Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) at 06:23, 12 March 2014 (→User:Reece Leonard: fix the status field of {{archive top}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    Constant arguing over parapsychology

    Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Wikipedia a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum [[1]] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here [[2]]

    PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)
    69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)

    If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Wikipedia. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Wikipedia. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.

    To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Wikipedia editor who talks about Wikipedia editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." [3] amongst other nonsense.

    I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Wikipedia to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, so the correct venue for this would be WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. Noformation Talk 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think PhiChiPsiOmega needs to learn about Wikipedia policy in general and WP:AGF, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTAFORUM in specific. However, as a slight mitigating factor, he is a very new user and I don't want to bite the newcomer. It's clear that he believes very passionately in his topic and there's nothing wrong with that, however the situation on the constellation of parapsychology and pseudoscience articles shouldn't be changed just to accommodate one passionate editor. I think the best thing to do would be to pair PhiChiPsiOmega with an editor who has absolutely no involvement with anything even remotely related to parapsychology as a mentor. Encourage him to learn the ropes of Wikipedia somewhere where he's less likely to enter into antagonistic situations with long-standing editors. After all, passion speaks to boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Wikipedia. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Wikipedia, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" [4].

    Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Wikipedia is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:

    Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:

    Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia he's created countless blog and forum posts against Wikipedia like this, and even an entire website against Wikipedia policies [8]:

    Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    "After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.”

    In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize.

    Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [9]

    "I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education."

    [10] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [11]

    "The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [12]

    And you only need to look at his Wikipedia user page and comments on Wikipedia to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Wikipedia and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative [13] On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi [14]. I have no idea why this editor is still on Wikipedia considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Wikipedia (he's even hosted online petitions against Wikipedia). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Wikipedia, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Wikipedia.

    PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of Parapsychology to read "Parapsychology (or psi phenomena) is the somewhat controversial scientific study of psychic and paranormal phenomena." (diff). Clearly PhiChiPsiOmega's edits will need extensive scrutiny, and WP:AE can be used if nothing is learned within a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Wikipedia isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the inevitable result of this will be that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) gets shepherded away from Wikipedia articles. He's going to waste editor's time because he seems incapable of understanding basic policies. The break is either going to be voluntary or enforced under WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wolfie, WP:AE limits us to providing diffs of WP:ARB/PS issues. Tom has a long history of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Wikipedia protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Wikipedia talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave you plenty of references! Your failure to look at them is indicative of something else other than objectivity at work. I gave you plenty of articles from scientific journals and I could have given you more! It's not trolling. There are several authorities who claim psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, even though you still represent the counters of those who support psychoanalysis. They're saying many people refer to it as pseudoscience, not that it's completely pseudoscientific. And even if it is disagreed with, cite the esteemable people who actually support the stuff and are credible enough to get the material published in academic lit: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Parapsychology_5th_ed.html?id=rPlsF2BJiHUC. This counters several of the criticisms, and I don't see you even looking at it once! It's hardly something not worth citing like SIGNATURE IN THE CELL for evolution or something similar. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Wikipedia have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Wikipedia.
    As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Wikipedia nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.
    You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Arildnordby: How does parapsychology fit in with flat-Earth and YEC nonsense? They have no peer-review, no textbooks, and no wide range of academic literature behind them. Parapsychology, on the other hand, does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom, you serve no purpose on Wikipedia but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Wikipedia and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Wikipedia which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Wikipedia in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.
    If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?
    And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Wikipedia for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.
    I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.
    I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.
    I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    GF: I've talked with Radin before. He only responds to stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the comments here if you don't believe me: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructive-criticism.html. That said, if you press him enough, he will respond in a private conversation. I've shared emails with him, and I've kept them. If I'm correct, the skeptical criticisms usually repeat themselves like a broken record (you're defining psi by what it's not, lack of replicability immediately means bad experiment and no further investigation is needed, it'll defy the laws of physics as we know them, etc.), and I'm suspecting Park's criticisms are no different. Radin has responded to criticism, but he doesn't have to respond to every single skeptical writer directly in order to do that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Wikipedia. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia reports the current scientific consensus, which is that paranormal phenomena are fringe science (at best). Neutrality does not factor into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note another user has correctly removed the comments from me to the sock puppet 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) and his comments to me as it was off topic and he has openly confessed to being banned on his account Blastikus and others. I apologise for thinking this sock was PhiChiPsiOmega. Tom Butler's behavior is being discussed elsewhere by admins at Wikipedia Arbitration so I think this discussion should be closed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PhiChiPsiOmega, you just need to contact James Randi to set up some tests. If the results of these tests are positive then that will be a notable enough result for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Count Iblis: I'm familiar with the Randi Challenge, thank you, but the Ganzfeld has undergone far more skeptical scrutiny. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    GF: No worries. It's the internet. It happens. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What matters is to get results that are widely accepted. So, assuming for argument's sake that you are right and that in Ganzfeld experiments a positive result does show up, one still has to demonstrate this in a way that will gain acceptance within the scientific community. If we also assume for argument's sake that you initially don't gain acceptance because of unreasonable skepticism, you still have to deal with that problem before you can claim a positive result (however unfair this is).
    Randi was dealing with the opposite problem in the late 1970s, at that time certain results like Uri Geller's mind of matter results were accepted as proven by the parapsychology community while his criticism of these results were totally ignored. It took several years for him to prove that he was correct and that the entire parapsychology community was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles follow WP:REDFLAG—the science which makes planes fly and phones ring finds there is no evidence to suggest that parapsychology is any different from all other junk FRINGE stuff. Of course some eye witnesses dispute Randi's claims—that's what fringe people do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at WP:AE for WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT still stands. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to continue debate on policy. Unless an admin plans on handing out sanctions, there's nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this thread should be closed as no action is likely, Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation has not been resolved, there's now PhiChi with an abusive IP editor promoting conspiracy theories of censorship on the parapsychology talk-page and others. Goblin Face (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NO! I'm not "presenting a conspiracy theory". I'm presenting EVIDENCE. Please learn to tell the bloody difference, stop accusing me and others of bias, and start acknowledging your own. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you've not provided "evidence." You've provided your opinion, which is against consensus. This is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has come to a dead end. Just to clarify why an admin should close this discussion:

    As no action is likely the be taken and the trouble has probably stopped, this should be closed now. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandalising climate data for months

    75.191.173.190 (talk · contribs) has been on a trail of disruption, including undoing the transclusion of established templates, falsely claiming "updates" to data (when most government meteorological agencies only update normals every decade), "adjusting" temperatures that have been verified countless times without changing the source, among other crimes. Since this has been going on since at least New Year's Day, a several-month-long block is in order. GotR Talk 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried contacting the user? What do they say? --Tóraí (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but to no avail. GotR Talk 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually discussed with them specifics of what is wrong with their edits? All I'm seeing in the above link is a generic templated message about unsourced material. (Such a discussion would also be helpful to administrators, as I'm not seeing any outright intentional vandalism, not knowing the specifics or intentions of the IP editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I told them to: 1) make their edits directly to transcluded templates, not supplant their transclusion with several more KBs of code; an example is Minneapolis#Climate, which transcludes {{Minneapolis weatherbox}}. The user was told by others to obey this custom. 2) False claims, as I find it hard to believe the IP does not notice the main source presently used at {{Seattle weatherbox}} is the same as the "new", and "more accurate" source the IP has been claiming to use; the user may be lying 3) I also hinted to them of the vastly superior quality of normals, which include smoothing for missing and suspect data, over simple arithmetic averages. Therefore, this user has indicated no will to cooperate, and this is a behavourial issue, not a mere dispute over the undisputed official status of Normals. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At it again, and even reverting the edits of countless others (this one to Madison, WI has nothing to do with climate, too!). Also, Dennis B, thank you for bringing attention to this matter in another venue. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I go to editing in {{Minneapolis weatherbox}} is it fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still reverting, and after all these hours, you have finally come here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All my renewed datas are from NOAA include Average temps and there's no any false informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that he's not putting out blatantly false data, so we can't just treat this as vandalism. But he is changing the data without changing the source (or even the time period of the source), which indicates either that all of the data was false to begin with or that the IP's numbers don't actually match the source he's claiming they come from. It may be, however, that he's putting out data that matches the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and just neglecting to say so or change the source. It does seem that at least some of the data he's adding (I didn't check it all; NOAA's data access takes more steps than it should) does indeed match the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and therefore should stay in the templates if at least the source is changed. —Soap— 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the official normals; anything else isn't. I had went through and corrected the templates, mostly temperatures, to match them over the past year. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Repeating the same revert six or seven times in a row, as at Template:Boston weatherbox, is not the way to overcome other editors' objections. 2. There has been no explanation forthcoming, that I can find, as to why any changes are necessary to the climate information for any of the cities involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been nearly 24 hours since the last comment on this thread. So are we going to silently allow this disruption to continue as it likely will? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And indeed it has resumed. Administrator attention needed here. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a content dispute. Lieutenant, while I appreciate your willingness to put so much work into a much-neglected area of Wikipedia, I don't think we can simply decide that the NOAA website is the one and only source from which we can get climate data, or even that it is superior to other sources, which is what you seem to be saying. However I wouldn't go to the other extreme and simply accept all of the IP's edits either, particularly as he hasn't explained where they're sourced from. —Soap— 06:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not bent on continuing the arguments from a content dispute at AN/I, but NWS Baltimore/Washington and Pittsburgh all use the quality-calibrated normals, which are more often than not different from simple arithmetic averages; for example, the normal January high at PIT is 35.7 °F, not the simple arithmetic average of 36.0 °F. This is not at all a matter of preference; it's a matter of whether the Earth revolves around the sun and is not up for debate. NCDC states "Procedures are put in place to deal with missing and suspect data values [when calculating normals]". "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The content dispute can't be resolved unless the IP goes to the talk page and discusses it. The reason this issue is here on AIN is that IP 75.191.173.190 intends to edit war ad infinitum and will not discuss. I think a block or page protection would prod them to go talk out the content disupte. To me it boils down to a 3RR violation across many articles and templates, and 3RR violations draw a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated 3RR vios with refusal to discuss should draw escalating blocks. If admins here won't take action, perhaps the Edit Warring noticeboard at WP:AN3 will. Jusdafax 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And now it's been directed back here. This is really frustrating. When the vandal makes his next edit contrary to policy, please tell us what action to take. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading this thread and seeing the reverts that 75.191.173.190 has made, I was almost ready to issue a block for edit warring. However, the IP hasn't edited in two days, so it seems a bit late for an edit-warring block now. I've left them a note on their talk page instead. If they start reverting again, please let me know and I will block them and/or protect the pages involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user socking

    On 27 February, Worm That Turned declined the unblock request of User talk:Arri at Suburban Express, a user with an already long history of socking and disruptive editing.

    Three days later, there are edits on it's owner's article from 99.67.249.6. Geolocated to CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS; the IP removed substantial information from the article. Can we please get a semi-permanent way to deal with this sock?

    Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean, a ban or something like that? Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Arri is blocked, has had an unblock declined after functionary review, and is probably socking would strongly imply he's de facto banned (see WP:BAN). As such, and given sufficient behavioral evidence (since CU won't confirm IPs), any admin should feel free to issue lengthy blocks to the IPs in question. If we want to have a formal community ban discussion I think we can do that, though it really wouldn't change anything (and I'm not clear on whether we can have a community ban if ArbCom or the functionaries have asserted jurisdiction over a case, not that I'm sure that's happened here). Regardless, endorse blocking 99.67.249.6 of any length greater or equal to one month (prefer three). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I wasn't sure if a ban was the most effective way or just get an admin to block the IP. Given that either action needed an admin anyway, it was best for me to comment here and let other admins look into this. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well at this point this is probably going to be declined as stale since the edits were a few days ago. It also looks like there are a lot of IPs that may be being used here, so a simple block might not do much. But according to the IP tools, 99 is a static IP, so blocking for a period may help. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Block that sock. Jusdafax 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reece Leonard

    BANS ENACTED
    While a few alternative options were suggested, User:DangerousPanda's original suggestion had the most support. As a result of the discussion below, the following restrictions are now in place:
    1. User:Reece Leonard is indefinitely topic-banned from Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles.
    2. User:Reece Leonard is subject to a mutual interaction ban with User:STATicVapor
    These restrictions will be logged, and violations will be subject to escalating blocks. These restrictions can be appealed on AN/ANI no sooner than 6 months after their implementation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [15], [16], [17], [18]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [19], [20], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: [21]. He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: [22], [23], and has begun canvassing other (uninvolved) editors with this same material as well, [24], [25].

    I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: [26], [27], [28], [29]; Katy Perry: [30] and Britney Spears: [31]. He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits [32], [33].

    It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to be honest: when the article was first created, it ended up on my watchlist. Over the last bit, I've seen edits by Reece that made me shake my head - so much so that I took it off my watchlist, rather than see countless, repetitive ad nauseum bad edits. Might have been here for some reason, and might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago ES&L 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just going to point out that the only reason why this argument got so out of hand was STATic's ridiculously rude, inflamatory rhetoric, including calling me childish, incompetent, etc. He has a lengthy history of insulting various users (evidenced by his talk page) and that leads to this kind of uncivil discussion. He also admitted that he disliked the artist who's page we were discussing twice. Homeostasis has previously been blocked for behaving unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. I've stated numerous sources that back up my claims, although I recently ended this debate because I realized that it was ultimately pointless as these two have no intention of compromising at all. My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that, in my time with StaticVapor, he's has been a very good editor with a strong grasp on Wikipedia and its policies. Without any clear difs, I'd be likely to doubt any claims of "uncivil discussion" or rudeness. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perusing Talk:Artpop, I have to disagree with Reece Leonard's assertion that this is all the fault of STATic. I believe that the main issue is Reece's dismissive attitude, which he demonstrated somewhat just above me, "My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye." I see that Reece communicates in this manner consistently, proceeding by essentially stating that he is correct, everyone else is wrong, and there's no need to debate the issue. I'm not saying that Reece refuses to get involved in discussions, he most certainly does, but he too frequently refers to those who disagree with him as vandals, and often refers to an editor's past conduct issues as a way to discredit their arguments (as above where he points out STATic's block history). Stating that WP:NOTHERE applies is hyperbole, I believe that Reece is sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, but he has a lot of trouble collaborating, which is a major problem. -- Atama頭 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: I can assure you i do not live a double life on here, I am the same person. Reece just seems to enjoy making up things and harassing other users when the conversation is not going their way. He was owed a WP:NPA block for the insane focus on commenting on fellow contributors as you can see above rather then the topic at hand. I have been stating over and over, i have no bias, I can edit any subject, keeping a perfect WP:NPOV, a serious problem Reece has, which can be based off the entire discussion and his other edits as explained by the OP. @Atama: Just saying, he was referring to Homeostasis' block history. NOTHERE might not apply, but WP:COMPETENCE clearly does. When there is clear WP:CONSENSUS he has to learn to drop it, not just keep harassing editors for days and pressing the issue. I feel like this user has attempted to drag my name through the mud on way too many pages through this, as can be seen through the 5+ user talk pages he was canvassing his malicious harassment [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] through. STATic message me! 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it was my block history Reece was referring to, and not Static's. That was a block for 3RR 6 months ago. Since then, I've not come close to infringing 3RR (ie, lesson learned), so, again, this is just another example of Reece saying anything he can to discredit another editor's position. Attempting to use a 3RR block to suggest that I'm "biased" against a particular subject (see the last 4 diffs Static posted above) isn't cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing this discussion back from the dead. I would like to see some sort of action against this user for the extremely inappropriate behavior as detailed above. The user seems to believe this was "declined" and they have done no wrong, which is clearly incorrect. Since the last comment they have added a false certification which ties in with the WP:NPOV issue bung up above, started genre warring, not abiding by BRD, which they are aware of, and have resorted back to the personal attacks and refusal to not focus every single post to comment on other users rather then the topic at hand. STATic message me! 09:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not declined - what User:Reece Leonard should have got from this discussion is that ANY future similar behaviour would lead to a block. Consensus above was that their behaviour was problematic. As they were involved in the discussion, they know that. You cannot get more of a warning that to have your wrist slapped by consensus. They ALSO learned from above that STATicVapor's actions were NOT overall problematic - again, a good thing to have learned DP 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been harassing me since this discussion was tabled, attempting to goad me into some other argument so that he would have any excuse to bring up this discussion again. If my original actions were punishable by a slap on the wrist then STATic's are as well. He has repeatedly been rude and aggressive with me after I repeatedly told him that I wanted to avoid any kind of issue with him again. His actions in the original debate were absolutely problematic as he called me and another user children, and has accused me of being illiterate numerous times, amongst multiple other issues that I brought up above. I never stated that this board thought that I had done nothing wrong; that is a fabrication. I stated that my actions were not punishable by a block, which they obviously were not. I've not started edit warring; one revert on one user does not constitute an edit war. The user above has consistently used ridiculous hyperbole to blow all of my actions way out of proportion and has issued so many baseless warnings to me with the hopes that I either react violently or cease editing altogether that I can't keep track of them all. I've attempted to move on from this issue and distance myself from STATic to avoid any kind of other problems in the future and he has refused to do the same. I realize that I should've made more of a case for myself originally, but seeing as how I assumed that administrators would review ALL of the information necessary to come to a verdict instead of the stuff that one user gave them that supported their side, I didn't think that would be necessary. I've repeatedly tried to move on and even stated that I would cease all interaction with STATic, and he has responded by bringing this up again with no actual basis for doing so other than what he has attempted to blow out of proportion. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @DangerousPanda: Thanks for stating the facts of the matter. The thing is, they have returned to the behavior as seen here. My behavior has been respectable, Reece yours has not and you need to address it rather than repeatedly deny it. I did not call you a child and definitely did not call anyone else that. I only questioned the literacy due to you refusal (see WP:COMPETENCE) to read or understand any of the guidelines or policies I have linked to you including most of all WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. You still have yet to do that. Your "issues that you brought up" are non-existent. Not publishable by a block? The users above sure think so, along with a few in the discussion. The warnings are not harassment, every warning I have gave you was 100% deserved, as would be a block. I am not trying to get a reaction out of you. All the information was reviewed and it is clear as day you are the only one in the wrong. Nothing is being blown out of proportion, how do, you think, this, is, okay??? STATic message me! 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough

    Based on Reece's comments above, I have a proposal:

