Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725

Sock trolling Knox articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – 32alpha4tango and his sock Porkchop n Applesause have been indef blocked. Please file future SPI cases under the 32alpha4tango name. --Jayron32 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

---

...and trying to create as much drama as possible to stir things up. Several editors have reverted so now he has created an attack page here.

• Special:Contributions/32alpha4tango.

As he came on during March with the influx of other Knox socks, a checkuser would be a good idea to see which sock he belongs to. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Knox socks" ??? are those the editors who were banned for trying to use honest reliable sources, and for not toeing the line, and who've ultimately been proven right? --32alpha4tango (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The editors who were indef blocked were being disruptive, socking, edit-warring and violating other policies. The opinion piece that you've read is wrong on multiple counts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually had no interest in this article - a couple of times I tried to read it to figure out what was going on and the article never made sense. Finally, after reading enough external sources, I realized that Amanda Knox was convicted with no reliable evidence, no motive, and no priors. The European press and Italian prosecutors engaged in character assassination for lack of evidence, and Wikipedia swallowed it - hook, line and sinker. This really needs to be explored. --32alpha4tango (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. can someone please point me to User:John's rfa. It's not listed here. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Jimbo had intervened in this matter to overturn to unfair banning of editors, but I do think an investigation in the editing of the Kercher murder article is in order. This case is a good test case to see if Wikipedia functions correctly, because Knox was acquitted based on the known facts that were available in the media for quite some time. Therefore, nothing dramatically should have changed in the Wiki article before and after the acquittal, other than a paragraph about Knox being acquitted. The editing history of the article shows much more changes than just this, which points to a serious problem. Count Iblis (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, in looking through the talk page history, Jimbo was ignored for months. It's up to us. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, hello, whichever Knox troll you are. Feel free to create a page throwing random untrue accusations around if you want, but I do know that all those editors who were blocked (bar one which may have been a false positive per WP:DUCK, and was later unblocked), were blocked for the correct reasons. Have fun now. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Heavens! I really seem to have struck a nerve. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors tried to use wikipedia for advocacy, and that was not appropriate. Hence, they were swept away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a previous SPI case for this? WilliamH (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because the vast majority of the accounts were meatpuppets recruited via off-wiki means, and hence Checkuser-proof. Having said that, the majority of the blocks were for disruption and gross incivility rather than meatpuppetry. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. WilliamH (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some (but by no means all) details at User:Pablo X/spa. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the block log of the likely sock. The opinion piece that he linked to did not state the names of the admins but he has insight on who blocked him. The author of the piece is PhanuelB.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like alphatango is violating his block. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So why do you think I'm PhanuelB? Simply because I'm asking some uncomfertable questions? What exactly is your evidence that I'm a 'spa'? Perhaps it's more likely that I was made an administrator in 2003, created tons of great content and hundreds of articles, and left the project in disgust because of idiots like you, occasionally returning to see if anything has changed. --32alpha4tango (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Left in disgust, why? Because we wouldn't let you abuse wikipedia for advocacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, seems I've struck a nerve. Now, you are acting like the Phanuel that we know...already stooped to incivility. Where did you get the admin names that you are questioning about? The opinion piece didn't include them and you say that you didn't know much about it. Interesting that you call out this particular set of admins.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just another white knight from the Amanda Knox fan club. One would have thought that since the object of their devotion was able to skip out of Italy that this sort of angry advocacy would have subsided, but I guess we're just seeing the post-PR game now. Tarc (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's the "told ya so" game, betraying that they remain clueless about what wikipedia's purpose is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few hours now, so could a Checkuser please confirm whether or not a CU was run on me and what the results were. Thank you. --32alpha4tango (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? You got a plane to catch? :) Checkusers have lots to do, and generally they will work on a given case at the level of urgency that they deem appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noticed that 32alphatango has been removing Baseball Bugs's comments from this thread. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, does anyone honestly believe that the removed Baseball Bug comments add any value at all to this conversation. He's a troll. --32alpha4tango (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We love Bugs! He has a way with people that is irreplaceable. It's kinda funny that you are calling him a troll.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit, that Baseball Bugs sure does like to get into the middle of a lot of drama, but I wouldn't call him a Troll. More like one of those annoying lawn gnomes that we all love so much.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Warned for refactoring - a warning promptly removed from the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noticed that 32alpha4tango has a history of animosity with Bugs. He was blocked earlier this year for this attack on him. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I thought that editor's name sounded familiar. So now he's called editors here "moron" and "idiot". We're waiting for the time-honored variant, "imbecile". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And it should be noticed that 32etc has created User:32alpha4tango/Censorship at Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He still hasn't answered the question about why he singled out those particular admins either. Claiming that he didn't know much about it and then listing them specifically comes across as dishonest. Phanuel is here to self-promote.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be honest, that article was pretty shabby for a long time, and probably represented one of Wikipedia's most notable failures in the past few years. Why shouldn't that be discussed? If it shouldn't be discussed on the talk page, where should it be discussed? I won't go crying "censorship", but rather, "Wikipedia editors aren't willing to honestly assess what they did wrong". Buddy431 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it should be done by people who are not sockpuppets of blocked editors. --Jayron32 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(re to Buddy) He wasn't there to discuss the article. Where did you get that idea? He was there to try to open a dialog on blocked and banned editors and attempt to lynch admins. He was told that the article talk page was not the place and his comments were precisely removed because it was inappropriate. He didn't mention the article or suggest any edits.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a crap whether or not he's a sock, the user should have been indefinitely blocked for his outright blatant harassment of everyone he comes across with. Having blocked him some 4 months ago, it's bloody obvious he's not going to change his behavior one single bit. –MuZemike 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours; the blocking admin had a simple cut-and-paste failure when providing a diff; he removed it from his page while calling said admin an idiot [1]. I've extended the block to 72 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI case for this, just to get to the bottom of this. Not even sure who the master is... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually semi-oppose the extention of the block. I don't expect people to be happy or polite about being blocked, and I am certainly a big enough boy to take being called an idiot with all the due consideration and gravitas the comment was made with. It is in fact true that I apparently cut n pasted the wrong diff. He can vent there to that extent without causing me any impulse to extend, though I'm not going to undo the additional time myself under the circumstances...

In terms of long term behavior, I suspect that MuZemike is right, but I think a SPI is the best venue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI case has been closed, and 32alpha4tango and his sock have been blocked. Resolving discussion. --Jayron32 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Alan Friedman

We need more eyes on this page. Alan Friedman was the head of FBC Media, a PR company, which is now undergoing bankruptcy procedures in the UK. This has apparently angered some of its former employees, some of whom have taken to making the Alan Friedman article an attack page [2][3][4][5]. Keep in mind Friedman's own PR men have edited this page to remove information about a scandal FBC was involved in earlier this year [6][7][8][9][10]. Hopefully some admins can stay on top of this WP:BLP issue. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for a few days now, and most of the registered users doing these inappropriate edits appear new, so I requested temporary semi-protection. CityOfSilver 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tnxman307 has semiprotected the page for ten days. CityOfSilver 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mickie James edits

Can I get a admin to act as a third-party to take a look at Mickie James. Curerntly present at the article is this statement: "She is currently in a relationship with fellow TNA wrestler Nick Aldis, better known as Magnus", which has as it's ref the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. We had for a time a very persistent IP address who would remove the statement without leaving any explanation. Given that the anon editor had been bouncing between several IPs (124.150.73.254 ([11]), 124.171.237.142 ([12]) and 124.148.49.9 ([13])), I semi protected the article. With that the IP created a user account (User: Mickiefan2005) and started Talk:Mickie_James#Edit_request_from_.2C_26_October_2011. They've also left a string of insistent edits on my Talk page - see User talk:Tabercil#Mickie James info.

As I said, can I get a fresh set of eyes on the situation? Tabercil (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its Not True Because Other Wrestling sites haven't reported it yet means nothing its just rumors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment- It doesn't matter if other sites have not reported it, Wrestling Observer is a Reliable Source.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, note left on the talk page. Problem here is that the Observer is generally considered to be a reliable source for wrestling-related topics; I've suggested that if the editor opposed to the comment has any sources stating the opposite, they present them for rational discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. <G> Tabercil (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many-single purpose accounts of quantum mechanics

• WP:SPA Willempramschot (talk · contribs · account creation)
• 145.18.226.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 213.10.212.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 145.18.244.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Talk:Many-worlds interpretation 20 October 2011

WP:SOAPBOX I used {{inappropriate comment}} to hide the various copies of his physicsforums.com posts promoting a poll of "the happy few" who responded to his emails:

• 14:16, 20 October 2011 "Sorry to put some questions on your beautifull dreams about eternal life and your infinite twin brothers. You are really really good at quoting wikipedia and fallacy's. It's such a shame you don't understand what they mean, and don't have a clue about how to apply them. This is deleted, because I probably insult you, but if that's the case then well you got insulted by the truth. … You are so obvious biased, that it hurts. I'm really serious, with all the good faith in the world. … By the way I don't really care about getting it published, I care about the truth and so should you. … I don't know if you're aware that wikipedia has influence on the opinion of people, and if you have any ethical standars what so ever. Or that you are just completely blinded by your heroes, or a idea that's not generally accepted. But please be honest to yourself. Look in the mirror, and think really hard. And ask yourself the question 'Did I do good'? … I'm affraid I speak to a conscience and a rationality you just don't posses. So I will leave you to delete all the criticism and posts by me and others you so kindly call harassment. And with a song that captures your attributions on this site perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLu"

YouTube won't play the song in the US due to a copyright issue, but it's "Arctic Monkeys - Dance Little Liar (humbug version)". By harassment, he's referring to an alternate WP:SPA/SOCK? who makes WP:SOAPBOX pos ts to the talk page, see Talk:Many-worlds interpretation#Special Difficulty with Improving This Article - Harrassment. Maybe they're friends, but I'd be surprised if they turn out to be socks, this WP:SPA was more his style, or this one. Anywho he didn't leave it there "I'm on the brake of being banned here, so let's just make it happen." So I'm hoping someone will accomodate his request for a nice loooong block.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know I referred to SOCK, because for me that wasn't clear. My message was ironic, because I got a warning for a block. If you see the site you will see that reasonable suggestions on the site are brushed away with really strange arguments, and are sometimes deleted by quoting all sorts of fallacy's that aren't relevant, without further clear explanation. Also my personal opinion is that this site is very subjective, but everyone of course can be the judge of that.

I posted the song because the main editors in my opinion didn't listen to reason, so I made a reference to something that may catch there attention. Of course this could be deleted. But to block my account, would be the world upside down. To say that my account of wikipedia is a single purpose is account would be a little bit soon, because I just got it. And I don't have any other accounts.

p.s. I also did a reference to a completely reliable poll I conducted that hasn't been published yet (that he quotes happy few, is just a sign of my honesty, not against it), I posted it on the discussion site (not the 'real' site), because I thought it was a useful contribution (and more reliable than the vague polls currently on the site). Of course this can be deleted (though I think the reason given aren't relevant at all).

My email wasn't a single purpose email, it was also to inform all the participants of the poll (to which I have mentioned my name explicitly) about the results.

I put it on the site to give the people that wanted to know more about the poll some information, because I put a summary of the poll on the discussion site. My poll can be refutable, because I mentioned the names clearly. Of course there could be more people who reacted, and I could have deleted those. But then again I posted my results to about 30 very prominent physics, so the risk of some prominent physicist saying: Hey I was in this poll, why didn't he mention me, would be awfully big.

But then again it hasn't been published, so it can be deleted I guess. So I will not go against that decision. (I do think I could post my questions about the reasons why it's got deleted, but if someone wants to delete that to. Be my guest.)--Willempramschot (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 10:32, 26 October 2011‎

Yes, ironically, that was your most helpful suggestion yet. You seem to comprehend the strange and irrelevant reasons well enough. Your amateur poll is original research. Simple as that. Of course, permission to use a subject's name and email wouldn't have been necessary for an anonymous multiple choice question. Grateful Physh irony, nice. However, it remains unclear how littering the talk page with all that useless WP:OR can be construed as a sign of honesty on your part. I've never suggested it was a sign of dishonesty. Much like your speculations about my philosophical beliefs, my moral failures, my heros, my lies/fallacies, my incapacity for reason/understanding/sympathy, etc. etc., you seem to have difficulty separating your vivid imagination from your collaborative expectations. You insist that you're right, often irrationally, and while you simply dismiss objections and advice, you passive aggressively retaliate, despite being aware of the strict policy against personal attacks, you sermonize in multiple installments about imaginary aspects of my person. Your invitation to be "your guest" and delete your polls, is a bit too blasé considering how frequently you accuse me of deleting, when the truth is I've never deleted any of it, not even your polls, and I haven't touched your opinions, your screeds, your character assassinations, or anything else, as you perfectly well know, I merely hid the polls right were you left them.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've included a link to this discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you for the ample demonstration, apparently you can personally attack those users with impunity.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted them 3 times in different sections because I thought that they wheren't in the right place. One time I didn't saw it anymore and I didn't knew it was deleted so I posted it again. this I believe was in one day.

My posts aren't irrational. There is a person who said he picked random books, and noted reactions of regarded physicists, you said something in the lines of 'well I guess you could go on with that' and 'I'm sure if you note mwi-haters tell a lot of smack about mwi no-one would object.

So opponents in the line of John Bell are 'smack talkers'. Ok.

Then my amateur-poll know has now got reactions of eminent physicist that say they have no objections about getting it published, Frans Wilczek said he had no one problems with getting his views out in public, (Carlo Rovelli) thanked me for the useful exercise and had no problem to get his comments and vote in public. One said he didn't want his name mentioned, but has no problem with this poll in public. (that's an argument for deleting it, I guess).

But to call it an amateur poll is nonsense. Look at the poll, look at the reliability. This what you do is called an authority fallacy. Look it up.--Willempramschot (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will give you some information of why I posted the comments.

I visited the wikipedia website of mwi. I saw a reception that was mostly postive, with some negative comments that respected the mwi. Only one quoted person didn't respected mwi (Asher Peres) but he didn't respect any quantum mechanics interpretation.

So I thought to myself, Wow is this true, is this incredible idea so well established?

Then I looked at the talk page which suggested a reception page (wich said to be based on randomly selected books) that was really negative. So I didn't know who to believe.

I decided to also select randomly books in the libary, and also I got a very negative image of the reception.

But then again I wasn't sure. So I decided to conduct a poll. The poll with randomnly eminent theoratical phycisists and astrophysicists also had a negative reception for mwi . So I decided to post it on the talk page. :::I did it with the background informations, and arguments to show that it was a reliable poll.

I would have expected and accepted, that it either stayed on the page, or either to get a comment like ' we don't accept original research , so I will delete it but very interesting tell me more about it.'

But no it was 'nonsense', it was 'an amateur poll'. Etc. Etc.

So that really got me thinking, is this site really interested in showing the best possible (I mean based on facts) reception at all?

Therefore I thought my questions about the motives of the editors of this site where legitamite.

(by the way I'm Dutch, so there can be linguistic mistakes, but I think I make my points fairly clear).

--145.18.244.70 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Willempramschot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My questions aren't a fallacy (in my opinion) because they aren't used as an argument against mwi. (Though I will admit I think mwi is false).

To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (I normally don't like this kind of quoting, because I think fallacy's are prety much there for common sense, and you do fine whithout quoting them. But in this case I will make an exception)

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5]

--145.18.244.70 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

--Willempramschot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You posted five times in three sections.

WP:IDHT—I gave examples of the irrational excuses and dismissiveness (case in point). I said "often", not invariably or entirely. I'll quote you:

“My posts aren't irrational. There is a person who said he picked random books, and noted reactions of regarded physicists, you said something in the lines of 'well I guess you could go on with that' and 'I'm sure if you note mwi-haters tell a lot of smack about mwi no-one would object. … So opponents in the line of John Bell are 'smack talkers'. Ok.”

Notice that I've quoted exactly what you wrote; you can't even be bothered to get the gist of what I'm saying. They're not related, they're out of order, and if John Bell was trolling the MWI article, you'd want to keep that under your hat. I can't imagine you mean to vindicate the putative rationality of your posts by misquoting my posts and getting lost in your imagination… In short, I have no idea what your talking about.

Wow, the whole thing about you and "he", AIMW32, is just remarkable. That the alternate content he posts to the talk page was your original inspiration for the poll… naturally, you brought it to the talk page. I can certainly see where someone could get the impression it's OK to publish their research for discussion on the talk page. BTW, in the future please strikeout rather than altering your posts to the noticeboards, thanks.

No one but you has called your poll "nonsense"; both WP:OR and WP:RS were explained to you by two different users, and you don't seem to have reached the stage of acceptance. It was only just yesterday that I used the word "amateur". I thought it was rather charitable, have you claimed even that level of expertise? Have you become a professional pollster? You do yourself a disservice to invite the comparison; the lack of rigour was self-evident. For example, you were afraid the answer you wanted wasn't getting as many votes as it could, so you changed it from "false" to "probably false" (and you don't remember when)… Frankly, I wouldn't have voted for either of your MWI statements, but 10% did. That's not "very very" few by any stretch of the imagination, but this too is irrelevant. It's highly unrealistic to expect other editors to give you the weight of an "eminent physicist", much less 28 of them.

Here's a no nonsense approach for next time: grab an WP:RS and add to the article, not the talk page. Don't expect to rally support, no one is currently committing suicide or loosing any sleep. People aren't going to edit the article for you, but they will spruce up technical and language details. It doesn't need to be perfect, just verifiable. That being said, make your own posts clear. Use a dictionary for words you don't understand (like Ad hominem), and go easy on that cake next time Dutch.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Racist vandalism to User talk:Malik Shabazz

A series of IP addresses is adding a photo of a noose to User talk:Malik Shabazz, several of them, over and over again. Is semi-protection necessary? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Semi'd for 3 days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the geolocation of the IPs, I'd say that was some sort of raid. WilliamH (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is anyone who deserves a ribbon and a raise for being sent the vilest of crap and still continuing to do valuable work here, it's Malik. Do we have a Wiki Nobel prize? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[post by User:Tarc deleted]

Looking at the the talk page of that editor, that seems to be a result of his own request rather than any wrongdoing. Uʔ (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC) My comment was referring to [14] Uʔ (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Are you saying that User:Malik Shabazz has asked people to post nooses on his page? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he was referring to a deleted edit in which somebody pointed the finger at User:Mbz1. Folks, this is why you don't delete comments, you strike them through. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, a rope used to hang nineteenth-century Englishmen isn't racist. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a really obtuse assertion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in itself, but it's merely a continuation of previous racist garbage posted on his talkpage, such as this (admin only). Black Kite (t) 01:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Can someone please take a look at the actions of Mideastunity (talk · contribs)? This edit appears to be a legal threat. And his edits to Walid Phares suggest edit warring with multiple accounts/IPs including 96.25.239.17 (talk · contribs), JudgeDred1975 (talk · contribs) and TEOS2011 (talk · contribs). Peacock (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The explicit threat does appear to have been removed by the original author, although the "libel and defamation" verbiage remains. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They removed the worst of it, but what they left still crosses the NLT line.

I have indef blocked both for legal threats and separately for being a single-purpose advocacy account (NOT, SOAP). I also left a ARBPIA notification, should they retract the legal threats and agree to stop pushing the agenda / soapboxing to the degree they are now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George. Since the article in question, Walid Phares, is a BLP this user may have a valid concern. The material he was removing was critical of the subject, but it is referenced. I don't feel qualified to evaluate whether this material is compliant with our BLP policy so it would probably be a good idea for a few more eyes on the page. Peacock (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression of the content - it's negative, but not accusing him of committing crimes or serious personal failings. It's referenced, but by B-grade references (websites rather than print media, etc). It's relevant to pose questions about its quality, BLP suitability, etc. It's not a clear yes or no.

That said, the last thing we need is dedicated SPAs wading in with legal threats and edit warring in this topic area, BLP issues or not. They need to be addressed by people willing to discuss the situation, review the material and Wikipedia policy, and act rationally and in a consensus-seeking manner. Even if it's determined that the BLP aspect was valid, that doesn't excuse the specifics here in any way.

If possible, review by other uninvolved editors/admins on the article talk page would be ideal. Having had to wade in on the NLT / behavioral issue I prefer if the content side is resolved by others - avoid appearance of conflict of interest, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw this user's RFPP for the article in question and was reviewing it but decided that it was more a content dispute than vandalism issues, and I don't protect pages due to content disputes to avoid involving myself in them. I did notice that he was loosely throwing around the libel language but he had removed the lawsuit part by the time I saw his reply. All in all I support this block for the reasons given. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Delettion discussion for Ultimate Challenge MMA

I was wondering why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA is still open. It was opened on October 18 and there have been 9 participants, only 1 of which voted to keep the article. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I patrol the "left-over" AfDs regularly, but I left this one because I currently have an AfD that I started about non-notable MMA events which is turning out to be unexpectedly contentious still running, so I thought it was better to leave this one for someone else. I'm sure someone will come along and close it soon. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I took care of it, as it wasn't too terribly complicated. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joefaust

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

---

Resolved

 – Joefaust (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. Swarm ^X 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[15]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:

• User:Joefaust/Paragliders (the gliding kites of NASA)
• User:Joefaust/Template:Comparison of types of kite hang gliders
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (the pilot)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding by police
• User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding (industry)
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (multiple uses in society): This one has a long list of red links suggesting yet others he intends to create/fork
• User:Joefaust/DRAFTarticleStructureParagliding appears to be a schema for the whole thing

Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [16] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.

I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".

I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.

In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.

I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.

If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.

Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.

Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. (Edit: note, I'm not an admin) Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you note that the external link was one short sentence to an entity that does not belong to me, that was missing from the section, and that in good faith I was simply doing some contributing; notice the date of the add. The article tags invited improvements. Is not this what WP project wants done? Instead of encouraging advance that article, it feels like you would have me not to have added that sentence; that would be confusing to me. Joefaust (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on aviation and kiting related topics. I'm not sure if non-admins are supposed to edit here, and if not please delete this edit. I've been heavily involved in trying to correct this users changes to such pages and consequently have spent some of the past weeks trying to decide if Joefaust's editing was malicious, or just misguided thanks to his distorted world-view of what a paraglider is or isn't. Frankly, I feel pretty sure it's both. Firstly, rewriting pages and renaming standard equipment, forcing editors to revert & re-work major sections and then the locking of the paragliding page. Then showing blatant disregard for debate, refusing to be persuaded that he has no consensus and holds a fringe, minority viewpoint (in many cases, a minority of 1) and trying to bypass discussion and force his ideas into pages without discussion or consensus. All of which went AfD, I might add. I'm close to this, for sure, but that's because I am a paraglider pilot of many years and would not wish, for example, to see a paraglider described to the curious public as a 'kite' in an encyclopaedia. The sooner this user is blocked from editing such pages the better. 88xxxx (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin would be enlightened to research the timing of 88xxxx into the paragliding-paraglider situation following his treatments in the forum where he posts. Topic keyword: Giuseppe. That kind of treatment followed me into this paragliding-paraglider scene. Please look how he followed me in WP in this last month. I trust that an uninvolved admin well weight the conduct. His following and pattern has affected matters. Thanks to someone to take an equitable look. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you should focus on the message, not the messenger(s). Following people? Patterns? This is not the place for anything other than debate as to your behaviour, as viewed by independent administrators of WP, who most likely know little of, and care little for paragliding. Joe, if a user wishes to see what I have edited on WP, they can view it at Special:Contributions/88xxxx. Likewise with any edits you have made. The only pattern I see emerging from my edits is trying to tidy up after what consensus suggest are the inappropriate edits you have made. This is a noticeboard for the admins, if you wish to question my behaviour on WP, I think your supposed to do it here: User_talk:88xxxx and then maybe ask an admin for an opinion on it. Keyword: Paranoia? 88xxxx (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuck in limbo

Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at this, and either do something, or determine that nothing will be done? Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that - we have a clear consensus on what the problem is and the action required here and yet this just keeps dragging on. This needs to be closed and actioned now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Ruining Game's plot

99.174.161.230 has kept on ruining Gun's plot. Putting synopsis with no known sense and doesn't even put a summary of his edits. I tried to talk to this person but he/she just kept on going, vandalising a good wiki page. I don't know if he/she even has a reason of this nonsense Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Godzilladude123

You must notify any user you mention here. I've notified 99. for you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. He's just trying to shorten the plot, which he feels is too long. I've semi-protected the page for a few hours due to the edit warring, but beyond that there's nothing to see here. Swarm ^X 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joefaust

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

---

Resolved

 – Joefaust (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. Swarm ^X 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[17]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:

• User:Joefaust/Paragliders (the gliding kites of NASA)
• User:Joefaust/Template:Comparison of types of kite hang gliders
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (the pilot)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding by police
• User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding (industry)
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (multiple uses in society): This one has a long list of red links suggesting yet others he intends to create/fork
• User:Joefaust/DRAFTarticleStructureParagliding appears to be a schema for the whole thing

Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [18] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.

