Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Curtaintoad

Dealt with. Further inquiries about this matter should be directed to the arbitration committee by email. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A couple of weeks ago, User:Curtaintoad signed the guestbook on my userpage. This morning, I received this comment on my talk page. Also, Curtaintoad currently has an indef block on their account. Does anyone know the rationale for the block? Also, is User:124.149.96.116 a possible sockpuppet of Curtaintoad? See also Special:Contributions/124.149.96.116. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Edit: The rationale for this user's block is not important to this discussion. Rather, I would like to focus on the subject of possible sockpuppetry by the blocked user. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I would disagree. I'd be very interested to know the rationale for the block. I still haven't ready anything helpful in that regard. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) There's something at User talk:Roger Davies. Apparently he thought that Curtaintoad was too young to have an account. De728631 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm. That's interesting. Though I thought WP:CHILD only applied if the individual was doing little to contribute to the project.I'll take a look at his contributions. As for the sockpuppet, I just thought it was unusual for an IP user to ask specifically for something as trivial as a guestbook signature. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Curtaintoad's mum is active on Wikipedia, and I think she just wants him to channel his enthusiasm into productive areas. Therefore I'd say there is a reasonable amount of parental supervision going on here. From reading his talk page, Roger's comment implies the block is only temporary while some personal issues are addressed, so I don't see a need for socking. You might want to notify his mum of his discussion (can't remember the account now). FWIW my friend's (now) 14 year old kid signed up to Facebook under-age, but you'd never know as she's mature and sensible for her age. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Curtaintoad's mum is WendyS1971 (talk · contribs). As you can tell from her contributions, she has made no apparent on-Wiki comment on the situation. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't know anything about this case in particular, but I will note that it's unfortutately not terribly uncommon for Arbs or oversighters to have to place what might be termed "child competence" blocks - that is, as far as child protection, it's not a matter of only age, but a matter of how age interacts with ability to operate safely in an environment like Wikipedia, and when that equation comes out negative, a block may be placed. As for the IP edit, it certainly appears to me to be block evasion, but this matter might be better referred to Arbcom rather than ANI, since they apparently handled the original block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz incivility, personal attacks, disruption, harassment

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.

---

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has been disrupting a VPP discussion with tendentious repetition of comments, general incivility, personal attacks, and harassing attacks on unrelated articles created by certain of the commenters. At a minimum, the VPP thread (linked below) should be archived with a clear statement of the very clear consensus, but KW's conduct is really appalling and I think calls for some kind of remedy.

A thread was started at VPP at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links regarding KW's insistence that we should comply with a certain website's TOS by not giving the full URLs for pages, instead only giving the domain name and an ID# of some kind for the particular page. The discussion attracted many other editors, all of whom disagreed with KW that we had any kind of obligation (whether moral or legal) to refrain from giving full URLs or that it was at all useful to just give the website's domain name. So the question that prompted the thread is resolved by a clear consensus.

KW, however, continued both to tendentiously repeat that you can still find the right page without the full URL,[1] and, even worse, to snipe and nitpick at others' comments, often paired with insults,[2] attacking everything from their choice of particular pronouns[3] to my use of scare quotes around "citations" in reference to the mere use of domain names rather than the full URL,[4], to whether a commenter's recommendation that he read WP:OWN was an appropriate response to his repeated use of the phrase "my articles".[5] None of this was a constructive contribution to the discussion at this point, all of it was a completely disproportionate response to what was actually said by others (if not a willful misreading of grievous insults that just weren't there), and it just served to make the discussion more hostile in tone (KW was apparently already feuding with the editor who started the thread from what I could tell).

Even worse, he has been personalizing the disagreement, both in the VPP thread and in unrelated content outside of it. He listed an article at AFD that he had no prior edits to, but which was started by another commenter at the VPP thread; it was speedy kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamelan gong gede. This comment makes it pretty clear that KW targeted it because he thought that the quality of an editor's contributions somehow undermined their disagreement with or criticism of him. He went out of his way to downgrade the assessment of an article, Terry v. Ohio, just because he saw it on my userpage list of articles I had started, and to also offer its purported low quality as somehow undermining my comments at VPP just as he did with the other commenter.[6] (I don't care about the assessment itself, as I didn't grade it and I don't think I've touched the article since I gave it a rough start in 2004 except to revert vandalism; I just question the motive and objectivity behind KW's change of it). He also tried to start a pissing match on my talk page about who had contributed a better article, which I removed without comment.

All of this needs to stop. This apparently is symptomatic of a recurring civility problem with KW, though I don't recall being subject to it in the past. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What disruption? Pigsonthewing (if my memory is correct) added a full url, I reverted and asked for a discussion on the talk page, following the consensus on copyright-infringement's discussion. Postdlf reverted me. You can see what he calls (with dismisive quotes) "'citations'" and "mere use of domain names" by examining that diff.

I thanked editors for repairing the gamelan article, after it had references added, finally. Let us hope somebody cares about the Ohio versus somebody article to fix it (and check for copy vios, as should be done whenever we have one-source articles)...,

Why he and the others got so excited that they started to irrelevantly lecture me on Wikipedia policies---except curiously for WP: Verifiability---is beyond me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I went looking to see if KW had had a previous RFC/U filed for his behavior, and he has at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Albeit a year and a half old, it also indicates these issues. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

At the VP discussion, I have been subjected to "childish", sneering "citation" used on articles I wrote, false accusations of violating WP:ownership made without evidence, and left standing, etc.

Would that Postdlf were concerned with NPA and Civility, when he and his buddies violate those policies.

Please see his reaction to a discussion of WP:Verifiability.

I don't have time to play games with diffs. Editors should look around in the page histories. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this incident - but if I recall correctly Kiefer was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing not to long ago (like 3 weeks ago)? I must have missed something or its not the guy I was thinking of. Does this problem keep arising?Moxy (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

He was blocked indef by BWilkins back in late December and unblocked an hour later. I would say no block should be issued for this without consensus, as we all know that Kiefer, as is the case with most prominent editors, will otherwise be unblocked fairly quickly. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could any of you address any of the insults directed towards me in the last week in these threads, e.g., "daft", "childish", accusations of violating WP:Ownership, AGF violations, etc.

Or is this civility and NPA enforcment going to continue to be a one-way street?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through the VP section in question, my suggestion is that you all just let the matter rest. Imo, there is slight evidence of tendentiousness on the part of kiefer.w though I don't think it has wandered out of bounds as yet. But there is also some evidence of baiting, just within the margins of propriety and possibly because of a longer history on this issue, which might account for keifer's tenacity. Thumperward seems to have summarized the discussion adequately and, since there appear to be faults all around, let it go. --regentspark (comment) 19:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Really not sure what the point in this report is... Unnecessary time wasting. Time is precious...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I sure am glad that the shutting down of Wikiquette Assistance didn't result in a rise in incivlity and annoyance complaints here on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 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.

Review of an AfD requested

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 an admin take a look here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Cats. If I understand his "rationale" the user nominated the article for AfD because the smaller, fully sourced version is not worthy of an encyclopedia, but the larger, unsourced and promotional version was? I suspect a speedy close may be in order.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 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.

User:OKBot is malfunctioning inactive

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.

---

Just checked the article Wikiquote, and it looks like the last update for the Alexa rank by User:OKBot was on 2 August 2012. This bot is listed as active; however, the last updates for any articles were on 9 September 2012. Other editors have tried to contact the bot owner on 11 December 2012, but the request was archived without a response from the owner. This bot would be very good, if it was working. Maybe someone else can take over the bot? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the header to inactive rather malfunctioning (as it isn't malfunctioning). Very possible, probably worth heading to Wikipedia:Bot_requests ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll post a request there, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:18, 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.

WP:NPOV

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 grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

• Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here --Guerillero | My Talk 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article talk page and the section Didymus started on tommorris's talk, I'm not encouraged that Didymus understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work. This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a PR center, nor is it a shouting contest. NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from, all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him. Didymus's repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him. I would support, at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of responding to all of these posts re "WP:NPOV," "Topic ban (Didymus)," & "A sidenote" in one post, I am going to respond to the posts one at a time for ease of reading/discussion.

1. fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to support the above stated opinion that I do not "understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work," That it "isn't a courtroom," "nor is it a PR center," "nor is it a shouting contest."

2. fluffernutter posits that: "NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from..."

3. fluffernutter does not respond to my above grievance.

4. WP:NPOV clearly supersedes WP:CONS because it states: "The principles upon which this 'policy' is based cannot be superseded by other 'policies' or ... 'by editors' consensus'." WP:CONS clearly is an "English Wikipedia 'policy'." There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this"policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. This does "not" mean that WP:CONS is "not important," & fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s ) to show that I do not believe this.

5. fluffernutter goes on to characterize my conduct as: "all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him." I, in return will not characterize fluffernutter's conduct as "complaining very loudly" as it serves no purpose.

6.. fluffernutter implies that I am "repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him," yet provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to show I am "biased."

7. fluffernutter supports "at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was. Thank you very much. 166.205.55.23 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

Topic ban (Didymus)

User:Didymus Judas Thomas's editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. The consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary. His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS. I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support sounds reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• I almost forgot about this until... Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support At the very least. I did the Google search proposed by Tom Morris above, and it's obviously the same person. Seems obsessed by this topic and probably a COI. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --John (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same. Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them. We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them". Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Is it possible, Nstrauss, that you're misunderstanding what a topic ban is? It's not a block or a technical limitation of Didymus's ability to contribute; it's just a way to redirect him to an area where he doesn't get into so much trouble. Most editors regard a block as significantly more harsh a punishment than a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence suggests not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I just noticed that Didymus has been editing for less than two months and has worked exclusively on that article. Don't WP:BITE the newbie. A permanent topic ban would probably cause him to leave the project. That may be an appealing prospect to some but it wouldn't serve the editor retention cause. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as an involved editor. This editor has turned this area and the talk page into a near impossible place to edit collaboratively. Learning how to edit Wikipedia in an area outside would likely be a benefit, and also stop the disruption in this area. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Tom Morris, I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & Tom Morris provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing.

2. Tom Morris, I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [15] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [16] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's [17] [18] and (PDF's) [19][20]

3. Tom Morris postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support.

4. Tom Morris posts: "I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was.

5. After my grievance was blocked I gave Tom Morris the opportunity to respond to it [21] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.40 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

What's wrong with a temporary topic ban of, say, 30 days? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as why 30 days won't be useful, Nstrauss, let me put it to you this way: read Didymus's contributions to this thread. Do you see any sign, any at all, that he's open to being corrected or that he'll operate or believe any differently 30 days from now, whether he's removed from the topic or not? Or does it sound a whole lot like he's dug in, sure he's right, doesn't plan to change, and in fact plans to go down swinging? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We won't know unless we try. He's never experienced the swift justice of AN/I. :p --Nstrauss (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nstrauss posts: "Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated?"

I agree with Nstrauss. Nstrauss seems to be the only one (of possibly a few) of the Administrators / Experienced Editors up to this point of the discussion who in "good faith" has not gone over the top.

Please "educate" me on WP:NPOV, especially those of you familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6):

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,". Thank you very much. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

• Alexbrn posts: "The evidence suggests not."

Alexbrn, you were the first one who had the opportunity to explain WP:NPOV. Why didn't you "in good faith" do so when you had the opportunity to do so & provide [WP:NPOV]], WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6) support?

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," references in support of your position? Thank you very much. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

• Nstrauss posts: "No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time."

I agree with Nstrauss: ""Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. "

I somewhat agree with Nstrauss. I'm a slightly clueless NPOV pusher because up to this point no volunteer editor, experienced editor, or administrator has in "goof faith" addressed the grievance issue & provided any example of WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6).

Guerillero; who blocked my editor grievance, was given the opportunity to respond: [22]

• Tarc, posted on Guerillero's Talk page, & was given the opportunity to respond. (Content # 5) [23]

Tarc posted: “The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win.

Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.

Here, the two sides are not equal.

We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.

WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table".

If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen."

Tarc used quotes on some statements, so I thought WP:NPOV was being cited / referenced, so I questioned it.

Tarc, I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV.

Exactly where are those quotes from on WP?

Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one.

However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view."

"This page in a nutshell:"

"Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias."

"This applies to both what you say and how you say it."

"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."

"As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."

WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by sources."

[WP:NPOV]] "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6). "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," references." Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013lj

I object to the below characterization as being biased & personal opinion. Thank you. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Unreadable copy/paste rehashing of numerous comments by multiple other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Guerillero posts: "Support sounds reasonable". Guerillero was given the opportunity to respond to my grievance after it was blocked, [24] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.28 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 fluffernutter posts: "Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area." 1. I take it, fluffernutter, in "good faith," might not have read my grievance since fluffernutter requested that I post my grievance though my grievance was clear from the difs I provided (Content # 20.) [25] 2. fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" does not recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [26] 3. fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" claims COI, but provides no proof of WP:COI Thank you very much. 166.205.55.35 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 Seb az86556 posts: "I almost forgot about this until... Support" 1. Seb az86556 posted, I take it in "good faith:". "Wrong venue; use dispute resolution... though this was an editor grievance (CONTENT # 20) [27] and WP:DR resources indicated: "This is not a place to report editor behavior or other conduct related issues..." "For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard." 2. I had already filed a separate action on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard re the Article, which was ignored. [28] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.28 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 2/22/2013 1. Dave Dial indicates "probably a COI" but provides no proof of WP:COI. 2. Dave Dial, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my User Talk page WP:COI statement [29] at the bottom. 3. Dave Dial, I take it, in "good faith," doesn't recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [30] John posts: "Support per all above." 1. John, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my posts not exactly complementary to SRB on google. 2. John, I take it, in "good faith," doesn't recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [31] 3. John, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my User Talk page WP:COI statement [32] at the bottom. 4. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris' postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support by John. 5. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris' I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [33] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [34] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's) [35] [36] and (PDF's) [37] [38] 6. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris', I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & John provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Fluffiernutter posts: "Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute." Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" & civility, characterizes my conduct as "badgering" but provides no support for such a claim. [39] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 Nstrauss posts: "(Non-administrator observation) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no?" I think some individuals on here are making a mountain out of a molehill as I have stated: "I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 Nstrauss posts: "(Non-administrator observation) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here?" No, this is "not" what we have here, as if that was the case any of the numerous editors acting as gatekeepers for the Article had every opportunity to raise this issue since I started posting 12/2/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC) fluffernutter posts: "Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same." fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" provides no proof of what is meant by "disruption," & cites no WP policy in support, so that this claim can be addressed in "good faith." Disruptive editing? Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Disruptive user? DisruptTalk? I'm not sure how fluffernutter expects generic statements to be responded to in " good faith." Nor am I sure how fluffernutter expects WP:NPOV; which is the grievance subject, to be discussed in "good faith" when fluffernutter does not provide an opinion of what WP:NPOV means. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" does not mean what it says, what does it mean? "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." What is "neutral point of view" if it's not what it says it is? "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." What does "nonnegotiable" mean if it's not what it says it means? "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as part if the "three core content policies?" "The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as "[t]he other two?" "These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS? "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." What "other policies" is this referring to if its not referring to WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS ? What does "cannot be superseded" "by editors' consensus" mean? If no Administrator or Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you? fluffernutter posts: "Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them." fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" believes that after my editor grievance was blocked, that I was advised it had been unblocked, yet provides no proof of this & again provides no proof of "badgering" or what it is. Fluffernutter posts: "We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them." Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" provides no example. Fluffernutter posts: "Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith," does not indicate where there has been any "informal discussions" of my editor grievance. Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith," has not discussed: WP: NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." What does "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" mean? What sides? Only your side? Only the side you agree with? If no Administrator or Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you? Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013 Nstrauss posts: "There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. " I note that no post that I have read up to this point from an Administrator or Expert Editor has mentioned anything in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial WP:NPOVT in support of the position that has been posited re WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2003 Alexbrn posts: "(Non-administrator observation) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn" Alexbrn, I take it, in "good faith," you are able to answer the below questions re WP:NPOV, which is the grievance subject? "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" does not mean what it says, what does it mean? "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." What is "neutral point of view" if it's not what it says it is? "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." What does "nonnegotiable" mean if it's not what it says it means? "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as part if the "three core content policies?" "The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as "[t]he other two?" "These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS? "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." What "other policies" is this referring to if its not referring to WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS? What does "cannot be superseded" "by editors' consensus" mean? WP: NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." What does "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" mean? What sides? Only your side? Can you cite anything in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial WP:NPOVT in support of the position that has been posited re WP:NPOV ? If you , no Administrator or no Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you? How am I to accept you are acting in "good faith" if you are unable to explain this so that I can in "good faith" apply the policy? This is not a threat but a fact. If I proceed to WP:M mediation or WP:AP arbitration, this will be the issue. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

A sidenote

In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus), is anyone interested in teasing out what's going on in the history of User:Houseac, where a couple of SPAs and the aforementioned IP/Didymus have been active? I can't find a connection between the subject of that fake article and the clinic Didymus was so interested in. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what's going on there. I'd love to know though. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the IP appears to belong to a wireless (mobile phone) company, it's entirely possible the two users have nothing to do with each other other than using the same cell network. It's not impossible that there's a connection, but the confluence of IPs doesn't necessarily show much of anything, since wireless IPs tend to be dynamic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies posts: "In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus)."

Drmies, after looking at the page, I have no idea what you are referring to re: "identifying themselves as your client Didymus)." Thank you. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Another sidenote

I'm leaning towards having to seriously look at WP:CIR in this instance... Didymus, can you be more concise and less utterly incomprehensible here? Pretty please? — foxj 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no horse in this race at all, despite this guy thinking that I do. What happened is that Guerillero quoted a post of mine concerning NPOV during the course of a discussion on his (Guerillero's) talk page. This guy seems to interpret this as if I had directly participated in the discussion, and is now getting all ronery that my direct quote about turkeys and Thanksgiving tables cannot be found on any WP:* policy page. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• fox, re your "Didymus, can you be more concise and less utterly incomprehensible here?"

I am quoting directly from WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, & the "History of NOPV."

If you find that "utterly incomprehensible," than unfortunately I can't help you if you don't understand it.

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," [WP:NPOV]] "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6). Thank you very much. 166.205.55.24 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013

You need not indent so often. You need not finish all of your statements with "thank you very much" as though you are scanning my shopping at a grocery store. You need not write out your name after typing ~~~~. Taking this advice will allow others to communicate with you much more clearly. If you cannot communicate with others clearly - something that is of utmost importance to a project like this - then I can't see any way forward here. — foxj 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Tarc, no, it is obvious that I question the statements of yours in quotes. I guess G should not have just copy/pasted your post onto the User Talk page without removing your name. Thanks. 166.205.55.24 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Blocked

Ironholds has indef-blocked User:Didymus Judas Thomas under WP:COMPETENCE, and also blocked 166.205.55.24 short-term under same. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to harp on this but was that really the appropriate remedy? His comments were really, really hard to read and annoying but there were nuggets of logic embedded in them. Would not a temporary ban/block plus a stern education (along the lines of Foxj's comment) have done the trick? Or putting him in mandatory WP:AAU or somesuch? Aside from the fact that if editors are going to be indeffed for WP:CIR then perhaps WP:CIR should be promoted to policy status... or at least guideline status... --Nstrauss (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, people appear to have been talking to him for days. The response is generally 'YOU ARE WRONG AND HERE IS AN ESSAY AS TO WHY'. It's nothing to do with how annoying his comments are; it's to do with the fact that every comment is a refusal to accept why his contributions are problematic. That's pretty good evidence that mentoring wouldn't work; it requires the willingness to confront an issue and move on from it. That's the competence he lacks. Ironholds (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel bad for the guy but I also feed bad for the folks who've battled him for the last 2 months. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:22, 24 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 addresses 116.202.144.148, 116.202.125.149 indulges in vandalism

An unregistered user from IP address 116.202.144.148 indulges in vandalising wikipedia Kochi page which contains information about Kochi city, urban agglomeration, wider metropolitan area and suburbs. The user was warned that what he is doing is contrary to the content and purpose of the page. On being warned, the user threatens to change the whole page in order to suit his designs. To quote the reported user

"(Article is not about Kochi UA. but Kochi city There is another article on Kochi UA. If there are other irrelevant information, they should be deleted as well.)"

In order to avoid the three revert rule the reported user used another IP 116.202.125.149 and continued vandalism. Prathambhu (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Request Urgent Admin intervention to block the IPs and restore information on Kochi pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathambhu (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody violated WP:3RR. You have both reverted the page one time. This just looks like assuming bad faith. Prathambhu created the first IP's talk page with a level 2 vandalism warning, which was inappropriate, then followed with vandalism level 3 8 minutes later, even though no further edits had taken place on Kochi. When the other user reverted the reversion under another IP (I think it's safe to assume they're the same person), Prathambhu gave both IPs level 4 warnings, then less than 30 minutes later, decided that wasn't enough, and took it straight to AN/I. No talk page discussion was ever opened, and this isn't even the first time Prathambhu has been involved in this exact content dispute; another editor wanted to make the same changes to the article back in 2009.

Content issues aside, the IP user tried to make several edits in good faith. Prathambhu, meanwhile, seems to have no concept of what vandalism actually means and how vandalism templates should be used. I would suggest he educate himself further, and perhaps consider expanding his scope a little more beyond Kochi and related articles. I don't think this warrants a block for anybody, as even Prathambhu didn't seem to be editing in bad faith, and doesn't appear to have been admonished for this behavior in the past. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False charge by Prathambhu. To quote the first paragraph of the Kochi page,

" The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is the most densely populated city in the state and is part of an extended metropolitan region (pop. 2.1 million), which is the largest urban agglomeration in Kerala. Kochi city is also a part of Greater Cochin region[6][7] and is classified as a B-1 grade city[8] by the Government of India, making it the highest graded city in the state".

I had also checked the discussions Talk:Kochi, India and found that the consensus was that the article is about the city not the UA. From this it is pretty clear that the article is about the Kochi and not about the Kochi UA or the metropolitan area. Some of the information added in the page are for the UA of Kochi, and should be entered in the Kochi metropolitan area. Quoting from the page Kochi metropolitan area,

"This article is about the urban agglomeration of Kochi. For the city of Kochi, see Kochi ". And again,

"The Urban Agglomeration (UA) of Kochi (Malayalam: കൊച്ചി [Kocci]; formerly known as Cochin) is a part of the Greater Cochin region and the largest urban agglomeration in the Indian state of Kerala."

So I hope it might be clear to you by now, which is the page on the Urban Agglomeration and which is the page on the city. I merely removed these irrelevant information's from the page. Aluva is a separate municipality from Kochi and a part of the metropolitan area but it is not part of the Kochi city which has a population of 601,574. So please allow me to remove these irrelevant information from the page. Kolenchery is a small town within a Panchayat which is outside the purview of both Kochi city, GCDA and Kochi metropolitan area. I didn't change the IP. I'm using a shared IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.91.114 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of content issues in most cases should remain on the article talk page. This thread is about vandalism by an IP user, and as soon as it can be verified or safely assumed that Prathambhu at least has read it, I would consider it resolved. —Rutebega (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for administrator intervention. The unregistered user reported for vandalism has returned with another IP 180.215.44.110, despite being given clear reason, supported with documents as evidence, by another user. He has reverted and edited out the factual information with the intention of removing important information on Kochi page. Prathambhu (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The user reported for repeated vandalism has one more IP : 58.68.91.114. He brings his own interpretations to continue vandalism and edit out important information like list of Medical Schools in the Kochi region from Kochi page, which would deny important information to people looking for it. Prathambhu (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have read the discussion, I have officially warned you for misuse of warning templates. Please gain a better understanding of what vandalism is before warning users in the future, and endeavor to assume good faith. Unless anybody thinks admin action is necessary, I'd say we're done here. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Constant article vandalism by User:NotHelpingMatters in Futanari

I reverted the edits from User:NotHelpingMatters and his corresponding IPs 70.112.2.185, 67.168.249.185 multiple times already and asked him to discuss matters at the discussion page, because his changes introduced many errors (see discussion page, a lonely conversation with myself), leading to a more and more destroyed article. I hoped that he would seek out the discussion page, but i can only guess that his goal is to get attention and to purge the articles illustration, starting with his first edit, along with personal attacks like: Grow the hell up, you simpering creep. Nobody wants to look at your shitty porn art. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not engaging in vandalism. I am attempting to restore the article in order to make it have a more professional tone, to remove bias by previous editors, to allow for it to be safely browsed by those who do not wish to see porn images at the top of articles that do not need them. Niabot's contributions have been consistently biased, with attempts to inflate the cultural importance of the subject, attempts to define needless sub-categories of the topic, attempts to inject personal bias such as calling certain terms for the phenomenon vulgar and offensive, which is both not true and quite honestly shows an emotional over-investment in the topic's perception by others. He has repeatedly referred to my attempts to remove the needless and graphic illustration as vandalism. Additionally, I am not the first person to attempt to reclaim the article from Niabot's harmful and over-enthusiastic edits, as the logs for the article clearly show. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Futanari&offset=&limit=500&action=history . The image at the top of the article, which he insists on including, is one that he drew himself. It is graphic, unneeded, poorly made, and damages the article by its presence. I implore the moderators to remove Niabot's ability to edit this article, as his edits have been consistently unprofessional, biased, and harmful to the intended purpose of the page as an entry in a neutral online encyclopedia. - NotHelpingMatters (Talk)

If "restoring" would mean to change sentences to a different meaning, that is not supported by the sources and to destroy the references, while ignoring to discuss the issues, then i could agree with your edits. But your edits introduce many false facts and the smooth, but vague wording doesn't help the reader if the facts get wrong. I never defined any subcategories and i only called terms vulgar or offensive that source [Katrien 2007] stated to be seen as vulgar and offensive in the eyes of the fan community. I see your wording and accusations as another personal attack. I wrote the German futanari article which was assessed to be an quality article. Your edits only show that you never tried to read any of the sources and that you are not familiar with the terms at all. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

NHM, please include links to your user page and talk page in your signature. In addition, there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia, only admins. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reverts by IP

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

---

A user 177.192.37.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of unexplained edits and reverts in the GULAG page: [40], [41], [42], [43]. An advice to self revert has been ignored by him. May I ask admins to temporarily semiprotect the article?
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Left a note here asking the editor to avoid changing the article further, and pointing them to the talk page. I don't believe there's any reason to protect/block yet. m.o.p 00:00, 24 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:Larry

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.

---

Registered in 2007 or earlier and no edits. I'd like it blocked so it can be a redirect to User:Larry Sanger per prescient of User:Jimbo. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If LS wants to doppleganger the name, he can WP:USURP. NE Ent 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't block accounts due to disuse. However, you could create the page User:Larry and put {{distinguish|User:Larry Sanger}} on it if you really wanted to. 28bytes (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we don't, but this seems like a case of WP:IAR and WP:UCS to me. This account has never edited, I seriously doubt whoever this "Larry" is is going to miss the account. A redirect would be far more useful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Larry Sanger needs it, and short of a request from him there's no valid reason to do this. Blocking shouldn't be taken so lightly. —Rutebega (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would this be important or worthwhile? Should I demand that User:Ten be handed over to me, because it's too much trouble for people to type out my full handle? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 24 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 harassment

This IP is harassing me for days now. Knows all about my user account. It could be the guy that got his user account blocked because of me.

[44], [45], [46].

I doubt he will stop even if this IP is blocked. But it's annoying considering he is doing this every month for few days in a row, writing on other users' talk pages about me etc. --Wüstenfuchs 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an admin to read my talk page where IP want's my account blocked at any cost and represents himself as a "legion" that "doesn't forgive or forget." --Wüstenfuchs 16:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest page protection. Blackmane (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours for this edit: it is unacceptable. I've also reverted them on Flag of Syria where they falsely claimed a talk page consensus. On that note, a talk page consensus is necessary for that issue: there is some talk in the archive of that talk page but it is old and didn't really lead anywhere. An RfC might be an option though, of course, the situation is in flux--however, that shouldn't mean that a temporary agreement cannot be reached. If I remember correctly there was a suggestion in the archive that a second flag could be mentioned but not in the infobox, a suggestion that sounded reasonable and had some support. I am not prepared to protect Wustenfuchs's talk page yet, and I note (WP:BOOMERANG invites research) that Wustenfuchs has a habit of edit-warring, a habit they would do well to get rid of once and for all. Let's see what the future brings re:IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Blackmane: This isn't vandalism, and it doesn't meet the recommended criteria for protection on WP:SEMI. Additionally, Wüstenfuchs, you're talking about two different IPs. They're close enough that there's a good chance they're the same person, but they are nevertheless different. 92.40.254.14 has been blocked by Drmies for harassment already. That's the "We are legion" kid. 92.40.254.201 has not been blocked, and he was the one in the second and third diffs you linked. Just seemed worth mentioning. —Rutebega (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Both 92.40.254.201 and 92.40.254.14 are from the same range: 92.40.252.0/22 (geolocates to London). Some ISPs assign a new IP every time the subscriber logs on. Another possibility is the person is editing from a mobile device and is assigned a new IP every time they enter the range of a new cell phone tower. This tool can be used to calculate ranges. -- Dianna (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Wüstenfuchs, I will add your userpage to my watch-list for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Rutebaga, I blocked the most recent one. It makes little sense to block the earlier ones, as Dianna's comment suggests it's outdated. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, I didn't know that (IP addresses and how they work mystify me frequently) but I guess now I know. The WHOIS says it's a "mobile broadband service," so I bet it's somebody on a smartphone. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh, they're back at Flag of Syria; I've reverted and semi-protected for a month. Who knows what flag flies over Damascus then. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe a cases were made in the past(correct me if I'm wrong) for a user's page to be protected, if requested, but that user would normally then provide a page for IP's to post messages. Again, I may entirely be mistaken. Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're not mistaken, but semi-protecting a user talk page is something that is not done quickly. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Protection_of_user_pages, last sentence. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I find this highly amusing. That is all.
      • Ah, thanks for pointing that bit out. Must have skimmed past that bit. Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus

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.

---

Admin reverted my closure, my closure diff was to reduce disruption but since User:Maunus's revert of my closure he has done nothing but raise disruption - it has been reclosed quite rapidly with a similar rationale - diff, edit summary, undo closing by involved editor YRC - this when clearly his following comments show he is overly involved in regards to me - then he contained the discussion which was not about me, and focused on me, diff he then left this post on my userpage, Your double standards are extreme. You style yourself as the BLP knight in shining armor, defending BLP articles with editwarring and personal attacks... except when the living persons are Muslims. You speculate that other people are just defending the Pakistani's right not to be painted as a nation of rapists because they are themselves pakistanis. And when you're called out you complain that people are attacking you. That is despicable behavior that frankly you should be punished for. I am sorry that I ended up not recommending a community ban in your rfc/u. I hope a new one is coming up soon so we can finally get wikipedia rid of your bigoted disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)diff, which I regarded as a personal attack, I warned him as such on his userpage, he immediately deleted it - and has continued with the personal attacking with the latest comment, "I know thats how you work. You attack others and when they give you back you whimper like a baby and say please dont post to my page. If you ever make a bigoted attack on me again I will have you community banned" - these are not the actions of a user of WP:Admin standards - Can he be told to back off and leave me alone and stop with the personal attacks please. - Youreallycan 22:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Youreallycan was involved because he closed a thread about possible racism against Pakistani muslims in which I was participating after an exchange we had yesterday in which he made a personal attack against me arguing that my opinion could be discounted because I was probably a Pakistani muslim. He should not have closed a thread about Pakistani muslims in which I was participating on that background. [47][48]
• WP:NPA Defines a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack."

What I posted at YRC's talkpage was not a personal attack under the definition of WP:NPA it was a commentary about his editing based on publicly available evidence from his editing history. I did call him a bigot and a hypocrite and I stand by that characterization of his editing, but admit I should probably refrain from that in general, I do believe that his conduct which is clear baiting justifies it and that he has no right to demand civilty from anyone untill he begins acting civilly himself. I don't need to back off and leave you alone. You initiated the engagement, and the two last comments were in response to your illegitimate posts to my talkpage. If you stay off my talkpage and don't driveby close discussions in which I participate I am fully prepared never to talk to you again. It would indeed be a pleasure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• • you missed to mention your comment - [And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?User:Maunus - And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?·ʍaunus - diff you missed to mention this one - Youreallycan 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I selfreverted that personal attack immediately - whereas yuo not only repeated but actively defended yours while being under a strict civilty probation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus - you've been here for a while, you know the rules. Edits like this, and comments like this, are unnaceptable. I mean, you purposely edited that first page an additional time just to insert your jab. I understand that things can get heated in a dispute, but things like this do nothing to improve the situation. Please make sure you don't let your judgement lapse next time, and keep a cool head.

YouReallyCan - I can't say you've done much better. Hounding users over their ethnicity is nothing short of rude. You can hold whatever worldly notions you have - there are no rules about having bias - but do not let your bias influence how you interact with the project.

I think the safest option here is to have you both avoid interaction with each other. Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself.

I hope this is a fair resolution for both of you. If not, let me know and we'll work on something else. m.o.p 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would also like to direct the community's attention to the fact that Youreallycan is currently under sanctions including aone revert restriction and a strict civility parole. I do believe that his personal attacks against me in which he speculates about my ethnicity and argues that I am ethnically motivated for my opinion and therefore can be discounted are in violation of those sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This kind of disruption is becoming a little too frequent with Youreallycan. He already disrupted WP:AE a while back and received a warning that his rollback privileges could be revoked if he played any more WP:GAMES like that in future.[49] Now here, having been WP:TROUTED by Kim Dent-Brown above, he proceeds to misuse this noticeboard by continuing his bickering in a new section. If he persists in disrupting wikipedia in this attention-seeking manner, he might well experience the WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC

• Happy to agree to and abide by Master of Puppets resolution, Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself. - Youreallycan 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is not enough. Youreallycan has not a single time suggested that he understands that speculating about other editors ethnicity or suggesting that it motivated their opinions is a personal attack. He is under a strict civilty probation and needs to be able to show that he understands this basic policy. I request that either he make an explicit apology showing that he realizes that his behavior was unacceptable or he is permanently blocked as per his standing sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• - the thread is here - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derby_sex_gang I don't see anything worthy of an apology, nothing at all compared to User:Maunus's comments today - and nothing worthy of a permanent block under my self agreed civility conditions - Youreallycan 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your restruictions were selfagreed because the alternative was an instantaneous community ban. Since you refuse to apologize or even to recognize that your comments werre against WP:NPA the csommunity will have to decide whether this constitutes a breach of your sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure about you Admin status, the alternative was not an instantaneous community ban at all - nonsense statement from you Youreallycan 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Youreally can is subject to a civility parole until April 16, 2013 as detailed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan. The comment, "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," [The conduct here] is incompatible with the promise Youreallycan made there. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I said that out of rage in response to his repeated attacks and immediately selfreverted it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Lulz, that's a quote from Maunus, not YRC. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL Mathsci as you said to me the other day, - go away and stop trolling Mathci - that comment was made by the other guy - "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," User:Maunus - haha - Youreallycan 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: (ec) How can reasonable administrators sit back and allow their fellows to display such arrogance, outright incivility and a blatantly sycophantic defence, irrespective of the provocation? All this and similar kinds of administrative behaviour must stop --Senra (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The formatting problem was corrected here.[50] Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have resigned my tools with a note that the resignation should be considered "under a cloud". My conduct was unbecoming of an administrators, who should be expected to respond better even to blatant incivility and person attacks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Youreallycan breach his "strict civilty probation?

At his Rfc/U User;Yuoreallycan agreed that he be put on a strict civility probation untill april 16th 2013, and that the sanction in case of a breach would be a full site ban. WP:NPA Defines a personal attack as: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack." Holding this in mind I ask the community whether these edits [51][52] whic Youreallycan does not consider a personal attack nor worthy of an apology constitute a breach of that civilty restriction that would merit the sanctions being enacted?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• "You are simply being defensive because you are a Pakistani Muslim " (Youreallycan)
• "Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK " (Youreallycan)

Are these comments that a person on a strict civility probation should be saying?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Holding your conduct in this in mind, no. Arkon (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that I am not blameless, but I have recognized and selfreverted when I've crossed the line and my incivilty was in frustration over these comments by Youreallycan. To my recollection when I became an admin I did not sign a contract that said I should quietly tolerate being subjected to racist personal attacks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A racist personal attack? Please post the diff - Youreallycan 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting that opinions are caused by cultural, racial or religous background and that opinions of certain groups are apriori invalid is the very definition of a racism. Diffs and quotes above. Just as it would be racist to say "you are just being defensive because you are black/jewish/redhaired/indigenous".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• - you define you bias of rasicism as you want - however it always needs to be taken in context — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs)

YRC very much has "history" in declaring that the views of specific groups of people are inhrenetly invalid in relation to certain subjects - see Talk:Melanie Phillips#Hatchet job. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Whether it is a racist personal attack or not, it is not civil, and violated the civility parole. GregJackP Boomer! 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• sooner or later, arbcom is gonna have to deal with the YRC issues. — Ched :  ?  04:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(I have undone NE Ent's closure of this thread. YRC is under a strict civility parole, and only admins can decide if he's broken it in this instance. Ent's opinion (or anyone else's) can certainly be posted here to influence an admin's decision, but he's in no position to decide that the issue is moot and should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC))

• Yes, YRC's conduct here [53] is clearly offensive and unacceptable, and a typical example of the pattern of aggressively jumping into accusations against other editors that has been the issue with YRC for so long. I clearly see this as a relapse into the type of behaviour he was told to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, of course it was uncivil. Only a committed YRC ally could see it as not uncivil. Maunus's post was unwise, but he/she is not on a restriction (and he retracted it), and in any event I hope we don't see people arguing that the one excuses the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• YRC's comments were uncivil and provocative. After being trouted by Kim Dent-Brown in the clousre of the previous thread, YRC proceeded to post warnings on Maunus' talk page. He then opened this new thread, essentially challenging the closure of the previous thread. Not good. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and YRC is obviously in breach of his civility probation. This has been a long-term pattern with YRC/Off2RioRob and his long block record and assorted drama-fests, including the aforementioned lengthy Rfc/U, document that undisputable fact. Now this latest mess, a waste of yet more editor hours. YRC needs to be indeffed and formally banned by the community for good. Let enough be enough, finally. Jusdafax 09:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh - I agree that that was incredibly uncivil, a breach of his probation, and this needs sorting once and for all. I see no other alternative but an indef. GiantSnowman 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User_talk:Rschen7754#Working_for_blocked_contributors and per a repeated pattern of incivility - this needs to be put to an end. --Rschen7754 09:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support YRC's comments clearly violated WP:CIVIL, and the RFCU clearly mandated a site ban if the civility parole was breached. Regrettably, there's only one obvious course of action. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with a wish that YRC had not thrown this boomerang. And a reluctance to be seen as in any way defending an admin (Maunus) while castigating YRC. But as has been pointed out, Maunus has self-reverted the entirely unacceptable edits s/he made, is not under any kind of probation, did not use any admin tools in this spat and does not have YRC's record of disruption. Had YRC not impulsively opened this thread minutes after the last one was closed, I certainly wouldn't be opening one myself and asking for his banning. But he did open this thread and now must live with the consequences. For the record, Maunus please don't ever again respond to baiting like you did there. If I see a similar response in future I'm likely to block in the same way as I would for any editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

*Support I really like YRC but they have been hoist by their own petard here, twice. The civility parole was their own idea, and nobody forced them to raise this matter here. I am troubled by this especially because there was considerable other incivility in the thread besides YRC's, but I suppose two wrongs do not make a right. Sigh. --John (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I have struck my previous comment. The mistake was a serious one but the user as said he will not do it again. I am minded to give a last chance here. --John (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Does it really exceed the latest, apparently acceptable benchmark for a PA, namely "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" unapologetically defended on the basis of the editor concerned being easily provoked and "not reacting well to bullies" [54]. That was an Admin. Maybe different considerations apply to different editors. Leaky Caldron 10:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support That was the last straw, he's had enough rope, etc. Leaky, it doesn't really matter if it exceeds or doesn't exceed something else. YRC broke his restriction. Different considerations to apply in practice to other editors, we know that and it isn't a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

off-topic discussion Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That wasn't a personal attack, silly! It was an "Oopsie!" Doc talk 10:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) LC, Beeblebrox's comment was completely unacceptable and personally I would have supported a short civility block; however that is a different matter. We are currently discussing the conduct of YRC; feel free to raise Beeblebrox's conduct as a new section if you believe it warrants it. GiantSnowman 10:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Beeblebrox wasn't under a civility parole, which makes a big difference. Honestly, if there is another solution other than a site ban for YRC I am keen to hear it. --John (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) @GS. You are an Admin., you could issue a civility block. As it stands he has run rings around a bunch of Admins. by insisting the discussion is over and not even received a warning. He can now abuse editors with impunity whenever he is annoyed by someone on his talk page, which he seems to think is exempt from NPA policy. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Blocking a fellow admin will - unfortunately - always lead to drama; even more so with civility blocks. There needs to be strong consensus for that kind of action. As I've said, if you wish to discuss Beeblebrox's behaviour/attitude then feel free to do so - personally I think it will achieve little and merely increase drama. GiantSnowman 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's on the edge of civility, however there is much worse things going on here then this. I would suggest a short wiki break for YRC but not a full blown site ban. I think we would lose way more then we would gain in banning him, he is very diligent in applying BLP policies and we all make mistakes such as mentioned above about the admin who called someone a petty facist idiot. Lets not let the lynch everyone atmosphere get ahold of us and instead ask for a disengagement. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps YRC's 20th (or is it 21st?) short block will really teach him the community means business this time. Let's forget about his strict self-proposed probation conditions, the latest "last chance," while we are at it. Jusdafax 14:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Baiting from a sysop is ill-advised, and the "incivility" was of a level that was clearly deliberately provoked in this instance. Any block or ban should apply precisely equally to both parties or to neither. Your pick. Collect (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus was not under strict sanctions. GiantSnowman 14:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note ArbCom positions thereon given below - there is no Wikipedia baiting licence for any administrator or for any editor for that matter. Collect (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• No While we aren't a court, entrapment isn't kosher under the (US) law, and it shouldn't be acceptable here.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What entrapment? At what point did I bait YRC into discounting my opinion because I am probably a Pakistani Muslim? If anyone baited it was YRC.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AS far as I can see, it began with this comment from you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how that may look like baiting, but it is adressed to the fact that YRC was vociferously touting BLP policy in the thread immediately above this one arguing but in this thread he thinks it is ok to label unconvicted named individuals and their entire ethnic community as rapists. I am pointing out that clear double standard of argumentation. It did serve to personalize the diaspute I acknowledge. But in this case it is clear that certain inviduals enforce policy selectively and it needed to be pointed out that his argument was based in bias. In anycase I don't think it excuses his subsequent behavior anymore than his behavior excuses mine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