    1. User:Reece Leonard is indefinitely topic-banned from Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles.
    2. User:Reece Leonard is subject to a mutual interaction ban with User:STATicVapor
    These restrictions will be logged, and violations will be subject to escalating blocks. These restrictions can be appealed on AN/ANI no sooner than 6 months after their implementation ES&L 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on earth would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga articles? I certainly support an interaction ban, but I do not deserve to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages indefinitely. That's an extreme measure and unfounded, as @Atama: agrees that I'm not operating with a WP:NOTHERE. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I be banned from editing these types of pages at all? The user above has admitted twice that he dislikes the artist at hand and... I would be blocked from editing her pages? Why? What grounds are there for that? The grounds based on STATic's repeated accusations? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I do not enjoy listening to her music, not my cup of tea at all. When did I ever try to hide that? You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love. I only watch listed the page to combat vandalism on a popular page and my contributions have been nothing but constructive. The difference between us is that I can edit without a bias. You would be blocked from editing them since you refuse to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. If you can prove that you are a proper editor on other subjects, then you can have a review in a few months, good luck. STATic message me! 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You claiming that your edits have been constructive doesn't make them so. I ALWAYS abide by the guidelines you just cited. You claiming otherwise because I don't agree with you on ONE edit doesn't make it so. Absolutely not. Stop attempting to make me out to be some rabid fan off the leash attempting to misrepresent wikipedia articles. I gave NUMEROUS sources to back up what I was saying and you responded with the same argument over and over again. You repeating that you can operate without a bias isn't an argument and it certainly doesn't prove that I can't operate without bias. You repeating that I'm biased over and over again doesn't make it true. You have no evidence to support that claim, other than your own view of a person who disagreed with you on an edit and who you're now attempting to get blocked to shut them up. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note, I do not support the statement, "You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love." People should definitely be free to edit subjects that they have interest in, I believe that's how most article creation and improvement comes about. Anyone who does so for a subject they feel strongly about (positively or negatively) must adhere to our neutral point of view policy, or risk sanctions (because their editing becomes disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia), but if we maintained that people could not focus on subjects they liked we'd have an even bigger problem with participation than we already do. -- Atama頭 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atama: That is why I said not all your editing, obviously 90% of the article building I do goes into subjects I enjoy, but enjoy and interest are two different things. I never implied that editors should not edit subject they like, or edit subjects they do not more often, it is just about adhering to the neutral point of view policy, which Reece has failed to do continuiously after many warnings and comments about it. STATic message me! 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't showing any evidence of my supposed refusal to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. I had sources that backed up my claims; that's not just some biased opinion, and you repeating it doesn't prove anything. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - With the provision that Jorgath suggested. As I said before, I don't think Reece is deliberately disruptive, but he is definitely having problems with collaboration. I don't know if that is just how he is as an editor in general, or if it is due to the passion he feels for the subject making it hard to be objective. It looks like the mutual interaction ban is accepted... mutually... So there seems to be no problem with that portion of the ban suggestion, although it would be difficult to adhere to if they continue to edit the same pages. It looks like Reece has an interest in 30 Rock and other subjects, maybe taking a break for a few months to work on other articles would be a positive change. -- Atama頭 19:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atama: Just to be clear, what part of this are you supporting? It reads like you support the interaction ban and not the ban on my editing certain pages. And why would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages and not STATic? If the issue is us interacting, why would you only ban me and not the person who's admitted to disliking the artist? I've never operated on anything other than neutral point of view and have always listed numerous sources that back up my changes and STATic has no evidence to support his repeated claims otherwise when I've given evidence of his own bias against Lady Gaga. I will point out, once again, that he had no reason to bring this discussion up again. I did nothing to incite this kind of hyperbolic response and his listing of various guidelines and accusations of myself not following them have no factual basis if you will look into what he's saying. Again: there are no grounds for BANNING me from Lady Gaga pages. That's an extreme measure that punishes me for arguing with STATic when he originally initiated the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. If this is the attitude that wikipedia administrators take (older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them), it's no wonder that you have a serious problem with editor participation on this site. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously Reece, you have been the single most disruptive editor on Artpop since its creation. Hands down. Trust me ... I've had it on my radar since then. The problem seems to be that you cannot recognize how disruptive you're being - THAT is the reason you need to be topic-banned from it. This isn't rocket science, but you're not even using the right textbook when it comes to editing this project as a whole. "Indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that your behaviour will not recur", it's not "indefinite" - I even proposed a review date, which some folks are being kind enough to lower to 4 months. By then, you might have learned how to get along with people DP 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty sure very single person involved in the Artpop discussion would support your topic ban from the page, rather then mine. That goes without saying though considering the nuisance you created there. You do not edit with a neutral point of view, saying you do does not change the facts, that is the reason for the topic ban. Myself and User:Homeostasis07 listed more than enough diffs and points, and I am tired of repeating them if you refuse to acknowledge your horrid behavior. "Bringing the discussion up again", it never closed and I am so happy I brung it back to the main page because we are finally nearing closure and sanctions for your behavior. About the whole last part, completely incorrect, stop trying to play victim now after all the malicious harassment that you have done. Any result here is 100% deserved. STATic message me! 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    YOU saying that I'm operating with bias doesn't make it so. You cited multiple instances where YOU gave me warnings because you didn't agree with my edits. And of course you're happy: that's what you want. You want to ban me because I disagree with you and create a monopoly so that you can continue on editing pages the way you see fit without opposition. I gave numerous sources that stated exactly the point I was arguing for, which proves that I wasn't basing my argument on my own biased opinion. You repeating that I'm biased and ignoring the fact that multiple publications stated exactly what I was saying makes zero sense. And finally: "brung" is not a word. It's just not a word. This entire process, you've repeatedly insulted me, told me that I was illiterate, called me a child, and questioned my intelligence while continually using non-words and phrasing sentences in nonsensical ways. When I point these glaring instances of hypocrisy out to you, you claim that they are "personal attacks" and proceed to rant and rave about how "malicious" I am and how I'm "slandering" you, and then you have the gaul to accuse me of playing the victim. There is absolutely no basis for banning me from editing Lady Gaga pages as the argument I stated was backed up by numerous sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf) which completely negates your arguments of bias. If this is an opinion shared by multiple journalists, it's obviously not some fabrication of my supposedly "biased" mind. I did nothing to warrant you re-opening this case and even told you that I wanted to avoid these kinds of issues in the future multiple times, and you responded with another attempt to get me blocked for disagreeing with you. You DID originally initiate the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. And now you're continuing to further your goals of banning all opposition by continuing to claim that I'm biased without real evidence to back your claims up, when you previously admitted you didn't like the artist at hand twice. Look: I recognize that my argument wasn't a majority opinion. I took it past the point where it made sense and continued to argue with people when there was no realistic expectation for anyone else to change their mind. This is something that I will absolutely keep in mind when editing pages in the future. That being said: banning me because STATic has accused me of being biased when this is clearly not the case is a ridiculously hyperbolic response and again: If wikipedia administrators seriously think older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them, it's no wonder that this site has a serious problem with editor participation. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and with that, it looks like case closed. Thanks for proving me, Static, and every single past editor of the Artpop page correct. DP 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What?! What are you talking about?! Did you even read my paragraph?! Reece Leonard (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reece, I'm supporting both bans (the interaction ban and topic ban). I'm enthusiastically endorsing the interaction ban, and less enthusiastically supporting the topic ban. My lack of enthusiasm isn't because I think that you're not exhibiting a problem, it's because I'm not sure that the problem is going to be solved by restricting you from particular topics. It's more an issue with your communication style.
    I will state that it is at the very least counter-productive for STATicVapor to insult Lady Gaga fans on the talk page of one of her album articles. Whatever a person's feelings, it's disruptive (almost trollish) to make statements that will rile up a group of people that are likely to be participating at that page. Combine that with the earlier statement about people not editing topics that they love, and it indicates to me that this topic ban might also be extended to STATicVapor as well. If they have and acknowledge a bias against Lady Gaga topics, why should they be editing those topics? -- Atama頭 21:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If I'm going to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages for four months purely because of the way I communicate (which I don't understand, seeing as how you're not attempting to ban other members of the Artpop talk page who use aggressive rhetoric), STATic should absolutely be banned for insulting Lady Gaga and her fans, exhibiting a clear bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    .... @Atama: What? I never insulted her fans, the only one ever offended by my comments has been Reece, of course in his backwards world where they refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing of there's. You obviously did not read my post above (starts with That is why I said not all your editing), where I was replying to you. I have never ever ever said I had a bias, and I have had to repeat that over and over already to this single editor. My edits and discussion show zero indication of someone that does not have a NPOV, that just sounds ridiculous to me. STATic message me! 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Yes, you did. 2) I acknowledged the fact that I took the argument too far above. Read my arguments before commenting on them, please. 3) I wasn't offended by your insulting her and her fans; I pointed out that you making fun of her constitutes bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @STATicVapor: You either have a poor memory, or you don't consider these to be insults, which itself is concerning (and I'll note that Reece has linked this diff previously, which you ignored). Whatever Reece's behavior problems, you've certainly exacerbated them. -- Atama頭 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was talking about earlier. Yes, I went too far with the arguing. I'm honestly extremely apologetic for the way that I approached the situation because it ended up wasting months of my time (and others' time) on users who were never going to change their opinion no matter how many sources I gave them. At the same time, me behaving inappropriately doesn't explain why I would be banned from certain articles. That doesn't really have anything to do with Lady Gaga; it has to do with how I approached this particular situation and how I will revise my behavior in the future. STATic has exhibited a clear negative view of Lady Gaga. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes one diff, the only point he has had. Still no where close to the malicious slander that Reece has brought into this project, need I repeat just this example of links [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. I have no negative view at all, I never said I hated her music or had a bias or negative feelings of her as a person. Its pretty clear by my user page and edits I prefer a different type (hip-hop/rock), rather than pop, but I am a lover of music in general. I can neutrally edit any article and I did not cause extreme disruption as Reece did. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to address that as I got used to ignoring the irrelevant little attacks they want to throw in their responses. It is most certainly a word, but that goes without saying really. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, pointing out your consistent grammatical errors to combat your own claims of my illiteracy would, in no way, constitute an "attack". You're using insanely hyperbolic rhetoric, as an administrator stated earlier. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've seen this going on for a while and this proposal works fine for me. If this discussion isn't enough to show why the proposal is receiving the support it's getting, I'll just say my reasoning for supporting this is the same as others above me. Gloss • talk 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger:, @Gloss:, What about @Atama:'s statements of banning STATic as well? And can you two please point out exactly what you're having an issue with in my arguments? I'm inquiring with the goal of avoiding this kind of situation again in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Easiest solution for now, and can also be escalated further if the disruption moves elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Best thing for now!, And as per Luke if it gets any worse It'll be extended. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Even though I'm an involved editor (ie, I created the original ANI complaint), I think we can agree that enough is enough of this. The user started off editing some articles about 30 Rock, but then moved squarely on to Lady Gaga articles, and shows no sign of moving on from the topic (read any of his replies above or his contribs page). He shows no sign of ending his disruptive editing. Even though it's been disputed by other editors, I still believe that he's NOTHERE. He's here to "correct any bias" that he comes across on Lady Gaga pages. He's clearly not NPOV. A topic ban (for whatever duration) is warranted. If the user then returns to his old habits after the ban expires, more serious measures might be required. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the interaction ban and Artpop ban, but I'm not sure about banning from Gaga articles. Since I haven't looked very far into Reece's editing history of Gaga articles, could someone provide examples of his edits to those other pages that would qualify for topic ban? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says nowhere on my page that I'm on here to correct any bias on Lady Gaga articles. Linking to my contributions page in no way proves that statement. I'm am operating with NPOV as multiple administrators on this page have stated, and while I don't understand why these administrators would institute a topic ban on myself if the way I communicate it the issue here, if they are going to issue one to myself they would absolutely need to block STATic as well as he has proven he is not operating with a NPOV here: x Reece Leonard (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the ban on complete non-interraction with these two users, Static and Reece. I do not support ban from other Gaga articles since Reece has not disrupted them I can see. For Artpop edits I think an edit review needs to be done for both their contributions as well, so that no further issues like this crop up. In nutshell, Static and Reece do not edit the article, any contribution you want to make, take it to the talk page first, others have it listed on their watchlist. And zero tolerance on Edit warring from both of them. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In regards to sanctioning User:STATicVapor I recommend a simple trout and perhaps a warning, since they have recognized that they did cross the civility line and have apologized for doing so. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jorgath: That was actually me that apologized. His response is just underneath mine. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that - without any intention of offence whatsoever - @Atama: could do with reading the entirety of the Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception page, to avoid confusing the situation. Reece's contention that StaticVapor is somehow biased against Lady Gaga seems to stem from this edit. But if you read it for yourself, StaticVapor in no way suggests that he is biased against Lady Gaga. He in fact says the opposite: that he's there to provide a neutral POV. Reece Leonard immediately misinterpreted/manipulated that edit to make it sound as though StaticVapor was biased, something Reece is still mentioning to this day. But those two diffs I just provided should speak volumes. A certain user has been attempting to misconstrue this entire situation to his advantage for several weeks now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama DID read that section of the talk page and even cited it himself above in support of his conclusion that it warranted banning STATic as well. I didn't misinterpret anything, and Atama attests to that above. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reece, just because STATicVapor said Gaga isn't his "cup of tea" doesn't mean he has a bias when editing articles relating to her or anyone else. In fact, many people make edits to articles of people/things they aren't particularly fond of and never are biased in such edits. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I really doubt he/she read it all, or even close to it if they supported your side in the slightest. As you can see every person that has followed the discussion from the start is clearly on my side, as they know the insane amount of disruption you have caused. Reece also give up the hope I am going to be banned too, it is clearly not going to happen. Thanks XXSNUGGUMSXX, I do not get how Reece refuses to understand this after I have said it no less than a dozen times now. STATic message me! 03:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama DID read it and cited to you the specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans. How can you claim that they haven't read it when they commented on your specific statements in my diff? And you keep referencing the fact that you've denied that you're biased against Lady Gaga, but that doesn't mean anything. I've denied having a bias when it comes to her and yet you keep accusing me of having one anyway. I cited a specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (here, for the third time: x) and Atama agreed that that would constitute grounds for banning you from her pages. Atama also stated that you certainly exacerbated the discussion with this kind of "trollish" rhetoric. You can't just claim that anyone who agrees with me hasn't read the discussion. That's a fallacy-based argument. Furthermore, not all the users on this page have advised for me being banned from Gaga pages. Multiple users (IndianBio, XXSNUGUMSXX, etc.) have argued for the interaction ban and not the ban from editing Gaga pages. As user Atama stated above, you're ignoring certain pieces of the conversation and presenting a one-sided, inaccurate summation of this page. XXSNUGGUMSXX, the point I'm trying to make here is that I've cited an instance in which a user made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (with rhetoric user Atama has described as "trollish" ). If you're attempting to have someone banned on the grounds that they're biased and you don't have any proof to back that claim up (other than vague links to my contribution box) and then go on to make fun of the artist in question, that argument obviously just doesn't hold up. Repeating over and over again that my bias is obvious or clear, etc. doesn't prove anything. When you have an administrator blatantly stating that they believe that STATic is biased (As Atama does above), that certainly does support my case. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    STATic didn't make fun of Gaga herself as far as I know, though calling her fans "childish" was rather unneeded. However, I don't think he was describing all of her fans, just lots that he's interacted with. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there other Wikipedia editors who are Gaga fans that he certainly wouldn't describe as such. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing that one comment to the vile, malicious personal attacks and harassment that Reece has made is like comparing apples to watermelons. Yes I referred to the actions of one of her fans (Reece) childish. This thread is just another example of his refusal to act like a adult in a professional environment and I am just tired of responding saying the same thing over and over. Yes a single admin said they thought that, before they had even read my response to them where I refuted that point. Do not forget they still supported the topic ban for you. Multiple editors/admins have stated here that I do not have a bias, while to quote a very knowledgeable one: "Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas." Couldn't have said it better myself... Since there has been ten supporters of both points brought up by User: EatsShootsAndLeaves can we move to close and end this already? STATic message me! 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    XXSNUGGUMSXX, he stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general, and then called myself and IndianBio children, as I have sourced above. STATic, disputing with a user who is attempting to have me banned is, in no way, childish. Please stop referring to my actions as "vile" and "malicious" and "attacks". That's ridiculously hyperbolic. The instances you are referring to and have linked to were instances in which I attempted to enlist help from other users and conveyed to them my opinion that you had a biased view of Lady Gaga, which user Atama has contested to above. That's it. That's what you're attempting to spin as a "vile" and "malicious attack", when you have personally insulted my intelligence and my maturity, in addition to calling me a child, illiterate, and have subsequently attempted to have me banned after posting numerous, unearned warnings on my talk page every time I would make an edit that you disagreed with. You're deliberately misleading these administrators. I am not a fan of Lady Gaga; you are making an accusation with no evidence other than your own opinion. I don't know where you got that ten users agreed to both of these provisions. Seven agreed with both while several have stated that I should not be banned from Gaga pages, and two voiced the opinion that you should be banned from her pages as well. You and Homeostasis are involved parties and can't support these provisions. None of these users have explicitly stated that you don't have a bias. That's a fabrication. One of them has stated that you do, point blank, after you alerted them to the response that you allege "refutes their point", so that is, again, a fabrication. Can you all see now why I behaved the way I did on the discussion page? It's impossible to have a civil conversation with someone who refuses to intellectually debate an issue, ignores valid points and makes up points in his responses. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Reece, but you completely lost me with that edit. You're "not a fan of Lady Gaga" all of a sudden? After all this? It's clear you're trying to WEASEL your way out of this. Also, your comment about "[StaticVapor] stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general" is very reaching. Seriously admins, don't let this just fade into archive territory for a second time. This needs to be sorted out one or the other now. I've closed the Critical Reception discussion that instigated this ANI, but Reece tried to start a similar situation up in [[44]] (which is why this topic was activated here for a second time). This user seriously needs a talking down. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've repeatedly denied being a fan of Lady Gaga, so this is not "all of a sudden". I'm not trying to weasel out of anything and that accusation is unfounded; linking to my contribution page isn't proving anything. That "situation" you just linked to ended three days ago after all of the users at hand, including myself, came to a consensus of "EDM" for the album genre, which obviously does not constitute re-opening this already baseless request for banning. You and STATic are compiling small incidents and using ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric to mislead these administrators. This was re-opened because you and STATic wanted me banned, plain and simple. That was both of your go-to responses when I disagreed with you; when I brought up my concerns on the ARTPOP critical consensus, STATic immediately accused me of being biased and threatened to have me blocked before the debate even started, and when I called you out on removing sourced facts from the critical reception page (something you did multiple times) because you personally found them to be "too positive", you accused me of bias and called for a ban on myself because I disagreed with you. You've also added unnecessary, negative information to the page, cited tabloids to add ridiculous, slanderous claims against the artist to her page, reworded reviews to make them sound more negative than they really were, and attempted to misrepresent her album sales to be listed as lower than what they actually were, which would all also suggest that you have a biased view of this artist, something you admit you've been accused of numerous times in the past. You've also previously been blocked for such unprofessional behavior on Lady Gaga pages. And no, it is not reaching to assume that someone who laughed at anyone who would be a fan of an artist, would personally have a negative view of that artist. Again; this debate got out of hand because STATic has a tendency to insult (he called me and another user children here and then called another user a child here) and threaten users that disagree with him by redirecting them to WP guideline pages and accusing them of bias, as evidenced by his repeated accusations of my supposed "bias" above without any actual proof. Could I have ended the debate sooner? Yes. Does my drawing a debate out constitute grounds for banning? No. Does it, in any way, insinuate that I have a bias and should be blocked from editing certain pages? No. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Reece, but you're being terribly inconsistent here. You had claimed that STATicVapor called you a child above, and supported that statement with a diff showing that STATicVapor called Lady Gaga fans children. If you're now claiming that you're not a fan of hers, you invalidate your earlier claim. So which is it? I have to agree with Homeostasis07 about weaseling, and I'm more convinced that the problem is more one-sided here, and less convinced that STATicVapor requires any sanctions other than being involved in a mutual interaction ban. -- Atama頭 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, in the diff I provided he called me and user IndianBio children and then went on to say "what should I expect from Lady Gaga fans?". He called me a child independent of insulting Lady Gaga fans; I never stated I was a fan of Lady Gaga. Is this kind of behavior really acceptable on this website? You're allowed to call users children multiple times and express a negative viewpoint of an artist and her fanbase and continue to edit her page and get off scott-free while having someone else banned because they disagreed with your edits? How does that make any sense? And what about the numerous instances of bias Homeostasis showed that I have provided above? STATic flat out insulted Lady Gaga fans and Homeostasis' edits are suspect at the very least, and the first time I disagreed with either of them the immediately called for a ban against myself. This was their go-to strategy because I actually went against them. They have no real evidence of my supposed bias other than the warnings that THEY gave me after I disagreed with them (99% of the edits they sent me warnings about were small ones that didn't have anything to do with the critical reception page). Reece Leonard (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just so inconsistent with your statements, repeatedly commenting here is not going to change anything, heck you changed Atama's mind to the other side due to your continuous comments. I did not insult IndianBio, and I am sorry, but you are not acting like a professional adult, and that is clear to anyone. The only one that has harassed or insulted anyone has been you over and over and over again. This was not go to, this thread came up after you would not let it go, and any result is completely deserved. As were every single one of the edits you were warned for. STATic message me! 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again, you're completely ignoring the sourced instances where you called myself and Indian bio children, on top of calling IndianBio a child again. I will reiterate: It is STATic's arguing tactics like the ones he showed directly above (ignoring points and sources in lieu of his own domineering opinion) that caused this debate to escalate to the point it got to. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, it's obvious some of these administrators aren't even reading this discussion. This one just accused me of having a bias AGAINST Lady Gaga, which would be the opposite of what STATic and Homeostasis are saying. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "This one" meant towards. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close

    In that case, when will the ban(s) take effect if not already in effect? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As is the usual case, whenever an uninvolved admin determines formal consensus, closes the thread, advises the 2 editors, and logs the restrictions. Since I'm the proposer, I cannot do it myself ES&L 11:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the call of numerous users above for STATic being topic banned as well, as he called numerous users children (here and here) and insulted Lady Gaga fans (something the first diff shows and that Atama has attested to above), exacerbating the process by riling up users and exhibiting a clear bias against her? I would also move to extend the topic ban to Homeostasis, as he removed sourced facts from the critical reception page (something he did multiple times) because he personally found them to be "too positive", on top of adding unnecessary, negative information to the page, cited tabloids to add ridiculous, slanderous claims against the artist to her page, reworded reviews to make them sound more negative than they really were, and attempted to misrepresent her album sales to be listed as lower than what they actually were, which would all also suggest that he has a biased view of this artist, something he admits he's been accused of numerous times in the past. He's also previously been blocked for such unprofessional behavior on Lady Gaga pages. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For all that is holy and good, just drop it. "Numerous users"? I did not call any user that, since you (the only commentor for the other side in that discussion) have stated you are "not a fan". As you know Atama changed his/her position in their last post. Even if they did not, one user's opinion would not matter when compared to the clear consensus or "general agreement", as is the definition if you still do not understand that, every user and admin here only supports to ban you from Lady Gaga pages. Not like editing them or that single one, means a whole lot to me. I obviously did not do anything wrong to be banned from them, like you have. You have made your bias clear as a cloudless day in Summer and every commenter here has attested to it, no diff needed. You refuse to edit with a WP:NPOV, which is why the topic ban is necessary. You are the only one under discussion here, not me and not Homeostasis07. No future comments here are going to do you any good, so as I said before just stop commenting, you are just wasting your own time. Try to get started in another area that interests you and in a couple months you can request the topic ban to be lifted. STATic message me! 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In the critical reception discussion, I gave seven sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf) that attested to what I thought the page should've read. As I've repeatedly said, how can I be operating with bias if what I'm arguing for is backed up by numerous sources? Atama was under the misconception that I had contradicted myself, which I refuted in my post following his/her's. It seems as if you're just going to deny calling other users children even though I'm linking to the specific instances in which you did so, so I will lay them out here from these diffs: (here and here). To me and IndianBio: "No need to gossip on various talk pages either, children." You then insinuated that you think all Lady Gaga fans are children and that pop music in general is inferior to rap by following up this insult with: "What should I expect from Lady Gaga fans though lol, back to some Ghostface Killah." You additionally called IndianBio a child here: "What a childish response." In response to your statement "you're the one under discussion here", I would refer you to WP:ANI, specifically "ANI has a tendency to review your actions as well and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself". You're attempting to get me banned on grounds of bias when the only ones who've exhibited clear bias are you and Homeostasis and when two other users who were a part of the discussion have come forward and stated that I shouldn't be banned from Lady Gaga pages (IndianBio and XXSNUGGUMSXX); of course I'm going to defend myself. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Including information on a pre-release estimate by Billboard and updating sales information is not "unnecessary information"; You conveniently cited your own undoing of my edit, but my own edit explains exactly why I made that change (which was reinstated by another user) - you'd been removing things you don't like from that page for several months; and as much as people don't like Rupert Murdoch/New York Post (myself included) - it's still a news source, and not much less reliable of a news source than many of the newspapers that are often cited on Wiki. But it doesn't matter what I say here about any of the diffs you've just linked to. This is about the 15th time I've read your "I gave seven sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf)..." salvo (despite the fact the latter two sources have been discredited). No matter how logically one responds to something you say, you simply respond with the exact same thing over and over again until you get the answer you like. A discussion about a single line in a critical reception field shouldn't take over five months to resolve, cause all sorts of other conflict and result in an ANI report. Your demeanour and attitude have been atrocious. Wikipedia is not a battleground. There was no need to cause such massive, five-month long conflicts over what - on other articles - are very minor things. It's absolutely pointless. And you need a block until you work out that you don't need to argue over every little thing and then intentionally misinterpret things other editors say in order to make others see that you're always right/everyone else is wrong. That's completely the wrong mentality for Wikipedia: You need to collaborate. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to point out that administrators don't seem to have a collective opinion on why I should be banned from Lady Gaga pages. Some say that I have been disruptive, a few are saying that I have a bias, many aren't giving a reason, a few are saying that only an interaction ban should be handed out, etc. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're merely proving yourself unable to edit this project in a community-based manner. Perhaps a topic ban and an interaction ban are too little ... DP 19:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely pointing out discrepancies, rebuking false statements, and pointing out that numerous administrators are operating on incomplete and skewed information and ignoring the actions of STATic and Homeostasis, but if this is going to devolve into threats then I have nothing else to say here. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dr. Blofeld / The Banner dispute

    There is a dispute going on between Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and The Banner (talk · contribs), both long-term editors. See Blofeld's talk page as of now. I don't know what started it. Lately they have been warring over the semantic distinction between parish and village in County Clare, Ireland. This is childish. Can someone step in and try to resolve it. Maybe some sort of ban or at least rap on the knuckles. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    After removing some inappropriate grave dancing from Banner on Blofeld's talk page, he left this charming bad faith response for me, with no reason, no evidence and no truth to the insults. - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading over the gist of the dispute, it seems like it was completely avoidable. Dr. Blofield was cleaning up a large area of articles on Irish parishes and Banner took issue with several, when they were mostly likely a work-in-progress. It's unfortunate to lose someone who has been such a productive editor and I hope he returns to editing. It won't happen with this "win/lose" mentality. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I had told him before that the list of civil parishes in County Clare was a total mess that had to be cleaned up first. I did that here: User_talk:The_Banner#County_Clare in a rather friendly discussion. The discussion at Talk:List of civil parishes of County Clare, including some remarks of mr. SchroCat, was already more desperate, topped up with this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civil parishes of County Clare. It did not help at all. And from here it spiralled down is a fast pace. The Banner talk 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Civil parishes? More like be civil, or perish! I'm here all week... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Banner, of course: it's all to do with everything that everyone else is doing, and nothing to do with your actions or reactions at all. Perhaps you could read through the various topics again and put yourself in someone else's shoes, asking if your comments needed to be as pointy as they were, and whether you could/should have reacted differently. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    SchroCat, could you please stop throwing fuel at the fire? You are absolutely not helpful in resolving this case. The Banner talk 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Banner, I am not "throwing fuel" onto anything. I have pointed out that your behaviour has been sub-par, which is why someone has brought the matter to ANI. Your approach to most of the things Blofeld has been doing has not been constructive and you need to accept a large part of the blame for that, not just try pointing the finger at others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While we are here, it should be known that The Banner grave danced all over Dr. B's talk page when the latter took some time out to cool off. If anything, THAT would be "throwing fuel at the fire". Cassiantotalk 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusation of trolling was also very useful. And yes, it is hear warming to see how many of Blofeld friend are coming out to protect poor Blofeld, but nobody is talking about the behaviour of Blofeld and his accusation of bullying by me. You guys could spend you time more useful than hanging around here. In a few days Blofeld has dried is tears and is back. Just like the last time. The Banner talk 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And your accusation of me being guilty of owning and primma donna behaviour was just laughable. Your uncivil approach to people just because they disagree with you is the reason a third party has brought this to ANI. It's reflected in the fact that your pointy (and pointless) attempts to delete an article like Kilmoon was kicked out with absolutely no-one thinking you had a leg to stand on. Your approach is belligerant, you treat discussions like a battleground and your stalking of Blofeld's activities needs to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Read, my friend, read. It is a remark directed at Blofeld. And I am not stalking Blofeld. He is not worth the effort at all.Not are you worth the effort of responding to your aggressive and attacking behaviour. The Banner talk 22:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not being aggressive or attacking Banner (and I am not your friend, either). What I have done is point out that your behaviour is sub-standard. You are approaching Blofeld with an overly-aggressive and battlefield mentality that does nothing to help anyone. Blofeld's taken a sensible option of stepping away for a few days before he over-reacts to something you will undoubtedly drag to ANI. You should have done the same, rather than just treat the whole situation as some form of pissing contest against another editor. I suggest you try stepping away from conflicts and avoiding unnecessary conflicts with that editor in future, or ANI will see more of this as it escalates. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I second the opinions that Banner's way of communication is sub-par. He is bullying and making snide remarks instead of discussing disagreements. This editor sees only their own opinion and ignores reasonable arguments instead of disputing them. - Altenmann >t 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this has exactly what to do with Banner's poor behaviour? Sinden, if you've only come here to make pointy insults to others, rather than discuss how Blofeld and Banner are interacting, then it's probably best not to post. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an example of the kind of interaction that this editor regularly engages in that can quickly aggravate a situation. The "heartwarming" tributes left on Blofeld's talk page seem a little misplaced to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And your comments seem a little misplaced and ill-judged, to be honest. And, just to point out the bloody obvious, your interaction also seems to turn a number of situations into something of a shit storm too. Got anything intellignt to say about the discussion in hand, viz, Banner and Blofeld's interaction? - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it's telling that you only choose to comment on my stance against your friend Blofeld's general behaviour, but not on the comment above regarding Banner's conduct elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As do your comments here seem a "little misplaced".. Haven't you got anything else better to do Austin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this case has been on AN/I for five days without even one admin weighing in with an opinion or proposed action. Time to close? Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No doubt, SchroCat. But if no admin has commented after six days, they likely won't. And, yes, admins, you can take that as a dare. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppetry by an admin

    As the discussion has resolved the issues it can, and some are simply beyond the pervue of ANI or the community as a whole, I would close without any further action. Blocking at this stage would be punitive, and there are legitimate reasons to have blocked or not to have blocked at the time, but that is moot now. To be clear, what happened was an repugnant violation of admin/community trust and deserves the strongest admonition possible, but it is done and dealt with. At this point, nothing else will bring a better resolution or understanding. There is no perfect or best outcome in cases like this, so we move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account. My motivation was:

    1. To avoid being attacked by Eric's supporters
    2. To avoid people complaining about how I work for the WMF and the WMF is trying to "police Wikipedia". Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF, but I was made an en.wiki admin 5 years before being hired by the WMF and have been an active member of the en.wiki community for nearly 10 years. My work and principles as a volunteer are separate from my employment at the WMF, but that seems to be a difficult concept for some people to recon with.