I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".

I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.

In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.

I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.

If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.

Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.

Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. (Edit: note, I'm not an admin) Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you note that the external link was one short sentence to an entity that does not belong to me, that was missing from the section, and that in good faith I was simply doing some contributing; notice the date of the add. The article tags invited improvements. Is not this what WP project wants done? Instead of encouraging advance that article, it feels like you would have me not to have added that sentence; that would be confusing to me. Joefaust (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on aviation and kiting related topics. I'm not sure if non-admins are supposed to edit here, and if not please delete this edit. I've been heavily involved in trying to correct this users changes to such pages and consequently have spent some of the past weeks trying to decide if Joefaust's editing was malicious, or just misguided thanks to his distorted world-view of what a paraglider is or isn't. Frankly, I feel pretty sure it's both. Firstly, rewriting pages and renaming standard equipment, forcing editors to revert & re-work major sections and then the locking of the paragliding page. Then showing blatant disregard for debate, refusing to be persuaded that he has no consensus and holds a fringe, minority viewpoint (in many cases, a minority of 1) and trying to bypass discussion and force his ideas into pages without discussion or consensus. All of which went AfD, I might add. I'm close to this, for sure, but that's because I am a paraglider pilot of many years and would not wish, for example, to see a paraglider described to the curious public as a 'kite' in an encyclopaedia. The sooner this user is blocked from editing such pages the better. 88xxxx (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin would be enlightened to research the timing of 88xxxx into the paragliding-paraglider situation following his treatments in the forum where he posts. Topic keyword: Giuseppe. That kind of treatment followed me into this paragliding-paraglider scene. Please look how he followed me in WP in this last month. I trust that an uninvolved admin well weight the conduct. His following and pattern has affected matters. Thanks to someone to take an equitable look. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you should focus on the message, not the messenger(s). Following people? Patterns? This is not the place for anything other than debate as to your behaviour, as viewed by independent administrators of WP, who most likely know little of, and care little for paragliding. Joe, if a user wishes to see what I have edited on WP, they can view it at Special:Contributions/88xxxx. Likewise with any edits you have made. The only pattern I see emerging from my edits is trying to tidy up after what consensus suggest are the inappropriate edits you have made. This is a noticeboard for the admins, if you wish to question my behaviour on WP, I think your supposed to do it here: User_talk:88xxxx and then maybe ask an admin for an opinion on it. Keyword: Paranoia? 88xxxx (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuck in limbo

Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at this, and either do something, or determine that nothing will be done? Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that - we have a clear consensus on what the problem is and the action required here and yet this just keeps dragging on. This needs to be closed and actioned now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Ruining Game's plot

99.174.161.230 has kept on ruining Gun's plot. Putting synopsis with no known sense and doesn't even put a summary of his edits. I tried to talk to this person but he/she just kept on going, vandalising a good wiki page. I don't know if he/she even has a reason of this nonsense Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Godzilladude123

You must notify any user you mention here. I've notified 99. for you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. He's just trying to shorten the plot, which he feels is too long. I've semi-protected the page for a few hours due to the edit warring, but beyond that there's nothing to see here. Swarm ^X 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dohezarsersdah problematic editing

User:Dohezarsersdah has gotten into an extremely lame war on Theocracy removing content on the basis that websites cannot be used as sources. Despite numerous warnings and pointers, he is continuing to war over this. I have an RPP request in but it has not been acknowledged as of yet, and enough is enough. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

An indef block for disruptive editing should be considered, but it is reasonable to wait for a response. (He has been notified of this discussion). He has made five nearly identical reverts at Theocracy over several days and appears to be ignoring all feedback. His account was created three weeks ago. He has been editing aggressively on other articles as well. His recent contribution history is full of reverts. This edit is plain vandalism. Might this possibly be a sock? The edit summaries do not suggest a new user. His talk page would contain 20K bytes of warnings by now if he had not been constantly removing the warnings. That's pretty fast work for a three-week-old account. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I must second your thoughts. I'm taking a look at his contributions, but haven't found any other accounts sticking out as of yet. Note that this account was created on 10/2, but didn't edit until 10/8. Calabe1992 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The editor has been as flexible as a bot in his/her edits. Dohezarsersdah violates 3RR, edit wars, then blanks the warnings from his/her talk page. I feel this editor will not understand the fruitlessness of editing this way and the usefulness of editing via talk page discussions from anything short of a block. The time off also may help the user in the form of a wikibreak.--Louiedog (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see forcing a wikibreak as a good objective for a block as that is not what a block is intended for, but I don't think this user will stop the destructive habits unless a block is enforced. It comes back to simply protecting the articles from him. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I blocked the account for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule before seeing this thread; if someone could kindly copy any comments he makes on his talk page to here, that would be appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I also think this account may be a sock. His edit summaries are a bit perverse, eg [19] where he wrote "source needed (it's false anyway)" (note that it was sourced), [20] where he deletes references and says "no references", [21] where he deletes a source and writes "DON'T DELETE SOURCES", etc (eg one where he removes a source from this century saying it's antiquated while elsewhere he uses a 1909 source. That he has a nationalist agenda is clear, eg his edit summary "undoing a turk's changes" and his edit-warring to remove a well-sourced comment that someone born in Iran came from a Turkish family. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is his response:

This is ridiculous. From basically my first edit, I have been harassed by "trigger happy" admin who have reverted my edits on site, and left "warning" messages on my Talk page saying "your edit on x page doesn't seem to be constructive". They usually then, without exception, realize they've made a mistake, and then moved on, without apologizing. Apparently though I upset the user "Dougweller" to such an extent that he and a set of aggrieved admins decided to dedicate themselves to my undoing, with no regard for the Wikipedia encyclopedia project, but continuing to edit war my contributions which are all only to IMPROVE the accuracy of the articles (topics on which I have a great deal of expertise) in order to pursue their petty vendettas. Is it too much to ask for a "Oops, sorry I was wrong there, I didn't mean to assume you were being disruptive"? Obviously it was. So I returned their acidity, and continued to click the "undo" button as often as they did.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), Yopie's edits (3 reverts) actually degrade the article. I have no problem with the section, but it must be accurately referenced. A random website called "jewishvirtuallibrary" is not a proper source - neither is an opinion piece in a newspaper.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) Dougweller (an admin) and Kafka Liz (a senior member who has been on Wikipedia for "4 years, 2 months and 17 days") have been edit warring to remove ESTABLISHED FACT that Bektashi was Persian (he was born in Persia, spoke Persian, and wrote in Persian... the Betkashi's elders are called "Pirs" for christ's sakes, a Persian word) and REMOVING the source I worked to find and that they were apparently too lazy to find themselves (The Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, No. 3, Jul., 1909, (p. 343).

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Bektash_Veli) Dougweller (the admin) apparently followed me and carried on the same behavior.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world), The Mark of the Beast (an admin?) and Metricopolus (another admin? - i don't know, they all posted "warnings" to my page) did the same thing. I had to fight "tooth and nail" to restore the correct information.

So yeah, I apologize if some of my comments haven't been particularly "civil". But when all these admins and established users edit war and "warn" me of "vandalism" when I'm only trying to improve articles on topics they clearly know nothing about, it gets a little old. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it pretty disturbing that an admin, Dougweller is allowed to behave this way. He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689) Way to "pratice what you preach"! Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded as follows on this talk page: In any case, saying "He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689)" is not accurate. What actually happened was that the edit I reverted was [22] which removed the sourced statement that his family was Turkish rather than add something else also, as I suggested. What I was trying to get across was that the sourced statement that his family was Turkish should be left in, but if we had a conflicting statement that his family was Persian that could be added as well to indicate that this was uncertain. As for following anyone, yes, like many other editors when we find an editor vandalising (as was clearly done earlier at Peaches Geldof and Off2riorob (talk · contribs) who is on my watch list, we look at the editor's other edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at other complaints of his, the result of Yopie's edits at [[Theocracy was to leave the article in the state it was before Dohezarsersdah edited it, so I can't see how that degraded it. Dohezarsersdah objects to using The World Factbook, saying "websites can't be used as sources," and to [23] which he calls a random website although the author (and director of the Jewish Virtual Library is Mitchell Bard, who certainly looks like a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Dohezarsersdah is truly paying a lot of attention to any of what is being said. He writes "You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken." - first of all I am not an admin, and second of all, what is "realizing that he was mistaken"? I didn't revert myself; just didn't happen to want to war with him over something meaningless to me. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• - As per his edit history - he has so far been a disruptive user, lets hope he takes this community warning to heart and takes on board the advice. As User:Dougweller said, he attacked me and he deliberately vandalized the article of a living person - He's unblocked now after his 3RR block - if his previous disruptive behavior starts back up, block again for longer. Off2riorob (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

He's back - his talk page comments aren't exactly friendly, but the main problem is that he is insisting that a reliable source is wrong but in particular that we shouldn't use the source to say that Haji Bektash Veli is from a Turkish family, which is exactly what the source says, but that he is from a Turkic family - see his latest reply at Talk:Haji Bektash Veli. I can see another edit war brewing as I see no reason to interpret a source in this way. (I'll also note that I don't care if this historical figure is Turkish or whatever, but it's clear that there is a problem here with him and things Turkish). Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We've given Dohezarsersdah lots of time to respond to this ANI thread, and he has not done so. Nothing he has said on his talk page indicates a positive intent. (He is very good at removing warnings). Since he burst onto the scene as a nationalist edit warrior just three weeks ago, and he only appears to be on Wikipedia for disruption, it would be logical to proceed with the indef block that was suggested at the top of this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Need some feedback on this situation

Hi,

I've just had a user come back regarding some edits I made almost 9 months ago(!) making accusations like I "made their life a HELL", that I had accused them of lying (when I'd just added some cn, disputed tags) etc. I'd rather someone else came in and added their input to this matter (if only for the record) as I don't think it would be constructive me adding any more to this on my own(!)

The discussions are at

• [24]
• [25]
• and the history of [26] is also relevant.

Ubcule (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action is required here? The user appears to have popped out of nowhere, flamed, and then left again. I suppose the editor could be warned, but that's not likely to accomplish anything if he's already left. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There were two reasons.

To be honest, when someone starts making unjustified (but serious) accusations of harrassment, trolling and making someone's life "a HELL"(!) against me- whether the other person believes it or not, I'd prefer someone from outside to take a *brief* look at the situation, put their view on record.

This person came back after almost 9 months and starts making hysterical baseless accusations- I don't want (or intend) to let this escalate into some silly drama, but given this person's apparent animosity towards me, I suspect trying to explain myself further to them- they've already got the wrong end of the stick in several areas- would make it worse. I'd rather someone from outside posted a very brief note (still assuming good faith, even if their conduct was bad!) to this person. Ubcule (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Lobocursor has made a request which will probably be met with instructions on how to scramble his password. Should that not happen, if he makes any other personal attacks I'll block the account myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Similar accusations left on my talk page and I responded there (I'll cc Lobocursor's talk page in a second). I don't think this warrants intervention by admin. I see someone making good faith edits to the article but is completely unaware of the processes of the project and taking reverts too personally. I tried to encourage the editor to read up on the rules and such. We'll see if they stick around or not. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Ratnam concept school

Several editors (User:202.83.18.229, User:Geetha devi and now User:60.166.5.157) have been adding the same promotional text to this article. Discussions started on user talkpages, the article talkpage and at dispute resolution have all been disregarded. As recommended by User:ItsZippy, I'm bringing this to ANI to get some input from the pros; this looks like disruptive COI editing and may involve using multiple accounts to avoid 3RR (although I'm loathe to call "Sock!" with so few edits from the potential puppets, hence no SPI yet).

I'm also aware that the article needs moving to Ratnam Concept School, but have left it until this issue is resolved Yunshui 雲水 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I became involved after responding to a submission at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As Yunshui said, the same promotional content has been repeatedly inserted by numerous editors (they could be the same person, but I feel it might be premature to make the judgement). We have both reached our 3RR limit in removing the content. The issue seems to be the conduct of the users involved, who are not responding to attempts at discussion (on the talk page, their own talk pages and the DRN), so the involvement of an admin would be helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP would have been helpful ... I've full-protected for a week. Work it out :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

... now, if someone whose Twinkle is working would be so kind as to add a welcome template to the IP's and User that discusses how promotion is bad, I'd appreciate it. Assume ignorance of the rules (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. I've welcomed the three users with the NPOV welcome template. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Generations

I've raised this at WP:RPP, but it needs resolving more urgently than that - I suspect this is an raid, as it's not possible to edit the article at all due to edit conflicts from constantly hopping IPs. I'm not going to notify all the IPs involved, because, frankly, I'd like to do something else with my life at some point in the future... Yunshui 雲水 14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind; Closedmouth got in there and fixed it whilst I was typing the above. Yunshui 雲水 14:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joy: Use of admin tools -while involved- in a content dispute

Resolved

 – Per Jehochman, no admin action required causa sui (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The page Moroccan was a redirect to Morocco since 2004, in September 2011 an IP redirected it to Moroccan people, on October 22nd, another IP turns the page into a disambig page whilst we already had a Moroccan (disambiguation) page, I undid that edit but then User:Joy came along and undid me, we've tried to talk but only seconds after I first replied User:Joy unilaterally deletes the page Moroccan and moves Moroccan (disambiguation) to Moroccan and merges the two histories while disregarding the previous consensus and disregarding that he should not use the admin powers he has while involved.

• Deletion of the page Moroccan: [27]
• History of Moroccan (disambiguation) now merged with the history of the page Moroccan: [28]

I think using the admin tools to force a "fait accomplit" on a simple user (me in this case) constitutes a serious misuse of admin tools and I want a proper action to be taken and the page Moroccan to be restored to its pre-September version until we reach an agreement on what should be done with it. Tachfin (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no forcing involved, you can still continue to impose your opinion as you did before. But instead I direct everyone to the fine explanation at Talk:Moroccan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless you shouldn't use admin tools while involved in content disputes, WP:INVOLVED is pretty clear. I wasn't imposing anything just restoring the previous version that nobody complained about. A non-admin cannot obviously restore the history of Moroccan (disambiguation) that you've merged elsewhere with no discussion no consensus Tachfin (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't restore (unmerge) it but you can trivially move it over there, with zero loss of functionality. Overall I'm at a loss for words over your blatant WP:OWN violation and inability to reasonably argue a content dispute without resorting to petty procedural complaints. This, coupled with the appeal to "consensus" over the circumstance that nobody noticed this page being redirected wrongly for years, indicates a clear lack of understanding of WP:CONS. Sure, someone can assume bad faith in my "admin actions" and undo them completely without regard for what they actually were, but that won't change the simple fact that all my arguments of the matter have remained unanswered. Talk about WP:DISRUPTIVE, sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• This seems like a fairly clear case of WP:INVOLVED and a violation of use of the admin tools. The admin actions should be undone, while discussion is still continuing. Silverseren^C 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How exactly did I use admin tools to gain an advantage over the non-administrator user? What advantage did I gain? Because, I honestly don't see any - I did not prevent them from doing anything they want, apparently I only enabled them to complain here, which seems... disadvantageous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You used admin tools to delete and then move another page to the deleted title, while in a disagreement with another user over the title and the disambiguation page. It seems pretty obvious. Silverseren^C 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) He cannot undo your changes because he is not an admin, that's the advantage you have. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Er, what? Of course he can undo my changes, he can move the disambiguation page back to its old location and create the same redirect again. Nothing I did prevents him from doing that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Can plain editors do history merges, and more importantly, can they undo them? I think not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Like I said before, yes, that's a procedure they can't do on their own, but I fail to see the observable benefit to me / harm to them from that history merge that prejudices the content dispute and constitutes an admin tool abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
            • After I've read the talk page discussion, I agree that the complaint about the histmerge is of marginal concern. The main dispute is about the page move. As with such controversial moves, it should probably be undone and a {{movereq}} posted on the talk page. Right now this is a two party tango on the talk page. It's hard to say there's consensus either way. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have been recomendable to avoid doing any actions while discussion was still going on, however we must see that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on. Unfortunate rush and perhaps a lesson to be more patient in future... FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on.' Doing that only seconds after I posted on talk page with no reply and no consensus for the move, I saw it as an attempt to impose a "Fait accompli" since I cannot do/undo what he did and what he did was certainly unwarranted with no consensus and in violation of WP:INVOLVED. User:Joy (as any other user) should not disregard opposition to the breaking of a status quo that has been going since 2004, and unilaterally use his admin powers to impose his preferred version. Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the admin actions are undone and the discussion continued, then everything should be fine, yes. But they have to be undone to be fair to the discussion. Silverseren^C 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• So is there any good Samaritan Admin to restore things to the previous status quo? And friendly warn User:Joy to not use admin tools while involved and not edit war (The instant reverts are quite uncollaborative to say the least, I feel as if I am personally targeted since I'm just willing to restore a version that has been living since 2004, even Ips weren't reverted with such quickness and enthusiasm) Tachfin (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there are many admins who would be willing to (consensus here seems clear that Joy was involved and should not have used the tools), but the problem is that the two articles should never have been histmerged at all. They had parallel histories and the histmerge has left the history of the article in a mess. The correct procedure would be to perform a history split, but I can't see how an admin doing a history split would be able to tell which edits were from which article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it is possible; admins can see the history of deleted pages. Tachfin (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Once again, you can revert all the relevant edits yourself - click the move button on Moroccan and move it to Moroccan (disambiguation), overwriting the reverse redirect, and then re-create Moroccan as a redirect to Moroccan people. The fact that the disambiguation page was moved around will still remain in the history of the "... (disambiguation)" page. How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality. I'm not sure why you are insisting that an administrator do this, other than continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. (And, I should mention, if you proceed with this action, it will mean that I have to proceed with a formal move request, which in turn means that more editor time will be wasted on another redundant explanation of how disambiguation works.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • No, a non-admin cannot undo this because a history split would be required. "How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality." I'm sorry, but that is a completely unacceptable comment from an admin – you have history merged two articles that have parallel histories, which goes directly against what it says to do in the relevant guideline. Please do not perform anymore histmerges before you have read and understood WP:HISTMERGE (particularly the section on parallel versions). Jenks24 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • A history split is not required. The history still exists; which page's history it's on is irrelevant to the content dispute here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Exactly, thank you. If we split it back up (some guesswork and possibly a comparison with a backup would be required), it still doesn't prejudice the debate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (They have proceeded with the same action so there's now Talk:Moroccan (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

By the way, in the meantime, other people seem to have proceeded with the disambiguation of the term Moroccan, and now only four incoming links remain. Unsurprisingly, nobody else came to complain. So much for "[making] our editing lives miserable". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Joy, this comment: "continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" is unacceptable and borderline personal attack. I've done nothing that breaches WP:POINT or disrupts Wikipedia in any way. You did not respect WP:INVOLVED (whether that was in good faith or intentional). You should respect the previous consensus while discussion is ongoing (and no, discussion is not a waste of editor time as you seem to believe) and not revert-war and move a page after I pointed out that it was already disambiguated elsewhere (that wasn't a request for you to move it). Your persistent belief that you are right and groundless accusations show little respect for WP:AGF and WP:ETIQ. I'm not comfortable with such tone/behavior coming from an admin Tachfin (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, again, no, you have no idea what you are talking about - there was no previous consensus because "Moroccan" has pointed:

• to "Morocco" on 2004-01-04
• to disambig on 2009-02-27
• to "Morocco" on 2009-05-22
• to "Moroccan people" on 2011-09-10
• to disambig on 2011-10-21
• and then our little silly edit war started with you moving it to "Moroccan people" - clearly there were two options in the page history and the "Moroccan people" option was NOT the "stable" version because it was there for a little over a month
• and now you moved it to "Morocco" on 2011-10-27.

(If any of these diffs are wrong because of histmerge, it's possible that parts of this timeline are wrong, but when we know that there are only two options - that someone would change "Moroccan" or that someone would change "Moroccan (disambiguation)" - turning the latter into a redirect would have made no sense and as I recall nobody ever did that. Instead, all redirect edits were made to the page "Moroccan".)

So you blithely dragged me through these proceedings for a reason that is a) ultimately frivolous b) with no basis in fact because all your claims of "stability" and "consensus" were void given that you actually changed the redirect yourself at the time away from the longest-standing version.

You have tried to prove your point not by discussing things like an adult on the relevant talk page, instead by edit-warring and then reporting me for alleged abuse. That's called disruptive behavior and a personal attack on myself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we done here? There doesn't appear to be any need for administrative action to undo any of the damage here, and the deleted redirect doesn't seem to have any non-trivial history. Is there anything else? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've lost faith in discussion here after repeated personal attacks from Joy, it's not so hard to be WP:CIVIL. I've laid out the situation in my first post here i.e. I am opposed to it not being a redirect anymore not to what it redirects to (that's why I didn't revert when an IP redirected it to "Moroccan people" in September 2011, so that last edit was the new consensus) you're just trying to falsify what happened by your last post. And now you're really trying to prove a point by requesting a move on a page (Moroccan (disambiguation)) that you've already moved and histmerged in complete violation of WP:Involved. Tachfin (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Let me see if I understand. Tachfin is complaining about merger of histories of a redirect with a disambiguation page. The redirect page history is trivial because there is no visible content on a redirect page. Merge or don't merge, it doesn't matter at all. The reason we need edit histories is to comply with our copyright license. When there is no visible content, there's nothing to license, so the history isn't needed, other than for convenience and supervision. I believe that what Joy did was an editor-versus-editor page move revert. They are entitled to do that. Merging the histories was apparently intended as a non-controversial housekeeping action, which is allowed, even when involved. Merging might not have been strictly necessary, but if there's a misunderstanding of how WP:HISTMERGE works, somebody can go explain that to Joy. In general, admins should clean up their own messes. There is no need to go find another admin to do something obvious. Since there was no use of protection to "win" the content dispute, I see nothing unethical about Joy's actions. Tachfin, please go discuss proper naming and alignment of the pages with the other editors concerned, and when there is an agreement, organize the pages accordinging. If you get stuck, see WP:3O or WP:RFC. Many thanks for your dedication to improving Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That about sums it up. Tropical storm in a tiny teacup really. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Δ blocked for 48 hours

It is with regret that I have blocked Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly Betacommand (talk · contribs)) for 48 hours, in enforcement of his community sanction (listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as follows:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand has run his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation on over 130 articles between 20:47, 18 October 2011 and 14:51, 22 October 2011 (see Special:Contributions/Δ) without seeking this consensus. I, and other users, have attempted many times to engage him in dialogue about his recent return to automated editing without consensus to no avail. The sad thing is that for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive; but regretfully, the productivity of edits does not excuse failure to seek and adhere to community consensus, nor does it excuse ignoring restrictions placed by the community or the opinion of other community members. I feel sad that this has been necessary. (Corrected) --Tristessa (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - if he has violated his restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success" (block log) — err, where? I assume this refers to a recent speaking-to? NW (Talk) 19:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[29], [30] from me, but plenty of other people have tried to talk to him in the past; he's definitely been warned and knows the consequences of his actions, I think, as this has gone on for literally years. The history goes back a long way before I first communicated with him. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2, his block log, AN/I discussion way back in 2008, his talk history. I think we can safely say he's been gently spoken to, counselled, begged, pleaded with, screamed at, and generally informed. --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a pattern of edits - his rate of editing is within the restriction, but its the 25 of a "pattern" of edits that's being claimed here. And real, I can't agree with that, particularly since he has seem quick to correct any problems and/or drop changes that were proving problematic (eg wiping invis comments) when he is told about them. As the last complaint at his talk page was Oct 6, its a little hard to see what the issue is here; if someone thinks his editing is making a mess, that needs to be told to him than sitting on it. The bulk of the edits (spotchecking the 130 contributions) seem to be avoiding template redirection, removing long-deleted image links, adding white space, adding titles to bare URL references, and the like, all within style guidelines. ---MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit severe to block him for this , "for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive" - can we unblock him and talk to him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the productivity, regretful as it is, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad. As for talking to him, this has been tried exhaustively and has routinely failed (he does not generally reply effectively to talk page messages attempting to discuss these issues with him, if at all). Were communication possible, I wouldn't have blocked. --Tristessa (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap - you're the dick for the bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob, please calm down. Your assertion that an admin not use their tools because you don't feel they've made enough contributions lately is ludicrous. Let's please stick to this situation. Dayewalker (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not ludicrous at all - if your not contributing you have no authority - simple as - so you should not make unilateral judgments on active contributors and restrict them, you should make a report and defer to request the communities position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Then take it up at the village pump, because that has no basis in policy that I can find. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more reflected in common sense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, not even in the slightest. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more reflected in common sense and as such doesn't need taking off to the village pump, it more needs promotion of the reality to stop such violations as this, so that users are aware that whatever the labels they have, thay actually only have and only should only use the authority their contributions reflect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last (apparent) communication with him was on Oct 4. He replied. I can't tell (without reviewing all his edits) whether he did take your advise re: Wayback links, but again, spotchecking the 130 contributions you're pointing out, I don't see this. The fact that he replied a few weeks ago means that you should have at least tried to communicate this concern to him before blocking. And evenmore if the edits were all productive and non-distruptive (and truly, as best as I can tell, all seem to be non-controversial), this is a bad block. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. But he only replied tangenitally in the middle of a discussion with another user (User:Hammersoft), in effect offering almost no reply to any of what I said on his talk page. How would you suggest proceeding given his recurrent proclivity towards not communicating, and that so many people have tried to address this with him? I think he's been more than adequately warned. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the "tangenital" and "don't be..." comments, you might want to review your own edits just a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm here on other business, but just as a suggestion, every time one of this seemingly endless series of incidents turns into a heated argument between beta blockers and delta enablers the community loses that much more patience, and it's probably increasing the likelihood that he'll end up banned from the encyclopedia entirely. That's a poor outcome for everyone. Best tone down the emotions and deal with it practically and efficiently. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no credible argument presented that it was a bad block. He violated his restrictions. Previous history suggests that, unless he respects the person questioning his edits, he won't reply, and, even if he does, he won't stop before being blocked. In fact, the only times (that I can recall; I haven't been watching him continually, so I may have missed an incident) that he has changed his behavior is after a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

