverting in a non-politically contentious content area. The questionable conduct extends to the 111.243.45.* and 61.219.36.* ranges as well, including outright vandalising of other user's talk pages. It is high time that this person's ranges are executed Wiki-style. GotR ^Talk 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP should be blocked and harassment has not, should not and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And (s)he's back to it again! GotR ^Talk 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected List of cities in China. Vandalism on Makecat's talk page has died down; if it flares up again that talk page should be semi-protected as well. There isn't much else we can do, I think, but an IP-range specialist can maybe figure something out. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(S)he has yet again reverted me without explanation. GotR ^Talk 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked 61.219.36.0/24, but my comments about the other range from the last time still stand. --Rschen7754 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas at Talk:Burrito

In an ongoing discussion regarding bold changes to content restructuring, content removal, and re-reversions (1, 2), at the article Burrito, Viriditas has indirectly accused myself of sock-puppetry, with this edit. In the edit he/she claims that Biancles is an SPA. This is the latest reply, in what I have considered a series of uncivil replies made by Viriditas (please see the candidate page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1 (which still requires an additional certifier) for further information). This discussion, already had a third opinion (by Go Phightins!), and RfC to receive additional editors opinions in an attempt to build a consensus. Up until this (what I believe is) NPA, I had repeatedly asked for civility, and was attempting to start an RfC/UC; however, due to the NPA. I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional accusations of puppetry and incivility While I have no beef (well I hope it's beef) in this burrito article (for the record I love S.F. burritos), I too have experienced recent unpleasantries with Viriditas being uncivil and accusing others of puppetry. In a unrelated burrito & Viriditas matter, I politely asked another user on their talkpage to be more careful about using "vandalism" in edit summaries when reverting edits. Viriditas joins the conversation and accuses me of editing on behalf of a "block sock puppet". Then further on in the conversation Viriditas makes a completely unfounded and grossly offensive statement that I have "been on an anti-LGBT crusade for Christ". I assume being called a homophobe is a violation of WP:NPA. I also personally find the statement claiming I'm doing something on behalf of any religion repugnant (my apologies to editors of faith in advance, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your beliefs). Despite Viriditas requesting me not to post on his talk page, I ignored his request in light of his gross accusations and warned him with a template. His response was to delete the warning (no big deal), however his edit summary once again made another accusation of puppetry stating "What part of "banned from my talk page" don't you understand sock?". I had some email conversations with another editor about this incident, and as a result of those discussions and some passing time I decided to take no action. However I see that this is not an isolated incident. I don't know what administrative action should be taken here, but at the very least Viriditas should be admonished for this behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, looking back, is not the first statement made by Viriditas that could be considered an Ad hominem argument which falls under WP:WIAPA. The initial re-reversion came after this statement:

We don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT.

This reversion of a reversion, did not abide by WP:BRD. I replied to this by asking for civility, as at that point I continued to assume good faith. Therefor this makes, IMHO, two events where Viriditas had posted something that falls within WIAPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The aforementioned RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1, is proposed for deletion, "Uncertified RFC/U after 48 hours". However, the RfC policy says "Any RFC/U not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours"; it does not say that it needs to be certified within 48 hours, and the RfC makes a claim that more than one user tried and failed to resolve the dispute, though there is as yet no second certified. As such, I am unwilling right now to delete it since I don't think the letter of the law says I should. A second opinion from an admin would be welcome; there do appear to be concerns about Viriditas's behavior, though I cannot judge the validity of such claims--I'll err on the side of caution since, as far as I know, RightCow and Rosetta are not trolls. For the record, I also like burritos, though for some reason they remind me of sepositories. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC is gone now. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, is it possible to undue the deletion? Although all the content can be found through searching through the history of the article, its talk page, and the talk page of Viriditas, the work done to create it already alleviates the need to do much of that searching. This will assist non-involve editors in quickly looking at the history of the discussion, and the issues I believe have occured.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against restoring the RfC; I did read it before deleting it, and I couldn't see anything that is worthy of an RfC, which is probably why nobody would certify it within the time limit. Why not just continue to discuss the matter in article talk? Or not; it's hardly an earth-shaking issue you are in dispute over. --John (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the RfC and I agree with John on its content. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my first try at formating an RfC/UC, I sincerely hope that the events in question were not lost due to my poor formatting. Moreover, I hope that I rarely (if ever) have to create another one. Ideally all editors whom I happen to discuss content with will not require an RfC/UC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIVIL  I added Viriditas' talk page to my watch list after an incident, and regularly see personal attacks used to remove edit comments.  I support the call for an admin warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have not accused RightCowLeftCoast of any sock puppetry. He has apparently misunderstood my comments as well as most of the discussion on the talk page, including: how we use appropriate sources (not poems that you find in a Google search!) what constitutes original research (we don't add source A and source B together to come up with content C), how verifiability helps us choose content (if we can't verify what a source says we usually can't use it if there is a dispute), and more importantly, how to resolve disputes on the talk page (it means actually discussing the topic not asking others to answer for you or relying on the answers of others). In response to all of these questions, he has made repeated accusations of incivility rather than engage in the discussion. This pattern tends to look like WP:IDHT after a while. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a board to discuss content dispute, but editor's actions. I believe that I have responded by attempting to refute the points brought up, by explaining the guidelines and policies as I understand it, and so far there is a plurality of editors who have stated that I have and for the most part agreed with me. I have gone through dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion, and began an RfC which has lead to the plurality that I have stated above. When faced with comments that I believe were uncivil I kindly asked that incivility ceased, only for continued incivility. I had hoped that it would not come to this, however after two instances that IMHO fall under WP:WIAPA...