    Initially, I did not consider this edit sock puppetry as I was not involved in the interactions I was reporting, but simply wanted to report them anonymously. After talking with some other people, I've come to the conclusion that this was an incorrect assessment and my action was a violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically "avoiding scrutiny". Since I have interacted with Eric in the past, and even once blocked his previous account, it's only fair that this past interaction be open to scrutiny when evaluating my report. No one has threatened to out me or take any negative action against me, but as an administrator I feel it is important that I hold myself to the same standard as I expect from everyone else. I apologize to everyone for violating this policy and I apologize to Eric for not being forthright in my interactions with him. Also, I apparently misread Eric's comment to Bencherlite, so I apologize for that as well.

    Clearly, I have strong feelings about civility on Wikipedia and these feelings have caused me to act in a manner unbecoming of an administrator. In light of that, I hereby resign my administrator rights. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • What complete rubbish! You had no fears of attack from Eric's supporters here [48] and continuing to justify your atrocious attack. It's quite obvious that you have been rightly checkusered and have chosen to go before you're pushed; doubtless thinking that will make for an easier return. The whole case was a disgrace to avoid the bad timing of negative publicity for the first officially paid Wikipedian [49],which woudl have been very embarassing for those supporting paid Wikipedians. You just added to the whole hypocrisy and deceit surrounding that case. Giano (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to confirm, Kaldari's admin rights were removed this morning and the SPA User:Vox Brevis was blocked indefinitely a couple of days ago. WaggersTALK 09:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before this is hurriedly archived, I do have a few very petinent questions for Kaldari: Your sock account was blocked almost three days ago [50]; why has it taken so long to come to this 'honourable' decision? Secondly, you are an employee of the WMF; were you socking from a WMF computer, if not - from where the edit was made during business hours? and thirdly, how do your colleagues at WMF feel about one of their own being investigated for abusive socking, especially as that sock was smearing an editor who had already been insulted by one of its former employees/interns. I would like to hear the answers to these questions. Giano (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolute, you might want to think about that for a minute. The sock was obviously an experienced user using deceptive socking to focus attention (whether or not appropriately) on someone whose edits he had been following - and in at least one case misinterpreting. Checkuser is standard in those cases. A lot of other people's information got caught up in those checks; Giano isn't the one who brought the WMF into this. But make no mistake, this was nailed down three ways to Sunday by standard CU investigation. What does the community usually do if experienced editors use socks in this way? Full disclosure, Kaldari and I spoke yesterday before he posted this statement, and part of that discussion was weighing the risks and benefits of resignation of administrator tools against the inevitable request for arbitration. I agree that his admin resignation was a better result for everyone involved (especially the community) than a long, drawn-out and nasty Arbcom case would have been. Risker (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit. That is the fair result based on what Kaldari did. But at some point Arbcom is going to have to start looking at things like why. And despite Giano's hilarious protestation, there is validity in Kaldari's stated reasoning. I think we both know that Giano and his ilk aren't happy that Kaldari resigned, because it took away part of another opportunity to harass their enemies. They will just find another avenue, however. Resolute 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on. What you're saying is that it's okay to sock on this noticeboard if one is worried someone might question the motivation for the report. But the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts. And I think you might be missing something I've said obliquely in my prior comment. Risker (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of "I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit" means "I think it is okay to sock" to you? I'm not defending the socking. But if you don't think there is a legitimate concern over harassment and attacks for daring to question these users, I really don't know what to say. Certainly members of the current Arbcom share that fear given the kid gloves treatment; One that dared stand up to them ended up eating a barrage of misogynistic attacks for her trouble. Kaldari was wrong in their actions, but at some point, you might want to take a serious look at the why, especially their first reason. Resolute 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point Pedro, I've reposted my question in the thread on that board.-Cube lurker (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    An "attack dog" is just a personal insult, and I am sad to see it raised here, but the points raised by Giano are pertinent. It is an issue of bringing an institution into disrepute by actions that have caused grief for more than one person in the past.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And we have another sock tagging this sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the account and a sleeper. Not sure what skin they have in the game but judging by previous account contributions they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To be an administrator means to be targeted for attack by certain people. This isn't a "have pity on the poor admins" statement; to the contrary, administrators use the tools knowing that they're going to be subject to harassment from people on occasion (sometimes relentlessly). It comes with the territory. If at some point an administrator feels that they need to use deception or some other means to deflect retaliation in the course of performing the administration role, rather than taking those steps (like creating an undisclosed sock account) they should consider whether or not they should resign the bit. The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps. -- Atama頭 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this course of action you describe would certainly be gaming the system to retain, after a break, one's admin status. If discovered, it should certainly result in a removal of tools, just as has happened in this case. This is because it shows a distinct lack of desirable qualities and morality, and a distinct excess of deceit that would render that person unsuitable to be an admin, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I don't think Atama was saying what you were suggesting - I see no suggestion to pick the tools back up in what Atama said. However, even if that were what was implied, I would think, instead, that it would be thought of as "taking a well-deserved break", and encouraged. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Under a cloud", in Wikipedia-speak, is solely a way of saying you have to go through another RfA to be resysopped, so presumably there was an implication of picking the tools back up.
    ddstretch, I think you misunderstood: Atama was suggesting resigning as a wise alternative to socking, not something to be done in conjunction with it. —Emufarmers(T/C) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Emufarmers: I agree with your comment about the implication. As for your suggestion of a misunderstanding by me, I can explain my reasoning as follows: What Atama wrote was "The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps." Amongst the controversial actions Kaldari did was undoubtably and clearly creating a disruptive SPA sock from which an attack was mounted against Eric Corbett which contained errors of fact amongst other undesirable accusations. So, Atama seeems to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to resign the admin bit so as not to be under a cloud before taking the actions that Kaldari did (creating a disruptive SPA account). If we consider this as a "thought experiment", then taken together with the tactic of resigning not under a cloud, if this disruptive SPA account was not detected, then they would certainly be apparently free to take up the tools again. It is this which is the attempt to game the system that I was objecting to, because it would have evaded correct action that should be taken here. This should be detectable and counteracted because it automatically, in my opinion would provide sufficient evidence to deny the former administrator the tools ever again. Now, may be I have misunderstood what Atama wrote, in which case, I must apologize, but I certainly would not think that the actions could be described as "a well-deserved rest", and even less "encouraged", if looked at in its entirity.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that if an administrator feels that they need to use sockpuppets or do something else to avoid scrutiny because of the added pressure and attention that they receive from being an administrator, just give up the tools. I'm not saying to give up the tools, and cause disruption. I'm also not just saying that so that an administrator can come back and ask for the tools again, because anyone who has given up the tools because of the stress that comes with them would have to think very hard about whether or not they want to deal with being an admin again. No need to apologize for misunderstanding me, I apologize for not being clear enough originally. -- Atama頭 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation; I hope the WMF are taking this breach of trust, using its own computers, seriously. I have always refused to identify to the foundation because of just such a employee have access to private and sensitive records. Quite frankly this is just not acceptable and only confirms my view. What steps are being taken to prevent another breach of trust. Giano (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano, first, your question is predicated on a misunderstanding: Mr. Kaldari had no such access to private or sensitive records about volunteer identity. In fact, such records do not exist. We've made it very clear that we destroy documents submitted for identity verification once that's done, so no such files exist for him to access. The Wikimedia Foundation takes this circumstance extremely seriously. I don't know that your statement "using its own computers" is true - I also do not know that it is not. I see, above, where you asked that question, but I do not see a response, so I would urge you to be careful about presenting it as fact. As to your question regarding breach of trust, I'll be happy to carry any suggestions forward on your behalf. I believe that it's too soon for us to come to a knee jerk statement about changes to policies or steps to be taken; I'm the wrong person to speak to that regardless. It sounds like a question better suited for our executives - probably Gayle Karen Young, the Chief Talent and Culture Officer. It's rather outside of my purview and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment or commit the Foundation to anything there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: You destroy documents that if ever there was serious legal problem would have to be used in a court of law? How extraordinary. Anyway, destroyed or not, there is word of mouth from those that have seen sensitive material. Are you seriously suggesting that unlike all other offices in the world, the WMF does not have at least one very large mouth. This is just not acceptable, is this person still in WMF's employ? Giano (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With certain well-defined exceptions, there is no requirement for any individual or organization to retain information just because it might be used in some future lawsuit or criminal case. You can't delete things once you know about the legal action, but having and following a data-retention policy is allowed. One of Philippe's jobs (along with the entire legal team) is to figure out what information we need to retain and how long to retain it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) No, let's kick. Dishonesty needs to be dealt with. Admitting it (in odd circumstances) is mitigation, not absolution. 3 month block. 6 months if it's member of WMF. If it interferes with their day job - tough. Been more than enough mischief caused by WMF Admins. Leaky Caldron 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not convinced that a block serves a useful purpose here other than being a ritualistic "he socked, therefore he should be blocked". Unlike some others, Kaldari has recognized the problems with his actions, and has taken steps to mitigate them. He has self-reported. He has apologized (which is more than can be said for many others who have walked this path before). He has taken steps to eliminate the need for an extensive and caustic arbcom case. I see more value in encouraging Kaldari to restrict his participation to more circumscribed areas of the project (some interesting but not very controversial topics would be a good place, for example, or doing copy editing or AWB or AFC reviews); after an error in judgment like this, it's important for everyone to take a step back. Risker (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    HE brought the issue to AN/I on his own initiative, acknowledged his mistake and resigned as an admin. I think that is a fair punishment for creating a sock account. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's rather naive. The course of events is that he was caught by a checkuser and decided in consultation with others a few days later that this would be his least damaging course of action. So let's hear no more talk of a "principled stand". But having said that I don't see what good blocking him would do, even though he's blocked me for less. Eric Corbett 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is possibly one of the bigger "facepalm" acts I've seen in a while (well, that someone has owned up to). Agree that blocking pointless at this juncture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that blocking will not serve any useful purpose here, because what is needed is evidence of an appropriate recognition of what has been done here. That has to come from the ex-admin himself. I don't know about anyone else, but if I were ever to do anything like this, I would not only hand in my resignation as an admin, I would also try to become as invisible as possible, because I would be just too ashamed and disgusted by my own behaviour to appear "in public" on here again. If I were an employee of a related organisation, my shame would lead me to resign. May be different people have different ideas, but if any rehabilitation is to take place, it requires sufficient action from the ex-admin, and just handing in the tools may not be sufficient for the community just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've very recently become aware that Kaldari operates this rather unwholesome site, which is rich given the recent events in which he took part. What was that about "principled stand" again? Eric Corbett 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone signed up to take a look? Is it what it says it is?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worse. Wikipediocracy has it. I dropped the link here earlier, but someone deleted it. It's as bad as you think it is. I'm disgusted. [51] Hell might be other people (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) If it is it makes his original complaint about Eric in the Kevin Gorman case look more than a tad hypocritical. Leaky Caldron 23:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is and it does. And it doesn't seem like an appropriate activity for an employee of the WMF. So what are they going to do about it, having recently sacked Sarah Stierch for paid editing? Eric Corbett 23:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps creating a website that mocks and belittles the brutal, real-life rape and murder of a 6-year old girl is not against the WMF's T&C of employment? It ought to be, of course. Either way, they can fucking whistle up their arses for any more donations from me: I'm not paying his fucking wages any more. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What this episode and others like it has shown is that the WMF carry out no checks at all on their future employees, they just have to be friends of friends. Doesn't seem like a good way to run a top-ten web site. And true to form Jimmy Wales is nowhere to be seen. Eric Corbett 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, Jimmy Wales is exactly where everyone knows they can expect to see him. Why fault him for granting deference to the community noticeboards, or expecting that if one wanted his opinion, one would feel welcome to ask?—John Cline (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I see below that he has been notified; I suspect he will answer – and I've only just learned of snuffster, which precludes my ability to support Kaldari or rationally discuss this matter further.—John Cline (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not important to this discussion, but I should record that my "principled stand" above was stupid—sorry! I had drafted something else with qualifications regarding possible reasons for the announcement and the clueless approach regarding Eric, but it looked ugly so I removed it. A better statement of my opinion is at my talk (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indulge me; to ask a question: not knowing the answer troubles my conscious. How is the above revelation exempt from the policy provisions at wp:outing?—John Cline (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I have never mentioned the site on Wikipedia and have no public association with it other than the domain name registration, I do think this is a pretty blatant invasion of my privacy. It's one thing to post such personal information on Wikipediocracy, but bringing it onto Wikipedia, especially as a way to attack me, does seems like a violation of our WP:OUTING policy. Kaldari (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you really think that you are fit to hold a position at the WMF? Don't you see how badly you are damaging us? Hell might be other people (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't you think that's a desperately flimsy defence, not to mention a blatant lie? Outing refers to the revelation of personally identifying information, not information that you'd quite naturally prefer to be hidden. And in what way is it an attack to provide evidence of your abominable hypocrisy? Eric Corbett 07:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaldari did not appear to offer a defense for the wrongs he admitted doing, but rather to answer my question; solidifying my concern as valid. Several readings of the policy that governs attempted outings are in stark contrast with your previous comment. I believe you erred in posting the information, attempting to identify Kaldari's job title and place of employ as the owner/operator of xyz.com. More than likely, outing is a concept that has outlived its wiki-usefulness, whereas I suspect you will not be held accountable. Then again, I may be wrong in that regard. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric posted a link that was already accessible via earlier references to the discussion on Wikipediocracy. I don't think it would be appropriate to hold any editor to account for outing where the presence of the offending material was already previously mentioned in this thread and therefore only a couple of clicks away. As for the claim that it was a blatant breach of privacy, in the circumstances that Kaldari has put themselves in, that's just risible. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Cline. Seems like I have to repeat my question, in words of one syllable. What personally identifying information about Kaldari was made public? His name, occupation, employer, job title, even where he lives, is all a matter of public record here on WP. So in what sense was Kaldari outed? But I realise of course that you're simply trolling in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from Kaldari, so I don't expect any kind of sensible reply from you. Eric Corbett 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As several people have complained about the wording of my original statement, I would like to clarify the circumstances of my self-report. As Risker pointed out earlier, a Checkuser was used to identify me as the source of the sockpuppet account. Once it was clear that I had been associated with the account, I decided to out myself and resign my administrator tools. I did not speak with anyone from ArbCom directly prior to posting the statement, although according to Beeblebrox, the ArbCom was already aware of the identity of the account at that time. As there was a good chance that my identity would be publicly revealed at some point, it would be fair to say that I reported the sockpuppet due to being discovered, regardless of the fact that no one had actually threatened to out me. That is my final statement on the issue. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So you lied in your earlier statement? Hell might be other people (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. That is not exactly what I said. The committee was aware of the general situation but did not know the actual identity of the sockmaster until just after the initial statement was posted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for a block?

    A block is not likely to happen, and no one's interest is served by keeping this going. Yes, I've weighed in here (all the way at the end), but anyone can see that, while the signaled behavior was roundly denounced as reprehensible, there is no consensus for a block at this time. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is there any real argument against blocking, really? Do you really need to consult the endless WP:* arcana of rules and essays and policies to tell you that this is an a) deceptive and b) disgusting human being that no one in their right mind should wish to be associated with? I realize this runs counter to the hipster/libertarian streak that permeates much of this websites these days, one that loathes to ban people just because they believe in or advocate distasteful thing. But seriously, a WMF staffer masquerading socks and operating a faux snuff site has to be a scale-tipper here. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. It's not very often that I would publicly call for someone to resign or to be fired, but I feel this has to happen here; Kaldari's position is now untenable. Talk about falling on your own sword in spectacular style. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally agree this is some of the most offensive stuff I have ever seen, considering I survived a fucking suicide attempt back in October and I'm dealing with a mother who might die any day now. Anyone who takes death as some kind of pleasure and entertainment should be banned from Wikipedia and let the foundation deal with it. Secret account 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Jon Benet Ramsey page shows four photos which are various modeling photos of her, nothing to do with her murder or body. It is in poor taste, but does not depict any violence. We ALSO have no way of knowing who signed up with that profile; I believe everyone who's looked at the site had to sign up, correct? So you understand that it could be anyone's posting of material there, not Ryan's? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I saw much more real blood and wounds at the last Folsom Street Fair than on that whole website. Frankly I am not sure there were any wounds depicted on the whole site that had more damage than the two IV lines I had inserted while in the Emergency Room last Monday. While in poor taste, this is absolutely tame compared to any real blood/gore sites. The idea that anyone who participated in a parody this tame would need banning from Wikipedia is ludicrous and absurd. I certainly am not going to praise him for it, but he's put it behind a sign-up wall, it seems all fake (as opposed to any number of non-protected sites with real bodies, body parts, etc), and is obviously self-posted parody by most of the members. Get a grip. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that WP is not supposed to consider off-wiki behavior unless it involves violating wiki policies (like outing). As tasteless as it might be, it should not have any bearing on whether or not the editor receives a block. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very similar to some of the material hosted at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which various well-known Wikipedia editors and functionaries are or have been involved with. (Whether that makes it "OK" or not is another thing.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to be accused of being a shithell etc, discussing blocking here is, of course, s acceptable but behaviour related to Kaldari's employment isn't (simply because this simply isn't the correct venue). I would ask that this be raised with the Wikimedia Foundation through the proper channels: Maggie Dennis the community advocate, the three community representatives on the Foundation, SJ, Phoebe and Raystorm, and of course, Jimbo Wales. ANI and the administrative corps of this site, well, we're completely unable to do anything about the behaviour concerns relating to employment. All we can do is block Kaldari's own account or instate a ban against the user's own account, if that is the wish of the community. Nick (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I've pinged Jimmy to try and attract his attention. I've no issues with you discussing it at all, just that this page really isn't the correct venue (you might be better off discussing employment related concerns about their editing behaviour their extra curricular behaviour somewhere on Meta) and we are unable to take any administrative action other than blocking Kaldari's personal account. Nick (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia's own policy on socks such a blatant abuse of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, disruptively edit, deceive the community and pose as an uninvolved editor, is deserving of a ban. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • A single edit under an an undeclared alternative account when not used to carry out an administrative action or make an abusive edit is not reason to block anybody. I would not even have argued that it is adequate rational for a de-sysop after the explanation given. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are free to interpret policy ("The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses") however you want in order to defend one of your own. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how using the most drastic actions available for this particular isolated instance is likely to have any effect in preventing disruption of the encyclopedia, or discouraging the sorts of sockppettry that do disrupt it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Had Kaldari not been an administrator I doubt you'd be so forgiving. Eric Corbett 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose block per Liz. NE Ent 11:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    NO to McCarthyism/cyberbullying!

    I don't know if the "sockpuppetry" of trying to report something you think is a wikicrime anonymously normally receives a block if you apologize for trying. The community is nuts about that whole issue - we should have a system whereby anyone can start as many new accounts as they want, and the weight given those accounts' opinions is light enough that this is not a gaming mechanism.

    But what I do know is that this practice of claiming that Wikimedia employees should be "vetted" to see if they've ever in their lives said something outrageous -- of trying to get editors' real names claiming that is some step toward accountable behavior, immediately before using those names to try to collect together a list of oddities and photos you think are unflattering to try to make them feel uncomfortable -- those things are just plain and absolutely wrong and we have to hold absolutely firm against them. If we let these bastards pull this stunt, it could be like what they did to Fae all over again, and Wikipedia establishes itself even more firmly as a shining example of cyberbullocracy as a form of government. Sure, they should be free to have their giggles at WO if that's what they feel like, but the basis of that freedom is that we angrily resist any effort to use that to change our behavior. With freedom comes responsibility - and this is the responsibility. I urge Wikimedia to stand by Kaldari's right to free expression, and not allow a couple of edits to outweigh his day to day work history, let alone some content he may have something to do with that is totally outside of his duties at Wikipedia!