One could actually argue that those edits don't actually contravene his "pattern" restriction, because they're not all doing the same thing, even if they're all tagged with the same edit summary. This together with the lack of any pre-block warning whatsoever I think makes this a bad block. Indeed, my sense of AGF is stretched a bit here, because it does look as if the blocking admin - who has used the block button precisely eight times in five years - was irritated by an error that Δ made in his edits 19 days ago, and waited for him to make some edits that could possibly be construed as a pattern before pressing the block button without further communication. If this block was not of Δ I think it would be reversed immediately because it contravenes numerous parts of WP:BLOCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this definitely wasn't my motivation, Black Kite. My first attempt at interaction with him over this issue was [31] (09:15, 28 September 2011) which I linked to above, and that was before I made any specific comment on the actual effect of his edits at all. Given the massive history of DR activity related to these behaviours, are you seriously claiming he had too little notice that he'd be liable to be blocked? I suppose there's no way of me proving to you that it's not a case that I was (or am) "irritated" with him, and indeed regret deeply that it came to the point of blocking him. --Tristessa (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm just going by the edit history. If you (or indeed, anyone) had even considered informing him that his editing pattern might be violating his sanctions, then I'd agree with the block. But no-one did. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again Betacommand violates his sanctions and once again people argue he shouldn't be punished for it. Another day at WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem here is that blocking out of the blue without approaching for discussion and claiming there's a violation when it's on a very subjective edge (eg I don't see this as the "pattern" of edits that the community restrictions call on, but that's my opinion) is an issue. Starting an ANI thread, discussing the problem, and in the end if he still got blocked for 48hrs, I can't argue against that. But out of the blue blocks, and ones that claim communication has been tried when they haven't is a bad block. The edits should be reviewed here, and if still deemed a problem, sure. But this feels like the case of people trying to find any way to get Delta blocked indefinitely from WP. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially given that the block was placed 16 hours after the edits, it would clearly have been better to have this discussion first. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the time difference is germane. The edit restrictions here are for long-term (multi-year) problems. There is no way to expect anyone to monitor Beta's edits closely enough to be able to place a block for a violation within the hour when it is made. 16 hours seems completely reasonable to me. I can say I have also considered blocking for the apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time. It's pretty clearly a violation IMO, but I decided to wait to see whether other people also noticed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone did that, they'd be accused by the regular crowd of stocking, harassing, or provoking him. I seem to recall last time we had a delta discussion someone mentioned all these clean-up edits to him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

According the to restrictions, Beta is required to propose edits on the village pump if they affect more than 50 articles. Did he do that in this case? If so, we can get a link, and all is well. If not, then it seems to me the block is sound. If he makes 130 edits with the same edit summary, it is unreasonable to expect others to review them to see exactly what was changed. It seems like he simply ran the same script on 130 articles - and that seems like a "pattern" to me even if the script might not make exactly the same edit on each article. The restriction specifically is intended to prevent Beta from unilaterally running scripts on large numbers of articles without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, it is unfortunate that he has a history of doing this, refusing to discuss, and only discussing and or modifying after a block. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he needs to not violate his sanctions, as he is well aware. It is a pity he puts us through this every so often but there is no reason to shoot the delivery person when Beta is the one who filled out the order, mailed it off, paid for it, and then opened the door. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's hard to tell if a script is being run, but the edits seems to be all doing different things, even if there is the same edit summary. It doesn't appear to be a script. In on edit, he's correcting IMDB to IMDb (or was it the other way?) and in others he's removing links to deleted images and in others he correcting the format of infoboxes. The edits are too diverse to be a script. I think he just used the same edit summary, but it doesn't appear to be a progress of the same edits. Silverseren^C 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Beta made 1597 edits in September with the exact summary "Cleanup" and another 408 this month with that summary. He made 320 edits in August with the exact edit summary "clean". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can learn much from the edit summaries then. We just have to check to see if a series of the same edits are being done, which would indicate a script. But the edits all seem to be different, at least from what i'm looking at. Silverseren^C 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the main effect of the single summary is to obfuscate which tasks he is actually doing, to make it more difficult to find a pattern. But it would be amazing if there was not a pattern of 25 similar edits among the 2,000 I mentioned. IMO it is up to Beta to use different edit summaries for the different tasks. If all the edits summaries claim to be doing the same thing ("cleanup") then that is a pattern of edits. If Beta wants to show he is doing different things, he needs to use descriptive edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re automated edits: As has happened before, this user is running scripts or 'bots which make large numbers of minor changes, some of which are useful, some of which are pointless, and some of which make things worse. And, as before, the edit comments are useless. This time, there's a new pattern of pointless changes. See [32], where the script or 'bot is converting HTML 24-bit hex colors such as "#ffcccc" into 12-bit hex colors such as "#fcc". That's a "legacy color" format from the NeXTstation/Amiga era, and is deprecated in the HTML5 spec.[33] (See "Steps for parsing a legacy color value", esp. item 6.)

This is apparently done whenever this user's script touches an article. This is not only pointless, but a step in the wrong direction. It generates a large number of diffs, obfuscating any substantive edits. It will confuse later editors who aren't really, really familiar with the formal HTML parsing specification. Somebody please make this nonsense stop. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the user has made just over thirty edits a day with his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation over a four day period , most of which have been declared beneficial...- User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct, Rob - most of the user's sanction-violating edits in this last period (> 100) occurred within one day (22 October 2011) in high-speed chunks (4-6 per minute), and I haven't even dealt with the subject of his historical editing using the "Cleanup" script on dates before the period given in the block. Aside from that, again, please stop the ad hominem. It's not helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the data from the comments here - I have seen nothing presented , and you yourself said it wasn't that his contributions were detrimental - It's not an ad homin to point out that an account is not contributing to article content - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its boorish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are considering a rule requiring significant recent content contributions by editors who impose sanctions on others then we should first consider it in light of the sitting Arbitrators.[34]   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not considering a rule - just a heightened degree of common sense application of attributed authority - I would suggest that its well understood that arbiters have a heightened degree of authority and workload that can and does restrict them from ordinary contributions to project space - unlike administrators who have a lower degree of authority and if they are not contributing to article space they need to understand to not action any controversial authority edits and simply request community consensus first - what is so wrong with that - nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst having some sympathy for Rob's position (and yes I realise I pointed out the blocking admin's lack of use of the tools), this is probably distracting from the main issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, he should have been blocked for a longer time, he got blocked for a year for a reason. --Hinata talk 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, if the edits are beneficial, then WP:IAR concerning the sanctions and get off his tail. Are we going to start blocking active contributors now? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rainbow Dash. IAR, unblock, and let's take this to Arbcom so this stupid sanction can be buried. Or can somebody point to me how Beta's edits were disruptive? "It's not the point, he broke the rules"? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just for my own edification, are we claiming that he's made a series of distinct, beneficial contributions spread out in reasonable numbers of the course of days, but since he's used "cleanup" as his edit summary, that he is deserving of a block? Is it a part of his sanctions that he must use different edit summaries? If he's violated his sanctions, then a block is justified... but if we're blocking because he used generic edit summaries, resulting only in preventing him from making positive contributions, then it should be reversed. Are any of his edits detrimental? The HTML color code thing isn't convincing to me, even as a professional web developer. That could easily be a mistake from a non-automated process.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my take - its people trying to read into "a pattern of edits" to as much a degree as necessary to "criminalize" Delta. It is vague, unfortunately, but I think one has to look at why these are in place to be understood what the issue is and what that means to "pattern of edits". The community clearly did not want Delta editing mindlessly with changes to articles with no human oversight that was creating avoidable errors and problems in articles. Again, not having reviewed every single edit, the spotchecks show nothing earthshatteringly bad. A few weeks (months?) ago, he had been doing cleanup that stripped hidden HTML comments from articles, but when he was warned on that, he no longer did it. Again, best as I can tell, when he was warned off adding Google Book links or adding Wayback links, he backed off. He's listening. This is what the community wanted, yes?

If the issue was that this felt like a pattern of edits (arguably either way), then the right course of action shouldn't have been to block but warn Delta "This appears to be a pattern" and request he VPP what he's doing. A block this fast is just assuming a lot of bad faith when Delta is trying to contribute as much within what he can do within the restrictions. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Hinata. Two weeks seems more appropriate. He is right, but that doesn't mean he gets to steamroll everybody Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You agree with user Hinata - since the last five months the User:Hinata hasn't even contributed a single minor edit the the en wikipedia article space. - a user that has only ever contributed minor reverts to the en project - and only ever fifty of them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Hinata&namespace=0 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, strange that isn't it? Wonder how he suddenly got alerted to this thread? My AGF is certainly being strained tonight. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Rio, I believe another ANI has been started in response at least partially to your Re: of my comment. The bottom line is that I think that Delta/Beta has acted improperly, because he is using the fact that he is right to ignore other guidelines that suggest how to act. I feel the block was appropriate, and could/should even have been longer. How many contributions some editor I agree with has zero bearing on my opinion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss every Betacommand sanction violation exhaustively, on the grounds that he really ought to know better by know, but keeps violating his sanctions anyways. Just how much longer will his ridiculous behaviour be tolerated? Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a wrong question. The correct one would be: are the sanctions helping, or hurting the project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that the sanctions have averted some of the bad tendencies in Beta's editing, they have helped the project. When I was on the group that developed the sanctions originally [35], I expected Beta would have no trouble following them, because they were written to be easy to follow. The fact that he continues to step outside them underscores their value. Also, without the sanctions Beta would simply have been banned from enwiki. So in a sense the sanctions help the project by allowing Beta to contribute in some way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the "pattern" part of them isn't actually that clear, if this ANI discussion is anything to go by. And unfortunately, that's the important part here. The rest is easy to follow, but they aren't relevant here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it's a stretch to argue that 2,000 edits with exactly the same summary do not constitute a pattern. Also, if you look at his contribs, the articles are editing in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order, which is evidence he has made a list based on some criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you if all the edits were doing the same thing; but they're not. In fact they appear to be doing a quite wide range of cleanup operations. As for how the list is generated, I suppose the best person to ask would be Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the same cleanup script does different things depending on the page it is run on (one example would be AWB), it's still the same script. Experience shows there is little benefit in trying to discuss these things with Beta; that's how we ended up with the edit restrictions. However, it seems like the common thread in the recent edits is removing references to deleted or nonexistent images. Start with the edit to Carleen Anderson and go down the list of contribs from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow (it's 1:15am here). It's fairly clear regardless that this block isn't going to be undone anyway; but I do hope it'll lead to Delta's constraints being tightened up (in the sense that it's patently clear to everyone what is and isn't a violation). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, persistently yelling "ban him" at every ANI discussion when everyone else is trying to have a sensible discussion is not really helpful. We heard you the first time. It's like the random person who walks behind the TV reporter and makes faces. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit amazed to see people debating whether these edits are a "pattern" and whether they are done by script or not. They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup. Some aspects of it are beneficial (the removal of redlinked images), some are unnecessary (the addition of spaces after asterisks), but it does look as if the errors and more controversial aspects of this cleanup task have been stopped after the discussion we had on his talk page on 27-28 september[36].

Basically, it is clear that this is a pattern of scripted edits, but on the other hand I can't find actual problems with the current run. Suggest unblocking on the condition that Δ gets approval at some location (VP or so) for his current cleanup task (which shouldn't be a problem), and that he gets prior approval for any changes/additions to it, to avoid the need for constant scrutiny of his many edits (which did contain errors and problems last month). Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• There were actual problems; that they are minor is arguable. Here, the edit removes an important (IMHO) hidden instruction to editors, and removes "is" from the intro entirely, which is restored by another editor here. Not a big deal, but sorta zealous and hurried, without proper previewing. Yes, it's a giant article, and it's hard to preview everything, but that was the first word in the lead sentence. That's the only example I'm going to cite, because I feel most of the edits performed were beneficial, though a few were neutral, and arguably personal preferences (shortening named ref names). I have no beef with the editor whatsoever, and it is indeed regrettable that the situation has gone this far without the editor responding to requests and suggestions in a meaningful way. Hell, I even learned how not to be uncivil as a result of reasonable requests, and (finally) links to helpful essays. I'm saying that requests shouldn't be ignored, or blown off; they should be considered civilly. If they pile up unanswered, per WP:DISPUTE, escalation is not only desirable, it is necessary for the health of the encyclopedia. If escalation is all that will get an editors attention, it's not so bad. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is doing the distributed TCP flood attack on my home connection's static IP (I guess you must have found it via /whois on freenode), can you please stop doing it. If you have a grievance about the block, please raise it here or on my talk page. Thanks. --Tristessa (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

""Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation"/"apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time"/"They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup." - If you (pl) say that that is a pattern, how is it different from this/this/or this pattern of adding and removing text? Is adding and removing text a pattern, is fixing typo's a pattern, is fixing references (which all contain a different text) a pattern, is using the same edit summary over and over a pattern, is bringing a large number of articles to FA-status a pattern, is removing links to deleted images a pattern? If you guys have to dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same, and then call that a pattern, or have to sweep them all together and say 'they all do cleanup, that is obviously a pattern' .. then you are just looking for a reason to block, aren't you?

So can someone show me where exactly there was a pattern of edits? And if not, can we then overturn this block? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to "dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same", I just have to look at the last 25, or 50, or 100 edits by him with the "cleanup" tag. They all are based around the removal of deleted images from pages, and add some minor AWB-like cleanup stuff. Do other editors have editing patterns as well? Obviously, e.g. my AWB edits are a pattern, even if they include things like space removal, template replacement, and adding of orphan tags. The pattern in my case is tagging as unsourced. Some of my non-AWB edits also follow a pattern, e.g. category additions. Others are completelyt outside any regular pattern. Taking the same approach, it is quite obvious that Δ makes patterned, scripted edits. E.g. these 4 consecutive edits in one minute: [37][38][39][40] all have one image removed, and some layout cleanup, including the automated addition of descriptions to bare links. You can check the dozens of edits before and after these as well. I don't see the point in your denial that the sky is blue here, or that this isn't a pattern. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is clear then. Doing 25 cleanup edits is a pattern - as probably is doing 25 edits in a row. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually wonder how someone who is not allowed to perform more than, what was it, 25 edits with a conceivable pattern without permission is allowed to do thousands and thousands of edits. Δ should have been blocked way earlier than this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Delta use more than 25 edits on one page to bring it to FA status? Or is that a pattern of 'bringing a page to FA status'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is to 25 or more pages, not to 25 edits to one page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WHAT, now you say that he is allowed to do 25 consequtive edits to one page, which all would, e.g. convert 'period-space' to 'period-space-space' and it is not a pattern, but if he does that on 25 different pages it is. No, Carl. Both are patterns - 25 edits to 25 different pages, changing some text in all of them is a pattern of changing text in 25 different pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs from Carleen Anderson down in the current list of 50 contribs, they all involve removing a reference to a deleted image. So there is one pattern just in the recent ones. It is probably true that he should have been blocked earlier, unless he did get a village pump approval for these. But nobody is being paid to watch his edits so closely, so we can only expect people to notice things occasionally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the edit before that, removes another image than what is removed on Carleen Anderson. So editing 25 pages in a row, in all cases adding or removing a couple of (every time different) words is a pattern of .. adding a couple of .. editing. Can we please define 'pattern' now? What is the pattern that you see and that is different from 'adding every time a different word to a different page'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In all the edits he is removing a reference to a deleted image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• @CBM; you're effectively saying that if Δ makes any edit that is similar to another one, it's the beginning of a pattern. If he removed a link to a particular image, I could see it. But, you're saying that if he removes links at all he has to seek approval. This is mind bogglingly vague. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if he makes a series of edits that are similar to each other, that is a "pattern". He clearly has **some** purpose in mind with his edits, he is simply obfuscating it by not giving clear edit summaries. The restriction is not excessively vague, he is simply pushing it to the edge instead of working inside it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Carl, but .. well, adding characters to one article is to me pretty similar to adding characters to another article, is that also a pattern, or are you (or Tristessa) singlehandedly to decide when something is a pattern? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• So, per the above, it appears to be a valid block. But I don't think it's really a good one. The blocking admin should have warned Δ prior to the block, or at least discussed the issue with them. I know patience with Δ is low, but what harm would it have done to question him on the matter? If the edits are, as evidence suggests, beneficial to the project, then the goal should be to stop Δ from violating the sanction while continuing to add those beneficial edits to the project. Put another way, if he had actually posted and asked permission, would it have been granted? Would it be granted now, seeing as we have examples of the work? I don't know. But, however valid, I think this block was mishandled - and I'll bet half the discussion here is a direct result. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The block wasn't mishandled. This is a repeat violation of editing restrictions (a form of community ban) by an editor with a long history of the same. In practically any other case of a ban being flouted in those conditions admins are not normally expected to stop to think twice before enforcing the community consensus with the tools provided for such a purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Automated/Semi-Automated tool usage

I asked this last time, and never got an answer. Is Delta not still prohibited from making automatic/semi-automatic edits? Last I checked that was on his original list of sanctions and I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about that being listed anywhere. Frankly he just shouldn't be anywhere near that scene at all. It always ends badly for him.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

For as far as I can see, there is no restriction on automated or semi-automated edits there. Strict review, yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't look directly above that?

Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate

I knew we'd decided that, and I don't recall a concensus reached discussion anywhere that overturned that and it certainly isn't recorded there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that. But a script is not an automated program when every edit is manually reviewed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He's prohibited from making edits that could appear automated either. And in the past he's admitted to not properly reviewing edits like in the case where he reverted someone over NFCC violation because he didn't properly notice they only linked to an image and didn't re-insert it because he was working on diffs and not actually looking at the page.--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This issue of "pattern" was previously raised here. See [41], just a month old. The behavior being found at fault here is effectively the same. So one AN/I thread concludes with no apparent violation, and then this thread starts with a block and unsurprisingly the resulting fracas.

I think User:Tristessa de St Ange's block without recent discussion with the editor was improper. There was discussion a month ago (see this thread), but that thread completed with Tistessa asserting "A series of different types of changes in a single edit qualify as a pattern", leaving me cross-eyed.

But the bigger issue is this restriction is very vague. It's being interpreted to cover a broad swath of edits. At this point, the restriction is so vague that effectively before every time Δ makes changes to 25 articles, he needs to seek approval. The result is a restriction that is unfair to Δ. Sure, some of you are going to scream "but he doesn't deserve fair, he hasn't earned it!". Cart before the horse. If you can't provide an environment in which he can work within his restrictions, you are dooming him to fail no matter what he does. At this point, according to Tristessa, a series of different types of changes constitutes a pattern. How in hell is anyone supposed to abide by the restrictions when it's interpreted so broadly that any edit constitutes a pattern?

This restriction either needs to be more tightly defined, or Δ needs to be banned from the project, since the restriction is making it impossible for him to edit. This middle ground is resulting in far too many threads, far too much acrimony, with entirely predictable and avoidable results. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that we are dealing with an editor who is unable to communicate effectively. Further up the page here, there is an incident involving Rezabot, which had to be stopped because of a total of 3 bad edits in a run. The bot owner's preferred language is Farsi, but he's been perfectly amenable to efforts to diagnose and resolve the problem, and the bot has been restarted without concern that he'll just go back and do it again. If Beta only communicated, we would not be here. I agree he may not understand the restrictions. Do we want to say "you may not edit with bots, scripts or any other automated tool, unless you have completed all the paperwork and got approval." Is that the intention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that if Beta wants to perform some task on 25 or more articles, he needs to get approval. That is an explicit goal of the editing restriction, to prevent him from doing undiscussed semi-automated editing of large numbers of articles. It is unreasonable to allow him to avoid the restriction by obfuscating thousands of edits by giving them the same edit summary. If he were to focus on writing content instead of cleanup, these sorts of complaints would disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But, Carl, writing 25 different articles is a pattern of editing. And 'removing 25 different images from 25 different pages' is not more or less a pattern than 'writing 25 different articles'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It gets even worse, technically, over, say, 10.000 edits and a period of, say, 2 years (or more) {Δ would not be allowed to remove, e.g., the word 'the' as superfluous in >25 different articles, since that is also a pattern. Just a matter of going closely through his edits, and for sure you will find 25 of that type of edits over the last year. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This situation is not like that. In the last 50 edits alone we can see a pattern of removing references to deleted images. It is not as if these "cleanup" edits were infrequent and interspersed with other sorts of edits - the recent contribs show over 25 in a row with no other edits at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The paint brush you are describing is using TYPES of edits as a "pattern", rather than SPECIFIC edits. Under such an interpretation of the restriction, it's impossible for him to edit unless he gets approval for every 25 edits. We can debate whether it was a pattern elsewhere. The point is, you've construed this paintbrush very, very broadly. Others don't construe it as broadly. This needs to be clarified, or we WILL be back here again because of disagreement as to what this restriction really means. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, the restriction applies to types of edits. The same sort of cleanup edit made to 25 articles is a pattern, even if the exact change to the text is not the same each time. We don't expect a semi-automated process to make exactly the same change each time, just the same type of change. In this case we can point out exactly that the type of change appears to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then it is impossible for him to edit here without your approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but still, doing 25 edits in a row trying to improve 25 articles is a pattern as well. And are you now suggesting that if he, say, every 20 edits does one dummy edit to break the pattern it is not a pattern anymore? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, that's not a broad enough paintbrush. These two edits separated by two years constitute a pattern: [42] & [43]. See, they both used "cleanup" as an edit summary, and both modified what templates were being addressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would even go as far as calling this a pattern: [44] and [45] - you see .. 2 edits which do not use the word 'cleanup' - a clear pattern of not using the word cleanup in the editsummary.</ridiculous addition> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Arguing about the definition of soup isn't helping anyone. –xeno^talk 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is the definition of "pattern" isn't defined, and is being construed to apply across a broad swath of editing. Without a clearer definition, we will be back here. So, I suggest either clarifying the restriction or banning Δ entirely, since it is in practice impossible for him to comply with the restriction according to all definitions apparently in play as to what a "pattern" is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra and Hammersoft are trying (so far unsuccessfully though) to muddy the waters by debating what constitues a "pattern", and using reductio ad absurdum as if it was a valid debating technique. Perhaps they can indicate what, in their opinion, constitutes a "pattern" and what doesn't. The edit restriction gives "any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages)", but apparently removing references to deleted images on dozens of pages in a row, with minimal automated additional cleanup on the same pages, does not fit that definition. Could either of you please give an example of a task that you feel does fit the "pattern" definition? Or are you trying to say that anything extremely repetitive set of edits is not a pattern as long as Delta makes them? I hope the former, but it looks more and more like the latter, and that you are trying to defend Delta because it is Delta, and are willing to ignore reality when it suits you here. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I already stipulated that if Δ were to remove a particular image 25 times or more that that would be a pattern. Perhaps you missed that? The point is what YOU call a pattern, and what I call a pattern is irrelevant. Every person here might have a different definition of what that is. Without a clearer definition, Δ is set up to fail. No matter what he does, he can't comply. As an abject demonstration of this lunacy, the case here in call was already discussed a month ago, and concluded with it not being a pattern. Now, it suddenly is and his head is being served on a platter. He can't comply. The only possible way to make all of you happy is for him to stop editing entirely. Perhaps that's the point? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, Δ could err on the side of caution and request approval as indicated if he wants to make a large series of semi-automated edits that all do something quite similar. –xeno^talk 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've asked Δ's permission to operate on his behalf to make requests based on his past pattern of activity. I intend to make separate requests to cover such things as adding stub templates, removing references to deleted images, re-pointing calls to templates away from redirects to the proper template name, etc. I'm going to paint using as broad a paintbrush as possible to avoid the sorts of threads this one is so emblematic of. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful I feel. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• First five proposals have been made. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requests_for_various_.CE.94_tasks and subsequent five threads. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why are people making this so bloody difficult. I simplify some, but Delta is in this situation because Delta wrote number of scripts with some controversy, ran them through a few hundred or few thousand articles, did not answer the resulting criticism well, and kept repeating that loop. Sometimes things were exacerbated by claims that hundreds of edits an hour were "manual" rather than "semi-automated" and so not subject to bot approval. So now, just about any repetitive task Delta does is treated as de facto semi-automated, and limited to 25 articles without prior review. Ordinary, manual article editing is rarely "repetitive" for more than a few articles, and doesn't have long "patterns". Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  And as far as I can its a clear violation of his restrictions, as such 48 hours isn't even remotely enough.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on whether they are modified by WP:VPP consensus further to Hammersoft's excellent work on the subject, enforcement blocks could escalate -- but blocking a productive editor is not something that should be taken lightly and I really couldn't have felt justified blocking for any longer. If of course this situation continues he may then be blocked for longer, but I think we should stay away from any medium or long-term block unless it becomes clear that efforts made in this discussion haven't worked later on. I sincerely hope this will not be the case and positive developments in collaboration between Hammersoft and Delta may well ensure it is not, provided Delta becomes more responsive to communication in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem seems to be that Beta desperately wants to make large numbers of edits automatically or semi-automatically, and just isn't good enough at programming to do it without frequently breaking something. What he really needs is outside code review. It might improve his programming skills. Given the communication issues, though... --John Nagle (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had little involvement in this, but my impression is that Δ's main problem is not a lack of programming competency, but rather one of [temporary] obstinacy, and perhaps one of lacking knowledge of editing standards outside Wikipedia. See the archived discussions about dates of book publishing: User talk:Δ/20110901; AN thread. He usually changes his script when enough people complain about a particular aspect of it. That talk archive page has some genuine bug reports, but also at least four design complaints: (1) switching articles to WP:LDR, (2) switching non-temlpated book citation to {{cite book}}, (3) the publishing date issue, and (4) linking to main google book page [not page preview]. However his first reaction seems to be "it's not a bug, it's a feature". The main communication problem seems to be that his semi-automated clean-up tasks aren't documented anywhere as far as I can tell, and his scripts seem to get enriched with new features that don't seem to be discussed with anyone prior to their implementation. I don't know if that's a violation of some Wikipedia policies or of his restrictions or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that User:Δ/Proposed tasks was created yesterday by a friend of his. Perhaps there's hope of a more cooperative approach here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you've got contributions going back to 2005. Unless you've spent your wiki career under the proverbial rock you should know this isn't the community's first kick at the can with Delta. No one takes blocking Delta lightly and outside of possibly Giano, jimbo and that on wheels guy I doubt anyone else has ever received this much attention and/or community effort to work with him and shape him into an editor that is here to work with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fram - it is not my intention to muddy the water, it is my intention to show that 'pattern' can be turned into anything positive or negative, and then Δ gets the block as soon as someone defines a pattern as being negative - or even when all edits in the pattern are in fact 'positive'.