Regardless, if I am not accused of sockpuppetry, it is still bad form to address that statement by Biancles as a SPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you've tried very, vey hard to turn into a conduct dispute by ignoring the questions and points raised in the discussion and accusing me of incivility over and over again. To me, this is a case of IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet I have not ignored questions, and points, and have answered them. Others have stated, not just Biancles, that I have done so. However, at the same time I have had several replies which IMHO are uncivil, and have been accused of IDHT and not answering the questions and points posted by Viriditas.

Based on what others have posted IDHT is not the case, therefore please stop making the false accusation. If Viriditas believes IDHT still occurs, may I say sorry in advance for any misunderstanding this may cause, as I have done in the past I will continue to reply and answer questions and points (even if others believe I am not).

As I said before, it is OK for us not to agree, as long as we remain civil. As I have said, since we did not disagree I followed the dispute resolution (3O & RfC) process and a consensus was formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous thread and it's implausible that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please expand, I would like to know why any editor is above any action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But, that's not what he said or implied. This is another example of your continuing misreading of comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What is implied? This is why I am asking for an expansion of comment, for clarification. What about this thread is ridiculous? What is meant by "it's implausable that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas"? What is implausible, that admin action will occur, or that admin action will occur that reflects upon Viriditas, something else?

I would have liked to avoid all this. This could have been done through civil discussion; yet here we are.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why any editor is above any action No one is above any action, but your alleged question is a simple example of "Begging the question", where it assumes that there is some action that needs to be taken. And "we" are here because you chose (unnecessarily) to be here, so you really shouldn't be talking about how you wanted to avoid anything. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I meant. When I say I would have liked to avoid all this, I mean I would have liked it if Ad hominem arguments made against me did not happen, I mean I would have liked it if the conversation on the Burrito Talk Page was civil, I mean if those two things did not occur, the situation would have never arose that lead me to starting this discussion. I hope this is more clear.

I had tried to ask (multiple times) Viriditas to be civil. I had went through the dispute resolution process(es) that has established the present consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The word "ridiculous" is defined at wiktionary as "Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd."  The use of such language does not befit a collegial atmosphere.  The use of such language should inure to the originator.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that this thread is "ridiculous" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

So far, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. The only comment actually calling anyone a sock was in removing a generic warning template placed by User:Little_green_rosetta (whom Viriditas had previously asked not to post to his Talk page.) That was somewhat inappropriate but, given he wanted no contact from the editor, Viriditas was understandably upset at having a template slapped on his Talk by someone he wanted no contact with. And, given that this was from December 27, I don't think it qualifies as an "incident" needing immediate action. A troutslap is about all that would be warranted.

I haven't got time at the moment for a details combing through contributions to see if the accusations of meatpuppetry are valid or not, so I'll refrain from comment there. It does warrant some investigation to see if those comments are appropriate. If nothing else, there's a possible WP:BOOMERANG here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in WP:CIVIL are there allowances such that an editor who is "understandably upset" can call another editor a "sock"?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You stipulate that you have no evidence, yet by using the word "boomerang" suggest that RCLC is under suspicion of meatpuppetry.  Your point in doing so escapes me.  Here is a better question, in the circumstance, what was an appropriate response from Viriditas?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Viriditas could certainly consider not immediately jumping fown the throats of editors working on said article (when last I worked on that article, it was implied to me that there were geographic qualifications required to edit it), but there's now an RfC on the content in question and ideally that discussion can continue without all the bad faith. The accusations regarding LGR and proxy-editing are mostly separate from that, and should be addressed independently (preferably by Viriditas, Binksinternet et cetera actually taking the matter to SPA rather that casually referring to an editor as a sock and a POV pusher all over the place). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not a sock puppet. I'm just a new, not-very-active user. I know a sock puppet would say they're not a sock puppet, so I'm not sure what else to say here. Biancles (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Request For Assistance WRXP and WRXP (FM) articles

It looks like User:RobDe68 has completely blanked out the entire article for WRXP and directs WRXP (FM) back to the blanked out WRXP page, then they put a request for a Speedy deletion of both pages. WRXP is a legitimate radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to 94.7FM in Newark, New Jersey and it was from 1964 until a few days ago known as WFME a religious broadcaster. It was recently acquired by Cumulus Media and flipped to a country format. I don't know what the heck is going on here but either User:RobDe68 is a vandal or if that is not the case they clearly don't know how to properly edit on Wikipedia. I would like to request that the previous WRXP/WFME page be restored and a repremand of caution be issued to User:RobDe68 for blanking out a legitimate and properly referenced Wikipedia article. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the proper maintenance is done, both WRXP and WFME (FM) articles will be as they were. The only difference is that the edit history will remain with the original station per WP:WPRS#Modifying_article_titles_for_stations_that_change_their_call_signs. Once a station changes its call sign the station's article is supposed to be moved to the new calls instead of starting a new page or moving station info to another page, which is what was done when the calls changed. I'd move them myself but you need an administrator once there is an edit made. Hope that clears it up. RobDe68 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The explanations seem a bit confused -- what exactly need to be moved where? Salvidrim! ✉ 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It does appear there has been some unfortunate attempts at cut and paste moves. E.g. [326]. TheGoofyGolfer, please note that cut and paste moves is rarely the way to sort anything out in wikipedia due to our desire to preserve attribution history. If you need something moved and can't do so, ask an admin's help.