    I say this despite the fact that I agreed at the time that Eric Corbett had been poorly treated - based on what he mentioned about his father, he deserves our sympathy just as much as anyone else in that story. There are many times when the best thing for us to do is nothing at all, sanction no one, but recognize that we should aspire to a higher standard of freedom than what we have. Wnt (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Surprisingly I agree with Wnt. It will be a sad day indeed if those with responsibility for a site, one of whose main activities is the documenting the peccadilloes of others, are ever subject to the same level of scrutiny that the sites victims are. John lilburne (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Anyone who finds entertainment in the murder of children has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I created the Snuffster website as a parody of Friendster back in 2003. As you can see from this archive of Friendster, virtually every word on Snuffster is a direct parody. As the site was just an outdated joke, I never policed the content that other people added later. And for the record, I was only responsible for a single profile on the site which had nothing remotely offensive on it. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of not pro-actively censoring the offensive content that other people added. Now that it's been brought to my attention, I've disabled most of the site, although I left the home page if people are curious about it. The site had long outlived its purpose anyway. I'm not ashamed of having created it, however. Maybe it's a bit morbid, but I thought it was a fun experiment in creating a social networking site (and not a bad parody either). That's all I have to say on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sick, you created a website, it is your responsibility to police it. The fact that you did not and have no shame in the content posted shows a lack of moral fibre. You ought to be banned for that shit. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not buying your argument, Kaldari; you were paying the bills to keep that website online, and being the owner of a website that mocks the murder of young children is unacceptable, and would get you fired from most jobs if that became public. This should be no exception. The hypocrisy of you running a website that mocks suicide, and then attempting to claim that Eric did the same, should mean that you should quit yourself before you get pushed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly some hypocrisy in Kaldari's behaviour. And yes, the person who owns the registration for a domain bears some (moral) responsibility for things that are posted there. Just as I would hold the person listed as the registrant of wikipediocracy.com responsible for some of the things posted there; though it serves no purpose because he's already banned here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So let's get this straight, Kaldari; at the time you posted this, you were funding a website, which you had created, that mocked a murdered child? And then you created a throwaway sock account to attack another editor? But you're still defending your conduct? Is that your position? --John (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easy to read your first sentence as meaning that the website as created by Kaldari mocked a murdered child. Which is not the case. Just pointing this out, as I'm sure you didn't intend to be ambiguous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I chose my words very carefully, but thank you for clarifying if you found them ambiguous. Once more, at the time Kaldari posted his ill-founded rant about Eric supposedly "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian", he was paying for a website, which he had created, which mocked a murdered child. That's the scenario we are looking at, yes? --John (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but if one is specific one ends up with at the time Kaldari posted his ill-founded rant about Eric supposedly "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian", he was paying for a website, which he had created in 2004, to which someone else had added content which mocked a murdered child. Those are the facts, but writing them out in full like that sounds a little less dramatic, eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I followed some of the links from wikipediocracy, he had commented on a lot of those images, so he know that shit was there. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same here. One or two of the snuffster.com pages mocking actual deaths of children that were linked on WO had a comment by "Ryan". "Ryan" was linked to his profile on the site. I don't know when he made those comments. It may have been ten years ago. Andreas JN466 11:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am obviously not suggesting that Kaldari is a witch. While I am not at all impressed by recent revelations concerning the user, the suspicious nature of the timing is not lost on me. Strange how this information about Kaldari's website is brought to attention while the user is already in hot water. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you, Northern Antarctica, really so ignorant and stupid, or are you just pretending to be so? People were hardly likely to take a close look at Kaldari while he's enjoying popularity. He's attracted attention to himself by being monumentally stupid, so it's obvious that those at Wikipediocracy were going to take a closer look at him. Can you not grasp that? He's completely the architect of his own misfortune. Giano (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh FGS do stop bleating about nasty attacks and leave the playground behind you, Northern Antarctica, this is the real, grown up world. If you attract attention to yourself, people take a closer look. I have no idea what purpose it serves; I suppose if one works for WMF, others expect you to be whiter than white. Kaldari made a ridiculous attack on Eric Corbett and his ownership of that website made his attack hypocritical. surely you can see that? And yes, it will be benificial because it will make others think twice aout such repulsive websites in future. Giano (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, it is doubtful that this scenario is going to prevent very many people from creating inappropriate websites in the future. Most people probably wouldn't do such a thing anyway and those who are thoughtless enough to do so are not extremely likely to heed warning signs. Also, I didn't realize that real grown-ups prided themselves on making nasty attacks. One would think that as people get older and more sophisticated, their chosen methods of debating will develop similarly. Well, live and learn! Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Just so we're clear, are you trying to defend Kaldari's web site, or his participation in it, which he has lied about here? What's your motivation for wanting to hide any discussion of Kaldari's involvement in such a site after he accused me of taking pleasure in the death of another, a charge I note that you were rather supportive of at ArbCom. Had you known about Kaldari's site would your opinion have been the same? Eric Corbett 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't read Kaldari's website and don't intend to, but I certainly wouldn't condone anything that mocks death. I'm also not trying to hide discussion. For me, the issue is that it looks like Kaldari is being piled on unnecessarily. Also, I'm not sure what I might have said that makes you think that I agree with the charge that you were taking pleasure in the death of another. I don't agree with that charge at all. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That site is rather distressing to anyone of a normal disposition, so best not looked at. The point though is that had Kaldari not socked and then been forced to admit it after being checkusered he'd still be flying under the radar, maintaining his disgusting site. It's quite natural that when someone steps out of line they'll come under increased scrutiny don't you think? Eric Corbett 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Northern, here's what you wrote at the Kevin Gorman RFAR ... You (once again) dismissed any importance to knowing details of a case before drawing conclusions (BTW, why do you keep doing that?! -- so that you can exempt yourself later from backing up what you say!?): I haven't fully studied the circumstances of this specific case (and don't intend to), then you went on to euphemistically minimize what Kevin Gorman did: I think Eric had a legitimate point in his original comment that Kevin took exception to., then you brushed aside Gorman's gravedancing allegation with another euphemism: I certainly don't think that Kevin's handling of the situation was ideal, but he has admitted as much., then you went on to recommend to Arbcom to take the opportunity to sanction Eric Corbett: it could be argued that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions. [...] and maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now [...]. So no, you never accused Eric of gravedancing. You just didn't directly mention it, minimizing and forgiving what Kevin did with your pat euphemistic mealy-mouthed manipulative grandstanding, when you weren't "fully" acquainted with the facts to begin with. (Your shallow CIV concept and POV agenda against Eric Corbett is so transparent and disgusting you make me wanna vomit!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to create drama by stirring up an old controversy? Maybe you should think about whether or not you are helping to make ANI more of a cesspool (to use one of your words). Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you ought to consider taking your own advice. Your position was very clear in that ArbCom case: to paraphrase, "let's forget about what Kevin Gorman did, here's an opportunity to stick the knife into Eric Corbett". Eric Corbett 22:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just because I was saying that your behavior should be scrutinized, that automatically means that I wanted Kevin's behavior to be ignored? Perhaps you should be more careful when connecting dots that are so far apart. I never said you were guilty of gravedancing and I don't think you were. I made that clear above, but Ihardlythinkso certainly wasn't going to miss an opportunity to attack me, even if it meant dragging up an old argument and creating more drama. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    it looks like Kaldari is being piled on unnecessarily. Oh, that's rich! When he is the architect of his own demise. 1) He said the website served it's parody point long ago, right? Yet he continued to keep the site active by paying year after year for the domain name. 2) He says he never looked at the content others posted there. (There seems to be some counter-evidence to that, but assuming it is true for a moment, is it believable? He provided a mechanism for others to post pictures toward his gruesome theme, then never bothered, even out of curiosity, to check on the response? Yeah right. I think that does not stand to reason. I think he's lying. [Is it a shock? From a sock puppet?]) This guy is totally creepy. His word cannot be trusted. (At all; zero.) His "mocking suicide" false accusation of Eric Corbett is so astoundingly hypocritical, it takes one's breath away even considering how to respond. (This guy is a WMF employee!?!?!?!?! [Jesus Christ!] He's still around, only desysopped? [Jesus Christ!] What will make this creepy thing go into its cave and stay there?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another similar website

    Above we have claims that Kaldari was involved in a website that made fun of murdered children. And we have a plausible statement by Kaldari that he was not responsible for posting the material concerned; and he states that he's now removed that material.

    Another website that makes fun of murdered children, where the material in question has not been taken down, can be found by googling "Encyclopedia Dramatica Madeleine McCann". The Google search results give you an idea of the sort of content there; visiting the page itself may be inadvisible for many. That's only the most notable example that springs to mind; there's a great deal more like that on that site.

    And we have an English Wikipedia oversighter, checkuser and OTRS member who says in 2009 (that's really rather recent, compared with things Kaldari was up to in 2004) "I'm also a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Yes, it's true! ... I keep both these arenas very separate". The big graphic on that page is an interpretation of Encyclopedia Dramatica's logo; there's an even bigger one on her current userpage that's similar.

    There's nothing to indicate that person has edited the pages about murdered children there - either to add to them or to make them less offensive - just as no-one has suggested that Kaldari added any of the similar material mentioned above. But Kaldari does seem to do a better job of keeping "these arenas very separate"; he's not promoted or mentioned his Friendster parody on Wikipedia.

    The English Wikipedia community has historically been quite tolerant of editors involved in such things. Maybe it's one of these "free speech" things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment on the substantive point you raise here, but you should have notified Alison that you were bringing up her conduct here. I have done it for you. Is this one of these "two wrongs make a right" things? --John (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you managed to drop a template on her talk page exactly 120 seconds before I posted a hand-written note. That was useful.
    And no, I don't approve of the behaviour of either of them. The purpose (as my last paragraph suggests) is to provide context about how the community has viewed similar cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see you didn't forget and that you spent those seven minutes well, crafting a hand-written notice to Alison that you had brought her user page from 2009 up here in 2014. That was certainly time well spent. --John (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't think the community had any problem with it in 2009 either, unless you know otherwise? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear. WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal even for things with a far more immediate connection to Wikipedia. Some people here are essentially saying "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Well, as it happens, there is a difference between allegedly being uncivil on a project that tries (counterproductively) to prohibit incivility, and allowing similar alleged incivility on a site you administer elsewhere on the Web. Even if you try to ban the one you don't have to go out looking for ways to penalize an author for being prolific. Now to be clear, I'd prefer that people on Wikipedia be free to freely express their anger toward those who commit suicide and leave people behind. But Kaldari shouldn't have to walk on eggshells because he has other writings in the world. He should be free to be as wrong as anyone else. Wnt (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well indeed, we should all have the right to be wrong. I don't think it is civility that we are talking about but more hypocrisy and dishonesty. It appears that Kaldari (by his own account) made a false allegation about another Wikipedian supposedly "speaking ill of the dead", while a site that he set up and was paying for was hosting mockery of a dead child, and then set up a sock account to harass that Wikipedian. All this in a matter of a few weeks? Do I understand correctly that this is what Kaldari admits to? No, incivility is nothing to do with it. --John (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well stated. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, I like that summary--thanks.

      I don't know if anyone cares, but I'll say it anyway: I do not favor a block for Kaldari, let alone an indefinite block. We don't typically block for one act of socking, as low as it was, and I see no reason to change that convention here. The hypocrisy is of course glaring and profoundly distasteful--I was disgusted already with some of the responses to Eric's comments in that thread on Jimmy Wales's talk page, and this makes it so much worse. (What the hell kind of world is this, with websites like that?) As far as I'm concerned Kaldari is persona non grata, and he'll remain that way for a lot of editors here. I don't know if the WMF is still associated with him, but they should cut those ties immediately. Maybe they already have. But we've already wasted enough words on this matter, and I'm going to wash my hands and brush my teeth, cause this is dirty. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't typically block for one act of socking That's absurd, Drmies. (This was an ADMINISTRATOR, for how many years? A decade? I thought you admins used "discretion"??? Discretion in this case should tell you, it isn't a newish user learning the boundaries and reacting emotionally by making a sock to harrass. It was an Admin who knew exactly the nature of the transgression he deliberated and executed. And you are using the same yardstick -- "POLICY" (precedent) -- to make an assessment "we don't typically block for one act of socking"??? How "typical", Drmies, is an Admin socking??? Please inform us what the sanctions where when other Admins have socked in the past. Is there any bad-ass-acting Admin that you have NEVER backed up??? (Toddst1 "A find Admin", Kevin Gorman "One of the good guys"). This is Admin preferential treatment for other Admins. Oh I'm so shocked to see that from you -- I'm in tears I'm so shocked.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaldari was socking because he want to avoid getting screamed at by people like you. What he did was wrong, but your recent behavior has helped show why he did what he did. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That post doesn't meet minimum IQ standards, Northern. False blame. Inappropriate blame. Attempting to shame me for a deliberate undermine of WP Policy voluntarily executed by an Admin of 10 years or more. Your bullshit response blame makes about as much sense as "The devil made me do it!" Apparently you have no pride, making such flat-out bogus arguments like that. (Wow.) But this is the ANI Cesspool of Irresponsibility -- I forget. (You belong on The Jerry Springer Show.) Go away badgering troll. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you have gotten your last words in; congratulations. That my impartiality is questioned by the two of you makes me feel quite impartial: we know who you are and where you stand. Now basta. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    How?

    Asked and answered. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    If Kaldari (talk · contribs) is no longer an admin, how was he able to protect his own talk page? Thrub (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That's because he still has the editinterface permission (see meta:editinterface). Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is using it in a (very mild) personal dispute on his own talk page not an abuse of that right? Thrub (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (I should add the IP on his talk page was me - I lost my connection and got logged out a couple of times this morning) Thrub (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally he should've asked someone else to do it, or asked at WP:RFPP. But asking for one's own talkpage to be temporarily semi-protected is absolutely non-controversial if there's new accounts posting there that one doesn't want posting there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When he didn't even bother to ask the other person not to post there first, and there was no record of any persistent problem? I'd have been happy to oblige and not post there if he'd asked me (even in an edit summary). I think he abused his permissions here - editinterface is not granted for use in closing personal disputes. Thrub (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm? There was an IP edit-warring on his talk page to re-insert something described by another editor as "a personal attack", one minute before Kaldari semi-protected it. I don't see any posts from you there at all...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See above, where I said "(I should add the IP on his talk page was me - I lost my connection and got logged out a couple of times this morning)". And I wasn't edit-warring and was not reinserting the same thing - I made two distinct comments, that's all, and would have been quite happy to stop posting there had he simply said so. Thrub (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you made three edits to his talk page while logged out, as two different IPs. Your first comment he removed. So you added a second, different comment. Which he also removed. You should've started getting the hint at that point, but instead, yes, you edit-warred to re-add the same comment. One minute later he semi-protected the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The last one was to reinsert a comment that had been inappropriately removed by a third party (the one who went on to make an incorrect accusation of personal attack) - I would not have reinserted it had Kaldari himself removed it, and I *did not* edit war with Kaldari over it (and he's the only one who can decide whether he wants a comment that does not break any rules on his talk page). And this does not answer my question anyway - whether it is proper for a ex-admin to use alternative permissions to continue to perform admin actions. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Thrub (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not proper if it's controversial. But I don't see anyone other than you making the case that it's controversial for someone to semi-protect their own talk page when there are two different IPs posting material they don't want there, one of them edit-warring to re-add it. If you think it's inappropriate for the page to be semi-protected, you could make that case at WP:RFPP, but it's unlikely to be well received. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I thank your for your opinion, and will wait to see if there are any others - I personally consider it improper to use alternative permissions to continue to perform admin functions after one has lost one's admin bit (and *that* is the issue - not whether the page should have been protected at all). And whether or not there's only me who thinks so is currently moot, as we really haven't had much time for many other opinions yet. Thrub (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Oh, and just because someone else labels something a "personal attack" doesn't mean it is one - have a look yourself and you'll see it was just a couple of factual observations Thrub (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    Actually, it seems apparent to me that editinterface is not intended to be used for admin actions at all (only those granted admin status should perform admin actions), it's essentially for coding and technical use. So using it in this way does seem like abuse. Thrub (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Why?

    It appears that Kaldari (talk · contribs) was caught socking by a CheckUser check, and was then offered the chance to resign the admin bit as faux-honorably as he chose (and it's ironic that he chooses to retain praise on his talk page for doing so, while removing statements that point out that inconvenient fact - but that's a digression). My question is why should an admin be afforded such a courtesy when non-admins who sock are routinely blocked on sight? Thrub (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually in some cases the non-admins are merely the subject of an arbcom ruling that the shared IP template should be added to their userpage; but if the non-admin makes enough of a fuss that subsequently doesn't happen anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Well, technically, this is the discussion to decide that. However, simply creating another account is not "socking" - the WP:SOCK policy lays out many legitimate reasons to do so. It is necessary to show that in its four edits, the other account actually worked with Kaldari's main account to give him undue influence over the conversation, which is far from cleart. I would rather see all Wikipedians be free to start fresh accounts or do IP postings to raise administrative issues without the inevitable death-match "boomerang" aspect of it, provided we are willing to streamline the process by which repeated and unreasonable allegations by such people are discounted so that they aren't used as a method of harassment. Wnt (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to see *all* Wikipedians given the same appropriate consideration when caught misusing an alternative account (and this *was* misusing the account, otherwise there would not have been a CheckUser check), rather than just admins - it only reinforces the image of those in power helping cover each others' backs. Thrub (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (modified to "appropriate" Thrub (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    Is there some "case law" here? What is the usual penalty when an editor in good standing registers a new account solely trying to file an administrative issue of this type without backsplatter? Wnt (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know - interesting question. It just seems corrupt for a misbehaving admin to be allowed to dishonestly claim to be confessing honorably when what had happened was that he'd actually been caught. Thrub (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if there's no set of precedents to prove otherwise, I'm going to assume that this experience has likely soured Kaldari on the whole starting a different account thing for a long time coming, and so there is no need for a preventative block. You can say that he was "actually caught", but that is a bit of a stretch -- if he'd wanted to stonewall he could have had people debating for weeks whether it was a visitor/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/cyber-cafe/"borrowed my laptop while we were scanning Wikipedia images at the library", whatever. The way he phrased it may have been self-serving, but he deserves some credit for sparing us that. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, I agree there's no reason for a block now and I'm certainly not calling for one - and I'm as sure as I can be that Kaldari won't do it again. But I'm not actually talking about him here - my issue is with the CheckUser (and whoever else in power was part of this) who appears to have given preferential treatment to one of their own. That appearance might not be true, of course, and I might be wrong - I'd welcome an assurance from those responsible that they would treat non-admins in exactly the same way (and I'd further welcome evidence of their having done so in the past). Thrub (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus was also contacted privately in just the same way, so that's an example of their having done so in the past. One wonders how friendly a response they got. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wnt, I'd have to research for details in my history, but I know I've encountered this case before. For a first socking offense, I would treat it as I do pretty much any first socking offense: indefinite block for the sock, two weeks for the master. There's no question that this is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT as being done to avoid scrutiny and being an edit to project space.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is a violation because it was done to avoid scrutiny. Administrators are supposed to be (and should be) held to higher standards than other editors, that is part of the admin policy. It's also mentioned in that policy that failure to maintain that higher standard can lead to a loss of the administrator tools, which has already happened in this case. What we're now left with is a judgment of this editor's actions as an editor, not as an administrator. I concur that for a first-time socking offense, especially from a productive editor, a block of the sockpuppet(s) and either a warning or short-term block is appropriate. I take many things into account when determining an appropriate sanction; did the editor come clean at any point (and at what point), how extensive was the use of the sock(s), how many socks, what kind of disruption was done with them, and so on. It's handled on a case-by-case basis. If a regular editor, not an administrator or someone who was employed by WMF, if they got caught using a sockpuppet in a limited way and admitted it then I'd probably let them off with a warning, and block the sockpuppet. Contrary to what Thrub is suggesting, the fact that the editor in this case was an administrator and had extra privileges even in addition to that makes me feel less lenient. If a block were also made in this case I'm not sure that I'd protest too heavily. -- Atama頭 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pleased by your moral stance, Atama - it's a shame that the CheckUser who tipped him off does not apparently share it. Thrub (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of post

    I've received a good faith user talk query about the thought process behind my removal of thread [52]. At the time I did not know (or care) who the actual poster was. There have been numerous prior WQA / ANI discussions regarding Eric and an arbcom case, none of which have led towards any convergence to consensus on addressing alleged disruption of Wikipedia by either Eric or those engaging with him. They have led to acrimonious exchanges by many valuable mainspace contributors who sincerely believe they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia by being either "pro-Eric" or "anti-Eric." In that context, I consider opening yet another pointless ANI thread about it simply trolling, and, as a former unmoderated alt-usenet contributor, know the way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, and policy e.g. wp:3rr supports removal of such content. I'm not sure how / when this stupid trend of "look at me censoring this content" by putting a gaudy hat around it started, but it is not a good idea, as hats are mostly just neon signs saying "click here for drama!" (It's WP:RBI, not WP:HBI).

    I'll note that a prior arbcom has suggested that editors with good faith concerns regarding his behavior should be creating the still red-linked after all these years Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Eric Corbett. I cannot in good faith suggest anyone do so, because a) they will get a tedious set of ad hominem attacks back them and b) more importantly Eric isn't the real problem. The real problem is English Wikipedia does not have a functional civility policy; I essayed as much three years ago at Notes on civility; more recent evidence is the the arbcom case and the technically open but moribund civility enforcement RFC. NE Ent 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've previously commented at the talk page for WP:Civility that it is bloated up with an incredible amount of unicorns-and-rainbows blather about what would be nice in a perfect world. The policy should be combined with WP:Disruptive editing and perhaps others, and limited only to such things as are actually policed, and those should be reduced as much as possible, because the more civility is enforced the nastier Wikipedia gets. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that *at the time* DENY was a perfectly reasonable action; however due to the unfolding issues related to said thread, it may be advisable in hindsight to just add the thread in question to the most recent ANI archive so it can be linked to. Rgrds. --64.85.216.160 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point of order, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum existed at one point, but has been deleted 3 different times, most recently as a result of an arbcom situation. I have no idea a) why the prior RFCs were created in the first place nor b) why they all were deleted. But Eric/Malleus has been the subject to RFCUs in the past. --Jayron32 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I haven't. The RFC was deleted because nobody ratified it, therefore it didn't happen. I believe it's common practice in that circumstance to delete the proposal. Eric Corbett 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. There was only one attempt at an RFC, the one that gathered no support, so your "all" is rather misleading, hopefully not deliberately so. Eric Corbett 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove edit-interface right?