@all: OK, there is a restriction that should stop patterns. That is all fine, it has been lengthy discussed etc. I can see the necessity of it. I do however think that the risk with the broadness of the term 'pattern' is that things evolve to being a pattern, and that anything - positive and negative - can be construed as a pattern (which I tried to show with my reductio ad absurdum). One removes an image left, and an image right, and there is no pattern yet, but when it approaches - even over 5000 edits spread over months - 25 times a removed image, it can be, and obviously is, construed as a pattern - especially when it then comes in longer bursts where that is happening. For more, see suggestion below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a case of "take the first letters of every article Beta edits, turn them into numbers and divide by three and you get the Fibonacci sequence". It's BetaCommand carrying out a series of small, rapid cleanup tasks with generic summaries which closely approximate the sort of things that bots and scripts are written to do. This is why most bans include the words "broadly construed". We do not want banned editors to test the waters of their bans. We want them to stop doing what they were banned for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, Chris. And I know that certain edits mentioned here are pretty clearly a pattern, but I do think on the other hand, that if you take out the obvious patterns, there will be less obvious patterns (but which are still not as absurd as I, Hammersoft or now you put them). I am not excusing Delta from not seeing the obvious patterns and not asking permission for it, but I do think that when first there is an AN/I thread saying that there is not really a pattern, Δ editing on with that thought and then a month later after hardly any discussion someone comes, construes something/it as a pattern (which it now apparently is, while first it was ot) and blocks Δ is not the way forward. I've been on Wikipedia a long time - and I do know how effective WP:BEANS really is - even if it is not a suggestion, but just as a practice that works. Δ now asks permission for 30 patterns (and may get all 41 granted), starts editing, and one 'Beta-blocker' (I know, 'Δ-blocker) goes through the edits, and finds obvious pattern 42 and we have another AN/I thread and another (and then probably lengthy) block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Chris, I hope we want banned editors to become productive editors again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on BetaCommand to be careful to stay within his editing restrictions as they may be construed by the admin corps; if he is, after all this time, unable to wrap his brain around what is construed as an automated edit and what isn't then that is not the fault of the admin corps, nor anyone except Beta. If he chooses to skirt close to the edge of the defined restrictions, or otherwise to test them, then he has little recourse when a member of the admin corps (who is likely not perfect, but is almost certainly better-trusted by the community than Beta is) opts to interpret said action as flouting his restrictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know .. but as I said, first an AN/I thread states something is not a pattern, and then it is interpreted by another admin as 'flouting his restrictions'. Again, the WP:BEANS have now been planted to find the pattern that Δ is flouting after this block is expired. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe at this point since there is no definition of "pattern" that Δ's edits in general are a pattern (i.e., 25 edits in mainspace = pattern) which there are attempts to suppress. That's the source of this most recent block; no definition of pattern. Indeed, chaos = pattern [46]. It's hopeless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggestion: If someone finds that something is a pattern in Δ's edits (however obvious or absurd), then that editor is a) bringing that to an AN or AN/I thread and b) obviously notifies Δ of the thread. Δ is at that point to stop with performing edits that were construed as being part of a 'pattern' (disable it in a script, whatever, just stop it). Either the community answer is 'this looks like a pattern indeed, Δ needs to go through VPP' (note: Δ can do that immediately when notified, even when community is not yet certain if it is a pattern, if it is not really a pattern, if the pattern is absurd, if it is necessary, whatever, going to get it is wise anyway - that can also be done when an editor notifies Δ privately (also wise), but then is not sanctionable if Δ would not), or the community dismisses the pattern as not being a pattern. There will be no blocks applied, even if it is deemed that over the last thousands of edits there were way over 25 of said pattern and the community does notice that Δ did not ask for permission for that pattern (blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern). Note, that if Δ himself thinks certain edits can be construed as a pattern, then he should go to VPP as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I do admire the refuge in audacity that is repeatedly suggesting BetaCommand's editing restrictions should be enforced by not enforcing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the 'blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern'? All I try to prevent here, is that less obvious patterns are resulting in immediate lengthy (and technically correct) blocks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not miss that you graciously offered to allow for BetaCommand's current editing restrictions to be enforced using the standard method after a new series of hoops are jumped through. I also did not miss your new blanket retroactive immunity for any edits made up until this new "warning" phase, which suggests that Beta could simply work in 10,000-edit bursts so long as he could complete each run in time to halt it when the VPP thread inevitably turned up. What I perhaps missed is whom exactly you think you're likely to persuade here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got me there, did not think about that loophole. Though there is still a restriction on edit-speed (so 10,000 edits is difficult to attain), and I am sure 50 in a row would be impossible due to the monitoring that is applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We still have the issue with the current restriction above against edits which are automated or appear automated. Delta needs to just stay away from scripts full stop. That's the suggestion. Frankly, I seem to recall more than one person thinking Delta is running automatic scripts or a bot on his main account the way he edits sometimes. There has been a lot of that going on, and it has been causing issues on top of that. Pretending he didn't make those edits or ignoring it won't make the issue go away.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no restriction on Δ using a script. Given that, there's no point to your opposition here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delta is prohibited from making edits which are automatic or appear automatic. This would include using a script if his work appears automatic. It's clearly listed on his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• ...and is completely irrelevant here, because it's not what he was blocked for. That was editing in a pattern, regardless of any automation (and it was fairly clearly a manual script). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You apply the adjective "manual" to "script" as though an exemption, but surely it's impossible by definition for a script to be manual — that is, unless he's a human Perl interpreter, running the code in his head with a Wikipedia edit box and a pageholder bearing a printout of the source side-by-side. I assume he's painstakingly typing the word "Cleanup" with precisely the same capitalisation in each edit summary box. His achievement of 6 edits/min is testament to his phenomenal, computer-like brain; I could, in which case, make a fortune writing his biography. --Tristessa (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you do realise that it is possible to type the word 'Cleanup', manually, a couple of thousands of times in the same way (sure, tedious), and do 6 edits manually with tabbed browsing within a minute (easy, I can do more), and it is even possible to actually combine those two. No scripts involved there. Point is, it is entirely possible to do 100 edits by hand, which are a pattern, and I hope that you blocked him for editing with a pattern without having consensus for that pattern, not for scripted, and not for automated edits (I do agree that the term 'manual script' is a bit strange - script assisted edits or something like that is more likely). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• As a point of fact, I frequently conduct group of edits where the edits are completed within a minute or two, have the same edit summary, and conduct the same work. I don't use a script to do this. I am using an electronic device to assist me though. I'm confident Δ uses a similar device as well. Unfortunately for him, that device hasn't been explicitly authorized by consensus for him to use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delta listing edits as vandalism when they are not

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

---

I just came across this revert that Delta has made. He identified an edit on his userpage as vandalism when it was in fact not vandalism. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit that you linked to, way back in June, shows him reverting what was at best a misplaced talkpage notice that ended up on his userpage instead of his user talk; at worst it was also one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" type messages that arguably shouldn't have been placed for him anyway as per WP:DTR and was intended to annoy, or else was the accidental result of an automatic process. I hardly therefore see why it matters whether he clicked the "vandalism" button in TW or not. And, lest this become a forum for generalised whacking of Delta, this is a discussion specifically about his sanctions and recent enforcement, not dredging up every single potentially questionable edit he has ever made to drag him through the mud with. --Tristessa (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not know there was a statute of limitations when it came to reporting objectionable activity. Second, Delta is one of the most controversial figured in Wikipedia, so a "generalized whacking" (as you put it) it not occuring spontaneously but as a result of careful examination of his actions. Third, one generally apologizes when they have done something in error or incorrectly. That does not seem to have occured in this case, indicating that it was an action that was not in error. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it appears to have been mistaken. But it's not actionable. Even in the midst of an investigation into other behavior we're responding to, this is not something anyone is going to act upon.

A pattern of calling other people's edits vandalism would be another thing. But one own user page reversion using an automated tool which leaves a borderline "vandalism" edit summary is not a pattern nor an issue.

We have bigger issues to review, and tiny infractions aren't worth bringing up here. We have to keep things in perspective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Either the IP is actually user Alucardbarnivous, or he's trying to speak for him, neither of which would be a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither true, actually. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by Hammersoft

I was going to just carry on when I made my comments at VPP earlier, but I've noticed that since I've commented there, he's added a whole pile of extremely trivial requests of no specific direction which don't really seem in-line with the intention of Delta's restriction. It seems like Hammersoft is fishing to add all kinds of blanket "Exceptions" to Delta's editing restrictions rather than propose that delta is about to undertake a specific task as would seem to be indicated by the restriction. These edits come across as pointy, WP:BEAN, WP:GAME, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the community, and basically boil down to being disruptive. Despite the fact that out of the first 12 or so he proposed, only 1 or 2 really had any traction, including the blanket "oppose all"s at the top, he's gone and proposed several more. As someone pointed out, it would seem the intention behind this restriction is in a scenario like this: Delta seems an issue with a series of articles. Perhaps all the articles in a project need pictures, but only 5 out of 200 have them. He wants to add a picture request template to the articles. So he goes to VPP and says "I want to make 195 additions of this template to the articles in this scope, what do you think? much as one might propose a bot task. Instead Hammersoft is attempting to add indefinite exceptions of no scope and no time frame to the list of restrictions we already have. And in fact, despite doing that, all Hammersoft is really asking is that Delta be allowed to perform these tasks. He's already allowed to perform, but if he's going to make similar changes to a large group of articles he should just propose it first to make sure there are no preemptive objections. This entire situation reminds me of the mess we have sometimes when someone decides to AfD 50 articles from a single project (like that transformers thing) this is just entirely unmanageable and disruptive per the above cited policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Every requested task are edits that Δ has previously done and someone might construe as constituting a pattern. It is a good faith effort. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. Am I asking for indefinite exceptions? No, but if I were you need only look as far as the first bullet item in his restrictions, which also has no time frame. 20 edits from 2009 and 20 from 2011 can be construed as a pattern underneath that restriction. Perhaps you might suggest a re-wording of the restriction to clarify the issue? What I am hoping to achieve is to avoid situations where an editor looks through a few months of his editing history and demands linking to a thread at WP:VPR showing where he had approval to do edits of a particular type. That's happened several times already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason it has happened is because Beta has refused to follow his restriction, not because the restriction was too vague for him to understand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I understand you oppose Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't oppose him editing. I oppose efforts to enable the particular sorts of editing that he has proven unable to perform productively. Ironically, proposals such as yours to allow him to edit more freely will only result in him coming under stronger sanctions later, because he has shown time and time again that he is unable or unwilling to perform certain types of tasks without controversy. The solution is to find things that he is able to do, not to allow him to dig a deeper hole for himself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You oppose him doing maintenance tasks because you believe he's unsuited to them. I believe he is. My opinion is worthless, yours is gold. I am not making ANY proposal for him to edit more freely. You (if I recall) and others have demanded he provide evidence he made requests at WP:VPR for various editing he has done. Now the requests are being made and you cry foul? What the hell is he supposed to do? You are not giving him any way out except to quit the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are indeed making proposals on the village pump to allow him to perform various tasks in an automated or semi-automated manner without further review. Ironically, if I did want to see Beta banned (which I do not), the best way to accomplish it would be to convince everyone to allow him to go back to the sorts of edits that led to the restrictions in the first place. That seems to be what you are seeking in your proposals. The only way to prevent Beta from being banned is to break the cycle of chronically disruptive editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't seem to work. He is doing semi-automated editing whether you like it or not. That is certainly the bulk of his edits for the past 3 months. The only alternative to a full site ban is to let him do those tasks that he can code correctly and that are uncontroversial. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If he continues the way he has been, it is clear he will eventually be banned again. Experience shows that he is not able (or not willing) to limit his maintenance work to correctly coded uncontroversial tasks. So I think we mostly agree. But I think there is a chance he could continue to edit if he were willing to change to a different sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is completely counterproductive for Hammersoft to continue to act as Delta's spokesperson and uncritical apologist. How is Delta going to show that he has learned how to express and explain himself and to respond to community concerns and complaints, if someone else is constantly doing it for him? The implicit statement is that not even Hammersoft trusts him to speak for himself. Is there a way we can put an end to this? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. When the last round of problems with Beta's non-free image work came up, Hammersoft argued vehemently that tere was no problem at all. Beta ended up topic-banned from non-free images. When Tristessa attemtped to discuss concerns with pattern editing, HS took over and argued the case right into the ground. A little later, Tristessa blocks Beta for pattern editing. Now HS is once more tenaciously leading the fight to get all these tasks approved and it looks like at least half are being rejected. And that's better than Beta could do himself? Franamax (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So what's next, you're going to ban me from something? I frequently am an advocate for people who are being unjustly treated here. Δ isn't isolated. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Really? You want to go with unjust treatment? Delta brought this on himself over the years of poor behaviour. His repeated inability to not get it, and the direct result of the ever dwindling number of those running around enabling that behaviour. Delta probably owns the record for most chances given, and the current restrictions exist only because of that past behaviour. He has utterly failed almost from the time he was unbanned until now to work within these restrictions. Restrictions he agreed to follow. There isn't anything remotely unjust about the way he's being treated.--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So you would suggest Δ receive no help, no input, no assistance...that whatever his faults, nobody can help him? He has to prove he's perfect by all the various insane measures being applied to him, and do so on his own under pain of banishment from the site? Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, Hammersoft, your recent edits say that NFCC#10c content "MUST be removed". The actual quote from the policy is "the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Please change your edit summary to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to take up issues with my editing elsewhere. This isn't the forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're going to get very little sympathy if you continue misstating policy just because you were warned in the wrong forum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've started discussion on your talk page regarding the edits. Feel free to contribute to that conversation or not. This entire thread is about Δ, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• My talk page isn't the right place to discuss your edits. An AN/I thread about disruptive editing on your part will do nicely, I think.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then feel free to do so, rather than co-opting this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is completely counterproductive is for certain editors to attack the few, like Hammersoft, who try to address greater wrongs, and help editors who are slammed by badly constructed, too broad restrictions. Unfortunately, like in the real world, few get popular by trying to help the downtrodden, while piling in and kicking those who are down - and the few who try to help them - is a much more popular sport. Recommended reading #1 and #2 come to mind, although I recognize well they are just a voice crying in the wild... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. You're saying that after Δ wrote [47]:

This bullshit idiocy is irritating, along with the stalking and harassment. One day my edits are OK, and then less than 30 days later Im blocked out of the blue because the same edits I was making a month ago........ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you find his civility restriction pointless as well, but not because it doesn't get enforced. And perhaps the WP:BOTPOL is useless too. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the language, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. It is absurd that one month a set of edits is not viewed as a pattern, and a month later without discussion he is blocked for the same type of edits. THAT is a facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• It was immediately clear to me he was doing semi-automated edits just by sampling a few around the one that intersected my watch list. I just had no idea he was under community restrictions. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• He is not prohibited from performing such edits. The issue isn't using a script. It's the definition of "pattern". There's some efforts under way to more tightly define what "pattern" is to avoid situations like this in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You have argued to death here that his repetitive tasks are not a pattern. Nobody is buying this theory but you and Dirk Beetstra. Please desist with this nonsense. See for instance how he volunteers that he is "standardizing references"; his edits in that series triggered more than one editor to comment on his talk page. User talk:Δ/20110901#Google Books links, and subsequent threads. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, I've argued to death that the definition of pattern needs to be clarified. There is a huge difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Well in that case wouldn't it be optimal to actually define what a "pattern" is, rather than having a huge and pointless circular argument where everyone makes up their own definition and then claims it to be "obvious"? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I agree with Hammersoft, there is no clear definition of what a pattern is. Until there is a definition, Δ should not be blocked again for "violating" editing restriction #1. I stated my points over at WP:VPP, I believe the restriction is quite ridiculous. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think making it clear is perfectly reasonable behaviour - a large number of people seem to have an issue with clarity - clarity is always good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What folks may mean is where use of automated tools looks probable, without the near-impossible burden of proving it. And most likely the issue is those that are not low key maintenance types, i.e. edits where someone would expect a genuine edit summary of substance, (and the related case-by-case deliberation which that indicates) written for the specific edit. Which may be the answer. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't around when the restriction were drafted, so I use the Webster to interpret "pattern" as:

a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution <a behavior pattern> <spending patterns>

a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts <foreign policy patterns>

frequent or widespread incidence <a pattern of dissent> <a pattern of violence>

What Δ was doing "standardizing references" seems to fit these definitions for example. And so was removing deleted images. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We could probably take this to ArbCom if there's community disagreement whether what Δ was doing had patterns or not. ArbCom's evidence pages allow more analysis than is normally possible on noticeboards. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• And what benefit would that yield? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can't you deduce from the explanation I gave above? [I just changed my user name, by the way.] ʔ (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the past 24 hours are any indication, taking it to ArbCom would result in 20,000+ words, 60 pages worth of argumentation, and we'd still not have a definition of "pattern" for our purposes. Your dicdef, among other problems, doesn't contain a time frame. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, since we literally have lawyers on the ArbCom (e.g. Newyorkbrad), maybe they'll come up with a better set of restrictions than the community managed, or perhaps they'll remove them altogether as impractical given Δ's editing focus. Do you think they could handle that? ʔ (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think taking it to ARBCOM is a good idea. The village pump process seems to be producing sane results - it took 15 minutes to respond to all the points there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout any sequence of edits that doesn't have edit summaries specialized to the particular edit? North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we just topic ban Hammersoft from commenting about Betacommand in any way? Jtrainor (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we all chill out? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd buy that for a dollar. As far as pattern goes, I'd suggest that any repetitive task (e.g. deciding to remove all the deleted images from a list of articles is a pattern) or any kind of theme of edits, general cleanup which may be labelled as such but include some variation in each article (ref cleanup, typo fixes, date maintenance, etc) would be a pattern. It would also need to happen over a reasonable time frame. Dirk and Hammersoft have been harping on this whole scenario where they claim someone is going to find 25 like edits that stretch over the last 2 years and have him banned on them. But I've seen no evidence to support that (hence my point about the VPP process being an assumption of bad faith, as it was born out of that mindset), but I'd suggest that if he's going to run his "semi"-automatic script on more than 24 articles in a 48 hour period he should propose it's function and get feedback first.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You imply that two years is an unreasonable time frame, and attack me for posting to WP:VPR in bad faith, and then come up with your own personal definition of "pattern"? So I'm posting in bad faith because I can see people construing two years as a pattern, and you're posting in good faith because your opinion is 48 hours. Do you not see the disconnect? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it's an unreasonable time frame, and this fear that you and dirk have worked up over it seems to have no basis in reality. Other then Delta's just generally poor editing behaviour over the last 2 years (civility, stubborness, that kind of stuff) have you ever seen anyone try to put together diffs stretching over 2 years to claim he was making a specific kind of pattern of edits? No, I don't think you have, and trying to make all these pointy proposals based on that fear is a bad faith assumption. My suggestion is simply that, a suggestion, something I'd view as a reasonable time frame, people are free to discuss it and modify it as the community saw fit. You were using your assumption as motivation for what looks like the issues I laid out above. Two entirely different scenarios.--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When I saw this thread and watched everyone's own definition of "pattern", this thing comes into my mind. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several proposals on WP:VPR to more accurately define "pattern". Constructive comments are welcome. Solipsism is probably something we could do without, unless you personally volunteer to physically oversee Δ's activities. Uʔ (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ʔ - I think you did misunderstand Hammersofts (and also my) reductio ad absurdum of 'pattern'. Yes, there are edits which can constitute a pattern, I am not disagreeing on that. The point is, that when you either take out the pattern that is now there, or when you allow certain parts of the pattern, a new pattern will emerge (he is then doing a pattern of edits which is created of edits which are following an allowed pattern - but he does not have permission do to a pattern of patterned edits). a) the word pattern is too vague - b) the timeframe of 'pattern' is too vague - if he does 25 edits in a row which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is a pattern (that is what he did now), if he does 25 edits in a set of 100 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is arguably also a pattern, if he, from the moment that he is allowed to edit, until now does 25 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common .. then one could construe that as a pattern. Maybe I am reducing this ad absurdum, but unfortunately the beta-blockers have that handle with this vague description.