Having said that, while I understand RobDe68's desire to prevent cut and paste moves, I remain confused by some of their actions. I may be missing some stuff since the history is now rather confused, but what is the plan to do with WRXP itself? If it's supposed to be either a redirect to WRXP (FM) or if it's going to be a disambig page then I don't see any need to delete the current page at WRXP. (Unless there's an existing disambig page with sufficient history that you feel should be moved there.) If WRXP (FM) is going to go back to WRXP, I don't see why you moved WRXP to WRXP (FM) in the first place.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the edit history with the stations that changed call signs per the radio project link I provided. As to what moves where, I have the db-move template on WFME (FM) and WRXP pages saying what needs to be moved and why. I swear I've done this with a ton of call sign changes/swaps that weren't done properly before. RobDe68 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To further clear things up WDVY gets moved to WFME (FM) and WRXP-FM gets moved to WRXP, this will keep the edit history for each station somewhat intact. WRXP (FM) remains a redirect as that was the new page created when the call sign changed. Sorry this got so confusing. RobDe68 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, although as note below if you don't think there's any useful history at WRXP (FM) I wonder if just leaving it at WRXP and asking for it to deleted would have been simpler. And if there is useful history at WRXP (FM), perhaps a history merge would be. Either way as I said this isn't a big deal, simple a suggestion on a possible way to reduce further confusion in future. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC with both RobDe68 and TheGoodyGolfer) You're right I partially missed the templates and then got confused by the similarity in names, sorry. However I'm still somewhat confused. As I said, I understand the desire to preserve the attribution history at the right place and I think I understand your desire on what to do with the main pages (those with the important history). In particular, I believe your plan is to move what's currently at WRXP-FM to WRXP and I understand that.

But I'm still a bit confused in particularly by your move of WRXP to WRXP (FM). What exactly is going to happen with what's currently/now at WRXP (FM)? This page was basically created recently (was a redirect prior) and I'm lazy to work out where the content came from but I'm guessing it's somewhere else. If you plan to have what's currently at WRXP (FM) deleted because there's no useful history there, that's okay if you're correct but it seems it would have reduced confusion to keep the page at WRXP and ask for deletion in situ then have what's currently WRXP-FM moved to WRXP. If you think there's some useful history at WRXP (FM) and want to preserve it for that reason, I wonder if a history merge might be more suitable. If you're just going to keep WRXP (FM) around as a redirect to WRXP not because you think it needs to be preserved I guess that's okay although again it seems it would have reduced confusion to just keep WRXP (FM) as WRXP, ask for it to be deleted and for WRXP-FM to be moved to WRXP and then create a new redirect at WRXP (FM) if needed.

To be clear, this isn't a major issue but if the move was unnecessary it would have been better not to do it, to reduce confusion in what's an already confused situation, even considering you weren't at fault.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think a history merge was possible because of concurrent edits and such. In the past the administrator moved the newly created page to the "XXXX (FM)" name to make way for the page move and kept it as a redirect to preserve the history. We made note of it on the main article's talk page. It seemed like there were too many edits on the new page to just delete it but I wasn't sure. Again sorry for the confusion. RobDe68 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes and in the process you made a complete mess of an active article. IMHO before doing anything you should have opened up a discussion on the proper talkpage to gauge whether or not other Wikipedians feel that such action would be considered controversal or not. When a move or change of an article could be construde as controversal there are proceedures set in place. While I believe your actions were done in good faith you've caused IMHO a lot of headaches trying to straighten this out. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, reversing cut and paste moves is inherently non-controversial and does not need to be discussed first. As you say there are procedures in place for moves. But simply put, cut and paste moves is not one of them and needs to be reversed ASAP to avoid nasty article history problems, regardless of the good faith of the people carrying them out. It's possible RobDe68 has made things slightly more confusing, but the main confusion comes from those who attempted cut and paste moves in the first place, which even though were done in good faith, should never have been done and appears to include you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There is this thing called a "copied" template that is used for cut and paste moves to attribute the artcile history. It is also non-controversial and used all the time. Merging and splits are cut and paste so.....--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging and splitting may use cut and pasting, but they are not a cut and paste move. Notice I was clear to specify cut and paste move rather then simply cut and paste. The copied template should never be used for cut and paste moves, but only for cases when cut and pasting was done appropriately like merging and splitting, baring perhaps the odd occasion when the cut and paste move was done so long ago as to make fixing the problem impossible without causing excessive confusion (this actually isn't likely to arise except in cases where a split, perhaps an inappropriate one where we basically had two articles covering the same thing occured) and a few other IAR cases. You will note no where does the template suggest it should be used for cases when a cut and paste move was done, only for cases when text was copied or moved which may seem a subtle, but is an important distinction. When at all possible, the correct thing to do when you come across a cut and paste move is to reverse the move ASAP and ask people (or carry out yourself) the move properly if it's otherwise a good move. If the cut and paste move has been too long to be simply reverse, a history merge may be required. If you really feel it's not possible or not ideal to reverse the move, that may be okay, however this doesn't mean reversing a cut and paste move is controversial or needs discussion. (Although using the copied template rather then reversing a cut and paste move which can be simply reversed, e.g. if there have been no edits at all beyond the move and even the move did not change anything is likely to be controversial, since as I've said that is not the intended usage of the template.) Note that none of this is intended to prejudice against a move, as I've said the move may very well be a good idea, simply that cut and pasting is not the proper way to carry out a move. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are over complicating this. Many times cut and pastes are done as moves when the editor does not realise we can move the page using the "move" function. I see that there is no accusation that this was done in bad faith. I suggest fixing this and moving on unless there is evidence of something more happening here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes no one ever acted in bad faith. I've already made it clear that I believed the action was done in good faith. I'm fully aware that these sort of move mistakes are usually done by people who don't understand how to use the move function. However the fact that people are acting in good faith does not mean we should not explain when and why a mistake was made so it is hopefully not repeated, particularly when people show no sign they understand a mistake was made and are accusing others trying to fix their mistakes of being the ones who made the mistake. It's difficult for people to learn if no one tries to help them. So I did think it important to make clear that fixing such error is inherently non controversial and does not require discussion, particularly since the OP suggested otherwise (probably because they did not understand that copy and paste moves should not be carried out). The only really 'over complicating' I can see is the copied template and merging/splitting. These were irrelevant to the discussion hence why despite being fully aware of them I did not bring them up earlier. Once you did bring them up however, I saw no choice but to explain to the OP, and anyone else who may be following the discussion but unaware of norms that these were irrelevant to what we were actually discussing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yobot's edits causing concern again