    NO ACTION
    The matter discussed is a global right not removable from the English Wikipedia. Snowolf How can I help? 19:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It seems to me that resigning as an admin while retaining the edit-interface right is a relatively symbolic act, as it means that Kaldari retains the right to change article protections and edit through protection. I can't see any reason that he should retain those privileges.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Page protection in this situation was tool abuse. "You abuse it, you lose it." should be our motto. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm the one accused of trolling his talk page (while accidentally logged out), but I wasn't. I expressed two fact-based comments - I think it is perfectly reasonable to question praise given to an admin based on ignorance of the actual circumstances, and then to question his removal of it while retaining the undeserved praise. And Kaldari was entitled to remove it (but the other editor was not). I'm also the one who raised the question about Kaldari's protection of his own page, in a section just above here. But a clarification of his use of editinterface was all I wanted, and it seems he was indeed wrong to use it to protect his own talk page - if he is told clearly that he must not abuse the right again and he does not do so, then I think that's all that's needed Thrub (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Kaldari has accepted his mistake and unprotected the page - that seems like a satisfactory outcome to me. Thrub (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warn, but preserve. This all seems like too much over too little. I don't deny that it was a misuse of editinterface to use it in this way as people have said above; but he was an admin just the day before and I'd allow for a chance of confusion. One ANI posting under a pseudonym, one page protection that an admin probably would have done anyway... it's not enough for us to purge a developer over. The warm fuzzy glow of knowing that the next person won't try to report an incident just isn't worth having an upload or thumbnail feature left broken for hours or days more on the entire encyclopedia while we're waiting for someone else to work on it. Therefore I'd say get clarity on this, and if you absolutely must wave your rod around then suspend it for a brief and defined duration, but don't disrupt the encyclopedia just to make a point. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ask arbcom for a motion It should probably go without saying, but perhaps a general motion from arbcom stating that WMF toolkits should only be used for "office" actions would be helpful if retaining some appearance of "community-led governance" is desirable. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 18:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editinterface right is a global right, and cannot be removed through voting here. With that being said, per WP:GRP a bureaucrat can tell someone with this right to stop using it here, and if they violate that, it's grounds for a block. --Rschen7754 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was about to write the same, also, for a long-standing sysop is a pretty common mistake (there are no difference in user interface), I'd suggest evaluating if Kaldari still needs that right and maybe hide the relevant buttons via css. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Prohibition of Kaldari's local usage of global editinterface rights

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misleading RfC wording

    I don't know if this is the right place to post this.
    An admin hastily started an RfC on the Battle for Berlin's talk page[53] without asking me or the user I was debating with for any input on how it should be worded or even if we wanted to have an RfC at all.
    He (or she?) has left out important issues I brought up regarding sources and violations of wiki policies.[54][55]
    Currently, it looks as if a well sourced fact is being challenged by a fringe source, which is far from the truth.
    When I participated in disputes that required an RfC before, the admin asked both sides about how it should be formulated and there were also drafts.
    In this case, the admin refuses to change anything for the RfC wording.
    I don't know how he came across the dispute in this article (he also reverted my changes[56][57]) or if this was done on purpose on behalf of the user I was arguing with (who had three reverts in less than 15 hours).
    What should I do to get a fair RfC? -YMB29 (talk)

    Given that the admin, Diannaa, came out of no where to revert my edits[58][59], start the RfC[60], and then proceeded to comment against my position in the RfC[61], it does look like Diannaa reverted and created the misleading RfC on behalf of PBS (the user I was disputing with). -YMB29 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Diannaa may or may not have formulated the best wording for the RfC but the way to deal with that is through the bullet point guidance in the WP:RFC:Suggestions for responding (a bullet point I helped draft)
    • If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.
    Bringing a complaint to ANI is inappropriate. Further your accusation "it does look like Diannaa reverted and created the misleading RfC on behalf of PBS (the user I was disputing with)" is both a breach of assume good faith and factually inaccurate (I am one of many who have disputed the issue with you on the talk page of the article to date not one person has spoken in support of your position). It also implies that Diannaa and I have colluded. We have not.
    Your edit history shows that since 17:49, 16 January 2014 you have made about 250 edits all but one of them about changing the wording in the Battle of Berlin article. About a year ago you became simmaly myopic over Continuation War where you were singled out by a frustrated editor (Thomas.W) on 25 February 2013 to read certain guidelines including Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (see here). During Continuation War dispute you brought a similar appeal to AN and were ignored Request to change RfC result (13 March 2013)
    Your repeated Wikipedia:Tendentious editing in this area could easily end up with a topic ban on all articles about the Eastern Front in World War II.
    I too have spent far too much time arguing with you on talk:Battle of Berlin and more recently reverting your changes for which there is no consensus for the biased wording you wish to add. But to show you that I am not being hypocritical about this: that I am not obsessed with the issue as you appear to be -- since the 16 Jan I have made many edits to many pages and for example have created more than 60 articles that have nothing to do with World War II, (many but not all of the article are geographic stubs with in Belgium and France, and Napoleonic War officer stubs -- because I am constructing an large detailed article on the advance of Coalition armies into Germany during the Waterloo Campaign and for that I need the location of places (see {{Coord}}) and short biographies on the actors in the campaign who do not already have biographies). -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your activity elsewhere does not prove anything, and only shows that you are obsessed with other topics. I choose to concentrate on one article at a time.
    You have shown that you are only interested in pushing your POV, since you dismiss reliable sources you don't like and ignore basic wiki rules.
    There is evidence of you coordinating with other users to have them comment or revert on your behalf.
    You were not able to prove many of your claims that you made on the talk page and frequently ignore the discussion.
    According to you, trying to get articles to reflect all views accurately by providing proper sources and quotes is tendentious editing? -YMB29 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I did ask Diannaa to change the RfC before coming here, but he refused.[62] -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    This is becoming abit contentious. @YMB29: You might consider disengaging. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. Take a breather and it'll be there when you get back. Diannaa modified it adding a third option that was your suggestion. Everything you wanted added other than that you could have added as has been pointed out to you multiple times. If this is stressing you out so badly consider concentrating on one of the other 4 million plus articles for a while until you are less stressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to state that there's been no off-wiki communication between myself and PBS. The reason I opened the RFC is because I've had good success with its use in solving content disputes on other articles. My actions on this article are as an editor only, not as an administrator, as I have edited the article in the past and am thus involved. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did not you ask the users involved in the dispute about the wording?
    The wording is biased and only helps to advance the position of PBS.
    Whether there was off-wiki can't be proven for certain, but your behavior suggests so, see the diffs on top. -YMB29 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the instructions for conducting an RFC, and there is no requirement to consult other editors about the wording. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Diannaa: So why did you create the RfC?
    If it was to resolve the dispute, it is useless since it does not reflect the dispute accurately.
    You had to ask both sides about the wording. -YMB29 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed all three of these concerns, so I am disengaging now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What have you addressed? -YMB29 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Diannaa has already answered your questions. You may not like the answers, but they were answered. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well his answers or lack of answers only show that he did not respect both sides of the dispute when he created the RfC. -YMB29 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over use of a celebrities' talk page

    So many of you recall the conversation that was here regarding photos (an aerial photo I took) of the range. Well the user and I had some harsh words and it escalated rather quickly, then resolved itself as quickly as it started but it seemed to gain me WPPilot a new stalker Hijiri88 Talk:Daniel_Catullo#COI_editing and I do not know what to do now. I simply went back to uploading my many years of photos and it would seem that Hijiri88 did not like something about a story I contributed photos to in 2010 and 2012 for Producer Daniel Catullo and he has turned this mans talk page into a personal war upon me. I have tried to take this personal conversation and his attack to his talk page, as it has no business on Catullo page, but he seems dead set on pushing this into yet another fight. I can understand it for the life of me. He discovered that his discovery was something that was already well known and he scaled up his use of this personal talk page to attack me. I have tried to be nice and explain in detail but I can no longer continue, this has gone on for a week now over my donating a Aerial photo of a mountain range and it seems this user Hijiri88 is going to continue regardless of what anyone says. I am at a loss of what to do. This user has already been banned once before and seems to be, based upon his editorial history to be simply picking a fight and he is determined to do it on the talk page of a celebrity. WPPilot talk WPPilot 07:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I merely questioned whether the article read like a promotional piece. User:ChrisGualtieri agreed.[63] I had my comments deleted from the page (with some "charming" edit summaries), received this somewhat threatening message, and now I am getting called a "stalker". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: bit of a note: Dc3director = Daniel Catullo. The connection was already revealed prior and the fact that Daniel Catullo is the Dc3 Director is self-noted. With that being said, I tried to fix the issues, but I ran into this mess. Personally, I'm not even a native Japanese speaker but "良い一日を" is probably more sarcastic/rude in Japanese than it is in English. WPPilot means well, but its not the photos that are the problem - never was. You don't see me tooting my own horn for getting a spot in Guinness, but I think some of the claims here are quite stretched to the limits on clever wording or technicalities. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    That is a far cry from what he says above. .WPPilot talk
    I have been challenged for over a week now and it has worn thin. For the most part I try to contribute photos and not be bothered here, I don't care to post on Ani boards and I NEVER pick fights with people, I don't understand this guy. He decided to challenge me and picked me out on the talk page of a celebrity and has been waging a war upon me all day. I have been more then cordial and more then once provided detailed perspective that he only ignores and picks a fight regarding the words that he feels are in need of being posted upon on Catullos Talk page. He has in fact a hand full of accounts and has a history of confrontation with other users. WPPilot talk 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    over a week I commented in your,earlier ANI thread once, less than two days ago. When my comment was followed by a rather strange one from an SPA, both myself and (I think) User:The Bushranger noticed. I found that SPAs other edits were all to a very poorly-written and poorly-sourced BLP article that read like a promotional piece and had a disproportionate number of photographs. I noticed that virtually every editor of the article seemed to be connected to the subject. This was last night (16 or 17 hours ago). I can't help but feel like I'm getting peripheral anger that was meant for User:Beyond My Ken or someone else. The title of this thread, a reference to a dispute in which I was barely involved, seems to verify this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User :ChrisGualtieri never did anything of the sort, in fact he told this guy to chill out and that I was well meaning, yet he just continues to attack me, publicly on the talk page of a Oscar nominated producer. I KNOW Catullo's is going to freak out when he sees this. WPPilot talk 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I also posted a request from him asking what is was he was trying to do, he simply removed it. Placing things that have already ben resolved upon the talk page of a celebrity is simply not the way to communicate with someone. He has simply pointed out that a ID was traced back to Mr Catullo, and that was made clear to him by the user he seems to think was supporting his attack on me. These type of conversations belong on user talk pages, not on project pages.WPPilot talk 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris agreed with me that the article has severe problems, and that you mean well. I have never said that you didn't mean well. Please point to one instance, one instance where I impugned your good faith or attacked Mr. Catullo. You will not be able to find one, because it doesn't exist. Chris didn't tell me to chill out, but I think someone really needs to tell you to chill out.
    (And what do the Academy Awards have to do with any of this?)
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attacking me & my words with assumptions regarding your perceptions of what you thought the words meant to you, on a celebrity talk page. I asked you over and over what you were trying to accomplish and you removed my remarks and went back on attacking my words on Dan's talk page: you were badgering me about 1) The use of the name Dan 2) You did not like me calling you sir (out of respect) 3) in spite of the fact that you signature has Japanese character's in it, when I told you to have a nice day, (in Japanese) you claimed I was being rude as Japanese is not native to me?????. What on earth does that have to do with Daniel Catullo and WHY do you think it belongs on the talk page about him? This has nothing to do with anyone other the YOU, sir. You have yet to respond in any way to what I posted in reply to your "Discovery, DC3director=Daniel Catullo" that you started by calling me out for taking some pics of this guy. You pointed out some users that, years ago seem to be in your view connected and you digressed the conversation, on the talk page about HIM, to a battle over the words I use out of respect for others. Why is it that you feel the need to air a dispute that had NOTHING to do with Mr Catullo, on Mr Catullos talk page? What are you trying to accomplish. Lastly "what do the Academy Awards have to do with any of this"? Well if I was a Oscar nominated producer and some stranger from Japan decided to wage a war upon another editor on my page just after the awards I would be livid, as I am sure he will be when he sees your comments and personal attacks upon me for using words that you decided were designed to be inflammatory in some way......... You should have use my or your own talk pages, not on Dans page.

    talk WPPilot 14:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will the both of you stop this and let other people respond? At this point, its just two well-meaning editors bumping heads. I don't think WPPilot was making a legal threat, but the response was not great and Hijiri88 sees the SPAs and the COI. The page was a mess and I abandoned last year because of the theatrics over trying to fix it. It was even more promotional in the past, but Catullo likely meets the notability barrier. While I personally do not think that the notability is really his own; the fact that an award is given to the crew stands. I don't know where is the best place to resolve the page's actual issues, but it used to be a big puff piece. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WPPilot, I don't know where to start. The fact that you refer to the subject of Daniel Catullo as "Mr Catullo" or "Dan" demonstrates to me that you feel some closeness to the subject. This opinion is reinforced when I see the messages you've posted to User talk:Daniel Catullo where you are very deferential to him and so you are likely protective of article on him. Also, Talk:Daniel Catullo is not "Dans page", it is Wikipedia's page. As long as editors abide by WP:BLP, WP:NOTCENSORED holds and I think Catullo's opinion of a talk page discussion is irrelevant until the moment he wants to participate in it.
    I think it's clear that you acting overly protective of this article (would you behave the same about an article on a different person?) but I don't know that it's a COI that would totally prevent you for editing the article. But you should at least acknowledge to yourself that you are not approaching editing this article as you would if you had never met the man. You need some detachment. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At what point does detachment come for someone in my shoes. Under the threshold you establish (use of the name of a person in a personal manner) that makes me attached to someone, then I guess I am attached to everyone... In regards to this article the user starts out in his post regarding COI with my name WPPilot and then goes on the hammer my use of the English language. I have not edited the Daniel Catullo page for a while, I just watch it along with the other 200 or so places that my pictures sit upon. As I have mentioned before I as a "Professional Photographer" have been to a lot of places, and was lucky enough to meet many people. For example just in the last few days I have loaded photos for many notable people, whom, without "Knowing" these people, I would have never been able to get near them. As far as Catullo, over a year ago, as the result of the questioning of his reference about the World Record & him having some award, I went up took photos at his studio and did meet him. Did we drink beers and shoot pool, no. Did he give me squat for driving up to his place spending my money on gas and such, yes I got nada, zilch nothing well, I think I might have had one of his redbulls. Does that make us buddies? I took his pictures, he showed me his awards, his studio and introduced me to his staff. Paul Allen did the same thing at the launch of SpaceShipOne. He even invited me into his Jet for Coffee, so, do I know him? No. My problem here was that a user was using Mr. Catullo's page to attack my words, do you think that is the proper place for the user to express his incorrectly implied thoughts about what I really meant in the use of words that are a normal part of my vocabulary. Catullo is a nice guy and, when we spoke, at his ofice he was clearly concerned about the propensity of Wikipedia to be subject to vandals that post unsavory things about him. With that in mind his talk page was not the place for the current conversation. I did tell Catullo that I would "place a watch" on his page. I did that and about a month ago on my way back from the Bahamas I got a number of them on a lay over in Dallas, Texas. I looked at the page, the allegations words were disturbing so I fixed it and moved on to the stuff I am working on now. NASCAR the lead photo is my photo, I was close to the race track as you can see, and I have posted it on the race tracks page. Would it be OK for another user to come and start attacking my use of English, in that if I use on format or the other of a persons name I know him, or if I am nice to them and call them sir, its perfectly ok to attack the word sir, in the discussion on the NASCAR talk page, or does it go to our own talk pages? I thought that it was funny really that the user from Japan got mad at me for using Japanese. I have "by the invitation of the Imperial Household Agency in Tokyo", been into the Inner grounds of the Imperial palace, and those photos were the first photos I ever loaded to Wikipedia over 4 years ago. To have the user get mad at me for being nice in what looks to be HIS native language was just outright silly, was it not? The user for whatever reason uses Japanese in his own sig, yet if a non native speaker uses it, attack him about how you think. weird to me. I am going back to uploading more photos. This is Hollywood and, well, as you have pointed out, I am friends with everyone, Cheers! talkWPPilot 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a disclaimer before I begin... I'm not Japanese by nationality or ethnicity (I was raised in the Pacific Northwest of the US) but I include a Kanji symbol in my username just to explain the context of my username (it's Japanese for "head"). In any case, any discussion of WPPilot's potential COI should also take into account WP:EXPERT, which is a long-standing essay that explains the value of contributions from subject matter experts. While contributing photos is different from, say, a scientist editing a science-related article, the project still benefits by receiving images that are unavailable from other sources. I only mention this because it is common for a person's special access to images or information to be turned against the editor for COI reasons, when that special access is also benefiting the project. Conflicts of interest don't exist when an editor's interests and the best interests of Wikipedia happen to coincide. -- Atama頭 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Atama, but, from what I read, this no longer has to do with use of photos and instead it's about wanting to keep article discussion off a talk page because the subject of article would be displeased. The article already had issues with being too promotional in the past. As long as WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL is observed, a talk page discussion shouldn't be censored due to the imagined feelings of the article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I was just making a point about COI in general. I haven't taken the time to visit the actual article talk page yet, but I will shortly. I think seeing the actual discussion will be more informative than what's being said about it on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a new thread at the article talk page here. I'd like for any further discussion on this subject to take place there, as I believe that solving any content disputes should also resolve the personal disputes on display at this noticeboard, and this noticeboard is the incorrect venue to resolve content disputes. Anyone who has an interest in improving that article (whether resolving the current issues or improving its overall quality) is free to participate. -- Atama頭 18:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 92.90.17.13 claiming to be subject of BLP article (Rachel Marsden) is avoiding a previous block for legal threats (see #Legal threat by IP user claiming to subject of an article above). See edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I believe that this is a block evasion, not the "ban evasion" of your title. Secondly, although I haven't yet digested these edits in full, they seem to be amicable and constructive; the author seems to be the person she claims to be; and (putting aside WP's policies and guidelines for a moment) it seems extraordinary not to allow a biographee to make suggestions on the talk page of the article about herself -- an article that she (or more strictly speaking the person claiming to be her) still wishes would just disappear. I'm not going to revert your deletion, but this is something a previously uninvolved administrator might consider doing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the exact procedure, but if she is the subject of an article and she has concerns about its content, she should contact WMF, not edit the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the block evasion (which I don't know anything about) subjects of the article can still edit their own article. As long as they are not adding content that is promotional or where they stand to gain financially from the content. But this appears to simply be someone making suggestions on the talk page and that is more than acceptable. However it has been easier for the subject to simply contact an admin or other editor to seek assistance in regards to content that either is a BLP issue or that they can help identify the accurate information. We should be sensitive to the subject...trust me.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my misuse of ban vs block. Regardless, this user was blocked last night for legal threats. You can view that IP editor's edits to see they also claimed to be Rachel Marsden. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And while serious, the legal threat can be (and hopefully will be) unambiguously retracted.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a member of the OTRS team but I've seen recent mention of an OTRS reference in a context that suggested that she was the writer. I've no idea what the ticket [is it called?] said (and don't want to know), but I think that yes she's using the other channels that are available. As Mark Miller points out, she's not attempting to edit the article about her; she is attempting to influence it. The long, deleted comment makes clear an inference of bad faith in one other, specified editor; I'm not happy about this, but it doesn't obviously go further than what that editor was told directly by a admin (not me) only a few hours ago. I don't think it's be a good idea for a biographee to appeal to a particular admin for problems that aren't humdrum, because there could easily be the suspicion that the particular admin was chosen for a particular reason. ¶ Meanwhile, I've started to look through the points in the deleted comment. I've edited the article where/how I think appropriate. I'm soon going to pause, and I encourage some other editor who's experienced, disinterested and neutral to take over. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this seems to be much more than requesting accurate information be added or contentious material removed and I believe you are absolutely right that any editor or admin assisting in the manner I mentioned (which would be best for simpler issues) would be viewed with suspicion and that could create unneeded drama.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    what, specifically, was the legal threat? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears the subject claims litigation is ongoing. That would need clarification that such has ended before any block would be reversed I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can be found here: Talk:Rachel_Marsden#Message_from_the_article_subject_.28Rachel_Marsden.29. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor update: Whether or not I was right to read, digest, and at my discretion act upon the long comment that EvergreenFir (with a degree of good reason) deleted, it's what I was doing. But I've now paused. (Not because I think I should pause, but because I have other demands on my time.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be how I'm viewing things (and a lot of edits have been oversighted so I know I'm missing a lot of content) but what the original IP says is there is some legal action by this editor against another editor. There are no legal threats against Wikipedia or against anyone, just the disclosure that some legal process is ongoing. So, it's not clear to me that WP:NLT was a good basis to block this user based on what exists on the article talk page now.
    I should also mention that I came across this Arbitration Committee ruling regarding this particular article that should be kept in mind: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure that had nothing to do with her relationship with Jimbo. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far back as I can remember, WP:NLT has said something similar to what it says now in the intro:
    If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, you must not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.
    So yes, if there's ongoing legal action against someone relating to wikipedia than NLT applies. Remember a policy is more than just the name.
    Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So yes, if there's ongoing legal action against someone relating to wikipedia than NLT applies.
    But that's not what I said and not what she said. Marsden said that an individual she believed was this editor had been harassing her and there was legal action being pursued to address this perceived harassment. This all happened before the recent edits on Wikipedia and doesn't involve Wikipedia, the organization, the website or its employees. She was just stating that there was ongoing legal action and then she encountered an editor that she thinks is the same person and mentioned the hostile relationship between the two. But since these edits in question are so recent (the past week), Wikipedia can not be included in any legal case that was filed sometime in the past. I just don't see that disclosure in any way "legal action" involving Wikipedia or a legal threat. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Liz, NLT applies here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't and still don't think it's clear from your original comment whether or not the legal action related to wikipedia in any way. But even if it's true the legal action doesn't relate to wikipedia, the wording I quoted doesn't preclude someone being blocked when they are involved in legal action against another editor which doesn't directly relate to stuff on wikipedia. In particular, I'm fairly sure it's common for both editors to be blocked when they are involved one party is involved in legal action against the other and they bring their dispute to wikipedia. Reading the comment left by that contributor, I don't think it's accurate to say the mention of the legal action was simply normal disclosure. To me, the wording is clearly intended to convey the idea that the other editor is in the wrong. And there is an obvious risk that the message will have the same chilling effect that any legal threat will have.  :::There is an obvious grey area here, if an established editor is involved in legal action against someone completely unrelated to wikipedia and this person follows them to wikipedia and tries to harass the established editor which the established editor ignores, I don't think many would agree the established editor should be blocked because of it. And we obviously should be careful about not too easily barring people from trying to address concerns about article on themselves.
    But considering all that's gone on here and in the past, I don't think you can say it's clear NLT shouldn't apply. Ultimately it comes down to what NLT says. We can't stop you taking legal action, but if you do so, you may need to deal with your disputes via means other than editing wikipedia while it's ongoing.
    Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Mike V has swept away the message that was the immediate prompt for this thread, and rendered it irretrievable. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I was requested by Hoary to comment on this matter. Unfortunately, all I can say is that there was material that met the oversight criteria that needed to be removed. Often such material extends through multiple revisions and needs to be oversighted as well. The content relevant to this thread can be viewed on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully I'm not going to far in saying that I have an idea of some of the material that was removed having seen it yesterday based on RM's complaint (and it being missing now) and I'm not at all surprised it was supressed/oversighted. As Mike V has said, the material directly referred to here is still there. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gimmeallyourmoney disruptive editing

    Gimmeallyourmoney (talk · contribs) has made over 450 edits in the last two days, most of which are strange.