For ARBCOM - I do not expect them to lay out the definition of 'pattern' for us, they will maybe enforce or confirm the restriction, and still leave the definition and specifics of the word 'pattern' to us (they may even add 'broadly construed' to the term pattern, so it becomes even more vague). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Exhaustively defining Beta's editing restrictions to cover every real or imagined permutation is not a productive use of our time. The inevitable outcome is that the restrictions will become broader over time rather than more specific until either Beta stops testing the waters and does something useful with his time or he is blocked from editing entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand that, and there will always be cases slipping through. But using some common sense to define 'pattern' (as opposed to leaving it totally blank) is necessary here - otherwise we can just as well indef Δ now and get over it and avoid all future dramah, as that is simply what is the outcome. I know that is not what the general aim is of all people here, but that is what is the general outcome of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The expected outcome is that Beta refrains from editing like a robot, because time and again he's shown that allowing him to do so causes disruption. In that respect, two dozen exceptions to Beta's restrictions which cover things which we could do (and do do) with a Perl script does not help with that at all. His supporters should be trying to wean him off these edits, not simply prevent him from being blocked when he makes them. As for simply banning him entirely, we edge closer and closer to that outcome every time we end up back here, as it does indeed look like the path of least drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Δ's supporters constantly state that, with respect to Δ's sanctions, no definition of a "pattern" yet exists. They also claim that a usual interpretation of what "pattern" might mean is in fact not a pattern, and it's all a big, tragic misinterpretation on the rest of the community's part. I believe this is simply an attempt to have him exempted from the editing restrictions by forcing as unusual, and as abstract, a definition of a "pattern" as possible; and that their proposed definition is actually "nothing that Δ ever does". In addition, we have heard from CBM (talk · contribs) since this thread opened who helped draft the wording of the community editing restriction, and he clarified that Δ's editing is exactly the sort of thing he was meant to be restricted from doing. The act of applying the same set of "cleanup" general fixes to a range of multiple articles should, I think, more than adequately class as a pattern in most editors' eyes. The existence of "patterns" should be left to individual administrator discretion to determine, a state of affairs that appears to be broken only in the eyes of people trying to help him avoid the sanctions. We have, for once, proper dialogue on the tasks that he is able to undertake with permission at WP:VPP, which means there is now surely no excuse for not bringing automated tasks to community approval. The attempts to include modifications to the sanction to ambiguously permit MoS edits, or redefine the word "pattern" to a sideline meaning not related to the problematic behaviours, are not helping; the correct course of action is already happening. But what I would like to see is more of these users assisting Δ to liase effectively with the community, and less of them trying to find or generate loopholes in the sanctions. --Tristessa (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that each individual discussion is starting with a blanket 4 people opposing each one, I can't see you (generally used) generate enough support for most or any of those to actually go anywhere. About the only one remotely going anywhere is #7, which a bot already does, #18, which a bot already does, and that's basically it. The rest all either have significant opposes in the discussions, or the handful of supports they've gained really don't make an overwhelming consensus in the face of the opposes at the top. Hence why I brought this here, as this was more or less clear before the last 7 or 8 were added.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blanket opposes have little or no basis. It's opposing to oppose. It's like opposing an RfA with a rationale of "because". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize any more tasks, it is bureaucratic to make them say so 20 times. Once at the top is sufficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize him, then they should make a proposal to ban him from article space. Blanket opposes do nothing to help foster a consensus building environment, and are antithetical to the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, if the flock of proposals is engineered so that the status quo is not an available choice then it amounts to a wikigame. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The status quo is that Δ can edit mainspace. Blanket opposes are nothing more than an attempt to ban him, without consensus, from editing mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Beta is free to edit mainspace in non-automated fashion. If you're okay with that status quo, then perhaps you'll withdraw your proposals? We shouldn't have to re-vote to affirm the community decision every time Beta tests or violates his restrictions or one of his supporters wants to lift them. At some point the community has made its decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Δ is required to seek permission to perform edits that can be construed as a pattern. These requests are being done in support of that requirement. I will not withdraw them. The problem isn't the requests, it's the definition of pattern. Every one of the proposals so far made can be construed as a pattern, if enough of them are done. Since these edits have been done in the past, moving forward to do any more of them requires approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• And those proposals are being individually considered by multiple editors. Yet when editors register and explain their considered objections, you claim it is opposing for the sake of opposing and should be dismissed. You are the one who decided to make the individual proposals. You shouldn't complain if some or most of them are rejected on their individual merits. Franamax (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blanket opposes are opposing "because". It's not considering each proposal. I have no objection to proposals being rejected on their individual merits. A blanket oppose is no better than a person coming to WP:AN/I and saying "I hereby disagree with every thread here". It's meaningless and empty. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • They are not simply "because". It is perfectly reasonable for the reviewers to take into account both the request and the person making the request. If reviewers do not feel Beta is suitable to perform the tasks, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation for opposing the proposal. Reviewers are allowed to take Beta's history into account when they look at his proposals - that's the point, actually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that each proposal is not being reviewed on its merits. Instead, it's a blanket oppose to Δ doing anything. There is no such sanction on the table or being discussed. If someone wants to propose that, fine. But, to attempt to use a blanket oppose to stop all proposed tasks is missing the mark by a mile. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The notion that each proposal should be considered strictly on its merits, in a vacuum, without even the possibility of considering the long and colorful history behind all of this -- to wit, applying the sanctions blindly without considering why they were put in place to begin with -- seems very novel. There was no wording in the sanctions that suggests Δ would be allowed to continue semi-automated edits indefinitely; in fact, it's clear from even a cursory reading of them that he is only going to be allowed to do so where and when he has the community's support, as judged by consensus. If, as you seem to be suggesting, we should discount opposition to each proposal that "is not being reviewed on its merits", how do you feel we should interpret support which apparently does the same? Yours, for example. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. If the requests are made to WP:VPR, there's a problem. If they aren't made, there's a problem. If the requests are made, but we don't consider everything about Δ in each and every request, there's a problem. Nevermind that there's no sanction against him forbidding him to edit in mainspace. All of us have created one hell of a Gordian knot with no possible way for Δ to edit that isn't going to piss off somebody. Δ can't even remove a whitespace anymore. He's in a straight jacket, and no matter how angelic he is he'll receive harsh criticism. The community has left him with no possible way to avoid pissing it off. Nicely done. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

People will complain about any outcome, probably. Doesn't mean we can't move forward. I take the current discussion at WP:VPR as a step in that direction, in spite of the issues that have been raised. You do bring up a good point, though: we needn't take every proposal as a fresh RfC on Δ. Hopefully, discussing several proposals at once will help to avoid that problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've already explained to you, the problem is in the kind of proposals you're making. Delta is supposed to be making requests for himself, about specific tasks he wants to undertake. One of Delta's problems is communicating with the community, he's not gaining any goodwill by having you running around doing that, especially in the way it has been done here. These things you've proposed are not specific focus tasks, so as far as I'm concerned they're not even remotely valid requests to start with. I've already outlined an example of the kinds of tasks Delta should be proposing and others have confirmed that they should be in that vein. If Delta wants to go around and do certain kinds of clean-up, then he should propose a specific task, e.g. "I'm going to clean-up all the articles that have problem X, it's approximately this many articles (because I'm sure he's got a tool that can generate a list), and while I clean up this problem, I'll also fix problem Y, Z, and A. It'll take approximately B hours/days/etc to do so. Any concerns?" The blanket opposes are more than valid because they are maintaining the status quou and don't see any reason to give Delta any blanket, indefinite exemptions of no real scope to Delta.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Recommend closure of this thread

The block that started this thread expired more than 24 hours ago. There is nothing in this thread that is actionable by an administrator. I am not seeking to squelch discussion about Δ. I believe all of you are having an excellent opportunity to discuss Δ at WP:VPR right now, so you have plenty of opportunity there. I would like to hope someone would be brave enough to close this thread, but I'm beyond such a false hope at this point. So with that, I'm suggesting a straight up/down vote on closing this thread.

• Support closure of this entire thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Good discussion, but this isn't the place. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• oppose as the subject of part of the discussion it isn't really your place to try and shut down the discussion. I still consider your on-going behaviour related to this to be disruptive. And I'm not the only one. You've shown zero understanding of the problem as well.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with Black Kite. If you want to start a thread about my behavior, by all means feel free to do so. I'd certainly welcome it. However, this thread isn't about my behavior. --Hammersoft (talk)

• Oppose, according to a longstanding tradition here, a block of Delta for a time of t is always discussed for a time of at least 10 t. Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not, or else this discussion will have lasted 20 days until it has closed. --Tristessa (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If you want to start a discussion about Hammersoft's behaviour then this isn't the place to do it. But if you do, perhaps you could include editors whose only reason to be here seems to be to throw insults around? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  His edits and this discussion are directly related to the parent issue and entirely relevant here. He's taken it upon himself to be Delta's spokesperson and there is nowhere more relevant--Crossmr (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said above, please by all means feel free to start a thread about me. I would very much welcome it. But, this thread isn't appropriate for it. There's literally dozens of pages worth of debate here, with any comments that might be about me directly intermixed. I'm assuming your purposes are some variety of have me banned from the project, banned from mentioning Δ, banned from NFCC work, etc. Fine, feel free to propose any, all, or more of those. But, your purposes will very much be better served by starting a thread specifically about me. If you don't want to start a thread about me, it's certainly your choice, but your hopes and aspirations with regards to me will not be moved forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did, I started a sub-section in a thread directly related to your disruptive behaviour. That's how we typically do it. Normally if we started two separate threads about related incidents there would be complaints to merge them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure whether anything productive is happening here any more. WP:VPP, if anywhere, should be where the discussion ought to continue (to decide what to do next time). --Tristessa (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, and the issues here have long passed. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support well and truly time to go home - issues are being discussed elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting observations

I'm not sure whether anyone has noticed this or not (or whether it's mentioned elsewhere - perhaps even by Δ himself in some long-forgotten page, I don't know if he'd ever asked for bot approval), but <LINK REMOVED> appears to be the actual script (appears to be Python) hosted on the toolserver that Δ is running to perform his recent "Cleanup" edits. For the sake of demonstration, I made a pair of group of Δ-style "Cleanup" edits with it [48] [49]. Unless Δ takes this down you can try it out for yourself; if you append a page to the end of the URL for the page= parameter while logged in, you can open your very own edit box with a Δ style "Cleanup" edit in it for the page, with the edit summary already filled out. Of interest is that mid-way between the Wikipedia page opening and the HTTP request, a page appears with the legend "Preparing diff, this page will autosubmit with JavaScript" (it didn't autosubmit for me, but I guess something in Δ's monobook.js would trigger this). Further to arguments above that there was no conclusive evidence that Δ was performing his edits via automated/semi-automated means, and that his editing did not constitute a pattern, I believe this conclusively puts this to rest. This is not intended as an attack against Δ, but it does at least show the mechanism he was using, and demonstrates that if he opened the code up to community approval at WP:VPP this would be much easier than debating the terms of the sanction. --Tristessa (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ive gone ahead and removed the link, its not ready for others to use yet, and its not auto-saving, its just auto submitting to wikipedia in order to generate a diff. Once it leaves the test platform Ill make the link public. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

...what's the difference between submitting and saving? I've never seen a "submit to generate diff" box in the interface. In any event, this certainly seems to me like a clear violation of the prohibition against automated/semiautomated editing, in my non-admin opinion. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not prohibited from simi-auto work. This uses the toolserver which cannot auto save pages for you. Instead it just generates a diff, lets you review it, adjust as needed and then save. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/img_removal.py?title=Singapore_Portrait_Series_currency_notes is an example of a fairly stable script that I wrote before I was banned from NFCC enforcement. all you need to do is check the box next to the file in order to remove it for lacking a rationale, please try it but don't actually save the page. I use that same Preparing diff, this page will auto submit with JavaScript. script in all of my web based tools that save content on wiki. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually hate to say it, but that NFCC script is really quite nifty and nicely done. --Tristessa (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few other ideas that I could write up but havent due to the fact of the drama boards and those who love to drag me to them. But If you have any request I can look into creating them. Another tool that hasn't gotten much publicity would be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#Great_news_guys.21 ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I won't push anything; I didn't know about the toolserver having the capability of creating a diff without saving the page. Like I said, I'm not an admin (and don't want to be one!), and since I do all my edits manually, I'm not really up on what scripting is capable of. Thanks for the clarification; I thought there had to be a misunderstanding somewhere along the line, and it turns out it was on my side! rdfox 76 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are prohibited from performing edits that appear automated as well as those which are actually automated. As has been raised before, despite your claim that these are semi-automated, there is concern over how thoroughly you are reviewing some of these as some people believe some of the mistakes you've made should have been caught by a reasonable editor who was properly reviewing their edits and if you're not doing that, your edits are as good as being automatic or appearing automatic.--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Remony repeated copyrighted image uploads

Resolved

Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Remony (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images of Indian actresses with claims that the images are his own work, but has not explained how he is the copyright holder. I have already gone through several of his images a couple of days ago and listed them for deletion discussion, and warned him about them at that time, and yet, he is still uploading professionally created images with claims that he is the creator of the images. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor who self-identifies as being User:Remony has also vandalized the image deletion discussions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

User blocked & blatant CV's were deleted, rest are listed for deletion. Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also blocked as a sock is Block Listed (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 04:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

IP User 74.46.248.251

Resolved

 – IP blocked - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This user just edited my usertalk page with a racially-motivated insult (presumably due to my presence on the talk:Nigger page), though doesn't seem to have any history of other vandalism from that address. I spent a few minutes looking around to see if there's a better place to report this but can't find anything, so I'm reporting the vandalism here.

--Walkersam (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:AIV? Anyway, blocked the IP for 24 hours. Also, even for IPs, he should have been notified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious editing from User: Mimibeo

User: Mimibeo has been constantly making pages on writing processes. I find the numerous pages to be both quite suspicious and annoying. If a reason can extracted, then please inform me. Also, if someone can also inform Mimibeo on article policies that would would be great as well. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 03:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What sysop action is needed here? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not a Francophone, and I don't have a copy of the book, but what I'm seeing in the article appears to be a potential copyvio, lifted straight from the GoogleBooks reference. Someone else will need to examine the material and verify it. Since I don't have that book, and the link to the referenced section appears to deny me access to the material, someone else will need to review the reference and determine if there's enough concern to warrant tagging the article with a {{copyvio}} flag. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the prod and G12'd it. Here's the link to the DDR[50]. Clearly Copyvio. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please review this[51] as I suspect something greater than re-G12ing these every few days needs to occur. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• The blog posts which are verbatim duplicates of the WP article appear to have been made at the same time (October 21 2011). The blog may have been created as a back up for the WP article once the first one (Editing 3-x-3 Writing Process Phase 3) was put up for deletion. I'm not an admin, so can't see the history of that article. Regardless of which came first, they are both such a close paraphrase of Business Communication: Process and Product by Mary Ellen Guffey, et al. as to constitute copyright infringement. Excerpts and adaptations from that textbook appear all over the internet, mostly on university course pages. Note that there are other pages on WP based on the book (also inappropriate "How to"): User:Comm212 JMSB/Prewriting Phase: How to Analyze, Anticipate and Adapt; User:Alain971/Communicating Across Cultures; Persuasive and sales messages; and Negative Messages. All of those were created in March/April 2010 and I'm pretty sure were student assignments at John Molson School of Business in Montreal.

  See also the following AfD discussions from that time: Communicating Across Cultures; Communicating in small groups; Writing Process Phase 1: Analyze, Anticipate, Adapt; Writing process phase 2; Writing Process Phase 3: Revise, Proofread, Evaluate. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Individual is back to creating copy vio content, this time the same article twice, see 3-x-3 writing process phase 3: chapter 7: revise, proofread and evaluate which I just put up for speedy. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block review: Colofac

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block review: Colofac? A close as "keep blocked" or "unblock" is needed to determine whether WP:CBAN #2 is met. As Swarm (talk · contribs) wrote: "a consensus in support of an indef block means that a user is community banned, and that's a far different situation than simply closing a discussion and saying "request unblock normally" (as Jehochman evidently did)." Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting precedents here. DS Belgium (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

AdminHelp - Is this thing on?

Over 12 hours ago I requested that admins look over an escalating dispute on a project's Talk page using the {{adminhelp}} template. As far as I can tell this yielded no response; the conflict consequently escalated. I tried to moderate it, but frankly I think the window of opportunity is probably past now, and I ended up backing out of the situation entirely after User:Jclemens chastised one editor for their incivility while letting others' incivility (notably one editor saying "fuck civility") pass. I'm not asking that anyone necessarily be chastised (certainly not without an admin looking over the discussion), and consequently am not notifying the involved editors. My primary concern is that I did ask for adminhelp using the appropriate template, with apparently no results. If the template is no longer considered useful, I believe it should be indicated as such. If it is considered useful, I have to ask why I received no response for over 12 hours. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doniago (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As another editor who has tried to weigh in and mitigate this dispute a bit (I tried to focus it back on the content) I'd request that anyone who weighs in on this look at the talk pages of the editors involved. There is some pretty disgusting behavior going on ("incivility" is to polite a term) that is being allowed to ride. Like Doniago, I'm pretty much walking away from it. Millahnna (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the time zone you're requesting help from. 12 hours ago would put it at 3am GMT so UK based admins would not be able to respond, not to mention it's a working day so it may be some time bfore admins in the UK might respond. Generally, you'll find that you can get a faster response either by posting here, the admin's noticeboard or at the dispute resolution noticeboard --Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It was well over 12 hours ago, at some point in the afternoon (before 5 pm) Eastern time...actually, 20:00 universal, I think. In any case, I'm not sure what the point of the template is if the bottom line is that, if someone wants a prompt response, they should just post here in any case. The text of the template implies that a response will be "swiftly forthcoming", but that doesn't seem to be the case. As-is, and I acknowledge I'm being a bit picky now, no admins actually have acknowledged the note on my Talk page. Not meaning to be whiny, I just have a concern that I think is genuine about editors using a template that they are led to believe will yield a fast response if that isn't in fact likely to be the case. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone needs to be "warned" about civility, but some walking away on all sides would probably help. Everything will still be there in a couple of days. I note that "fuck civility" (Moni) is not the same thing as "fuck you" (RAP), but no one is an angel here, and things kind of spiralled out of control. It seems like it might be dying down now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted I'm hardly impartial at this point, but given that the "dying down" involves two editors who tried to moderate the conversation basically running away from it and an editor who I'm assuming is good-intentioned but received little but flak for their efforts similarly backing away (granted they ultimately gave as good as they got), the end result strikes me as a net failure. The message would seem to be, "it's fine to bully people as long as you can get them to incriminate themselves as well and you have more people backing you up than they do." I have to question whether that's the message we really want to send. I acknowledge, though, that I'm not necessarily fully aware of the repercussions of the situation, only commenting on what I've observed on the project's Talk page and the Talk page of one of the involved editors. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This project lists civility as one of its lofty core principles, but doesn't uphold that. Would many intelligent people continue to volunteer with, say, Habitat for Humanity if they found that organization did nothing to exclude those who routinely belittle and swear at anyone who disgrees with them? I wonder why the Foundation imagines the project it controls would be different in that way?

It's not like this kind of immaturity has to be tolerated to get a very high-quality result from a volunteer group. On any of Mark Shuttleworth's crowdsourced projects, for example, anyone who acts like an aggressive nine-year old will be politely asked just once to grow up, and then be permanently bounced if he repeats the behavior.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. For an admin to say "fuck civility" (or any of the 5P for that matter) is nothing short of unacceptable. But the response to the admin who called them on it, both from Moni and the gang of lackeys who swiftly rushed to her defense (surprise, surprise), was disgusting. Swarm ^X 18:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The message that appears to be being conveyed, however unintentionally, is indeed that once you've become a "valued contributor" to Wikipedia, Civility becomes an option rather than a requirement, especially if one can argue that they were somehow provoked into being incivil. I truly hope this isn't how the admins actually feel. Doniago (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The inevitable analogy (would non-profit, volunteer organization X allow this-- this time, Habitat for Humanity) is old: Habitat for Humanity would not give adult duties to under-age volunteers and then expect adults to stick around and clean up the ensuing messes. Habitat for Humanity would give reasonable tasks and duties to children, commensurate with their age and ability, and then expect adults to supervise them. These analogies never work, and the problem continues. Wikipedia is not "the real world", and this inevitable comparisons always miss the mark. And yes, there is a big difference between an exasperated "fuck civility" and "fuck you" specifically aimed at one individual. And no, the "civility becomes an option" argument is no more valid, either-- no one has said that. At the point you made the original request, the "fuck you" came from one party, not the other, and he got a warning (from me)-- it's not right to present this as if the original "fuck you" was not one-sided. What we have here is one party understanding Wikipedia's notability policies, and the other not-- at what point will we stop expecting knowledgeable and experienced editors to spend all of their time defending articles according to Wikipedia policies against poor edits? Some understanding of the severity of the underlying problem-- and how it is affecting Wikipedia content contributor and content in ever-increasing magnitude-- is all that is asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And, believe it or not, there's also a big difference between calling someone on inappropriate behavior and disruption. Swarm ^X 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful. Swarm, I'm most curious to know if you consider those who advocated that the message had been recorded and further poking wouldn't help improve the situation as a "gang of lackeys", or if that "gang" includes those who defend content and Wikipedia policies, or just what you mean by "gang of lackeys". It's a rather unhelpful characterization, and I'm wondering if perhaps you aren't as alarmed as some of us are that there at any given time half a dozen or so of these situations going on, where experienced and knowledgeable editors who know policy and defend content have to take inordinate amounts of time to deal with those who don't. The rate at which knowledgeable editors are giving up is worse than I've ever seen it, and the rate at which those leaving are being replaced by those who should be on the playground is a concern. If any of us pretend that the demise of Wikipedia's content as result can be stopped, it would be helpful if we started listening to each other rather than characterizing those who are concerned about this growing problem as a "gang of lackeys". It's a real problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't forget any additional notifications this discussion may have generated by mention/claim of other editors' involvements since this discussion has started. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I lost a long response above in edit conflict, will re-type, but yes ... Moni3 has not been notified of this discussion as far as I know, and since I am apparently now part of a "gang of lackeys", neither have I -- I chanced upon this because I was beginning to gather statistics about just how bad this problem has gotten. I will now re-type my response to Swarm above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to have latched onto the "gang of lackies" bit, you might as well take a look at my response to Floquenbeam on my talk page. Swarm ^X 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SandyGeorgia, have you considered that your "unhelpful" comment is in itself unhelpful? "if we started listening to each other" - Please let me know when you start, and I will too. You're one of the last people I'd want to make an enemy of, I have great respect for the work and research you put into this. But I'm not impressed with your behavior when you talk about how adults act versus children and then you defend Moni's behavior.--v/r - TP 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Sandy, starting a blood feud with you is the last thing I want to do here.--v/r - TP 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't know how to respond this 'cuz I don't think in terms of "blood feuds"-- your comment above is decidedly unconstructive, so I guess there's nothing I can add to it. Been to Swarm's page, but I'm not sure it's helpful to spread this discussion all over creation. In fact, I suggested hours ago that we are in need of an essay page for a place to begin to discuss this serious problem-- and I'm sorry you don't agree with me that the issue of experienced editors increasingly being replaced by immature ones is serious, but ignoring that problem or being muzzled on the topic will not make it go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said I disagreed with you that it wasn't a very serious problem. I just disagree that it excuses certain behaviors. If you think my comments on Moni's page reflect that I devalue her contributions, you'd be wrong. Perhaps an essay targeting long-standing editor retention would be great.It may address how to deal with editors stressed out at having to defend their hard work, and include advice for those editors feeling like their work is "butchered", but that essay could not fit within Wikipedia policy or guidelines if it included verbiage excusing incivility. --v/r - TP 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandy regarding this: "where experienced and knowledgeable editors who know policy and defend content"

Part of the problem in this specific situation is that several (in fact most) of the related articles did not, in fact, comply with policy or guidelines that pertain to writing about fiction in general, and the TV and Buffy projects specifically. A few of them really only needed some tweaks to be brought up to snuff (a general refocusing towards real world information and away from in-universe plot summary problems) and Rusted seems to understand now that he went too far with his bold edits, especially in regards to those articles specifically. But when we were able to bring the conversation at the project page back to the content problem on the articles that are problematic, the responses indicated to me a general lack of awareness of the guidelines and policies about fiction related articles. So while I understand editors who have worked on that project much harder than I have, being defensive about decent articles getting redirected, I don't see much of the "defense of content" that was going on as being about particularly valid content in terms of quality. And then to see the editor that started everything realize his mistake and try to refocus his efforts only to be repeatedly attacked, mocked, and bullied? Yeah the whole situation is whacked. Millahnna (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That is just incorrect, but I don't think this is the place to get into the mistakes. Who has looked at the sources, and who hasn't? Expecting Moni to do all the work (which involves knowing the sources) when others hadn't even looked at sources is what the problem was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to close this in a while once I've read over the discussion. FWIW, Jclemens appears to have contributed to the discussion as an editor rather than an admin (or indeed an Arb): he's certainly not got the trust of the community to act in an elevated role as regards discussions concerning the notability of fiction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you planning to close a topic that Moni wasn't even advised of (until I did so a bit ago)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I meant passing an uninvolved comment on the dispute in an admin capacity, not this ANI thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question. I have been involved with this dispute and as a result have been labeled Moni's "guard dog" and "lackey" (and notice that the latter word has been used here, too). I have never defended her behaviour and actually asked her to get a grip (though I did start to lose it eventually, myself), and never even got to the point where I had an opinion on the actual need for the re-directs because he wouldn't provide a list of articles he wanted dealt with. I got dismissed out of hand as a "lackey", while trying to communicate to RAP that the guidelines for making such sweeping changes were there for a reason, and that's what my question to all of you is about: Since this whole thing started because someone with insufficient experience to understand the ramifications of his actions made an executive decision and then re-directed 10 or so articles on his own, without beginning a discussion or researching the history of these articles, or having the first clue of the amount of follow-up work that would be required after the re-directs, is there not some way to make such an action off-limits to just anyone? I would never have attempted such a move myself without asking for lots of help, advice, feedback, etc., well in advance, and would have started by saying "I was thinking this might be a good idea." I think the Habitat for Humanity analogy is apt in that someone pointed out that inexperienced volunteers would not be entrusted with advanced tasks, and that's what we had here. Now clearly the roof really won't fall in this case, but my own attempts to inform RAP about what his actions were going to lead to were ignored, as were my notes re the protocol for such a move, and that's where my own frustration level rose--if newbies won't learn, or at least won't say they've taken note of the rules and now get that what they did was a problem (usually because they're entrenched behind defensiveness), how do we deal with them? I consider myself a newbie in some ways and am completely inexperienced in many of what I would call structural issues of WP, but am old and wise enough not to attempt anything outside of what I know how to do. We don't seem to have any built-in defenses or warning systems or anything to give pause to someone who, as he said himself, did what he did because he "saw others doing it and thought he should do it, too". Is there a way to limit such actions? I realize that there are all sorts of guidelines available to those who go looking for them, but those who are inclined to ignore such guildelines never go looking for them, so I'm wondering if there is an alternative. --TEHodson 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The kind of essay I'm looking for is not how experienced editors and admins can deal with stress-- it's how we can get the admin corp to deal more effectively with disruptive editors. RAP's actions here were good-faith, well-meaning, but misguided disruption, and we see that increasingly as the norm, it's everywhere now, and it's causing experienced editors to leave in numbers higher than I've ever seen. To pretend that it isn't related (although not entirely caused by) the increasing numbers of child editors would be naive-- it takes a certain amount of scholarship, and hours of research, to recognize the error in the redirects that led to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jclemens notified here[52]. Thanks SandyGeorgia for the other notification. Was running out the door and didnt have time for more than the request above. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Having just read through the entire history of this mess that unfortunately sprawls across ANI, article talk pages and user talk pages, I'm going to have to agree with the sentiment echoed repeated above that there is a tendency to ignore blatant incivility when it comes from established members to an extreme that would quickly result in a block for someone else. Civility isn't a guideline that you can ignore when you just can't be bothered with being nice, it's policy. I certainly empathize with Moni3 quite a bit about having to repeatedly defend articles from new editors that take it upon themselves to remove contested, sourced content without consensus, but that isn't a license to say things like "fuck civility" or "Would it be untoward for me to tell someone to eat a bag of dicks?" and other general snarkiness. Everyone who has been around this project for a little while gets frustrated as hell at some point, and damned near everyone lapses into incivility. The line comes when someone refuses to acknowledge their poor behavior. (which is even more difficult to do when there is no shortage of enablers that constantly defend incivility among their colleagues.) I've learned to deal with frustration on Wikipedia by standing up, stretching, and taking a walk before posting something nasty. It's a difficult thing to do, but not that difficult. And seriously, if someone can't learn how to be civil, it's time to knock that "semi" off their "retired" banner and go away for good. It's in the best interests of both themselves and the project. Trusilver 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeating that meme over and over won't make it true. Most recently, there was an asymmetrical block of Malleus Fatuorum, where the other party got off with nothing. We see it all the time. Civility isn't a guideline we can ignore, but admins "policing civility" apply the policy unequally all the time. And why do we never hear that disruptive editing, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, failure to respect numerous Wikipedia content policies, etc, are not policies we can ignore? I'm not sure what the relevance is of how you, in particular, deal with frustration and how that applies to anyone else-- I know what content contributors face and are growing increasingly frustrated at, since civility is policed but editors who ignore policy to disrupt and destroy content is not, allowing people to politely destroy the reason we're supposed to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been explained over and over, that that was an "asymetrical block", because Malleus has a history of incivility as long as his arm, while the other editor involved did not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The oft-repeated meme was: "... there is a tendency to ignore blatant incivility when it comes from established members to an extreme that would quickly result in a block for someone else." No quick block of the other party, only the established member. The usual. Your interpretation of Malleus's block log doesn't make the meme factual or logical.