However you chose a poor way to point out this double standard. I wouldn't have responded to the baiting the way YRC did, but no one should be shocked (including you) at his response.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken responsibility for my actions, now YRC needs to take responsibility for his.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So then, you're actually negating Leaky's argument above - because someone was baited it's ok? No - we as human beings are fully responsible for our own behaviour. We don't simply fight or flight ... we have the power of thought that allows us to choose our reaction based on the situation and self-set criteria (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Seriously. It was a clearly racist remark without any redeeming qualities. And I really have a hard time finding "baiting" or "entrapment" there - the remarks were unacceptable under any circumstances. If this necessarily needs to lead to a site ban, or only to a noticeable block (say 4 weeks) may be open to debate. But that it needs to be sanctioned is clear to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only did Maunus start out with very clear incivilty, the comment from YRC was not uncivil in context. Asking if someone has some personal connection to a subject when that person is reacting as Maunus did is not uncivil. If Maunus were a Pakistani Muslim it would provide an understandable reason for such an emotional reaction on the subject. That isn't uncivil to suggest as a possible explanation, and it is definitely not racist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion takes all meaning and content out of the terms racism and ciivility. Under that understanding it would for example not be uncivil to discount someone's opinion about the holocaust because its "Just because they're Jewish"()as has happened in the past in a case such as this:[55].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias, of any kind, should be taken into consideration when weighing someone's opinion. A person's ethnic and cultural identity does come into play when discussing subjects that concern bigotry and perceptions of bigotry. When a white person says to an African-American tax man that "you people are all just taking my money" the tax man may take that as racist, when the white person is just angry about taxes. Context matters and in this case YRC was suggesting that your emotional reaction to his comments on the subject were a result of a personal bias. You took it the wrong way and started getting combative. Had you just started out by addressing the subject, rather than commenting on YRC's "ethics" then we wouldn't be here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly that it is ever civil to base one's argumentation on knowledge about ethnic, national, cultural or religious background. Editors should be judged on their actions and arguments on their merits. The "you people are all taking my money" is racist not because the person who says it is white, but because the statement generalizes about a group of "you people". That is what YRC did and what makes his comment unacceptable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support If this isn't incivility, I'm not sure what is. Both users are at fault, but this kind of thing is utterly unacceptable. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sadly Support that this was a violation. I honestly believe that YRC has been working his butt off to keep on the right side of the line since his RfC, but sometimes it seems like the gears just slip without him being able to stop them, and this is one of those times. He's on a strict civility parole, and he's gone WAY over the line with the behavior we're discussing now. Manus screwed up too, but the other party screwing up doesn't give leave for YRC to go off the rails, especially because he knows - he is so, so aware - that this behavior isn't kosher. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) ETA, since the heading on this section makes things fuzzy: given that this was a blatant violation of the conditions YRC agreed to, I (grumpily) agree that an indef ban is really the only option open to us. YRC tries incredibly hard to do as he's promised, for which I compliment and respect him, but it seems like it's just not enough, and we're going to keep getting cases like this unless he's made to step away. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Jusdafax. Youreallycan is disruptive editor and should be banned. Enough is enough.--В и к и T 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't find the "he was baited/provoked" argument persuasive, as my opinion is that YRC often behaves in the same way. Someone who likes to be provocative may have been provoked, but I do consider casting aspersions of racial bias to be a violation of the restriction YRC himself agreed to. Manus has evidently resigned the tools as a result of his actions. There is no reason why we should excuse YRC's. Resolute 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The baited argument isn't at all convincing. YRC has quite clearly violated his restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - ban both or none under these circumstances, quite simple in the end. --Nouniquenames 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Change to weak support. --Nouniquenames 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Banning a non-sockmaster is unpleasant, but these probations are meaningless if not enforced. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Xe violated civility parole, but no ban or other sanctions. Being baited isn't good, Manus had equally bad behavior here and is basically getting off scot-free after using his "I'm an admin get out of jail free card". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Except for the fact that he handed in the admin bit. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Being de-sysoped and is roughly equivalent to being indef banned. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctant support per FLuffernutter and Observation #3. KillerChihuahua 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Fluffernutter. That the user is in violation appears undisputed; if anyone wants to make proposals about others with diffs and relevant arguments, fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - he did. Oppose any action. If Admins can leave messages telling editors to "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" with no warning given and evidence is redacted by an Arbcom member I see no reason why YRC should be singled out for banning, regardless what sanction he has breached. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The admin gave up his position as an admin. Right now, YRC is the one getting away with it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough. The Admin I'm talking about didn't. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. The other admin was blocked temporarily though. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't research too well do you? He was blocked because his outburst was thought to indicate his account had been compromised. To date no action relating to the "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" comment has been taken, with Admins tripping over themselves to avoid taking action. Leaky Caldron 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was very well aware of what the block was for. If you think Beeblebrox should face discipline, no one is stopping you from opening a thread for that purpose. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If you insist that one mistake (in your view, but granted for the sake of argument) means that we cannot take any actions anymore, you really want to have no system of enforcement in place. Humans are not perfect. Neither are human-designed systems. If you claim that we cannot tolerate any errors, I have a hard time taking that position serious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Sanctions are intended to prevent disruption, not to punish editors who have offended someone with a less-than-tactful question in the face of personal attacks. Wikipedia is not the place for lynch mobs and hit squads. Right now the only source of disruption I see are editors relentlessly clinging to a desire to get their pound of flesh, or uphold DA RULZ (as they interpret them), rather than letting the matter die peacefully.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, regrettably. YRC has been around the AN/I route often enough to know how things are supposed to work; and regardless of what it may or may not has been in response to, and regardless of other stuff, a violation of a sanction that relates not just the violation of policy, but one of the Five Pillars to boot, isn't something that can be shrugged at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support I generally don't involve myself in these highly charged ANI's, but decided to throw my hat in the ring. Having read through the talk page referenced there can be no other way to read YRC's comments as anything but a violation of the restrictions placed on him at his RFC/U which I also followed closely. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per observations made in the "‎Baiting discussions from ArbCom", which I ask remain unhatted as there is noting particularly disruptive or inflammatory which would necessitate curtailing such a discussion. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The comment was uncivil, without doubt, and YRC has had plenty enough final warnings before now that another would sadly just be delaying the inevitable. Yes, he was baited, but that does not excuse the incivility. If this was a first offence, then something on the order of an admonishment would be be a suitable response to an editor who was baited into incivility, but this is sadly not a first offence. It is made more troublesome by his being under self-agreed civility parole, the penalty for breaching he knew to be a site ban. A permanent ban is too harsh, rather an indefinite ban that allows for a return after YRC has demonstrated a significant period of trouble-free collaborative editing in another environment is I think the only realistic option available to us that will have a positive outcome for en.wp. This is not excusing Maunus' baiting, which is equally unacceptable, and his resignation of the admin bit is the minimum repercussion warranted - should there be another incidence (and I fervently hope there isn't) then Maunus too should, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, be subject to a block. In other words, Maunus should treat this as an absolute final warning. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. That edit was beyond the pale, and it's not as if this is his first problem in this field. He'd agreed to his sanctions - now he must live with them. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Thats the wrong question. Including the previous cases it should be called: "When did he not breach any strict civilty probation?" Sad, but true. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The probation-in-question, should be repealed. Honestly, indef an editor for what? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support some people just don't learn... --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Facepalm - so a dedicated contributor (perhaps overly so) gets baited by another dedicated contributor who has since implied that he was not putting his best face forward, and bites at the bait. Perhaps just leave it at "time served" after the tarring and feathering he's gotten on this page in the past 24h or so (though the indef block might be more humane in the end). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nobody held a laser-goose to his head and forced him to bite. If it wasn't a long-standing issue it wouldn't be such a big deal, but the camel's back finally broke. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, YPC was on civility parole. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: sorry, but that comment was incredibly racist and if a new user said it, he'd be banned, let alone a user on his final final chance. Any baiting does not mitigate it enough to not be a bannable offence. Seriously, I'd expect that sort of conduct from a card-carrying loyal member of the English Defence League, not a veteran editor. And in response to "it's not racist because it's true": one could easily argue that there is a pattern of child rape in the British entertainment industry, would that warrant adding Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal to Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt: British-descended atheist, was on the "remove links" side of the ANI debate below. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support (non-administrator) - YRC was on civility parol and that edit has unfortunately and undoubtedly crossed the line. This was a violation of a sanction that relates to violation of the civility policy , but also one of the five pillars and the RFC stated that there would be a site ban should YRC violate this parole. YRC's edit proves that the community cannot exhaust anymore patience here and this amount of incivility is really the last straw. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. YRC raised a concern about bias with an editor on that editor's talk page. Opinions differ as to whether that's uncivil. Either way, YRC has apologised below for upsetting Maunus, and agreed to comment on contributions not contributers going forward. This does not justify a site ban for a generally very valuable Wikipedian. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • and agreed to comment on contributions not contributers going forward - for the umpteenth time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support YRC and editors like him are the primary reason I don't edit here as much as I used to. Whether you want to make a case for baiting or not, this instance should show that YRC is incapable of not participating in conflicts. He's well aware of what he's agreed to do as far as civility (several times), but he can't resist making the comments. He's been blocked 20+ times, been nearly blocked many more, and has taken sanctions and wikibreaks to avoid other blocks. Every time he's blocked (or nearly blocked), there's at least one other editor on the other side of the discussion trying to help Wikipedia while YRC revels in the conflict. Giving him so many chances isn't helping the encyclopedia at all, and it's only serving to keep wasting time at ANI, and keep a disruptive force on the site driving away other editors who don't come here to fight. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support racist comments such as this has no place here, and a clear breach of the probation he is currently under. Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Baiting discussions from ArbCom

No more flame bait. De728631 (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ArbCom has specifically had discussions regarding baiting. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#Baiting Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment. Makes it fairly clear that "baiting" is a gross violation of the civility pillar. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision/Motion Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Proposed_decision#Baiting Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment Which rather points out that "baiting" is not a "protected conduct" but may, per se, reach the state of a blockable offense. Collect (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Noone has claimed that it is. But it also doesn't excuse violations of civilty restrictions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC) GS certainly implied you were under no obligation to be civil or to avoid baiting another editor - that you were under no "sanctions." Baiting is not something "above sanctions" last I checked. I guess you missed his comment to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I think it was somewhat baiting..I'm not prepared to say it was intentional but I think it's an issue here...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Collect - I certainly did not imply that Maunus was "under no obligation to be civil or to avoid baiting another editor", where did I state that? What I did say was that YRC is under sanctions, whereas Maunus is not, and your call for "both-or-neither" to be punished completely ignores that very important fact. GiantSnowman 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Good attempt to derail the discussion, Collect, but it should be hatted as just that. Fellow concerned editors, the operative irony, as I see it: YRC could have let it go, but stirred the pot by bringing it here to ANI, and now is justly looking at a WP:BOOMERANG. Let's stop allowing YRC's little fan group, who have enabled years of this endless drama, to set the agenda. Hat this, and block and ban YRC per his own probation agreement. Jusdafax 16:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I am part of no "little fan group" which I happen to regard as incivility on your part here. IIRC, you have opined before on YRC, and your opinions have been highly consistent regarding him, as is true of a large number of those others holding your opinion. That you regard mention of ArbCom decisions as "derail"ing anything is more telling of your possible particular wished-for result than it is of my position here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) It should be noted that none of the above ArbCom discussions states that a user which has been "baited" is exempt from themselves having to follow Wikipedia civility rules, or from having to follow any restrictions placed on them by the community. That is, everything that Collect has to say may be both simultaneously true and irrelevent. Being baited is not, itself, a free pass to do whatever one chooses. --Jayron32 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC) That looks like a pretty good reason to hat this sub-discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) But the gist of the Malleus Defense(tm) is essentially "if Person X wasn't so stupid/wrong to begin with, then MF wouldn't have insulted him". So in this case, if YRC wasn't baited, then there would have been no cause for him to pose the allegedly incivil nationality/ethnicity question. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC) No one else pressed the particular combination of letters on his keyboard for him, nor did anyone else press "save page". --Jayron32 20:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) That is quite besides the point, really; no one forced Malleus to call someone a "cunt" either. Absent the initial provocation, would we be here? No. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Absent the Big Bang, we wouldn't either. We're still to be held responsible for the actions we take. --Jayron32 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) And I don't feel YRC is responsible in this situation if someone was being the proverbial WP:DICK to him to begin with. If someone is an ass towards me, I will punch them in the mouth. Rhetorically and literally speaking. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, but you are not required nor mandated to have that response. Other responses are possible, and may be more beneficial in resolving a dispute. YRC was not forced into a particular course of action by the actions of others. He had a range of options (including doing nothing), and he made his choice. Making a choice has consequences, both positive and negative. --Jayron32 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think you've actually grasped the point once in this tangent. We're not talking about what is proper, we're talking about simply being right. The community has given its consent in the past that either being right or being a vested contributor excuses possibly incivil acts. For good or for ill, that's where the Wikipedia is at at this point in time. In my opinion, YRC meets one, arguably both, of the criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC) When did the community make that decision? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC) This would be as good a starting point as any. Tarc (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Well, since that's your perspective and rationale, I don't believe we have anything useful to say to each other on this (or likely any other) matter. Have fun making your WP:POINT. --Jayron32 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Well, I guess that's one less Christmas card to write out next year... Tarc (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Context matters people

We would not consider this uncivil or offensive if it was a discussion of an article about a company and he asked "Are you an employee of the company?" A discussion about hate-mongering towards a specific ethnicity does make one's ethnicity germane to the discussion, especially when that person's only contributions to the discussion are personal attacks against another person in the discussion. That it was taken as an offense is a consequence of YRC's communication style and the bluntness of his question, not because of any intent to offend. He was simply inquiring as to whether Maunus had a personal reason for being so upset over the subject. It came off in a way that offended Maunus and he reacted. Had Maunus let the matter go after that we wouldn't be here. Instead, Maunus pursued YRC and harangued him over it several days later.

The nature of civility is unclear and the nature of "strict civility enforcement" is even more vague. Some people above appear to think "strict civility enforcement" means that any comment that is seen as uncivil should be a cause for strict enforcement, regardless of context. I think this is an absurdly disruptive interpretation as it basically means an editor in a privileged position, such as an admin, can insult that editor severely and then use any less-than-perfect reaction from that editor as cause for invoking the strict civility enforcement. Even if the other party has to give up something, he or she still gets a much heftier pound of flesh. YRC did not attack Maunus out of the blue, Maunus did that to YRC. YRC did not re-ignite the conflict with Maunus several days later, Maunus did that with YRC.

There are many severe and unambiguous acts of unprovoked incivility that we would ignore from an editor without strict civility enforcement. Does "strict civility enforcement" mean that we go from that to taking every less-than-tactful comment as cause for severe sanctions even when it is directly preceded by a personal attack from the other party? I say that is an emphatic no.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What you say about context is true, but the context that you are overlooking in this case is the numerous final warnings already given to YRC. What Maunus did is inexcusable and he should face significant repercussions too, but that does not excuse YRC's inexcusable behaviour either. A civility parole is a tightrope that we do not put people on lightly, it is there for a reason. Users on that tightrope are abundantly aware that if they make one step out of line then they will face the consequences; it matters not whether they were provoked or baited - nobody is forced to respond to baiting. The only difference made by baiting is that the baiter faces equal consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Except think about what he said for a minute: "Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK." He was saying "I know there are people on Wikipedia who are Muslim Pakistanis and would be reasonably offended, are you one? The fact is that, even if it is offensive to you, this content should be included as it is supported by numerous reliable sources." Had he said it that way, I don't think anyone would be calling for his head on a pike so Maunus can display it at the top of his talk page. Hell, maybe Maunus would have actually been more calm in his response and this dramafest could have been avoided. YRC's style of communication means that a lot gets lost in translation. This is why understanding context is important. You aren't really pushing for sanctions on YRC for attacking Maunus, but pushing for sanctions because YRC is not good at saying what he means. Maunus aggravated this situation by keeping their personal dispute alive several days after, where otherwise it would have likely faded into a mere folk tale of the Wikilegendarium. That, in itself, tells me that no sanctions against YRC are warranted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have always assumed that "maunus" is a way of helping Anglo-Saxons to pronounce "Magnus", but I could be wrong. It never entered my head that it could be a Pakistani name or that, if it was, it was also a Muslim name. But, without conjecturing on this particular choice of pseudonym, is it not entirely outside policies on wikipedia to ask people directly whether they are Pakistani Muslims? I happen to know that there is an editor on en.wikipedia, editing from Norway, who is probably of Pakistani extraction, just on the basis of a former username, the articles he's edited and his interactions with some problematic IP editors. That information has been useful in ruling him out as a sockpuppet in SPI requests tabled by others. It is out of the question, however, unless he happens to have volunteered that information himself, to ask him details about himself (nationality, religion, etc). The preceding text seems to be a complete misreading of wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a proposal in user talk. I hope that YRC can accede to my request there. I would hate to see a valuable long term user with good intentions banned. --John (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• John, this is not just about one diff, but other prior incidents and the process of escalation. Kim Dent-Broen calmed things down by closing the previous thread and, when YRC attempted to escalate matters here, I tried to archive his request here immediately just as an extension of Kim's closure. He evidently wanted to continue his dispute with Maunus. It is that persistence, and not the single diff or two, which has created this problem. The same applied with his WP:POINTY edit warring on WP:AE to include a personal attack on me and FPaS. That matter did not concern him, yet he persisted and subsequently received a warning from Seraphimblade. I agree with you about the value of his contributions and actually would prefer a solution that does not prevent him editing articles. If you can find a means of preventing these unprovoked attacks on ordinary wikipedians, that would be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

excessive indeed - to ban a user for this diff?

I have 94 thousand contributions to this project over around four years - the vast majority of them defending living people - as per WP:BLP . I agreed to some conditions at my rfc user - a one month ban - I fully complied with this - a one revert restriction for six months after the volunteer one month ban , I am three months into that without breaking it, and a six month civility restriction , I am three months into that and when I agreed to it I never ever thought that this diff would be a reason to implement a community ban - as part of the agreement I said, a rude post is a rude post, I had a small history of attacking users, in this case I was attacked a lot by another user and kept my cool and was polite under pressure - this is not a reason to community ban a user - I have for four months been complying completely with my self agreed conditions - Youreallycan 22:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

comment

I can see now how this diff , my comment upset User:Maunus and I am sorry for his upset and I apologize to him now. I also make a declaration to move forward editing only to comment on contributions and not contributors - Youreallycan 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one? nableezy - 22:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the discussion, a reply to a comment that needs to be taken in context in regards to the whole discussion - the whole discussion is here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derby_sex_gang - Youreallycan 23:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the context. The context was your dismissal of any view opposed to your own as a. something that could only come from a Pakistani Muslim and b. something that should be dismissed because it came from a Pakistani Muslim. nableezy - 02:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Nableezy, but you are just plain wrong about YRC. In fact, the great thing is that I can illustrate exactly how wrong you really are about him, as well as anyone else trying to tag him with the bogus claim of being prejudiced against Pakistani Muslims. When an editor started adding a bunch of negative cats to redirect of some Pakistani Muslims who were involved in the murder of a teenage boy, YRC was there keeping out the crap. You can see the relevant revision histories here and here. Do you think someone who was prejudiced against Pakistani Muslims would bat an eye at the "child murderer" cat being added to those pages? This "racism" claim is completely bogus nonsense and anyone asserting that sort of nonsense claim about him should have their vote discounted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, let me get this straight. You're confronted with people going 'you were uncivil, having previously promised not to be uncivil in order to avoid a ban'. You categorically deny any incivility. When it becomes clear that people are voting to siteban you, you suddenly realise what you did wrong and swear blind that you'll never ever be uncivil again...in order to avoid a ban. Are you familiar with the concept 'once bitten, twice shy'? Ironholds (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not the case for me at all - I am simply saying how I feel about the ongoing discussion and attempting to portray my good faith position as well as I can and making an apology to User:Maunus - If I have made a digression from my conditions it is not a major one worthy of a site ban - Youreallycan 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time. You have broken your self agreed conditions many times, see for example: Repeated violation of RfC restrictions - site ban proposed for Youreallycan. Your promises are worthless because you are unable to keep them. --В и к и T 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No action was the outcome of that report - I have kept my self agreed conditions for four months now and want to continue keeping them - Youreallycan 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When faced with indefinite ban, you always give sweat promises. That's way previous report ended with "no action". Similarly, you avoided block/ban at least 5 times by making those last minute promises.--В и к и T 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, I always attempt to work with the community - in a good faith way to progress and benefit the project. - Youreallycan 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

comment from Youreallycan

Please be aware - there a lot of long term opponents of mine here with lots of previous conflict with me - such as User:Jusdafax , User:Dougweller, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Mathsci, User:Nomoskedasticity , User:Wikiwind , User:Tom Morris are all conflicted users or users that I have other long term disputes with - I have had content disputes with a few other others, but , primarily these are those worthy of highlighting at this time - Youreallycan 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are insinuating that I am a WP: SPA, you are mistaken friend. I have no relation to any the editors you mentioned, and I highly doubt those prolific users would resort to sockpuppetry to battle you. Can we please stay on topic and lay off the accusations of sockpuppetry? 72.208.18.59 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)#

LOL - your contributions are unworthy of even the title SPA - Youreallycan 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Easy there, tiger! We both know that waving your burdening contributions around like magic wand is not going to prove a WP: POINT. And that is coming from a guy who was "baited" as well! Hypocrisy: it's best to avoid it, laddie. 72.208.18.59 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any such insinuations by YRC as mentioned in your second to last post. Maybe you should log back in to your regular account. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, please list all of your long term supporters who have chimed in this thread as well, thanks. Resolute 02:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

An extremely cogent point. YRC, since you are now pointing fingers, lets see your list of your consistent backers. I imagine it won't be too difficult for you. Jusdafax 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• The above exchange is why I have nothing but utter contempt for IP editors, as the above is clearly and "old hand", "experienced user", or whatever euphemism one chooses. Either unable (blocked) or unwilling (cowardice) to post via their own account. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• YRC, I don't understand why you'd play this card--the long-term opponent card. I'm not going to vote "support", above, to blocking/banning/enforcing, but sheesh, this is really a poor remark. Every time I reach into my bag of good faith (it's shrunk considerably in the last few months) someone has to say something like that. "It's not my fault and those kids hate me anyway. No fair." Drmies (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• YRC, you are correct. I've expressed dissatisfaction with your behavior in the past. I think I was right each time I did that. Instead of a blanket suggestion that my dissatisfaction with your behavior is some sort of conflict, how about some diffs? You seem to be saying "These people complained about my behavior in the past, they shouldn't be participating now." Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I really think it would be a good idea to ask yourself how you have managed to acquire such a longish list of opponents. And if your answer is (as mine would be, no doubt ;-) "well, I'm right and they are always wrong, and they just can't stand it if I persist in telling them", think again (if that suggestion gets you stuck in an infinite loop, remember to set a timer to get back to essential functions like food and water). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 24 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.

Comments in a FA discussion

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

---

I would like to ask about a short discussion that took place on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Réunion Ibis/archive1. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:J Milburn made the comment; "*Support as per my good article review. A very strong article on a very interesting topic." at 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I replied; "I do not understand why a Good Article review can be compatible with a Featured Article review, so I do not understand your rationale of referring back to your Good Article review." at 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• User:J Milburn replied; "As I said in my good article review, I felt the article was pretty much ready for FA status then. I find that the best good article reviews point towards FAC, and I try to do that in many of my own reviews; in this case, there was nothing else I could say. I read through the article again, and was happy that it was ready. I was also declaring a possible conflict of interest so that delegates could take that into account, if they felt it important. Do you now understand why I referred back to my good article review? (As an aside, why are you feeling the need to pester those who supported? It isn't like major issues have been dug up in subsequent reviews; a few small pointers have been brought up, along with some suggestions that aren't so great. Certainly nothing that suggests that the article is incomplete.)" at 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I replied; "Please withdraw the suggestion that I have pestered those supporting this article." at 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• User:J Milburn replied; "Please stop pestering me..." at 10:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly are you bringing this here? What administrative action do you expect to be taken? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's been brought here because with the closing of Wikiquette Assistance there's no immediately obvious other place to go (assuming the editor has discussed it with J Milburn directly)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The original suggestion of "pestering" was very mildly caustic. That's all. No administrative action is needed here. In general, ANI is not the place to demand apologies of people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking back, I realise my original response looks a bit snappy, sorry about that. What I mean is: how can administrators help with this issue? All I'm seeing is a minor disagreement over the relationship of GA to FA, unless you consider the suggestion of "pestering" to be a personal attack (if it is, we'd better all start walking on eggshells, because we've got level 1 warning templates that are more strongly worded than that). What I can't see is anything requiring the intervention of an administrator (nor, for that matter, any discussion of this incident beyond that outlined above). Thus, I'm asking for clarification - what's the desired outcome of this report? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Snowman was taken aback at the use of the word "pester" and would like verification about whether others feel the use of the word is justified or not. Snowman is this correct? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the use of the word "pester" by User:J Milburn that I would like opinions about here. I opted not to raise this on the users talk page. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that Snowman was seemingly pestering article supporters; see also his comment to Jim, a very experienced writer and reviewer, which is seemingly there only to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his support (much, it seems, as was Snowman's comment to me). As well as a pester, I think it's fair to add that Snowman is a timewaster, as illustrated by this thread, and just a touch oversensitive... I'm not watching this thread- if anyone wants to say anything to me, please leave me a note on my talk page. (As an aside, in case it isn't clear, my comment dated 10:56, 24 January 2013 is a sarcastic imitation of Snowman's spurious demands, not actually a demand that he leave me alone.) J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to advance the discussion by commenting on the use of warning templates, which were raised above by User:Yunshui. Carefully worded warning templates are usually used in a sequence with the more strongly worded templates being used with justification as the motivations of a suspected vandal become clearer. As far as I am aware some of the most mildly worded warning templates welcome potential new users and give some friendly advice. Nevertheless, I am sure that warning templates can be misused. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 24 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 75.84.95.229 deleting article talk page comments

User:75.84.95.229 deleted my comments twice at Talk:Deep Space Industries[56][57]. The first time I figured it was just an ordinary IP vandal but it looks like he is removing comments because he doesn't like them.[58]

There are also lesser annoyances such as changing "died of natural causes" to "died of unknown causes" when the source says "natural",[59][60] editing old comments and re-reverting rather than discussing when reverted[61][62][63], using article talk pages as a forum[64][65][66], and of course refusing to sign his posts, ignoring repeated user warnings about it, and even removing signatures added with Template:Unsigned.[67][68] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've given them a final warning, after reverting similar odd edits at Rosemary Kennedy. If this happens again, a block is in order. Thank you Guy, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• There was a editor a while back who had a fixation on changing the cause of death in article, but I can't recall who it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• See this Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • • A strange obsession indeed. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Promo, POV pushing and sketchy sources at National Radical Camp (1993)

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'd appreciate it if someone took a look at the article National Radical Camp (1993), a Polish far-right group (essentially Neo-Nazi skinheads). User:Kaskusia, a single purpose account, has been adding to the article some pretty POV text, and sourcing it to the organization's website, as well as apparently their facebook page. For example [69], [70]. S/he also has been messing up a disambig link but that's small potatoes. I've reverted a few times (I figured neo-nazi facebook pages were not a reliable source) and left a message both on the user's page [71] and the talk page [72] but ... no response, just the same ol' same ol'.Volunteer Marek 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Matter dealt with, for now, by others. I've warned the editor and, ahem, well, of course you, Marek, for edit-warring (pro forma, I suppose, since I know you won't continue). Thanks for the notification, Drmies (talk) 05:38, 24 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.

New account pretending to be an admin

Vao Tv1‎ (talk · contribs) is a new account created today that has made six edits. The very first edit made by this account consisted of the user adding the "this user is an admin" userbox to their user page. Based on that edit and the others, I have to question if this user is new. They certainly bear investigating. I made an inquiry on their talk page, but have yet to get a response. At the very least, they are guilty of impersonating an admin. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, the pretending to be an admin bit reminds me of Dannyboy1209. He's socked with a number of IP's but never another account. I'm not sure yet from the other edits that there's a similarity. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it could be anyone. To me, this seems to pass the duck test. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough that any action should be taken at this moment. We can see if any future edits show disruptive behavior, or behavior similar to a blocked user. For right now, I think we should AGF and hope he's not a sockpuppet. Ryan Vesey 17:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will also say that new users sometimes quite often try to become admins, they're too eager (recent example not given... but some will know). I think we need to AGF a lot here, and wait for anything disruptive before blocking/other action. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from but when a brand-new account's first edit is to add the admin userbox, something is very suspicious about that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Would their 4th edit being to a RFA raise some eyebrows? Blackmane (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was on an RfA-related RfC, which might be even more eyebrow raising. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In this edit the user has also put his or her user page into Category:Wikipedia, which seems an odd thing to do too. EdChem (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to AutomaticStrikeout) Oops, missed the Talk part, but like you say, the point stands. Blackmane (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. Though the username is new, I am indeed experianced but I've been editing anonymously until I deciced to make a new account since you can't retain an IP's editing history. After I received a message from AutomaticStrikeout, I lost my internet connection and couldn't not respond immediately. I do appreciate the good faith, since many people get suspicious and end up blocking people involved in these discussions. Vao Tv1 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to take your word for it, as long as you agree not to impersonate an administrator any more. Thank you for not acting offended by the suspicion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:RogueSchoolar (disruptive WP:SPA creating WP:POVFORK and redirects to it - ARBMAC 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.

---

G'day all, On 22 Jan, this account was created and its first edit was to create an article Puppet State of Serbia [73]. It then changed about 30 redirects and wikilinks to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to point to the new article without discussion, and without edit summaries [74]. This was done in the context of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia having been move-blocked for a year under ARBMAC [75] by User:EdJohnston following a series of unsuccessful RM's, largely around the strong view of some editors that the title should be moved to one that indicates that this territory was some sort of puppet state. I reverted these changes and AfD'ed the new article as a POVFORK [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppet State of Serbia] refers. I also left a message on User:RogueSchoolar's talk explaining my actions User talk:RogueSchoolar. User:RogueSchoolar has reverted my changes, again with no discussion, but this time using edit summaries such as "This is better redirect. If that article is not deleted you should not change redirect" [76]. This is highly disruptive POV behaviour by an WP:SPA. As observed by User:Joy on the AfD page, "this is basically a violation of the WP:ARBMAC temporary injunction on moving the Territory... article. Speedy delete and block the bad-faith single-purpose account?"

Could I please get admin attention on this? An ARBMAC warning and rollback of the redirects? Any help appreciated. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who has now been joined by WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT = User:AŽDAHABEZDAHA at AfD...[77] Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Puppet State article has been speedily deleted by Future Perfect, who has also issued a formal ARBMAC warning to RogueSchoolar. Further disruption of Balkan-related articles broadly construed will likely result in an indef block. De728631 (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much FPaS and De728631. bobrayner did most of the 2nd lot of reverts, and hopefully that settles things for a bit. I'm a happy camper now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:28, 24 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.

Repeated Violation of Wiki Link to Be Avoided Guideline

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.

---

122.160.135.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 It appears as if the editor only has a few luxury trains website's external links to contribute to WIKI. It is undoubtedly in clear violation of Wiki External Links policy as the guideline clearly mentions that this is exactly the kind of Links normally to be avoided

Blocked for 6 months by Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). —Soap— 16:47, 24 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 Protection

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, we've a persistent IP address 86.42.218.112 adding text to British Isles - 8 times in the last 24 hours. Can the article be protected please, for registered users only. Not sure if blocking the IP address is any use as it is reported as a dynamic address. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, should be Ok now. Let me know if there's more disruption when the protection expires and I'll reprotect. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 24 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:Annaauc -- persistent copyvios and spam

Google Analytics ID: UA-17651468 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

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

• Annaauc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I was made aware of this user in this spam report. Despite receiving multiple warnings over the last two weeks, copyvios continue today: Gyula Tornai is partially copied from [78]. Furthermore, all of this user's contributions add links to budapestauction.com and hung-art.com. I was going to open a WP:CCI, but I'm hoping to avoid that with a Special:Nuke. MER-C 11:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

After this notice, he pulled the copied parts of the article, but that doesn't change the fact that there was an issue. It seems likely that the contributor can be coached to avoid copying, but I am concerned that the main issue here may be spam. Budapestauction.com and hung-art.com are is not likely to be reliable sources. If these links are removed, along with content copied from them (even if now licensed under CC-By-SA, it still doesn't meet verifiability), we give the contributor an opportunity to prove that he is interested in expanding our coverage of European artists and not simply driving up traffic to those websites. That said, I'm not at all sure how many of these artists are notable. :/ I'll take a quick pass through his articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started, and I'm not sure that hung-art.com is a problem. While the auction site is clearly commercial, it doesn't seem to be. I'm still not sure it's a reliable source, but I'm not removing it (although I will remove content copied from it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hung-art is also a commercial site, selling paintings. I'd go for the nuke option. KillerChihuahua 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bizarre. After further looking, I'd have to agree with you on hung-art, at least in part. This page (at least right now) looks fine. This one does not, and the images link to the Budapestauction site. Is the latter domain piggy-backing on a respectable source? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both sites are owned by the same person. They share the same Google Analytics ID (see [79] for a description of what this means) and site layout. Plus, if you look in the bottom left corner of budapestauction.com, clicking where says "BudapestAuction Online Group", you will find a link to hung-art.com. Conversely, if you do the same at hung-art.com, you will find a link to budapestaukcio.hu (probably Hungarian for Budapest Auction). If you click on the UK flag in budapestaukcio.hu, you will end up back at budapestauction.com. MER-C 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So are we nuking? KillerChihuahua 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. I've gone through and cleaned out all significant textual contributions in the 62 articles he created for copyright concerns and deleted those articles that rely only on these unreliable sites. I spot-checked the ones that referenced books in Google books and found that the artists do seem to be notable. I'd hate to lose articles in an underserved area if they can be salvaged and built upon. (ETA: I am about to check those articles he added to, but did not create.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KillerChihuahua 14:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And done. :) Off to speak to the contributor about sourcing, links & copyvios. Do we need to blacklist these sites, or is that premature? And I discovered one complication whilst cleaning - not all of the Budapestauction site pages are at either of those domain. Some of them are simply under the artist name. I would not have known the affiliation if I had not checked external sites linked by this contributor routinely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The (default records for the) following domains resolve to the same server (195.228.75.137) as hung-art.com (i.e. you get the same website if you attempt to browse them). Only the highest-level name is listed (e.g. dfp.deffifilm.hu resolves to this address but is not listed):

• budapestaukcio.hu
• deffifilm.hu
• dev.hu
• paintingtrade.com
• russianiconart.com
• szakertes.com

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Verbal abuse and outing by User:Flagrantedelicto

Flagrantedelicto (talk · contribs)

For several days now, I've been trying to work with this user to find secondary sources on Mark Antony's DOB. I regularly edit articles about classical antiquity and ancient Rome, and when a minor edit war broke out in mid-January about Antony's birthday, I thought I could help with the research. Because User:Flagrantedelicto was contributing to the article on this question but not to the talk page discussion, I invited him to participate. Since then, I've grown increasingly disturbed by his behavior. He has repeatedly attacked my intelligence and ability to read sources, and just now he made a conjecture about my real name that I consider outing (for which I've made a formal request for suppression). He made an odd insinuation about my gender, as if being a woman was linked to my supposed inability to read, and also implied that I operate socks. I've never edited under any other identity.

The user repeatedly accuses me of "opposing" the inclusion of a date when I was trying to sort out and document carefully both the secondary sources and what primary sources they base their arguments on. I mean, seriously: I really don't care what day Antony was born. I care that we put together the article correctly. Anyone familiar with my contributions to Wikipedia knows what I'm about.

I would like Flagrantedelicto to be notified that his incivility must stop. I feel bullied by personal attacks (as outlined at WP:WIAPA) in almost every post he has made.

The conjecture about my name is here, unless it's already been suppressed. I know it's important to cite specific diffs as evidence of abuse, but in this case I would ask that you please skim Talk:Mark Antony#New section for summarizing (an even longer discussion starts previous to that); I state what I see as the task, and almost every comment FlagranteDelicto makes is full of abuse toward me. It's a bit hard to pull out diffs, especially since he usually makes several edits to the same comment. I should've stopped interacting long ago, but since the content point is disputed I felt I needed to explain my edits.

Apologies for presenting such a sloppy case, but I'm quite upset—to such an extent that I'm just not up to providing meticulous documentation that would cause me to have to look at his bile all over again. I just want it stopped, and I see no benefit to the community if he's allowed to continue. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Flagrant has the temperament to be editing Wikipedia at all, per this diff. For those of you without oversight (most of you), the part that really makes me question his temperament (not the part that needed oversighting) is "And DON'T get tough with me. I am the last person you want to talk to that way, got it." It's not the attitude that I like to see in anyone on this project. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto.  ^davidiad_.:τ 02:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And [80]. I think it's block time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto appears to have backed away from the brink, and has accepted that some comments were inappropriate. I don't see that a block would be preventing anything now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good to hear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He offered an apology on my talk page. I left what I hope to be a last remark on the article talk page, summarizing what I understand of the date issue at this point. I would prefer not to interact with him further, but Mark Antony is a top importance article for the project I'm most involved with, so I don't see the benefit of my being the one to walk away from watching the page entirely. Perhaps Flagrantedelicto could make an effort to use the second-person pronoun less often in discussing content, and to stop yelling and belittling me or anybody else. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover and Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

User:Tagremover has been using Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner to push his/her POV on the Boeing 787. He/she even resorts to accusing us editors of being biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda. I personally think some action should be taken here, since he/she is abusing the talk page for a reason that is not allowed. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Its true i used some clear, bold language (bleedless > bleed, nightmare) but also newer sources like the established Time magazine use the same. Just to give a short scientific result. Seemed to be too "emotional", although it will get clear if it is read fully it wasn´t meant so.

biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters: I did not mention anyone personally, but this article is somewhat "pro-Boeing". But:

Other Aircraft articles (Airbus) are somewhat biased, too. Its IMHO a common problem in Wikipedia product articles. Losers are articles like TU-144, which have less (russian?) editors. I think this "fight" to mainly write positive about products is NOT good and is not what is meant by Wikipedia:Assume good faith (about the products, of course good faith for editors). I just think it should not even allowed, but it MUST be allowed in Wikipedia to call an article or statement biased. And i wanted to share info to improve this. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Did User:Andros 1337 respect that related to me? Tagremover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I collapsed one forum-type discussion and left a note reminding users that continuing to add commentary, speculation and the like may be disruptive before I was aware of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My reasonable small inline tags: [81] were removed: [82], my critical comments and suggestions were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor of the article, and i was taken to ANI. Remarkable. Please could we stop at least this ? Tagremover (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I must say, Tagremover's edits are very WP: FILIBUSTER-ish, to say the least. Tagemover claims he is adding a "short scientific result", but is instead loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV. When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage, along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters". In my opinion, MilborneOne has every right to collapse that section. It was completely redundant and disruptive. Sadaam Insane (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sadaam Insane makes wrong statements:

• "loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV": Wrong: What, when? Diffs?
• "When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage" I feel insulted. What, when? Diffs?
• "along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters": A user answered;

• "Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it." I answered:
• "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine." [83] Clearly meaning no one personal.

Tagremover (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying our editorial effort on the article suffers from "Too many biased 'America the beautiful' Dreamwriters here." smears the editorial pool for the article in general. Your complaint would have more validity and perhaps be accepted if you were to provide diffs instead of simply making a nebulous, non-specific claim. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

continuance. Regarding the instance you cited above, where you tagged "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as and objected to your "dubious" tag being reverted as evidence of a bias, the fact that Boeing indeed said that is indisputable and is cited. This clearly is an objective, non-biased revert. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I apologize for that earlier outburst. It doesn't take much for me to go off like Joseph Goebbels. I will strike out that section as soon as I remember how to strike out comments (hopefully one of the kind admins will refresh my memory). Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike MilborneOne (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. This crazy anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and i think about solutions to decrease its effects. But changing the brain and believes of humans is not quickly possible. But again: Thanks for thinking clearly.

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "change the brains and believes of humans". Is that what you are trying to do? Because that would fall under the WP:ADVOCACY rubric, which you might want to review. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a longer reply to the others, latest posted in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Takes a little bit longer, is a longer reply. Tagremover (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, ok, i´ve done some research in the history of Dreamliner. Most important first:

I apologize for writing: "Too many biased ......(not repeated)" Also i used the words like a joke and meant nobody personal, it was bad. Sorry.

Wrong accusation by User:Marteau is that i : "smears the editorial pool for the article in general": that was CLEARLY never said and of course never meant.

Correct is: Too many biased edits at Dreamliner. A lot of other aircraft articles are biased, too: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner):

(moved text)

1. 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [84]

Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature.

1. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected
2. User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality.
3. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better.
4. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [85]
5. Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
6. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk.
7. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. (copied)Tagremover (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content mostly tangential to the discussion about Tagremover's conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...." Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different! Are all systems included, for example de-icing? 35% compared to what EXACTLY? An equally modern system isn´t meant: Airbus disputes that. Stop that biased anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing thinking ! Technology has to be understood: But this statement is vague. Reference is OLD (6 years?), a clearly PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, a time diff in which the whole system was constructed in reality. A NEWER ref of EXISTING tech is needed. ...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy. see above. "The total available on-board electrical power is 1.45 megawatts, which is five times the power available on conventional pneumatic airliners...": Sounds not very efficient: Has to be explained/detailed. Advertising primary source Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! "According to Boeing, the 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767" This is a message of MAJOR importance, the KEY reason for the Dreamliner: FUEL-EFFICIENY ! Avoid ANY biasing, it bias the message of the WHOLE article! Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS AIRCRAFT IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! Outdated: [86]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. Clearly ADVERTISING: "super-efficient airplane", "top aerospace companies", "unmatched fuel efficiency", "exceptional environmental performance", "exceptional performance" ...I wouldn´t trust this text a thing. Minimum this section seems to be written by advertising department, sentence with 20% just copied from old text. "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague ! 787 : What version? Vague ! How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague ! But: ANA said 21% fuel savings. [87] But: Tokyo-Frankfort is nearly out of range even for the 767-300ER, an extended midrange-model, must be measured in shorter distances, like North-American east-coast <> Western-Europe. Vague: Per seat, aircraft, or whole payload? And: A350 - direct competitor - not mentioned: Also its preliminary. Results (major message): Reference as unreliable, primary, old, vague and advertising: disputed ! 20% highly questionable (deleted), 21% (ANA) vague. Has to be rewritten! "...the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction" IMPORTANT message. Facts: Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume. Outdated: [88]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight) Result:: Has to be rewritten. Airbus A350 Now i´m not pro-Airbus or somewhat: But the competitor A350: Is not ready Not such a major change in design preliminary data of unready plane So: Easier to believe. But: "with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787": 2006 reference: 787 changed: Outdated: Has to be REWRITTEN ! Tupolev Tu-144 Example for some pro-American or anti-Russian/Soviet bias: Especially the Tu-144D was a really good plane. Not copied from Concorde, but developed out of the Tu-135 variants, the Tu-125 and other not realized projects including Myasishchev variants/projects. Now, where does biasing come from? Its not exactly clear. Chronology: 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [89] Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [90] Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. Low Article quality Especially Aircraft articles seem to consist of quite isolated, ordered sentences; a list of sentences. Also articles contain a lot of info, no real concept or coherent explanation. Talk pages sometimes similar: "Does this isolated sentence comply with the following reference?" This is no real discussion. Improvements Must mainly be done regarding a few editors. Difficult. But this anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and leads to biased, low Article quality. Talk? Discuss?

Remarks

"OK, we do the change: But later, in a few weeks/months, we revert everything and let the Dreamliner article be again the dream of all fans and Boeing." is not good. Tagremover (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting that mass of text which as the comment says is content and not really germane to the issue at hand. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about assume good faith and suggest we didnt need this thread as Tagremover has raised his issues on the talk page, but he edited the article again to add back in the two dubious tags on referenced statements, so we are getting close to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed tags: [91] I just added them a second time (according WP:3RR, update: first revert), placed my reasons on the talk page: NO ANSWER. Removed them. But discuss on talk page. Tagremover (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this [92] together with a lot of edits also of User:MilborneOne on the talk page, but NO contrary statement, as an agreement. Again: Discuss. Give (contrary?) reasons. Tagremover (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: This is IMHO and according to other users (collapsed above) not the right place to discuss article content. First the article talk page should be used. But: My reasons were ignored, and with the result or even intention to take any editor, who tries to remove biased, pro-Boeing statements and is obviously able to discuss, to ANI and get him blocked: WP:GAME.