    • POV move at Al-Manar [64]
    • A huge number of sockpuppet accusations on IP user talk pages, some of which might be valid. Most of the addresses are in the same class B IP block. However, the nomination of 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs) as an IP sockpuppet was a bit clueless. They were warned to stop on their talk page, and they did.
    • Miscellanous uncited edits to road and technical articles which may or may not be correct, but which now have to be checked by someone.[65][66][67]

    They've had various warnings on Talk. This looks more like a confused editor than hostile activity. It's the volume of questionable edits that's troublesome. Please watch for the next few days and see if the problem has stopped. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked at one edit at random diff and it's ridiculous to add additional SPI tags on a Talk Page as if an IP was a sock of multiple different accounts. It's confusing and it's being done to so many different IP pages (hundreds?), there can't be any investigation into this accusation. I'd advocate using rollback to undo all edits for the past few days. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, DP has been rolling them back like there's no tomorrow. Irritating: if such a page is created by this cat, you can't roll back, and there's an irritating message: "Grabbing data of earlier revisions: No previous revision found. Perhaps Gimmeallyourmoney is the only contributor, or that the user has made more than 50 edits in a row." That that needs to be removed! (And No needs to be in lower case.) Drmies (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only able to mrollback about maybe 50? 25? DP 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've blocked indefinitely--that is, until they offer a satisfactory explanation. DangerousPanda asked them about the sock templates days ago and received no answer, nor were other questions addressed. If they ever want to start talking they can do so, via an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the "why" is not always important but it does seem weird that he'd go after all of these similar IPS, many of whom haven't edited for years. Talk about stale. It looks like he was after someone specific and just cast a very wide net. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'd love to know why, but my speculation would be rather useless. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ajraddatz just globally locked it, so I think we're done here. --Rschen7754 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For interesting speculation, try this: one of his article moves was about a specific ISP. If all of his sock tags were of a different ISP, was he trying to badmouth an entire ISP by referring to all its users as socks? Does "Gimmeeallyourmoney" refer to ludicrous costs for internet/phone/cable, so therefore it's a one-man stand against the ISP DP 09:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One man, but with many accounts. This is another sock (or possibly the original account) of Trollingtrolls, who reported IPs in that range to AN/V before being blocked. He is also doing similar stuff xwiki, hence the lock. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orestes1984

    Consensus supports OP action. Block since extended to indefinite, noting that that does not mean "infinite" and the editor may seek an unblock via the usual email channels. No further admin action presently required. Euryalus (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please review my actions here. Orestes1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been very passionate in the matter of Australian sport naming conventions. My efforts to problem-solve this area were recently discussed and broadly endorsed here. Orestes1984 continued to personalise the discussion after several warnings and coming off a previous block by User:Drmies for similar behaviour, so I gave a week's block, followed by restricting talk access when he became abusive. At that point the user logged out and began to vandalise under various IPs, saying "You can block me all you like I'm not on a fixed IP range". I therefore extended the account block to indefinite but like any admin action I take in this area I am bringing it here for the community's review. I am actually a bit uneasy at the indef and if somebody wanted to replace it with a fixed length block I would be ok with that. I am sure there is good in this editor even though they have temporarily lost their temper. I don't think though that this editor is able to edit in this area productively. I wonder what you all think? --John (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite is indefinite. If the user were to go quietly away now and come back contritely in a week, s/he'd probably get unblocked, and rightfully so. If the user continues to abuse multiple IP addresses, then who knows when the community will be ready to unblock the account. Good call on the indefinite block, I'd say. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre belief that because many countries call it football, it's football around the world. For example, it's "soccer" in Canada, even though we have a pro team called "Toronto Football Club". Such nomenclature doesn't mean we call it football here. Looks like the same argument in Australia. Also, just because the BBC guys talks about "football" when he talks about the Montreal Pro club, does not mean that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does the same thing. Not rocket science - in fact, WP:ENGVAR probably applies to some degree :-) DP 23:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I thought perhaps they were claiming there was some international consensus of editors. I was going to ask where that centralized discussion would have taken place.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, last time they were blocked they put a "retired" template on their talk page yet didn't retire. I'm sure they'll be back, and I hope they will do so properly--not with an IP range, vandalizing others' user pages and messing with protected animals. Let's hope that the soccer/football thing gets resolved one way or another (hopefully John's way--that is, with the scheme and RfC he set up), and maybe that will lower the temperature of those discussions. And perhaps some more level-headed editors will, after this ANI thread, go over and check out John's efforts to help resolve it. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've commented enough about this issue so won't offer an opinion now, but the mediation efforts mentioned by Drmies are at WT:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and would benefit from occasional monitoring by uninvolved editors. There is a new Arbcom request but I don't think that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Indefinite means tomorrow, next year or whatever. I think the block is preventative and absolutely still appealable through email channels but the willingness to sock, attack others and assume bad faith shows a block extension was nec. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as well. An indef is richly called for under the circumstances. This editor didn't get their way and blew it repeatedly, and now needs to grow up in order to rejoin the community. Jusdafax 06:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bambifan returns?

    The Bushranger: duck hunter extraordinaire. De728631 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Will someone that has more experience with WP:LTA/BF101 take a look at Moviefan45 (talk · contribs)? He/she's posting a lengthy credits section on The Fox and the Hound, which has been a target of Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) before (and has had previous problems with a gigantic credits list). Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Moviefan45 account was also created just one day before Bambifan's last account, MadisonGrundtvig, was blocked. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks similar enough to me, even if it's not Bambifan101 the account is essentially indistinguishable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And accordingly blocked as a WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Beeblebrox

    Arb or no arb, an isolated case of alleged incivility isn't going to lead to AN/I doing anything constructive. What is the end result? If you are dissatisfied with Beeb's response, we cannot lean on him to get you a different one. Much venting would take place, and little done. Nipping in bud.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have a complaint against User:Beeblebrox of a personal attack and continuing uncivility, in violation of WP:No personal attacks and the requirements of WP:Civility and WP:AGF.

    This was in the course of discussion at Talk:Sports in Alaska regarding deficiencies at that article. In this edit of 24 Feb., with the edit summary of "let me go get my tinfoil hat and see if that helps me see it your way...", Beeblebrox said that my comments went "beyond absurd into the realm of utter lunacy". When I suggested (here) that a retraction might be in order, his response was a {{minnow}} slap. When I expressly asked for a retraction and apology (here) he said (here) "your argument was a load of nonsense based on assumptions of bad faith and imaginary conspiracies, so no, I won't be retracting it no matter how many times you ask." When another editor chided him about this on his talk page, Beeblebrox only continued with his misrepresentation that I had "made up an inane theory".

    While it is possible Beeblebrox's initial comments might have been merely a rash response to a misunderstanding, his perseverance in them excludes any excuse of inadvertence or non-intention. Even if his assertions (that I had assumed bad faith, etc.) were correct, his proper response should have been to complain to me and ask for remedy, not to engage in trash talk. His actual response demonstrates his own failure to assume good faith, and his own engagement in imaginary conspiracies.

    Beeblebrox has attempted to exculpate himself by asserting that his comments were directed not to me "individually", but only to my argument. I hold that as my argument is the result and derivation of my intellect, and the essence of my presence on Wikipedia, his comments do amount to an ad hominem attack. On the otherhand, if remarks of "tinfoil hats" and "utter lunancy" are deemed acceptable, provided one carefully directs them to others' arguments, then I will thank you for the guidance, apologize for this lengthy complaint, and adjust my standards accordingly.

    However, on the grounds that such remarks are not acceptable, I ask for the following remedy: that Beeblebrox be censured here, at Talk:Sports in Alaska, and on his user page, for his uncivil behavior in both his remarks and his refusal to retract them, the censure on his user page to remain posted for 30 days. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even if the OP were correct, allowance for the fact that editors are human needs to be made. Beeblebrox is apparently trying to clean up a troubled article while dealing with silliness from an IP, so this comment is not helpful—sorry, but the comment just does not make sense. If you have a suggestion for what should be done, make it, but it's pointless to suggest that an unimportant introductory sentence is WP:SYNTH. It's not a contentious issue—they really do have various sports in Alaska. It's best to focus on issues, and the issue seems to be whether the page should be restored to the prose version so people can try and make a decent article from it—making charges of SYNTH about an irrelevant introductory sentence is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to meet the concept of "comment on the edits, not the editor". The dumbest of person can make smart edits, likewise the smartest of editors can make the dumbest edits. Note: I'm not commenting on the intellectual ability of anyone specific - just a general commentary. Someone's taking comments about their possibly poor edits very personally - something that would be wise to stop doing. This discussion was already held on Beeb's talkpage, there's not good reason for it to have come here - it just appears they they don't like the answer/policy/shape of the tinfoil DP 01:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Sarcasm isn't always effective in these situations, but is short of actual abuse or a personal attack. I don't think Beeblebrox was the one misunderstanding the situation here and yes, these comments were directed at the content not the contributor. My only criticism here is that they did seem to assume bad faith a little quicker than may have been good, but everyone has their own limits He wasn't assuming bad faith, he accused the editor of assuming bad faith.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to disagree with this vehemently as this does not fall under "grossly inappropriate". The worst this is would be sarcasm that does not fall under any sort of personal attack but refers directly to the commenst of the user and not the user themselves.
    • "Tinfoil hats" are not comments on content and add nothing the discussion. The best policy, when one "does not know what to say to this" is to say nothing until one figures out what to say that doesn't require references to tin hats and lunacy. NE Ent 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't going to please you, but that comment mentions himself and not the other editor. A thicker skin is needed to keep drama to a minimum, however if any admin feels that was enough for some sort of intervention I invite them to do so and explain the basis if they could here. I won't object, but I also think this does not rise to the level of needing admin attention. I understand what was said, but I think this can quickly become a mountain from this mole hill. We are hopefully all adults and this isn't name calling. The suggestion is that Beeblebrox would need to adjust his way of thinking to understand the other editor and that it sounds odd enough that he felt it was "tinfoil hat" type stuff. Please define that as anything more than what I see it as. Horrible sarcasm, but not by definition a personal attack.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to go a tad further with this. The OP is asking for something that IS NOT within the scope of admin intervention. He is asking for the other editor be branded, or given a scarlet letter to wear on their Wikipedia User page. That is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard here. That is not going to happen unless Beeblebrox is outright blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've learned the hard way that glib responses are rarely well-received no matter how witty they seem to me at the time. Conversation on the internet is often sarcastic and snarky but it is a barrier to collaboration. While the comments are inappropriate, I'd advise J. Johnson (JJ) that while you may ask for a specific "remedy", editors do not set the terms of administrator actions, especially actions affecting another admin. Like being glib, making demands is also rarely well-received, especially on AN/I. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Follow-up question

    • What advice is given to the community here?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I would suggest reopening it. the personal incivility here is beyond the margin of acceptability, and there is something we admins can and should consider doing, which is a block. NPA is a pillar, and it's time we upheld it. Upheld it, no matter who it is who may be destroying it. In a normal cade with a new editor, that tin foil hat comment would justify a block, and it should here equally. The more experienced the editor, the better they should know to avoid this sort of contempt for their colleagues. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also ask that the thread be re-opened. Sweeping admin misbehavior under the rug can lead to division and resentment. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too thought the thread was archived over-hastily. It seems Beeblebrox was too brusque on article talk a couple of weeks ago. That certainly doesn't merit a block but it'd be ok to leave it open for another day or two, if it will give him useful feedback short of a block. The "tin-foil hat" comment was ill-judged, and it's true we should (and do) expect better-than-usual decorum from those of us who administer and arbitrate here. An acknowledgement of what he has learned would be fine here. We certainly don't do censures or 30-day badges of shame here. --John (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize if asking for a specific remedy was improper. My inexperience on how to deal with matters like this is such that I will accept any result and/or guidance as may be deemed suitable. Though, of course, I would be quite disappointed if the behavior complained about was given a totally free pass. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine, but are there any messages in the discussion so far that warrant your attention? Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I am aware of this (despite none of the parties in either discussion actually letting me know I was under discussion here) and have absolutely nothing to add. This is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. There was no admin misbehavior, just a very minor content dispute that is over, or would be if the other parties involved would just move on already. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified Breeblebox on his talk page with this edit, which he has since deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which means Beeblebrox was aware of the this ANI discussion. "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents."--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, here is the edit in which Beeblebrox removes the ANI notice.  In this edit, he removes without comment an attempt from a presumably uninvolved editor to mediate the dispute.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For my part, I am not aware of a duty of notification for starting a sub-discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really think there was no misbehavior, perhaps this issue should be left open until you will acknowledge that the 'tin-foil hat' insult is unbecoming of an admin/arb. Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No admin misbehavior however, civility does appear to be an issue with Beeblebrox as an editor. As one who reverted an attempt to re-open the thread after an admin had closed it, I also agree that this may need to be further discussed. One on one with Beeblebrox was certainly unsuccessful.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't technically admin misbehavior in the sense that admin tools were not used. Still, admins should be held to a higher standard, so his admin (and arb) status is definitely relevant. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we could hold the editor to at least the same standard.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beeblebrox put some effort into improving that list article. For his efforts he was accused of something that is demonstrably false and borderline bad faith ("In fact, the article itself is nothing but an attempt to validate the assertion by means of demonstration; that is, to show that there is a "number" of "sports teams and events" in Alaska by listing them.") I agree that that statement is ridiculous and if it were me in Beeblebrox's place, I might be tempted to snarl back as well. What is to be gained now, six days after Beeblebrox withdrew from the discussion, from complaining to ANI of hurt feelings? Reyk YO! 03:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reyk makes some good points. If Beeblebrox, having been duly notified here, is not minded to acknowledge he was in the wrong, short of a block which I don't think is warranted, the community has no power to compel him to do so. While arbitrators (and administrators) should set a good example of how to behave, there is no suggestion here that advanced permissions were involved and we can perhaps move on. Editors are human, everyone is entitled to an off-day or two here, and this discussion serves as an aide-memoire that the incident occurred. In the unlikely event it is repeated we will treat it more seriously the next time. For now, this is as good as you will get, User:J. Johnson. --John (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let it also serve as a reminder to you (J. Johnson) not to go wantonly slinging assumptions of bad faith at people, as this is the sort of reaction it is likely to generate in the future. Next time, maybe spend a few seconds reviewing the page history before you go making baseless accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking to me, as the indentation suggests, or to J. Johnson? --John (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently I need some coffee this morning, I misread the link at the end as a sig. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the userbox on your page and thought that might be the case. Blame my parents for giving me such a common name, and me for finishing my post of 07:08 in a hard-to-parse way. --John (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this section just be included with the archived section above? It seems like this conversation has reached an end. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reyk says that Beeblebrox "was accused [by me] of something that is demonstrably false and borderline bad faith". That is wholly incorrect. I was commenting on content, and particularly on a possible problem on how the article could be read in a previous version. In fact, Beeblebrox was revising the article, which I fully supported. I did say: "The problem arose because in converting from an article to a list you retained the summarization of the article. (So fix it.)" Perhaps that came across as snarky, but that was not intended. I was simply pointing out something that had been left undone. There was no "accusation", false or otherwise, and I am quite amazed at how Reyk comes up with any suggestion of bad faith.
    Several comments here have suggested the Beeblebrox was being "only sarcastic". I would not object to that, even to snarkiness, as sometimes that is a useful way of getting someone's attention. But when it becomes patently offensive and prevents collaborative effort, it needs to be retracted. Refusal to do so demonstrates malice, and crosses the line from possibly humorous to hurtful. If the supposed sarcasm does not in itself amount to a personal attack, fine, but those comments are certainly demeaning, and uncivil. And if they are not such a big deal, then why has Beeblebrox so adamantly refused to retract and apologize?
    The answer to that may be due to a deeper issue. Beeblebrox accuses me of "assumptions of bad faith and imaginary conspiracies". In fact that assertion demonstrates his failure to assume good faith, and his imaginary conspiracies. (At the least he should consider the same medicine he hands out to others: I wasn't commenting on you personally, only on what you wrote.) I suspect (and as it is pertinent to the issue I hope that in this case I may be excused for commenting on the editor) his refusal to retract is because he has assumed my comments were made in bad faith, and apparently presumed malice on my part. This is the very kind of behavioral lockjaw that I believe WP:AGF is intended to prevent.
    For my part, I have not, and do not, make any assumptions, or assertions, of bad faith. I attribute his remarks, his misunderstanding of my remarks, his continuing assertion of bad faith and refusal to retract, as arising primarily from his own assumption of bad faith. That was an error. Which I am willing to forgive, but he needs to retract his past remarks, and desist in his continuing ("wantonly slinging ...") uncivil behavior.
    ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the deal: anybody who has been at WP more than six months should know that making snarky comments about other editors in the edit summary is very much NOT okay. That somebody can get elected to ArbCom and still be pulling this kind of shit is frankly baffling. Just. Don't. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoops gza and Nazi topics.

    While it hasn't erupted into anything major yet, I'd like an admin to review the questionable POV-pushing edits of User:Hoops gza today and going forward for the next few days related to August Landmesser, List of Nazis and other Third Reich topics and historical figures. The editor has been advised to seek consensus but is argumentatively insistent insistent on pushing a POV that right now is a combination of borderline disruptive/tendentious editing and ownership mentality that has the indicators of easily increasing into a full-blown conflict.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is nothing POV about it. I am simply applying defining criteria to August Landmesser and the List of Nazis. You can see the discussions on the talk pages for proof of this.Hoops gza (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I reverted an addition to a subpage of List of Nazis that didn't meet the stated criteria for the page, he removed the criteria, claiming it had been a "random editor" who'd inserted it, when it was in fact the creator of the article, who'd added it during a 2010 AfD discussion to answer criticism that the scope was overly broad. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Redirect_from_alternative_language for another example of the-rules-don't-apply editing: He's creating redirects to the Holocaust in every language (even when there's no direct equivalent), and when I pointed out this was contrary to policy, he responded: "Yes, I know. The Holocaust is not a standard subject." [68]

    Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

    Are there any eyes on this page? I am seeing personal attacks, troll comments and such being made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a looooong discussion page. As it says at the top of this noticeboard, "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." -- Atama頭 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IPadPerson

    I've brought this to all of your attention before but it slipped into the archives, although a few users noted that IPadPerson's behavior, specifically their edit summaries and attitude, have been unacceptable. See the last ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#User:IPadPerson - there are plenty of diffs there of the users' past edit summaries that were disruptive, which I can copy and paste here.. or you can take a look at if you'd like over there. IPadPerson received multiple warnings about this issue. [69], [70], [71]. A look at their user page also can give you an idea of the attitude this user has. Directly copied, it says "If I EVER find someone trash talking me about an edit, you will DEFINITELY be reported to an administrator FOR REAL. Don't play those silly games with me. Also, I will NOT and NEVER WILL tolerate anyone invading my privacy by revealing my IP address (71.77.78.28), which is an alternative thing that I use when not logged on. Anyone who mentions me anywhere on Wikipedia better have a good explanation why." Recently, they've sparked back up with the edit summaries: "You shouldnt've even changed the damn infobox in the first place." "Don't be adding no bullcrap without no source!" "Bullshit." I think you get the point. Gloss • talk 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I see what might be categorized as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but (at least in the diffs) I'm not seeing any personal attacks, WP:HARASS, or outright disruption. I do, however, see a lot of warnings on IPadPerson's talk page. Could you provide more diffs of disruptive behavior or personal attacks, please? Otherwise, based on your current post all I could support is a trout. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they personally attacked anybody. The comments like the ones I've brought here are all uncivil. Gloss • talk 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Gloss, but I'm with Jorgath here. Uncivil, maybe, or maybe sure, but such relatively minor infractions, that's not something admins block for. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the kind of behavior we're endorsing, something has gone wrong with this project. Gloss • talk 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it help if someone warned him/her about the uncivil text on their userpage? As for the the edit summaries, perhaps a harsher warning. --Gourami Watcher (?) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't endorse it. We used to have WP:WQA, but some brilliant people determined that trying to get people to interact civilly was not important. We also have a civility policy that apparently has as many teeth as a 40 year old mule, and with half as much kick. You want to file an WP:RFC/U for chronic incivility, go ahead. Until they actually attack someone, we're somewhat neutered DP 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read about the closing of WP:WQA and I still don't understand why it was shut down. It seems like it would be useful if there was some place, between talk pages and AN/I, where editors can bring their problems working with others. It would be most useful to new editors, who would find AN/I or filing an WP:RFC/U very intimidating. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the reason it closed was because it was such a drama board (made AN/I look like a middle school summer romance) that no one had the patience to deal with it all without violating civility themselves. Which is a pity - the board was a good idea, no matter how difficult to deal with in practice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the information, Jorgath. It's hard to imagine a noticeboard with more drama than the existing ones. Doesn't sound pretty. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that WP:WQA was more of a drama board than ANI is not correct. Of course there were eruptions from time to time, but it was not as troubled as ANI. The problem was that WQA had no discernible function—if a discussion decided that editor X had badly violated WP:CIVIL, there was no path to do anything about it (I did not quite agree with that as I saw several discussions where a good result came from the fact that uninvolved people had politely told X that we don't do that here). It was decided that (bad) content disputes should be at WP:DRN, and behavioral disputes where some editor may need a sanction should be at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That idea is what I got out of skimming the discussion to close the board. That and that it had no teeth. Not saying you're wrong, just saying where I got the idea from. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's why I'm glad at least the Teahouse is around for newbie editors. When I went from being a casual editor to a more involved editor last summer, well, it was a frustrating experience. I'm sure some of my edits in my IP years were reverted but I was unaware of when it happened. I completely empathize with new editors who are shocked when they find themselves reverted or their new articles deleted. Since they are not familiar with how common this is, they take it personally and get frustrated. They don't know about noticeboards or get no response on talk pages so they act out. I'm not condoning this misbehavior but I understand why it happens unless a new user goes to Help or the Teahouse to get an explanation and direction. Liz Read! Talk! 15:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The biggest personal attack I could personally find off bat (which Gloss mentioned on IPadPerson's talk page) that IPadPerson made was this by telling someone to "fuck off". I haven't searched in depth, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This just in, he called another user's edits "stupid". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like nobody wants to do anything about it. It's apparently perfectly okay for this kind of edit summary. Gloss • talk 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, I find that surprising as it comes off as an insult towards the editor that IPadPerson reverted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Borderline personal attack. Gloss • talk 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IPadPerson left the edit summary: "Do not remove "U.S.". I'm serious." here. I removed what IPadPerson warned other editors not to [72], because it was incorrect. This type of intimidation is uncomfortable and unwelcome. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't a policy or a guideline. Please read the disclaimer at the top of the article. That is just an essay which is the opinion of one or more editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what they reverted doesn't look like vandalism, which makes it a false accusation of vandalism (couched in highly uncivil language): that's disruptive and a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving an only warning for vandalism to a bot [73], even if they didn't include any problematic edit summaries or text besides the warning and the bot clearly made an error doesn't exactly help to reenforce the view they're paying much attention to what they're complaining about either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not censored and calling edits stupid is not calling the editor stupid. At the very least, look into the policy and guideline before asking for administration to step in and take action. Seriously. It is unfortunate that newbies don't know all the ropes, but they are expected to start learning and not make complaints that are based on the commentary about the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I requote something quoted at the top of this thread from the user page (removed in this edit), though after removal of typographic extravagances: Also, I will not and never will tolerate anyone invading my privacy by revealing my IP address (71.77.78.28). Or to paraphrase: "The revelation that I am hereby making is an intolerable invasion of my privacy." There seems to be some ... disturbance here. Or might this user just be very young? -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PS "this 'fuck off' comment" referred to close above is only "fuck off" in part. In its entirety, it reads "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! EITHER ASSUME GOOD FAITH OR FUCK OFF!" (typographic extravagance in the original). This is somebody who's far too excited to be editing an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for those diffs, Hoary. I noticed this one as well. And seriously, first adding and then removing an IP address editing from said IP address, that's highly untelligent. What's next, an admin should go through and revdel all the IP addresses from the edits they made while logged out? And revdel that nonsense comment from their user page to protect the privacy they claim to guard but give away in the same edit? IPadPerson has not seen fit to even visit this discussion. At least they held back a little bit in recent edit summaries, so I'm going to assume they at least read these comments.