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 spent 20 minutes (again) correcting errors injected by User:Yobot which is run by User:Magioladitis. The bot, in making edits to remove invisible unicode control characters (of minor value, in any event), also screws up the views of pages and moves around templates contrary to their documentation. Specifically {{longcomment}} which is to be placed at the bottom of the page is moved up the page so that there appears a huge blank space where none was before. See, for example, [[327]] (before) vs. [[328]] (after). There are hundreds of other examples. I first brought to Magioladitis' attention on November 2, 2012 (see User_talk:Magioladitis#Query). Other editors also complained on November 8 (User_talk:Magioladitis#removing_control_characters) and November 9 (User_talk:Magioladitis#Why_are_you_making_edits_like_this.3F_.28removing_invisible_characters.29 and User_talk:Magioladitis#LRM_and_RLM, in which Magioladitis appeared to agree to clean up his bot's mess after I and others had the first go). We were still correcting Yobot's errors in December (see User_talk:Magioladitis#). Now, it's done another whole slew of these edits with little to no purpose but creating work for other editors. Despite Magioladitis' assurances to clean up his bot's mess, we see more mess and no cleanup. Until Magioladitis can change his bot to not create work for real people, it should be shut down (voluntarily, or otherwise). Bots are supposed to make life simpler and easier for real editors not to create more work for us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't rerun this task for 30 days. I'll try to fix the AWB bug (or short of a bug) till then. Please try not to add invisible characters in the pages till then. The discussion should move to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard in fact. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved. I added a skip condition in case {{Short pages monitor}} is detected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

rev 8860 Updated the AWB logic to handle the convention for the placement of the template & comment. I have also posted to request that WP:ORDER be updated to include the placement convention. Rjwilmsi 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. Looks like it's resolved, but I'll let an independent so decide and mark it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Who deleted the "Translations of Frere Jacques" 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.

---

I checked today to look at one of my favorite collection of articles, those associated with the song Frère Jacques. I was stunned to realize that the "Frere Jacques translations" article (which has had a number of titles over the years) that dozens of people had worked on for several years capturing and documenting many variants and lyrics for this tune, in many different languages, has now been deleted.

The "translations" article had been removed before December 7, 2012, because a red link to it was removed in this edit.

I realize that deletionists are frantic to "clean up" this project by getting rid of as much content as possible, but sometimes they step over the line. Is everyone required to spend endless hours here per week policing articles to make sure nonsense does not happen?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translations of Frère Jacques was closed on 7 December 2012. There was some suggestion that the content might be moved to Wikisource, but that apparently hasn't happened. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• How could he delete it while on 1st base?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've restored the article's last version to my userspace where I will keep it for the next week or so. You may look at it at User:Maunus/Frerejacques and/or copy it somewhere else.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• So Filll - if you're put out about this enough that you've come to ANI without even waiting for a response at the Frère Jacques Talk page, may I ask why you haven't gone through deletion review? I imagine that would be a more helpful forum, unless your concern is regarding editors who were involved in the deletion...if so, I'd like more information regarding your specific concerns. Doniago (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review typically only looks at procedural violations in the AFD process. Was there one at that AFD? It looks like consensus to me! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there was, but given Filll's apparent agitation over the matter, I suppose they might be interested in trying to make a case for it. Maybe WP:UNDELETE instead, if they're so inclined. Either way, coming to ANI without even waiting for a response at the Talk page I noted above seems rather hasty IMO. I think Filll might want to consider a more reasoned and less emotional approach to trying to resolve their concerns. Doniago (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my violation of whatever norms have developed over the last few years. But my past experience has been that there is almost never any response to a comment on an article talk page. By the way, this sort of response is why you are losing contributors. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to what talk pages you've contributed to where that's the case. In any event, if my suggesting options for how you could better handle the situation is going to cause you to stop contributing altogether, I don't think I have anything else to say on the matter. Do you really think that the tone you came in here with was one that would most incline editors toward assisting you? Doniago (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

'Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.' The preceding sentence is from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"WP is not a bureaucracy" may sound like an self-contradiction. True enough, it is not an organized, competent, bureaucracy, with clear lines of procedure; what it more resembles is the parody of a bureaucracy, with multiple layers added at different times without considering their interactions, and sufficient contradictions that it is possible to justify almost any position or procedure. If we took the rules literally, we could not function. In practice, the people who usually comment at Deletion Review are prepared to discuss anything related brought there in good faith.

Even so, normally it is much better to discuss these questions on a talk page first, because sometimes they do get resolved easily enough--at least handled well enough that nobody is hopeless aggrieved by the situation, which is the true meaning of consensus. When that fails, it's the time to go further. It's a good idea, similarly, to use Requests for Undeletion when it applies--it's a routine procedure that can save a lot of trouble. But if it fails to give satisfaction, or if a discussion regarding deletion on a talk page also does not resolve it, deletion review is the place.

Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions (or the moves, merges, redirects or keeps done as alternatives) to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP:Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, because the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed at deletion review. If this needs further discussion, it should go there.