Again: I propose you or someone else give reasons on the article talk. Discuss.

And: This case should be closed, as it is annoying for me and everybody else taken to ANI without reason or the reason to suppress any removal of bias, see also WP:OWN. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Marteau:

1. It would be nice and easier, if you post your new comments, where they could easily be found: At the end.
2. "change the brains and believes of humans" was directly related to anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war: I am not and will be not the main editor of Dreamliner and even a lot more aircrafts: As i already said, i highly respect for example User:Fnlayson for his great work. So: This are only a few statements which are obviously positive for Boeing, and if the bias (my result) should be removed permanently, editors with a some participation have to agree.
3. I am absolutely open for a discussion. IMHO this could be done on the article talk page; no dispute resolution needed now: The problem is ignorance, not reasons. But if someone thinks dispute resolution is needed and he will participate, of course.

Please, could a nice administrator close this case of WP:GAME and WP:OWN quickly: Also i think it was wrong and aggressive to accuse me here, its wasting my (and others) time as it will not satisfy me if other users get punished for accusing me. And: IMHO everything is said. Thanks in advance. Tagremover (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is violating WP:GAME to impose your anti-Boeing POV. WP:AGF does not apply here since you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Administrators, have this user permanently blocked. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Andros 1337: I hoped we can close this in an friendly manner, but again i am feeling personally and inappropriately attacked. WP:AGF is somehow independent of WP:POINT, which doesn´t fit here. For example: Finally, recent talks about the 787 article content were mostly good and successful. But: some borderline comments.[93] Tagremover (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone else reading this seething pile of ... er, den of ... whatever and thinking "I see a couple of topic bans that could easily drop the drama level down a few notches"?? The level of dismissiveness by one side is startling, but the other side is just as aggressively annoying (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd certainly go with that. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"dismissiveness": You are right, i have done some edits like that, and i am sorry.

It began when i proudly posted my analysis giving exact results - approved by the current events - about the recent incidents of Dreamliner at the talk page, and used some direct, bold language. English is not my motherlanguage; this probably caused additional problems. The analysis was posted with best with best intentions and to start - and somehow enforce - a discussion about the incidents and related article sections. This was unsuccessful, received some aggressive comments, reduced my tone, but it didn't stop.

Posted detailed arguments: But i see there were some words in it which can be seen as dismissiveness. Sorry, i wouldn't justify me with too frankly talking over "bias", again. Sorry.

Again, recent edits are better from both sides. But: Its a lot easier for me, to carefully select words for an article - especially scientific or technology related - then just talking.

Probably this hadn't happened if i had more practice with common speech, and also understand the cultural background better: Couldn't find the right words. Also i tried to be calm, and simply bring in my scientific, engineering knowledge and opinions, it didn't worked. Tagremover (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing a technical analysis of what you think is the problem on the article subject, however the article talk page is not the place to do it. That section was correctly hatted, although I wouldn't have called it a forum style posting so much as it is original research. The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article. There is a very subtle difference between the two. The former is discussing the subject and its details while the latter is not. Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct. The whole point of the article is to describe the 787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus. That would belong in another article like Comparison of Airbus A380 with Boeing 787 Dreamliner so stop bringing that up on the 787 talk page. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please wait, i will give you an detailed answer in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: Please, frankly, is there something in any point or subsection which could get me blocked or topic banned, yes (please give reason(s), best diffs) or no? As this is a complex case, and i see questionable valuations here (see below), i can start a Wikipedia:Editor review/Tagremover, some Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or even Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or do you know anything better?

1. The only section which had only few direct calls for a directly related article content, but included more original research, is [94]. I have already stated a lot about this section, see above, so: Please, frankly,....
2. Now section: [95]: See above: Please, frankly,....
3. Now section: [96]. The only subsection which seemed to be noticed here, but with questionable valuations, is [97]. Your statements:
   1. "The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article.": Partly questionable valuation. See: [98], and [99].
   2. "Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct." See all my arguments. There are special Wikipedia:Dispute resolution about neutrality and reliability of sources.
   3. "...787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus": I never said that.
   4. "And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged.": Please no speculation: My reputation and patience is grilled here enough.
4. My article edits: There were only 1 revert by me, other contributions were accepted. IMHO clearly nothing to get blocked, but: See above: Please, frankly,....

I have given a lot of reasons and answers, see all text above and my history, and i repeat: My reputation and patience is grilled here enough, and i see questionable valuations here, even from admins. If necessary, i start other projects to state that, as i already said, a few talk page edits weren't good, but also: Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that there is no need for additional or even more reliable sources to questionize one. NPOV, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:PRIMARY is here a basic dispute. Tagremover (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more looking at a week-long block for Tagremover for a profound inability to stop editing tendentiously two weeks after his last block for the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: WP:Ignore all rules
2. "..after his last block for the same" Wrong: Edit war/ tag removal.
3. "profound inability to stop editing tendentiously" Wrong. Diffs? Tagremover (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who needs diffs? Every single post you made to this thread proves it. You are obviously incapable of recognizing your own behaviour - and your draft RFARB will quite likely turn into the biggest WP:BOOMERANG on the face of the planet. Probably not a moment too soon (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to echo what BWilkins said. I'm not entirely sure what you were thinking when you included me, Thumperward and The Bushranger on the list. Thumperward and Bushranger are admins while I am not. I certainly am not in any content dispute with you and I certainly have nothing against you personally. However, I, along with a large number of other editors, have been trying to get you to see that what you are doing has not been gaining any traction on the article talk page, i.e. you haven't gained consensus, but you often go back over the same points, repeatedly. This is the very definition of being tendentious and prolonged tendentiousness is disruptive. I'm not here to get you blocked nor am I aiming to push any POV with regards to the article. I had hoped to throw in an outside opinion with the view that you might see what others are seeing you do. If you don't take that on board and get blocked, it's no skin off my back. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"you haven't gained consensus": Look again. But: IMHO you haven't fear anything: Calling someone "tendentious" is too low for wp:npa.

As it is known, i opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes, as i have doubts in getting an appropriate decision here. Hopefully we can wait with any decision here, or even close the case and block me afterwards? Tagremover (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I withdrew from the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes: A decline is clear and i do not want to consume anybodies time. Thank you very much. Tagremover (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SUMMARY and FINAL STATEMENT by Tagremover:

This very long case is mostly about different opinions at Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner, where opinions should be discussed, is the key thing under investigation, mainly regarding one analysis (original research as discussion entry) and 3 sentences with rewording discussed.

TIMELINE:

At recent incidents of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner i posted an original research on the talk page: [100] to start an discussion. I used a bold language, as the consequences calculated by me were serious, proved by later events [101] and other analysts later joined my results.[102] But this was the main fault: Other editors regarded me as: Anti-Boeing.

I was taken to ANI: [103], done some article edits and posted detailed reasons, why 3 sentences should be reworded.[104] First sentence has an agreement, a second has a proposal.

Although the talk wasn't good and i already apologized above, IMHO there is nothing which needs a block or topic ban for me, else please give reason(s), best DIFFs.

Normally i do not like to discuss articles and therefore do not talk very much: Edit Counter Tagremover (SUBSTRACT exceptionally high 50 article talks for Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner), but felt to be FORCED to talk because i was taken to ANI. Especially in this one i hope talks can be over VERY soon:

1. Someone just have to agree to the proposal of the second sentence or propose something: Don't be vague.
2. Third sentence should be solved.

To make it perfectly clear: My proposals at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner are nothing i insist on: If there is an QUICK agreement: OK, if there is a QUICKER disagreement: Better. ASAP, all facts are listed. If there is some agreement that i should not edit any "Dreamliner" article or talk for about a year or so: I will enjoy following that without any topic ban.

Please don't post a summary of the opinions of others, it will look as an independent opinion. Instead post your own results by especially looking at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Thank you.

Who needs DIFFs ?[105] Wikipedia is based on WP:VERIFIABILITY, imho even regarding blocks or topic bans. I see in this case a problem of minority editors.Where is help for editors if the majority of editors is somewhat biased?

There is some speculation here that i MIGHT do anything worse in the future: Please do not believe and do not speculate. Thank you.

There are some comments here above and below related to my personality which might fulfill even WP:NPA – even by admins; also this might be notable it is independent from the question if i need to be blocked or topic banned for Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

ABOUT ME

I had two blocks: One for edit-war at Fisheye lens, where the other editor was blocked, too: Somehow understandable; mostly i wanted to include minimum one of the imho most notable fisheye lenses: Ultra-wide 220° hemisphere Circular Fisheyes which are the only known ones to look behind – old but much sought-after.[106]

A second recently: For Edit war/ tag removal with the same user at Superzoom, where he placed various tags, proposing even article deletion, (AfD, [107]) at last requesting a reference about the exact definition of the "Super": There is and never will be such a definition, as there is no clear definition for ship or boat, see Talk:Superzoom#Synthesis. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: The most basic one: WP:Ignore all rules: to improve Wikipedia.

These blocks are not questionized: Just trying to avoid being blocked a third time BECAUSE i was blocked twice.

I have been the main editor mostly of technology related articles since many years, first as IP. I am a scientist, an engineer with decades of experience, speaker on and leader of many scientific congresses and events, and you can check the value of my contributions, often to photographic related articles, which is my hobby.(Nokia 808 PureView, Nikon 1 series, often Nikon related because Canon Inc. is stronger in North-America (compared to world-wide) and had "unbalanced" detailed articles) English is not my mother-language. Thank you for investing your time by looking at the facts especially at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

This extremely lifetime-consuming case is the point of no return: If i am getting blocked or topic banned, i will leave Wikipedia for ever: Aren't there much better things than annoying (WP:NPA) discussions?

Tagremover (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Some updates integrated in summary for coherence: Important in this very long case. Thank you for respecting that. Diff.[108] Tagremover (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC) [109] Tagremover (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.

• User:Bwilkins (admin) imho violated WP:NPA [110] and produced heat irrelevant to Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
• User:Andros 1337 main reason seems that he is emotionally involved in anti/pro-Boeing opinions [111][112][113] - this is a content dispute i tried to solve by posting detailed reasons BECAUSE of this ANI case.[114][115]
• It was difficult to keep patience above and below. Again: I already apologized for a single not personal attacking comment in an rough atmosphere and my first results of my analysis as discussion entry to serious incidents of Dreamliner were unnecessarily calling for opponents. This painful case was enough punishment, if you think its needed.
• At some time the discussion here seemed to escalate in irrelevant aggressive speculations; i opened an arbitration request and withdrawn it asap - sorry for causing some efforts.
• The two comments below: User:Bwilkins 16:42, 23 January 2013 and Blackmane 19:46, 23 January 2013 should be hatted as "Not really relevant side discussion" or something.
• My only motivation to finalize agreements/solutions to 3 sentences with already detailed facts [116] are not to waste all this discussion - if it is possible very QUICKLY and wanted. Also the article quality of "Dreamliner" seems to be low,[117] i have no further interest getting involved.

Thank you very much.

Tagremover (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the main point is to block your editing, but rather to direct your edits into a more suitable page, which is why I suggested to discuss proposed changes in talk-page "Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/POV" as explained in my note below. Other editors can become frustrated if you suggest too many changes too fast for their comfort zone, so using another page to debate changes might allow for smoother talks. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"If i am getting blocked or topic banned, i will leave Wikipedia for ever" ... do not ever play the "if I don't get my way, I'm leaving" game (not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere in life). That's childish, ridiculous, and prevents you from saving face in any way, shape or manner later. It is one of the most WP:DIVA-ish, bullshit ultimatums available, and the usual answer is "with an attitude like that, we probably don't want you anyway" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That falls into the same category as the "I donated money to Wikipedia! You have to let me have my way!" sort of comments. Blackmane (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really relevant side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recommend using a 787 POV talk-subpage: This whole situation is apparently a wp:POV_Dispute, with numerous details being discussed, and seen as cluttering the 787 talk-page. Instead, I suggest to use a talk-subpage, such as "Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/POV" and link that page in a top tag-box of the article, using Template:POV_dispute. It is common for some people, overwhelmed by detailed discussions, to view a long debate as being "wp:tendentious" when it is merely very "tedious" to document all the aircraft-technology issues which might be considered slanted to one side of a wp:POV_dispute. So, instead, by moving the debate into a talk-subpage (such as "Talk:.../POV" or similar name), then extensive analysis of bias in sources can be debated, perhaps using "10 threads" in the talk-subpage to settle each of 10 major issues of alleged bias in the article. We should not hound User:Tagremover for expressing numerous viewpoints, but instead, use a subpage with ample space to carefully address numerous issues. The word "encyclopedia" means "all-encompassing" and that is often far more tedious than many people wish were the case. Use talk-subpages to keep the highly-detailed debates from cluttering the main article talkpage. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The reason that editors tend to consider editors who repeatedly post walls of text and ignore what they're being told to be tendentious is because they are. Given your considerable history of blocks and restrictions along the same lines, including at least one topic ban still in place (unless you've been let off your Meredith Kercher topic ban and that hasn't been reflected in your talk archives), you'd think you'd be more aware of what consituted tendentious editing than average. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The topic bans against me, re Meredith Kercher, were not for "tendentious editing" but rather a feeling that I was "disparaging" other users when I said the progress in updating the article was "slow" (which someone twisted to mean "slow thinking" or such). Remember that I was advocating to split the article, to have subarticle "Amanda Knox" (re-re-created later), and prepare the article to describe the acquittal of Knox and her one-week boyfriend, Sollecito, while several other editors did not even think the article should explain how the convictions would be overturned (despite many wp:RS sources explaining that), and I was viewed as moving far too fast and disturbing (or disrupting) the status quo of the article and those editors. When Knox/Sollecito were both acquitted in October 2011, then I was proven right about the need to note the acquittals in the article and acknowledge the separate notability of Knox; however, the basic issue is to not go faster than many people are prepared to change at a specific time, which I only realized later after September 2010. Often, the best place to discuss numerous proposed changes is in a subpage, as less of a disturbance to other editors who want to proceed more slowly. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC) At risk of veering off-topic for this discussion about Tagremover, here is a link to Wikid77's topic ban discussion from June 2011. Wikid77, aren't you breaching that ban right now by discussing the case here? --John (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fan club Beatles.RU (global black list) and vandal OneLittleMouse

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

---

The usual stuff from this sockvandtroll. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again spammers from Russia: club Beatles RU (global black list) I am one of investigators of violations in EN Wikipedia. I use IP address in this moment (jurisdiction has meaning). Website is in the global black list: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist (position 4 - from end of list): bvgn\.me\b bbeatles\.ru sbhandler_end leave the above line as is end of Spam blacklist/Log section Russian users do not know "common sense" and continue violate reputation of Wikimedia (all projects). They must remove link to site of dirty spammers: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#.D0.A1.D1.81.D1.8B.D0.BB.D0.BA.D0.B8 (Beatles.ru - Официальный клуб поклонников в России). Global spam list has relation to all projects of Wikimedia (relevant action - to remove this link-shame). Black shadow for Wikipedias. Because users from Russia very respect spam, removal must be implemented by someone else. Exists great reason to think: Russian have commercial interests on this issue. Defending for spamers - long time already. OneLittleMouse loves make rollback against vandalism and spam often (false actions in reality). Club of spammers is under his protection long time ago (not exists possibility to remove the link to website of spammers). Pages of the website of OneLittleMouse: http://onelittlemouse.narod.ru (were investigated fully two days ago). Mysteries of robots.txt already were checked, and such actions gave interesting results: http://onelittlemouse.narod.ru/robots.txt (OneLittleMouse is commercial partner of the club of spammers). Attention: http://onelittlemouse.narod2.ru/My_partner_club_Beatles_Ru_for_friends_only (he - editor for money). The only Ru Wikipedia contains links to the website of spammers (by the will of Mouse and in his personal favor). - 2.92.44.175 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

• Somebody block this "beatles-troll" please - now (thousandth time) and again, again, again... For making fake sites, too (i don't know what rule is enwiki analogue to russian ru:ВП:НО#Подлог и фальсификация (forgery and falsification). OneLittleMouse (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a LTA page set up for this yet...? Legoktm (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This iteration's blocked. They've recently resumed harassment of Sphilbrick [118], [119], [120], [121], don't know if they're abusing OTRS again. Perhaps an edit filter? Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • This is Crazy1980 who was community banned. Revert block ignore on sight.Blackmane (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...oh, bleedin' Hades, not this again. Facepalm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980/Archive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 24 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.

Steve Hall (criminologist) and Simon Winlow AfD FUBAR in process

See the AFD discussions for rationales. This section has been courtesy collapsed. Uncle G (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Simon Winlow (AfD discussion) Steve Hall (criminologist) (AfD discussion) Someone claiming to be the subject of one of the articles and representing the subject of the other article attempted to delete the content of the articles yesterday. Another user initiated AfD's on the new user's behalf. Today the editor claiming to be the subject of the article is stating that the improper promotional and derogatory materials have been removed and so they want to stop the AfDs and have the articles locked from editing. I think only one person has actually !voted at the AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Hello. This actually the real Prof Hall. Email me at Teesside University for verification if you wish. Please either a) preferably leave up the pages for Prof Winlow and myself as they stand now (I have removed the promotional material inserted by the original authors), remove the tag from my page and lock both pages from editing (because I have recently published some rather controversial material and been smeared on a Google book site and elsewhere) or b) if you wish delete the pages. Whatever you choose, but please do it as quickly as possible. Thank you. --Prof Steve Hall (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC) This sounds like a reasonable explanation, but there are two parts that can't happen: 1) We don't protect pages pre-emptively in most situations, but I can assure you that if they are disrupted frequently, they'll be protected as necessary, per standard practice. 2) We can't close the deletion discussions (or, thus, remove the deletion tags from the tops of the articles), since others have now !voted to delete. If you'd like, though, you can request that your comments be struck through (like this), to reflect that you no longer advocate deletion. Other than that, though, the discussion will have to go on, unless everyone else who's !voted to delete also changes their mind. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Hello Professor Hall. While I understand your wish to keep the articles in their current state, it is not our policy on Wikipedia to simply follow individual requests regarding deletion, protection, and other administrative actions, such as the subject of an article requesting it be deleted or protected. I assure you that our editors will be required to follow our stringent policy on biographies of living persons when making changes to the article, and any text that is controversial and not reliably sourced can be challenged (by you, if you wish) and removed. It is very important to us that articles on wikipedia are not libelous, and any editor making such contributions to any article may have their editing privileges removed or restricted. Part of the reason Wikipedians are reluctant to delete or protect articles is that it prevents other editors from contributing to it and making it better. Wikipedia is (and always will be) a work in progress, and allowing users to continually build on it allows Wikipedia to grow better and more complete. Articles are generally only protected when they face persistent vandalism or other disruption, and deleted only if the community agrees they don't need or shouldn't have an encyclopedia entry. In this case, as long as the articles are not deleted, they will probably be expanded and improved over time, and may eventually come to resemble the articles for other notable academics. However, it is also possible that the articles in question may still be deleted for other reasons besides your requests, and you are free to participate in those discussions if you wish. Thank you for your comments and cooperation. I will be glad to respond any questions or further comments you may have. Finally, on behalf of the English Wikipedia, I'd like to warmly welcome you to the project, regardless of your intended tenure here. —Rutebega (talk) 03:26, 25 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:184.163.147.52 (personal attacks and disruptive behavior)

Insults and personal attacks against me and another editor on user talk pages ([122], [123], [124]) and disruptive comments on diffs suchs as [125]. I've warned him several times on his user talk page but he won't wisen. --195.25.216.129 (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

final warning given. watchlisted. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[redacted] (WP:NPA)

Legal threat?

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

---

Note: This discussion is still going on below the archived content. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Does this comment amount to a legal threat against WP? --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely it is. The IP must either retract it or face a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Indisputably. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. NLT does not affect the ability of editors to report crimes (or supposed crimes, don't think he'd actually get that far). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"I will get this site shut down in the US"... Seems like a threat to me, and it seems like he's thinking about legal things.. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you looked on the actual ORIGINAL post I NEVER said that said what you said in quotes. I NEVER said that "I will get this site shut down in the US," so you're not acting in good faith. Also, I removed that part of the post so your argument is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the link above "this comment". You most certainly did saythat. And you admitted that you 'removed' it, which wouldn't be possible if you never put it up to begin with. Don't lie, you'll dig your hole deeper (if you are digging one) gwickwire^talk_edits 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote, cut-and-pasted:

Unless there is proof showing that the pictures there are of people over the age of 18, I will making a visit to my local law enforcement office and the local FBI building to inquire about an investigation that will get this site shut down in the US.

Gwickwire's paraphrase was correct and, sorry Elen, that is indeed a direct legal threat intended to creating a chilling effect on other editors' work. An NLT block is needed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They weren't paraphrasing, they were quoting and I never typed what he quoted therefor it is they are attributing something to me that was NEVER typed by me. They should have indicated that they were paraphrasing. Besides, I deleted that part of the comment as was asked of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, you either said it or you didn't but the diff never lies and in this case you said it. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will making a visit to my local law enforcement office and the local FBI building to inquire about an investigation that will get this site shut down in the US certainly is a legal threat. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's doesn't worth that way. They quoted me as saying something I didn't. Look at the quote, I never said what he quoted me as saying. I never said, "I will get this site shut down in the US." What is up there is what I said and I freely admit to saying that. On top of that, I took it down as was asked by me (and I apologize for reacting that way) if you look at the talk page and I admit that I should have never taken it to this level, but this is a legitimate concern and one that needs to be addressed in order to keep people from getting in trouble for looking at pictures of people who might very possibly be minors pleasuring themselves on an open website.

• It is not a legal threat, which is according to WP:NLT is a threat to employ litigation. Reporting what one believes to be a criminal offense is not a legal threat. Do you really believe that it is appropriate to try and discourage a person from reporting a crime? Or to take action against him because he reports an offense? That's not the moral thing to do, nor the ethical thing to do. If he believes it is an offense, let him report it. The appropriate law enforcement agency will investigate it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 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.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. NLT is not about specific wording, it's about an attempt to intimidate via quasi-legalistic language, which is exactly what the IP was doing. He's now redacted the legal threat, so that's that (for now). But you need to understand what NLT is actually about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bugs. There is really no difference in chilling effect between "I am going to sue you" and "I am going to get criminal action brought against you." Nor is this a question about someone's ability to report a crime. If the IP really thinks that there's criminality on that article, then he or she can certainly go to the authorities to report it. What they cannot do is threaten to go to the authorities in order to get something done here. There is a neutral, non-threatening way to point out potential criminal liability, and a threatening, NLT way to do it, and this was decidedly the latter. In my opinion, the closing of this thread and dismissal of the complaint was a mistake in judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. There is a clear threat here to take a legal action. People are, of course, allowed to contact the cops if they see a crime. What they may not do is to us the threat of contacting the cops to intimidate others. This is a clear letter-and-spirit violation of NLT if I ever saw one. --Jayron32 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I gave the user a pseudo final warning, saying I'd re-report him here if he continued what he was doing. He's still at it by the way, except now he's using ad-hominems of sorts and other methods to produce a chilling effect to get us to do what he wants. I also directed him to Commons (sorry all there), as that's where the images are hosted, where he may have more luck. If an administrator can please take some sort of action to prevent this chilling effect from going further, it'd be appreciated. Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I have been discussing the issue WITHOUT using a legal threat at all. I have not been using ad-hominems at all. I would like to see some sort of proof of that considering that I can't see it. This is nothing but a complete lie. I have also been responding to a personal and ad hominem attack that Baseball Bugs has put upon me which he refuses to retract although he, as his history has shown, is not slow to report any and everyone who he thinks violates Wikipedia policy in order silence them.

proof. Which has been provided multiple times before and always gets a "I didn't say that" response from you, when the diff shows that you said it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though the IP claims to not have said it, they did partially redact the threat themselves shortly after it was brought up at ANI. If they had been more upfront and admitted to the threat, this issue could have been resolved without the escalation drama. Although, due to their cleanup of the threat wording, I question the block reason. Granted, they were approaching a block for trolling (if not already exceeded it), but I suspect a NLT block may not be supportable given the attempt at redaction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly a legal threat; I've blocked (only for a week, given the nature of IPs, but poke me if he reappears after that and acts in a recidivistic manner) Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: a head's up that in this reply to the block, the user's statement "Thank God for dynamic IP addresses" suggests the page needs to be monitored for block evasion now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:NLT: "Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures."

Based on the definition of "litigation", the user did not breach the letter of NLT, but he certainly violated its spirit. Perhaps NLT should be amended to include criminal prosecution. As far as I know, there isn't any policy regarding criminal lawsuits, and I believe that WP policies are set up in such a way so as to prohibit actions by users that would violate United States or Florida law (though I'm not sure about that), but these things do come up every so often. Would anybody be interested in an RFC on NLT to include criminal lawsuits in the definition of legal threats and explain how concerns of criminal violations should be reported and addressed? —Rutebega (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that our point is getting through. I posted the following in a discussion with an admin who dropped by to comment on NLT at my page, and it holds true here.

"I have to disagree from several standpoints. First, it is not morally or ethically correct to discourage someone from reporting what he believes to be a criminal offense to law enforcement authorities. Second, it may very well be a criminal violation in and of itself to discourage someone from reporting an offense. Third, it would be terrible press for the project to have that splattered over the news that Wikipedia wanted to prevent the reporting of a possible crime, especially in this case, where the crime allegedly involves minors and sexual matters. Finally, taking it in context, nowhere in the policy does it speak about criminal actions, it speaks of litigation. It is a question of balance. Which is more important, the editing of articles, or crime? That is not to say that I agreed with the way he went about it, but I don't think that we should, nor do I think the WP:NLT policy requires, us to take action to prevent someone from reporting what they believe to be a crime to authorities. As a hypothetical, what if a female editor is raped by a male editor at Wikimania or another WP sponsored event. Are we saying that she can't pursue criminal charges because it inhibits editing? That's not morally nor ethically sound."

As a further note, it speaks of litigation and civil lawsuits, but not once mentions criminal actions. Like I noted above, I don't think that the individual went about this the right way, but speaking from twenty years of personal experience in the field, in any of my cases, anything that could be construed as obstruction got a very close look. I just don't think that it is good for the project to use that policy in criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the difference is not in reporting Wikipedia to criminal authorities, it is in using the threat of doing so as a means to get his way. No one has said he can't walk into his local FBI office and ask to have someone investigated. What people have said here is that he can't threaten to do so on Wikipedia as a means to force others to his will. --Jayron32 04:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we are trying to do, as far as getting his conduct back to civility. All I'm saying is if I were contacted on a criminal investigation and presented with the facts that we have here, one of the things that I would have done when I was an officer is look at whether any obstruction occurred, or tampering with either a complaining witness or evidence. Second, this type of thing tends to attract press coverage if the cops are incensed about it. Either one of those things is not good for the project.

I could have missed it, but I didn't see anyone tell him that if he thought there was a crime, to report it to the authorities, but don't discuss it here. What I saw was what appeared to be an attempt to shut him down and get a retraction from him by threatening to block him. There are better ways to do this on criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(I'm no longer talking about the specific case above anymore, sorry) My thought was that we should include criminal matters in NLT, but to categorize it slightly differently than threats of civil litigation. Obviously, telling another user that you're going to call the cops on them is unacceptable, but I feel that NLT should emphasize that legal concerns of a criminal nature should not be discussed on talk pages, but reported to AN/I perhaps, or in an email to WMF or whatever consensus deems appropriate, and if the issue cannot be resolved internally, then the user should not be discouraged from reporting the issue to law enforcement agencies, but should understand that their account will be blocked until the matter is resolved for the same reason NLT currently cites.

Anyway, this isn't really the place for such discussion; my comment was only intended to gauge interest in an RFC on the topic. It seems like there's a potential for discussion, but to verify, does anybody else think it would be a good idea? —Rutebega (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is an important discussion to have. Can we move the lower part of this discussion regarding the general notions of NLT and chilling effects and threats to notify the cops and things like that to the NLT talk page perhaps? This is probably something that needs to be resolved and clarified, lest we run down this road again... --Jayron32 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have wanted to write up an essay over Chilling Effects (like this kindof was) at Wikipedia, or a proposal to add it, but haven't had time. I'll see what I can write up. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe what needs to be emphasized is the approach. The right way to say it is, "I'm concerned that this might put Wikipedia in trouble with legal or civil law." The wrong way to say it is, "I'm gonna call da cops / I'm gonna sue ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 25 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: Fideliosr

This user has a history of personal attacks against me. He basically started abusing me on Twitter and moved to Wikipedia after he discovered my profile. The user was warned many times not to engage in personal attacks, he was even issued a warning by an admin here which clearly stated he would be blocked the next time he abused me. Upon receiving this warning, Fideliosr left Wiki for a few days and now has returned and is at it again. This is what he wrote on a talk page where I requested the validity of a source to be talked about. Instead of contributing to the discussion, he engaged in a personal attack. This is what he wrote: "...why do you have to spend all your life adding negative awards to films of certain actors and positive one to some others?...Sincerely, Fideliosr (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)". He has called me a troll and biased editor many times before and this is the last straw. He does not contribute to Wikipedia but only targets me. This is getting out of hand and now he should be blocked. Ashermadan (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User has not been notified of the discussion on ANI yet. Notified here. m.o.p 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't mean any offense to Ashermadan and my tone implies so; I'm just questioning the blatant agenda-based editing. Most "old" editors who know him will know what I mean here. Besides that, I haven't been on Twitter at all. Secondly, Ashermadan is not at all a very civil editor himself but that would be totally irrelevant here. Keeping everything aside, I offer a humble, unconditional apology If I've voilated any Wikipedia policy. Regards, Fideliosr (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just take the matter up with other authorities. Thank you. Ashermadan (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Servers screwy; extra dose good faith today, please

According to VPT, different users in different parts of the world are seeing different versions of pages -- there's some discussion about something like that in Hari7478 thread. There's also a AN note about maybe putting up a site notice... in any event, if an editor says they didn't/don't see something you do it's likely they're being absolutely honest. NE Ent 17:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring and disruptive editing by User:BigBabyChips

BigBabyChips (talk · contribs)

This has gone one long enough. I am normally careful not to cross venues, but this is one of those times it needs to be crossed. A related discussion about NPOV exists here[126], but this isn't about the NPOV issue, it's about User:BigBabyChips conduct and multi-article edit-warring.

1) His edit-warring over several articles. Examples are [127], [128], [129], [130], [131]. He has been warned about the 3RR by me here: [132],[133], [134], [135]. He was also warned by another editor here [136], another one here [137], [138] and an editor at NPOVN also told him [139]. Yet he continues to remove the same info over and over.

2) BigBaby was told not to post on my talk page unless required by policy (like mandatory notification of this thread) [140]. He posted there twice after warning: [141], [142].

3) Big Baby has disrupted several articles, all over the same info and has refused to engage in meaningful DR attempts. He simply yells a lot, misapplies policies (namely BLP and NPOV) and has a lot of WP:IDHT going on.

In short, the editor isn't willing to engage in the process and is being very disruptive to several articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editor was notified of this discussion [143]. And before this gets thrown out as a red herring, I did say "Many Juggalos are simply young people with horrible taste in music and ridiculous tastes in fashion [144] on a talk page." This has been used as "evidence" of my "bigotry". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since this report was posted, the editor has reverted the same material again on at least 3 articles: [145], [146] and [147]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Look at the definition of bigotry. It applies here. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a warning when you edit this page saying to report serious threats of violence, etc. I think that may apply to repeatedly adding a music fanbase as an alliance of a criminal gang. You should be very lucky that I have not used that email to report you for categorizing a music fanbase as a criminal gang, which places Juggalos, which you are clearly prejeduiced against, in danger from actual gangs. The fact that directly stating that Juggalos are a "gang" violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV has been told to you REPEATEDLY, but you do not listen. You have attacked me because you want to continue pushing your views. I have not edit warred or edited disruptively, I have corrected very obviously wrong information which violates Wikipedia's rules. For you to continue insisting that the music fanbase of Insane Clown Posse is a gang because you don't care for their music is disruptive. For you to repeatedly add a music fanbase as a "gang alliance" violates BLP and NPOV rules. This is very clearly a NPOV issue, and you are clearly acting out of bigotry against Juggalos rather than any sense of neutrality. You are clearly NOT acting in WP:Good faith here by repeatedly categorizing a music fanbase as a gang because you do not like their music. Please stop wasting administrators' time with your bigotry. BigBabyChips (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out here that, as I made clear at WP:NPOVN, [148] the sources supposedly being cited for 'the Juggalos being a gang' appear not to do so - instead they say that individuals/agencies have described some Juggalos as being in a gang, or behaving in a gang-like manner. Regardless of the behavioural issues concerning BigBabyChips, it seems that there may be a wider problem concerning an apparent misrepresentation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is no "regardless of his behavior" here. This is solely abut his behavior, not the sources. That discussio n is happening elsewhere. Your diversion doesn't excuse his edit warri ng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You cited reversion of material as one of the problems - I am merely pointing out that the material shouldn't have been there in the first place - and it takes two to edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is a content issue Andy, one you've started addressing at NPOVN. At least 5 other editors have restored the info. You have rendered a singular opinion that it doesn't belong because it's a primary source (a position in dispute) and now act like it's a fact. Regardless of how right he thinks he is, 3RR still applies. This thread is about his behavior. As for "it takes two....", actually, it takes more than that here. No less than different 6 editors have reverted him. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend him or why you feel the need to go render the same opinion in 3 different threads (yet never at the actual article talk pages), but please don't divert this one. ANI isn't intended for content disputes and you know that. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wasn't Wikipedia founded by a rugged individualist? Large groups of people have supported wrong things. If you took the time to chill out and look at things from outside of your bias you might be less hostile to me. Yes, Juggalos are fans of a music group you happen to hate and think is garbage. But they're also human beings, not abstract figures, so there is a significant issue here. "Juggalo" is a word that would not exist if not for a music group. It was not invented by a criminal organization. Insane Clown Posse doesn't exist to commit crimes, it exists to make rap albums. And it's evident that any crime committed by an ICP fan is not directly connected to the rap group, who are merely clown-painted capitalists/musicians that own a record label. BigBabyChips (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Less hostile towards you? Considering some of the shit you've said to me, for you to even try that tactic is absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say BigBabyChips is right. He's removing references to Juggalos as gangs. Yes, there was a reference, but it wasn't reliable.... it's linked to publicintelligence.net, per it's own about page it's contributor-based, like Wikipedia. Therefore it fails WP:V. It's hosting a PDF but there's no way to verify the pdf as being authentic. Juggalos are living people, so calling them a gang without a reliable reference fails BLP and V.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're missing several point here. First of all, the source is reliable. You are acting like the site Publicintelligence is the source. Theyy're not. The NGIC is. Publicintelligence merely hosted the pages. I can cite that same exact report, comletely offline and it would pass RS with no problem at all. Sources don't have to be available online. Second, BLP is not an issue for this. Individuals aren't being named and trying to say that any organization is a BLP because people are in it is a misapplication of the policy. Further, even the source specifies that not every single person in the group is a gang member. Multiple reliable sources have made the claim. Has anyone produced a reliable source to say otherwise? No. Has anyone excluded a reliable source that said otherwise? No. Third, his edit warring is not excused by whether or not you think he's right. He's disrupted multiple articles, reverted at least 6 different editors who feel the sourced info is adequate and being presented neutrally. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, every time living people are being talked about BLP applies, so yeah, BLP applies. Second, the link in question goes to publicintelligence.net. PublicIntelligence.net is not reliable. You said you had a verifiable reference, great, go ahead and post it. (without one, it really is a BLP issue ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, BLP does not apply the way you are saying it applies. Not only have other editors disagreed, we finally have an uninvolved admin opining that BLP isn't being applied correctly. No individual is being called a criminal. The entire group isn't being called criminals. What IS being said is that very reliable sources have said there is a gang element within the subculture and it is being treated as a gang. Secondly, your assessment of using the publicintelligence link is incorrect. We can take that to RSN if you want, but that's fairly pointless since the document itself can be cited (even you admit this) and removing the link that allows people to view it actually makes it more difficult to see the source. That's not an improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Where to start (Niteshift asked me to look into this one). Many of BigBabyChips's edits are problematic (e.g., an ANI notice is not vandalism--calling it that is a kind of personal attack, really). That they are edit warring is plain to see: Summer PhD warned them (very nicely) on 23 January 00:58, and subsequent messages/warnings are consistently being blanked, but they didn't stop reverting; they continued on Crisps and on Aryan Brotherhood on 25 January. Now, they haven't broken the bright line of 3R, as far as I can tell (nor has Niteshift, BTW, unless I'm mistaken), and their reverts seem all to have been undone by now, but two things should be clear: edit warring does not require a breach of 3R (and I don't see how the BLP policy applies here, pace KoshVorlon's comment and BigBabyChips's claim), and it's been multiple editors who have reverted BigBabyChips. Without having to dive into the NPOV or RS discussion (though I'm going to have a look), I can say with confidence that they fully deserve to be blocked for edit warring if they make just one more of those reverts again. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, BigBabyChips, don't post on Niteshift's talk page again. Niteshift, if you want to tell someone to stay away from your talk page, an edit summary is not the place to do it, and "troll dropping" is not the best term to use though, strictly speaking, it comments on content, not on the editor. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There's a video on YouTube of Ted Nugent in concert telling his audience that then-senators (2002 or so) Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be "fed" his guns or something to that matter. Now, I'm sure that the FBI has some kind of file on Nugent. And I'm sure that some of Nugent's fans have committed some kind of violent activity. But, do I consider Ted Nugent fans to be a gang? No, and if there are any violent attacks by Ted Nugent fans, it should be safe to say that those acts of violence are not directly caused by Ted Nugent's music. So why, then, does an Insane Clown Posse fan qualify as a gang member? ICP have never called for assassination or murder of any public officials. I removed messages from my own talk page because I have a right to. Niteshift also has a right to remove messages from his talk page. BUT directly telling people not to post on their talk page shows a lack of good faith. I haven't told anyone not to post on my talk page. I welcome all comments with open arms. But I don't have any reason to keep any messages on my talk page. But, still, the point stands here that when you're addressing real, living people, and you call them a gang even though most of these fans are not criminals and the criminals are not criminals because of their music fandom, there is a neutrality issue. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no, I have never edited the article potato chip. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• And I've never dressed like a clown to go out in public, and I can't imagine why people would want to do that. Niteshift, and every other user, has every right to tell editors not to post on their talk page. It's not a lack of good faith, it's a sign of irritation. I am not sure that the FBI has a file on the ICP, and it's irrelevant here. They keep data on the Juggalos in as much as they, or some of them, are gang members, I suppose. It doesn't matter, and if you don't see how it doesn't matter, I don't think I could explain it any better. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Request review

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.

---

Please see the edits by:

• 75.21.68.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.21.65.237 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

I blocked the second IP for continuing disruption following a final warning (4im) on the first IP.

In short, they are spamming the same claims to multiple articles, using a search result as a source - which if you drill into the search results they don't match the user's claims. The claim they are making fails WP:NPOV being obviously biased to one site, and presenting incorrect amounts and other inconsistencies. Basically, needing a complete re-write if they were to be kept. I instead reverted their additions, which they continued to restore and spread to still more articles.

The second IP is now insisting on my immediate banning and asking for arbitration in their unblock requests. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Barek was definitely misusing rollback, which should be used for vandalism only. The Gawker media edits, lacking reliable sourcing are BLP violations and the edit summaries of reversion should indicate the reason for the reversion. Likewise posting the vandalism template on the IPs page is off -- they should have received notice of reliable sourcing and BLP policies.

No reason is given for revert of a statement backed by a daily newspaper. While reverting may be find per BRD, the reasoning should be explained and the editor invited to use the talk page to discuss the edit.

.147's last edit is at 1418, and then all the edits are from .237 starting at 1618, with no overlap. This a dynamic IP addressing, not sockpuppetry. So, yea, not handled all that well. Recommend Barek explain applicable policies on .237's page and unblock. NE Ent 22:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the multiple unblock requests and declined the first request as it failed to address the basis of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The basis of the block is that Barek fucked up -- how is the IP supposed to address that exactly? NE Ent 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Surely you can make your point without being obnoxious. This seems like a new development in your behavior on these boards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the comment was harsher than needed - but, in this case I'm willing to accept it as a case of needing to call a spade a spade - so I was not offended. I have no idea if there's a history as you imply, but no offence was taken in this particular case. I like to think my skin is thick enough to accept a trouting when well deserved, as it appears to be in this case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I've made this point before (not with NE). As a matter of principle, it's largely irrelevant whether you were offended. NE could have and should have made his comment in a more constructive manner, e.g., "The basis of Barek's block was wrong ..." I might add that the real target of the comment was me, not you, and I didn't take offense either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Barek, NE Ent's right - if you check, both of these IPs are managed by SBCIS-SBIS-6BLK, an AT&T resource responsible for, among others, the range of 75.0.0.0 - 75.63.255.255. It appears the editor's on a dynamic connection; I doubt they were intending to abuse multiple accounts. Even if they were, the accounts were not active at the same time, nor was .147 blocked and .237 an attempt to evade that block. m.o.p 23:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood - I've removed the block. As they were dynamic IPs, they were not actively trying to evade warnings by switching to another - it was a system change outside of their control. I'll post a note to the IPs talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your unblocking based on the procedural point, but the edits were still mightily disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But, in all fairness, the reason given for the block was not valid under the circumstances (I admit, after having it pointed out that it is likely a dynamic IP), and others feel the warnings previously given were not the appropriate warnings for the type of disruption. If the disruption continues, they can always be reblocked now that the issues have been better explained to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Very reasonable of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 25 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:Cantaloupe2, assuming bad faith, Wikistalking, misinterpreting policies

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)

Introduction to the issue

User:Cantaloupe2 has recently decided to Wikistalk me and remove a large amount of content that I have added based on misinterpretation of policies and fringe theories on policies that he conceived himself. After disagreeing with me on my talk page, the user decided to head off to iPad (4th generation) and remove a large amount of content that I have added and claim that it violates policies by cherry picking bits of information and rewording perfectly fine sentence to suit his "writing style". 1 User is currently misinterpreting the WP:CLAIM policy and removing every single instance of the word even though the policy clearly states that care should be taken, not remove upon first sight. Similarly, he cherrypicked information on the iPhone 5 article and claims that I'm misinterpreting the matter or that what I've written wasn't in the source when it undoubtedly is. Latest example of this is in this edit 1. This matter has been occurring for four months now and frankly I'm sick of this user altering or removing everything I insert into articles when there isn't a problem with it. More example of this user's disruptive behaviour includes not assuming good faith, an example of which includes the user claiming that I've vandalised an article when I clearly removed copyedited content by accident.

• Talk:iPhone 5#stock prices - User believes a claim isn't represented in the reference when it is.
• User claims I vandalised when I clearly made a good faith mistake
• Talk:IPhone 5/Archive 1#Bias in wording Claims I'm deliberately playing a cat and mouse game by replacing the word ass with arse, neither are offensive in my opinion but Cantaloupe begs to differ.
• User is now claiming that I'm deliberately adding bias information when I'm trying to portray the information as neutral as I can. See my talk page for more details on that.
• Uncountable number of times when he removed content based on his misinterpretation of policy
• Claims what I wrote is interpretative when it clearly isn't while citing irrelevant policies based on his misinterpretation. 1
• Repeated asserts that I or the editor who cited references did so with the intention of boosting traffic to their site. See [149] Believes editors deliberately introduced links to promote their website even though the links were considered relibale - Search for the term "traffic" Again accuses editors who cited a certain source that is considered reliable of having a commercial interest when none was proven
• I understand this verges on assuming bad faith but I'm almost certain that the Cantaloupe2 is attempting to sabotage my GA nominations. The user made extremely controversial edits right after a reviewer committed him/herself to assessing the article and after showing no signs of further contributing to the article for several weeks. Edits that this user made after a reviewer committed themselves include removing large amounts of information that was unsuccessfully discussed before the issue became stale as Cantaloupe decided not to respond to the latest comments/replies. Article was stable for weeks before Cantaloupe returnedAgain article was stable for about a week and a half before Cantaloupe returned to make more controversial edits that affected the stability of the article, many of the issues that were raised by him then, could have been put forth weeks or even months ago yet Cantaloupe brought it up at the last minute.