      Let's put them on notice: IPadPerson, and your IP address, you are to stop insulting other editors in edit summaries and elsewhere. This is a collaborative project and you are not being collaborative. There's a fine line between commenting on edits and commenting on editors and you have crossed it too often. Next time you will be blocked for disruption. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • That makes it certain. From Drmies explanation I see this is a long term issue of using the edit summary for shock value and insulting, disruptive behavior which is not isolated. Regardless, everyone should be trying to work together. If not...all we can do is ask. If asking doesn't work. Admin have the tools to deal with the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Categories

    In February, a handful of editors has vandalized Category:Fiction by topic with unnecessary categorizations. Please salt the following pages:

    Also salt any other deleted, unnecessary categories like these. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not going to happen. WP:SALT is to prevent repeatedly-recreated, problematic pages from being recreated. Every one of those deleted pages you linked to was created once and then deleted. If you come across pages that have been repeatedly recreated, and deleted each time as inappropriate, then they can be salted. My personal preference is to salt a page if it has been recreated 3 times and is unlikely to be a valuable page any time soon. I'll sometimes salt after 2 deletions if both deletions occurred within a short time span of each other (at least less than a week apart), had the same problem, and if the page is likely to be recreated soon (such as an editor stating that they will recreate the page again). But of course none of that applies to any of those page, not even close. -- Atama頭 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a couple of other things important to mention here, those categories were deleted via CfD discussions; they were deleted as being unhelpful, but not for being disruptive. They also weren't speedily-deleted as being clearly inappropriate categories. There was no suggestion at any of the CfD discussions that the editors were being disruptive in creating those categories. There were only two editors creating these categories, those editors were:
    Calling two editors a "handful" is probably a bit of hyperbole. I'd like to mention that neither editor has received so much as a warning for disruption from what I've seen, let alone a block (Player017 even received a barnstar for their contributions). These categories were all created over a somewhat lengthy span of time (earliest was October 2013, most recent was January 2014) so it's not like they were created in one big mass. These editors most definitely do not deserve to have their efforts labeled as "vandalism", as they were clearly good-faith efforts from productive editors that were found to be unnecessary by consensus from other editors, nothing more or less. -- Atama頭 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyperbole? Well, what if one has really small hands? Atama, you'd do well to not overexaggerate so incredibly enormously. Besides that I agree with you one thousand percent, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    True, hence why I said "probably". ;) -- Atama頭 20:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that I do share the OP's concern. Periodically, there will be new editors who create dozens of categories in a short space of time, as if there was a burning need to get these categories created ASAP. Lately they have been in "Fictional X" or "X in fiction". Ones that are noticed are proposed at CfD and almost always deleted but when these editors get on a roll, they can create a lot of categories in just one day and arguing each, case by case, can be time-consuming. But the approach is to instruct the editor and get them involved in the deletion discussions, not salt the particular categories. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the case here, though, these categories were created over a long(-ish) period of time. Only the deletion of these categories was done in a short period of time. Your conclusion is correct though, in both the hypothetical situation you described and what happened in this case, where the best solution is to inform the editor(s) creating those categories. In this case especially we're dealing with constructive editors who should be receptive to such suggestions. -- Atama頭 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    76.105.96.92

    This user has either some major WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE issues, followed with very WP:POINTed edits and RFCs when responded to.

    Repeated gender identity BLP issues : [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

    Strange WP:POINTed RMs [79][80] [81][82]

    They will not be able to respond due to the current protection of this pageGaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Inadequate behavior

    I need a third opinion on the behavior of AlphaOmega2211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) during my discussion with him at the Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#User:Irondomes immediate reaction on reading this, 21 hours ago. The user accuses me in lashing that individual out and dares me to take on personally. Is that behavior normal for a wikipedia editor? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a single purpose POV pushing account but I'd like some other opinions before deciding what action to take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the etiquette to which wikipedia strives? What is the purpose of user's inquiry whether I would like to take on that person personally? And he or she has a nerve to make fun of it in an insulting kind of way. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions apply to the article and talk page under WP:ARBEE, in case anyone is unaware.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I was not. Good job on tracking it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.127.80.114 and possible Debian edit war

    I have participated in a failed case in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am trying to use the talk page again as advised. Reverters did not talk about article content in the case. They have never discussed article content and have only claimed generic policy violations through edit summaries [83] [84] [85]. I did discuss [86] [87] [88].

    Since discussion in the talk page is dead, may I edit the article and add this change without getting blocked again? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Like administrators did previously, the volunteer repeated "You are allowed to make bold edits as long as you follow WP:BRD. You are not free to edit war. Feel free to ask elsewhere to confirm this.", without addressing my concern.

    I know I must follow the BRD cycle. I know I am not entitled to edit war. The problem is I have never edit warred, reverters forfeited the discussion phase every time. Administrators have actively ignored the discussion component present in my actions. I have been warned and punished for violations I did not commit.

    This has never been a content issue, but conduct related. Regular editors of the Debian article and involved administrators simply do not like the changes. The material does meet Wikipedia standards, that is why discussion never happened and still does not happen.

    Should I consider this avenue exhausted and try to use the last and final resort for conduct? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible BLP violation on user talk page

    Not a BLP violation. 28bytes (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I think this, restoring "Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process," might violate WP:BLP.

    Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

    I've had some encounters with the editor, that were less than positive, so feel outside opinions might be best. In the past they have maintained a better understanding of BLP policy in various discussions, which has not always been supported. Also it's clear this is about Jimmy Wales, but I think the same statement about any living person would also be against policy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine if someone else wants to do it. I feel my involvement should remain at arms length, based on my prior interactions with this editor. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Preventing editors from mildly grousing about Jimbo on their own talk pages is not what WP:BLP was designed for. 28bytes (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well...actually it was...not just Jimbo, but each other or people you just don't like...or agree with....--Mark Miller (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually believed that it was a BLP violation to say that, then you wouldn't have just said it about Collect, below. Didn't Drmies close this? 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No...since it is sourced to the exact place he made the statements.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he closed it... extremely quickly. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that, but I'm not so sure Collect's statement is just a case of him "mildly grousing". To accuse Jimbo of not believing in common courtesy is a fairly strong attack on Jimbo's character. Keep in mind that this isn't just a comment in a discussion. It's part of the text that Collect displays at the top of his talk page. I don't think we're allowed to include personal attacks on any specific fellow editors in our talk page banners. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe expressing my conditional opinion about Mr. Wales is remotely worthy of this section -- and I am a tad amused by the posturing by some here. Cheers -- now go on and discussion something remotely of value. Collect (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) The full quote is If anyone can give me a reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, please do so, else I can honestly say that Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process. which I submit does not remotely run afoul of any rational policy interpretation. It accuses him of nothing other than of me holding a conditional opinion about a person who fails to respond to a number of emails over a period of over six months regarding a formal proper appeal of an arbcom decision. Cheers -- now go to bed. Collect (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well clearly Collect does not believe in common courtesy, much less in following process. I can't say that about Mr. Wales, But I can say it about this editor as sourced to their direct comments on this thread as well as their remarks on their own talkpage.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If Collect posted another sentence in their talk page header stating that "User X (it could be anyone) does not believe in common courtesy...", would that be permitted to stand? I doubt it would. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Drmies close was a good idea. Clearly this is not a matter for intervention. Anyone may remove those remarks per our BLP policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it is not a BLP violation. This is one of the most stupid complaints I have seen to date on this board. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Show us, using the policy, how this is not a violation. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a BLP violation. Doesn't matter that it's Jimbo or anyone else. You simply do not make statements about others in this manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is an editor giving their opinion on another editor, that is all it is, if jimbo edits under his real name then tough tittys. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I really doubt Collect would be permitted to make such a statement in his talk page header about anyone else, real name or not. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He can call me a wanker on his talk page for all I care, it is still just opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not care, but some people would. Either way, it sets a bad precedent to sweep this under the rug. Northern Antarctica (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)And why would I care what others think? The only bad precedent on this board is a former admin getting away with socking and hosting a sick website, you opposed him being blocked right? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, with their comments about Collect, several people just violated the tougher standards that they are proposing. And, unlike Collect's page, this is a venue (ANI) where actual harm can come to people from such statements, and this is a much more serious case.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I made the comment. It was a direct result of the editor's display here and on their user page and is sourced to the exact location the comments were made...here. It is only common courtesy to discuss the content and not the contributor and did not follow procedure but became impatient and unreasonable. Anyway...I think this is best discussed at the BLP board and not here as this is not the right venue.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • [28bytes, don't you take my frigging close away from me! You RASCAL! Bring me up on charges for that, you...you...edit conflict abuser!] As before: the BLP was not designed to prevent users from mild ventilations on their own user page. If someone really cares for the BLP they wouldn't repeat the charges here, where they could be quoted out of context, perhaps, to endorse the statement made in Wikipedia's voice that "Mr. Wales does not believe in common courtesy". (Seriously: if something is a BLP violation, don't repeat it.) Since they did, they must not have thought it a serious BLP violation. Thus, there is nothing to sweep under any rug, and I am halfway inclined to state, categorically and per IAR, that there is no rug.

      Now, I personally believe that Mr. Wales does have common courtesy, despite the fact that I still haven't gotten my frigging admin t-shirt, and I strongly disagree with my dear enemy Collect. But folks, fo shizzle, who ever takes offense at a person telling you "you, YOU! you have no common courtesy!"? If Collect had added "at long last", it might be a different story, but this is mild, mild at best. If it is anything. So let's close. I'm sure there's something much better to watch on TV than this show. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Please don't imply that my posting the short statement I felt might violate BLP, as an indication of a false report. Others felt it also crossed a line but apparently BLP is flexible depending who is being character assassinated, how it's presented, and where it's done. I felt it was a problem, as did other editors, I reported it, and the concern has been dismissed. Sometimes that is the best that can be done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    86.181.139.204

    This user claims to be a "professional historian" and yet keeps inserting a new criticism section full of Christian apologetics at the Bart Ehrman page. Similarly on the Richard Carrier talk page, he makes various unsubstantiated assertions, trying to undermine Carrier.......P.S. If you are confused why a Christian would partially defend Ehrman against Carrier, as the user sometimes does, its because Ehrman still believes Jesus existed, something Richard Carrier doesn't. RosylynGrock (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To explain the situation rather more clearly than that less than coherent paragraph which has been randomly plastered here and on two talk pages:
    Rosylyn Grock is new to Wikipedia. She made a number of contentious edits to two biographies of living persons. I reverted them, only to have them reverted back.
    The changes in question are:
    1) The user wishes to alter Carrier's lead to read solely 'historian' rather than 'blogger' with 'trained historian' in the next paragraph. As I have pointed out, he is a blogger and is undoubtedly notifiable as a blogger. His historical work is of at best more doubtful merit, and even if it was not it is unlikely he would be notifiable solely on the basis of it. This change appears to be because of her admiration of Carrier and her desire to put his status/qualifications beyond doubt.
    2) She wishes to alter text on Bart Ehrman's talk page to imply Carrier found major factual errors in Ehrman's work. As any objective reading of their dialogue would show, Carrier found a few minor errors. Not more than that. It is also worth considering whether Carrier should be on there at all given the source is his blog. There are plenty of good sources giving critical (in both senses) appraisals of Ehrman's work without bringing in material that has been discredited.
    Since edit warring is (a) pointless (b) time consuming for those of us who have books to write and classes to teach and (c) banned by Wikipedia, I have now left messages on the talk pages, to which I got the above abusive response, despite her having been advised by administrators on other pages of the protocols for editing Wikipedia. There was no attempt to engage with the issues or to make a defence of her actions. This person appears to have a heavy, to the point of irrational, bias in favour of Carrier. While I would not support a ban or a topic restraint at this time, I suggest that a caution might be in order.86.181.139.204 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like a content dispute. I suggest taking the IP's advice, RosylynGrock, and continue to discuss this issue at the talk page. There is no misconduct on either side of this dispute requiring administrator attention, but if you're looking for outside assistance I suggest you seek a third opinion (directions can be found at WP:3O). If that doesn't help, there are other methods of resolving disputes at WP:DR, my suggestion to most people is to start at the top and work your way down. But try a third opinion before going any further. -- Atama頭 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a content dispute. This guy claims to be a "professional historian", an expert in the field and claims to know personal details of Richard Carrier. Why would a professional historian insert a section full of Christian apologetics? Why would an expert in the field be so intent on undermining his colleagues Ehrman and Carrier? RosylynGrock (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    RosylynGrock approached me at my user talk a few days ago, asking for advice about this, and, judging by what I see here, my advice isn't being followed. So we may be past the point of 3O, but WP:BLPN might be helpful. At its core, the dispute is about two BLP pages, where there are questions about how to characterize the professions of the persons. I couldn't care less who is a professional historian, an unprofessional historian, or a historical professional, and Rosylyn needs to understand that the only thing that matters is the edits to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the core issue is that the other editor keeps inserting a new section full of Christian nonsense into the Bart Ehrman article while claiming to be a "professional historian", an expert in the field and claiming to know personal details of Richard Carrier.RosylynGrock (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that you are new to Wikipedia, but you really need to hear me, that criticizing another editor on the basis of their expertise or non-expertise is not going to help you, and may even end up getting you blocked from editing. If, as you believe, the material is "nonsense", then you can rest assured that our policy on biographies of living persons strictly forbids nonsense in such articles, so your best bet is an argument based on content, not the editor, and made at WP:BLPN. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible pointy addition of speedy delete tags

    I reverted a series of {{db-inc}} speedy delete tags that were added to multiple articles by Simon161388 (talk · contribs). The user appears to be making pointy speedy nominations due to their opposition to earlier speedy, then prod, and now AfD tags that have been added to the article they created at Blue Penguins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    I'm reporting here so that others can review the speedy tags, as well as the user's behavior. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: some of the tagging may be appropriate; but the articles need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and not mass nominated in a pointy manner. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Barek decided to list me here after I mentioned several articles of self promotion of avertisment on few articles on a few companies. I used speedy deletion for the reason these articles did not have orginal sources to back them up.
    I had an article was written all to wiki's standards, being netural, has one or two sources to back up the company. This article was placed into speedy deletion as well. After naming sources But my article continues to be placed into the deletion category. But these articles remain.
    I felt a duty to mark these articles for speedy deletion since they do not have sources to back them up. Also mentioned most were report written for self promotion. I should mention most of these are written in a form of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)contribs) - 03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of sources isn't the criteria for db-inc - a subset of WP:A7 which reads: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."
    You've also suggested some of these articles might instead be WP:G11 which reads in part: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."
    Happy to assume good faith and review the articles you've tagged, but as above, sourcing is not by itself a speedy deletion criteria and the bar is set quite high for suspected "promotional" pages. If you believe these articles should be deleted you will likely have to pursue procedural deletions or AfD's. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon161388 is now AfDing multiple telecom/voip articles in a way which looks pointy. Martin451 1:26 pm, Today (UTC+0)

    Jake748596 (talk · contribs) is WP:QUACKING in support of simon161388 on one AfD, after only making an edit to Blue Penguins. Martin451 14:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, Simon161388 removed 2 other users' comments. I have added them back in here. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, I made small mistake by not noticing that I removed noticing the comments when I added my versions of events for Martin451. (Voceditenore) mentioned do not refactor another editor's comment). Well (talk) well you also removed my mentioned for a mistake. This has become a poltical cirus to keep an article here. Not worth the hassle, and wasted the entire day trying to defend an article, and point out spam articles.(talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what I reverted was your subsequent edit, where you actually attempted to refactor and remove David Biddulph's note. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No (Voceditenore) this is your version of events you also refracted my apology statement so get your facts straight before making accusations, looks like three ring circus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin451 has mentioned that I been tagging article in a bid for self promotion. I been tagging spam related articles that should not be listed on wikipedia as mentioned above from Euryalus. There was no mentioned that I had to find someone other than my self could flag them for spam. Yes I created an article for Blue Penguins based on the fact Voipfone, and XLN Telecom have listings. Now Blue Penguins can not be listed due to being spam, but the spammers Voipfone, and XLN Telecom could be allowed to keep their spam listing. Martin451 using the WP:COI to try to silence my opinion on WP:SPAM article, I am not trying to manipulate any listings with wikipedia. Just bringing to the attention why these articles.

    These comments Martin451 left on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blue_Penguins, I am getting the impression that Martin451 has some form of personal interests with Voipfone, and XLN Telecom.

    As far as Blue Penguins article if defending such privilege of remain of wikipedia. So I will withdrawing any appeal to remain on wikipedia, I will just put the article somewhere else where my work can be appreciated without being accused of creating WP:SOCK puppets by Martin451, and allows editors to pick and choose which spam is allowed to remain so basically thwowing in the WP:SPADE, so there is no need for Wikipedia:CSD_G5, I will just will not contest any more edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

    If you think I have a WP:COI with Voipfone then look at its edit history, I have never edited the other article you mention. Martin451 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin451 if you have no interests in Voipfone, then why contest the article that has no value other than a website link and self promotion of the company. I never mentioned you edited any of Voipfones past, just why keep an article that does not belong here if you do not have WP:COI with Voipfone, simple question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, I think your time would be better spent making Blue Penguins a stronger article, rather than trying to report other articles at AfD. A deletion discussion is exactly that...a discussion. You can often get ideas of how to improve the article and make it a more worthwhile contribution to the encyclopedia. I know it is painful to write an article only see it immediately proposed for deletion but the verdict isn't in so try to salvage your article by removing any promotional content. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    deletion discussion text copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Penguins - AfDs take place on their own page, and shouldn't be replicated here - links to them are sufficient.

    Comments made by Martin451

    Delete what? You can't just start a discussion to delete a page here. The AfD for Blue Penguin is still open. KonveyorBelt 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Note. Martin451 has endorsed a WP:SPAM article Voipfone which I mentioned and has been poorly written, and is pure spam. Martin451 please note raising flags on spam articles is not considered being disruptive. Martin451 has no sufficient reason to delete this article other the fact I been raising flags on some questionable articles and sources, which have not been moderated for several years. Also note Martin451 has not mentioned any reason to have this article deleted, other than accuse Simon of being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs)
    Raising multiple AfDs because the WP:SPAM article for your own company has been nominated is WP:Pointy and disruptive, especially when those articles are for your competitors. Using WP:SOCK puppets to !vote in AfDs will get you banned. Sometimes it is good to call a spade a WP:SPADE and you are not here to be constructive. Martin451 14:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The above comments were copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Penguins and pasted here by User:Simon161388 with this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I was just mentioning the comments made by Martin451 on Blue Penguins, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs)

    Note Konveyor Belt's comment above was not part of the original AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thargor Orlando

    Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting two articles due to his strange interpretations of policies and guidelines. His strategy is the same. First he attempts to remove relevant bibliographic citations in further reading sections, erroneously claiming that they fall under WP:EL. The first time he tries this tactic, he claims that he is "trimming per WP:EL". When he's reverted, he then removes the section again, claiming that the "link can be used as reference if valid", which is simply not the case for further reading sections. When he's reverted again, he then begins adding {{external link}} templates to further reading sections, which is a misuse of the tag. You can see that he engages in the same disruptive behavior on both Dallas Buyers Club[89] [90] [91] [92] and Abby Martin (journalist)[93][94][95] Consensus on the talk page of Dallas Buyers Club was against his removal of the links and his addition of the tag at 05:04, 10 March 2014, but he continued adding the tag anyway,[96] while engaging in pure WP:IDHT tendentious behavior on the talk page. (see Talk:Dallas_Buyers_Club#Further_reading) Please note, Thargor appears to believe that editors are deliberately hiding external links in further reading sections to fool the community.[97] This is bizarre behavior to say the least.

    He then proceeded to do the same thing over at the Abby Martin talk page as well. (see Talk:Abby_Martin_(journalist)#Further_reading). This behavior, however, is nothing new, and Thargor Orlando has been engaging in this unilateral deletion, IDHT talk page discussion, maintenance tag revert against consensus cycle for many years now.[98][99][100] In fact, it seems to be all he does on Wikipedia, as I've seen little to no article building or constructive edits of any kind from his account. To paraphrase User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, who confronted Thargor directly when he discovered this bad behavior, Thargor Orlando ignores sources, argues for their deletion, and refuses to substantiate his opinion when confronted on the talk page. As TMCK told Thargor in 2013, "Your opinion, valued or not in general, has no bearing at all in this thread and in regards to truth and due weight of reliable sourced and attributed opinions from those you want to exclude. Policies and guidelines are back stabbing you in this matter. The way I see it, you don't even have a "use common sense" argument here since you seem to refuse to back up your claims." This is the crux of the issue and has been for some time.

    To summarize the problem at hand: Thargor wastes our time removing sources for no reason other than the fact that he doesn't like it, and when confronted, he cites irrelevant guidelines (further reading is not external links). When asked to explain exactly what is wrong with the sources he seeks to exclude, he refuses to answer, but posits an evil conspiracy theory where editors are "masking" external links in fake further reading sections. Can this behavior be allowed to continue? Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no policy to support Thargor Orlando's stance, that an external link or further reading link be incorporated as a reference or deleted entirely. Links to a number of things can be placed in "Further reading" without a requirement that the link be deleted if it is not turned into some article text and a reference. In this case, it appears that T.O. simply does not like the linked material. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this looks like a problem to me.[101] The editor has been sufficiently warned on their talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What about my contributions are a problem, Mark? That I have only recently had time to deal with bad references and external links? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like some of it because they're terrible sources, yes. We should be more concerned about the use of podcasts and questionable publications bringing articles down than we apparently are, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free, of course, to discuss the use of these "terrible", "bad" sources on the talk page. Why is it then, that no talk page contains this discussion? Is it because you refuse to discuss it? Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the circular battling and accusations as completely disruptive. I was in the process of looking through some of their past edits and also found some that were wholesale removing perfectly useful links under the guise of WP:ELNO, although technically allowed it remains disruptive. Often these links should be migrated to the Further links section, as they would be useful additions to an article. In many cases they were added by well-meaning editors who should have looked at adding the link as a source instead. It takes some work to simply check out each link, but it's not unreasonable to ask editors to thoughtfully do so, in service of improving the article. If they can't be bothered to look through these potential sources to assertion their value, a less desirable solution would be to move them to the article's talk page so other editors have the opportunity to use them.

    The issues beyond disruption, is creating a battleground, and assuming bad faith, as well as WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been significantly uncontroversial nearly every time I have attempted to get these sections to conform to our guidelines in dozens, maybe hundreds, of other articles. Consider me "duly warned" on these articles, discussion has been ongoing at Dallas Buyers Club and we're closing in on a consensus on the removal at Abby Martin anyway, so this is just sour grapes from Viriditas, who is still angry that his personal attacks on me contributed to his three months block last year. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If a better example of WP:IDHT exists, I have not yet seen it. Thargor, did you understand a word anyone has said to you? Discussion is not "ongoing" anywhere. You've been told by multiple editors to cease and desist. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear it, I see it, and I disagree. I'll continue discussing at the talk page as I have been. Clearly, my motivations are misunderstood, so I'll just have to be better at communicating them. Your problems with me, however, are certainly a contributor to this situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But, you haven't discussed anything. You've simply removed sections and links for no reason against consensus. When asked on the talk page, you say "WP:EL". When asked what part of that guideline applies to the specific link and how, you don't reply. It's a disruptive little game you play. The discussion on Talk:Dallas_Buyers_Club#Further_reading is clearly over. You should not continue "discussing" there because there is a consensus that all you are doing is disrupting the article and wasting the time of editors who actually write articles. I have not expressed any "problem" with you at all here, I have expressed a concern with your editing behavior, as have other editors. It's really simple, stop wasting our time. You keep saying there are "bad" references and "bad" links, but you won't say why they are "bad". This is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You wanted to bring it here, and you did. Don't then complain that your time is being wasted because someone's calling you on your motives, your history, and your questionable edits in response. You're correct that this entire thread is ridiculous. The content issue will be decided at the talk pages, not because of some whiny, vindictive complaint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no content issue under discussion; we're discussing your disruption of multiple articles, in this case, Dallas Buyers Club and Abby Martin (journalist). In both instances you have edit warred tendentiously against consensus and you have refused to explain your reasoning, other than to say you think a link is "bad". The "content" is already decided on the talk pages, which is why we are here, as you refuse to follow discussion nor the rules of discussion, preferring to edit war and remove bibliographic citations without explanation. That's why we are here. As for wasting our time, you are continuing to do this. To date, there is still no explanation on any talk page as to why you have removed the material. To paraphrase Sportfan5000, this is a preposterous waste of our time. There is nothing whiny or vindictive about this. My motives, my history, and my edits are not under discussion here, nor should they be. The diffs are unambiguous and clear. I haven't even edited Dallas Buyers Club, yet two different editors have told you to stop disrupting it. I have joined their chorus because as it turns out, you are also disrupting the Abby Martin article with the same, exact set of edits. You established the pattern of disruption, which is why we are here discussing it. Take responsibility for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At Dallas Buyers Club, I have two edits removing the incorrect section and two edits tagging the section for further discussion over the course of two days. At Abby Martin, I have three edits over 2 days: two tags disruptively removed by you, and one trimming of your link dump that you reverted. As I have been discussing at length at talk, the claim it's disruptive doesn't have merit, so I don't see any reason to address that much further. Your vindictive complaint is duly noted, and discussion is ongoing about the sections. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus has formed on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. You've been asked to cease and desist by three editors.[102][103] On Talk:Abby Martin (journalist), you've refused to provide specific examples of problematic links while continuing to speak in generalities that nobody can address.[104][105][106] In both articles, you are continuing to waste our time and to prevent us from writing articles and improving the encyclopedia. May I ask you, when was the last time you wrote an article? Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two claims are untrue, as are many accusations. Writing entire articles is not the only way to build and improve the article. Since you are now wasting my time, and I've already spent more time here than I have this morning, I'm not going to continue this waste of time here. Discussion is ongoing at talk as it should be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you are happy to waste time at individual articles arguing against consensus as well as guidelines/polices that govern tho content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Thargor Orlando be blocked 48 hrs for disruptive editing?