Of course, anything can be discussed here, and all manner of things are; The scope is incidents needing administrative action, but that can potentially involve anything that happens at WP. Even content questions, if the dispute is carried too far or improperly, can require admin intervention. But experience has shown --at least my experience has shown me--that this coming here is essentially best kept for when nothing else conceivable will serve. This tends to be a place where one of four things can happen: precipitous over-reaction; drastic escalation; endless dispute; lack of any meaningful response at all. What's above is absolutely typical: a request for action is escalated into complaints about procedure in general, and then complaints about the tone used in making the complaints. And now i seem to have gone one step further into a meta complaint about the overall nature of the AN/I page itself. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Blocks needed

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

---

I'm sure this was a oversight but per this SPI [[329]] User:DesiredUsernameYES and User:SeemsNeedAnAccountForAFD should be blocked as checkuser confirmed socks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! m.o.p 06:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandal

Hello,I am reporting from my other account as my first account is User talk:Zeeyanketu,my user talk page is vandalised by an ip here and his contributions are here too.He tried to troubled me from long and i believe these all are from same user may be from some sock with whom i have some previous encounters.He has been used different but similar range of ip's,might be from some company or organisations.Some examples are [330] and [331].Is there any way for range block.I report with this user because he might track my contributions.Thanx Truetracker (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some pretty broad IP hopping. 115.240.22.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 115.241.178.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 115.242.123.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are static IPs from the same provider, but there are also occasional edit by IPs from the 101.63.x range. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If the vandalism is disrupting regular use of your talk page, perhaps semi-protecting your main talk page and creating a sidepage usable by IP and new editors might be a solution. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah this page User talk:Zeeyanketu of mine faced disruption sometimes and if there is a solution.Please consider it.Thankx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 10:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious edits by hopping IP

We have an IP editor, manifesting as 87.67.18.206 (talk · contribs) and 87.67.21.139 (talk · contribs), who has been making a series of wildly tendentious edits at several articles including lobotomy, persistent vegetative state, and physical punishment, and edit-warring when they were reverted. This seems to be at least in part a grudge against EEng (talk · contribs). Since this is a bit complicated for the routine noticeboards, I bring the problem here. I will notify the latest incarnation, for what it's worth. Looie496 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(I do not have an account yet.) My edits are justified and I provide strong sources from mainstream newspapers which I quoted verbatim or almost (in the case of physical punishment, I mentioned a source as edit message, from another article). It should be added that you Looie496 (talk · contribs) reverted my edits despite me providing and quoting those sources. I hold no grudge against EEng (talk · contribs). I only revert his reverts when I think that he's tendentious, and I think that he reverts too much. Deleted reverts and deleting text with a source is highly different. I believe in his good faith, but think that sometimes he is a bit biaised and takes matters personally (refer to his talk page). I don't think that I've deleted any text from him bigger than 20 letters. I should add that EEng (talk · contribs) has never edited the pages physical punishment and persistent vegetative state, and probably never lobotomy, at least not in the last month. So I'm not quite sure why you mention those. Although I agree we are having an edit war on other pages and would like to see those issues settled in a civilized manner. 87.67.18.206 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry for writing twice here). I don't think that I'm tendentious. I write text mostly relating to lobotomy, a practice that has been abolished and is considered a dark moment of humanity's history. (This is obviously the mainstream opinion, nobody can argue with it, and this view is supported by the newspaper articles that I quote.) As it's been said in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz (talk page of article Egas Moniz) by 65.96.175.245 in 2007, some articles about lobotomy are only treated positively, and this is a huge mistake which makes Wikipedia look bad. I make an effort to show its negative sides. In fact, I was shocked by the articles, and this is how I got into editing Wikipedia. 87.67.18.206 (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As one specific example, this editor has twice added lobotomy as a "See Also" link to physical punishment. Looie496 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is a valid edit. Lobotomy is mentioned as physical punishment in the Rosemary Kennedy article. The terms "lobotomy" and "punishment" yield almost 2 million Google results (http://www.google.be/#hl=fr&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=lobotomy+punishment). The book "Halfhead" by Mc Bride talks about lobotomy as a criminal punishment (see: http://www.librarything.com/tag/lobotomy%252Fdisfigurement+as+criminal+punishment). It is thus fair to consider that it can be a punishment, even if it's not always a punishment. Push-ups are also listed as physical punishment, even though they can also be a physical exercice. This doesn't make me biased. I can't believe we are even arguing about this. The issue is easily solved. I ask the Wikipedia admins: would you consider lobotomy as a physical punishment if it was performed on you, against your will? If the answer is yes, it means that it can be a physical punishment, and proves that 1) my edit was valid 2) I'm not "tendencious".87.67.18.206 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in the Rosemary Kennedy article is her lobotomy mentioned as a physical punishment? Doc talk 06:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only implied as a punishment for a misbehaving teenager, I quote "her parents had difficulty dealing with the often-stormy Rosemary, who had begun to sneak out at night from the convent". However the book "Halfhead" that I mention is explicit about it (it's even tagged as lobotomy and disfigurement punishment on the website), and so are the infinite Google results which represent the opinions of countless individuals. I should add that lobotomy is also mentioned on Medical torture, fiction paragraph. Any torture can be used as punishment, torture itself is a punishment. If anything, torture and punishment articles need merged, but this conversation doesn't belong here. I'm just trying to prove that I'm not a vandal and my edits are not random. 87.67.18.206 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you are being accused of being a vandal, but more likely of WP:SYNTH (not observing WP:NOR) and not considering WP:NPOV carefully enough. Rosemary wasn't punished by her family or her doctors with a lobotomy: they tried to treat her in an era before the significant advancements made in medicating mental illness occurred. It wasn't for "punishment" at all. Doc talk 07:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To 87.*: your edits come across as tendentious. Please listen to what other editors are telling you, and don't resort to edit-warring to push your views through. Also, if you wish to pursue this matter further, please register an account. While editing without an account is legitimate and welcome in principle, one thing you should not do is pursue a protracted editorial dispute from dynamic IPs, because when your contribution history gets cut up into multiple IPs it's much more difficult for other editors to keep track of what you're doing. Finally, stop following EEng around to revert him; what you're doing is clearly "hounding" and needs to stop immediately, or you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. However I believe you are biased since you only make this comment to me, and not EEng (talk · contribs) and Looie496 (talk · contribs). Considering that EEng asked Looie496 to help "edit-battle" me on Looie496's talk page (they are friends, and also talk about a friend in common), and that Looie496 followed my edits and reversed them, this is not very fair, and they should have been targetted by your comment too.87.67.18.206 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No. You started this, and EEng legitimately asked for help after you targeted him. This whole situation is your fault alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It takes two nations to make war. Does this mean they can keep following me and editing out everything that I write? That's ridiculous.87.67.18.206 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