Honestly, I don't want to discuss matters with this user on talk pages as it will take weeks or even months to finalise as evident on the iPhone 5 article. User also seems to have a battleground mentality, once he is unable to support his claims any further, he will move on to using other tactics to get the content removed, clearly indicating he wants to win an argument for the sake of it. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#iFitit YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been voiced by another editor that he/she felt you were unwilling to allow your version to get changed. I think that YumaNuma has a territorial mentality on articles as if they're his articles, in particular iPad and iPhone products. Here is the concern.

Overlapping article contributio as "Wikistalking" is a poor accusation.

this edit is WP:UNCIVIL, because

“ take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere ”

is personal attack.

Typically this user competes against my edit until a third editor comes along and specifically acknowledge agreement with my edit.

He continues to exhibit edit warring tendencies.

• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Revert 3

my first revert

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said many times in the past, I have the right to defend content that I have added, and in most cases the most stable version should be retain as per the BRD; You boldly remove content, I revert and provide a reason, you're expected to discuss it before making further changes. Actually, to this date, no one has fully agreed with your changes on the iPhone 5 article, generally we were able to reach an agreement by coming to a compromise. Also it appears that I'm not the only one who has an issue with you removing content that's supported by valid sources, you have been to ANI five times in the past and brought to RSN a countless number of times for your interpretation of policies and controversial ideas of what constitutes a reliable source. It's interesting how you cited a sockpuppet as evidence for my alleged edit warring behaviour, using his old account, that user had a lengthy debate with me on the iPad (3rd generation) article, hence it's obvious that he has some remaining bias against me. A detail account of what happened can be found in his sockpuppetry investigation. 1 Despite this ongoing ANI case, the Cantaloupe is now attempting to use the 3RR to his advantage by once again reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (In regards to Cantaloupe's revision to his comment)It must be a huge coincidence that 15 minutes after you commented on my talk page, you made huge edits to an article that was listed on my user page - assuming that you spent time reading the article, the timing is perfect, hence my accusation is appropriate. Furthermore this user has been accused of WikiStalking other editors, an example of which includes User:M0rphzone who came to my talk looking for assistance after Cantaloupe2 Wikistalked him across several articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut your snark with addressing me "the Cantaloupe". "fully agree" is also known as "unanimous" and it is not a requisite, because we work by consensus. WP:BRD you cite is only an ESSAY. Interesting you keep track of how many times I go to noticeboards. Perhaps you're the one following me around huh? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, address your snark with cutting the cantaloupe. The debate could turn into a melon-drama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY. (Whoops, WP:ATA is only an essay too...) Just because it's "only an ESSAY" (and please don't shout like that, it doesn't help your case) is irrelevant when it's well-established process. Also, "fully agree" =/= "unanimous". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They agreed to a compromise, not with your actual edit. (Sorry for the confusion but by fully agreed, I meant that no editor has agreed with the alterations in your first bold edit and a compromised had to be reach) BRD is a widely accepted essay nonetheless, pointlessly claiming that an article that I have cited is an essay is not going to help your case, as you're clearly WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM with your most recent edits on the iPad 4 article. Furthermore your accusation is actually quite laughable, have you even read WP:HOUND? you should have because you've been accused of it a few time. To make things clear for you, knowing the past history of an editor does not constitute hounding, nor does monitoring the contributions of an editor without intervening. Sorry for referring to you as "The Cantaloupe", naturally I associate that word with a fruit not person - and no that was not a snarky comment, I seriously meant it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2 is becoming a problem across a number of unrelated articles, and all those other editors involved are finding much the same problems. Can those looking at this issue from outside please take a look broadly (the edit history is pretty narrow), not just at this one case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley's observation above. I have been a victim of Cantaloupe2 for about a month now where he has been WP:Hounding me in the well defined sense. I will be supplying diffs to demonstrate this later, when I have the time. Complaints to him have not resulted in any change of his WP:WikiLawyering battleground behaviour. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous complaint is this where I attempted to point out that after having his edits disputed Cantaloupe2 apears to pursue temper tantrum behaviour and attempts to flood articles with flags and edits to provoke the disagreeing editor, making the articles look amateurish and unreadable. here is an example in his edit history after locking horns with two different Candadian editors disagreeing with his edits. He has been told repeatedly by many editors that he is not WP:COMPETENT in many of the subjects he edits and inserts nonsense. Here is another article where he hounds another editor each edit. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not leave out assumption of bad faith accusation of "genocide" in the ANI title which another editor had to edit. You also inappropriately accused me of canvassing and directed me to not inform another user that he was being discussed and you labeled him "hostile user", which is highly contentious and such disparaging reference constitutes personal attack. And at this point, you're leaving notes on others talk pages which contradicts your own contention. What about your public repository of various contentions against various editors on your wiki talk page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Sheldon Brown, please explain why you're providing a 2006 diff. Following around interrelated articles by see alsos/external links is not even remotely relevant to WP:HOUND. It is correct that I do follow things around by topic. Your contention that I am following around by the editor is unsubstantiated. Topical following is perfectly legitimate.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the 2006 diff is just a mistake. Perhaps he meant this, this, or this. Just guessing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound melodramatic but as indicated above, Cantaloupe has intimidated many users through his irrelevant use and misinterpretation of policies. Also as above, he has hounded numerous editors and has been brought to ANI time and time again for it. As evident in his latest behaviour, he has clearly not learnt his lesson and continues to persist in conducting his poor behaviour. All he probably has learnt is how to get around the policies and how to intimidate other by citing policies that are not relevant to his case. I've lost count of how many times Cantaloupe used WP:NPA or WP:INCIVIL to get his point across instead of arguing the pertinent issue. Personally I resisted reporting him as I thought he would actually learn from his lessons and "act more moderate", however that clearly isn't the case. Cantaloupe wikistalking me was the last straw. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is used in reference to support your contention that I'm "misinterpreting policies" ? is it your interpretation or an establish community consensus? Please link the latter. If it's the former, its merely differences in opinion and the accusation of misinterpretation is a cheap jab. In the "ass" "arse" game, you striking out the English variant and replacing with British variant can be construed as disruptive inflammatory editing and you're encouraging combative editing with uncivil, hostile personally directed edit comment saying my edits are delusional.

Fact: You and I edited the article iPhone 5. I have also edited an article or two on iPads, which are all devices from Apple running iOS, topical relations. You contend that I'm following you. From the way you responded during GA process for iPhone 5, it comes across to me as these are YOUR articles that YOU own. Saying that I happen to edit in two similar topic articles is stalking is contentious presumption of hounding. Please demonstrate your accusation that I'm following you by your edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More recently you're removing every instance of the word "claim" even though the policy clearly says that the word should be used with care, not remove it upon first sight, this applies to other MoS guidelines as well. You removed content that isn't verify by scientific analysis and since that strategy has failed to assist you in removing content, you moved onto removing or tagging content that is anecdotal even though it's supported by reliable references and no policy states that anecdotal claims must be removed, it needs to be analysis on a case by case basis. According to RSN, and the iPhone 5 talk page, others disagreed with your opinions on what is considered a reliable source and stated that common sense is required when interpreting and analysing sources. To date, you have failed to explain or provide me with a reason why "cover their asses" is considered offensive to you, despite this I have apologised. I also requested an apology from you for devaluing my comment by saying I'm "spurting off", however I have yet to receive one. In regards to ownership of articles, I welcome contributions and copyedits as many have done before but when content is removed, I have the right to challenge it, I fail to see why you can't understand and distinguish that from ownership. You have had long track history of Wikistalking, so the benefit of the doubt cannot be applied here, you edited an article on my userpage that you have never edited before 15 minutes after posting a hostile comment on my talk page. If I didn't file an ANI complaint, you could have easily stalked me across several other articles. The only reason why you didn't wikistalk me earlier was because I solely focused on editing the iPhone 5 article and debating matters with you in Oct, Nov and the first half of Dec. What you were doing is clearly considered retribution and thus considered hounding. I have never seen you edit any iPad article apart from the iPad (4th generation) yesterday, I've also thoroughly checked the history of every iPad article and unless you were editing as a sock, you have never contributed to those article; lying is not looked upon favourably here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing some iOS related articles, and I branched out to iPad. I am not lying. You're making a false statement of fact that I'm lying and that is libelous. I'm certain that no personal attack does not allow you to make libelous claim. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, stop Wikilawyering, it is not impressing anyone and certainly does not help your case. Secondly, I've again spent time checking all 5 iPad articles and your name did not appear once apart from the ipad 4 article, which you edited yesterday - as mentioned; I've also taken the liberty of checking the articles' talk pages and unsurprisingly, your name didn't appear once. If anyone wants to confirm or verify my claims, please feel free to analyse iPad, iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation). YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your allegation of "Wikistalking" is your opinion. Editing two articles and your perception of "15 minutes later is too soon" is all your interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

Cantaloupe2 has been editing articles related to iOS jailbreaking since early November, and those articles include discussion of iPads - perhaps that's part of what "editing some iOS related articles" was referring to? (The context is that Cantaloupe2 and I have had disagreements related to those articles and my COI on them, but my intent here is just to point out that editing as extra information.) Dreamyshade (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why he edited an article that happened to be on my userpage 15 minutes after posting a hostile reply to a message that was intended to inform him of my intentions. It was undoubtedly an act of retribution for what he believed I was trying to do. He acted in the exact same manner that he did on the iPhone 5 article and removed content, an act which he knew I would disagree with. Given his past history of Wikistalking, I intervened as quickly as possible before he moved onto other articles that I have contributed to. There are many articles related to iOS, 360 articles to be precise, along with dozens of concepts that have articles and have been discussed by you two on the iOS jailbreaking article, so why that article and why now? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it wasn't. Your word against mine. You contend that "It was undoubtedly an act of retribution", that in itself appears to be an act of assumption of bad faith and direct attack on me. You do not have exclusive rights to Apple mobile devices page and what I see as your unwillingness to deviate from your version was also demonstrated by another editor who offered their opinion that you're the cause of causing iPhone 5 page to get locked. Skimming through an article and changing wording to improve article to be more neutral is a good faith edit. You saying that I'm misinterpreting policy in protest is an assumption of bad faith, the very same thing you're accusing me of. I should also note that your exclamation that you will revert absent reply, then following through with it after six minutes appears to be jumping the gun and unreasonable expectation of promptness. This concern was addressed on your page.[150]. I'll take a topic ban on Apple iPad, iPod and iPhone hardware devices on condition that YuMaNuMa agree to the same ban for himself as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right? Your latest replies are another indication of your battleground mentality, instead of defending yourself, you decide to attack me by once again Wikilawyering and repeatedly using WP:NPA and other nonsense to form the basis of your argument. "My word against yours" - given your history as a Wikistalker and tendency to assume bad faith, I can't see how anything that you've said can hold up as evidence. And yes, unfortunately I am assuming bad faith at the moment but when the evidence piles up in this manner and several users that I have never come in contact with adds their input on how your behaviour has affected them, it surely does raise a question or two. And yet again, I repeat myself, I like every other contributor on Wikipedia have the right to defend content that I've added, numerous editors have copyedited the iPhone 5 article and I have had no issues with their edits but when you decide to make controversial edits that I disagree with, it is obvious that I'd want to discuss it first and possibly reach a consensus or compromise before they're settled upon, much like how other editors frequently revert your edits and request that you discuss it on the talk page first, hence my reverts. Also, by another editor are you referring to the sock or the editors that were referring to our disagreement, in which you refused to further discuss the issue before making more controversial edits and where I intentionally reverted three of your edit separately instead of using twinkle to restore it, so I can provide you with a reason why I disagreed, in an attempt to compel you to continue discussing it instead of inciting an edit war. I don't see how anyone would agree to a topic ban proposed by you when you've become such a disruption to the entire community as evident by the seemingly endless number of people coming forward with their concerns regarding your edits. By the way, I disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes the assumption of bad faith, stating that you're misinterpreting policy isn't assuming bad faith, I'm not saying you're deliberately doing it, perhaps you lack WP:COMPETENCE as others have suggested but whatever the reason is, I have provided evidence for your misinterpretation of policy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time another editor has complained about Cantaloupe. I personally recommended another editor seek an interaction ban based on Cantaloupe's abrasive editing style and such. Unfortunately, it seems he has not improved in his relationship skills here. (Take that with a grain of salt, though, as I'm obviously involved, at least in a historical sense.) --Nouniquenames 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the public relations editor CorporateM, let's not forget that conflict revolved around his WP:COI andthe contents decision did not consistently result in consensus resolving in his favor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that a few editors that disagreed with you all had WP:COI problems according to you. Others, such as myself get labelled anonymous IP editor in a provokative tone during content disputes. Here is one you couldn't better so you made a suggestion that accused him of having a sockpuppet. Strange that three of the editors (User:Wtshymanski, User:Puhlaa, User:174.118.142.187) you clash with are all Canadian and you attempt to post insults like "Canaduh", and to rid articles of anything relating to American or Canadian content. This is well documented in several articles where you have removed "America-centric" (your phraseology) examples with your "bias" claims. Edit histories do not go away and your attitude begins to show via a pattern of edits in a very obvious manner. You were advised several times not to do this, in the past, by various editors. Those are clear examples of an abusive POV application of WP policies applied only to win content disputes. Now you have enough editors repeating the same complaint and yet your response is Oh yeah! Look what you have done!. You assume no blame or responsibity for any of these, or past, complaints and observations. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I notified another editor that was directly discussed in ANI discussion you started, however it seems like you're looking for anyone and everyone who might disagree with me and notifying them even though they're not directly discussed. This sounds to me that you're hoping that they'll comment in favor of your position which I think is WP:CANVAS to sway consensus. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to notify any other editors that interacted with you, as I have. I picked major contributors (easy find) to a few of the articles you edited. Perhaps you can find some to support your denials of any responsibilty in these conflicts. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't solicit for your approval. I feel that you're votestacking by going out of the way to find someone who are likely to disagree with me even if they're not directly discussed or if they haven't raised the issues themselves in order to sway consensus and my issue with you here is that I feel that you're trying to interfere with consensus building by lobbying. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 Proposal

Okay, it appears that we have several editors in a variety of subject areas that have similar complaints about User:Cantaloupe2. What do we propose be done? This is my first time participating in a discussion here, the guidelines above don't seem to explain how to keep things moving forward, it appears that no administrator is going to magically appear to make everything better, and in other discussions on this page, a concrete proposal with consensus behind it, appears to be a way to make progress. What would we like to see done? Block, ban, topic ban, article ban, interaction ban? I'm not sure myself. Since so many editors, pages, and topics are involved, I don't see how any of the limited bans will help. Blocks are specifically not supposed to be punitive, but some sign that current behavior is not acceptable seems to be necessary. Perhaps these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps we can request that a block be imposed in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." With that in mind, and subject to the caveats that I don't know what I'm doing, let me propose that User:Cantaloupe2 be blocked for 24 hours. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A different option could be for involved parties and admins to come up with a concise list of relevant policies and well-accepted essays such as Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Systemic bias, compare Cantaloupe2's interpretations to the interpretations of editors who have been frustrated by Cantaloupe2's edits, and try to figure out which of our interpretations are outside consensus and should be consciously amended in order to maintain peace. (As noted above, I'm an involved party.) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, but half the reason we are here at all is that we've all gone round and round with User:Cantaloupe2 recently with no resolution in site. What you are proposing sounds like a lot more of the same with very slim prospects for results. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a list of specific statements supported by admins could be stronger than what individual editors have said (especially individual editors already involved in disputes). Also, is there such a thing as a temporary block from mainspace editing? If people think that the problem here is bold editing without consensus, temporarily limiting Cantaloupe2 to talk page discussions might be a way to encourage more of a focus on consensus-building. This is advice from my own experience: I have to stick to the talk pages on articles where I have a COI, which really encourages proposing well-supported changes and prevents edit warring. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 is a big policy and rule guy. How about a self-imposed edit ban for a period of 7 days and make him observe his own beliefs? Let's see if he gets the message or sloughs it off as us just being a bunch of pricks, like every other complaint result. The stress break may be just the thing he needs...not like WP can get anybody wound up (sarc) but after repeated arguments with other editors everywhere he goes, lately, it may clear his head a bit or with his newly found distractions he may not come back for a while. It seems the admins have had their claws trimmed recently and are all trying to retain every editor they can without the new rules being real clear and established, shyness seems to be prevalent. If he was an IP he would have been indeffed on the first complaint at his hint of a request. The guy can be good at what he does but he seems to think the whole thing is a joke when people attempt to help him, maybe a little obscurely, but still complaining to him about his obsessive edit attitude. He should be encouraged, but not completely gone. A shot across the bow? This one time. The record will stand as a future warning to collaborate on a little more personal level. Maybe this kicking will result in a much better editor? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that explains that. No wonder this place seems like just an empty echo chamber. So now it appears that there will be no resolution, we might as well all just home, and the most tenacious editors get to do whatever they want. What a total friggin' waste of time. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting from your exhibition of unwilling to focus on contents through lashing out emotionally rather than reasoning brings up a question to your ability to competently, and impartially edit articles. Looking at your reversion patterns, it seems to me that you have a possessive mentality on certain articles. Unnecessary emotionally driven comments like "Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?" You were unable to address the issue through reasoning, so you said that "it happened" even though sources didn't disclose everything and attribute that my edit is "delusional". [News site don't disclose everything but it occurred and they have proven, take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere) diff]. I feel that if you're letting your emotions derail into personal attack and impair your ability to handle content disputes, that's a matter of competency as suggested by that essay. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again with the unfounded accusations. You still haven't shown where I deleted your "SPS tag from some Michigan bike shop's employee commentary" from over a week ago. Please, please, please, just show us once where I have demonstrated "a possessive mentality on certain articles." Even easier, show us where I wrote "Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?" or "it happened" or called your edit "delusional". I can see that you do know how to provide a link to show the difference between revisions. Would you please provide a link for these? As for willingness to focus on content, I've wasted weeks already trying that tactic. What's the use when you are free to make accusation after accusation and never back them up or retract them? You think I've made a personal attack? Please provide a quotation of my words and the diff to show that I wrote them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What experience has taught me is that there is no point reasoning with you, you're unwilling to forfeit your stubborn ideals unless other editors intervene, I've always maintain the statement, "give me a proper reason why you want to do something instead of mindlessly quoting policies that don't support your point either because you're misinterpreting them or they're irrelevant." You can see that at the start of our dispute I primarily communicated via the talk page with you and refrained from reverting your edits that were at least supported with a reason of some sort, I informed you that your edits were considered controversial, however I received no reply while you continued to remove content and make more controversial edits on the iPhone 5 article and others - this led me to revert a few of your edits that I felt were inappropriate. Diff of me informing Cantaloupe of how I felt about his edit If a reliable source has confirmed a matter but didn't provide the details behind their findings or feel uncomfortable about disclosing the detail of their sources due to legal issues, it's inappropriate for you to remove information on the basis of the source not telling you the full story. It's assumed that information from reliable sources are accurate unless another reliable source disputes the veracity or accuracy of the information. I believe I've said this to you several times in the past. That's beside the point here, the actual issue is whether you are able to edit without accusing other of bad faith, wikistalking due to a disagreement with other editors about a certain point on one article and misinterpreting policies. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this case to ArbCom if necessary. Cantaloupe has been to ANI, DRN, ANEW on numerous occasions due to his conduct, however all these cases have achieved absolutely nothing, hence a case regarding his conduct meets ArbCom requirements from what I can see. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This situation involves a lot of edit history, so I think we need to be somewhat patient while waiting for help. It might be constructive to provide more specifics (described as neutrally as possible) - additional links to problematic diffs, specific talk page discussions that went poorly, earlier noticeboard efforts, etc. If this discussion is closed without resolution, there's also WP:RFC/USER, which sounds like it might be a useful next step (before the last resort of arbitration). Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The only reason this discussion will close without resolution is that no one who is able to take action is willing to take action. We've got six unrelated editors (YuMaNuMa, 174.118.142.187, Andy Dingley, Nouniquenames, and AndrewDressel) all saying approximately the same thing, that User:Cantaloupe2 is impossible to work with and repeatedly misunderstands or misinterprets guidelines. We're all in agreement, the only thing that connects us is repeated negative interaction with User:Cantaloupe2, and the only reason we're posting here is that the actions available to use have proven ineffective. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, of the editors who've responded here, there are three who have enough trustworthy/helpful editing background to have reviewer and roll-back rights, so this is not like some incident brought up by whining IPs.

From what I can tell, Cantaloupe2 has been involved in at least 4 ANI incidents: [151], [152], [153], [154]. From past encounters with Cantaloupe2, he does not seem to an editor who edits with a purpose of reaching consensus and community agreement. In his interactions with other editors, he routinely stalks the contributions of any involved editors and brings up any form interaction or comment that seems to discredit and intimidate the editor he disagrees with, in order to bull his way through what he thinks are edits based on consensus. I consider Cantaloupe2's editing to be detrimental, unconstructive, disruptive to the Wikpedia project, and harmful to the principles and well-being of the community. Therefore, I propose that he be topic-banned from the articles where he has a tendency to disregard consensus and edit disruptively, or that he be blocked from editing Wikipedia until he decides that he wants to follow the consensus-building and constructive-focused policies of Wikipedia without trying to edit war. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just a coincidence? weeks later... sudden reversion. It was stable for weeks, and you reverted specifically my edit. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a response to my comment? "This is just a coincidence?" Are you asking yourself that? "It was stable for weeks". "Unreviewed for several weeks" is not the same as "stable for several weeks". "You reverted specifically my edit." You say you removed OR in your edit, but you also removed other content that you failed to mention. The paragraph had a cited sentence that I reverted and replaced with a better and working ref.

In any case, my current edits have nothing to do with this ANI, and this edit you brought up is one of many edits I'm making to improve articles. The way you're bringing up un-related edits like this shows how you're stalking contributions to attempt to find something to shift the blame/attention to other editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I could be included in AndrewDressel's list of editors too. I'm trying to be neutral in this discussion to avoid undermining my efforts to work constructively with Cantaloupe2, but I've had difficulty as well. This Editor Interaction Analyzer tool could be useful to anyone trying to review this discussion; it can generate lists of articles edited by both Cantaloupe2 and each complaining editor. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I completely forgot about the editor interaction tool - not to pursue old matters but as I said, Cantaloupe has never edited any iPad article other than the iPad 4 article 3 days ago or so. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of taking it elsewhere

No admin action is appropriate here. Recommend this thread be closed and the participants drop it, or take it elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of assuming bad faith, antagonising other editors by accusing them of having a conflict of interest when none can be proven, misinterpreting policies and wikistalking/hounding is considered appropriate for Wikipedia? As indicated by the number of editors that have participated in the discussion without me notifying them in any way whatsoever (apart from M0rphzone), this is not an isolated incident. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if ArbCom uses the same attitude. Quite the editor retention programme. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with all three of you. No admin action is appropriate at this point, and yet what an awful way this is to run a community. A truly bad-faith editor who knows how to troll from within explicit policy can run riot around here. As has been so frequently demonstrated in the past, admins will also side with the rule-following troll, not the affected editor(s).

However, those are the rules. Within them, the next step would seem to be WP:RFC/U. This is toothless, but a demanded prerequisite by any of the later steps, such as ArbCom, who might be able to enforce something. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading the currently listed RfC/U cases, I believe this dispute is well suited for that board. Hopefully there, we can come to some sort of arrangement or agreement. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that AN/I just isn't well-suited for handling this kind of complicated multi-editor conduct situation; I agree on RFC/U as the appropriate way to escalate. Looking at the guidelines, the first step should be for somebody to start a userspace draft - anyone want to volunteer? Dreamyshade (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the instructions on that page, the request can be created in collaboration with other editors who have had issues with the same editor. I suggest we do that and supply a wide variety of diffs/discussion logs, as many of our issues seem to be similar or even identical. We do need to keep in mind that Cantaloupe must cooperate with us in order to find a solution to our issues, if he refuses to and continues to accuse others of irrelevant misdeeds then RfC/U won't work and we would end up wasting our time - as the page says, decisions are not binding. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an RFC/U would at least help put these concerns into a structured format and get outside perspectives, which seems worthwhile. To try to prevent this discussion from losing momentum, I've started a draft here: User:Dreamyshade/RFCU. It's just the standard boilerplate at the moment, and everyone is welcome to contribute to it. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably best to collapse this subsection, I don't know how Tom Harrison would feel about that, so if we do collapse it we should leave his comment out of the box. If possible I would prefer to have these two discussion occur in tandem, however that seems unlikely as RfC/Us do take a while and this thread obviously can't be placed here during that period to accommodate us. In regards to the draft, I believe you would be able to portray the case in the best light as it appears you don't hold or display any bias against Cantaloupe2 - you're obviously not required to, but I am just suggesting. I don't intend to speak for the editors involved as a whole but if you need any diffs or evidence, or want us to add something to the request, I'm sure we would be willing to provide it if you contact us via our talk pages. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems OK to me to leave this discussion open while working on the RfC/U draft - writing the draft is likely to take at least a few days, and it's possible that the proposal won't be accepted. I think it's important for you and other editors paste in plenty of diffs and any other material that you feel is relevant, to make sure that the things you consider important are represented, and after that I can try to write a neutral summary. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• In view of Cantaloupe2's recent and continued denial of responsibilty and arrogance in this matter recommend A one week (7 day) ban for User:Cantaloupe2 to send him a signal to take the advice here seriously, and a WikiBreak to reconsider his approach to interaction behaviour with fellow editors in the future. He has received some good input and concerns from many editors that needs to be considered in his future approach and yet just points fingers at others. He appears to be mocking the system in a continued gaming fashion. This seems to be the common complaint. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What appears to be IP editor's reactionary revert in retaliation. User waited 17 days to express their contention and just happen to "coincide" as this discussion is going. diff. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You and I have been editing electrical power related articles, but somehow, you sudden express interest by strange coincidence in editing an article on tire, which I just so happen to contribute on. If the complainant's claim was to be handled as Wikistalk, it should be applied here as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to inform you that claiming someone who has no visible history of wikistalking and made edits that don't even conflict with your recent edits to an article verges on assuming bad faith. The only reason I suggested that you were doing the aforementioned was because you had a history wikistalking and edited an article I've contributed to for the past several months, minutes after posting hostile and provocative remarks on my talk page. Now here's the real kicker, 174.118.142.187 edited the tire article before you did, if anything you were wikistalking him. Speaking of boomerangs. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note that my signed comment had been tampered with and had added egregious tags within my signed comments under my sig and I consider this a form of forgery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, what's your perspective on this whole situation? Do you think the general pattern of these complaints (incivility, hounding, assuming bad faith, edit warring, gaming the system, etc.) is unfounded? How do you think this should be resolved? Does the RfC/U idea sound reasonable to you? Dreamyshade (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at this User_talk:M0rphzone#ANI_case M0rphzone's comment on their own page. This is an indication that someone whom I have disagreed with in the past, but not involved was solicited and it is my opinion that attempts at vote-stacking is made. I might very well call this list maintenance a form of WP:HOUND. It is my opinion that an attempt of consensus swaying is in progress. I have no further comment I would like to provide at this very moment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U will not work from what I can see. Again, Cantaloupe accuses other editors of vote-stacking and hounding when he well knows that editors who have been mentioned in cases must be notified via their talk pages or other form of communication. It is common for users who are involved in formal dispute cases such as this to thoroughly check and examine another editor's contributions for any signs of patterns. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, my thinking is that the discussion here seems to be about your general editing pattern, which means that even if the complaints haven't been presented in perfect ways or by perfect editors, it could still be worth trying to evaluate the patterns and make some efforts at resolution. Otherwise we'll probably end up in these discussions again, and I figure all of us would prefer to be spending this energy on improving articles. :) WP:Disruptive has a note about "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions".

YuMaNuMa, RfC/U seems to be a necessary step before escalating complaints further, so it could be helpful even if the attempt doesn't generate consensus. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone inform me whether inviting other editors to RfC/U constitutes canvassing? My aim is settle issues regarding Cantaloupe once and for all and the best way to do this is to invite others to share their opinions about his editing style and perhaps shed some light on why so many editors are discontent. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

my comment getting forged by 174.118.142.187

Adding egregious comments within my signed comment which has my signature attached to it. Citation is not expected in signed comments and this addition falsely present I did it, so it is forgery. diff Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He shouldn't have done that, but that's not "forgery". See WP:REFACTOR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Overwriting Deletion

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

---

I'm not entirely sure where to put this since notice boards confuse me. I was wondering if someone could restore my nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinford Bandog which was overwritten by someone posting a keep. I'd do it myself, but I'd rather it be done by a neutral third party. Should I notify the person who did it? It's not a dispute or anything I have against them, it seems like a legitimate editing mistake. --TKK ^{bark !} 01:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 DoneChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:16, 26 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.

Aspartame controversy

The long-running problems at our article on the Aspartame controversy have arisen again, with two anti-Aspartame editors apparently tag-teaming on the talk page in an effort to force changes to the article against policy and consensus. After a thread was started by User:Arydberg which (falsely) claimed that an article in the Mail On Sunday stated that Aspartame caused birth defects, User: Immortale stepped in to repeat the claims - multiple times, in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out that (a) the Mail on Sunday wasn't a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, (b) the paper referred to was a single (and very equivocal) primary source, and therefore not admissible per WP:MEDRS, and (c) that the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming. As the thread shows [155], Immortale in particular has persisted with the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:Tendentious editing tactics ad nauseam, including an attempt (after WP:MEDRS had repeatedly been referred to) to cite Fox News as a "fair and balanced source" for material to support the claims: [156] On this basis alone, I think that there might be grounds for calling for a topic ban on Immortale, if not a block per WP:COMPETENCE, given an evident inability to comprehend policy (or sources), or possibly an inability to comprehend that it applies to everyone. However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors, alleging that "a small but dedicated group of hostile editors refuse to report the controversy because of their original belief that it was a hoax", and alleging that editors are involved in spreading 'propaganda' on behalf of Aspartame manufacturers. This comment seems clear evidence to me that Immortale is incapable of complying with talk page guidelines, and is using the talk page as a soapbox. On this basis, I suggest that User:Immortale should be topic banned from any any subject matter (including talk pages) relating to artificial sweeteners, since they are clearly incapable of complying with the Wikipedia policies they have repeatedly been made aware of, and are instead intent on abusing Wikipedia as a platform for their own ends. I note that this is not the first time that Immortale's behaviour relating to this matter has been drawn to the attention of this noticeboard, and that Immortale has been both blocked [157] and topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (for four months, in February 2011) regarding the matter, and frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite tired of having to prove I am not some kind of paid operative of the international aspartame conspiracy. [158]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge them to prove they aren't a member of said conspiracy running a deep false flag operation. Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know this person but it is impossible to prove we are not connected. My opinion he is just one of dozens that have tried to change this article perhaps because they (like me) know people who's health has been destroyed by aspartame. All we ask is a chance to be heard. I will try not to repeat myself but it is hard when outright lies are accepted as truth. An example of this is the statement that "I'd like to point out that "artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks"is not the same thing as aspartame" when aspartame is used in 90 percent of canned soda. , Arydberg (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. I didn't say Grumpy Andy is this and that. I said it was a real controversy and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame. We are to report the mainstream media, so why would Fox News not be a valid source when it's clearly a large news channel. I dislike Fox News, but it's not about me, but about the neutrality of the whole article. The controversy is taken serious in the mainstream media and the scientific community. Otherwise, why keep pumping millions and millions of dollars and Euros in ongoing research if it was such a clear-cut case as it is stated in the current article. Shouldn't be an article called Controversy, be about the controversy? Why is it so hard to reach consensus about this? Immortale (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame" is a personal attack. You are accusing editors of being corporate shills, as you have many other times. Please stop it. Shall I say this again? I have no connection to anyone who makes aspartame. I am tired of having to defend myself against such crap. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but it's your free choice to feel attacked. No one asked you to defend yourself because no one attacked you, Dbrodneck. If I have to list of what the editors are called who try to present a negative fact about Aspartame, then we are here for a while. I've had to deal with real accusations and personal attacks of tag-teaming, of having multiple accounts, and so on. I was cleared every time but it's not the right way of editing an article together. So I have been away for some time because no matter what rights I had given, a persistent group of pro-editors, hide behind their consensus and doesn't let anything "anti" in their way. By the way, some of the statements about me above are plain false. Immortale (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which statements are "plain false"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are two editors who have been topic banned and blocked in the past and I would suggest an indefinite topic ban. It is disruptive to accuse other editors of conflict of interest on talk pages and to argue against Wikipedia policies and guidelines there. TFD (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False statements about me (and I won't mention the false allegations of tag teaming and me not following wikipedia guidelines): "the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming." Where did I claim this? "However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors" I never made personal attacks. You did and do. "a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue" (ignoring your Freudian typo here)I always followed policy and always took my edits to Talk Page. You seem to project your frustration of Arydberg onto me, since your complaint is mostly about me, even though I only made 6 edits on the article and Talk page in the last 4 months. Not exactly "repeatedly", is it? And once again, the hostility I point out to you, is completely valid when you write in large bold letters AndyTheGrump "How many fucking times" in the Talk Page. There are many more examples of your hostility. So my suggestion is, to topic ban you for a couple of months, until you've cooled down. Immortale (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

People are quite capable of reading the talk page discussion for themselves, and forming their own opinion - and when two 'contributors' are seemingly intent on adding the same material based on an entirely false section heading ('birth defects') nitpicking about which one used which exact words is entirely beside the point. And no, calling for editors who refuse to comply with policy to be blocked isn't a 'personal attack' - it would be impossible to block anyone if it was. As for topic bans for me, since mine isn't a single-purpose account, unlike yours [159] , it wouldn't be of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am not one of the members of the corporate shill group, who are these members who have a COI, and why has this not been pursued? You know, it is possible that you Immortale are simply wrong. It may be because you have a disruptive case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited and therefore I cannot spend my time to fight for every edit or to bring people to boards. I did this in the beginning, several years ago, and I ALWAYS got my right from neutral editors, until someone reverted everything bluntly again. That's why I stopped editing but this is about the current case, and you have no case. Unfortunately the article is so biased now, that people who want to know more about the controversy, go to other sites. You can see this in various forums and the mainstream media. I've edited other articles, so stop with that accusation. This is about me making 6 edits in 4 months and getting this ridiculous hostile reception. Immortale (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Outsider view

I don't edit this article, so I evaluated the difference in citation shown in this diff. Having read the cited work, I do not see that the synthesis implied by Immortale is significant. The report does list three specific flaws, and it is reasonable for us to simply state that they were found rather than spell them out. We are not constrained to simply relating slight rewordings of the conclusion section of the report. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

One disturbing comment is "All we ask is a chance to be heard." That betrays a lack of understanding of what wikipedia is supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS was written to cover exactly that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone read the links they mention? At WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS it states: "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals". Well, guess what, the controversy surrounding aspartame has been in mainstream journals. From the New York Times, to The Guardian, to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Still, the assumed consensus among some hardcore editors is that it's all a hoax, and everyone is a kook who doesn't believe this. Immortale (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban (Immortale and Arydberg)

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.

---

• Propose indefinite topic bans on both Immortale and Arydberg from all material related to aspartame and artificial sweeteners, as both are WP:SPAs that have been previously topic banned due to disruptive behavior, with return to said behavior. It is time for that disruption to stop. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree As I explained above. TFD (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as described, both editors are indeed SPAs here to push a barrow and not develop encyclopedia articles. They've already been given second and third chances, it's now time to make the disruption stop. Zad68 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Their disruption must stop, and neither editor seems to understand our policies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No to an indefinite ban, but yes to a six month topic ban to show they can edit collaboratively elsewhere. (While indefinite could turn out to be six months, in practice, it is almost always infinite.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Both have been banned before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)f

Indefinite topic bans can usually be overturned after a period of constructive editing elsewhere. A six month ban on the other hand probably means that we end up dealing with the issue again in 6 months. TFD (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Split (involved editor): Support reinstating topic ban for Arydberg, indefinitely. Weak support regarding Immortale—an indefinite topic ban may be an excessive remedy. I don't see anything indicating collusion as opposed to activity-prompted involvement. That said, Arydberg is an unabashed advocate who has not shown any improvement after two topic bans. As this discussion proceeds, feelers about rescinding the past bans are being extended, separately from this discussion. During the last ban a post framed the issue as good vs. evil. This is a case of an editor with POV so polarized, that collaborative editing seems unlikely. An indefinite topic ban would seem in line. A clear statement should be provided, indicating that an indefinite ban can be lifted following a cogent expression of planned NPOV encyclopedic editing, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. On the other hand, an indefinite ban may be overkill for Immortale (then again, it may not). There has been an ongoing problem of accusations of conspiracy. While protesting innocence regarding sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, Immortale has been free with such accusations (see: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy, during which an edit warring block was followed by a evasion-by-IP sockpuppetry block). This prompted a single topic ban which has long expired. Immortale "gets it" in the sense of being able to recognize Wikipedia policies, but the imperative to edit which prompted the block evasion and perception of WP:CONSPIRACY (essay to which I have contributed) are problematic. These two editors should be assessed independently.Novangelis (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support We're on the third or forth iteration of Ayrdberg playing the role of WP:TRUTH teller. He is clearly here for the singular reason of pushing an agenda and when policy is explained to him he simply stops responding and then goes on to ignore it. After a year nothing has changed. I have no substantial opinion on Immortal as I haven't dealt with him personally but he doesn't look promising either. Sædon^talk 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the aspartame controversy is not a true controversy, anyone editing to change the page on the basis of either a news story or a primary source either doesn't understand the relevant policies, or doesn't care. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"the aspartame controversy is not a true controversy" Could you give me the qualifications what makes a controversy a controversy? I'm really curious because even the mainstream media called and still calls it a controversy. Immortale (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a controversy only in the same sense that 9/11-was-an-inside-job, climate-change-is-a-hoax, and Einstein-was-wrong-about-the-theory-of-relativity are controversies, in that the people who know what they're talking about -- actual scientists and researchers -- overwhelmingly have the same/similar results, so any "controversy" is more imaginary than true.

I say this for the benefit of others reading this, since you obviously already know this but hope know no one notices. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support for both until such time that they demonstrate some awareness of WP:DUE. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 26 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.

Requesting short term block for Demiurge1000

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.

---

SO we started here with bad faith declaration against six or seven editors including an Admin saying we voted for deletion because the article subject was Indian [[160]] He then made another accusation after a non templated warning reminding him of good faith which he then expressed more bad faith[[161]], then followed it up with a borderline personal attack with more bad faith [[162]] I suggested maybe take a step back and take a break because as a contributor that has been here a while he really should know better, which was then responded to with [[163]] yet again more assumptions of bad faith. I don't know if he has more of an issue with AFD then I have noted but I'm thinking and requesting a 24 hour block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank the gods for small mercies, someone who actually tells administrators what administrative action they desire! That's some minor measure of progress, I guess.

A different sort of progress would be if you put the effort you spent on this report into looking to see what sources mention the person in question. Thus far, only myself and some IP have made any contribution in that respect, I think?

Given the timing, a 24 hour block would also make sure that AfD closed the way you want it to close without my being able to reply any further, but assuming oodles of good faith here, I'm sure that's not why you settled on that particular figure.

Oh look, I didn't even !vote Keep yet, that's an easy solution then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that your alleged disruption took place in the AfD, requesting a block for the duration of the AfD is entirely appropriate and has ample precedent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be sure to keep that one in mind. Sounds like a fantastic idea. Can't have people disrupting the place by expressing their opinion at AfD, now can we? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Expressing your opinion at AFD is fine as long as you aren't doing so unciviling and assuming bad faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll gladly undertake not to do any "unciviling" if you'll undertake to tell us what steps you took to look for sources that mention this article topic you're so keen to have deleted. I put the work in and looked - why shouldn't you do the same? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And as I explained I left my rationale on that page, it doesn't say per nom, it gives a short and concise reason why I think it should be deleted. I'm sorry that isn't good enough for you, but my conduct isn't the issue being raised here, yours is. You are assuming and continuing to assume that seven editors didn't do any research and we are all there to pick on Indians. That's unacceptable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is a useful, or not useful, contribution to an AfD discussion. If useful, why is this guy harassing me about it and all over my talk page about it and now we're at ANI about it? Because I wouldn't withdraw my little piece of Google "research" when challenged? Interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hell in a bucket, when you open an ANI thread your behaviour will be considered too. If you're aiming to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG here, you might want to strike your accusation that I said people were "asking for deletion due to him being Indian" (your words), when actually what I said was "if we're deleting this article just because the person happens to hold a post in India" (my words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems a clear case of "Running to Mommy" to settle a content disagreement. Carrite (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My only issue here is the bad faith. If they decide that they want to stop the accusations and strike those comments I'm perfectly fine with no action. One keep vote is unlikely to sway the debate in favor of keeping. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're happy so long as you've got the AfD result you aimed for? Great! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• After noticing Hell In A Bucket's misguided comments regarding Flyer22's report above I thought I should check this out. What a surprise—nothing there. Demiurge1000's comments at the AfD have been grossly exaggerated. The kindest thing that could be said is that this report, and the two "warnings" on Demiurge1000's talk, are a waste of space. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No I'm just stating a fact, you raised the issue above and I responded to it. And there are plenty of times that things don't go any of our ways here, that's why we all bend over for consensus. Why such a negative view on me Demi? ~

• @John, how do you exaggerate diffs?Hell In A Bucket (talk)
• Also if you'd like to discuss my behavior as well and show me where it's been inappropriate in this situation in contravention of Wiki policy, I'm more then happy to modify that behavior. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "show me... Wiki policy" -- wow, are you trying for a classic definition of WP:WIKILAWYER or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how Demiurge's initial comment could be interpreted as an assumption of bad faith, and their comments afterward are basically just the same kind of potshots HiaB was taking at them (albeit with slightly spicier language). Probably best if everyone just disengages; continuing the potshots on ANI ain't never helped nobody. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Demiurge, you stated above WP:BOOMERANG, I was agreeing with you and asking you to show relevant information to what you were trying to say. And as I have stated if they want to strike the comments about multiple editors wanting the article deleted to the subject I'm ok with that too. I have zero issues with Demi other then that, absolutely none, they are obviously a decent contributor based by their userpage and the awards they have earned. That's also why I only asked for a 24 hour block, it's not a huge deal but I do have issues with the claim of racism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't see his comment as an accusation of racism. I think you're being a wee bit oversensitive about this, HiaB. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • if you think that's the case then shut the thread down. There's a reason I don't have the block button. I get riled and I have a short fuse. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 26 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:The Duke of Madras

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

Unfortunatly, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Duke of Madras (talk · contribs)

Please have a look. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

At what? It's a nice ermine he's wearing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the page is now deleted, before which I posted here. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my point was: what were you wanting us to look at? His continual removal of speedy deletion tag (usually goes to WP:AIV)? The fake-article that was a userpage? The copy/pasted source from another article being used inappropriately? You'll need to be a little bit clearer as to what you want people to look at in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He was continuously removing speedy deletion tag, that was what I was asking to look after. I seriously did not have in mind that it was a userspace. But after going thourgh the policy on userpages, although it was in userspace, the content violated WP:UPNOT. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the funniest page I've seen in a long time. Can we move it to BJAODN? Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd probably want this one, which it was shamelessly copied from - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone read the bizarre discussion on my talkpage that was started by the "owner" of the offending page (that I deleted) - and review his use of multiple accounts, and absolute badgering. I'd rather not have someone accuse me of being "involved" today (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct link. And given that the user page was moved/account renamed, we're dealing with socking. I'd block myself except I'm taking a coffee break after having the WikiRage meter go up a tick looking through AN/I this morning. (And that's the only thing I could extract from that mess.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Trolling-only account, no sign of wanting to build the encyclopedia. Somehow my block button is itchy today. Must be the weather. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aw, another trigger-happy virtually powerful man. How cute. Oh yes, go ahead and block this account as well. That's the way to go! Block citing the most frivolous reasons, like not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Well, how do you know in five minutes I had spent here before getting the pink vandal badge? Block the IPs of the entire world, I'll still be back. Don't worry, countless "rulers" have tried to oppress their subjects only to eventually realize that's not the way it works. Democracy won out eventually anyway. And to BWilkins, don't try your ganging-up-on-a-newcomer tactic again either. It's rather uncivil. I was glad for Floquenbeam's message on my user page. I was about to say thank you and how much better Wikipedia might be if everyone was that understanding instead of sitting on a self-built high pedestal, and lo and behold, a block! So, back I come. Brilliant stuff, this. And also, have you conveniently received a satisfactory response from the other user yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke Reborn (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's experiment in unblocking was not a success. This is a trolling only account. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Duke is right about one thing. The link he tried to insert in the "not democracy" line above is wonderfully appropriate. Taking the freedom to fix that now. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reblocked the account. For the record, I had not noticed either this thread or the block log until well after I had blocked (I used a script to block). So I did not intend to wheel war here, and regardless, the behavior continued after the unblock. If a consensus forms to unblock, I have no problems with that, but I doubt that it will. --Rschen7754 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also indefblocked User talk:Duke Four‎. --Rschen7754 05:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And User talk:Duke Five. --Rschen7754 05:26, 26 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.