Nor will the focus on civility change the situation being discussed below-- that admins won't pay attention to requests for help in content issues, but will police civility, and that ultimately drives content editors to the brink of frustration. In this conversation, we've got an utterly clear talk page discussion where one editor knows and applies policy, and the other apparently has no clue; this isn't even difficult, but as expressed below, admins won't engage. The other party honestly said this:

• Joyce Summers could be saved, considering she was a vital part of Buffy's life. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:50 26 October 2011 [53]

Now there's a hefty understanding of our sourcing and notability policies-- keep a character article because of her role, not because of what reliable sources and scholarship have to say about the role and the character. The real concern is why admins are so quick to enforce (unequally) their notions of civility, but only one (JClemens [54]) weighed in on such an obvious content matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Further logical fallacy in Trusilver's meme, Rusted Auto Parts said "fuck you" and more directly to Moni3, yet Trusilver doesn't even mention that in summary (nor does the original poster here), so where's this "tendency to ignore blatant incivility when it comes from established members to an extreme that would quickly result in a block for someone else" summary of the situation wrt Moni3 coming from? Tbhotch got away with incivility towards Malleus; Rusted Auto Parts towards Moni3. Meme is wrong. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the other editor (you know, the one destroying content on notable articles created by others?) goes on to astound with his knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, but let's not let content trouble us, please-- policing politeness most assuredly should trump policing competence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All through college and my professional life (we are talking more than 20 years now), I have witnessed untold numbers of people with differing opinions that have amazingly been able to deal with that fact without ever tossing a single "fuck you" around. How does such an amazing feat take place? Because all of these people don't have the anonymity of the internet to hide behind. People suddenly gain a hell of a lot of courage when they don't have to actually face the person they are in a confrontation with. I might be completely wrong, but I would be willing to bet all the money in my wallet right now that Encyclopedia Britannica was compiled without a single person suggesting someone else "eat a bag of dicks". My personal views on civility? I think that every. single. person. who shows a consistent inability to be civil should get a kick out the door, I don't care if it's an IP editor, a long-term content contributor, Randy from Boise, or a member of ArbCom. Does this mean that some very good content contributors will be gone? Yep... I guess it does. But that's the beauty of collaboration! Nobody here is irreplaceable. Without that individual, there WILL be articles that aren't written or improved as quickly, but they eventually will be... by someone able to keep their mental issues in check. I have nothing more to say on the matter. Good day. Trusilver 06:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. {{applause}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As well said as can be. Swarm ^X 06:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well said! And. I. mustadmit. I enjoyed... your. Shatner. moment. above. as-well. It can be tough at times, but it's something to strive for. I intentionally went for a lack of anonymity here, though it's not a good idea for many people sadly. Which creates, through necessity (for privacy/anonymity), our current situation. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very well said. I despair for our civility policy. Some people claim that certain editors are so valuable that their lapses can be forgiven, but I think it is as likely that we lose or don't even attract editors because we don't enforce our civility policy evenly - we want to attract new editors but we don't provide the environment we promise them. Maybe it's time to have an RfC on our civility policy if we can't enforce it. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't join the chorus of praise until equal time is given to our equally important core content policies. I understand that policing behavior is easier, but does anyone notice something missing in Trusilver's screed? Like ... My personal views on reliable sources, verifiability, and NPOV? I think that every. single. person. who shows a consistent inability to understand these core policies should get a kick out the door, I don't care if it's an IP editor, a long-term content contributor, Randy from Boise, or a member of ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with the idea that there's a major problem with understanding core content policies around wikipedia. And since I work primarily on fiction related articles, that's part of why I'm having such a hard time with this dispute. We have very sound policies on writing about fiction and how such articles need notable, reliably sourced, real-world information. Many of the articles in question have little (if any) real world information. Where is the information on casting, character portrayal, themes, reception, etc.? Some of them it will be possible to find; even a quick google search shows this (and as Moni has said, she has access to some of the material that is not available online). Some of them, as is being discussed at the project page, turn out to have very little real world information that we can use to expand the articles beyond plot summary. Wiki's general fiction guidelines, the TV project and the Buffy project all have fairly specific policies about articles that are mainly plot summary. Millahnna (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Enforcing policies

We actually have far less of a problem with flagrant abuse of the civility policy than we used to. Things are improving. Editors who cannot or will not be civil eventually either leave or get banned, and we tolerate it far less from editors who come in to replace them. As with many ANI tropes, "CIVIL isn't working" largely isn't the case outside of the dramaboards and the usual suspects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about this that hasn't already been said, and probably by people with more experience in this sort of matter than I possess, but I will say the recent opinions make me feel a bit better about this situation than I was feeling previously, so thank you for that. The situation that actually prompted my ANI filing (as opposed to the massive left turn it ended up taking) still seems to be a bit of a mess, but it seems to be getting the attention I think it needs now. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain if we have far less of a problem enforcing civility as Chris C says, but I know we have an enormous problem enforcing content policies, and it is not abating, and users who flaunt those policies do not eventually either leave or get banned. And this is the problem that admins typically either won't or can't enforce. Of course, blocking editors for allegedly uncivil comments (usually asymmetrically depending on the admin's own preferences) is much easier than consulting sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All policies need to be enforced - yes, those who refuse to follow content policies should be given just as hard a kick in the backside as those who are uncivil, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce civility until we can ratchet the content policy enforcement up to snuff. As for asymetric blocking, that equine has expired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Bushranger. Two assumptions are implicit in the arguments we've seen here against enforcing our "fourth pillar":

(1) We must choose between a collegial working environment and having lots of high-quality articles, and

(2) Caring a lot about content policies makes it okay to behave contemptuously.

These propositions couldn't be more wrong: Doug Weller was spot on above in saying that the hostile environment our resident drama kings/queens create here loses us far more quality content than they can possibly make up for.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We need better ways to enforce the content policies. Except in the most egregious cases, those are being ignored, and it's wearing down the content editors. Civility blocks may "fix" the issue with rude content editors, but how do we fix the other side - the disruption caused by those who don't understand or won't follow policy? Proposals welcome here. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I also often find it the case that those who ignore our other polices are also uncivil. And yes, we need to deal more firmly with those who don't understand or won't follow our other polices. I'm just as keen on keeping out OR, following our NPOV policies, etc, I certainly don't think they should be ignored.Dougweller (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Original question

The original question wasn't really addressed: should the template be retired, yes or no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, a 12-hour window isn't alarming.--v/r - TP 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be perfectly frank. I ignore admin help templates. Every time I have responded to one in the past, I've been met with hostility. I don't know why, maybe it's just a coincidence, because normally people are happy to accept my help with things, but for some reason if the request for assistance comes about through one of those templates, my help is not wanted. I ignore it on the admin dashboard too. I've never been able to figure out why that is. But if my intervention is only going to make the requestor more upset, for a valid reason or not, it's better for me to turn a blind eye. -- Atama頭 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Have others admins had the same experience? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that one part of the original query got little feedback has something to do with it not even being linked here: {{adminhelp}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest as well, like Atama (unlike him, I don't know who Frank is, but I don't know if he would like me impersonating him. I am terrible at impersonations really... well, I digress). Admins are paid only twice what the average editor is paid at Wikipedia, and that's still not enough money for us to jump up and dive into something merely because someone wants us too. Perhaps several admins looked into the adminhelp request, and didn't feel like dealing with it. I feel less like dealing with now that I have read this thread. It doesn't mean the adminhelp template isn't useful, just that your problem didn't attract anyone who wanted to help. There's lots of articles that haven't yet made FA status. We're working on it. Same with things like this. --Jayron32 04:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If an adminhelp request isn't going to yield a "swiftly forthcoming" response, as stated in the message that results from invoking the template, then perhaps the template message should be rephrased to more clearly indicate that if an editor desires a faster response they may wish to go immediately to ANI with their concerns. Doniago (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you might better take this up now at the talk page of that template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am open to doing so if other admins feel that that is the best approach at this time. Doniago (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had to venture a guess, maybe the template is too generic. The entire admin dashboard is covered with requests for administrator assistance, from copyright violations, to deletion requests, to unblock requests, etc. I somewhat know what my strengths and weaknesses are. I know that I've got a decent grasp on whether or not an article is spam, but I'm not so good at telling if an image has a proper fair use claim. I take on tasks that I have experience with and have some clue about. The adminhelp tag though just says that an admin's help is requested for something, for anything. So maybe this ambiguity makes it less attractive. I do realize I'm pointing out a potential problem and offering no solution at all but I really can't think of one. -- Atama頭 17:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate the feedback nonetheless, and I am sorry that your prior attempts to help users who requested it were met with hostility; I find that a bit mind-boggling myself. If the problem is that the template is too generic, perhaps more specific templates could be created? Something like {{adminhelpcivil}}, {{adminhelpdel}}, {{adminhelpcopyvio}}? I'd be willing to assist in the creation of such, though my knowledge of templates is mediocre (I'm working on a wiki far removed from here, so I've been learning, but not a lot). Theoretically there could be variants that for situations where admin help isn't (or shouldn't be) the right approach will direct users accordingly when invoked. I don't know whether this is a viable solution, but it's an idea at least. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempted Outing over article that needs needs some help!

There is many problems with the article Azeztulite it was totally rewritten by BLACKcrow7 it was much better a great improvement over the Scam, Scam, Scam ( the article was very short and had the word scam 3 times!) prev. article The editors started working well together, but now it's is now back to a war zone being rewritten again with limited references, only one main external reference (besides mindat,org) being allowed by some editors. Please check out the main source of this Wiki article: "^ a b Azeztulite, the story of Common Quartz sold for Astronomical Prices!" [[55]]. It is not NPOV it is an original work published on the authors own website it is not a reliable source and it is very opinionated/one sided. It is a commercial site and contains advertising for mineral dealers. The entire article is based almost only on this external website. It's just ridiculous!

I am having a problem with one of the editors in particular over this Atlan. He is doing an attempted outing. He is using Wiki policy of WP:Corpname threatening to kick me off if I keep being troublesome, see below. This article should be allowed to be edited without such a problem, at least letting it be discussed without this kind of thing going on these were posted in the discussion for the article: [[56]]

I already noted the obvious conflict of interest Zoomedia9 has and if this troublesome behavior persists, I will see to a block of that account per WP:CORPNAME.--Atlan (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to fork this discussion over to my talk page? You are this. You sell stuff on Ebay that is also subject of this article. Yes, that gives you a conflict of interest and WP:CORPNAME applies, even you are not a corporation. Saying I will uphold this policy is not a "threat".--Atlan (talk · contribs) (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Atlan talk page: [[57]]

Just for the record, I am one person who is a photographer zoom-edia9, not a group or corporation! I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of something that's not true.

Anyway about the article Azeztulite why not merge it with crystal healing since it is just used in that field? How would you suggest it be written to include the metaphysical side along with the history of the name? Other articles on Wiki talk about the religious origins of things without this many problems. Even if you do not believe it is a religious belief ( metaphysical properties of crystals and healing) what else is it, what would you call it? It's a spiritual belief I don't expect you to understand it or agree with it but it is real and practiced by millions of people. The name is only used by those individuals that believe in this, so it should be included in the article just logically, or just merge it with the article crystal healing where it belongs. Let me know what you think. Thanks Zoomedia9 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure about a connection to www.zoomedia.com, a website about healthcare. But I'm quite sure that you are this without a doubt, so the conflict of interest is apparent. Why would you even try to deny it? You can believe whatever you want, I'm fine with that. That doesn't get you or the article any special treatment. Whatever religious properties you attribute to azeztulite must still be reliably sourced just like any non-religious fact. I already said you need to read up on WP:RS and WP:V.--Atlan (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Why is Atlan trying to connect me to all of these companies? Is it because I am disagreeing with or pointing out that the main source for the article is not a good reference? I thought it was policy to talk about conflicts on the editors talk page before posting here? Was I wrong? What does this have to do with the article? I would just like to see a well written and referenced article, and have editors be able to make changes without this kind of thing going on. It is not right! Please help! Zoomedia9 (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the Wiki help page to notify people mentioned here Zoomedia9 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe this concerns article Azeztulite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and users Atlan (talk · contribs) and BLACKcrow7 (talk · contribs). I do not see an outing attempt, although there is a suggestion that an editor with a non-personally-identifying username here may have the same username at another website (raising a COI concern). I may have to disappear soon, but if not I will notify the above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am a newbie I am Zoomedia9 the outing attempt was by Atlan used a link in discussion in the article Azesztulite to an ebay page with a photo saying it was me. How is that not an outing attempt? Do I have to change my user name? Zoomedia9 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OUTING? It talks about posting specific personal identifying information (name, DOB, address, e-mail address, etc.). I don't think a post about you possibly having an account on eBay would qualify. The link he posted was this. That has nothing on it except the same userid. If you click on the name, you get to the photo you're talking about, but I still don't see any personal identifying information (there are other links I can't access because you need to log in to eBay). All that said, I'm not sure it was a good idea for Atlan to do what he did. I believe he says it's because you were trying to sell something on eBay made out of Azeztulite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'm a bit involved in the article dispute, received a note on my talk page from an anon about the azeztulite article here and although I assumed it was one user, I wasn't sure so I asked. Looks to me like some socking or meatpupping going on there. Anyway, the ebay link simply shows that someone with the same user id is selling such stuff on ebay and off (I logged in to ebay and the "picture" there is identical to that on another website selling the stuff). Outing? Don't think so, but it does imply a WP:COI for that username. I'd suggest a block on that username which allows the creation of a neutral sounding username. As there have been several "new" single purpose accounts involved (see my talk page question linked above for starters) perhaps we should check for sockpuppetry. Vsmith (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got the help this article really needs.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not outing. I have not revealed any personal information regarding Zoomedia9, nor do I know any. If she didn't want it to be known she sells azeztulite on Ebay under the same username, then she should have picked a different one here on Wikipedia. I find it quite dishonest that she tries to deny the obvious conflict of interest, but I don't really care. Someone please slap a resolved tag on this.--Atlan (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't see a WP:OUTING concern here. The editor in question used the same username on two different but high-visibility Internet sites; I do exactly the same thing, and likely for the same reasons. WP:OUTING is concerned specifically with information that would be considered private or personal, such as a user's physical home address, phone number, or place of employment. If the editor's sole business is through eBay, one might be able to stretch the outing policy sufficiently to cover the situation, but it would be a significant stretch, and would have to involve a great deal more being revealed than a coincidental username. With all this in mind, I don't see any need for administrator action on this matter, and unless someone can provide a good argument to the contrary, I propose closing the discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and I deal with a lot of COI and outing issues, and I agree there's no outing here. Zoomedia9, you chose to voluntarily make the connection when you chose a username that you've used on other sites. If you don't want people to connect you to any other online activity through your username, your best bet is to retire your current account and create a new one. You can otherwise request a username change here, but your old contributions will still be visible under your new account so it wouldn't be difficult for someone to make the connection if they put forth any effort. It all depends on how important it is for you to keep knowledge of your Wikipedia activity separate from other activity you have made under that username. -- Atama頭 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Atama, I am taking the suggestion of changing my user name to avoid problems in the future. Atlan I am a man not a woman FYI and have no Ebay acount continue to believe what you want. Maxnxs 00:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomedia9 (talk • contribs)
  

So the Ebay account with the same name as you that also happens to sell the subject of the only article you edit, is unrelated to you? It's just an extremely improbable coincidence? Who are you trying to fool and why even bother?--Atlan (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of wp:outing. A user name and everything someone posts is self-disclosed information; unless someone hacks the wikipedia servers, others have no information that the user did not willingly reveal, so whatever one can find out based upon that is fair game? DS Belgium (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• So it is more of a harassment issue than attempted outing? wp:outing says "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment" Calling COI WP:Conflict on my edits trying to block me from the article sounds more like this than an actual outing. I never posted any information other than my user name that is the same user name of an Ebay account which is not mine, never said it was! This is all because I disagreed with them. This is more than biting the newbie. Maxnxs 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomedia9 (talk • contribs)

Nope, the Ebay account is yours and your claims to the contrary are ridiculous beyond belief. You completely misinterpret WP:OUTING to suit your claim against me. It's not going to work. Stop playing the victim and go do something else rather than trying to make me the bad guy.--Atlan (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an perfect example of user Atlan's continued harassment. Maxnxs 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomedia9 (talk • contribs)

Really? You feel I am harassing you in the thread YOU started about ME? That's rich. You do realize this so-called harassment occurred when you engaged me on my talk page? Other than one standard WP:COI template message, I've never actively sought you out to "harass" you. Apparently, answering your message on my talk page and replying to you here is "harassment". You will quickly see this "harassment" disappear once you stop talking to me then.--Atlan (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic IP user identified

A couple of days ago, I brought this to the attention of the boards. Since then, the individual behind those edits has logged into their rarely used accounts Aeronandre (talk · contribs) and Aeronandre0202 (talk · contribs) (with others yet to be identified). I have also discovered extensive vandalism to several other pages that I believe it would be in our best interest to semi-protect several pages indefinitely, most of which appear to be all of the seasons of the Top Model franchise throughout the world (Category:Top Model series) along with Kitchen Superstar, Amazing Cooking Kids, and apparently Reese Rideout, Leo Giamani, Randy Blue.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear on what has changed. The two named accounts have been indeffed, and the underlying range blocked (at the expense of unrelated users sharing that subnet). AGK [•] 20:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to know if there are other sleepers.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Niazification10/IP117.18.231.26

Resolved

 – Vandalism reverted/deleted, account & IPs blocked. Swarm ^X 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please can someone take a look at the above new account and apparently connected IP, who have been making some fairly bizarre (and wholly fictional) additions to Nawabzada Shahid Ali Khan, as well as adding that person as a director of various major multinationals with which they are wholly unconnected. Finally, the user name seems to be a play on 'Nazification', which I assume is against policy.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like they've gone and taken an article about one Shahid Ali Khan, a retired field hockey goalkeeper born in December 1964, and completely restyled the article to be about a different Shahid Ali Khan, a British/Pakistani businessman born in October 1955. In the process, they've destroyed the former person's BLP. Since there is also an article on another Shahid Ali Khan (who is a Canadian based singer in the Qawwali genre) here, the best solution might be to turn the Shahid Ali Khan page into a disambiguation page listing all three Shahid Ali Khans, at which point they won't be conflicting with each other. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a new disambig, but my main concern is that the new content is fictional, there is no British/Pakistani with that profile, that wealth, those shareholdings in AIG and Unilver or those directorships, and the links do not mention them. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change for obvious reasons— if it's not a hoax (I haven't done any digging yet), it's an unsourced BLP, and even if it was sourced, the proper thing to do would be to create a separate article. I've asked them to comment here before editing further. As for "Niazification", it seems plausible that this person is "Niaz Ali Khan", who seems to go by that nickname on this website and is listed as the son of Nawabzada Shahid Ali Khan (which now exists as a seperate article from Shahid Ali Khan). Perhaps this is not wholly fictional? Swarm ^X 22:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps not wholly fictional in the sense that a British/Pakistani businessman by that name does exist, but I have certainly been unable to find any evidence of them having a £6.5 billion net worth, owning 65% of Unilever etc. So it could be the son trying to exaggerate the achievements of their father for some reason?Rangoon11 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading that profile on Model Mayhem it strikes me that much of it is likely also highly exaggerated/outright fictional, so this could be a bit of fantasist.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the ModelMayhem profile again, they say they're the son of Shahed Ali Khan (different spelling), a Unilever (UK) "board of director". However, they don't appear as a director on that company's website. So...perhaps it's just someone trying to boost their own ego by creating an article about their fictitious billionare father, who's descended from "the last ruler of Bhopal". I really can't find any sources whatsoever on this person, so, as you said, this is really looking like a fantasist. Swarm ^X 23:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Niazification10 has now created an article at Shahed Ali Khan (note spelled with "e" instead of "i") and also moved his own Niazification10 userpage and talkpage to that location. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Alright, I'm going to block them until we can figure out what the hell they're doing here. Swarm ^X 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the questionable Shahed Ali Khan insertions he made at the articles Hamidullah Khan‎, Sajida Sultan, and Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi‎. If he's a good faith editor who has just been overly aggressive, he can explain it on his talk page. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Underlying  IP blocked. AGK [•] 23:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just so to keep track of everything:

• Nawabzada Shahid Ali Khan: Deleted as hoax.
• Shahed Ali Khan: Duplicate of above. Deleted.
• Shahid Ali Khan: Original article, indefinitely protected. Reduced to temporary semi-protection.
• User:Niazification10: Indefinitely blocked.
• 117.18.231.18: Blocked (24h 10d, per below).
• 117.18.231.26: Blocked (10d).