'It takes two nations to make war.' - Yes, but sometimes all one of them has to do is be attacked by the other. This is a fatuous line of argument. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverts should only occur with problematic edits. If you're editing lobotomy and similar articles, I'd advise you to try and not do so from a moralising perspective. There's lots to criticise, but most psychiatrists who favoured the procedure believed that it could provide real benefits to some patients at least. That doesn't discount the fact that, in an institutional context especially, it was used for behavioural management of difficult patients ("chronic" and "troublesome" patients were particular targets). Managerial and clinical goals were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Also, if from the perspective of the present it seems an unremittingly barbaric surgical procedure at the time it was seen as a modern and scientific technique holding out the possibility of cure (or at least significant improvement). FiachraByrne (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma and the article Germans

Not sure were to turn - thus I am here. User:Gun Powder Ma has recently reverted a few times a consensus text at the article Germans. The overwhelming consensus at Talk:Germans#Article scope clearly indicates a broad consensus for the articles scope - that is an article that is all encompassing of the demographics of Germans citizens and world wide diaspora and not a semi socio-racial/ethnic group classification system article. As a group on the page we have moved on from this point of contention to helping with the articles structure and content based on the new consensus. Looking for how to processed when one editor does not see what the rest see.Moxy (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a contents dispute which Moxy is, unfortunately, now trying to solve via admin action instead of engaging in discussion on talk page. Since 18 January I have been on talk page trying to discuss it to little avail.

The contents dispute evolved in three steps:

• First, I reverted the lead definition (This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential) after I found it unsourced per WP:reliable.
• Then Moxy added a source, Lowell Barrington. This source, however, does not back up the claim, as anybody with access to the source can quickly see, so I reverted it per WP:reliable.
• Now Moxy added another source, Joyce Marie Mushaben, which does back up the claim but does not provides the definition of German ethnicity, but rather of the German nationality law. This topic, however, is covered in a different article as the disambiguation says (For an analysis on the nationality or German citizenship, see German nationality law). What Moxy does is simply equating German ethnicity with German nationality law - again without proper sources.

While I am trying to discuss the issue on talk (still do), Moxy has been more busy to threaten me with ANI. This is a contents issue and I would like to see it addressed on talk page by Moxy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting confused you seem here to imply its referenced. As for talking actually it was I trying to talk to you about it first as see here even directing you to the conversation that you missed after your first revert - You then (without taking about it reverted again) - Then as seen here you seem to have implied again your not aware of the conversation that led to the changes (so you reverted again) and again I indicated were the conversation took place to no avail. What would you like us to do - your edit waring on a point that has been resolved by the group and is referenced? We have had along talk on the matter that you seem to refuse to recognize or even admit has happened. Have you taken the time to read over Talk:Germans#Article scope yet? Moxy (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't you please stop talking in terms of pluralis majestatis and start giving answers to straightforward questions related to contents? There is no WP policy which holds that consensus, even if it exists, overrules WP:reliable or WP:OR. You are currently defining German ethnicity exclusively on German citizenship. But ethnicity and citizenship, also certainly overlapping, are not congruent. For German citizenship we have a separate article, German nationality law. Your definition belongs there, at least in its claim to absoluteness. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to say - we had ref that covered Germans - be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they Germanic peoples (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal) but your removing them with the agreed text - Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0. and Joyce Marie Mushaben (1 August 2008). The Changing Faces of Citizenship: Integration and Mobilization Among Ethnic Minorities in Germany. Berghahn Books. pp. 32–35. ISBN 978-1-84545-453-1.. I can get more if you like.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus on the page that the definition should include both ethnicity and nationality - this means that we do not need any single source for the definition, but that we can write a broad decision combining several definitions. Reverting a clear RfC consensus as Gun Powder MA is doing is disruptive. It needs to stop.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Side-issue