B. Mandal copyright violations

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

---

Resolved

B. Mandal (talk · contribs) is continuing to post copyright-infringing text despite several prior warnings and a prior block for this behaviour. Can I suggest that another block be instituted to prevent further damage? The existing contributions have now been taken to WP:CCI. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that the editor only once ever communicated on a talk page (and never on his own). That single edit shows that is capable of communicating (i.e. there isn't a language issue). Given that he has continued to post copyright violations regularly (I checked three of his edits today - two were straight copies from copyrighted sources) I have blocked him indefinitely until he engages on his talk page and acknowledges the problem. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've noticed something strange with one of the files he's uploaded. File:Tajuddin Ahmad.jpg was deleted on 27 February 2012, but if you visit that page you can still see the image. There doesn't appear to be a corresponding Commons entry, so I'm confused as to how the image still exists. Can anyone explain this? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The image description page was deleted but the image itself was not. I've taken care of it now. I remember getting completely confused about a similar situation a few months back! Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 26 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.

DragoLink08 Returns; Request for range blocks

Indef blocked user DragoLink08 continues to disrupt the project two years after he was indefinitely blocked. Their MO is to make undiscussed and sometimes quite detrimental color changes to articles and templates on American college sports. Activity has picked up over the last three months; they've created a number of new sock accounts, but more usually edit anonymously, mostly using IPs that appear connected to the University of South Florida. Several accounts were confirmed through the SPI, and I and others have DUCK blocked several more (here and here). I've escalated the blocks to a month on the IPs, but I hesitate to do more, or to propose a range block, to avoid affecting others on these IPs. I'd appreciate some additional eyes and input on this.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I was also typing a related report regarding DragoLink's continued disruptive and deceptive editing (immediately below) at the same time you were making this report. I have gone a step further and requested the range blocks. I believe it is time to take this step after three years of wasted time and effort to curb this user's disruptive editing and egregious sock-puppetry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:DragoLink08, his registered sock puppets, and his editing from dozens of IP addresses at the University of South Florida in the Tampa, Florida, have plagued the constructive editors of WikiProject College Football, WikiProject NFL, WikiProject Universities, and many others who work on other sports articles. His edits have been concentrated in articles related to American professional football, college football and other college sports, mixed martial arts and anime. His disruptive edits were first identified in the undiscussed changes that he made to the hex color schemes of the navboxes, infoboxes and tables used in college and professional sports articles. After months of other editors chasing and reverting his edits to consensus hex color schemes in 2010 and 2011, DragoLink08 was indefinitely blocked in August 2011. He had been previously blocked for defined periods in March 2011 and July 2011. During 2010 and 2011 and before he was blocked, multiple editors attempted to engage him on his talk page and requested that he stop making his disruptive edits to navbox color schemes. No one can say that he has not been fairly warned, repeatedly, of the disruptive nature of his editing.

For the last several months, administrators User:AuburnPilot and User:Cuchullain have taken the lead in investigating Drago's continued sock-puppetry and abuse of IP addresses, and have blocked multiple registered accounts and IP addresses. A quick review of AuburnPilot and Cuchullain's talk page histories will reveal in more detail Drago's recent sock-puppetry and disruptive editing. A review of the archived SPI for Drago is also instructive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08/Archive.

Since his DragoLink registered account was indefinitely blocked, Drago has engaged in sock-puppetry to continue his pattern of disruptive editing. At last count, he has employed at least fifteen registered sock puppet accounts to repeatedly evade his blocks:

• User:Dranzer13
• User:Bullz-Eye13
• User:Newlife512
• User:Ufbcschamps960608
• User:Timtebow4he15man2007
• User:NyteLyfe14
• User:Gr8ass
• User:Johnbrantley4he12man
• User:Bonjourstupid
• User:Firefighter407
• User:Flabcschamps960608
• User:EveryMan12
• User:Acoustics101
• User:Balificboy
• User:CompDude13

Additionally, he has also repeatedly used IP addresses registered to the University of South Florida to evade the blocks on his registered sock puppet account, and to register an ever-growing farm of sock puppet accounts:

• User:131.204.254.72
• User:131.247.24.12
• User:131.247.25.132
• User:131.247.25.193
• User:131.247.26.27
• User:131.247.26.178
• User:131.247.27.197
• User:131.247.37.75
• User:131.247.38.231
• User:131.247.102.208
• User:131.247.224.56
• User:131.247.229.72
• User:131.247.231.99
• User:131.247.231.135
• User:131.247.244.20
• User:131.247.244.21
• User:131.247.244.22
• User:131.247.244.23
• User:2607:FE50:0:8207:9A0C:82FF:FE6E:57C4
• User:2607:FE50:0:820B:8CEF:FCC:C863:D14

Accordingly, I am requesting a range block for the IP ranges registered to the University of South Florida, as represented by the ranges above. Specifically, the range block should be structured to prohibit IP editing and new account registration from these ranges of IP addresses, but permit editing by registered accounts to cause the minimum amount of disruption those legitimate future editors who might use University of South Florida IP addresses at some point.

I do not make this range block request lightly. This user has engaged in a long-term pattern of widespread disruptive editing, deceptive sock-puppetry, intentional block evasion, and other negative editing behaviors over a period of two to three years. Despite repeated warnings and blocks by a host of administrators, he has only redoubled his attempts to continue these patterns of disruptive and deceptive behaviors, using the University of South Florida IP addresses as his escape hatch to continue his activities. Simply put, this user has wasted countless hours of registered editors and administrators, who have been forced to revert his edits, engage in sock puppet investigations, block discussions, etc., and it is time to bring this circus to a close.

I will notify those administrators and other editors who have been active in chasing DragoLink08 and his various sock puppets, as well as placing notices of this ANI complaint on the talk pages of IP addresses recently used by DragoLink08. Thanks for reading this report and considering my request for an appropriate range block to bring an end to this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Solid and convincing arguments. Do you have any clue what range will need to be blocked? Tell me and I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can add nothing of substance to the foregoing, and am posting simply to agree that it is a real headache to deal with this fellow and clean up his messes, and if there's a practical way to prevent him from editing the encyclopedia (or even just reduce his volume), I'm all for it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

AlanM1 suggested on my talk page that contacting USF to help deal with the problem might be helpful. I seem to recall that similar things have been done for long-term disruptive editors in the past; would this be worth pursuing?Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, for starters, I would suggest that we block all of the USF-registered IP addresses identified above for at least 12 months, blocking both IP editing and new account registration, with an appropriate talk page message briefly explaining the history of abusive editing and letting everyone know who wants to edit from a registered account that they may do so ---- but they will need to register their new account from a non-USF IP address. This should contain Drago's activities and make him easier to track. Before we implement a range block across all USF IPs, we need to ascertain what IPs have actually been assigned to the university, so we are not range-blocking third parties. It appears that virtually all USF IPs start with the numbered sequence "131.247," but I don't know if that includes the entire sequence or only assigned subsets of that entire sequence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Range blocks will be good, but if he's easily IP hopping/using proxies they won't work. Has anyone tried setting up an edit filter for him? Legoktm (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's WP:CBAN time as well? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I need to be given a specific set of addresses to block — if I just set a rangeblock by guessing what should be done, I'll probably accidentally block the entire university and the rest of the southeastern United States along with it. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Taking a look at range contribs and WHOIS. ⁓ Hello71 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like blocking 131.247.0.0/16 should be fine, it's broadcasted (BGP) and owned (whois) by the University of South Florida, and all those are in there (except for IPv6 and first Austin University one). Incidentally, they all (the ones I checked) have "wifi" or similar in the hostname; perhaps this individual is not actually a student, but a wifi leecher? Going to see if following up with abuse@ would be useful. ⁓ Hello71 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• So going with Special:Block/131.247.0.0/16 will do that? I just made one big mistake, so I'd like to be sure not to make another one. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure, I'm not a sysop, or else I might have myself. Would probably consider using the UI though. ⁓ Hello71 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have the range contribution gadget enabled, check Contributions from 131.247.0.0/16 Since 2012-01-01 there is some collateral damage in terms of good IP Edits. Monty₈₄₅ 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I have reviewed every edit by every one of those IP addresses. Virtually every one of those edits is consistent with the subject areas in which Drago has had a demonstrated interest. It is difficult to find a single edit from one of these IP addresses which is not within one of those subject areas. Are all of Drago's edits disruptive? No, they are not, some are unequivocally positive contributions. The real problems that most sports editors have with Drago stem from his need to tinker with the hex color schemes of navboxes, infoboxes and tables in sports articles. These navboxes and other displays have coordinated color schemes across multiple navboxes, multiple articles, multiple sports, multiple seasons, etc., and the disruption caused by non-consensus tinkering has undone a lot of good work by other dedicated editors over the years. Drago has made a nuisance of himself, repeatedly, even after multiple attempts to communicate with him, multiple sock puppet investigations, and multiple blocks of multiple registered accounts and multiple IP addresses. He has made a mockery of our anti-sock puppet remedial measures because has has always been able to use the USF-registered IP addresses to edit and create new sock accounts. It is his use of the USF-registered IP addresses that have permitted him to quickly create new sock accounts and continue with his disruptive activities. Without access to these USF IPs, he could not have continued his campaign with the same ease that he has.

If there is any "collateral damage," it will be minimal and can be largely ameliorated by permitting registered editors to edit from the USF-affiliated IP addresses, but blocking the creation of new accounts or anonymous editing as an IP user from those same USF IP addresses. The minor exclusionary damage that will result from properly blocking these IP addresses is far outweighed by the ongoing disruption and aggravation he has caused other editors, and the additional work he has created for dozens of other editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The IPv6 addresses are also university of south Florida, but it is unclear what kind of rangeblock that could be done, as the university has a /32 - the minimum would have to be 2607:FE50:0:8200::/60. Collateral damage may still be substantial even still, but it's hard to tell without an IPv6 range contribs tool.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jasper, let's start by blocking the IP addresses specifically identified above. We're making this harder than it has to be; we can take our time in identifying the larger ranges for range blocks so as to avoid any significant amount of "collateral damage," which if limited to USF IPs, I expect will be minimal (see my comments above in response to Monty). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not my point. In any case, though, depending on how the university distributes IPv6 addresses (static or not), I don't believe it will be useful to block those on an individual basis, although it's worth a try with the IPv4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the range contribs gadget and I can see range edits using an asterisk (not CIDR apparently). ⁓ Hello71 21:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

131.247.0.0/16 blocked for three months; account creation is disabled, and registered users are able to edit. Not fond of blocking an entire university (although of course I wouldn't have done it if I believed it unnecessary), so I'm going to notify the Communications Committee. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Should questions arise in the future about unblock requests or related issues, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. I'm familiar enough with the editor's pattern that I should be able to provide some form of insight. --auburnpilot talk 05:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at this with CheckUser last night, and a hardblock would've definitely caused a little bit too much collateral than I'd approve of, so I agree that this is the best course of action for now. However, if this still doesn't quench the disruption, I would recommend ramping it up to a hardblock with the liberal distribution of IP block exemption to good faith users. WilliamH (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban of DragoLink08

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

---

Per the evidence listed above, I propose that DragoLink08 be subjected to a full community ban, as mentioned by The Bushranger above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support community ban of DragoLink08 and his sock farm. Three years of disruption and evasion is enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• I last enter this story nearly two years ago, when I issued the final block to his account. Looking at what has happened since I would say he is already de facto banned, no admin in their right mind would unblock a user like this, but for what it's worth support a formal site ban and whatever degree of range blocking needed to curb this disruption without causing undue collateral damage. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support a site ban, per Dirtlawyer1's summary above. My personal experiences with this user from several years ago are in line with everything mentioned here. As Beeblebrox says, this user is already de facto banned, but let's make it formal. cmadler (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. JohnInDC (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - clearly disruptive behavior in many ways. With this many sockpuppets, There have been numerous blocks, numerous incidents of major drama, and numerous reincarnations. This user has unfortunately demonstrated that the Wikipedia community cannot exhaust any more patience here. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Significant disruption over a long period of time, and they clearly have no intention of stopping.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The extent of the sockpuppetry is, as demonstrated, quite significant and has been going on for a considerable amount of time. We might as well make the ban official and start making appropriate range blocks. 131.247.0.0/16 seems like the best way to start, along with notification to the university. --auburnpilot talk 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - socking at this level is definitely not indicative of intent to contribute constructively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 3:19 pm, Today (UTC−8)
• Support giving some big bada boom to this fella. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - three years of rampant socking by username or IP deserves long overdue ban. Especially when a potential rangeblock can affect a large region. Nail his hide! --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:47, 26 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.

Spam

There is spam going on at Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet. Could someone watch/warn/block if needed? I'm about to be away from the computer. Biosthmors (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a proxy server anyway - I'll see if I can do a rangeblock. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of User:DileepKS69

For the past few days, I've been reviewing the unblock request of DileepKS69 (talk · contribs). He - I assume the user is a he, otherwise I fully apologise - he was blocked indefinitely in September 2011 for sockpuppetry (see investigation. One sock was confirmed by check-user, the others were possible, based on geographical evidence, but not confirmed.

DileepKS69 fully admits the one confirmed sock, which he states was due to being hounded by other users. The other accounts he claims were other users co-ordinated by on-line forums (i.e. meat-puppetry). He was unaware of the meatpupptry rule, though he now accepts that neither sock or meat puppets are acceptable, and he has agreed not to use these again.

There remains the issue of the tenacious editing of articles which let to the sockpuppet investigation to start with. I'll be honest here and admit that this is the area that concerns me most. DileepKS69 has stated that he'll use the talk pages where required, but I'm not fully convinced, and this may be something that may need to be addressed if he's unblocked.

Despite this however, I'm willing to give him another chance. The blocking admin, User:Toddst1 has no objection. However I'd like feedback from the community before going ahead with this, so I'm asking for other opinions.

Just as a point of order, the unblock request was rejected yesterday, however the rejection was mainly due to a misunderstanding about DileepKS69's usage of Wikipedia during the block, which has now been resolved to my satisfaction.  An optimist on the run! 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the best course of action is to get him to explain to you, in his own words, exactly and unambigiously, what he understands WP:BRD to mean, preferably with reference to examples in articles if you can think of something suitable. Once you've got that, you may be a bit more convinced that he's genuinely trying to contribute under our policies, and if he goes back on his word, he can be reblocked without so much as a how d'ya do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. What swayed me is that he was blocked (this time) for sockpuppetry, not edit warring, so I feel it unfair to let my misgivings about the latter get in the way. I just hope I haven't been wasting my time, only time will tell.  An optimist on the run! 18:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Thargor Orlando and North8000

Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a long dispute in the single-payer healthcare article regarding the polls. For a long time the matter was settled until the two editors engaged in disruptive and POV edits.

Thargor Orlando began editing the article after a consensus was reached that removing the polls constituted a POV violation. (diff) (diff) Since then Thargor had canvassed North8000 who has engaged in the same behavior (diff) (diff), (diff).

Other editors had also either called for topic bans or commented on the disruptive nature of the editors:

• Scjessey: "A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work."

• Ebe123: "Thagor, say something useful or go away from the article and CD. You do not seem to care about the article, nor are you helping the discussion."

Thus I am adding my vote for a topic ban on healthcare related articles as well as a possible protection. I don't think it has to be long either (probably a week at most) but this behavior has to stop. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What CartoonDiablo is not telling people is that his attempt to get sanctions at arbcom was shot down, his attempt to get sanctions via the edit warring board was shot down (along with his claim of consensus), and that he hasn't made a constructive comment at the talk pages in months, not to mention the blatant errors in the links he's provided above, especially about canvassing and the DRN discussion, I don't support a topic ban for anyone at this time, but sheesh - if you're interested in pursuing this, do due diligence.. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

At no point were they "shot down" there was no conclusion reached (and the conclusion at ArbComm that it was it's still solvable) the fact is Thargor has continuously violated the consensus of the page, alleged that I "willingly" sabotaged a discussion and has made no effort to justify his actions nor responded to the people here (Scjessy's call for topic ban etc.). CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is probably in your best interests to keep things honest here. Right now, you're not doing that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you didn't say that I "willingly" abstained from a conversion so it would fail? That aside it's not even that important and completely irrelevant to the point. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I clearly did not, as shown by the diff. So yes, your honesty is important here. As you've been doing throughout this, you're being dishonest in an attempt to eliminate people you disagree with from the discussion. It's what you do, and, hopefully, if someone does decide to get involved, they'll look at the complete picture. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly think that but no one is going to look at you say I "willingly" abstained from a conversion (which I didn't) and it failed because I allegedly did so, and not think you're accusing me of sabotaging it to get my way. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A boomerang is clearly in order

I've not even had a POV on the material. I've spent the last few weeks helping trying to bring some sanity to the process, prompted by an uninvolved admin pinging me to see if I had any ideas. This is a continuation of the immensely problematic behavior of CartoonDiablo at the article. They have been going through a continuous series of forum shops, threats and insults while absolutely avoiding any substantive discussion in talk, and I believe as an excuse / smokescreen to avoid a discussion in talk. They used a continuous series of pending-forum shops (noticeboards, DRN, a unanimous turndown at Arbcom) as an excuse to edit war at the article while avoiding discussion. After Arbcom unanimously turned them down, and they ran out of forums to shop they then used a claim that they were "discussing it with another admin" as an excuse to continue to edit war while still avoiding discussion. I've focused solely on trying to convince them to join talk to the point of not even mentioning (until today) that what they are trying to war in is a clear violation of wp:verifiability. All of this has been accompanied by a continuous stream of insults, false and baseless accusations and threats. A read of the last few weeks of talk page (and edit summaries of the article) will make it abundantly clear that this is beyond-baseless and that a boomerang is certainly in order. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody give me one reason why this shouldn't be a ginormous boomerang against CartoonDiablo? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Because these are actual concerns and I'm not the only person suggesting a topic ban? Even here North is calling every attempt made at DRN and admin requests as "continuous series of forum shops, and "excuse[s] / smokescreen to avoid a discussion in talk."

Sorry but basic Wikipedia policy of DRN and asking administrators for input is only a "threat" or "smokescreen" when you are violating something like WP:POV. Anyone can go to the talk page and see that me and Scjessey have been involved for 8 months and that it was Thargor and North who used talk to avoid solving the problem and insert the POV edits. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I don't think it should boomerang because I think there's more than enough evidence that CD needs some coaching, not some bans. CD needs to understand some basic policies and the purposes (and limitations) of dispute resolution processes, nothing more. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Other than OMFG, I have nothing more to say that I didn't already say here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Correct diff; Scjessey accidentally left off a number, producing a very odd-looking diff. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wait--did I just see this act of generosity/benevolence by CartoonDiablo on the talk page, about a topic ban for Thargor and North, "I am willing to extend that to both if they do not cooperate". OK: I'm willing to boomerang this right back. A quick perusal of the talk page suggests that this article would be well-served with a topic ban for Thargor and CartoonDiablo. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• boomerang against CartoonDiablo Ok so you shouldn't have a problem with ArbCom then. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

comes off like a cross between wikilawyering and threat. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

By those reasons we might as well just topic ban Scjessey and Ebe123 as well; the fact is I didn't come here to throw around allegations (especially since other people suggested it first) I came here because two editors are obviously inserting a POV and no one is interested in helping or even offering a third opinion.

If at least one thing can come of this is that neutral uninvolved editors or admins can help out the article.CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Where else to move on to?

Assuming nothing comes out of this, where would this even move on to? The editors here literally believe in two different objective realities and the issue has failed page talk, DRN, NPOV noticeboard, RfC and ArbComm and without any conclusions either way. And it's not just a content issue but an issue where certain content would be considered a violation of POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be too quick to assume that. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be quick to assume people will get banned if other solutions are available. Wikipedia is not about winning it's about coming to solutions and this one is 8 months overdue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

...but you came here asking for a ban? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked for one because it seemed like the last possible option given the situation (going through the different disputes resolutions etc.) but that doesn't have to be the case. I hope you all didn't think I just came here to spite users or that I enjoy being involved in an 8 month dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be "failed" at the talk page if you would bother to try and resolve it as opposed to using the dispute resolution processes to try to get people sanctioned. It's hard to take your motives as expressed in good faith when you're constantly forum shopping in an attempt to get your way, and dishonestly so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The reality is that CartoonDiablo has been doing everything EXCEPT engage in any substantive discussion in talk. Forum shop, threaten and insult editors, try to MISLEAD people and blatantly MISREPRESENT the situation at each forum shop (as they are attempting to do here). The ideal resolution would be for CD to agree to (if they want to stay at the article) genuinely engage in the conversaitons in talk on what they are trying to insert. I don't think that this can realistically happen. I thing that they have long since given up on talk because they realize that what they are trying to war in is in clear violation of wp:ver. They have even avoided the core question in their attempted forum shops by mis-framing the question in a way that avoids discussing article content. Given that I believe that they have decided to avoid any real discussion on the content, I think that the only alternative is that they be given a rest from this article.

Regarding Thargor Orlando's behavior, I can only speak from the few weeks that I've been watching the article. I believe that it has been exemplary and very cautious. I think that a review of the last few months of the talk page establishes there.

Finally I want to LEAVE the article. Again, I just got involved when I was pinged by an uninvolved admins asking for ideas. I've tried to stay out of the topics themselves and only help get a process in place and give some vague advice. I was wondering if there is anybody who would like to replace me there. Make some efforts to bring sanity there while CartoonDiablo insults and threatens you, and tells blatant lies about your activity there....it's quite gratifying work for the sake of Wikipedia.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given my reasoning an infinite amount of times now both on talk and elsewhere and I consider not abiding by it to be a POV violation since North's definition are not as valid as Politico, NYT, Huffington Post etc. One of the only places this can move on to is mediation.

To North if you want to leave the article that is your choice but your voice should be at least included in mediation.CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo repeating the same behavior. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK CartoonDiablo, you just completely fabricated two more lies / personal attacks and I'm going to call you on the first one. You have just said that I asserted a "North's definition". If you are going to assert that what you said is not a completely fabricated lie, please provide a diff to the "North's definition" that you just lied about the existence of. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryanspir

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

---

A number of us are having difficulties with User:Ryanspir

This user has been removing others comments from a talk page [164]. Was warned against this and the comments restored[165]. Than removed more comments of others [166].

Discussion supports that this page [167] should be redirected to Medical uses of silver per here[168]. However they have changed it three times and I have changed it back three time. Now they have left a "block" notice on my talk page with someone else signature on it.[169] Anyway all a little strange.

This user is a single purpose account editing only this topic. Have invited said user to participate in this discussion. I would propose a topic ban of this user. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Have removed comments of user who are continuously trying to provide off-topic but seemingly on-topic comments as disruptive. Example:

"Please understand that "active research" has no necessary implications on medical use. That makes sense, right? Biosthmors (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)" - At first glance it seems as it makes sense. But "active research" was refereed to a discussion on quackwatch site reference which is of 2005. Medrs has it that in the area of active research the references shall be 2-3 or up to 5 years old. There wasn't any talk about medical use whatsoever. So that user makes an appearance as if he provided an argument, but in fact he is sublimely muddying the talk page.

"Another example: "It currently redirects to silver, which doesn't make sense because that article doesn't even have the word "colloidal" in it. I'll redirect here. Biosthmors (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)" It wasn't redirected to silver, but to silver nanoparticles. Why it wouldn't make sense solely for the reason that colloidal silver is not mentioned there?

In addition, there are certain editors who are for years keeping this article biased by disallowing any positive research to be included. Many users have complained that this article looks like a propaganda website and not an encyclopedia article. The evidence of this is found in archives. This group of editors has united around idea that they have to protect the public from the danger of colloidal silver by posting predominantly negative nanosilver related information, warnings and research; and at the same time disallowing any positive research to be included into the article. And they continuously enforce their personal views of such into the article. The editors who are doing this are: Doc James, Zad, Alexbrn, Yobol and perhaps few others. I have tried to engage with all of them based on agf. However it proved to be unsuccessful.

1) Proposing to issue warning to all to stop making efforts towards a biased article and using wikipedia as a speaker for their personal opinions. 2) Encourage participation of experienced user/admin in biomedical field in re-editing of the article. If they will not follow the warning (and I highly suspect they won't) recommend topic ban. Ryanspir (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of the article discussion, per WP:TALK it is against policy to remove or refactor another editor's comments unless they violate BLP or are a threat. Blackmane (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute (or was until now), but the thing that really makes my eyebrows raise is Ryanspir's impersonation of an admin with that block message. If nothing else, that needs a sanction of some kind. I've checked out the comments that were deleted - I see those as being on-topic and in good faith - definitely no reason for a non-admin to remove them. I would say you should've waited an extra day or two in the discussion about the redirect, Doc James, before moving it, but that's just my personal opinion. I can't say I see any reason to not give Ryanspir a sanction of some kind. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes was just restoring the redirect to where it was before this user changed it rather than moving the redirect to some place new. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have protected the article for a week and warned Ryanspir not to continue edit warring, particularly in the light of the discussions DJ linked to above. I have done nothing about his message of impersonation but agree something should be done about it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have left another message on his talk page relating to removing/refactoring talk page comments and impersonating administrators. If any other administrator thinks anything else needs to be done, go ahead. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There can be no legitimate reason to post bogus block messages - A block would seem a foregone conclusion here. I'll check that the editors above have been notified, per policy notified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The block notice was not his fault. Will explain in separate thread below, shortly. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks just noticed the same thing. The template he had used had just been broken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed, but I've apologized to Ryanspir on the talk thread on his page. Not sure this thread needs to go on much longer now :) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:27, 26 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.

Possible legal threat on Private spaceflight

• Private spaceflight

An anon editing from 207.203.67.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.42.61.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made an implied legal threat in a series of edit summaries on Private spaceflight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), stating that he was "removing the unlawful hacker alteration of content of unpermitted use [of trademarks]". Given that he seems to be claiming that the word "private" is trademarked, I'm pretty sure he's just a troll rather than anyone making serious legal threats, but since I don't know much about US IP laws, and his comment does seem to violate or come close to violating WP:NLT, I'd appreciate it if someone with a better understanding of the situation could check. The edits the summaries have accompanied have been largely the removal of chunks of text, and the replacement of every instance of the word "private" with "non-governmental" regardless of context. (Diffs: [170][171][172])--W. D. Graham 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There wasn’t a legal notice, the problem is that a group of hackers wanted to alter the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_spaceflight article taking currently US Trademark protected content. That’s the problem with Wikipedia it can’t follow the law or common sense. I don’t use this site for that reason and rarely have to take notice that these scam artists conducting trademark theft exists. Then is no reason or permission granted to have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight since it was nothing but a hoax copy of the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_spaceflight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.203.67.250 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• There was and is no Non-Governmental Spaceflight (and I think I tried all the capitalization variations). Your comment is a bit garbled, syntactically and semantically, and I don't know what you are trying to say. If something is a copy of a (former?) Wikipedia articles, then such copying is fine if proper attribution is given (some smart person correct me if I'm wrong here). And, eh, "hackers"? What hackers? I just reverted you again. Continue, and you'll be blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring Noticeboard is That away. I'd like to express my disgust at the IP addresses missing "Bold, Revert, Discuss", the Talk page, and the above lauded WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't see any legal threats being made, therefore this devolves into garden variety edit warring and dispute resolution. I strongly suggest that all editors start using the talk page to make the case for why (including retaining the status quo). Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This recent edit by another (related?) IP includes the summary: "This is the second edit attempt to comply with US Trademark Registration Number:4208499 removing the unlawful hacker alteration of content of unpermitted use including Private Space forms without permission." This refers to this registration of "Private Space" as a trademark. This seems a rather bizarre reation, given that the registrant clearly isn't involved in actual spaceflight.... Nick Cooper (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but trademarks on "private spaceflight" (apparently not a trademark) and "Private Space" do not interact. In fact, there are any number of uses of "private space" which do not infringe on the trademark "Private Space"; in fact, I'd lay odds that the trademark would be invalid if challenged in most of the claimed areas. It does look like a WP:NLT violation.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean, the trademark registration claiming first use in 2009, compared with a Wikipedia article that's included the phrase "private spaceflight" since 2004?[173] It still looks more like edit warring than legal threats, but the IP could probably use some friendly words on how to follow up with the Foundation if they really think it's a problem that they can't/won't discuss at a talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No need. He's already been in contact with OTRS, and been given the appropriate information. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's at it again. Sigh. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's looking closer to a legal threat this time. Here's the message I just left at User talk:207.203.67.250[174]:

Please also note that Wikipedia has a strict policy that no legal threats may be made against other editors. When you make comments like "Since waiting on whether this Wikipedia hackers forum has a legal representative who can be recorded and respond, here is the activity record since Wikipedia is in lieu of a formal lawyer representative" or "Of course I don't expect a hackers forum to conduct full legal activity and specifically don't use the forum of Wikipedia as that result,"[175], it implies that you are contemplating off-Wikipedia legal action. In such case, standard policy is to block your account until the threat of legal action is rescinded or the action is otherwise completed–for your protection as well as our protection. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I copy the message here in case others may find it useful in cautioning any other accounts related to the incident and for evidence of what the IP has said. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Even if IP 207 were able to avoid the NLT issues, with one removal of info, and an additional FIVE reverts in less than an hour, they are WELL past the 3RR brightline rules. I'm only noting this as I don't have blocking capabilities at the moment. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since he's obviously still at it, I've semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. Drmies blocked the IP, but I'm sure he would be able to find another to edit from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Elen. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, This (diff) was previously posted on User talk:Aaron Schulz by the same IP, under the header "Sockpuppet investigations".--Auric talk 23:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for (and AGF with) "false" block notices

Due to a combination of seemingly minor mistakes (Parishan (talk · contribs) forgetting to substitute a template [176], and Nick-D (talk · contribs) clicking the section edit button, and not noticing that he was editing the wrong page [177]), for just over nine hours today all {{An3-notice}}s were accompanied with untrue block notifications. Clearly no one was at fault here, least of all anyone who used the template in that timeframe. I'm posting here to head off any other complaints about admin impersonation, like the one above. If any AN3 regulars can think of users who might have received such a message in that 9-hour window, or anyone good with computer-y stuff knows how to search for them (What Links Here doesn't work in this case, since, of course, the template's substituted), it would be nice if we could head off any confusion right now. This has already complicated the SPI of the original user. (I've added added {{Subst only}} to the template, and if no one beats me to it, will do so for the other noticeboard notification templates in a bit.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much to PinkAmpers for fixing this up, and the polite and positive response. As noted on my talk page, I don't even have the excuse of being drunk or crazy ;) Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also just taken the liberty of fully protecting that template: it's a high profile and high risk template, there seems to be no reason to think that non-admins would ever need to edit it, and the all-pink screen should stop other admins being as dumb as I was. That said, any admin who disagrees with me is very welcome to lift the protection. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And I've now {{Subst only}}'d everything in Template:User noticeboard notices (except for {{WQA-notice}}, which someone should probably take to TfD). If there's any future problems with the section-edit thing (since, as I said, this seems like a deceptively easy oversight), we could probably add a {{#if:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}issubst}}||__NOEDITSECTION__}} function to the lot of them, but I believe the auto-substituting bots work pretty fast once a template's in the right category. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User Hari7478

Hari7478 has broken the 3-revert rule by reverting changes within 24 hours 3 times. I reinstated the changed version of the article twice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mayasutra . Hari7478 reverted the article thrice (and back to its original state).

Previously, Hari7478 refused to agree to mediation. He still does not agree to it. Instead, he alleges me of being abusive. I stand by my statements that his racial theories are half-baked and his statements are meandering.

The origin of this dispute is casteism. Since Thenkalais absorbed Non-Brahmins into their fold; thus, some Vadakalais seek separatism from them, in terms of ethnic / racial / caste purity. The casteist stand is derived from religious notions of caste purity. However, genetic studies are being falsified and misquoted by Hari7478 to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between the two sects. To that end, general sources are also being misquoted.

Herewith are the points of dispute:

Issue # 1

1) Misleading subheading titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin: This heading has been used to differentiate between Vadakalai and Thenkalai by ethnicity and origin. I changed this heading to "Subsects" but this is unacceptable to Hari7478. He's been changing it back to “Ethinicity, Genetics and Origin”. Hari7478's deliberate attempt to portray Vadagalais of Indo-Aryan ethnicity and Thengalais of Non-Indo-Aryan Tamil ethnicity, by demarcating and misquoting genetic studies and general sources to portray an ethnic / racial differentiation cannot be allowed.

Issue # 2

2) The line under Ethnicity, genetics and origin states: "These sects may be of distinctly different in origin.[5][6]" The sources [5] and [6] say no such thing nor support ethnic, genetic, and origin differences between Vadagalais and Thengalais. On the contrary source [5](The changing Indian civilization, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976) support mergers of deshaja (indigenous) priests into the Indo-Aryan ritual fold, before the ascendency of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhawa. I am reproducing the entire page 283 of source [5]: "Formerly, the priests of these regions were suspect. Thus, Hemadri in his Chatur-varga-chintamani quotes from the Saura Purana: "The Brahmans of Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Saurashtra, Gurjara, Abhira, Konkana, Dravida, Dakshinapatha, Avanti and Magadha should be avoided". Now these deshaja (indigenous) and foreign-origin priests were absorbed in the North- Indian priestly tradition in the Age of Syncretism. This is particularly true in the South, where four stages may be postulated - (i) Matrilineal Indusian priests over the whole of South, coming from South Iran and Baluchistan with the Iron Age groups, as brought out in Chapter 9. They were Dravidian-speaking and and echoes of their universality and supremacy in the South still survive, in spite of many incrustations, in the temple of the Mother Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai, where she is clearly superior to and more important than her consort, Sundareswarar. (ii) In the post-Maurya Time of Troubles many Brahmans must have fled from the North West and infiltrated to the South, loaded with gifts and favours by rulers like the greatly "Sanskritising" Pallavas of Kanchi (300-880 AD). These Vadamars or Vadagalai, ie "Northerners" as distinct from the Tongalai or "Southerners"" must have introduced Sanskrit and Patriarchal Aryo-Indian rites. (iii) In the Age of Syncretism all the deshaja or "native South Indian deities like Murugan, Subrahmanya, Ayappan, Sastha, the great Meenakshi herself, and others were grouped, and merged with Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu, and their priests admitted into the Aryo-Indian fold. (iv) Finally, the South Indian brahmans became ascendant with Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava on the intellectual side ; and with the creators of the Bhakti religion, the Shaiva Nayanars and the Vaishnava Alwars on the emotional side.” Kindly note Oroon Ghosh “postulated” the above 4 points. However, Hari7478 makes no mention of that; or on the elevation of priests into the Indo-Aryan fold. He uses only point (ii) to mention that Vadakalai are an Indo-Aryan people from Northern India. Fact is, the Vadakalai community was founded by Vedanta Desika and did not exist in the said period of Pallavas (300-880 AD). On what basis can Hari7478 construe that Oroon Ghosh’s postulation refers to the current Vadakalai community? This issue requires one to take into account the term "vada" which in Tamil means "north". The Tamils were not so bad in geography (after all they recorded visits of foreign visitors from other countries). If someone came from northern India, they would have used the correct name of the northern indian kingdom from where they came. The current day Andhra which lies to the "North of the Tamil Country", was known as Vadadesa or Vadugavalli in the past. Unless explicitly stated by a source, one cannot take "vada" to mean "Northern India", or claim to be aryans or indo-aryan people "who once migrated from North India". Additionally, the Journal of Asiatic Society, the Indo-British Historical Society, Robert Lester and several authors refer to Vadakalai and Thenkalai as northern and southern ‘Schools’; and not to ethnicity / race / origin. Source [6] provided is Pg.132 Human Heredity, Karger., 1976. Google Books. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2011. It is a paper titled "Inbreeding among Some Brahman Populations of Tamil Nadu", by S.Srinivasan and D.P.Mukherjee. Contrary to Hari7478's claim, the quoted page 132 does not support that statement that "the two sects are distinctly different in origin". Source [6] does not even mention Thenkalais. So how can he use this source to make such a statement? Am reproducing the stated page 132 as follows: "The Vadama and the Vadagalai who belong to different sects, but have northern origin in common as indicated by the Tamil prefix Vada, and show the closest agreement in the frequencies of different types of earlobe and hand clasping among the Tamil Brahmans [Srinivasan and Mukherjee, 1974], are characterized by lower incidence of first cousin marriages and higher incidence of marriages between more distant relatives. There is a level of agreement in the levels of inbreeding among Tamil Brahmans, Ayyars and Ayyangars from different states (table II). But a regional influence is also indicated by the higher value of F in the Vadagalai sample from Andhra Pradesh and the lower value of F in the Ayyar sample from Kerala. The matrilineal tradition restricting maternal uncle-niece marriages in Kerala might, of course, have influenced the local Tamil Brahmans."

Issue # 3

A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar: "The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[8][9]" Source [8] is The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India. Minerva Associates. 1976. pp. 283, 160. This is exactly the same as source [5], which is The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. I have reproduced the entire page 283 of this source above. I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from pages 283, 160 or any other part of the book where it says Vadakalais are Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India. Source [9] is given as "Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications." The author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book. So how can Hari7478 use this source to claim only Vadakalai Iyengars are an Indo-aryan people who once migrated from North India? Additionally, the stated source does not say Vadakalais “once migrated from North India”. Please ask Hari7478 to provide the correct page number where the book says so. Am reproducing the entire p.72 Nambudiri’s book below: "A detailed classification of the Tamil brahmins under the major heads smarta and vaishnava with many sub-sections under each major head is given below :- 1. Vadama 2. Kesigal 3. Brahacharanam 4. Vathima Madhama 5. Ashtasahasram 6. Dikshitar. Smarta 7. Sholiar 8. Mukkani 9. Kaniyalar 10. Sanketi 11. Prathamasaki 12. Gurukkal. Vaisnava A. Vadagali (Northerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 2. Vaikhanasa 3. Pancaratra 4.Hebbar B. Thengalai (Southerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 4. Hebbar 2. Vaikhanasa 5. Mandya 3. Pancaratra The Smartas: They are divided into 12 sub-divisions. The Vadamas claim to be superior to all other classes of Tamil speaking brahmins. The term Vadama signifies northerners. They are again divided into five sub-divisions, namely Coladesa, Vadadisa, Savayar, Inji and Thummagunta Dravida. All the above divisions and sub-divisions are endogamous except the Tambala brahmins who correspond to Gurukkal among the Tamil brahmins. The Vaidikis are superior to the Niyogis."

Issue # 4

A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar: "In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[10] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[10]" The source [10] quoted is a paper by Hameed et al. The said paper refers to an another paper (By Reddy et al) which had previously compared samples of 4 communities and found Rh(D) factor higher in the Vadakalai sample. Since Rh(D) in that study was found higher in people of Faisalabad Pakistan, the authors Hameed et al remarked that the similarity in frequency of Rhesus(D) genes “ can be attributed to the common history of these populations”. Fact is, the said paper does not even refer to Thengalais. I had changed the sentence to correctly indicate what the paper mentions as follows: “A study on Rh(D) occurrence in 1980, amongst samples from members of Mala, Yerukula, Kapu and Vadagalai Iyengar in Andhra revealed that the incidence of Rhesus(D) was higher in Vadagalai Iyengars than the other 3 groups; with a similar high frequency of Rhesus(D) genes also found in people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.” This, however, is unacceptable to Hari7478 who reverts the change. He insists on the talk page that there is an ethnic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Hari7478 has even used the ref name for the paper by Hameed, et al as ["ref name="Vadakalai Genetics"]. To him, the Vadakalai are Indo-Aryan people who migrated from Northern India. Let him get an appropriate source to substantiate it; instead of falsifying and misquoting papers. This paper was formerly used by Hari7478 to mention that "the above mentioned genetic similarity between the vadakalai and the punjabis of pakistan portrays the Indo-aryan origin of the Vadakalai iyengars". However, now the direct mention has been omitted out, but the paper has been used by Hari7478 to cater to his claims of Vadagalai - Thengalai differentiation. Previously, on my objection, Hari7478 deleted the source “Man in India: Volume 58, by Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur)” on cleft chin studies, which he had falsified to project a vadakalai - thenkalai differentiation. However, he has been reverting changes with the Hammed, et al paper. He is keen to portray a ‘genetic difference’ between Vadakalais and Thenkalais; and that Vadakalais are “indo-aryan people who once migrated from northern India”.