It looks like all additions to other articles have been reverted, right? Swarm ^X 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good you posted that list, because I discovered a few more. Just now, I reverted the changes he made to List of British Pakistanis, Wajid Ali Khan Burki, and Imran Khan. That's all from what I can tell. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Niazification is currently communicating on their talk page, but I plan to unblock them if and only if they can verify that this person exists. Swarm ^X 00:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And... now they're saying they don't even know this guy and the only source they can provide (despite the specific claims made in the article) is an inaccessible link to Facebook that may or may not be this person. I'd say there's enough here to meet CSD G3 so I'm going to go ahead and delete the article. Swarm ^X 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

I would like administrator attention on the article. There seems to be disruption, at least from my point of view. For example, this carefully sourced contribution was edit warred out of the article on false grounds, as the sources I inserted are either ones which discuss OWS or are cited as relevant to OWS in articles discussing OWS (such as the Congressional Budget Office report). At the least, please drop by and make an evaluation as to whether disruption is going on. Even with the most careful sourcing, it seems difficult to add highly relevant information at that article and at the least an admin's mediation skills would be valuable. B^e——C_ritical 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a content dispute, have you tried hasing it out on the talk page?--v/r - TP 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're wasting your time here. This is the place you come to when you want to get your opponents blocked, nothing to do with resolving content disputes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask the protesters to start an "Occupy Wikipedia" protest to make propaganda for their cause. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol, well deleting well-sourced material seems like it's worth a warning. B^e——C_ritical 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you could rewrite it and get it back into the article, but the way you've got it structured is confusing to other editors, which is why they keep removing it. You're relying on primary sources outside the topic. Start with the OWS secondary sources you are using first and then show how the secondary sources tie directly into the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourced material only goes into the article if there is a consensus that it is relevant and correctly weighted. The fact that it is sourced is a necessary criteria for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be confusing. Note that this subject is controversial, and that's probably why the problem arose, not because it's anything less than highly relevant or very well sourced. The primary sources are used because they were tied in by the secondary sources, and they are themselves RS for their topic. B^e——C_ritical 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD is the relevant policy guideline - if you insert material however well sourced and someone removes it then you start discussing and building consensus instead of editwarring or starting ANI threads. It is perfectly acceptable to remove boldly inserted sourced material pending discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't policy at all, but merely an essay describing good common practice. Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:AbsoluteGleek92 and copyvios

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644 § User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication

Can someone be blocked just for being a serial copyvio offender? AbsoluteGleek92 (talk · contribs) does not understand the harmfulness of cut-and-paste plot summaries. It is very easy to find them, because he maintains his own list on his user page, and with that on my watchlist, I just check the new entries and find fresh copyvios every couple of weeks. He has been repeatedly notified and warned, and recently a CCI was opened in his name: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/AbsoluteGleek92, but he's got a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and his constructive edits are of negligible value, so I recommend he be blocked for refusal to cooperate and to prevent further legal damage to the project. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

-Has anyone noticed that not ALL of what I do on these pages are stolen? Like the Youth in Revolt film page, when I made the summary for that, it all came directly out of my head; and for the record, I'm aware that I copy/pasted the Lucker summary, and yes, I edited it a bit to escape being noticed, but NOTHING ever gets past you, doesn't it Elizium23? - AbsoluteGleek92 (and people say I'm a "silent editor") — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteGleek92 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we can indef in such scenarios, and based on the response above, we probably should in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the easy question here for you, AbsoluteGleek92, is do you "steal" material and print it on Wikipedia pages? And if so, why would you do that? Dayewalker (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of a question is that? Is it not obvious? Despite numerous warnings over a very long period, and a CCI, they've copy/pasted text into Wikipedia as recently as just now, and they admittedly tried to edit it to avoid detection. In other words, they know they shouldn't be doing this, yet they're doing it anyway. The only thing that baffles me is how the hell this user hasn't been blocked yet— and if there's any reason we should not do so right now. Swarm ^X 05:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's obvious, Swarm, it's admitted above. I was just interested in hearing how they were going to justify what they did. AG's comment above certainly seemed to have a "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy" tone to it. Just curious as to what his rationale was. And now that he's made his comment/threat below, nothing left to do but end all of this with a well-deserved block. Dayewalker (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do block me, fine. I'll be back eventually. I have my ways. Always remember AshTFrankFurter and his many sockpuppets ;) BUT I should get a LITTLE credit, I did start using edit summaries. - AbsoluteGleek92

(edit conflict)This user never engages in discussion, unless it's in ANI. Please see his talk page of the many times, I and others have tried to guide him to editing within guidelines and policy. His copyright violations have been going on for almost a year now. —Mike Allen 05:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you know what? I don't need this, if it'll shut you all up, I'll keep my edits to a minimum and I'll think up my own summaries. Happy, you vultures? - AbsoluteGleek92 (by thew way, Mike Allen, you have been helpful, so I give you props, the rest of you can suck it)

• (edit conflict)I would suspect it is time for an indef. I would also ask if above is an admission to already socking or having done so in the past (plus the promise to do so in the future) to continue such behavior? If so, it almost seems like AbsoluteGleek92 is asking for a permanent ban as opposed to an indef block - though I could be wrong in that interpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside (while I'm pondering whether or not I can "suck it" as above), should AG92 have some kind of link in his signature to his user or talk page, as per WP:SIG? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As per the second one, I suspect so. I'm still pondering the first one too... though while pondering both, I came up with the idea that besides some indication of an understanding of WP:COPYVIO (yet forthcoming), that perhaps AG92 could provide a list of the other articles he's violated copyvio on. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow I'm ashamed for wasting a whole year trying to help you. It's now obvious you may be a sock and want to disrupt Wikipedia with your childish behavior. If you are blocked and come back I can guarantee from your editing partern I will catch and tag you each time. —Mike Allen 06:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the long history of the issue, the repeated unsuccessful warnings and attempts to deal with this to no avail, the refusal to communicate and the blatantly malicious comments in this ANI thread, I'm blocking this user indefinitely. Copyvios cannot be tolerated and this has gone on for too long. Swarm ^X 06:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@AG, I didn't know I was helpful, since you never talk back. That's another main problem, other than the copyright issues. I don't understand anyone on Wikipedia, a collaborative project, that does not communicate. —Mike Allen 06:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to warm up the mallets for a game of Whac-A-Sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

CCI updated. MER-C 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Given his persistent copyvios, serious lack of collegial communication, generous helpings of WP:IDHT, disruption and threats of socking I think we should take RobertMfromLI's suggestion and formally consider banning him. Blackmane (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Support - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Support ban. Swarm ^X 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a sockpuppet invesitgation should be launched as well. Fanatical editors such as this usually create socks. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Support a checkuser determining the validity of the need for a sock investigation. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Not Yet The editor appears on the road to a ban, but I don't think the conduct justifies one yet. Until they follow through with a string of socks, or get unblocked and return to misbehaving, an indef block seems like enough. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Not Yet He certainly deserves this block, but he seems to be a young user and he's only been blocked twice before. An indef seems premature, although if he starts socking and being disruptive, we can certainly revisit this. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Monty845 and Dayewalker. I would be fine with a sockpuppet investigation, considering the comments made about creating them. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• CheckUser comment: I don't see any need for an SPI at the moment, but if accounts pop up that look like socks, by all means file one. The behaviour is pretty distinct and should be easy to notice and easy to whack. WilliamH (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. After only two blocks, I would normally say not yet. But looking deeper into this, it's obvious that this user is either incapable or unwilling to "play nice" with other editors. I do not see enough positive contributions to displace the amount of disruption he causes. Trusilver 06:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support my biggest concern is it seems clear from their comments that the user does not respect our copyright policy and has no desire to follow it, instead simply trying to hide copyright violations so they aren't spotted. I consider persistent copyright violations without any desire for reform one of the worse forms of behaviour since it wastes time not only of those tracking down said violations, but potentially of everyone who edited the article in the meantime. Combined with the indicated desire to create sockpuppets, I think a community ban is merited. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Copyvios are a serious problem that are difficult to handle, and if someone has not understand the proper procedures by now they need to try another website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the concerns by Blackmane and Johnuniq. Copyright violations are a very serious matter. Also, the user has failed to communicate in a collegiate manner. With that said, it's game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Obvious support - Furthermore, their lack of talk page usage was briefly interrupted by their few posts to ANI, where they proceeded to attack others, typical WP:NOTTHEM behaviour. Banning them will make it easy to deal with any copyvio mess that arises from socks. --Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - After thinking about it, I'm going to have to support a ban also. They clearly understand they are infringing on copyright and obviously don't care. Just because they do perform some "good" edits shouldn't excuse them from the bigger picture here. He simply doesn't use Wikipedia for what it's designed for anyway (communicating, editing within guidelines/policy, etc), so a ban from this site is appropriate. —Mike Allen 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

I would like administrator attention on the article. There seems to be disruption, at least from my point of view. For example, this carefully sourced contribution was edit warred out of the article on false grounds, as the sources I inserted are either ones which discuss OWS or are cited as relevant to OWS in articles discussing OWS (such as the Congressional Budget Office report). At the least, please drop by and make an evaluation as to whether disruption is going on. Even with the most careful sourcing, it seems difficult to add highly relevant information at that article and at the least an admin's mediation skills would be valuable. B^e——C_ritical 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a content dispute, have you tried hasing it out on the talk page?--v/r - TP 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're wasting your time here. This is the place you come to when you want to get your opponents blocked, nothing to do with resolving content disputes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask the protesters to start an "Occupy Wikipedia" protest to make propaganda for their cause. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol, well deleting well-sourced material seems like it's worth a warning. B^e——C_ritical 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you could rewrite it and get it back into the article, but the way you've got it structured is confusing to other editors, which is why they keep removing it. You're relying on primary sources outside the topic. Start with the OWS secondary sources you are using first and then show how the secondary sources tie directly into the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourced material only goes into the article if there is a consensus that it is relevant and correctly weighted. The fact that it is sourced is a necessary criteria for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be confusing. Note that this subject is controversial, and that's probably why the problem arose, not because it's anything less than highly relevant or very well sourced. The primary sources are used because they were tied in by the secondary sources, and they are themselves RS for their topic. B^e——C_ritical 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD is the relevant policy guideline - if you insert material however well sourced and someone removes it then you start discussing and building consensus instead of editwarring or starting ANI threads. It is perfectly acceptable to remove boldly inserted sourced material pending discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't policy at all, but merely an essay describing good common practice. Elizium23 (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – No violation of his restrictions by WMC. Some have reminded him to avoid the edges of his restrictions, but most people don't feel that the report by the OP represents any substantive violation of his restrictions. --Jayron32 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Thought I saw a notice to this effect. William M. Connolley, the focus of this, has been editing Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - how is he allowed to do this when it's a collection of BLPs? 86.** IP (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems like an extremely obvious violation to me. To clarify, the exact wording is "William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably." I have no experience with Climate Change issues, or with William Connelly (though as an ANI watcher, I've certainly seen the name before). Is this deserving of a final warning, or just an immediate block for immediately and clearly violating the amended restrictions? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I were in his shoes, I'd be taking a much more conservative view of the topic ban, but taking a very conservative interpretation of the motion, I don't think WMC has actually made any edits related to a living person, but has simply made comments on a list whose entries are predominantly BLPs. Unless someone can provide evidence that suggests he's deliberately pushing the boundaries of his newly relaxed topic ban, I would caution him that he's skating on thin ice (and would do well to move to firmer ground), but I don't think any formal action is necessary. YMMV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I wondered about this but he has been a fairly moderate voice in those discussions rather being antagonistic or tendentious. It seems reasonable to suppose that this was not considered to be a BLP proper - more of a high-level omnibus. He might be asked to withdraw but that's all that seems appropriate in this case. Warden (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The article contains a list of people, not a list of BLPs. Let's not use more alphabet soup than absolutely necessary, here. The specific restriction on WMC says that he "...is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably." It seems from the tortured wording ("broadly but reasonably"?) that even the ArbCom intended some judgement and restraint to be used in enforcement.

As far as I can tell, there are three edits at issue. All were to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

1. [58] Adds a signature to an unsigned comment. Definitely not a BLP issue.
2. [59] A 19-word comment on a matter of style, suggesting that the length of quotations used in the article is excessive. This comment does not single out any individual or group for comment, living or dead, explicitly or implicitly.
3. [60] A comment on whether an IPCC report does or does not represent the so-called "mainstream viewpoint" with respect to climate change. This is definitely not a biography-related issue by any reasonable stretch.

I would also argue that additional latitude should be given in interpreting this restriction where it is applied to the non-public-facing, non-article pages of Wikipedia. The article in question here does talk about specific, named individuals, but WMC has conscientiously stayed away from the article itself, and has entirely avoided naming names (in any way, shape, or form) on the talk page. His remarks were addressed to questions of style and to the interpretation of a scientific publication, not to biographical matters or personal details. The "broadly but reasonably" wording (has that construction ever appeared in another ArbCom remedy?) was explicitly chosen to permit WMC to contribute within his area of expertise without facing unduly harsh or vindictive 'gotcha' enforcement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ten here. It looks like this is another attempt to drag him through the mud over what is clearly not a violation of the arbcom's ruling. Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(e/c, what a surprise :-) My view was that the words but reasonably were important. The page itself is not directly a BLP, and as pointed out I haven't even edited the page, only the talk. Moreover, I haven't even made any comments that directly reflect on any person. However, if the cnosensus is that I should withdraw from that page, I'm happy to comply William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note from an arbitrator: The key words here are "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". This means no editing about people, not no editing biographical articles. I am rather stunned that experienced editors have a hard time understanding the difference between people and biographies. Risker (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I have to respectfully disagree. The qualifier interpreted broadly but reasonably has to be considered as well. The three edits given as examples by TenOfAllTrades are all to an article Talk page, with clear critiques and suggestions for improving the article...which is the intended use of an article Talk page. With those critiques and suggestions, and with the qualifier on the ArbCom decision in place, it would violate both the letter AND the spirit of that decision to not assume good faith regarding this matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". The point I've tried to make above, and so have several other people, is that I'm not editing relating to any living person; that is where the "reasonably" kicks in William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• • The edits are all on a talk page of an article that isn't a BLP, and whilst the article is a list of living people, none of the edits actually refer to them. I don't see that that is a violation of that sanction in any shape or form, given the "...but reasonably" caveat. Black Kite (t) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the above statements that prohibiting WMC from editing about people does not prohibit him from commenting on BLPs when addressing other issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already suggested to WMC on his Talk page that he be careful of the spirit of the ruling. However I don't personally think making edits to a List of people article Talk page breaks the spirit of the ruling. --Merlinme (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above responses, it doesn't seem like this discussion needs to carry on further. Marking resolved and closing. --Jayron32 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Re-opening

• - Closed awful rapidly without need. The article is a list of content about living people. This is imo a clear redline of the users restriction - Risker's comment here is reflective of the position WMC needs to abide by, he is - "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". - he should stay away from content about living people and talkpage discussion about living people related to climate change.The relaxation of his editing restrictions is pretty clear and if he violates those conditions he will likely find himself more restricted than previously. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• • The commenters included one of the arbs who voted on the restrictions, and many usual suspects from AE, and there's strong consensus. If you disagree I think you need to file an arbcom request for clarification. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually particularly concerned about Risker's comment, since, unless I'm misunderstanding it, he she is supporting sanctions here, not opposing them. Apologies to Risker though if my pre-coffee brain is misreading your comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my interpretation of Risker's comment also. WMC should avoid such testing of the waters regarding the loosening of his editing restrictions, that is unless he wants to get wet. They are quite clear, and that includes the, "but reasonably" caveat. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Risker (who is still a she as far as I know) is clearly stating that it is the subject of the edit which matters, not the title or main focus of the article. Franamax (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No editing about people involved in Climate change, was Risker's comment, that's quite clear, as are WMC's editing restrictions. He needs to avoid the discussions and articles related to living people. It up to him but skirting around the redline of his editing restrictions is not something I would recommend for him. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WMC says it himself in his first edit there, The title is clear enough: it is people opposing the mainstream view. - people, yes WMC, living people of the type that are the focus of your editing restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the discussion about the motion see here, bottom of the page, ArbCom didn't make much of the problem I raised. That suggests they don't see the need of restricting William well away from the BLP area. It is enough that William doesn't make any BLP edits. The definition fo a BLP edit is then intepreted broadly, but it isn't like that William can't edit pages that are only indirectly about living people, like the list of scientists opposed to the consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob: Please read more carefully. Risker's comment differentiated between people and biographies.

Note from an arbitrator: The key words here are "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". This means no editing about people, not no editing biographical articles. I am rather stunned that experienced editors have a hard time understanding the difference between people and biographies. Risker (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I totally misunderstood Risker. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with my interpretation. WMC is restricted from both, content about living people not in biographies, and content about living people in biographies, and similar on talkpages The issue is WMC's editing in relation to his arbitration restrictions in regard to living people and this is an inauspicious start and does not bode well for the future. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All things considered, I am reminded of the fellow who was told not to swim in the Everglades because of the alligators - but who thought just sticking his foot in would not be a problem. It may not be a problem, but those alligators are still there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of WMC's editing restriction relaxation is that he is now free to do such beneficial work on a multitude of articles about climate change that are about his specialist subject but not about living people, I won't post them all here unless requested but there are many of them that are almost not about living people at all, these two for example, WMC is now allowed to edit - they both need a little work to raise them up to GA status - Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol - Climate change mitigation - this is the sort of beneficial non biographical editing that WMC's editing restriction relaxation is clearly applicable to, perhaps even designed for. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I was concerned earlier today when editors seemed to have a hard time differentiating between BLPs (a classification of articles where the subject is a living person) and edits that relate to living people (which could potentially occur on any page regardless of its subject). WMC should not be editing about living people in any way associated with the Climate change topic anywhere on the project. This motion effectively proscribes him from editing any BLP related to the Climate change topic area, but goes far beyond just that article classification. I would urge WMC to proceed with caution; commenting on the nature or quality of quotes attributed to living persons relative to this topic area is pushing things. While I think Off2riorob has been somewhat strident in his commentary, his suggestion of re-entering the topic area through the scientifically-oriented articles is fairly good advice. So is Collect's. Risker (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there we go. Arkon (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with TenOfAllTrades on this - Risker's warning to WMC would make sense if his talk page edits were actually concerned with living people, but given their content, they are not covered by the current state of his sanctions. "Reasonably" is the reason for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's striking, and a rather sad commentary on the state of affairs, that Arbcom felt it had to require people to interpret the sanctions reasonably. That should surely be everyone's approach from the outset. On a related note, I think Off2riorob would be well advised to be less "strident", as Risker puts it, as I don't think the constant tone of denunciation helps anyone - least of all himself. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Random comment, but....a lot of people used Risker as their reasoning for their position. Risker has clarified this, yet it's now all crickets. Arkon (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Risker says that his edits were "pushing things". For me, anyone who was topic banned for so long, and just recently was granted an amendment for limited editing in a certain field, who is already pushing things...that's a very bad sign, likely deserving of a block. But it's not strictly necessary, if WMC understands how serious the issue is and knows how critical it is that he err on the side of caution. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:CodyJoeBibby

Resolved

 – User indef'd by Black Kite causa sui (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep this short and to the point. In the last couple of hours, CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a series of highly disruptive and uncivil edits at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher and its associated article. Having turned up at User:ErrantX's talk page yesterday to leave gratuitous abuse, the user has since edit-warred over the article's bibliography and made several personal attacks against other editors at the talk page, stating "it's really of no concern to me if I'm banned from Wikipedia". The user is an SPA dedicated to the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic and related articles. I feel that some sort of administrative action is becoming increasingly necessary. SuperMarioMan 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours. This isn't the first time he's been rung up for personal attacks. Personally I smell an indef brewing, but I'll leave that determination to somebody else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Previous ANI threads [61], [62].TMCk (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

See also related thread here.TMCk (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#Sock trolling Knox articles, where his behavior seems fairly close to that of recently-indefed 32alpha4tango, a possible sock of PhanuelB (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Given the number of Phanuel socks that remain unblocked, it is unsurprising that another one should return immediately after the previous one was blocked. Not sure why the block was only 48h given the volume of quacking. Black Kite (t) 22:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, there has been so much vitriol and animosity surrounding the Murder of Meredith Kercher, perhaps a long-term full-protection and/or article probation (as recently done with Men's rights by community consensus) may be necessary. –MuZemike 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, having read the links above, I've indeffed the editor. Regardless of their sock status, it's fairly obvious they're not here to edit collegially, and after all they did say that they didn't care if they were blocked (presumably because there are plenty more waiting to take their place). Black Kite (t) 22:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I couldn't be 100% sure it was a Phansock, hence my 48 hours to start with. Fully agree on indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, what will it fucking take to make these Knox warriors happy? They got the outcome they wanted in court (entirely justified, in my view), the article reads in a way of which they approve (as stated here by Phanuel or one of his meatpuppets), and yet the tantrums do not end. I thought this shit would end when the girl went home, but I guess some people's vindictiveness knows no bounds. I think we need some kind of a ban and revert-and-block-on-sight policy for further disruption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The community is allowed to place the article(s) under discretionary sanctions; a simple consensus can do that. This would then allow any admin to warn once and block on the second instance of gross incivility, tendentiousness, or other problems. Given the drama these articles have created, and the apparent inability for some people of a certain POV to interact appropriately, I would support such a decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Given this promise to continue socking, I would support that. Black Kite (t) 14:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And he's posted an unblock requests that seems more intended to continue his disruption than actually try to be unblocked. Ravensfire (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NLT in this edit? - Glrx (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed article probation on Murder of Meredith Kercher

I'll get this rolling if nobody else will, since it's obvious nobody is going to get along with regards to the editing of this article:

1. The Murder of Meredith Kercher article will be full-protected for 1 week upon the start of the probation.
2. The Murder of Meredith Kercher article will indefinitely be placed on a 1RR restriction. If any more than 1 revert occurs within a 24-hour period by anybody, then the article will be full-protected for a short length; any further 1RR violations will result in escalating lengths of full-protection.
3. Any editor who violates 1RR on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article will be blocked for a short length; any further individual 1RR violations will result in escalating block lengths.

–MuZemike 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Would such probation apply to any articles besides Murder of Meredith Kercher itself? The main article is currently undergoing an extensive rewrite, and due to the creation of spin-out articles such as Amanda Knox, its content is unstable as the merging processes continue. Unfortunately, the problems that the parent article experiences are often evident at others. SuperMarioMan 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Amanda Knox needs to also be added to this probation, as I'm pretty sure the Knox roadshow will be as active on that one. Black Kite (t) 23:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The usual "broadly interpreted" (anywhere the topic appears) should be used. Should "after a warning" be inserted? The "will be full-protected" text might be a problem: Is there a reason the admin handling the matter can't decide? What about "wrong version"—can a sock edit war to get their text inserted and have it retained in the protected article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've only proposed the probation for Murder of Meredith Kercher, but if Amanda Knox is also deserving of the same article probation, I will let consensus decide that.