• This is the second time in a week that a content dispute has spilled over from Germans, which has, in my opinion, been irresponsibly turned into an amalgam of two different things — Germans as an ethnicity and Germans as members of a nation-state. There are tendentious ideological reasons for pretending that these two very different things are inseparable. This is an Arb Com case waiting to happen unless the owners of that page back the hell off and stop suppressing minority perspectives of their so-called "consensus." We've recently had an editor from Israel thrown off WP like he was some kind of crazy Nazi because his perspective didn't synch up with the PC "consensus" at Germans. The lynch mob obliged. Sickening. Fix it or this will go on and on. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your familiarity with that process and what has been going on at Talk:Germans seems fairly limited. The "owners" you refer to is a consensus of some 20 editors. Guitar hero ended up being on amiable terms with people with the opposing viewpoint in that discussion and he agreed with the redefinition of the scope as a broad article including both ethnicity and nationality which are two different things, but which cannot be meaningfully separated into two separate articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, while I agree with you that this is an ArbCom case waiting to happen, I don't altogether agree with your characterisation of other events. I'm still awaiting a good explanation of what 'PC' means in this context, and why it's a bad thing. 'Lynch mob' is a singularly inapt choice of metaphor in this context. And with the best will in the world, Guitar hero on the roof's battleground mentality was the main factor in his banning. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is not an arbcom case waiting to happen. The original debate was fuelled by a disruptive sockpuppet (Guitar hero on the roof (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) amongst others. It was reignited by the belated appearance of an editor who has not accepted the overwhelming consensus for the article to be as broad as possible. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar Hero was run off — meaning indefinitely banned plus topic banned — because he had a content dispute. No content dispute, no SPI. To wit: he argued that ethnic Germans as an ethnic group and the universal set of Germans as citizens of a nation state are not one and the same thing. The so-called "battleground mentality" was him standing up for what is a MAJORITY perspective in the literature, but quite obviously a MINORITY perspective among the handful of active (activist?) editors at that page. For not shutting up, he was crushed. Hurray for majority rule!!! The fact that the so-called "consensus" there is PC in intent is made quite obvious by your allusion to "... in this context, and why it's a bad thing." The context, of course, is that we are talking about GERMANY and not France, Albania, Sweden, or some other such place, for which there would be no doubt, no debate that those ethnicities and the superset of citizens of those nation-states are entirely different things. The so-called "consensus" is being enforced by bannings of dissident Wikipedians, it seems to me. Ergo, this is an ArbCom case in the making unless things change... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrite you're talking nonsense. He was indeffed because he socked, he was not communtiy banned, but topic banned because of his disruptive behavior. It was not his POV as that was supported by plenty of other people who nonetheless also agreed with the consensus to broaden the scope. Yuor assertions about the literature are unfounded. You are misrepresenting a process and arguments that you apparently didn't understand. Please stop doing that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guitar hero on the roof was checkuser-blocked by an arbitrator (AGK) independently of any SPI report. Guitar hero was clearly disruptive. If there are no incidents that require administrative attention, please don't use this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't start the thread, I'm just observing that this is twice in a week that a content dispute over a pseudo-consensus at Germans has spilled over onto this page and made the apt observation that it appears that defenders of the ill-advised and deficient status quo seem to be using power tools to crush their opponents. More eyes to that page would be wise. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure your aware of the problem - no content dispute - editor behaviors is why we are here. Pls take the time to read over Talk:Germans#Article scope see any dispute?Moxy (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ABBA vandal

The following was posted at the "Village Pump" –proposals. I transfer it here without comment as to its merits. ThanX. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My issue is concerning user 89.98.37.96, who has edited a clfew abba related articles so far, falsifying information, and heaviky poving it towards Agnethac(the blonde one). Layer editors to tone of the pages havent reverted the edits creatibg a bi of a mess. As i am not in a position to go through all the mess and fix up the damae, i request that someone here gives it a peak. I KNOW IS PROB NOT THE RIGHT FORUM BUT I COULDNT THINK OF WHERE ELSE TO GO AT THIS TIME. IN ADDITION TO THIS, I THINK TGE USER MUST BE EXPLAINED THE RUKES AND IF THIS PURSISTS HE MAY NEED TO BE BLOCKED. Thankyou for reading this :). (btw i only realised now that a lot of my comment was in capslock. Sorry abiut that. Its so hard to edit wikioedia when on ones phone.....)--Coin945 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The contributions by 89.98.37.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are a bit onesided and they're unreferenced. You could call it WP:UNDUE but I don't see how this is vandalism. Nor has there been any attempt to contact the IP about these edits. I have now notified both the IP and Coin945 about this discussion. Coin945, can you please provide diffs of what you think has been "falsifying information"? De728631 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• The contributions included factual changes unsupported by sources (specifically chart positions [332]). --Nouniquenames 17:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ...ahhh, "Sneaky Numbers Vandalism" - one of the most insidious kinds there is as it can look legit but slowly push the numbers into pure-fiction territory... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "Ahhh", indeed. Thanks for pointing out the number changes, which I seem to have missed. The report is now stale but a block should be in order if this kind of editing reoccurs. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've now restored a previous version of the main ABBA article and have undone the other edits that Nouniquenames had not already dealt with. De728631 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Placeholder images and User:Ahnoneemoos

In April, 2008 an RfC was held which at WP:IPH 2:1 favored "Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles". While elevation of this conclusion as 'consensus' was equivocal, the practical outcome of this decision was that more than 50,000 (*) articles had uses of placeholder images removed. The final stages of these removals were noted in this discussion. Best estimates now are there are less than 300 articles using placeholder images now. I.e., more than 99% of the uses have been removed from the project mainspace.

In December 2012, User:Ahnoneemoos modified the target of WP:IPH, concluding apparently without related discussion and four years after the last edit to the page that the proposal had failed [333]. Subsequently, he has added placeholder images (example 1, example 2).

I reverted the change and notified User:Ahnoneemoos of doing so and why I had done so. In so doing, I pointed to Wikipedia:Image placeholders which, at the time [334] said "Use of these placeholders is deprecated". This wording had been extant for more than a year. User:Ahnoneemoos then reverted my removal of his failed tag on WP:IPH, and then immediately changed the wording at Wikipedia:Image_placeholders to remove the stance that their use had been deprecated [335]. Discussion continued at User_talk:Ahnoneemoos#WP:IPH.

The defacto standard for the last four years has been to not use these images. As I noted, more than 50,000 of their uses have been eliminated from the project. Changing these indicators confuses the situation and leaves readers potentially believing that placeholder images are in fact acceptable when in practice they are not. In looking about the project, I see things like Category:Wikipedia image placeholders which say "The use of these placeholders is deprecated". Either they are or they are not. Ahnoneemoos making unilateral changes I believe is unacceptable, muddies the situation, and leaves the project in a status where the use of placeholder images is now acceptable, despite 50,000+ of them being removed.

I am not looking for any admin action against Ahnoneemoos. Rather, I'm looking for some other sets of eyes on this. I've stopped removing placeholder images. I would notify Ahnoneemoos of this discussion, but he has banned me from his talk page. If someone else would do so, I would be appreciative. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) * - I expect the 50,000+ number to be challenged. See File_talk:Replace_this_image_female.svg#Query_results. From there, you can check uses of the biggest two of those files yourself if you like; here and here.

User notified - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Much appreciated! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:: as I have explained to you several times already on my talk page, the use of placeholder images Wikipedia is acceptable as no consensus has ever been reached on wether or not these images should or should not be used. The community as a whole has never been able to decisively come to a definitive agreement. Proof of this, as told to you several times, is available at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3.