Admin must intervene in this case. I object to Hari7478's constant falsification of sources to pass of his claims of “ethnicity, genetics and origin”. Either he must agree for mediation to stop his misquoting of sources or admin must intervene here on ANI page and ask him to provide correct sources for his statements. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

---

I've refactored this to take up less space. You can revert me if you want, of course, but trust me, I'm doing you a favor: Most people see long posts and just get mad at the OP, whether or not they should. By making this appear less long, I make people much more liekly to actually hear you out, though I myself haven't read through all of this yet, so I can't comment on the merits of your complaint. (Also, to be clear, I haven't removed any content, I've only made it take up less screen space.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

umm, i've just gotta say your first statement is wrong, as he hasn't broken WP:3RR, and even if he had, theres a specific board for reporting that: WP:AN/EW - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He did revert thrice within a few minutes. However, it does not show up in history because he chose 'Minor Edit' and Do not Show Minor Edits. I myself reverted twice. He reverted the third time to bring it back to the original state. Anyways, thanks for mentioning WP:AN/EW. Will report there. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

(Non-administrator comment)Not to mention WP: TLDR...Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say but in cases of ANI and Mediation, it is very irresponsible on the part of admin to say Too Long Didn't Read. The above report is long because I reproduced entire page of each source misquoted by Hari7478. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

No admin has said that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i thot Des Kommisar is an admin (though making a Non-administrator observation). --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

My thoughts are already evident on the article's talk page: both editors should have been blocked for edit warring...luckily for them I'm already involved on the page (not on this specific dispute, but more generally) and another admin chose to protect the page instead. Also, Maysutra, your claim about the number of reverts is simply wrong: no editor can hide their own reverts from the page. Yes, he can mark them as minor, but that doesn't change whether or not they are visible in the history. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, unfortunately, not a single admin was involved when Hari7478 and i were sorting issues out on the talk page since 17th Jan 2013. Not sure sir, how you can claim to be involved in this now. If at least one admin had been involved and helped sorted this out on the Iyengar Talk page by now, things would not have come to this extent. Let Hari7478 answer on misquoting sources. Please do not try to protect him on that account. I too have a thesis published recently (identified genes involved in a certain disease state). If someone misquoted my work, i wud be very upset. Just how can you, as responsible admins, allow misquoting or misrepresenting sources. Also, let admin check on the reverts and find if Hari7478 reverted 3 times or not. I myself reverted twice and i saw the page being reverted the third time (by Hari7478) into the current original state but Hari7478's third revert did not show up in history. Yes, i expected this to go to edit war. After talking for so long (since June 2012), without any appropriate admin help, esp in the latest disagreement, what would you expect users like me to do to bring admin attention to the issue? Hari7478 knows very well this was going to edit war. I was being honest by directly mentioning so. Hari7478 also must have known the 3 revert rule; and hence chose to hide his third revert. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

You cannot hide reverts. Period. And it takes two to edit war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mayasutra, I've offered a few words on your talk page to try to get to the bottom of these false accusations of "hiding his edits" that you keep making - but please do stop them, or it is likely to get you into trouble. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the article history, here, you will see all three reverts made by Hari7478 (or at least, I see them), with none of them marked as minor, and clear edit warring by both of you. But Hari7478's reverts are not a violation of 3RR, as they do not exceed three reverts - to violate 3RR, you need to make four reverts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

One can still be sanctioned for edit-warring irrespective of the number of reverts in a 24h period, Boing. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, and both of them would have been so sanctioned had the page not been protected first - my point is to refute the 3RR allegation, as that appears to be a specific point of contention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The specific point of contention on ANI is misquoting sources. The 3-revert issue is handled by this wiki site. So please let all discussion in 3-revert rule be on that site. On this ANI site, please let the focus remain on the main issue of misquoting sources. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

On a subject at AN/I, all aspects of the subject and all aspects of those involved are open for discussion. As the discussion is here, both the edit-warring and the other issue are fair game. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Boing. I too am looking at the article history but cannot see all the edits. Can you as the admin access my settings and let me know what is wrong? All the same, since Hari7478 did not revert more than thrice, the issue stands null and void. The main issue is misquoting sources. Hope the focus is not taken away from the main issue. Hope Hari7478 answers all 4 issue points on this ANI page. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi. I'm not an admin at the moment, as I am on a break from it - but an admin would not be able to look at your settings anyway. I've had a look through all the options available in the Preferences page, and I don't see any that would cause you to miss some edits in a page history (all I see is the option for your watchlist). So, I'm afraid I don't really know what to suggest, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I could do a Print Screen for the page i am seeing and email it to you. I am not seeing the third revert by Hari7478. We can continue discussion on this at this wiki site. Here, on this ANI page, please, i request all admin to kindly help resolve the issue of misquoting sources. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sure, email me a Print Screen and I'll be happy to take a look - I'll reply further on your talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I've sent you an email so that you have my address and can then send a reply with an attachment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how to hide minor edits from your Watchlist but not the history page of an article... Salvidrim! ✉ 07:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(And they're not actually minor edits anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

OK Boing and Salvidrim, i figured what was wrong. On Mozilla was not able to see. So accessed using Internet Explorer and was able to see. So now in Mozilla, i did a Tools -> Clear History. Then accessed the article and talk page again. Voila, now i see all the reverts. Any idea why this happened? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm going to have to say "I don't have the slightest idea." But hey, if the technical glitch resolved itself, all the better. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe a cache problem, where the browser had been showing you a cached version and hadn't detected it was out of date - that kind of thing happens. Anyway, it's good that it's all sorted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But how does Mozilla not show me the cached version of the article itself then? Also, will be glad for guidelines on the 3-revert rule. Just now read the page referred to by Jeremy. I remembered previously Sitush had blocked me when i reverted a change just once (not twice or thrice) (See here). So just wondering about the block warning. Here i find some say "more than 3 times" while the page referred to by Jeremy says 3 times. So this depends on whose discretion ? What happens if one admin decides to block and another does not? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Browsers have caches of all sorts of individual pages - it's easy for one to get out of step while the others are fine. As for edit warring, 3RR is just a "bright line", and blocks are often handed out for fewer reverts than that as a preventative measure. WP:EW is the more important policy, and the aim is really to stop the edit war as quickly as possible. Whether and when to block is up to each individual admin's discretion - and, as we saw here, some prefer to protect the page instead. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Boing, left a message on your talk page. Have uploaded the iyengar history page as is visible to me right now. Again showing cached version. Can help me why this is happening? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

It's an issue with your browser. Do you have it updated to the latest version? Firefox is...well, bloated these days, it ain't what it used to be. Perhaps you could try Chrome? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping out with this. A lot of my stuff is bookmarked in Mozilla. Afraid of losing it. So did not do updates. Will just have to go to another browser now i suppose. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Glad to help. As a note, it might not be your browser after all - seems the servers are hiccupping as well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What a bad timing for servers to hiccup as well. Now i feel yuck to have accused Hari7478 for hiding reverts (something which he did not do). So i give myself a knock on the head and unconditionally apologize to Hari7478 on that account (Am very sorry Hari, i mistook the non-visibility of your reverts, very truly sorry about that whole part). Am glad EdJohnston gave final verdict on edit warring too. Now that he has concluded on the issue, may we focus on the issue of misquoting sources. Am keen to have the misquoting part sorted early. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Before i address the issues raised here, i want the admins and other users to take a look into Mayasutra's abusive behavior in talk page discussions. I'm hereby posting the diff of his talk page comments -

[178] - Mayasutra wrote "I suppose Hari7478 will want to chicken out without agreeing to the Formal Mediation..."

[179] - Mayasutra's comments - "As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism......for Dispute Mediation from which you chickened out...."

[180] - Mayasutra's comments - "So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree for mediation. Good luck." This comment proves beyond doubt that Mayasutra planned the edit war.

[181] - Mayasutra's edit summary - "Expecting editwar, admin intervention...". Mayasutra indicated in the edit comment that he knew he was edit warring. He was literally calling me out for an edit war.

There's a template on top of the article's talk page(Iyengar) indicating that it, like all articles on caste in South Asia (especially India) are under general sanctions, which means people must work extra hard to be civil, to not edit war, and generally behave better than usual. With the discretionary sanctions template, i wonder how Mayasutra keeps getting away with his abusive behavior and the "planned edit war". I will not be intimidated by such behavior. I would like to hear an experienced user's/admin's verdict on Mayasutra's behavior/comments in talk pages & edit summaries, first. Thereafter i'll immediately address the issues raised here. I was only reverting it back to the original revision(the version that has also been edited by other experienced users and an admin). Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not plan the edit war. Knowing how discussions on talk page were fruitless, i had a gut feeling; or so to say i knew this was going to end up in edit war and mentioned so. Am sure Hari7478 also knew it was heeding to edit war. Hari7478 reverted thrice. I reverted twice (and stayed away from the article after my second revert). Anyways, due to admin non-involvement in the Iyengar Talk page (on issue of Hari7478 misquoting sources), and knowing Hari7478 will not agree for mediation; wanted to bring to ANI notice anyways. The issue here is misquoting sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Expecting response from Hari7478

I request admin to intervene and ask Hari7478 to respond. Otherwise please make a decision -- i request that Hari7478 should not be allowed to make statements misquoting sources in the Iyengar article, with issues as detailed above. Kindly make a decision before the Iyengar article page protection expires on 03 Feb 2013. Thanks.
PS: I thank PinkAmpers for making the report visually easy on the eye by formatting the issues the way he did. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Frank L. VanderSloot

There is a dispute ongoing in the above WP:Biography of a living person as to (1) whether the Melaleuca company is a multi-level marketer (MLM) and, more important in this request, (2) if that assertion should be included in the lede, as a fact, as it is at the present. A previously uninvolved editor, Administrator and User:Barek, proposed removing the assertion and simplifying the lede of the article here, as follows:

I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names. The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead.

After a series of comments by editors and what to him seemed to be a WP:Consensus in favor of the new lede, User:GeorgeLouis posted Barek's suggestion as a substitute lede at 16:29 January 2013, with the Edit Summary "Slimmed-down version of the lede as suggested by User:Barek," but his posting was reverted at 13:37 24 January 2013 by User:Nomoskedasticity, who stated in his Edit Summary "indicate what Melaleuca is, as suggested by Arthur Rubin (lots of individual editors suggest things.)"

A lengthy debate followed, but much of it did not concern the basic question as to whether the lede should be changed to drop the statement about multilevel marketing. (VanderSloot is quoted in the body of the article as denying that his firm, Melaleuca, is a multilevel marketer.) Also lost was any concern over this WP policy: "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."

I recently noted on the article's Talk Page that "it seems that consensus is not needed to remove contentious material. I guess anybody could do it, but it might be better if an administrator were to take it upon himself or herself to do so. If Barek does not want to, perhaps another seasoned editor could be recruited. Thus I am listing this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." I certainly hope somebody here can remove the contentious material from the lede while discussion continues on the article's Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(non administrator comment) I don't see any behavioral issues here. This is a content dispute. If you cannot resolve it on the articles talk page you need to ask for WP:3O as a first step. There are other steps beyond that. There is nothing anyone can do for you here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize my comment was copied over here ...

I agree with Gtwfan52; this is a content dispute. I've already commented to another involved party on my talk page that the best course would be submitting a WP:RFC, or making a request for additional comments at WP:BLPN, or looking at other options mentioned at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

However, looking at the talk page, I am concerned about accusations of personal attacks that seem to be based on very minor perceived issues that to me do not meet the threshold of personal attacks by any of the involved parties. The discussion appears to be falling into a bit of a downward spiral, and I fear it's just a matter of time before it does expand to here with real ANI issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for reporting this matter here. I was confused by the statement on this page that "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." As I think about it, this query should have gone on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thank you, Barek and Gtwfan52. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Burrorocky

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

---

Not sure what to make of this, but this user Burrorocky (talk · contribs), only contribs are to redirect several users talk pages to Main Page and to file a vandalism report against another user[182]. Sock? Vandal? Is there a legitimate purpose for those redirects? Wasn't even sure where to bring this. Heiro 07:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked as a disruption-only account. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I share your sentiments. It is extremely rare that newcomers (without a welcome template on their talk page) will know the existence of WP:AIV. And, User:Makecat, which was one of the users inside that fake report, based on what I know is a vandal fighter. So, this account must have been a sock of a few disruptive accounts or a vandal IP. Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 07:57, 27 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.

IWannaABillionaire copyright infringement

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.

---

IWannaABillionaire (talk · contribs) continues to add copyright-infringing text into Wikipedia despite what looks like 7 or 8 prior warnings for this on his talk page (not to mention dozens of reports of non-free image uploads not covered under fair use). Can I suggest a block to prevent further damage? Given how prolific he's been it looks like this will need to go to WP:CCI for cleanup. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Another one (like User:B. Mandal above) with dozens of warnings but who has never used a talk or user talk page. Again, blocking indefinitely until they engage. I've fixed the Dalziel and Pascoe issues but this probably does need to go to CCI. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 27 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.

Serious BLP issues; sysop attention 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.

---

Polina Such (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of an ongoing revert war between two users. Wrvasd (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted claims that this person was a pornographic actress (sourced to pornographic websites), based on, it seems, nothing more than physical resemblance. I recommend a block on this user to prevent further gross violations of WP:BLP, and semi-protecting the page for a good while. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. How on earth could he keep this up for so long without ever getting blocked? That's really a horrible failure of our BLP protection measures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see someone issued a warning to the user over the edit warring, but nothing was reported until this morning when I got wind of it at WP:BLPN. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Revdeleted half of the edit history since last May (that's how long it's been going on!), blocked four offending accounts, deleted a pornographic copyvio image, protected the article for 6 months; what else remains to do? If anybody wishes to AfD the article for lack of reliable sourcing/notability, please let me know or use {{editrequest}} to put the tag on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at actual notability yet, but I will. If it merits going to AFD I'll take it. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 27 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.

Possible legal threat at User talk:Media-hound- thethird

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.

---

Media-hound- thethird (currently blocked) has posted what might well be interpreted as a legal threat on his talk page: "The issue of Wiki fail in having systems and correct signposting for Abuse-Bullying-Harassment is being taken up with the Wiki Foundation UK as there are relevant legal issues due to UK laws changed in November 2012" [183]. I'd appreciate this matter getting prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We should just disable his talk page access and remove the legal threat immediately. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the legal threat. Legal threats have not, should not, and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Media hound also has several sections starting with "Attention Admin" that appear to be calling for action against other editors regarding activity on articles and talk pages. That seems rather inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this is really inappropriate. I've contacted User:Kww and User:Bbb23 about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm in support of the removal of talk page access, but it should be noted that the indication of an intention to contact Wikimedia UK does not constitute a legal threat. (Despite the fact that the wording is poor, the thinking is incoherent, the applicability of the laws referred to is zero, and the role of WMUK in enforcing any such laws is non-existent.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have revoked talk page access for multiple varieties of abuse highlighted above. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:17, 27 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.

Serious BLP issues; sysop attention 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.

---

Polina Such (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of an ongoing revert war between two users. Wrvasd (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted claims that this person was a pornographic actress (sourced to pornographic websites), based on, it seems, nothing more than physical resemblance. I recommend a block on this user to prevent further gross violations of WP:BLP, and semi-protecting the page for a good while. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. How on earth could he keep this up for so long without ever getting blocked? That's really a horrible failure of our BLP protection measures. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see someone issued a warning to the user over the edit warring, but nothing was reported until this morning when I got wind of it at WP:BLPN. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Revdeleted half of the edit history since last May (that's how long it's been going on!), blocked four offending accounts, deleted a pornographic copyvio image, protected the article for 6 months; what else remains to do? If anybody wishes to AfD the article for lack of reliable sourcing/notability, please let me know or use {{editrequest}} to put the tag on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at actual notability yet, but I will. If it merits going to AFD I'll take it. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 27 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.

Possible legal threat at User talk:Media-hound- thethird

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.

---

Media-hound- thethird (currently blocked) has posted what might well be interpreted as a legal threat on his talk page: "The issue of Wiki fail in having systems and correct signposting for Abuse-Bullying-Harassment is being taken up with the Wiki Foundation UK as there are relevant legal issues due to UK laws changed in November 2012" [184]. I'd appreciate this matter getting prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We should just disable his talk page access and remove the legal threat immediately. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the legal threat. Legal threats have not, should not, and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Media hound also has several sections starting with "Attention Admin" that appear to be calling for action against other editors regarding activity on articles and talk pages. That seems rather inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this is really inappropriate. I've contacted User:Kww and User:Bbb23 about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm in support of the removal of talk page access, but it should be noted that the indication of an intention to contact Wikimedia UK does not constitute a legal threat. (Despite the fact that the wording is poor, the thinking is incoherent, the applicability of the laws referred to is zero, and the role of WMUK in enforcing any such laws is non-existent.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have revoked talk page access for multiple varieties of abuse highlighted above. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:17, 27 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.

AndyTheGrump

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.

---

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Following latest AN/I thread that AndyTheGrump participated Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_gross_breach_of_WP:BLP_at_the_.27Derby_sex_gang.27_article. he admit that he decided to become a vandal [185] and that exactly what he do:

• He notify multiple editors of non existent AN/I thread
• He makes a WP:POINT with this edit [186]
• And as I pointed that what he did is disruptive I got a personal attack [187]

This of course only the sample of his disruptive actions the user constantly violate WP:NPA.The user might have some problems as he admit that he suffers from clinical depression [188] but Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy.So I don't understand why the community should tolerate such behaviour--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User already blocked for 24hrs by Fram. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Blocked for 24 hours, let's hope that is sufficient and that this disruption of all kinds doesn't continue afterwards. It's understandable that he's upset, but that doesn't mean that his reactions are acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My bet its not the last time that we will see such outburst.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is regrettable. I had been trying to let this deescalate and avoid the need for such a block, as there was evidently a moment when he was on a rampage trying to provoke just that, and it was my impression that he had calmed down and stopped. The objectionable edits were all during a brief outburst between 07:03 and 07:23, and he hadn't been editing in over an hour since then. At this point, the block strikes me as somewhat punitive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The block is not punitive but preventive to stop further WP:NPA attacks on fellow editors as thus was not the first time that such violation happened moreover the user can request an unblock --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

of course it's punitive. that's exactly what Shrike was going for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• (ec'd 3 times) I've re-blocked Andy indefinitely. I don't mean to overturn Fram, but this user (who has a very colourful past) - just
  • Made offensive comments
  • Pretty much promised to start vandalizing (and proved he was serious)
  • Promised to start socking
• Given Andy's past - he has repeatedly been blocked - and the fact that he hasn't learned anything, I feel that 24 hours is nothing but a slap on the wrist. However, if he chooses to back down, apologize, and make a very compelling argument for why he shouldn't stay indefinitely blocked, I have no qualms with unblocking. But I will not see someone slander and vandalize to such an extent without facing full repercussions. m.o.p 08:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Calling someone a "a repulsive little turd", especially after a lengthy history of personal attacks, isn't something that we should lightly gloss over simply because he hasn't repeated it in the last hour - in fact, I'm surprised the block is so short. This is just the latest in Andy's long term record of personal attacks, and that's what we need to prevent, not just the latest one. I've been a supporter of Andy in the past, but this is going to end up in an indef block (for preventative purposes) unless someone can stop him some other way - best of luck, anyone who thinks they can do it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • An indefinite block is too short and not punishment enough? wow, what else do you want? go over to his house with a firing squad? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It was 24h when I checked, immediately before I commented. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And now the punishment has been extended to a life sentence. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually extended the block indefinitely and gave rationale (see here), but edit has somehow managed to disappear... m.o.p 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. Andy is nearly always right on the substance of matters that he's involved in. That's more that can be said for most people who end up on ANI due to pointless and completely avoidable drama every second day. It still doesn't negate the toxicity that this introduces to the community, and inevitably makes it worse in the long run because such editors pick up fan clubs. Suicide-by-admin wastes the community's time and deflects from the matters that such editors are actually trying to address. And lastly, "indef" for established editors nearly always means "short" around here anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Hope he gets help as he pointed out about his clinical depression. Though something not quite right about what he mentions here.--Ekabhishek^talk 09:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not him who needs treatment for mental problems... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Andy gets an indef and yet many others, with worse track records of personal attacks and incivlilty, still roam these mean streets? Ridiculous. The indef should be overturned; in fact, it should never have been introduced while this discussion was ongoing. GiantSnowman 09:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want to go around retrospectively indeffing any editors whom you think have gotten off lightly, go right ahead and do it. Otherwise, this is boilerplate whataboutery. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You know as well as I do that that would be an exercise in futility. GiantSnowman 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, I've seen plenty of successful enforcements. The handful of high-profile failures are the outlier here, not the norm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite not infinite block When someone has a block log this long and shows up in this many ANI threads, something's not right. Might support an unblock under some strict unblock conditions. --Rschen7754 09:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block Every single time I come across ATG, he shows gross incivility and a basic inability to WP:AGF. The user seems in good faith; still, his behaviour is toxic. The block log is clear. Until he understands he can't behave like that, we can do without. --Cyclopia^talk 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to undo Master of Puppets' extension to indefinite

 Done This has been done. NE Ent 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets, this is not the first time you have extended a 24-hour block of AndyTheGrump.[189] It was for a poor reason in November 2011 ("Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy, I'm extending his block (originally for 24 hours) to 72 hours") and it's for a poor reason now; nothing new had happened, then or now, there had been no discussion with the blocking admin, you simply overrode the original admin after 13 minutes (in 2011) and after 15 minutes (this time). I consider this gaming of WP:WHEEL: by being the second admin to touch the block, you have made made sure anybody who reverts your extension is liable to desysopping. Please revert your unwarranted extension. I can understand Fram's original block, but, as Johnuniq said about the November situation: "Yes, Andy is out of line, but when an excellent editor freaks out from an overdose of nonsense, they need help: remove the uncivil comments and leave a gentle note at Andy's talk."[190]

Well, excuse me, I see further down in the 2011 thread that you had actually discussed with the original blocking admin on IRC:

"A few editors were discussing this on IRC so I checked it out and went to block Andy for what I saw to be grossly inappropriate language. Upon going to block, I saw that Chris G had already issued one. We discussed it and I changed it to what I thought was appropriate. It's ironic that you see it as hasty when the very reason I took fifteen minutes to do it was because I was discussing with the blocking administrator."

Ironic? That's not really good enough, you know, and the following discussion cited Wikipedia:IRC: when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships. The whole 2011 thread is interesting, I recommend it.

In 2011, it appears you were involved with ATG (=had a recent grudge against him).[191][192] Your block extension (plus, though with less enthusiasm, the original block)was overturned by ANI consensus.

You have history with ATG; you shouldn't have been the one to block him now under any circumstance, and absolutely not with this extension to indefinite. Please revert yourself now. If you don't, I hope it won't take us any longer than in 2011 to reach a consensus to undo your action.

• Undoing of Master of Puppets' extension to indefinite proposed per the points I make above. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

I'm replying further down the page, but I have to say - wanna throw me a bone here? I'm not trying to game anything; I'm trying to act in the encyclopedia's best interests. Also, as I say below - I had, nor will I ever have, any grudges against Andy. I don't care if we've disagreed in the past; I outgrew grudges quite a few summers ago.

I understand that sometimes things look different from the other side of the fence, but I'm not acting maliciously and I'm not trying to game the system. I'd like to make that clear. m.o.p 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Andy's got his heart in the right place, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour. I've been the target of his personal attacks (which bordered on homo/transphobia) in the past and they're not pretty, especially when there's a culture on Wikipedia (that has existed for years) to give some users leeway because that's just what they're like, which definitely happened in my case. For years now, Andy's behaviour has been a lot worse than we would otherwise tolerate, and I think that MOP's block is justified, and indeed, maybe overdue. However, if he adheres to a strict civility parole, he should be allowed back. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo the indef block - should never have been implemented in the first place, given this ongoing discussion, the blocker's history with Andy, and the community's precedent not to indef block for incivility and personal attacks. I'm happy, however, for there to be a short block for his recent comments/behaviour. GiantSnowman 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The community does not have a "precedent not to indef block for incivility and personal attacks". It happens all the time. It just happens not to stick in some cases if the editor is popular enough to attract ANI flashmobs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Same difference. GiantSnowman 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Only if you agree with the latter, which is at present one of the most toxic notions on the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo indef block. I expressed surprise that the initial block was so short, but a unilateral extension to indef without community discussion was not appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  And yes, m.o.p was the wrong person to be extending blocks anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo of course... and then we'll see if he's still willing to put up with the nutcases that bait him. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block However given ATG's track record he should be blocked for a week at least. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block- in the hope that AndyTheGrump will not become AndyTheThermonuclearRagequit. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• To quote further up this thread - And lastly, "indef" for established editors nearly always means "short" around here anyway. And people wonder why the civility policy and 4th pillar is considered a joke. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block, but continue to monitor closely -- The Anome (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Torn Reality is that Andy has more than used up his own 9 lives when it comes to civility. Direct personal attacks - regardless of any perceived provocation - are against a core pillar. In reality, an indefinite block means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur" - with all the shots across the bow Andy has had, I think one could easily WP:IAR when it comes to who leveled the block and say "yeah, we as a community really need to know that Andy won't do it again - seriously this time". As such, I'm not wholly against indef, based on its meaning to Wikipedia. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see. Meanwhile, his detractors can now continue to bait him with insinuations of antisemitism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike is probably about 2 more stupid edits away from his own indef for provocation and NPA themself. Interaction bans might be needed, but Shrike's own behaviour lately has been 1-sided enough that yes, an actual ban may be needed - but that does not excuse Andy's actions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And I see you rejected to clarify the matter , abused you rollbock tool and violated WP:NPA [193]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He's free to ignore you and to "abuse" rollback on his talk page if he wishes. Let it go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ecx5)He cannot really complain about that, he insinuates others are racist and calls them bigots quite often. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have stricken my edit to not create more drama moreover my edit was not a vadalism--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - unwelcome attacks - especially if you have been asked to refrain from such interaction - can most certainly be rolled back on their user talkpage in that manner (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo It is shameful that Andy reacts badly when trolled, but it is more shameful that the community has bad-word police who cannot deal with the underlying problem (trolling and/or incompetence directed at Andy). Andy raised an issue with a claim that an editor has a "habit of writing sensationalist material, often based on a poor reading of often-questionable sources, frequently apparently aimed at placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light. Andy was then subjected to a string of absurd attacks which derailed the report. Civility police are useless if they are not able to deal with the underlying disruption before considering whether action against Andy is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This implies that there is no recourse to dealing with such disruption other than flying off the handle. No matter how many times this assertion is made, it doesn't get any truer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, as for that, Andy asked repeatedly above for admin intervention with Media-Hound and was ignored by you and all other admins on this page. Frankly, he had every right to tell you all in no uncertain terms to fuck off. Which he didn't. Take some responsibility, please. Exercise some subtlety, demonstrate some understanding of human nature. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The editor Andy asked to be sanctioned was blocked for four months. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
        • After Andy went ape. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
          • If you want to believe that the admin corps deliberately did nothing for 36 hours after Andy opened the thread, but took action within seven minutes solely because Andy threatened to vandalise the project, then there's little anyone is going to be able to do to persuade you otherwise, but it's not particularly plausible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I don't have to "believe" anything. The facts are above. Apart from some sound cool down advice from Bishonen, nobody addressed Andy's justified concerns raised at #Accusations of 'Cyber harassment' etc for 25 hours, despite repeated requests for attention, and escalating harassment from Media-Hound until immediately after he exploded.[194] What's to "believe"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block MoP's rationale says Andy was slandering. I'm pretty sure he was just insulting. (MoP seems to be confusing Andy with the editor Andy brought to this board, who was slandering, in the worst possible way, in a Wikipedia article.) Andy appealed repeatedly for admin intervention with Media-Hound above, who was slandering him, accusing him of cyber-bullying and darkly hinting about British legal processes, and was ignored by MoP and all (but one) other admins on this page. This is a regrettable outburst by a valuable contributor who clearly needs to step back from the computer and cool down for a spell. Also, given MoP's history with Andy, it was incredibly ill-judged of him/her to take this action. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Struck, in light of below comment by MoP. 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo Fram's block was justified but there didn't seem to be any real justification for changing it to indefinite in the circumstances (described by others above). Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo indef block per GiantSnowman.--В и к и T 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You know what the funny thing here is? I had no idea I'd even interacted with Andy until I read this thread. Something people should know about me - I don't hold grudges. Short of murdering someone I love, I believe people can change and better their lives. The reason that I don't remember ever interacting with Andy is because there wasn't anything personal between our disagreement; there wasn't anything personal between us when I first extended his block, nor is there anything personal between us now.

The reason I'm blocking Andy is simple, and can be found in my explanation here. Let's pretend that I'm only counting from my previous block of Andy; there have been 6 more blocks for a total of 540 hours. That's more than three weeks. And even after all of these incidents, the editor is still insulting others, threatening to vandalize and threatening to sockpuppet.

In case it's not been made clear yet - I couldn't care any less about my past with Andy. The thing I'm concerned about is that we have an editor here who, after years of activity and weeks of being blocked, still flies into a personal attack frenzy when provoked. Once, I'd be sympathetic. Twice, I'd be concerned. Nearly a dozen times? I'm not having it. And it pains me to say it, but every instinct in my body screams against unblocking, for the reasons above.

Also, since it's been skimmed over multiple times, please understand that this isn't simply a matter of personal attacks (though they are a large part of the problem). Andy literally threatens to vandalize and turn to sockpuppetry. At the risk of becoming redundant, I acknowledge that Andy has made constructive contributions, I have no personal grudge against him, but this behaviour is unacceptable.

So, there you have it. I've bolded things for people's convenience. Could this have been avoided? Completely. If Andy felt he was getting the short end of the stick, he could have raised the issue in a calm, civil manner, and it would have been dealt with in turn. Instead, he yet again violated core policies.

I'm going to take the block back down to the original time set because consensus seems to be in favour of that. Had I known who Andy was and our history, I wouldn't have blocked (though, as explained on Fram's talk page, I was originally intending to block him indefinitely anyway - Fram just pressed the button first). As I said above, I definitely do not want to scale this back; I feel that this was the last straw, and, until Andy apologizes (which he still has not done), the core issue still exists. But, consensus is king, and I will do my utmost to empower the community's decision (no matter how much I may disagree with it). m.o.p 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated comment I'd like to direct attention to Andy's reply here, along with his request that his threat of vandalism be stricken. In light of this apology, most of what I've said now may be treated as void; while I do still think that Andy's toeing the fine line between constructive and disruptive, an apology takes an admission of wrongdoing, and, as I said above, I don't think anyone's beyond reprieve. This isn't to say an apology is a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, but it's a much-appreciated step in the right direction. m.o.p 12:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for altering the block time to something reasonable. It would have been nice if you'd had the grace to express some regret for blocking in a case you ought not to have touched. Bishonen | talk 13:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

Addition: I see you say above "I had no idea I'd even interacted with Andy until I read this thread. Something people should know about me - I don't hold grudges." I'm glad to hear you have a lovely personality, but are you saying you weren't even aware you had blocked him before? You didn't remember the uproar about your 2011 block of him? OK, it was a while ago. But since you're aware that you don't remember bad interchanges, it seems to me that the least you could have done before blocking was to check his log, or yours, to see if you'd blocked him before. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

In reply to your first point - I'd express regret, but, to be blunt, I don't regret blocking Andy. Given the circumstances, his actions warranted an indefinite block in my eyes, and there's nothing more to it. My past with him (which was, again, unknown to me until you brought it up) had literally no bearing on my decision, and I won't defend myself for blocking an editor who threatened to vandalize and sock (of course, Andy's now apologized, so obviously the circumstances are different).

In reply to the second point; yes, I wasn't aware I had blocked him before. I was barely even aware of who he is. I can remember the details now that I've re-read the old diffs, but that's beside the point - if someone is disrupting Wikipedia to the extent of threatening to circumvent their block and vandalize the project, I'm more concerned with how to stop them. That being said, if I had been consciously aware of the specifics, I would have left the block alone to avoid this sort of discussion. m.o.p 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block. 24 hours was perfectly appropriate. We believe in escalating blocks as necessary here, not in rushing to the death penalty. At least, most of us... Carrite (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo Andy may or may not deserve an indef. But per WP:INVOLVED, Master of Puppets should not have taken any action with regards to Andy. LK (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility parole feeler proposal

We're all agreed that Andy commits civility infractions that we often let slide. However, I think some of us are also concerned with the frequency. Back in my editing heyday, the Designated Grump was User:Giano, who was a good article writer but often got very angry. Eventually, with a lot of prodding, he learnt to keep cool and take breaks when the going got hot. I don't think he's been blocked in a long time since. Hence, I'm putting out a feeler proposal towards a civility parole, with specifics to be discussed, to try and reign in his anger. It'd be sad to lose a good editor due to his anger. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• What a fucking ridiculous prat you are to utter such rubbish! Giano (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if we add an interaction ban that Shrike cannot interact with Andy ... let's not put the yoke on only 1 editor here when there's plenty of blame to share (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record - I've already requested that Shrike avoid interacting with Andy for now; formalizing this would be completely OK with me. m.o.p 11:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This community's "civility policy" is, put simply, fucked. Perhaps we could consider civility parole as a behaviour modification tool once the community decides what civility is. That will happen. But until it does, civility parole is unworkable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The community has codified civility for years and years and years, broadly in line with how decent society codifies it. The existence of a remarkably vocal minority on ANI and other drama boards utterly rejecting it doesn't change that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. (And I can't help but find it interesting that other policies don't get the same "for thee but not for me" treatment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The community's take on civility is topsy-turvy - X can say something and get away with it, but Y can't etc. Until that is sorted, this 'civility parole' idea is a non-runner. GiantSnowman 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sigh. "Civility parole" is precisely what the community has come up with to resolve this: that certain class of wikicelebrities who, until now, have been free to do as they please are put on a "civility parole" which basically says "behave like all the common people or you'll get blocked like all the common people". They actually regard being asked to stop acting in ways which would get any regular editor uncontroversially blocked as a sanction. But nonetheless, this broadly works with the exception of (literally) a handful of high-profile cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Cilvility Parole for XYZ only means one thing: everybody's free to have a field day baiting and pushing XYZ to the limit until it's "gotcha!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that people are not free to bait anyone at all. If Andy was (hypothetically) on civility parole and someone baited him, it would be incredibly easy for Andy to turn to an admin, say "Here are some diffs", and have the admin take care of the baiting user (who would face appropriate repercussions) while Andy went on his own way. m.o.p 12:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I am of the opinion any editor or admin who is found to have 'baited' someone under sanctions - they should have to share the sanction/punishment. Sadly however MoP it doesnt work that way - take a look at the recent YRC action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I started typing out a reply to this but it got too long, and I don't want to drag this off topic. I agree - however, ideally the baiter should be the only one punished, as the person being baited should know to avoid replying. If they reply, it's no longer solely the baiter's fault. m.o.p 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If that utopia really was true, we wouldn't have all these issues. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an idealist, I know. But I'll defend anyone - Andy included - who's being targeted by others. Of course, it has to be brought to my attention before someone flies off the hook, because that escalates things. If baiting happens, I'd like to see it reported without the person being baited reacting. m.o.p 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• There appear to be two problems, here. 1)The apparent claim that it's ok to say anything you want, if you are "right." And 2) utter impatience with everyone else. These demonstrated problems for any user in a multi-party discussion format covering all time zones, to find consensus just will not be tolerated forever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  First deal with the oily snarkers who bait and bait and bait and then come running to ANI when their target dares to utter an obscenity. Then we can talk about the people who tell them to fuck off. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that POV-pushing ethnic/nationalists who bait productive editors are never dealt with. They usually are, and harshly. Moreover, that still repeats the fallacy that the only way to deal with such baiting is to explode, which denigrates the efforts of those who manage otherwise. Lastly, even where editors do lose their cool in such situations, the community normally gets the right idea anyway (I'm thinking of a recent incident with Sitush). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  (ec) I'm just putting these problems in order of importance. Stop the provocation and you don't have to worry about what the retaliation is like. Reyk _YO! 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  No, as the problem is presented we have to deal with both. The later often interferes with dealing with the former. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh-my-god-oppose. Sceptre, I appreciate your good intentions here, but when you say I don't think [Giano]'s been blocked in a long time since. Hence, I'm putting out a feeler proposal towards a civility parole it just shows me you don't know much about Giano's civility parole. It was an arbcom sanction that became (in)famous for working so badly, and leading to so much baiting and so much lawyering, that it became an example and a warning to all later arbcoms: Civility paroles don't work. They stopped using them as a result. The reason Giano is rarely blocked nowadays is that he rarely edits nowadays. Oppose because, you know, Civility paroles don't work. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC).
  • Considering that a civility parole got broken, assessed, and said breaking resulted in an indef ban just two days ago, I think saying "they stopped using them" is a little counterfactual. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That wasnt imposed by arbcom. nableezy - 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal was absurd. Tattoo this as a memento: "The reason Giano is rarely blocked nowadays is that he rarely edits nowadays." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, oppose - Per Bishonen above. And usually "civility parole" just encourages unscrupulous editors (if they may be called that - I'm avoiding incivility here myself, but there's a dozen better words for these folks than 'editors') to begin baiting and provoking the subject so they can go running to AN/I with a report and demand more serious sanctions. Bad incentives.Volunteer Marek 17:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Who's The Man With The Golden Gun pushed to the back of the "baited" editors' heads forcing them to reply to the baiting? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, surprisingly - because we don't need to be putting individual editors on "civility parole". We need to simply put the community's foot down and state clearly: if you egreriously violate policy, you will be blocked, regardless of which policy it is. WP:CIVIL is a core policy and one of the Five Pillars. There is precisely zero reason for anyone to "get away with it" when they flaunt it any more than we'd let fragrant nose-thumbing of WP:V or WP:COPYVIO slide. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Andy is worth his weight in gold because of his work on BLP issues and because he is a leading indicator of good sense. We've had enough target-painting on the backs of article-writers by reverse leading indicators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wait a second... I'm a little surprised to see the OP suggest a sanction on Andy without disclosing the background between the two editors. Participants in this thread shouldn't be misled into thinking this is being proposed by a disinterested party. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Andy has a function here. It can be brutal and you might want to avert your eyes, but we need at least a few hardcore, committed Wikipedians willing to go to the mat to crush out civil or semi-civil POV warriors. Sometimes he goes too far. Sometimes he punches the wrong person in a scrum. But he is as invaluable in his own way to the big picture of Wikipedia as somebody like New York Brad is in constructing ArbCom decisions or Moonridden Girl is in analyzing and fighting copyright violations. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanctions are about preventing disruption and civility paroles just take an often disruptively-applied policy, and add a shot of nitro to it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a civility restriction enforced by a suspended block, as in this RfC/U outcome, might be an option? Prioryman (talk) 09:29, 26 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:Nickaang Paid Editing And Disruptive Behaviour.

• Nickaang (talk · contribs)

Nickaang has on at least two occasions admitted to creating promotional articles in exchange for "tips" [195], [196]. These article were all created in quick succession and most of them IMHO do not even come close to passing the GNG. Everytime I mention this to Nickaang I get some variation on "I searched the web and this has a lot of hits so it's good." I have sent about a half dozen of these articles to AFD. In response Nickaang has reported me to RPP [197], AIV [198], and has now started trying to Prod notable articles that I have worked on in the past [199]. If Nickaang really wants to contribute to project in a constructive way as he has claimed several times he sure has a funny way of doing. Ridernyc (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Nickaang's PROD of The River of Crime (Episodes 1–5), an album by The Residents, was clearly retaliatory and in bad faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also since noticed that despite having a ref improve tag on it, it is indeed referenced so the reason given for the prod is totally invalid. Ridernyc (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already apologized to you [200] and apologizing again. I'm very sorry for all the trouble caused to you by me. I've asked you for help which you reverted as vandalism [201]. I've created about 21 articles out of which 9 are marked for deletion but you're saying almost all my articles are paid promotional [202]. I've created all the articles in good faith and not whenever I get money without considering Wikipedia policies. If I have to do bad then I wouldn't admit paid editing in your question [203]. I learned that I was wrong in choosing the web sources for references but whenever I found that the topic is not meeting the Wikipedia guidelines then I accepted that like I did here [204] long before you marked the first article created by me for afd. But one thing I should say that you were not nice to me from the beginning and also in your talk page I found similar with other editors [205]. All I want now is neutral editors or admins who will review all the pages I created via process to check if they should be deleted or not. To be honest I've no problem if the pages I created stay or deleted but my problem is accusing me for creating all articles for payment. Please, just advise me. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have zero interest or concern about your apology. Your disruptive editing is the issue. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of policy and are simply acting out of vengeance at this point. Your pages are at AFD and most of them are well on their way to deletion, one of them was already taken care of through CSD. Your focus on me will not stop the process or prevent the process from happening to any of your other articles. Stop focusing on me, stop trying to stop me or get back at me. Focus on learning policy and sourcing your articles. Tired of this. Ridernyc (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now also found this truly great bit of disruption, creating an article then a day later commenting that it needs to be deleted at AFD [206]. Now I have seen everything. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You've found it or I showed you? I've already commented on this and I'm also tired of you and don't pretend to be the boss of wikipedia[207] and bashing me for paid editing then you also need to learn the wikipedia policies. NickAang (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that AfD a little differently from Ridernyc. He was simply trying to withdraw the article, having been convinced by the discussion that it would not stand. People have done that before, and its very satisfactory when an AfD gets a agreed result like this, just as much when the nom withdraws, being convinced the article should stay. Since he is the only positive contributor to the article, I closed it as speedy G7. As for the paid editor stuff, it's no worse than the Reward board, which explicitly permits offering money, though the most recent monetary offer was in 2010 [208] and the last one actually awarded was in 2008 [209]. I think I will once more try to eliminate monetary offerings, as a suggested edit on that talk page. In the current environment, it's no longer harmless. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey NickAang, all you need to do is provide a clear list of which articles you have been paid to edit. Your comments so far has been extremely vague. Just put the list on your user page (see WP:BESTCOI) and you'll be good to go. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that would be a start but I would say listening to others and a willingness to learn before he creates more articles is also of the utmost importance. Constantly repeating "This is notable it has web hits" ad nauseum is the larger problem. I've lost count of how many times this editor says "I'm sorry I didn't mean to create pages that violate policy", and then the next edit they say "This is notable it has a tons of web hits." I've also noticed a developing pattern where these paid editors seem to be messing around in NPP and checking of pages and removing CSD notices for each others articles. That was how I stumbled on this to begin with. This all started with a quick 10 minute break from wiki retirement during a bought of insomnia "hey let me do a NPP." Also it's really to figure out the ones they were not paid to create. Ridernyc (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the articles that were created by Nickaang. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked at Black Oxygen and determined that Nickaang's text was overly promotional, a violation of WP:PEACOCK, so I trimmed it way back. The band is notable enough, though, as they have single on the charts (satisfying WP:BAND), so this article is not a problem with borderline notability. The next step is to see if the references really support the remaining text. Another problem I saw was that the chronology was not at all clear, that Nickaang's composition did not convey a straightforward timeline—it jumped around. I got the strange impression that the article was mostly written by someone working for the band. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have rewritten Evan Kosiner, the only one that I think stands a chance of surviving an AfD, having looked closely at the articles. I told Nick to forget about the articles at AfD, and that paid editing will not get him any friends, so if he ignores that, he's asking for trouble. Similarly, Ridernyc should ignore Nick's comments on the AfD, as consensus will sort them out, and saying "I have zero interest or concern about your apology" might get a whack from the WP:BOOMERANG - why not try and get The Residents to Good Article status instead? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Faster2010 continues stealth vandalism, refusing to participate in discussion

I brought up this discussion about a week ago here, posting diffs of unexplained, incorrect changes that Faster2010 made that contradicted the sources. Two other editors similarly brought up diffs, yet the discussion was archived without action. Since that time he has continued to engage in what appears to be subtle vandalism, such as changing the the runtime for the Incredibles from 115 minutes to 108 minutes, which contradicts the sources for the article. He appears to be using legitimate minor edits to try and hide these subtle, incorrect edits. In the two years here he has only made 1 edit to article talk, and 3 edits to user talk, can an admin please require that he explain his actions here? Other diffs:

• 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

The rest of this is from User:Axem Titanium from the previous ani discussion:

• 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).

OakRunner (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted User:Mark Arsten to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Anon vandalism to cricket related articles

There's recently been a spate of vandalism to cricket related articles, principally Limited overs cricket (now semi-protected) and Test cricket. The vandalism is clearly from the same user, but from different addresses. The pattern is always the same: repeat the same vandalism whilst ignoring all warnings until blocked, then posting an unblock request along the lines of "i'm sorry for being so mean, i won't do it again." I blocked 120.148.224.186 ‎ (talk · contribs · ‎ WHOIS) for six months on 24 Jan, following several chances, so any further vandalism is block evasion, and I've increased the block on some other addresses to match this. Could someone look at the addresses in question, and carry out a range block if required. In the meantime, if anyone else spots this sort of vandalism, I would suggest they can be blocked for a long period without warning.