    Editor has taken to the talk page to discuss the edits and seems to be collaborating at this time. Continuation of this block discussion and any resulting block would be punitive at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Third party observation: Sportfan5000. Having just looked in more detail at the edit history I don't think anyone would dispute your right to restore the two WP:EL removed, fair enough. But if it was a preposterous waste of time, why has 1 of the 2 external links questioned now been placed in a more sensible place in the article body? And how does the article benefit by the Zeitchik external link not been attached to any "directly related" article content? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed one of the links because it was in the article, so was redundant. The other link is obviously relevant to the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I looked at all of the links and they do not establish the claims of an actionable offense / actionable behavior. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? This should be interesting. Which specific actionable offense and/or behavior is not established? I think the diffs clearly and unambiguously establish exactly what is claimed. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disruption, and to a blockworthy degree. North8000 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I believe disrupting multiple articles with the same behavior is a blockable offense. It always has been and certainly seems reasonable to believe it always will be. No one is asking for a indef block. 48 hours to discourage further disruption is typical.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This has gone beyond WP:IDHT territory. The editor has been told by four different editors on two different talk pages to stop and refuses. In this thread alone, Thargor insists that he will continue the bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - A brief look at the evidence shows the complaint has legs given the refusal to desist. Sources must be discussed, not dismissed by one editor. Thargor refuses to change his disruption, so a preventative block is not unreasonable, in my view. Jusdafax 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The complaint is that I'm discussing it on the talk page, and that discussion is disruptive. That's ridiculous on its face. To be clear, that's how we get a consensus here. A continuing discussion at Abby Martin, for example, is currently against Viriditas at the moment. Think that might be part of what brought this on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it isn't. The complaint is that you have gone across multiple articles of differing subject matter on an obsessive campaign against what you believe the policy is against the consensus of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I noticed that just now. As you will note, I do agree with leaving the links but am deeply rethinking the block support here. Jusdafax 18:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes further examination shows me the main problem appears to be over at the DBC movie article. I'm out of time at present. But I am reluctant to urge a block on a longtime editor, who, as noted by In ictu oculi below, has never been previously blocked, so I am striking support for now. Jusdafax 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - we don't (or shouldn't be) give punitive blocks to people with a five-year edit history and virgin block record for talking about implementing a guideline on a Talk page. As the discussion shows, WP:EL's nutshell is that external links should be "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article", and interpretation of that guideline is open to discussion on Talk pages of the relevant article. The four external links removed but quickly restored and not edit warred but discussed on Talk don't immediately jump out as so "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". If these 4 refs are "directly relevant" they would be better as linked footnotes to inline article content. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction. The editor began on 4-12-2010. They are still one month shy of 4 years. At least be accurate. And Virgin blocklist or not is no excuse. Everyone is under the same standard and if there is disruption that will not cease, then yes, we certainly do block to discourage the behavior.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't give punitive blocks period and there was NO suggestion ever made by myself to EVER punish an editor on Wikipedia. Sorry you missed the part about discouraging the editor but please do not accuse me of trying to punish an editor. I take offense to that accusation.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view in any circumstance or case a 48 hour temp block to discourage further discussion on a Talk page concerning an edit which the editor has not edit warred after peaceful reversion is straying into the territory of a form of punitive block, irrespective of terminology. In passing I also have a concern about your section heading here given that the objection concerns Talk page discussion and not "disruptive [article] editing". And the way this heading is labelled in itself gives reason for pause and thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The header clearly states this is a suggested block for disruptive editing and nothing more. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The discussion over at DBC doesn't appear to be overly long, and if the discussion is considered disruptive, then there is blame for all involved. If the consensus is clearly against TO, then there is no need to respond and add to the discussion. If he edits the article against consensus, well that's a different story. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based only on knowledge of edits at the Abby Martin article. Thargor is currently engaged in discussion on the talk page and does not appear to be e.g. edit warring or disruptive. Meanwhile, the current article reflects the version he/she doesn't care for. I fail to see any reason for a block here. In fact, I think that Thargor is largely right. The further reading Viriditas is arguing for consists almost entirely of primary sources that would be better used in the article (interviews with Martin in podcasts, for example). There is no policy that says "don't use in further reading; use in the article," no. It's just that something may be inappropriate for further reading and yet appropriate for the article. The implication there is that if the inappropriate content is not added to the article, then it would be removed. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh no, that is absolutely incorrect. The suggestion to give a 48 hour block was suggested due to similar edits across several articles with warnings for all of them and a persistence that seems non-collaborative. Instead of a topic ban (which would be normal for these instances) a block was suggested as the topics are too broad in range. The editor was deleting perfectly acceptable EL for no good reason (and actually giving bad reasons) against consensus with a battleground mentality.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The more you say that, don't you feel it sounds more like punishment rather than prevention at this point? DP 20:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't. Why should one editor be allowed to run rough shot over multiple articles against the consensus of editors and edit war? How does that help improve the articles or the project? But I would like to hear more from you on how you feel a 48 hour block in this instance would be a punishment.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need oversight on personal phone number

    I've oversighted the edit. As Demiurge says, please try not to draw attention to edits requiring oversight by posting them here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This edit appears to require oversight to remove a phone number. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't post such things here; email WP:Requests for oversight instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jimbo Wales makes me physically sick

    WP:BOOMERANG block as an "obvious sock troll", which is...well, obvious. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This is not going to produce anything productive, so WP:BOLDly closing. The OP is reminded that WP:NPA applies to every editor on Wikipedia, and that includes Jimbo. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    As his talk page is locked (yet he has an open door policy, which is hypocrisy), I want a conversation about the stupidity of the proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing project. When I read it It made me literally vomit. I can't believe what Wikipedia is becoming. If I post a question to Jimbo Wales, can an admin copy it to his talk page? --Radikal Protekial (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    His talk page is temporarily protected from editing by new and anonymous accounts due to persistent vandalism earlier today a couple days ago. The protection is set to expire in about 7 hours, if you want to wait. If you don't want to wait, I'm sure someone here will gladly copy your question to his page (as long as it is written in the spirit of fostering actual dialogue). Dragons flight (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "When I read it It made me literally vomit." Haha, really? Good show. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, my comment to be posted is:

    "Dear Jimbo, your leadership on Wikipedia is terrible. It is nothing like it used to be and now you want to profit from paid editing so you can live in your mansion in Florida, We are all unpaid Wikipedia editors, yet you profit from our hard work. You make me physically sick, What kind of freak are you? Have you no heart? Wikipedia is a business to you, and we are your slaves. Shame shame shame. "

    Thank you. --Radikal Protekial (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, no one's going to post that for you. Go see a doctor for that alarmingly weak stomach of yours.--Atlan (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And doesn't he live in London anyway? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He has mansions in London and Florida. I will wait 7 hours and post this to Jimbo. We pay for his mansions --Radikal Protekial (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, did Jimbo make himself leader of Wikipedia or was there a leadership election? He is essentially a dictator with a cult of personality. --Radikal Protekial (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    J0hn Galea

    Could an Admin please delete J0hn Galea.. It has been recreated by a sock of Johngalea24 - Bdossy000 (talk · contribs) after AfD discussion deleted and salted John Galea article . IP 92.29.56.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps removing the CSD G4 template. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, salted and sock blocked. BencherliteTalk 12:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:FoP-USonly

    Template talk:FoP-USonly is thataway (and where this very subject was argued two years ago). - The Bushranger One ping only 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is this really acceptable? There's no discussion of the law, just an assertion that the implied argument works. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what the talk page is for. -- KTC (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    String of Volleyball Thailand League pages

    Earlier today I was patrolling the bottom of the NPP queue and came across the first article listed below. My initial thought was CSD:A7 as a cursory google search provided links to mostly youtube videos and nothing resembling a reliable source. After viewing the history and seeing that it a new contributor had recently started editing it I decided PROPD citing WP:ORG was a better option. Then while posting a notice of my proposal to the new user's talk page I noticed several nominations for CSD for many other articles virtually identical to the one I was reviewing. Almost all of them are still active and the CSD notification is gone from the page with no information in the history. I contacted one of the original nominators (who is an admin) for clarification as to why they weren't deleted so I could understand the rationale and not make the same mistake in the future. They responded that they were unsure and thought they should still be deleted. They suggested I start a discussion here about it.

    All of the above pages (except the first) were created by Sora2537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and from what I can tell most have been nominated for CSD:A7, but still all exist. Please help clarify the community's position on club team pages with no references or obvious notability. Thanks! C1776MTalk 16:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick note (as an admin I can look at deleted page history) the mystery you're seeing with the CSD tags, their disappearance and the lack of evidence in page history, is because the articles were deleted via CSD and recreated from scratch. Anything that happened prior to deletion (such as a CSD tag being added) won't show up again. -- Atama頭 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And FYI, the solution to this kind of behavior is WP:SALT. Since Chonburi VC has been deleted a total of 4 times now, I salted it. I'll look at the others in the list and see if they have a similar history, and take appropriate measures. -- Atama頭 19:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I was searching for some obscure policy or consensus about club sports thinking I was missing something. C1776MTalk 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you also have specific questions about notability of volleyball clubs, the best venue is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. -- Atama頭 19:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone believes these clubs are notable (especially with the WikiProject's support) and wants to recreate them (and expand them into real articles not subject to A7) I'll happily un-salt them. -- Atama頭 19:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also found Kasetsart VC and Suandusit VC. Both very new, one without content. C1776MTalk 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from WP Volleyball I have found myself this articles about three days ago, but I was too busy to mark them for deletion with the whole and appropiate process. Nakhonratchasima VC is schedule to participate in the next Asian Club Championship, qualifier for the World Championship. Idea Khonkaen VC participated last year. But neither Kathu Phuket VC nor Nakhonnon VC participated, even when they won the league, but instead Thailand Federation sent something called Chang. Today, we the volleyball enthusiasts do not understand what/how/who but Chang had success as Federbrau and Chang, but we still do not know what league they played. Since 2012 the Thailand League changed somehow and this is reflected in their results in AVC Club Volleyball Championship (no more all National Team in on squad so-called anyway, but a real winnner). I am pretty sure that the deleted Chonburi VC is the already existing Supreme Chonburi VC, but someone seems not to be aware of it.

    Even if notable, we may consider all clubs playing in Continental Championship or notable league (Thailand not yet well organized, but in the way) notable. Nonetheless, content must exist and referenced. A good lead, history section well organized and referenced, because is the key section. Lets give a chance to Nakhonratchasima VC and Idea Khonkaen VC and give a notification to Sora2537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We are open for help and will this two articles to reach Wikipedia WP:MOS. Osplace 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Aggressive sock creating many accounts

    Saw these names on U4AA after making a report. User appears to be making many accounts. Probably needs a CU and an IP/rangeblock.

    User:Spamtester101, User:Spam_sandwich_dude, User:Spam spam spam 69, User:Spamalot 90, User:Spambot whatutalkinbout etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the accounts were reported at UAA simultaneously, they were created separately at various times since last April. Is there any evidence that these are likely to have been created by the same user? Peter James (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm, I fear I made an assumption as to that point, based on UAA and did not look into the actual creation times. I may have wasted people's time with this :( Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's because of me. I did a search for improper usernames and came across these ones containing "Spam" that had been active over the past 9 months. I reported them all although I imagine some of them will be ignored as stale. Sorry if it misled you, Gaijin42. If you suspect some account is on an account creation spree, you can check the Special page for Users. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew_J.Kurbiko

    Special:Contributions/Andrew_J.Kurbiko creating many articles on Ukranian topics that appear to be copyvios of www.encyclopediaofukraine.com. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Dianaa and Gaijin42 have now informed this user that while the original Ukrainian text may be in the public domain, the English translations used by Andrew_J.Kurbiko are copyrighted and must not be copied and pasted. Any further c&p copyright violations from www.encyclopediaofukraine.com should result in a block. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock/troll needs blocking

    Not Mo Yan. Not here to build an encyclopedia. And now not welcome to continue editing. Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This user Note impersonation of [107]. --NeilN talk to me 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said this was an actual photo of me. it is just a photo I am fond of. --れ下がった (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You in fact did say "me" in your caption, twice, and claimed the photo as your own work, which would be a copyright violation. Good catch NeilN! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The caption clearly says "Me, at Tokyo University of the Arts in 2014 January". Stop messing around. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not block me, Talk to me and we can discuss this like adults. Something that the above user does not want to do (User:NeilN) wants to do. English is not my first language so I did not mean to say it is my photo. But I have permission to use it. But to block and accuse someone as a sock/troll because of a minor photo rule? --れ下がった (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the caption so it says the photo is not me. Are we okay now? --れ下がった (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the image for deletion at Commons so it may disappear soon. And れ下がった|れ下がった, our admins aren't stupid. --NeilN talk to me 21:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) The word "me" is generally understood to mean the speaker, even among those with limited skills in English (and yours seem to be quite adequate). You posted the photo on Jimbo's page with a statement that it was an image of you, and you also claimed to have given a well-attended lecture at Tokyo University today that, a fact that you wanted to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Since you acknowledge that the photo is not you, therefore that you are not Mo Yan, the case is rather clear that you are impersonating Mo Yan and contributing misinformation to Wikipedia. I should think that is a blockable offense. Dwpaul Talk 21:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like more of Technoquat to me.--Atlan (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever he may be, definitely WP:NOTHERE, so I've blocked him indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For whatever worth, there is no professor by the name of Aito Tayakimati (or any of a number of variants) listed among the teaching staff at Tokyo University of the Arts. Dwpaul Talk 21:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And see this diff. Dwpaul Talk 21:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    For what it's worth, Google Translate renders the user's name as "You have been dropped". Tarc (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous user requesting deletion of fully protected image

    Not sure what to do with this, so bring it here for advice. I received a request on my talk page asking for me to delete File:Image.jpg on the basis of a different image was available on commons with the same name. Some quick checks show the image on the English Wikipedia is permanently protected and that I am not the only admin to have received this request ([108] and [109]). The protection logs do not specify a reason for why the image was permanently protected (the ability to add such information was very limited back in 2005), but I suspect it is to force anyone attempting to upload an image to such a generic name to choose an appropriate name. Any advice on how to best deal with this request? --Allen3 talk 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can files be WP:SALTed? If so, the local file could possibly be deleted and just salt the local file name.--Rockfang (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is would be possible to WP:SALT the name on the English Wikipedia. A deletion and SALTing would effectively result in the image being replaced by the commons:File:Image.jpg. The image on commons is currently semi-protected, so it is possible for users lacking an admin account on commons to over-right the contents of the image file.
    The more I look at this request, the less I like it. File:Image.jpg is used in places such as {{Protected generic image name}} along with documentation for a variety of templates (e.g. {{Infobox college softball team}}). Other uses of the image appear to be in articles where an editor used an automated method to add an image but failed to change the name of the image from a default value. As there are individuals that are banned on the English Wikipedia but who are active on Commons, granting this request could allow such an individual a means to insert an inappropriate image into a large number of locations here. Unless someone else can point out other considerations, I am thinking it is probably best to not grant this request. --Allen3 talk 23:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that important, but according to this, it appears that the image on Commons is admin and above for overwriting the file.--Rockfang (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this request should be granted; the current local image actually states "don't upload files with this title", where as the commons image just says "IMAGE" - the text actually tells the editor attempting to upload a file why they can't do it with that name. Thus, I say we decline this request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for arbitration re inappropriate editing of leads on Daniel Amen article

    Request for arbitration go at WP:RFAR, not here. This looks more like a content dispute anyway, suggest other forms of dispute resolution be attempted. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved parties

    • A2lexbrn talk|contribs|COI (please note, this person has a few conflict of interest disclosures on their userpage).
    • ArtifexMayhem
    • MrBill3
    • 2602:306:bda0:97a0:466d:57ff:fe90:ac45

    Confirmation that all parties are aware of request:

    Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


    Problem A) (in short) Use of the word "condemned" keeps being put in the article lead, related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person.

    Problem B) (in short) large chunks of opening text, all fully supported by factual citations, are being continually reverted in a 24 hour cycle from the article lead. No citation mentioning a non-negative fact can survive more than 24 hours on this site in the lead. Facts, such as that the article subject is a neurologist, or that he works for the American National Football League are frequently removed out of hand, in spite of legitimate citations and footnotes. The fact that he is a neurologist, or that he works in this capacity for the National Football League should not be repeatedly stripped from the article.


    Problem A) (Fuller detail of problem-- summarized succinctly, but with all of the key points).

    Use of the word "condemned" related to the article subjects medical theory (he is a board certified psychiatrist and neurologist) in the article lead is inappropriate. It is also editorializing in the lead of an article about a living person.

    And--

    So is the statement that his diagnostic theory has not been accepted by the psychiatric or medical community (the editor claiming this is not properly sourcing such a claim).

    1) This is an abuse of MOS:LEAD.

    MOS:LEAD Requires neutrality in the opening

    MOS:LEAD says "no contentious language in the opening". The word "condemned" is very contentious. It is also clearly being used by the editors to condemn the article subject (both the person and his theories).

    Saying that his therapy "is condemned" is also an interpretation of what others have said. No one else, not one professional in the field, has been quoted using the word "condemned".

    Also as per WP:MEDRS, a determination of a WP:FRINGE theory must not be drawn from newspapers (instead medical publications would have to report the theory as effectively "Fringe").

    MOS:LEAD says the following-- "Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view".

    MOS:LEAD also says Science that is being questioned, is not considered to be the same as a fringe theory (paraphrase from WP:FRINGE).

    From WP:FRINGE--

    Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

    Dr. Amen, the proponent of this theory and the subject of this article, has the following credentials:

    1) He is a board certified psychiatrist.[1]

    2) He is a board certified neurologist.[2]

    He is a graduate of the following schools:

    Amen received his undergraduate degree from Southern California College in 1978 and his doctorate from Oral Roberts University School of Medicine in 1982.[3] Amen did his general psychiatric training at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.,[4] and his child and adolescent psychiatry training at Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu.[5]

    He also works for the NFL (the National Football League as a neurologist(a Doctor) (See article).

    Therefore, as per WP:FRINGE, his diagnostic approach and therapy should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

    Lastly, Dr. Amen has 22 (twenty-two) published peer-reviewed articles, listed on PUBMED, an authoritative source, here is PUBMEDs listing of his articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%28Daniel%20Amen[Author]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch


    Independent research (not done by Dr. Amen):

    Here is list of independent studies on attempts to scientifically correlate Dr. Amens theory and diagnosis method (using SPECT imaging to correlate brain scan patterns to ADD or ADHD. Although not conclusive, they do rise to the level of the following, found in WP:FRINGEas a reason not to treat the article as a fringe topic, again-- should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists

    None of this proves that Dr. Amen is right, and his theories have certainly been criticized by number of his colleagues (not unusual at all in medicine and science) but altogether, none of this proves that Dr. Amen's theory meets the standards of WP:FRINGEeither. At worst it is "Questionable science" (as defined by WP:FRINGE, and at best it is a new idea meeting the same flurry of doubt that most new ideas get in science and medicine.

    In any case, the article does not warrant WP:FRINGE labeling or editorial treatment, and so words like "condemned" and "controversy" are not appropriate for the lead. It would be appropriate however to say something like, "a number of scientists in his field have criticized his theory" or, "the veracity of his theory is still under debate in the scientific community".


    Problem B) (added detail and link to contrib and evidence of violent imagery by alleged offender)I was able to find the specific contrib of one of the people doing these wholesale removals of cited text, with links to the relevant contribs.

    ArtifexMayhem (most recent removal of citations and text about article subject being a neurologist, operating a clinics that treat ADD and ADHD and being employed by the National Football League.

    See this contrib " 20:43, 11 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-51)‎ . . Daniel Amen ‎ (→‎top: Not supported by the source provided) " on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ArtifexMayhem In fact, every citation that he/she removed was a supporting source. Please also note the word "Mayhem" in the username.

    Use of violent imagery: Please also note, this person has a violent image on left side of his Userpage. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArtifexMayhem

    Thanks for looking into these concerns.

    1. ^ US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
    2. ^ US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
    3. ^ US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
    4. ^ US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619
    5. ^ US News and World Report, Health: Doctors listing, "Dr. Daniel G Amen MD, Psychiatrist" http://health.usnews.com/doctors/daniel-amen-434619

    [Special:Contributions/2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45|2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45]] (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment on the remainder of this thread, but it is worth noting that the supposed "violent image" on ArtifexMayhem's page is in fact theatre poster [110] by Alfons Mucha, depicting Sarah Bernhardt as Medea. Why anyone would see this as remotely objectionable (or remotely relevant) is beyond me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I went to WP:RFAR and can't find anything there about where to actually file an arbitration request.
    The issue has been exhaustively debated, with no resolution so I very much want to do this. Is there a link that takes me straight to the page where I file the request?
    2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Many thanks[reply]
    The procedure for initiating arbitration is set out on WP:RFAR - see the section entitled 'Requests for arbitration'. However, I'd strongly advise you not to request arbitration at this point, as it seems certain that you will be told that there have been insufficient attempts to resolve this elsewhere. I suggest that instead you post a brief and on-topic summary of the issue at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, explaining exactly what the problem is (as you see it) in the Daniel Amen article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a mediation request. Where do I make that directly?
    BTW, re WP:RFAR, I've looked all through it. It certainly isn't easy to find that answer there.
    2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For various options, including mediation, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - but I'd still advise you to raise this at WP:BLPN first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple Vandalism

    Users seems to be associated with a political party and vandalizing multiple templates and pages. They have been provided multiple warnings.

    Got some wierd messages from User:Bishonen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Clueless_complaints_about_Sitush_noticeboard


    Wrong venue. Please repost at CCASN. --RexxS (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pulkit18 indore, please consider your own actions before bringing attention to the actions of others. Your edit history shows the addition of non-neutral and unsourced prose in articles about current election candidates in India. Please desist as it is becoming disruptive. The editors you "report" above are appropriately reverting or modifying this non-neutral text to bring it back into line with encyclopedic standards. If you disagree with their edits you should raise the issue on the relevant article talk page, and not here. Euryalus (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=599248698"