As I have also repeated to you several times already, there is no single policy or rule in Wikipedia banning the use of image placeholders nor declaring it as deprecated.

If you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered you will notice that the community's stance on image placeholders was still divided and no consensus could be reached from that discussion.

Furthermore, and this is to everyone reading this including yourself, if you inspect Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Work being done anyway closely you will notice that the person that stated equivocally that the use of placeholders was "deprecated" was you, and only you, unilaterally. Just because a bunch of editors go on a rampant massive edit to remove placeholders it does not mean that WP:IPH suddenly became a policy nor that their use was deprecated. It just means that: that some people systematically removed most of them. This does not establish policy nor deprecation.

Now, the addiiton of {{failed}} to WP:IPH is not only justified but necessary as people must understand that, as a whole, the community never established WP:IPH as a policy and, therefore, can not be used to claim the removal of placeholders as justified.

I have asked you several times to produce evidence that such use has been formally deprecated but you have failed to do so. So, wether you like it or not, their use is acceptable. If you, however, wish to change that, it must be you the one starting a new discussion on it, rather than reverting the placing of {{failed}} on WP:IPH.

Regarding other pages claiming this supposed deprecation, I challenge you, and every editor that put such "notices" to produce evidence that such use was formally deprecated. You won't find any.

This is a case in which the use has been shoved away by a group of editors that used WP:IPH as justification to remove place holders making people beleive that it was a formal policy when it is not. I can assure you, that if you, and everybody else, as an editor, put the {{failed}} tag on WP:IPH and don't revert people, the use of placeholder images will rise once again. It took me a while to realize this and this is why I added the tag to it because WP:IPH never reached consensus to be established as a formal policy and you have no authorization to establish it as one or prohibit their use simply because you believe it to be deprecated because a couple of editors decided to remove them.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to bring into this several discussions that have been held at File talk:Replace this image male.svg which have concluded the same that I stated above. I include some excerpts here for your convenience:

From reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, the status of this image as deprecated is not clear at all. Which discussion was the image actually deprecated in?

There wasn't really any consensus to change anything. The RfC established there was general displeasure with their appearance with no agreement on what should change. If a new idea emerges or does gain consensus we can look to updating things again.

Actually there was no consensus as is evident on the discussion itself and that the placeholders are still here. If there was consensus they would be removed. Even the summery notes some feel the 66% is erroneously high as they wouldn't have !voted for a complete ban but felt that proposal was the closest or similar rationale. Also of note is that 66% represents less than 40 editors. Indeed this is a tangled issue with no leading consensus to do ... anything. Over the past two years discussion has failed to gain consensus to either replace or remove them. This page should be updated with a clear statement that reflects the communities divided opinion.

The issue remains that there is no consensus to remove them and no consensus to change anything.

It was a contentious discussion and the summary stated outright that even though there was a majority it shouldn't be considered a consensus in this case.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion you linked here, it does look like there was a consensus reached in 2008 that these images don't belong on Wikipedia, and that consensus was noted and reinforced by editors in that 2012 AN/I discussion. Furthermore, there was only a lack of consensus on whether thousands of images should be mass-removed through automatic edits, but I don't see any lack of consensus concerning the appropriateness of the images themselves. It certainly appears that a consensus of some sort was reached, and reaffirmed, and I think it's reasonable to conclude from those discussions that at the very least editors should certainly not be adding them to more articles, barring some change in consensus that I'm not seeing anywhere. I also don't think it's effective to quote excerpts from an indefinitely blocked editor that had what looks like ~50 confirmed sockpuppets. Except for that very first thing you quoted, all of those quotes were from that same blocked editor. - SudoGhost 04:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There's absolutely a consensus against placeholder images. Individuals or small groups of editors who start using them need to be reminded of the consensus, and they need to be treated as disruptive if they persist in using them. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, consensus was never reached. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2 notes, very clearly, that although a majority of those involved in the discussion did not like image placeholders, consensus was not reached because (1) only 35 agreed with such thing and (2) only 14 editors in overall agreed with any particular recommendation. If you look closely and read the discussion in its ENTIRETY you will notice that they even state so:

We have not been able, so far, to conclude this centralized discussion.

Furthermore, when you look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3 you will also notice that the whole discussion as about how to move forward and did not reach consensus either:

It’s true that we haven’t reached a consensus yet, but it ain’t over yet.

Finally, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered starts by stating very clearly that such behavior was not discussed previously and the whole discussion is about wether administrators should stop User:Alan Liefting from using automation on this task but the discussion is not about establishing a policy about image placeholders.

Sorry, but so far no one has been able to shown unequivocal proof that there is a formal policy against the use of placeholder images except people saying there is one or that such a thing "has been" deprecated.

Once again, I challenge you and anybody else to show proof of such a policy. You won't find any. We never reached consensus.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can you show unequivocal proof that there is a formal policy for the use of placeholder images? Barring that presentation, we're left with what is common practice on the project. The common practice is highlighted by the fact that over the last four years 50,000+ articles using them have had the uses removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• We're looking at that ANI discussion and seeing two different things then, because when several administrators state that there was a consensus and that it has not changed and not a single person says otherwise, I don't know what else to call that other than a consensus. The AN/I discussion was about the use of automated edits, yet when you first mentioned it you said "you will notice that the community's stance on image placeholders was still divided and no consensus could be reached from that discussion" now that someone actually looked at the discussion it's "the discussion is not about establishing a policy about image placeholders"? You're right, it wasn't, but yet there was still an agreement that consensus has previously been reached. A consensus need not be written in policy to exist, and what you've linked shows that the use of such images has been depreciated. Short of getting the consensus to change, those images appear to be depreciated, and that's what we're looking at here. - SudoGhost 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)