The addresses in question are:

• 120.148.224.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.172.213.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.173.127.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.173.85.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.172.42.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 202.161.23.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 124.148.184.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There may be others.  An optimist on the run! 12:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Limited overs cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Test cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• England cricket team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It looks like every IP from your list that has been active since 25 January has been blocked. No range block is possible. I've extended the semiprotection on Test cricket. Unclear if there is anything more that can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Reopening User:Flagrantedelicto

I would like to reopen the complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783#Verbal abuse and outing by User:Flagrantedelicto, as I don't think the user got the message. He seems unable to discuss the source material without attacking me: here he accuses me of a "propensity for embellishment and/or inaccuracy". He's welcome to look for other editors who agree with him, and to open an RfC or whatever, but until then, he needs to stop using an article talk page to assess my intellectual acuity and ability to read and summarize sources. We all make errors sometimes, but high content standards matter to me. (For some reason, he dumped an entire TOC into the talk page in order to show I made a typo on the volume number of a periodical.) I'm the one doing all the research and finding sources, and somehow this is a reason to impugn my work, as the user's crude praeteritio insinuates ("it is not that I am suspicious of Cynwolfe"). I believe that admins Someguy1221 and The Bushranger had the right initial instinct. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cynwolfe. I have put a stern warning on his talk page. Any further insults will likely result in a block. -- Dianna (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The user seems to be trying to control that impulse by diverting it toward the scholars themselves—so now the discussion is inclining toward what RS are for this topic. Apparently, neither an ancient inscription recording Antony's DOB as January 14, nor the affirming of that date by several scholars notable enough to be blue-linked, is sufficient. Another editor who mainly contributes in the area of ancient Roman prosopography just gave a clear and detailed summary of the evidence, but Flagrantedelicto seems deep in "I didn't hear that" territory. Or there may be a misunderstanding of procedures for compiling an article, whereby what he thinks is supposed to count more than published scholarship. That's a bigger problem than insulting me personally, even though that hurts. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully your trip to the library will be fruitful. There may be no definitive answer to what Marc Antony's date of birth was, but all we can hope for is that the article presents a balanced summary of the current state of the research. -- Dianna (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. It was very fruitful. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Persistent Warsaw Ghetto Uprising vandalism from a single-purpose account

"Unique2tell" is an account solely dedicated to defaming the second only to the Jews...the largest group of victims of Nazi racial policy (as quoted from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and here's another article detailing what they faced while "volunteering") and to whitewashing the actual Lithuanian volunteers (because they were recruited not from the prisoners starving to death by their millions, but from free men who came on their own will to murder the Jews - and this what they did: The Lithuanians carried out violent riots against the Jews both shortly before and immediately after the arrival of German forces....German Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units), together with Lithuanian auxiliaries, began murdering the Jews of Lithuania...murdered about 90 percent of Lithuanian Jews, one of the highest victim rates in Europe), seriously needs a block - because page protection from vandalism didn't work, and that's literally all he does. --Niemti (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly vandalism but it does look like POV pushing.Volunteer Marek 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Airplaneman#Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising is a relevant post on my talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 20:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah: These Nations did not commit those atrocities of their own free will, they were forced to do so. - yeah, because these "Nations" were totally "forced" to start doing things such as this literally right away. --Niemti (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti, your way of presenting this case is unhelpful; I would recommend rewording it. We don't want to see lengthy quotations demonstrating what you think the historical truth is; we want to see diffs to Unique2tell (talk · contribs) making concrete objectionable edits, and brief explanations why they are objectionable. But from what I've seen, I agree Unique2tell is a tendentious editor and needs to be reined in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Standard WP:ARBEE warning given. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, like the latest one - a vilifaction of the second-largest group of the Nazi victims (Soviet POWs, of whom over 3 million were systematically starved to death or otherwise murdered) as Volunteer Collaborators and Soviet volunteer auxiliaries, and at the same time the whitewash of the murderously antisemtic (see above) Lithuanian collaborators, who were actually volunteers (and who were murdering Jews even back as civilians and militiamen, sometimes even before the German troops arrived) as Subjugated Collaborators of "Nazi created Puppet Governments". Unique2tell Several repeated edits just like that in the past, a refusal to stop. --Niemti (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page due to the ongoing content dispute. Airplaneman ✈ 21:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And I blocked Unique2tell (sorry, before I saw you made the protection), for a week, since he continued revert-warring immediately after my warning, and his response on his talkpage wasn't encouraging either [210]. My impression is that the disruption is clearly asymmetrical here; while Niemti may often not be a model Wikipedian either, the tendentiousness in this case is certainly on Unique's side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You protected it in a vandalized state. (Btw, here's a quite relevant recent article by Timothy Snyder about this issue, Neglecting the Lithuanian Holocaust - Horrible as the Soviet occupation was, the largest group of genocide victims in Lithuania were the Jews murdered by the Germans with the help of the local population.) PF: I think I'm actually quite "a model Wikipedian", but taht's my opinion. --Niemti (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid a WP:WRONGVERSION argument (it's not "vandalized", please learn the difference at last) will not have much weight with Airplaneman. Still, I'm not sure the protection really helps at this point. As the main culprit of the edit-warring is blocked for a week, keeping the page protected for the same time only serves to delay the necessary resolution – and it seems pretty clear to me, from an outside perspective, that the only such resolution can be to return the passages in question to the stable and obviously more neutrally worded version from before Unique's disruptive edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

OK then, "in a disruptive edited state". Also, a sample about the Lithuanian collaborationist police: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/08/nazi-collaborator-%E2%80%9Cjews-screamed-like-geese%E2%80%9D-while-being-shot/ - we're talking about whitewashing these guys. They killed or helped to kill hundreds of thousands of people in and outside Lithuania (and like Snyder noted: Our imaginations are dominated by Auschwitz, even though more far more Jews were shot at places like Ponary than were murdered in its gas chambers.) and no, no one "forced" them to do it (but the Soviet POWs were indeed forced to defect, because they were given a choice to either collaborate or to starve to death or be shot and sometimes gassed or even burned alive). --Niemti (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that the notice was placed before further edits were made. As that is the case, I agree with Future Perfect that a full protection isn't the best option at this point. And yes, the "wrong version" argument doesn't work. The article is unprotected now. Airplaneman ✈ 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Iamkumarabhishek

Can an admin please undo his move of his user page to a mainspace page. Looks like he might need WP:CHU explaining to him. NtheP (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have explained how to CHU, and also that his user page is not the place for a long autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Users Bridge70002 and Arxiloxosworksformafia (legal threats and BLP violations at New Orleans crime family)

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.

---

Bridge70002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

At the article New Orleans crime family a new editor, User:Bridge70002 inserted unsourced material about a person claimed to be the latest boss of that crime family. Informed about the requirements of WP:BLP [211][212] the editor has responded disparagingly about the BLP policy[213], restored the unsourced material[214], and also now claims to be someone working in law enforcement who will have me investigated for taking "payoffs from Cosa Nostra members". [215][216]. The unsourced material has also been re-inserted, once, by another new user with the charming name User:Arxiloxosworksformafia.[217] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indeffed both accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 28 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.

A gross breach of WP:BLP at the 'Derby sex gang' 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.

---

Amongst all the other problems with the recently-created Derby sex gang article, it had remained unnoticed util an hour or so ago that amongst those described as 'convicted' was an individual entirely unconnected with the case. This individual had been included right form the start, which has made a redaction of almost the entire edit history necessary. The person responsible, user:AnkhMorpork, has attempted to post an apology of sorts to ANI while asking for a revdel [218] (this has been deleted as 'wrong venue' for the revdel) but given the severity of the error, I consider a mere apology inadequate. Not only was this a gross breach of WP:BLP policy, it could possibly even have legal repercussions, given the source that AnkhMorpork seems to have got it from. This user seems to have a habit of writing sensationalist material, often based on a poor reading of often-questionable sources, frequently apparently aimed at placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light. Given this latest fiasco, and its potential ramifications, I have to ask whether it is in Wikipedia's interests to let this editor contribute to such articles at all? I think not...

(A reminder: DO NOT under any circumstances name the individual concerned, and DO NOT provide links to sources which would allow the name to be inferred - we must not compound the problem by drawing more attention to the individual) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've popped it onto pending changes given that it's history has been one gigantic BLP violation. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I erroneously included a name when creating the table of perpetrators in the Derby sex gang. As soon as I became aware of my unfortunate error, I removed the name and requested revision deletion. I must have gotten confused with a recent case of child grooming that I was reading about and was simultaneously working on, in which this individual's name was mentioned.

I obviously understand the BLP ramifications of such a mistake and will certainly be more careful in the future.

• "often-questionable sources" - I ensured that I only used reliable sources when creating the Derby sex gang. The sources used in the article are: the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Times. This accusation is unfounded.
• "placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light." - I am mindful of the sensitive nature of this article and before I created it, I asked an experienced editor, Malik Shabazz for advice on whether I had described the analysis section in a "balanced and accurate manner". He replied that "the section represents fairly what the sources say" upon which I created the article.

I have tried my best to represent what the sources have stated in a fair and neutral manner. Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to.

• Upon discovering my erroneous inclusion, Andy opened a new section on the talk page emblazoning the name of the individual in big font, which subsequently had to be redacted; this despite him being aware of the BLP implications. Another editor commented on this inconsistent approach. If an editor more experienced than myself of BLP considerations, and who is aware of an imminent problem, can similarly cock-up, perhaps you might appreciate that my error could similarly have been unintentional.Ankh.Morpork 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that there have been no convictions regarding this other case of alleged child grooming either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to. For some reason I doubt that. I cant see another reason for edits like this. nableezy - 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that AnkhMorpork, in his very first edit to this shambles of an article, thought it prudent to specify the group as "Asian men" (my italics) tells you everything you need to know about this editor, and what he wanted to achieve with the article. Not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. GiantSnowman 20:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And it tells you exactly the same about The Telegraph who reported: Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims, upon which I based my edit. Two other editors on the talk page agreed with this inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep - on the right-side of the political spectrum. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And we're not supposed to mention the ethnicity at all, even when it's mentioned in reliable sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'the ethnicity'. Not all the offenders were from the same background - though It took a comment from me on the talk page to point out that a 'non-Asian' offender had been omitted (and even then, the individual's name seems to have been spelled wrongly, thogh by whom it is hard to tell, given that the article history has been redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger - we shouldn't give the ethnicity WP:UNDUE weight, as AnkhMorpork loves to do. GiantSnowman 09:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ankh's last point in his first reply above (added after I had replied, contrary to talk page guidelines), When I started the new section on the name, I was of course entirely unaware of where it came from, and of the possible repercussions. Initially I wondered if another source had named the man as one of those convicted, and the source had merely been omitted. It would clearly have been impossible to ask where it came from at that point without actually naming the individual. As soon as I was aware of the precise situation, I of course moved to have it redacted. It seems that AnkhMorpork is trying to distract us from the significant event here - a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing this side show which has nothing to do with matter above Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry AndyTheGrump - I have been watching matters unfold and I now feel obliged to ask "you" to account for the following. On 20 Jan you raised the issue of three named persons being included in a table - you felt that they should not be included as the history and sources did not warrant inclusion. Given that you had to asses the content of the table and the people included - how is it possible that you missed the inclusion of a name not connected to the case in anyway? Which sources were you using to recognise three people correctly and yet fail to see a person who should not be included at all? Please explain the error(s)! I was shocked when I discovered it - as I was working though all page content and history and was aware of your participation and focus on the very place where the BLP violation was found Three days later. You had been making so much pointed comment about BLP I was Stunned that a Violation of such magnitude was there. How did you miss it? I am concerned about the amount of smoke that is suddenly being blown. Also access to history and diffs is not an issue as the matter, time references are clear and recorded on the talk page! 3 Gross violation of WP:BLP policy Under the circumstances I find this language by you "a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence." to be inappropriate and disingenuous. Kindly stop smoking up the Joint! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) What the fuck! This thread is getting complex enough without having to put up with such nonsense. No I didn't check and copy-edit the entire article (though I wish I had). Neither did you. Neither apparently did anyone else. Are you trying to purposely derail this thread, or just waffling on for your own personal satisfaction? Anyway, if you accuse me of drug-taking again I reserve my right to whatever recourse I see fit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Andy- It's not derailing it's simple - How did you miss the BLP Violation on the 20th whilst citing three BLP violations in the same table? I did spot the issue whilst reading Auditing and verifying every cited source - I'm like that I check everything and look at the BIG Picture. Again you seem to be blowing smoke to divert away from multiple fails .... especially you own. I note you have not answered the Direct Questions but made inferences about me, that I take as Ad Hominum so stop it. It's a well known but very poor Blocking & Derailing tactic . It does not make you look good. Again I advise you to moderate your language and tone as well as stopping the Smoke. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) How did I miss it? I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page shoyuld make clear. And as for blowing smoke, given that you have already accused me of drug taking, I'll make as many ad hominem attacks on you as I feel like, as long as you continue to try to derail this thread with your deranged ramblings and accusations of drug-taking. I suggest you cease spamming this thread with nonsense before an admin steps in and makes you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I see that you have yet again stated I have accused you of taking Drugs. can I have a reference to show me and any other readers when and how this has been done? I'm fascinated by your claims and wonder why you are making them? Do you have a valid reason for making such false claims? You evidently ave no problem in making yourself look bad, so there is no point in advising to stop blowing any more smoke or moderate your tone. You evidently have no interest in reality or how you look to others. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) You wrote "Kindly stop smoking up the Joint!" above. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is how I read it. Now, will an admin kindly advise this troll to stop disrupting ANI with vacuous bollocks, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Right here, don't be disingenous. You put that capital J there for a reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The editor has a long history of writing lurid, sensationalist tabloid articles on crimes that happen to have been committed by Arab or Muslims. The editor's MO in these articles is always to highlight the most lurid, sensational aspects and too keep ethnicity and religion front and centre. While I have no reason to doubt that this particular incident was an honest mistake, it was a mistake that occurred in the process of activity, that in my view, is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) As the person who spotted the BLP issue, raised it with AndyTheGrump I have been looking at all factors in and around the "fail", rechecking and re-auditing matters. I would like to add the following points for consideration by all parties. : I became aware of the page and content issues due to an Rfc. It was clear from the outset that personal views and dogma were being allowed to over-ride Wiki content policies and requirements. It has evidently been a long standing issue. It was because of that lack of clarity - and the sense of "Own" that was being shown by a group and a that an uneasy obscurity was being maintained ..... I started to audit all page content. As I audited It became harder and harder to accept that the sources cited supported the assertions made, and there was a growing indication of WP:SYNTH. I was even becoming concerned as to how basic layout, sectioning and positioning of links appeared to promote a certain set of perceptions rather than neutrality. Then much to my amazement and shock, the BLP Violation jumped up and ended all progress. I can't understand the claims of orogin for the Violation - especially as it's being indicated that the name came form a different case, in a different city in a different year. The linkage of name to specific criminal activity makes the explanation highly implausible. Wrong name from wrong case linked to right criminal activity? However - I am also disappointed that the error was found in a table that has been subject to hot debate and alteration of content - especially names that should not be included. How was it possible to claim that two names should not be included without checking all the included names for accuracy? That also requires explanation and needs to be factored in to the bigger picture. The question of table content was raised and acted upon on 20 Jan See here, and yet the error was missed even then. It had to wait another 3 days for me to have to audit everything to spot a Glaring Issue that should have been recognised days ago before if basic goof editorial practice had been followed by anyone. I'm disappointed in ""all"" concerned as there had been multiple opportunities for multiple editors to spot the issue and act - so it's a multi-person, multi-factor fail on multiple sides .... and not just one person. I do feel that needs to be made clear so that all parties can learn. I fear that passions have exceeded reason for all concerned and that has not been good for anyone or wiki! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I am quite sure it would have come to light sooner without the diversionary tactics, off-topic waffle, and general obstructionism evident on the article talk page - including what appears to quite possibly be an attempt to hold an RfC on whether to ignore WP:BLP policy, and cite sources for something they don't say - see Talk:Derby sex gang#RFC on WP:BLP policy. However, I think we need to stay on topic here - and the topic is that AnkhMorpork, through what at best can only be described as gross negligence, falsely described a person entirely unconnected with the case as a convicted sex criminal. I can think of no legitimate reason to allow someone so utterly incompetent to continue to edit such articles - and so far, none has been given. Contributors have to be held accountable for their contributions - otherwise, the entire concept of a user-generated encyclopaedia breaks down. If this was a genuine mistake, it was a mistake made by someone clearly lacking the elementary skills needed to edit. This error (if it can be described as such) was present in the first draft. AnkhMorpork had plenty of time to check it, but failed to do so. It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Again More Smoke being blown - so Direct Question - why is it that on 20th Jan you are berating people over BLP Violations which could only be assessed by you referencing on sources - and yet at the same time you missed that a person with no link to the whole Derby Sex Abuse case was listed as convicted of offences they had no connection to? It's pretty basic in Good editorial practice when dealing with contested content and sources - You Check - everything! Why Didn't you? Say you were busy - the dog needed to be walked - but don't try and cover it up by pointing fingers at others. You do see how it starts to look bad that you are saying of others It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute and yet you are not willing to account for your own equally significant failures. At least the other person said My Fault I'm Sorry what do we do to fix it. You are acting in a way that appears exploitative. You represent yourself as an authority in BLP, but you are not setting an example to be followed. Again I advise that you stop blowing smoke and moderate your tone and language about others. It's making you look bad. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) See my response above. Then fuck off and troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And the both of you take a trout and chillaxe before blocks for policy violations (you know, WP:CIVIL) start getting tossed around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah - WP:CIVIL, which says you mustn't be rude to each other - keep the self-evidently libellous material back for non-contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Which applies to everyone as a policy (and, as it happens, one of the Five Pillars), same as WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) What? "Libel anyone else if you like but don't be rude to each other" is one of the five pillars? I never knew that ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the bold move to collapse the above argument. It's an oft said thing about ANI's that all it takes is one comment from another editor and a whole new can of worms is unleashed without the original issue being dealt with first. If anyone thinks that this action was inappropriate, I have no issue with being reverted. If anyone wants to revert and open up a new thread, also please feel free. It is my hope that one thing at a time gets dealt with rather than one ANI descending into a chaotic mishmash of X number of threads causing all manner of headaches. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of 'Cyber harassment' etc

Sadly, I am going to have to refer to User:Media-hound-_thethird's behaviour once more. I have just discovered that this contributor has posted at AnkhMorpork's talk page, accusing me of "failing to honestly report matters", of "exploitation of Wiki Systems and protocols to pursue agendas in mendacious ways", of "Cyber harassment" - specifically mentioning the UK " Protection from harassment act 1997", of "Using ANI as a cover to carry about patterns that are harrasment" and of "Lynchings to cover up other people's fails".[219][220] Frankly, I am bewildered by this. A few hours ago Media-hound was posting on my talk page to bring the improper name problem to my attention, to ask about issues with Wikipedia search etc. It seems that it was only after I made it clear that I wasn't interested in what looked to be a speculative conspiracy theory [221] [222][223][224] that Media-hound suddenly decided that it was me, rather than AnkhMorpork, who was supposedly responsible for this mess, and that it was me that had to answer for it all. I really can't see any rational reason for this whatsoever, and am genuinely baffled at Media-hound's sudden change of tack. In any case, regardless of what brought it about, I have to ask that at minimum, Media-hound be told in no uncertain terms that such postings are unacceptable, and that false and malicious accusations of breaches of UK law (Media-hound is aware that I am a UK resident, incidentally) are in particular likely to result in sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound is obviously running an obstructionist line to derail this report, and it is disheartening to see The Bushranger falling for it—naughty words get a threat of a block, while there is zero comment on the substance per not my department. I'm not sure what can be done about "good faith" incompetence because the community is gaining too many editors who fail to understand or care about WP:NOTNEWS, and who believe it is productive to insert gossip into articles that rank #1 in Google. Media-hound's accusations of dishonesty and "Cyber Harrasment" against Andy at User talk:AnkhMorpork#ANI notification are beyond absurd, and I have no idea if it is incompetence or another attempt to derail the report by provoking an outburst. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound's comments there look to add up to a legal threat, far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see I need to ask some more direct questions:

1. Since when has it nor been permitted in Wiki for an editor upon assessment of content to change their op8inions and views of either content or another editor?
2. Why do you persist in attacking others and diverting from from your own failures of 20 Jan 2013?
3. Why are you Wiki Lawyering and not doing as advised in Wiki such as:

Wikipedia:NPLT#Perceived_legal_threats

"Handling: users should seek to clarify the user's intention (if unclear), explain this policy, and ask if they are willing to withdraw the threat. This helps to ensure that a mere misunderstanding or ignorance of our policies is not involved. Even if comments may not be per se legal threats, they may still fall under the scope of other policies related to disruption or incivility."

It is clear that you are determined to divert attention from yourself by any means - and that you are embarked upon copnduct that I do define as Bullying and Cyber Harassment. You are therefore asked yet again and advised to moderate your tone and language.

The pattern of constructing false allegations and the repeated use of misdirection is a well document pattern of bullying designed to fatigue and burden those targeted with excessive work to disprove each falsity. Please do pursue your persecutions by any means - but you have tried to defend your fails by 1) Trivialisation and now 2) Counter attack . You have been advised that your conduct was not looking good - and now I am obliged to make it clear why - WP:UNCIVIL is too mild.

Again - Kindly stop your misconduct and refrain from behaviour which is Bullying and Harassing. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive; I, as an uninvolved editor, have asked you on your talk page to retract your statement, as it could easily be interpreted as a legal threat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of responding to the abject nonsense above, beyond repeating what I have already said regarding my 'failures of Jan 20th' and expanding it to make clear what occurred - that " I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page [should] make clear". [225] To expand further, I saw that a table included individuals in an article on a 'sex gang' that were stated to have been convicted on non-sexually-related crimes. Considering this a violation of WP:BLP policy, I deleted them from the table, see [[226]] Did I check the other entries? No. Should I have done? With hindsight, one can argue 'yes', given that an individual was named who was neither charged nor convicted of anything, and appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the events leading to the convictions. That is hindsight however. I do not, as a normal procedure, check an entire article against sources before correcting errors and/or breaches of policy, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect contributors to do so as a matter of course. The simple fact here is that contributors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their own edits. This is a core principle of the way Wikipedia works - there are no separate 'fact checkers', 'copy editors' or other such functionaries. I assumed, (wrongly, obviously) that AnkhMorpork was working from the sources he cited, and that the sole problem with the list was inclusion of individuals who were convicted of crimes, but not of sexually-related ones - and who therefore shouldn't be described by Wikipedia as part of a 'sex gang'. So why is Media-hound holding me personally responsible for AnkhMorpork's gross error? I have no idea, beyond suspecting that Media-hound took umbrage at my refusal to consider his wild conspiracy theories seriously. I didn't check the entire article against sources, but neither did anyone else, until fortunately Media-hound discovered the name problem, and raised it at my talk page. So can I be held in any way responsible? Of course not - I did nothing that I shouldn't, and was under no more obligation to check the article than I am to check any other Wikipedia article - i.e. none whatsoever, as a volunteer. If Media-hound is suggesting that there is some kind of obligation to check the entire content of each and every article against sources before making changes, or before commenting on talk pages, I can only state that this isn't the way Wikipedia works, and that Wikipedia couldn't possibly work that way. The sole person responsible for the error was AnkhMorpork, and I consider Media-hound's attempts to somehow shift the blame to me to be as obnoxious as they are ridiculous, and beneath contempt. If contributors who act to deal with serious WP:BLP violations and the like are to be faced with such random and nonsensical attacks from contributors in future, my advice, sadly, would be to stay the hell out of such issues, and let some other poor sucker deal with the problems. I attempted to deal with problems in good faith, and in return have been confronted with wild (if not entirely deranged) attacks from someone who was only hours before drawing them to my attention, and asking for advice. On this basis, I have already indicated that I think AnkhMorpork should be facing sanctions for what was a grievous error, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in suggesting, given that Media-hound has repeated his ridiculous and nonsensical attempts to hold me responsible for AnkhMorpork's failings, that Media-hound be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on the grounds set out WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE - a clueless troublemaker, if ever there was one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you have been very informative, Andy, thank you, and thank you indeed for raising the matter in the first place. Please take a deep breath and take the thread off your watchlist now. You're letting yourself be played like a musical instrument. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

At least it has been settled amicably, at last. Basket _Feudalist 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Summing up

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.

---

Well, having reviewed the diffs posted here and the article history, I must say that I get an unpleasant vibe. AnkhMorpork, your editing has been tendentious, at times, in my opinion and, for that, I'm inclined to issue a rather long block, unless you accept an indefinite ban from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed. Media-hound-_thethird, from where I'm standing, you've been trying to derail this thread and that's disruptive. If you persist, you'll find yourself blocked. This is your only warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to change Islamic people to Muslims. Because I dont really know what an Islamic person is. nableezy - 19:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Change made. I admit I thought the terms were synonymous... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I will at this point make it clear that I do not consider a withdrawal of legal threats by Media-hound to be sufficient grounds to withhold sanctions against him, given his behaviour. At this point though, I will take Bishonen's advice above, and make no further comments - with the proviso that, if I do not see the issue resolved in what I see as an appropriate manner, I reserve the right to raise the Media-hound issue with the WMF, as the right to raise gross WP:BLP violations here and elsewhere without being confronted with accusations of 'bullying' and with legal threats goes to the core of how Wikipedia operates, and needs to be defended, strongly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If Media-hound does not persevere, then there is no reason to block him: that would be punitive. Then again, if you feel strongly about it, you can, of course, raise the issue with the WMF. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media Hound's primary mode of interaction is to derail legitimate discussion with abuse and accusations that are both nonsense and nonsensical. That user's bullying at Talk:Rape_culture has driven away at least one legitimate contributor.

AFAIK, Any content dispute MH is involved in follows the same pattern; Tens of thousands of characters of abuse until the other parties give up, then MH changes the article to their preferred form, per WP:SILENCE.

It was discussed here, to no resolution. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. Far from retracting his baseless attacks on me, Media-found is continuing to repeat them. [227][228] [229]Given this relentless behaviour, I have to ask what it will take before action is taken? Anyway, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you have now lost yet another editor - I can't see why the hell I should have to put up with this shit just because I took action over a gross BLP violation. Find some other mug, and enjoy your swim in the ever-shrinking editor-pool, as you contemplate your navels, whine incessantly about trivia, and let article-space turn into a POV-ridden cesspit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And still the remorseless shit continues: [230] And note that Media-hound is attacking admins as well now - welcome to the club... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck - if I'm going to be treated like shit, I might as well behave like it - Meet AndyTheGrumpyVandal (and yes, I know you'll block me, but as every vandal knows, half the fun is getting round the blocks - and I know a trick or two. Catch me if you can... ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the editor has since retracted this comment. m.o.p 12:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked MediaHound, following the above-quoted diff [231], which came after a clear warning by Bishonen as well as the warning by Salvio above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Too fucking little, too fucking late... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This clearly WP:POINT [232] edit is not appropriate at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover his AN/I notification of random people is clearly disruptive--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked AndyTheGrump for 24 hours for his disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Salvio

1. I made a BLP error and and immediately attempted to rectify it, and this apparent "crass negligence" formed the basis of the complainant's case. I have accepted the need for greater caution on my part.
2. At all points, I have adhered to what the sources have expressly stated and have attempted to present their content in an accurate manner. I solicited advice from an experienced admin before creating this article who confirmed the fairness of my editing. If you think this article evidences "tendentious editing", please clarify why you think that's the case.
3. I have only employed quality sources, contrary to the complainant's assertions, which is readily apparent upon a brief inspection of the article.
4. I initiated an RFC when Andy disagreed with my rendering of the sources, and the majority view is that my position is more accurate than the complainant's.

I have attempted to edit a sensitive subject in a fair manner, and have made use of the talk page, expert advice, and dispute resolution to ensure compliance with wikipedia policy. I have had no previous blocks or topic bans, and think that such proposals are draconian for a BLP lapse that I regret. Ankh.Morpork 20:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your editing is tendentious because it is primarily centered on providing negative information about a specific group. In doing so you have been shown to make errors of judgment frequently such a the BLP issue, the addition of dubious see also elements that clearly serve no purpose other than to try to link negative stories to every article having to do with Islam or muslims. There is a precedent for placing sanctions in such a case, even when there is no evidence for explicit bad faith, but simply a long standing pattern of bad judgment that slants a series of articles away from NPOV. This happened when User:Noleander was topic banned from editing articles related to Judaism because whether wilfully or not his editing moved wikipedias coverage of Jewish related topics away from NPOV and in a largely negative direction, like you he also committed a serial of judgment errors, probably in good faith. Sometimes whether or not bad faith is present it is necessary to keep editors who have demonstrated difficulties editing neutrally in a topic area from doing harm to wikipedias coverage. I do believe this is one of those cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Salvio suggested it above - should AnkhMorpork be subject to an indefinite topic ban - "from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed"? GiantSnowman 20:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think a topic ban fair for a single mistake. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not for a single mistake. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom; long history of tendentious editing in this area. GiantSnowman 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not a single mistake but the latest in a long series of civil POV pushing that has adversely affected wikipedia's neutrality. I point to the precedent of a similar case in which it was found that "Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site." and that "No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims". And finally: "An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group." And finally: "Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately."I think these four findings by the ArbCom in the Noleander case apply equally here. It is possible to be a goodfaith contributor and still unconsciously edit in a biased way that negatively affects the encyclopedia, and we need a way to stop this. Topic bans are excellent for that purpose, and in the Noleander case it proved extremely effective as he remains a productive, responsible and beneficial editor to this day working mainly in other topic areas. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Classic WP:TEDIOUS with as Salvio says an unpleasant vibe. GiantSnowman, could you please specify that we are (as I assume is the idea) opining about an indefinite topic ban here, as indeed in the Noleander case that Maunus mentions. Not a few months. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

• Indeed - I am proposing an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite, however, does not necessarily mean forever. GiantSnowman 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unjustified. Article seems reasonably edited bar that BLP blip. Juddhoward (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously - and I think that Maunus sums up the broader problems with AnkhMorpork well. The quote from the Noleander case regarding "scrupulous sourcing" is particularly cogent, not just in this obvious case, but elsewhere in AnkhMorpork's editing history, which is littered with cherry-picked quotes from questionable sources, clearly chosen for spin rather than for encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly necessary given the ongoing pattern of behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User:Maunus.--В и к и T 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support obviously. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Tendentious and careless, a dangerous combination where people's reputations are concerned. Per GregJackP, below, with the proviso that, if his editing in other areas is without problems, he can request the community lift the ban after a suitable time period (not less than six months). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Added proviso 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—it is true that AnkhMorpork violated a number of policies, and as someone pointed out here, has focused perhaps too much on edits about a single religion. However, there are two things that are missing from the conversation that I feel that have been absent in many similar cases on Wikipedia, for the detriment of the project. One: while editors are quick to point out problematic editing patterns by AnkhMorpork, no one has pointed to a similar pattern of engagement by serious uninvolved editors. That is, as far as I can tell, no one warned AnkhMorpork just how problematic some of his editing might have been (no, it's not obvious), and when someone did warn him (as in the recent BLP case), AnkhMorpork apologized and even initiated a request to have his revision deleted. So it seems like a clear case of not assuming good faith and wanting to ban an editor because it's the easiest thing to do. And two: AnkhMorpork clearly has an interest in the subject matter, and has contributed a lot to it, including writing new quality articles. So whatever the problems, how would banning him permanently from the area where he makes his best contributions be productive? People want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, but let's not get carried away and look at what would benefit Wikipedia instead of what would be easy. I suggest that AnkhMorpork take a voluntary break from editing on this subject matter and focus his energies on other topics, but without an imposed ban so that he can also make small edits and vandalism reverts to articles he surely follows/watches. At this time I suggest that he familiarizes himself more with Wikipedia policies, and that other more senior editors help him if he makes a mistake. This is clearly a good-faith editor, so the negative discourse in this discussion is surprising. IMO it's an editor we want to keep on Wikipedia, and not alienate by imposing harsh sanctions—because a permanent topic ban might not seem that harsh, but forever is a very long time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that "indefinite" does not mean forever, but just untill there is a consensus to abolish the ban. Also perhaps it is pertinent to supply links to previous ANI cases to show that this is not a standalone issue and indeed AnkhMorpork has been warnedbefore, including a previous topic ban discussion here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Prying yet another tendentious warrior out of the I-P topic area is never a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Long term pattern of editing in this area is not consistent with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This user's contribution to Wikipedia has consisted almost entirely of tendentious pov pushing ever since he arrived here. I see it mostly in the I/P area but looking now at his vigorous promotion of the British-Asians-are-all-evil-rapists slur by "objectively" compiling every negative incident from the UK press just makes me sick. Yaseen Ege, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Rotherham sex grooming case, Derby sex gang and more of the same is on the way. Please put a stop to it. Zero^talk 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article was reviewed by an experienced admin who approved it. This is an attempt by political opponents to win a content dispute by banning their adversary. They think it's all over (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Please take note of the single-purpose accounts, e.g. They think it's all over (talk · contribs) & Juddhoward (talk · contribs), beginning to infest this discussion. This is what invariably happens, as "friends" show up to support those who share a point-of-view on the topic at hand. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But no doubt it is fine for those who have a different POV to vote for a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I have no POV when it comes to Israel-Palestine, I hate you all rather equally..."you" as in pov-pushers, not as in Israelis and Palestinians personally. That's the difference between you and I, is that I can and have argued strenuously in defense of a person or subject even when personally I may be deeply opposed to their politics. For example, I am a strident proponent of same-sex marriage, yet I put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that Rick Santorum and Campaign for "santorum" neologism remained neutral and objective. I also fought what IMO a rather Herculean battle to get Marcus Bachmann's article deleted, as it was only created as a platform for pro-gay activism. I was also, again IMO, the primary antagonist in last year's should-we-censor-images-of-Muhammad debate, Arbcom, and RfC, which ultimately answered that question with a resounding and forceful "no" to censorship. Any examples like that you can point to DS? Or does your mile-long block log speak for itself in terms of why you are an editor in this project, and what your track record is thus far? Tarc (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Truer words have not been written on this :) They think it's all over (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Eh? Not to embarass you, Tarc, but it looks as if TTIAO is already an established editor, first editing July 10th. Juddhoward is fairly new, but still predates this discussion, first editing on December 30th. Calling other people SPA's without at least glancing at their edit history is NOT assuming good faith. I could see your point here, but im just not buying it if you accuse wildly. Also, I hardly think that two votes (from two independent people) is "infesting" the discussion. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The closer should note that They think it's all over (talk · contribs) began editing 6 months ago, has 200-odd edits, mostly in the Muslim/Jew area, and was spouting Wiki-jargon and quoting policy like a pro straight out of the blocks. [233][234][235] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest actually, as I did look first. In 6 months, "TTIAO" has edited almost exclusively in this topic area. Length of time does not make this person's editing any less singular, I'm afraid. I have no doubt it is simply a formerly-blocked user. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Be that as it may, it is not in good faith to assume that someone is a sockpuppet because they have oppose your arguments and a habit of editing volatile articles. Everyone has an equal opinion on Wikipedia. If you have no respect for other's comments, why should we have any respect for yours? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Everybody's opinion is valued on the merits of their argument, and to some extent on their reputation for good judgment. The opinion of an unknown editor, with 200 edits over six months, with all the behaviours of a long-term editor with 20,000 edits will be weighed accordingly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, if you wan't to go down the WP: ABF road, then you can go right ahead. They are you admin rights after all, don't let me stop you. My WikiVampire]-slaying blade needs sharpening, and i'm in no shape to resist the dreaded WP: BITE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And AGF dos not mean behaving like a blind fool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely over the top. No previous blocks and editor acknowledges his fault. Opportunidaddy (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with a proviso that if his editing in other areas is without problems, he can request the community lift the ban after a suitable time period (not less than six months). GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Although only in the basis of one incident, his constant infringing on the topic has completely justified a topic ban. This could have easily become a legal issue. We don't want another Tron fiasco. However, I agree with GregJack. If he shows he can edit at non-inflammatory levels, then the topic ban should be lifted (of course, after a considerable amount of time). Perhaps he would like to join me at WP: MINING? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support something but an indef topic-ban appears to be asking too much too soon relative to established community consensus and precedent, as far as I can tell. I read through the ANI histories and User Talk page of both Ankh and Noleander, and also the Noleander case. Noleander was the focus of five separate ANI threads (by my count). The final ANI thread lasted four days with !voting falling about in the same proportions seen here so far, but was not closed with a sanction. Instead, it went over to ARBCOM for 20 days before resulting in a 12-month topic ban for Noleander with the possibility of being lifted after that. The fundamentals of the argument against Noleander were that s/he was engaging in creating articles about individual Jews, using poor sourcing, and (particularly) misusing the sources to depict Jews unfavorably. The ARBMCOM ruling that specified the topic-ban gave two examples, 1) undue weight on negative views of Jews, and 2) misused sources were misued in a way to present negative views of Jews.

  In the case of Ankh, I can see some but not all of these characteristics. To start with, I could find only one other ANI case, which was closed with a recommendation that an WP:RFCU be filed, which did not happen. Noleander was the focus of much more scrutiny at ANI over a much longer period of time than Ankh has been so far. And the fundamentals are different: the quality of the sourcing is different, and convincing evidence was brought showing Noleander's misuse of sources in a way that completely turned around their meaning, and that's not even a main complaint here about Ankh's editing.

  To be clear, I personally am disturbed by the kinds of articles Ankh has created so far--they are not on topics I'd care to find in an encyclopedia, and they appear to be carefully crafted to show particular groups of individuals who are identified as Muslims or who have (I don't know how better to say this) Muslim-sounding names in the worst possible light. Some sort of intervention should happen here - whether it's an RFC/U, a warning, mentoring, or even a topic-ban of some length, but when Ankh's history is lined up with that of Noleander, who after a significantly greater amount of attention received a 12-month topic ban, an indef topic-ban here from "Islam and all Muslims" seems out of bounds. Zad68 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all the ban is too wide if there some problem it only in Sex gang articles second of all like was noted in the thread he only reports what the sources say.The complaint of User:GiantSnowman that it was right wing source.Maybe I missed something but I thought we can use the sources from all political spectrum as long as they meets WP:RS and not only [236]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. AnkhMorpork has been blatantly trying to paint articles about Islam and Muslims in as negative a light as possible. There are plenty of examples already given, but this seems like a particularly egregious example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. There is a lengthy history of POV editing here; it's about time a topic ban was enacted. Yes, he "acknowledges his fault" in this instance, but if he doesn't do anything to change his pattern of behaviour (and he hasn't so far) then it's just window-dressing. It's time to enforce a change of behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c)Support topic ban. Persuaded over the line for a topic ban per Boing! and the milder but still sensorious presentation by Zad: "they appear to be carefully crafted to show particular groups of individuals who are identified as Muslims or who have (I don't know how better to say this) Muslim-sounding names in the worst possible light" Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support; the recent strife at the Derby article seems to be part of a broader pattern of very worrisome civil pov-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Over the top. Zad makes a few good points, Shrike, too, it seems. Further, if reliable sources paint a group negatively, we should anticipate that articles here will (and perhaps should) do likewise. I suggest the supporters stop trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and let it go at this point. --Nouniquenames 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- this is not the editor to make the sort of judgments required. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 26 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.

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.

Ankit.S.George

In recent days, multiple new user accounts have been making changes to articles such as Boxing, promoting a character named Ankit.S.George as some kind of Indian business magnate or boxing superstar. I have reverted most of the changes but the trend seems likely to continue. Can anything be done? . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A CU has blocked a boatload of accounts and I have semied the article for a month. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mikemikev 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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for one month. Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• 220.126.137.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev

Mikemikev seems to be even more disruptive than usual. Could an administrator please block this ipsock? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio. Mathsci (talk) 15:36, 28 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:Pratyeka abusing admin power

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.

---

Pratyeka (talk · contribs)

User:Pratyeka became an admin back in 2003, back when RFA was a lot simpler. On more than one occasion, Pratyeka has restored pages that had been deleted via AFD without without any discussion or fixing the issues with the page, instead acting within his own opinion. Observe Hack Make and Nemerle were both deleted via AFD after the discusions ended with a delete consenus, see (WP:Articles for deletion/Observe Hack Make and WP:Articles for deletion/Nemerle. Despite this, Pratyeka restored the pages without a DRV or addressing the problems. He also restored Coral Consortium which was deleted for being a copy right violation with the comment "please identify the specific section(s) infringing copyright, as IMHO this article is actually useful and unique". The fact that he used the phrase IMHO, clearly shows that he was acting based on his own opinion and ignoring policy. Pratyeka also has restored many articles that were deleted via PROD without fixing the problem such as OMAPI. While technically, that is not an abuse of power, it is not a good use of it either. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

pratyeka and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but have you tried to discuss this with the editor at all? Aside from the ANI notice you've never edited his talk page, and the instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" so was there a discussion somewhere else that I'm just not seeing? I'm not saying it was proper to restore them (though one of them happened over two years ago), JamesBWatson already commented about this on prat's talk page, and unless the activity continues, is there something else you think should be done that JamesBWatson hasn't already done? - SudoGhost 21:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost - there wasn't any discussion between JDDJS and Pratyeka, but other editors have raised the issue on Prat's talk here. m.o.p 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that (after responding), but it seems like the issue was already taken care of before it was brought to AN/I. I guess what I'm getting at is that other than what admins have already done, which is to discuss it on prat's talk page, what is it an AN/I discussion is supposed to accomplish? I think at this point the only thing that would really happen is for others to go "hey that was wrong, don't do it again", and that's already happened. Unless it continues after that I don't really see a huge need for anything else. - SudoGhost 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What's required is for Pratyeka to say "hey that was wrong, I won't do it again".—Kww(talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that at all but AN/I can't do that for him. - SudoGhost 22:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To correct JDDJS's opening statement here; there was a DRV in the case of Nemerle, and the deletion was overturned, so Pratyeka isn't in the wrong there (though the language used to undelete - "Clearly notable within the global computing community. Deletion misguided. Apologies" - doesn't sit well with me, as it's citing an opinion when it should just be following process).

However, bringing back Observe Hack Make is what I'm concerned about, due to the fact that Pratyeka did not re-create the page with solid sourcing or attempt to improve it; he just restored it (using admin rights), again citing "Very large/well known, serial, hacking event. Awaited for over 3/4 years. Not crystal ball/advertising." as his reason. I, for one, don't believe administrators should be using their tools to do things they could do as editors; nor should they use their tools to step around community consensus. m.o.p 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on Pratyeka's talk page as well. I'm concerned that an admin appears to be using their extra buttons to undo community consensus that they disagree with (I'm looking specifically at Observe Hack Make in this case). It would certainly be helpful if Pratyeka would agree to refrain from using the undelete option when he personally disagrees with the result of an AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nemerle deletion was overturned at DRV NE Ent 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The actions regarding Observe Hack Make were clearly inappropriate. The more frightening thing to me is that the discussion at Prateyka's talk page makes it clear that he doesn't understand that he isn't permitted to unilaterally overrule an AFD and has to go through DRV like everybody else.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

...indeed. To be very blunt about it the reply made by Pratyeka to the original query on his talk page about the Hack/Make undeletion raises serious questions in my mind as to whether he has the required understanding of policy to be an admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Had this been a personal conflict between the two of us, I would have discussed this with Partyeka first. However this is not a personal issue; this a case of an admin using his power against consensus. About Nemerle, originally I thought that he restored before the DRV was started, but it turns out he restored it in the middle of the DRV, which is still an abuse of his power because he did not wait for the discussion to end, and it does not appear that the DRV even influenced his restoration at all. JDDJS (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's still preferable to discuss the with editor on their talk page first -- maybe they'll agree with you and agree to change their ways. Never know until you try. NE Ent 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• If DRV was like it is now, recreation of the article could have still been in process to allow people to !vote at the DRV. This was not the case, but recreating something during a DRV (if you follow the proper steps) is not necessarily an abuse of the mop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But he did not follow the proper steps. He clearly just disagreed with the consensus so he ignored it. JDDJS (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Notice how I was replying to "an abuse of his power because he did not wait for the discussion to end," by stating that waiting for the discussion to the end is not, technically, required. I also noted that this particular case was not in line with policy... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

James B Watson just started discussion at 2100 UTC and an ANI thread is opened at 2146 UTC? Too quick, give the guy a chance to answer before we start heating up the tar. NE Ent 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, User:Wtshymanski bought this up on his page over a week ago. He responded that the deletion was in error, which is a clear indicator that he doesn't know that there is a limit to his power. JDDJS (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the discussion on his talk page started at 14:27 UTC, 15 January 2013 [237]. And the response to that [238] clearly indicates that there is a serious problem here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that prat hasn't edited in 6 days I think maybe JamesBWatson's comment should have been enough for the moment; one person saying "I disagree" is one thing, when another person steps in and says the same thing it becomes a different situation. If prat continued to assert it was fine or continued the behavior it would be one thing, but what is AN/I going to do that JamesBWatson hasn't already done? - SudoGhost 22:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He should have his admin privileges revoked. He obviously does not have enough understanding of policy at the moment. He should be allowed to reapply for adminship if he demonstrates that he know has the proper knowledge of policy to be an admin. JDDJS (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen what it takes to desysop someone, and if you opened the AN/I discussion just to try to get him desysopped I'd say the chances of that happening as of this moment are pretty much zero. If he continues to restore pages like that that would be another story, but at this point desysopping is unlikely. Given that (to my knowledge) this isn't some recurring issue that he's been warned about before, a warning that this isn't acceptable behavior is the most I see happening. That warning should certainly happen, and indeed already happened before you opened the AN/I discussion. The only thing I see that needs to happen is that prat needs to acknowledge that this isn't acceptable, and not to do it again. - SudoGhost 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It would take more than this to desysop. I hope he acknowledges the problem and stops. Should he choose not to externally acknowledge the problem but stop anyway, nothing much is going to happen. The only path from here to desysop is to refuse to acknowledge and to continue doing things like this.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We should wait (a little while) for a response. If he demonstrates he understands, and won't be doing it again, no problem. If not, his judgment can't be trusted wrt recreating any articles and we can ban him from recreating any deleted articles. Presumably, he'll abide by that - if he doesn't, desysopping should take five minutes at ArbCom. He needs to actually address the community's concern. You (plural) are answerable to the community, whether you personally like it or not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you as to what should happen: a clear statement that he doesn't understand that what he has done is wrong should be enough to take action on. I'll stand by my prediction, though: unless he continues after this warning, not much will actually happen.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, a clear statement that he doesn't understand should certainly prompt action, but so should ignoring the community's concern. You are answerable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't not responding to this ANI be the same thing as a "clear statement that he doesn't understand that what he has done is wrong"? JDDJS (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He already has clearly indicated that he doesn't view what he did as wrong.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That was before he had the benefit of reading the views expressed in this thread. Give him time to consider his position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that it is a serious problem when admins clearly do not understand policy. As I said in my opening statement, this is not the only case of him overusing his admin tools. The only reason why he became an admin in the first place is that RFA was a lot simpler when he became an admin, all you had to do was be around for awhile and have some useful edits. He certainly would not pass a current RFA due to his lack of policy understanding. JDDJS (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am an inclusionist. Deletion is a last resort. It's shocking to see so much discussion about something so simple as restoring an article that clearly shouldn't have been deleted. Having said that, it's true that I joined Wikipedia a long time ago. I have not followed all of the policies' development, as I don't have time. But before assuming I am all out to get your policies and overturn your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' (one could almost say: "by self-appointed '(temporary) ministry of truth' committees", but I should probably avoid that), I'm just going to be honest and say that I make all edits in good faith, including this one. It occurs to me that if half of the effort bickering about this undeletion and policy could have been used to enhance the very valid article, then we would all be wealthier. I am going to go further and state something slightly obvious, which is that the notion of 'consensus' for deleting an article in Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. Given that it's imperfect, given that some of us have been around and proven we are net contributors in good faith, what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge (I have been involved in the 'hacker' community since ~1995) if you can't press the undelete button for a huge and well known event, attended by loads of famous people (as mentioned during the restore!), that given it's quadrennial frequency it's fair to say is about to occur? I regret to say that for some time this will be my only opportunity comment on this discussion, as I am exceptionally busy and largely offline with travelling in the wilds of Zomia (behind the Great Firewall of China) before Chinese New Year. If you would like me to comment further, please post to my talk page and allow a few weeks for a response. Thanks for your collective understanding and apologies if anyone got their feathers ruffled. Also, thanks for your support SudoGhost, even though we don't always see eye to eye (re: recent issues on Bitcoin!), it's certainly a meaningful gesture. With the hopes that nobody is offended or upset, we can all get back to adding and editing useful and historic content: peace and love to all in the new year... prat (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. Considering the edit a bit more, I think as well as giving a resonable case I was also working to the 'be bold' policy. Now please relax and sorry if anyone involved in the mistaken deletion was upset by the undelete. Sometimes we are all wrong. In this case, the deletion was wrong, though the net effect (discouraging the article to grow too far until close to the event) is probably a reasonable outcome for all. PLUR. prat (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Using your admin tools to restore an article deleted via consensus at WP:AfD based on your own personal belief that it should not be deleted is so not on. Venues for contesting deletion are as available to you as they are to any other editor. How many times do we try to explain to non-administrators that having the tools and being an admin is "no big deal", only to have you completely use them out of process to further your own personal agenda? It's unacceptable, and if it happens again I will support any request that your access to the admin buttons be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pratyeka should have gone through DRV, as overturning consensus by fiat is not what adminship is about. Reyk _YO! 01:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion

In a move that belies my exclusionist underpinnings, I've undeleted Extreme transaction processing. The article would appear to be complete crap in my eyes, but I can't see a G6 deletion as being even remotely justifiable.—Kww(talk) 06:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Goodness. That should not have been deleted. This should go to ArbCom (if someone gets the guts to actually file...) --Rschen7754 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh dear, that was a shockingly bad deletion. And yes, if nobody has started an ArbCom request when I'm done with my paid work for the day, I'll be happy to do it - assuming the consensus is still going in the same direction it is now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Was this a bad deletion or a page move from Extreme transaction processing to Extreme Transaction Processing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the timeframes, it was a bad deletion followed months later by the creation of a similar article with nearly the same name.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal that Pratyeka be banned from undeleting deleted articles

• Support as proposer. Clearly he can't be trusted to perform that task in accordance with community consensus and policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support He refuses to admit that he did anything wrong by ignoring consensus, and does not show any indication that he won't do it again. I feel that he should be completely desyposed, but I will settle for an undeletion ban. JDDJS (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill. Concerns have been raised ... if he continues to undelete stuff in the future then we can talk about bans. It's not like he's going rogue blocking editors or FPPing articles or getting in protracted pissing contests with editors... on the scale of wiki-crap, undeleting a sketchy article isn't very high. If he hasn't had major issues in eight years it's unlikely he'll be doing significant damage in 2012. NE Ent 02:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all overkill. Personally I feel that it is not enough and that he should lose all admin rights. He has used his admin powers to completely bypass consensus and has refused to admit any wrong doing, giving every indication that he will do it again. JDDJS (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support and send to ArbCom. Prat's comment that he is an inclusionist does not help his position. I'm a deletionist, and were I an admin who deleted articles arbitrarily, I would drawn, hung, and quartered, with my body parts being sent for display to the four corners of the WP empire. He is given the bit as a trust, not to make his own decisions to override the community. The comment that the deletion was made "in error" shows that he has no idea of limitation by community consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The arrogance of the statement he left above is staggering. Anyone who declares their own judgement overrides consensus shouldn't be an admin. At the very least he should not be allowed to delete articles, especially because he admits he isn't up to speed on policy. Performing controversial actions right before taking an extended break is extremely poor form as well. AniMate 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the tree. Looks like the problem is resolved.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you please elaborate on that? The problem is that he refuses to abide by community consensus. That problem has not been resolved. JDDJS (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to know also. He just said "misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus'" and "what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge ... if you can't press the undelete button...." Where does this show any intention on his part of abiding by community consensus? The problem is definitely not resolved. As a matter of fact, the more I think of this, the more I believe that he should be de-sysoped. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He said it was a mistake, and I'm willing to AGF that it was a mistake.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he never said that it was mistake. In fact, he has said the complete opposite, and that consensus was a mistake. JDDJS (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, he said the deletion by the community was a mistake, and that his action in undeleting the article, without DRV or consensus was proper. If you can show me where he said that he made a mistake, I would re-consider my position. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely misread the statement above where I thought he was claiming he made a mistake. I will strike my !vote.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You know, it's really not clear to me ANI can "topic ban" an admin from undeleting -- that's kind of a mini-desysop and that's reserved to ArbCom and the stewards and maybe Jimbo if decides to be the founder again. NE Ent 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI clearly has that authority. We can topic ban anyone, or for that matter, site ban them.GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a resolution from the Foundation that disallows the community from constraining the behaviour of an editor, please bring it forward. I'm not aware of one, so suggest we proceed under the assumption that community consensus applies when it comes to constraining the behaviour of individual users. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support - It's clear from the above that Prat has no clue when it comes to Wikipedia's deletion policies, instead repeating his accusations (to the point where they could be considered personal attacks) of "mistaken deletion" above and mainitaining that he has done nothing wrong, and claiming that based on his "expert domain knowledge" he knows better than we do about how things should be run. This is not the kind of person Wikipedia needs as an admin. At all. Admins abide by community consensus and policy, they are not autocrats pulling strings "because I think this is how it should be done". Frankly if I didn't know better I'd be half tempted to call it some form of elaborate trolling, as I find it nearly impossible to believe that anybody who has been around the Wikipedia community for the length of time he has could possibly hold such views as he espouses above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Report to ArbCom given the arrogance shown in the response above, and the insistence that he was right to overrule consensus unilaterally. In my view, admins who abuse the tools to enforce their own opinions over the consensus of the Community, and then insist it was fine for them to do so, should be instantly desysoped. Anyone who said in an RfA today "I intend to use the tools to overrule the community when I disagree with consensus", would be snowed out. Admins who not only actually do it, but then go on to defend their actions and insist they have the right to do it, should be shown the door. Unfortunately, the community doesn't have the balls to put in place a proper means to get rid of rogue admins, so I'll have to settle for this topic ban instead, at least for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on further reflection, I think a ban on undeleting is not sufficient, because this is not specifically an undeletion problem - it's the classic "arrogant old school admin" problem. Both here and on his Talk page, Pratyeka continues to insist on his right to use his admin tools to override community consensus when he thinks it's wrong, even after reading this report here and reading the comments on his talk page. Unless we get a commitment to change that, we need his admin tools removed - maybe an admonishment from ArbCom would convince him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ARBCOM -- Can the community ban an admin from using the bit at all? If so, it's the same as removing the bit. Are we saying the community could do this, or is this "partial ban" fundamentally different? I'm actually okay with letting the community remove the bit by subject ban, I just don't think it is in alignment with our standard procedures and I think everyone should realize exactly what the ramifications of this might be in the long term. I'd suggest sending this to ARBCOM instead. In any case, isn't AN a better location for this discussion? Hobit (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not taking the bit off him, I believe that's something only ArbCom and Jimbo can do. We're telling him not to use a part of it. We don't need ArbCom's permission for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what's unclear to me. Are you saying we can't desysop as a community, but we can ban someone from using the bit and block them if they do? That sounds very strange. As if we are subverting the intent of letting Arbcom be the only place for desysoping. I'd personally support an RfC allowing the community to do this (though I'd say it should be at AN, not ANI), but feel such an RfC should happen first. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support for ArbCom, partial ban, desysop, you name it. I don't mind admins ignoring all rules, but no one with this attitude toward collaboration should have the bit. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor has made some declarations on his user page specifically regarding article deletion, which goes precisely to the matter at hand. Given those declarations, and his above comment, I think it is reasonable for us to constrain him from undeleting. But he seems an intelligent and decent chap, and I see no reason whatever to assume he won't be responsible and valuable in his use of admin rights outside this very narrow area, so think it would be overreacting to desysop. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not just an undeletion problem - he is openly insisting that (as an admin and expert) he has the right to overrule consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I don't know. I do know we should give him time to absorb what's happening here, and reflect. This is a paradigm shift for him and, for me at least, paradigm shifts take at least a day or so. Go slowly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure - there's still plenty of time for him to agree never again to use the admin tools to override consensus or against policy (eg to reinstate copyright infringements - see "Possibly even more serious" Starblind comment below). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support undeletion ban (and desysop if necessary). It's one thing to have strong views that aren't necessarily supported by the community, it's another thing entirely to use sysop powers against community consensus. Any admin candidate at RFA threatening to ignore consensus would be quite rightly SNOWed out to the tune of gales of laughter. Admins exist to serve the community, not oppose it, and anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be an admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If this proposal passes, and he undletes anything again, I'm sure the consequence will be a SNOW five minute desysop at ArbCom. For that matter, if he demonstrates a disregard for policy or consensus in another area, I expect the result would be the same. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom Yes, it was bad, but to topic ban an admin from performing any action in the toolset would be a significant shift in community consensus. --Rschen7754 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To expand upon my comments, I don't trust him to delete anything either. And I don't trust him to respect community consensus. That makes him unfit to remain as an admin, in my book. --Rschen7754 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. (Totally uninvolved editor here - just happened to see this). The adoration for process expressed in the comments above explicitly and implicitly is what is killing WP. Arbcom? Desysop? Ban from undeleting? For this? Please. LIke Prat says, if the energy spent on this was spent on improving articles, most deletions would not be required. Obscure articles of poor quality has to be one of our least important problems. So if some of them are rescued where is the harm? And in many case there is benefit. We need more editors who behave like this, not fewer. Kudos to Prat! --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's say you're a new editor, while I've been here since 2005. You write an article. I delete it and give the reason as "I've been here a long time, so I know best." Are you ever going to come back? Didn't think so. Actions like this damage the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen a diff of Pratyeka performing any out of process deletions and, per his talk page response, it seems hardly likely an "inclusionist" would do so. How is an undeletion going to drive away new users? NE Ent 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Possibly even more serious than it first appeared: Looking in the logs I've located at least one case where Prat apparently knowingly undeleted copyvio material, saying it was "useful and unique". Okay, I think I'd support taking this to ArbCom as it's quickly gone from bad to worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • JDDJS actually included Coral Consortium in his initial post. It was cleaned by User:Geitost and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 January 21. WP:CP regular User:VernoWhitney RD1'd it. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support- per Andrew Lenahan. Reyk _YO! 04:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Concern I morally support this. I worry about the process. I don't think that Arbcom needs to be involved, and I think this is well within power of community consensus. I'm just not sure that a drive-by at ANI is sufficient. RFC/U perhaps?—Kww(talk) 04:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No. That would be throwing unnecessary delays and bureaucracy in the way of community self-government. There are two proposals here: undelete ban and desysop. There is a very clear consensus for the undelete ban; that is obviously the very least that needs doing. And we don't need a big long RfCU to do it, just because he's an admin. Desysop is up to ArbCom. They may ask us to run an RfCU but, assuming Pratyeka doesn't change his stance between now and then, they're just as likely to take the case for desysop on the evidence in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently pratakaya is on holidays with intermittent internet access, and so will probably not be doing anything objectionable in the near future anyway. So there's no rush to do anything immediately. Reyk _YO! 05:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Echoing comments by Boing! said Zebedee and others: This user's actions and explanatory response are unacceptable, and even alarming. They amount to a dismissal of community consensus and established process, and threaten the foundational integrity of the project. Given the extraordinarily high standards and cross examination that we currently subject RfA candidates to, this kind of roguery (there, I said it) must be stopped in it's tracks. This applies to all users, admins and otherwise; both vintage and new. We're all accountable to the community and to the project for respecting the same set of policies, guidelines and established consensus. No one is special. - MrX 05:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've been concerned about Pratyeka ever since last summer, when the discussion at Talk:Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#CIA_Reference_Justification indicated a lack of understanding or regard for BLP policy and synthesis. At the outset of that discussion I had the impression (via the "Wikipedia administrator" tag on his first signature) that he was trying to use his admin position to force an inappropriate synthesis into a BLP. Acroterion (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  That Obama thing certainly does show a very poor grasp of BLP policy of and Synthesis, which is disturbing in an admin - though as long as he doesn't use the admin tools to act in those areas, I don't think it's a cause for action. However, the "Wikipedia administrator" tag clearly looks like an attempt to intimidate and to imply that his opinion is somehow special, and I see that as unacceptable behaviour - as a one-off, it wouldn't warrant action, but it's all adding up to an unacceptable attitude in an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That was how I felt at the time: it didn't involve direct use of admin tools and Pratyeka didn't habitually edit BLPs so I let it pass. I mention it here as additional evidence of a poor or obsolete understanding of basic policy. I didn't catch on at first that I was explaining policy to an administrator: I thought I was dealing with a newbie. I only noticed the tag about halfway through. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support - Given the response, I do believe something needs to be done. I feel that prat's response was less than ideal, and if there's an indication that this behavior is going to continue that it needs to be addressed. However, I also feel that if it is ArbCom who typically desysops someone, something more than an AN/I discussion should be used to say "we can't desysop you, so we'll ban you from using the tools instead." It gives the impression of subverting the actual process, although I know that's certainly not the intention. On the other hand, I think that my thinking is at odds with WP:BURO and WP:IAR, at least on some level. If prat makes some sort of acknowledgement that an admin cannot ignore community consensus and resolves to refrain from doing so in the future, then I see no need for this sort of topic ban. Short of that, however, something should be done, and for lack of some better alternative, I would have to support this, though not with a high degree of comfort. - SudoGhost 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If he's willing to abide by consensus, then all will be well. If he continues with his "LOL consensus" attitude that he's blatantly and brazenly displaying, he's a rogue admin and needs to have the bit stripped ASAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd say that an 11th-hour apology at this point (which hasn't actually happened anyway), would just be a desperate move to keep the tools. He's already made his true feelings on the matter incredibly clear, that he's above consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and request desysop. --Nouniquenames 05:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support not for the singular incident, but for the statements made above that indicate an attitude towards established Wikipedia policy that I find incompatible with being a good admin. Let me be clear, it is fine to a) make an occasional mistake or b) hold an opinion contrary to consensus. However it is not OK to deliberately and knowingly take actions which one knows to be against consensus policy, and then act as though the rest of the community has to accept it. If he had merely expressed the opinion, or had merely had one or two bad undeletions, I wouldn't support this at all. Neither by itself means much, but the fact that the undeletions don't represent an error, but rather a deliberate attempt to circumvent established norms merely for to further one's own opinions on the issue at hand, and without regard for the opinions of the greater community at large, that is incompatible with the use of the admin tools. An admin should be willing to use their tools without regard for their own opinions, or at the very least, to refrain from using them where community norms differ from one's own opinions. The fact that that didn't happen here (and not the substance of the opinion itself) is why I must, with great regret, support the proposed sanction. --Jayron32 07:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom Obviously there is support that he is not trusted with one part of his administrative duties, and if that is the case, ArbCom is where you direct concerns about him not using the tools anymore. We do not support RFAs on the basis that we take their word to not use a tool a certain way or that they promise to refrain from blocking/deleting/protecting. If he is trusted with the tools, then so be it, but he can't trusted with 2/3 of it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• ArbCom -- The user explicitly stated he undeleted articles that had undergone AfD because he believed they shouldn't have been deleted and consensus is just a silly little thing. Sysops aren't "super users", they need to ascertain and implement the community's consensus, not override it with their own views. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Most folks here are taking a prior restraint view of undeletion. In fact, admins can and should undelete things that are fixable, in the process of fixing them. DRV doesn't exist as a necessary stop, period. Now, the fact that this should have gone to userspace or an incubator first before remaining in mainspace unchanged is really the only structural issue I see here, and one that's quite correctable. Fact is, if he hadn't had the bit and had just restored a deleted copy from a mirror somewhere, it would have been G4'ed and he would have gotten a notice of that, and that's about it. You want to know why there are so few people willing to be admins? Look no further than how badly a single incident has been blown out of proportion. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I find this oppose disturbing, considering that one of the AFDs closed with "Consensus argued that the subject had not received coverage which would have demonstrated notability via GNG". That's not fixable. --Rschen7754 08:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's absolutely fixable - how many young actors have had early press-release-and-a-headshot articles deleted for lack of notability, only to land a notable role and get a new article later on? Subjects that are not notable at deletion can become notable later - it's the whole premise of WP:USUAL, for example. But undeleting an article because "Subject became notable when he did X" is not the concern here. The undelete here was done because the admin specifically and explicitly disregarded the "self-described" consensus. He did not fix the article, did not update it to show how the subject had since become notable, did not remove the potential copyvio (or link to show that it was not copyvio), he just restored it. And I don't know how that is justifiable - as Jclemens correctly notes, a simple repost would have been G4'ed out of existance with all speed. Jclemens is correct, admins are able to undelete articles at will - but only for cause, and only in such a way as to address the concerns that got them deleted in the first place. Acting as an admin super-vote after the fact is not acceptable, and it seems that that is what we're looking at here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and Refer to Arbcom to consider stripping his admin status. Violating WP:Consensus after a clear procedural determinantion of the community's opinion is, IMHO, a very serious breach of the community's trust that comes with the responsibility of being an admin. Taken together with his restoration of copyvio material and his self-declared position, IMHO this editor should not be allowed anywhere near an admin's toolbox. Roger (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• We're far too quick to jump to straw polls on ANI these days. Prat has been informed that the community doesn't support his use of the tools to support his position on the deletion/inclusion spectrum: it is to be assumed that he won't do it again now that it's attracted broad community attention. There should be no need for a formal topic ban here. Talk of ArbCom or a desysopping is extreme at this point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Can you show us where he has accepted the community's feedback or given any indication that he won't do it again? It looks to me more like he's saying "Fuck you community, I'm in charge and I'll decide what's deleted and what isn't". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  "It is to be assumed" because it's the only sane response. If he carries on regardless after the heat of a big ANI thread (which is far higher-profile than the previous incidents, so far as I can see) then future corrective action should be uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, leaving aside the slur on my sanity, I think it is far more reasonable to assume that he means what he says - that he believes that as an admin and "expert" he has the right to override consensus when he thinks it is wrong. And to me, that is not reason to assume he is going to do the opposite of that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Prak's sanity, not yours. Apologies for any confusion there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Hehe, np - my misunderstanding -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom and let them decide. Admins, in my opinion, should either be free to do everything, or free to do nothing, they should not be partially topic banned from certain tasks they can't be trusted with. GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysopping, and/or sending to arbcom. Unfortunately the community can't do it itself yet. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom We just had another admin who ran away when told advised the he was time-and-tme again screwing up the deletion process and their response was also "yeah, so what" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is way too soon to call for a de-sysop. He's here for 1 undeletion, not multiple, and do remember IAR is just as much policy as AFD.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom - not just one undeletion, but a deletion that shouldn't be made, editing through edit protection without making an edit request for another Admin to do or deny (at least that seems to be what happened at Bitcoin). It's part of a pattern. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have realised this couldn't happen. I am still not at all convinced that this editor should be a sysop. We are supposed to handle them responsibly and this isn't happening here. I'd like him to say what he plans to do with the tools if he does keep them. Admins who rarely use their tools should probably resign them - others may disgree, but we are given the tools to do a job and if we aren't doing it then we don't need the tools, and disuse makes one rusty at using the tools. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• While I would support the proposed restriction if it were either that or nothing, a user who cannot be trusted with the whole admin toolset should not be an admin. Given the shocking statement above on his contempt for the community consensus and established process, this should be send to arbcom for consideration of desyopping. KTC (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Arbcom As Dougweller has pointed out, this is more than one event. I'm not at all convinced that he truly understands the problem. I think Arbcom is the place to go for this because ANI doesn't have the authority (as far as I can tell) and as Prat's away a bit they can hold it ready till he's back to defend himself. And yes, IAR is a policy/rule the same as any others, but if the community feels that a decision taken under it was wrong, then there must be some method to undo it, and if necessary stop it happening again. GedUK  13:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. Good Christ, if I make one mistake am I gonna get desysopped? The problem isn't in the undeletion we're discussing (which was bad and which should be reversed, as consensus here seems to indicate). The problem is that an admin had the chutzpah to tell the ANI crowd that he was right and their self-described consensus was wrong. And it made us MAD. Holy shit, this guy thinks he's in charge? But sending this to arbcom, polishing up the pitchforks, setting the torches ablaze? Guys, what the fuck? Consensus is clear that his undeletion was a mistake - great. So if he continues to undelete things against policy, THEN you send him to arbcom and let them do the necessary. A proposed case describing this incident would properly be closed out, at most with a motion from the committee directing Pratyeka to fucking be careful next time kthx. "What prior dispute resolution was attempted" "...Did you see how he talked to us?" isn't gonna fly at arbcom. If Adminship is a big enough deal to get so angry about it, it's a big enough deal to take the time (here!) to discuss properly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pratyeka made a boo-boo has been a very very bad admin A whole boatload of folks have pointed that out. As thumperward has already pointed out, the most likely outcome is he won't do it again cause, let's face, who wants the grief? This penchant for demanding editors done a sackcloth and publicly sing a kommós isn't healthy. See also Editors have pride. NE Ent 14:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not know if our hand must be that heavy and if we must club him into submission here; yes, he made a mistake, and yes, he stood by his decision. But I cannot bring myself to really see bad faith in what he was doing. And I think UltraExactZZ and NE Ent are spot on. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysop (either through banning him from using any admin tools, or by taking him to ArbCom for a true desysop). He hardly uses the tools, but when he does, he often does so incorrectly, and has indicated that this is deliberately and that he doesn't care about consensus (and, by extension, about our policies). Just take a look at his latest logged admin tools actions (editing through protection is not logged thus, so that aspect is not included). To find 20 items in his log, we have to go back to 2010, and many of these aren't admin actions but moves or uploads that anyone could have done. This includes dubious but not necessarily wrong decisions like restoring Edgware Walker (which should be taken to AfD as the documentary may be barely notable, the person is not notable at all, and the article is very poor) and OMAPI without any improvements[239][240], four deletions of his own incorrect creations (Wushun man, Kusanda language, Kusanda people and Afghan War Diary), restoring a deleted copyright violation at Coral Consortium without even contacting the deleting admin or discussing this at the talk page of the article, an out-of-process G6 deletion of Extreme transaction processing, and the overturned restoration of Observe Hack Make.

So in over two years time, he has made two undeletions or prodded articles of very low quality and without making any improvements to them, four deletions of his own mistakes, 2 clearly incorrect undeletions and one clearly incorrect deletion. Coupled with his reply in this section, I see no reason at all to let him remain an admin any longer, as he is clearly in his admin actions a net negative. Fram (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, in view of the consensus here, I have prepared a case for ArbCom at User:GregJackP/ArbComm/Prat. Please take a look at it and let me know if I need to make any corrections. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the consensus here is actually just to prohibit him from undeleting articles. If you do take it to Arbcom, the deletion of Extreme transaction processing is just as troubling as his undeletions.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know it's not a straight vote, but I've just done a quick count and I see 26 in favour of sanctions of some sort, with 17 of those supporting desysop/Arbcom, and 7 opposing any sanction. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do anything until it is clear what the community wants. As I noted, I support both a topic ban on deletion and desysop, but there's no particular rush on my part. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, as it stands, I think there's easily enough support for an ArbCom request - and your draft looks pretty good for starters. But I would support leaving it over the weekend as there's really no rush. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a full ban on delete/undelete and desysop (via arbcom). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to make a point here. Several instances in where Prat either clearly abused his admin power or stretched the limits of it have been bought up. However, nobody, not even the people that are defending him, have bought up any instance in where he used his admin status to do something exceptionally good. While prat has made many useful edits as an editor, as far as I know, he has not made any exceptional edits as an admin. He also is not a very active admin. This is the very reason that RFA is so hard now. It stops people who might be useful editors but not useful admins from becoming admins. So, to summarize, what would the community actually lose if he is desysoped? JDDJS (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Another little piece of its humanity. NE Ent 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support When I first discussed this with JDDJS before he brought it to ANI, I was only aware of the one incident with Pratyeka (concerning Observe Hack Make). However, since Prat's reply on this page, I have no choice but to be extremely concerned; not only has he broken policy, he seems to defend his actions and acts like he's done nothing wrong. I could understand a slip-up and an apology, but standing adamantly by your mistakes as if you're the victim isn't advisable, and I don't think I can trust somebody like that with the sysop tools. m.o.p 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for request to Arbcom to de-sysop, and require a new RFA if he wishes to continue as an admin. I do not think a requirement to refrain from undeletions is enough. The original incidents do not concern me so much, but the unapologetic attitude shown in the response above, with the assumption that he is entitled to override AfD, restore an article because it "clearly shouldn't have been deleted" and dismiss formal deletion discussions as "your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' " shows an attitude so far out of line with current expectations of an admin as to be unacceptable. If he is going to be out of contact, Arbcom can certainly choose to wait for a response before taking action, but the issue should go to them now. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Arbcom request Looking at Arbcom's history, I see the cases of User:EncycloPetey and User:SchuminWeb as admins who retired/stopped editing after concerns over their adminship were brought up (they both ended up being desysopped by Arbcom), so there's that precedent. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:03, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support, support sending to arbcom if that's what people feel is best. I may be a little unique here, but I'm actually less concerned about his? belief he can unilaterally override consensus (which is still a concern) and more concerned about the fact he seems to think it's okay to undelete copyvios. Yes as far as we know this was only done once, and it was quite a while ago but I also see no admission from him it was a mistake which he won't be repeating. We already spend a lot of time trying to find copyright violations and for those used to dealing with such things they know there are still a lot more we aren't finding. It's rather concerning then when one has been identified, an admin thinks it's okay to just undelete it based on their personal opinion. (I can't see the old version nor can I do an old internet search to see whether a simple search or just checking out the links inside would have confirmed it was likely a copyvio.) From what I can tell [241] they didn't even ask the deleter (who was semi active Special:Contributions/Cobaltbluetony) or list it as a possible copyright violation on the copyvio page. Luckily it was found fairly fast (within 4 weeks) and no one else wasted their own time on editing the copyright violation it after it was undeleted (other then the person who re-identified it) but I still consider this unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it is blatantly obvious from his actions and comments that user is not suited for privilege to undelete articles, and it is also questionable if he is suited to be admin at all.--Staberinde (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and send to ArbCom - Undeleting around AfD instead of taking something to DRV is administrative abuse, plain and simple, and I would favor immediate detooling. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to archive this sub-thread but please get the closing statement right.

Support community tool restriction

1. User:Anthonyhcole
2. User:AniMate
3. User:Jayron32

Support community tool restriction and referral to ArbCom

1. User:Nathan Johnson
2. User:Roger
3. User:KTC
4. User:Staberinde
5. User:JDDJS
6. User:GregJackP
7. User:The Bushranger
8. User:Boing! said Zebedee
9. User:Someguy1221
10. Andrew Lenahan
11. User:Reyk
12. User:Nouniquenames
13. User:Nil Einne
14. User:Fram
15. User:Carrite

Support tool restriction but question the community's right to restrict an admin's tool use behaviour, or whether ANI is the right venue

1. User:Hobit
2. User:Rschen7754
3. User:Kww
4. User:SudoGhost
5. User:Ged UK

Support referral to ArbCom without commenting on tool restriction

1. User:Salvidrim
2. User:Shadowjams
3. User:Bwilkins
4. User:KoshVorlon
5. m.o.p
6. User:JohnCD
7. User:Canuck89

Oppose community tool restriction on principle but support sending to ArbCom

1. User:Moe Epsilon
2. User:GiantSnowman

Oppose tool restriction and desysop

1. User:NE Ent
2. User:Born2cycle
3. User:Jclemens
4. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)
5. User:Ultraexactzz
6. User:Lectonar

Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Vote counting does not capture the totality of the discussion and inappropriately pigeonholes editors into positions why may not accurately represent their viewpoint and is inimical to the Wikipedia consensus model. NE Ent 12:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more accurate than the previous close. --Nouniquenames 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that, Ent. If anyone's unhappy with their pidgeon-hole, they're free to correct. I haven't closed, and I haven't based my non-existent close on counting. The first close involved vote counting, and mis-counted. It read in part:

The participation in the discussion has slowed, with support roughly split between the topic ban, and either opposing all action, or supporting a review by Arbcom, which in most of such comments is an implicit oppose to the ban.

If the closer of this thread intends making declarations about the community's freedom to constrain the behaviour of admins, may I point out this comment from arbitrator Salvio giuliano? Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pitchforks down

Can we please wait a day or two, for Pratyeka's next response, before taking this up with ArbCom? We have nothing to lose from that. It will give him a chance to reflect on and absorb what's happening here. And, depending on his response, may save everybody a lot of time and trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He's said he's away for a while now, and any ArbCom case would have to be delayed until he is able to comment (and he's not going to be misusing the tools while he's not here), so I'd be in favour of delaying for a couple of days. It sounds like he's not going to be available to comment over the next couple of days, mind, but it can't do any harm to give it a go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed this section, and have filed the case. I did leave a note that he was out of touch for a couple of weeks and requested that ArbCom wait for him to get back before taking any action. GregJackP Boomer! 01:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider withdrawing the ArbCom case for now (If you run it by Sarek, who is the only respondent so far, you can probably just blank it.) It would be better, in my opinion, if we (and prat) spent more time deliberating and considering the facts, and ideal of course if we had a chance to involve prat in more dialogue before handing it to ArbCom. Some people do change with sensitive engagement. We may have a more useful result all round, and take up a lot less of everyone's precious time, if we make haste slowly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objection, I just wanted to address that one particular point for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know that I can do that. Only ArbCom members and clerks can remove cases once they have been filed. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done it, and if the clerks or ArbCom have a problem, they can restore it. If you leave a link to this thread in your edit summary, that should answer any queries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not finding things with two hands and a flashlight

I find myself quoting Andrew Shepherd again. People, there is not a direct run from the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents to Requests for Arbitration. There's a notice in a box at the head of this page that says this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pratyeka is still all red linked and inviting, and it will prevent those big old arbitrators from taking the standard line of turfing you right out of RFAR on your collective ears with the usual So what did you actually do to resolve the situation, using the very processes that the community has constructed for giving mass feedback to one person on issues of that person's use of the MediaWiki toolset, before taking this avenue of last resort? question.

There is a second box at the head of this page that points out that discussions here are archived after (currently) 36 hours. Again, the sensible course of action is not to hold a discussion like this on a noticeboard that by its very nature is not constructed to deal with things that involve waiting for an editor who is Away From Internet for a period of days. User talk:Pratyeka is not exactly full, either.

This isn't the first time that a whole bunch of people have leapt right over RFC from AN/I and expected a poll of little more than 24 hours on a rapidly-archived noticeboard to be the sensible parallel to week-long discussions elsewhere. Nor is it the first time that a group of people bang on about what Wikipedia policies and practices are, and how others should follow them, but nonetheless themselves collectively fail to find Project:Requests for comment/User conduct with both hands and a flashlight. This time, I'm speaking up to get people to do things right. You all (supposedly) know where RFC is, and you all (supposedly) know what arbitrators always require as a pre-requisite to any such case, and will probably require in this instance. So do things right, for goodness' sake!

Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well said. NE Ent 12:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Calling for desysop when an RfA would run for 7 days tells me some people are rushing to the conclusion and don't let other evidences surface. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is a rush to skip RFC because there hasn't been sufficient efforts yet to resolve the dispute, and thus, an RFC would not be certified as valid. If anybody wants to approach the subject and invite him to my talk page for a conversation about their complaints, I would be happy to host a discussion among the relevant parties. This venue, ANI, is not very well suited to resolving conflicts. It's just a bunch of driveby feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Not making sufficient efforts to resolve the dispute beforehand is a reason that things get turfed out of RFAR, too. So it would be really very stupid to be skipping over RFC for that reason. The course of action that isn't stupid is of course to make those efforts, beforehand. Only two people, out of all of the above, have even participated at User talk:Pratyeka. I applaud your offer of your user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think you're quite right, Uncle G, at least according to the way things currently work. But my view is that things currently work badly, there is too much bureaucracy, and that an admin openly stating that he is not bound by consensus should be grounds for instant desysop - with the possibility of appeal. I also think that there should be a community desysop process - but we've never achieved anything in that direction.

  My feeling is also that RFC is another big bureaucratic waste of time. It's entirely voluntary, and will only achieve anything if Pratyeka volunteers to abide by the rules. But if he's going to do that, then we don't need an RFC - he can just say so here, or on his talk page, or at the ArbCom request, and it'll all be over.

  Anyway, the current bureaucratic excess is what we're stuck with, and so far it's looking as if ArbCom are unlikely to accept the case. So my thoughts now are that we should wait for Pratyeka's return and see what he has to say - we can show him this ANI and ask him on his talk page. If he agrees to follow the rules, we're done - but if he doesn't, RFC will achieve nothing more than filling a checkbox on the bureaucracy-lovers' charts and it'll have to end up back at ArbCom anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It's a bit rich to be talking of "bureaucracy lovers" when the whole issue here is that someone ignored processes. Either Pratyeka gets to ignore the processes as much as the complainants are also trying to, or the both of you have to follow procedures. Again, you are assuming from the outset that a mass of people expressing their opinion to Pratyeka, at User talk:Pratyeka or on the still-redlinked-and-inviting Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka, is somehow not going to change Pratyeka's mind. On the contrary: That is how, by discussion and persuasion, our community has decided to work. Negative feedback comes from the community as a whole, via user talk pages, third opinions, and requests for comment. It isn't imposed by a 24-hour straw poll on a rapidly-archived noticeboard for administrators handling "incidents". Community norms, and the negative pressure against people that enforces community norms, are a community thing.

    It's saddening to see you not seeing that what's been done here is in fact the timewasting excess of bureaucracy: a pointless and wasteful round trip through RFAR where I and (supposedly) everyone here knew ahead of time what the arbitrators would say (because we know that they require people to make the proper efforts at dispute resolution beforehand). The problem here, and the true reason that things currently work badly, is not excess bureaucracy, as you mischaracterize dispute resolution. It's a collective unwillingness to edit User talk:Pratyeka and to make a simple bluelink at Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka amongst people who (supposedly) know that those are the right first steps with their views.

    The collective inability exhibited here, by editors who (supposedly) know all this, to do things that are a lot simpler to effect than an arbitration request — and to find RFC with both hands and a flashlight — is saddening. This is the right thing to do; and in a situation where the major complaint is You didn't follow SD/AFD/DRV procedures! the complainants should all better be setting a good example themselves by following dispute resolution procedures.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Sure, I agree it looks like RFC is the way this thing is heading, as that that is "the proper way", and I'm not surprised that that's the way the Arbs are leaning - but I'm quite entitled to express my opinion that the current "proper way", which involves everyone repeating themselves in yet a third forum, is full of wasteful baggage. I reckon the best way forward is to leave it to Dennis or Casliber to have a private word with Pratyeka when he gets back and see where that gets us - if that works, then there will simply be no need to go any further down the bureaucratic road. But I do agree with you on one point - this discussion here is itself a waste of time, so I will take my leave of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• A RFC is pointless in a case like this, where it would just be a necessary form to file before the thing would go to ArbCom anyway. --Rschen7754 07:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is a problem with your expectations that you are always doomed to fail, not with RFC. Try beginning with the expectation that a mass of feedback from a lot of people on xyr user talk page and at RFC will change Pratyeka's mind, instead. Community norms are community enforced, and you are the community. So bring in your third opinions to User talk:Pratyeka. Do your long list of "support"s on Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka. Do things right, especially when your complaint is that someone else didn't do things right. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• It would be so helpful in a case like this—an admin who's barely used the tools and who was admin-ed when four !votes could make an admin—if we could just call for a fresh RfA.  davidiad { t } 09:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want him to re-run RfA, then just ask him on his talk page - if he says no, an RFC will make no difference, because it has no power whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're right ... and it a stupid thought anyway, as an RfA under these circumstances and in the recent RfA climate would simply be a resignation with a crowd.  davidiad { t } 09:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Here is my prediction coming true: Of the 7 arbitrators who have declined so far, four (NuclearWarfare, SilkTork, Salvio giuliano, and Carcharoth) have explicitly mentioned RFC, and a fifth (Newyorkbrad) has echoed the rationales of two of those four. I repeat: You are banging on about someone else following procedures, you all (supposedly) know that you don't do this on AN/I, and you all (supposedly) know where Wikipedia:Requests for comment is. Do things right. How can you collectively be so unable to start a simple RFC? Or even to join in the discussions at User talk:Pratyeka? If you have strong views on these uses of the tools, why aren't you conveying them to Pratyeka? Go to User talk:Pratyeka. Put up Project:Requests for comment/Pratyeka. Do things right, and follow procedures yourselves. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Casliber and Dennis Brown are willing to have a chat with Pratyeka when he's back online, if their schedules permit, exploring with him his views, his current skill set and his readiness to conform to the current norms. They'll then report to ANI the results of that dialogue. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent - that sounds like the best way forward -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Talk to the bloke and try to persuade xem first. In addition to the above applause, I also applaud the two of you for being the only two people who went to User talk:Pratyeka. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, I went there too - and from the tone of the discussion already in progress (utter unrepetantness exactly as above - "I don't have to listen to your silly 'consensus' because WP:ILIKEIT and I know best") saw no point in further timewasting there. I suspect others thought the same. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto. GregJackP Boomer! 00:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Realistically, what's your goal: a desysopped admin, OR an admin who understands policies. If, in the process of the RFC, the admin clearly expresses a) their errors, and b) proper understanding of the policies that they have broken, AND c) shows signs that they will improve on those issues and their recognition that they need to be responsive to the community, then we have a win-win situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, if we really want to be realistic, we have to look and see what outcomes are plausible. If Pratyeka doesn't want to change, then no amount of talking with him or RFCing is going to do anything, and we'll be right back here in a month or two. Might as well save the time and effort and get it over with. --Rschen7754 00:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Since the previous two conferences in the Observe Hack Mack series, Hacking at Random, and Hackers at Large ended up with articles we'll just create the article in six or seven months. Might as well save time and effort and restore the article now. (This where we realize the not following procedure to deal with an admin not following procedure is just a bit inconsistent.) NE Ent 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In mythical man month author Fred Brooks gives the example of managers thinking if a woman can give birth to a child in one month, they can hire nine women to get a child in on month. Similarly, there's a mythical editor intervention concept that if n editors unsuccessfully addressed an editor on a talk page, n + 1 editors won't be effective. Back when we had an WQA I often observed that the more distinct editors that relayed the same message the more likely it would be to take effect. It's best to address non-troll/vandal editors first on their talk page, even if some other's got there before you did. It might work, and if it doesn't you can make a definitive statement that it didn't rather than a speculative statement that it wouldn't have. NE Ent 01:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like n editors have failed to make the case, so perhaps 1 editor will be able to - that's what I'm hoping. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This ANI thread and arbcom comments may be far more convincing then any editor could. "Gallows" have been set up for everyone to see, he needs to be completely delusional if he doesn't get that now only "right answers" can save him from quick desysop. Although even with right answers it may remain questionable if he can actually regain trust.--Staberinde (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My comment is actually wrong. The n editors here at ANI have not failed - as Pratyeka is away, we simply don't know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) and Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) have agreed that one or both of them, schedules permitting, will talk things over with Pratyeka when he returns. Perhaps we could leave this for now and await their comments after that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 28 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.