As far as the 1RR is concerned, should we warn upon the first revert (i.e. there is no "broadly interpreted" here, as this only applies to one, possibly two, articles) and then block & full-protect afterwards? As far as m:The Wrong Version is concerned, I don't have much to say about that; somebody is going to complain no matter what, so it really doesn't matter which version is protected. –MuZemike 07:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Or if people have that much problems with regards to what version they prefer, we can simply delete the article, so that nobody's version shows up. Other than that, I can't think of anything else to remedy the war here. –MuZemike 07:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IP address vandalism

User:193.253.141.64 and User:193.253.141.65 have been using the IP addresses for vandalism only. Please help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This appear to be run-of-the-mill minor vandalism from a shared IP account. I would post escalating warnings, and if it continues, take it to WP:AVI. I see no reason to bring it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Message from GoldenGlory84

Hello, this is GoldenGlory84, it has recently come to my notice that you accused me of being a sockpuppet of Grawp which is not true, I am also not Wiki brah which was slightly discouraging and discruntleling as a new comer to be accused of being a sockpuppet of. I have since then created around 60 sockpuppets which you all seemed to miss on the same ip adress. I am currently editing not from a proxy but from a different computor. The main reason I am here is to clarify is that none of this would have started if I was allowed to edit from my talk page from my GoldenGlory account, I also blame this on user HelloAnnyong who had originally accused me of being a sockpuppet of Wiki brah, and had helped block my primary account GoldenGlory84. I also find it very troubling the amount of people accused of being a false sockpuppet and abused by wikipedia, such as user American Brit, User Altenmann and User MascotGuy just to name a few, I still love this website but I think it should be run better. From --GoldinallitsGlory74 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, this account is now also blocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed and blocked:

• Lidpser (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sortstan22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Thornburgh

Resolved

 – AfD closed. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin close this and appropriately deal with the nominator? I'm pretty sure nominating a former State Governor and US Attorney General on grounds of notability is both baseless and disruptive. Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD as "speedy keep", but I'm not sure what the nominator's motivation for the nomination was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hard telling, but it's interesting that the editor (under the name Hhhter (talk · contribs) at least) had a handful of edits 4 years ago and then suddenly reappeared. Sounds like a political thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Also sounds like a "hater". They're gonna hate... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IP address vandalism

User:193.253.141.64 and User:193.253.141.65 have been using the IP addresses for vandalism only. Please help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This appear to be run-of-the-mill minor vandalism from a shared IP account. I would post escalating warnings, and if it continues, take it to WP:AVI. I see no reason to bring it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Message from GoldenGlory84

Hello, this is GoldenGlory84, it has recently come to my notice that you accused me of being a sockpuppet of Grawp which is not true, I am also not Wiki brah which was slightly discouraging and discruntleling as a new comer to be accused of being a sockpuppet of. I have since then created around 60 sockpuppets which you all seemed to miss on the same ip adress. I am currently editing not from a proxy but from a different computor. The main reason I am here is to clarify is that none of this would have started if I was allowed to edit from my talk page from my GoldenGlory account, I also blame this on user HelloAnnyong who had originally accused me of being a sockpuppet of Wiki brah, and had helped block my primary account GoldenGlory84. I also find it very troubling the amount of people accused of being a false sockpuppet and abused by wikipedia, such as user American Brit, User Altenmann and User MascotGuy just to name a few, I still love this website but I think it should be run better. From --GoldinallitsGlory74 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, this account is now also blocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed and blocked:

• Lidpser (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sortstan22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting reversal of topic ban against User:Wikid77

Moved to WP:AN

User:Wikid77 here, requesting an admin to reverse the indef topic ban against me (issued 4 June 2011: here), while I was on wikibreak and blocked for 1 month (by User:Fram), regarding the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" affair. Now that the appeal trials of Knox and Sollecito have found them "innocent" (on 3 October 2011), and the re-created article "Amanda Knox" has survived the 2nd WP:AfD nomination, I feel that I can return to editing, or discussing, the topic after the contentious appeal trials and WP:AfD of the Knox article have ended. I have waited these 5 months, to delay reversing the topic ban, while editing hundreds of other articles (contribs), to allow other users to debate the issues without posting messages to influence their decisions. The jury in Italy ruled on the murder charges as "innocente" and other WP editors discussed the AfD of "Amanda Knox" and concluded the article should remain, as I had noted when I created the prior version in June 2010. As I had stated in June this year, the next time I think that people are mounting extreme personal attacks against me, I will take the matter to WP:WQ (or another notice-board), rather than directly reply to attacks which would likely escalate the conflict into a further disruptive mode. I apologize that I did not report the prior attacks to WP:WQ and realize that my replies caused additional anger, where going on wikibreak to escape attacks was too late in the prior matter. Thanks for taking time to review this topic ban. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I'm afraid I can't see much in your request other than "the Italian courts have decided I was right all along, so I should be un-banned", and feel that if you were to resume editing in this area further disputes would ensue. Perhaps it would be better for you to look for other topics to contribute on? Better than risking becoming involved in further conflicts. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Support. I'm assuming that Wikid77 hasn't caused trouble editing other subjects during the topic ban. The fact that Knox has been acquitted is relevant. The issue of what weight to give to sources that argue that she is innocent obviously isn't the hugely contentious issue that it used to be. You could say that after the acquittal, this isn't the same topic anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. In fact, far from "allowing other users to debate the issues without posting messages to influence their decisions", I'd argue that with edits such as this, you've come pretty close to breaking the conditions of your topic ban more than once already (it was supposed to be broadly construed, applying across namespaces on Wikipedia, as far as I can remember). You mention the recently recreated Amanda Knox article - it reminds me of a certain older version (written by you, as it happens) that was swiftly redirected (again, for reasons that should be quite obvious - WP:SYNTH and bizarre illustration using an obscure German painting being just two of many apparent problems). For reference, here is a link to the ANI discussion documenting the events that led to the indefinite topic ban. Since most of the arguments presented in that discussion would seem to be just as applicable now, I recommend that other editors set aside some time to read through that first and then consider whether the statement above demonstrates any clear commitment to keeping that kind of behaviour in check from now on. Personally, I don't see it. SuperMarioMan 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, considering some of the insults that this user directed at others just before the block and topic ban were imposed, any talk of "the next time I think that people are mounting extreme personal attacks against me" is rather disingenuous. SuperMarioMan 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose per SuperMarioMan. --John (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Users who have not only expressed a vested interest in a particular side of a conflict, but also edited disruptively, aggressively, and tendentiously in said topic to support that interest provide a double-barreled reason as to why they should be kept at arm's length away from it. Note, beware of SPAs showing up here to "vote"; this topic area has been infested with them over the years, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Procedural Note These sorts of proposals are supposed to be discussed on WP:AN, not this board. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Please, no. Per SuperMarioMan. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Question - The case is effectively over. What vital information does the OP need to post to the article that someone else won't be able to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Furthermore - Wikid77's topic ban had nothing to do with the outcome of the recent successful appeal, and everything to do with xys editing. It is difficult to see the relevance of any verdict in the case. pablo 22:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Basalisk. Sorry, but unless you can prove that you've learned from your mistakes, I see no reason to support. Action, not rhetoric is what's needed. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Support - since his topic ban I have found him to be quite level headed - there are so many SPA and POV editors in relation to Knox that his re-entry to the topic won't even be noticed. Under those circumstances and considering her innocence now which has totally altered the environment in regard to the topic, imo it's unfair and unnecessary to single him out any more. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Once Knox skipped outta town and back home, I had also assumed that the shitstorm surrounding this topic would die down. Alas, it seems to have ramped up even more as they go into "I told you so" mode. One long-time WP:SPA, CodyJoeBibby has just been indef'ed for harassment while a "new" face, Overagainst, has recently been ramping up the heat and rancor, well on his way to a similar fate. This is a terrible topic area to edit in, and I see no reason to let a former miscreant tap in and return the ring. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Comment. I'd just like to point out that the fact that Amanda Knox has been acquitted makes no difference to this issue. The OP wasn't banned because the community thought he had a stupid opinion on Amanda Knox which has since been proved correct, he was banned because of the way he conducted himself in regards to the topic. Knox's acquittal changes nothing about Wikid's previous behaviour; he'd be better off himself to find something else to do that he feels less emotional about. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose - The fact that the real world has suddenly reversed course and aligned with the editor's opinion is irrelevant, the topic ban was not imposed because of his beliefs, but because of his behavior. The reversal of the Knox verdict does nothing whatsoever to change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wrontast

Resolved

Wrontast (talk · contribs)'s first two edits have been to vandalize the User Talk pages of other users. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. They've been blocked already. The Mark of the Beast (talk)

Hey, it's the nowiki vandal. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Interface Designer

Interface Designer (talk · contribs), who registered on 5 October, has recently become involved in multiple incidents of spamming; see the deleted User:Interface Designer/hosting, World Hosting Provider, and (same as "World Hosting Provider") User:Interface Designer/World Hosting Provider for a start, and observe that two different admins (including me) deleted those pages. He's also created World Marketplace, which is at AFD — it's not such blatant spam, but it's definitely a nonnotable company. Lastly, check his talk page before he blanked many of the sections.

These incidents aren't enough for sanctions; the problem is that he's now going well past our policies in his comments on other users and in his attempts to save World Marketplace. Finding that Andyjsmith tagged a bunch of these pages for speedy (or PROD, in the case of World Marketplace), he's now determined that Andy is a vandal, and he's discovered collusion between Andy and Yunshui and me. He's also included a very confusing group of paragraphs that I'll not attempt to paraphrase, since I can't understand it:

All those who destroy, remove, and does not create, support or help people - is causing harm to himself a thousand times bigger than that which they have caused to the person offended or insulted by their destructive actions. This is an energy law. And it works everywhere 100%. The more you'll destroy the worse it will be to you on all levels, that's for sure and certain. One of your friends, by whom I was attacked User:Nyttend, is engaged in Aikido and he knows all these laws.[paragraph break]An interesting point: if a man or a destroyer in your case the vandal (this is the one who destroys without thinking about the consequences and doing it without any warning) - if the vandal will learn over time to reflect negative energy attacks, destroying all his life (health, life, strength, brains, and so etc.), it is completely unknown why all negative energy somehow spreads to his relatives.[paragraph break]A very strange fact. A sad example: physicians surgeons. Look at them and their families. 90% of unhappy people - although they do seem quite good things. My advice: until you have at least some chance to get away from vandal way - get out and start helping people, do not try to kill them!

I'm surprised that I know all the laws of Aikido, since I've never heard of it before! Finally: after he removed the PROD on World Marketplace with the edit summary of "vandalism", Andy took it to AFD, and now Interface Designer has taken to spamming talk pages of users such as 青云道长, Euglyco, and Karatekzn with pleas to help stop either Andy or Yunshui because they're vandals.

I'm sorry if this statement is TLDR — I simply want to make sure that this user's comments are understood in their proper context. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've found zh:World Hosting Provider, zh:World Marketplace, ru:World Hosting Provider, ru:World Marketplace, vi:World Hosting Provider, and vi:World Marketplace, all of which were created by Interface Designer. I'm about to try to leave Google Translate-provided messages at those languages' ANI pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, see User:Interface Designer/drufts/World Marketplace, User:Interface Designer/drufts/mydrufts, and User:Interface Designer/drufts/Hosting; if I weren't already involved, I'd delete mydrufts as an attack and Hosting as spam. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This user promises to "put on the Wikipedia a couple of dozen different sources as well as where you can earn money in Wikipedia and on Wikipedia with whom and how." It's a spammer who doesn't get it. Second opinions? Doc talk 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the links used in these articles (so we can blacklist them)? MER-C 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the interwikis above, the domains are worldhostingprovider.com, universalmarkets.com, universalmarkets.com, netscape-navigator.info, and cpanelweb.com. Goodvac (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If they're on the iws, why not request at meta rather than here? It's a crosswiki issue. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've filed a blacklist request at meta. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Delinked domains above to prevent problems when archiving this thread). MER-C 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Given Doc's analysis above, can't we block this guy indef for spamming, and leave an unambiguous block notice to that effect? He's obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear this user has no other purpose but to spam/advertise. I've blocked the account. Nyttend, I think translating some messages to those language ANI's is a great idea.--v/r - TP 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be useful; I figured that spamming over here indicated that similar articles in other WPs were also spam. Turns out that I didn't need to translate: a Chinese administrator dumped my Google translation and remarked that the English original comments were sufficient, and people at the other two pages re-translated from my original comments. Nothing has been done at vi:wp yet, and the only comment at ru:wp makes me think that I went to the wrong page, but one of the Chinese articles is tagged for speedy, and the other is at their version of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All links have been globally blacklisted. EdBever (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User seems to have registered a new username: Webservice provider (talk · contribs), see his crosswiki edits. EdBever (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've warned the Vietnamese ANI page. Since when has that tool been available? I've never heard of it before. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a link "Global contributions" at the bottom of any "User contributions" page. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any new URLs in the vi.wp edits? (I can't check for myself because of what appears to be a bug; I can't load up those pages.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I get the same bug, but I hit "stop" on the browser before it follows through. There are no spam links in the Vietnamese page, just two innocuous refs of general marketing-topic books. Goodvac (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This vi.wp bug sounds like Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 October 13#Cannot view Wikipedia in Vietnamese --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The exact same. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no new links. He wasn't paying attention and added a couple of templates from the Russian Wikipedia to the Vietnamese article in his first edit, and his second edit was a revert of his first. I'm trying to figure out if he's registered at ru:wp; any ideas? I haven't yet found how to get the user registration log in Russian. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he has registered at ru.wp but hasn't made any edits, according to the SUL Info. The account creation log says that the account was registered automatically. Goodvac (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As does the English one - for Interface Designer, not Webservice provider. [63] WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was of any significance. It just means that in the case of Webservice provider. he created the account on his homewiki (en.wp) and then logged into the account on ru.wp. For Interface Designer, his homewiki was ru.wp, and then he logged into the SUL account at en.wp, automatically creating the account. Goodvac (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Even so, I find it suspicious that he did it one way for the Interface Designer account, then reversed it for the other account. It sounds like he could be trying to slip under the radar... WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's a sock, so... Goodvac (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential Problems on Voskhod Spacecraft "Globus" IMP navigation instrument

Resolved

 – no admin intervention required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Voskhod Spacecraft "Globus" IMP navigation instrument, an article on Soviet Soyuz Rocket navigation systems, could have potential problems in my eyes and other editors eyes. The article may seem a bit promotional, but considering the amount of effort gone into the article, as well as the pictures dedicated to it, it may have too much material and relevance to delete. It seems like a very tough decision, as I see the creator, User:Francoisguay, has put a lot of effort into the article, which is seen everyday on my watchlist. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you're asking for here--what is an admin supposed to do about these potential problems? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't an issue for AN/I. It should be discussed on the article's talk page, at WT:SPACEFLIGHT, or at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap and disruption at Talk:Tooth fairy

Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is appearing to be purposefully disruptive at Talk:Tooth fairy. This pattern of edits/discussion has been on-going for the last month or so. He previously reported himself for disruption there. At that discussion, it was suggested he just walk away from the article with a self-imposed topic ban. He did not, however, disengage. He posted this earlier today, for example, to ANI. Further disruptive edits today include [64] [65]. He's mocking others who are "against" him on the article's talk page and mocking the discussion process in general. Further disruptive edits today include [66] [67]

He posted just a short while ago that he wanted a topic ban on himself previously but none of us fulfilled his wishes. Is there any chance we can now? His attitude and actions there are doing more harm than good. Similar issues were raised with regard to his comments at Talk:International Space Station a few months back at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Penyulap_and_the_International_Space_Station. only (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a topic ban Penyulap needs. It's a firm warning that either he starts interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project. There is no obvious reason that he cannot alter his behaviour to suit community norms. Mentorship would be very warmly appreciated given his enthusiasm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems User:Danger agreed to mentor/adopt him after the ISS discussion in late June. Don't know how much "work" was done there. I'll drop Danger a note to see if any insight can be given. only (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(inserting comment) This is how much work I've done there Penyulap _talk 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that either I'm not very good at mentoring (highly likely) or that Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior. I'm skeptical that mentorshop can be effective when the misbehaving party is blaming their actions on everyone but themselves. But, as I said, I'm not very good at this. Danger (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that for mentoring to be helpful, the person being mentored has to understand there is a problem with his or her behavior and be willing to accept help to change that. I'm not fmailiar with the ISS situation, but I am not seeing any evidence in the tooth fairy one that Penyulap has any desire to change. A polite request from me to stop the sarcasm was soundly rebuffed. LadyofShalott 22:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it that I am being accused of exactly, the complaint is not clear. What does a dismissed ANI complaint from a month ago have to do with anything ? I brought it up in GF, was told I could do as I wanted, I was not topic banned thank you very much, no recommendations were made. I can't see what you are saying here, would you please be specific. Are you suggesting it was frivolous, if that is the case, why is exactly the same proposal being considered now ? are you making a frivolous proposal on a subject that has already been rejected by ANI ? I think so.

You've diffed another GF request from earlier today where I suggested there was a problem with Sexual content on the Tooth Fairy (TF) talkpage. It was found not to be a concern, I considered the matter resolved, and it was closed. No recommendations were issued, nothing imposed, but now you are diffing this and saying there is some kind of problem, would you be specific, as it was found by ANI earlier today, and everyone involved that there was no problem with sexual content on the page, and the topic, brought up by SummerPhd was Ejaculation, which is precisely related.

What else ? am I not allowed to have second thoughts about a picture proposal ? I have uploaded it three times today and I'm still not satisfied, but 'pesky wiki process', if more people like the image than dislike it, my embarrassing attempts at visual arts are on wikipedia for all to see.

this edit is a simple response to this how else could I possibly deal with SummerPhd's suggestions whilst assuming good faith ?

this is the same, this is the pumpkin referred to, how can I possibly respond to these remarks from other editors in any other way except good faith ? I think you are wasting ANI's time, just as you seem to accuse me of. This is just pushing your POV into ANI, when it should be handled on the talkpage. So you don't like the proposed picture, you've had your say, and I am working with others who thinks the idea is good and are making constructive comments to improve the poor current situation. As far as I can see you are complaining about the wiki discussion process because your not getting your own way. Whilst I also have second thoughts about my embarrassing artistic attempts, I think it best to leave the proposal to other editors. This belongs on the talkpage not ANI. Penyulap _talk 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread is because you basically said "Hey, I should be topic banned" so everyone just said "Great, no need to great a formal ban, just go ban yourself." So rather than waste our own times in debating a topic ban, we figured we'd actually take you at your word. Topic banning you was never rejected, it was just never discussed because you said you'd ban yourself. THAT is why the topic is relevant now. It is especially relevant because even a few hours ago you said you thought a topic ban would be a good idea. only (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why the topics and comments you posted today are disruptive and with poor judgment, then you need to reevaulate how to contribute collaboratively within this environment. only (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just realize, I did not respond to the comment about the ISS, that was a similar case to the Tooth Fairy article, except that it was a FA status article, with more than one admin owning the article, sitting on it so I couldn't address it's multitude of problems, the editor who brought that complaint, I haven't heard from for a long time, since just after he accused me of taking away the FA status of the article single-handed. I did start off the FARC process, and it went down unanimously. I've been completely overhauling the article ever since, working with new editors who have real suggestions. I haven't had any trouble in the 17 other languages I contribute in (which is at least dozen more languages than I can speak). I have only encountered Tag-teams on the english wiki. Anyhow, if someone can at least point to a bright line I've crossed, or point out something less vague, I'd be HAPPY to modify my behavior. I've done it before. It is only fair, that if people want me to act differently they should at least have the decency to try to explain in clear terms what the problem is. Is there abusive language ? personal attacks ? foul language, please be specific. Penyulap _talk 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand your point here "The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread" are you saying I broke a ban that was not imposed ? Would you please be so kind as to diff any commitment I gave in relation to that request. I'd like to formally ask ANI if I have ever had any restriction of any kind imposed upon me to clarify what you are saying. Penyulap _talk 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Thumperward, when you say "interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project." I would like to ask, just how old do you think I am in real life ? secondly, can you please point to any clear concern you have such as personal attack or any 'bright line' ? Penyulap _talk 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with my mentor that ' Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior ' as I am having trouble understanding what it is I am being accused of, I think a very long time ago, I used the word troll, which is used elsewhere on the internet, but not on wiki, after someone mentioned that, I didn't use the word anymore. (except just then). As far as I can see, I have made some proposals about a better picture for the article, and am working with people to improve a proposed image. Some people do not like the idea of improving the image, they think it can't be done and are outraged that I continue to work with other editors, rather than accepting what I consider to be a ridiculous assertion, that is, that no improvement is possible. Plus I think thumperward has objections to my being humorous, but I think that's a good thing for collaboration like this. Anyhow, I think this whole complaint is tedious, and suggest that closing it should be considered. Unless someone can make any sense of the complaint, I would love to hear any ideas on what it is meant to be about. Penyulap _talk 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this: please explain, in your own words, why other editors are objecting to your image proposal at Talk:Tooth fairy. I certainly hope you can do better than "Some people do not like the idea of improving the image". – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap seems unable to discuss a subject on the talk page without constantly and sarcastically discussing other editors. Incredibly WP:TE. I would say that if we allow them to continue editing they should be admonished for speaking of other editors and essentially should agree not to as a condition of continued editing privileges. A trout for Penyulap and a barnstar to the editors who have very politely put up with it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The continued commentary about users being "clones," that the only way to deal with us is through sarcasm, and that we all need to "get over" ourselves doesn't help either. Clearly shows tendentious editing. only (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Santin, I think that people make too many inappropriate and cryptic remarks, like SummerPhd, refers to 'Please stop beating the straw man.' and invited me to view graphic sexual material, which I did not, I was very offended by that inappropriate behavior and requested that SummerPhd remove such a remark on her talkpage, which she wouldn't. Is Beating the straw man masturbation ? And wanting other editors not to collaborate on her article saying "So, as I understand it, those who want to go forward with this art project wish to ignore WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on. " I have no idea what she is trying to say there. Thumperward says 'Penyulap, if you're attempting to inject humour into the discussion with your repeated flippant replies then Id advise you to stop.' am I supposed to be breaking a rule by being a naturally humorous person, can I change that any more than the color of my skin ? Being funny is better than being a pervert. Am I supposed to stop the proposal because thumperward says 'In any case, there is absolutely nothing in the new proposal which addresses the concerns presented: namely, that this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy. Quite frankly I very much doubt that such a thing exists anyway.' So thumperward is objecting because he feels excluded from the creative process ? but this image is improving according to suggestions by editors who have researched the appearance of the Tooth fairy. He suggests that no reliable sources exist, but google has 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, so how can that be.

I warned SummerPhd that the word 'fantasy' would attract vandals, and it did, it's not a necessary word, as 'Folklore' will do, but she teases the vandals in her writing style, and displays a scorecard on her userpage in a contentious manner and claims there is no connection between the state of the article and vandalism, despite so many editors saying otherwise and vandalising it too. She just keeps pushing her Pro-Vandalism stance.

She also claims or implies anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged. Penyulap _talk 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As the user is now blocked, I've responded to their comment on their user talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

i CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, NOW USER:ONLY IS COMPLAINING THAT I AM TALKING TO MY MENTOR ON A SUBSECTION OF MY TALKPAGE, A SECTION I CREATED MONTHS AGO SPECIFICALLY TO IMPROVE MYSELF AS AN EDITOR. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE MYSELF WITH STUPIDITY ON SUCH A MONUMENTAL SCALE INFLICTED UPON ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs)

Yup...quite the hole being dug here. Any uninvolved admin like to step in here? only (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "beating the straw man", please read straw man argument. She's saying you are arguing against things she never said. LadyofShalott 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)"Beating the straw man" is not a reference to masturbation (though your reference immediately before that, to "Mrs Palmer and her five daughters" probably was). It was a reference to your debate style: Rather than addressing what I actually said, you attacked a mocking representation of me (claiming, repeatedly, that I believed the hand with teeth photo is a representation of the tooth fairy). I don't think thumperward feels excluded. Rather, it seems ze feels there is no consensus on what the tooth fairy looks like. Reliable sources are a specific type of sources that Wikipedia accepts as trustworthy, most of the 461,000 hits returned by a google search are not reliable sources. The list ("WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on") refers to various of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I believe your attempt to create an image for the article runs against. I did not claim or imply that "anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged". You inferred it. Had you asked about any of this, I would have explained it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After spending a good bit of time digging through the relevant posts, all I can do is shake my head - and, for disruptive editing and incivility, block Penyulap for 24 hours. Following that, I strongly recommend a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Propose that User:Penyulap be topic-banned from editing articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Just clicked "edit" to create a new subsection called "topic ban proposal" and here it was waiting for me! Penyulap essentially asked for this, though I'm not sure of the motivation. User:Only offered a topic ban but apparently Penyulap wants it to be official, so here it is. N^oformation ^Talk 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support--I had the same experience as Noformation. I also fully support Bushranger's block and was tempted to do the same thing. This editor is an utter waste of time, and I foresee a proposed broadening of the topic ban in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with the assessment of all three above me. Thanks, The Bushranger, for starting the topic ban discussion and implementing a block. only (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support with some regret - this does seem a reasonable move at this point, and is essentially what Penyulap originally came to ANI to request. I'll note that Penulap has started a subpage at User talk:Penyulap/edit to request feedback on his/her editing style. Perhaps some good can come of that. I suggest the editor use the block time to become familiar with the policies linked above. LadyofShalott 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have a (not)vote here. That said, in the hopes that Drmies is wrong, I hoping someone uninvolved will offer some very direct suggestions here. While some of the issue here seems to be about the editor's headlong, gunslinger editing style, I think there's a largish helping of not understanding our policies here. I seem to have been defensive at times and my comments, as a result, were not read. Wikipedia is sometimes perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- as a lawless Western town. Some firm direction to our pillars might be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, you have an opinion worth listening to, and it's not really a vote anyway. And I also hope (against hope) that I'm wrong this time--it happens often enough. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support if only for temporary relief—while it might be ok to suggest putting a made-up image to illustrate tooth fairy, the lack of understanding and unhelpful responses at Talk:Tooth fairy show that a topic ban is the minimum required. Given the fuss surrounding this archived ANI discussion, a good case for an indefinite block could be made, with the block to be lifted after the user explains how they will avoid mistakes from the past. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm being candid, I think an indefinite block until the user agrees to a list of requirements is in order, but I didn't want to suggest it since the topic ban discussion was already going. If it was proposed I would support it. Just to iterate the point though, I think that even a superficial promise would be acceptable as it would give grounds to further block the user if the behavior continues. Another alternative would be to find a mentor who would not mind going over some of the user's comments with them so they can understand exactly what the problem is. What ever the case is, if Penyulap does not stop this type of behavior then it's unfair to the editors of the pages they edit for them to have to engage in these long winded, pointless discussions. Hopefully the topic ban will give the desired results, but I cannot say that I am optimistic since I don't think that the Tooth Fairy is really something to get upset over, rather I think it's more just part of their personality to act this way. N^oformation ^Talk 04:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - ask and ye shall receive. Danger (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• This is addressing the wrong problem. There's been no evidence presented that there is a need for all "articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed" to be covered: just tooth fairy. However, Penyulap previously exhibited a very similar set of problems with collaboration on Internationa Space Station, a topic rather far removed from the tooth fairy. A more appropriate response would be to wait to see Penyulap's response to Luna Santin's comment on his talk page, see how he acts after that, and if necessary re-block him with lengthening durations until either he adopts a more regular interation style or he fully exhausts the community's patience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I thought I recognised Penyulap, linking to the ISS case brought back unfortunate memories (not involved, just saw the case on ANI). While I'm somewhat symphathetic to Chris Cunningham's POV, having seen the problem in Tooth fairy myself when I helped out with archiving (and from Penyulaps first complain a few weeks ago) I think something needs to be done. The editors at tooth fairy have been incredily patient but need to be given a break. Considering the comments, I don't think the sanctions are too wide although I'm not sure whether they'd really have the necessary effect. In other words I wouldn't oppose wider sanctions myself and as with CC and Noformation, I'm not sure whether this will work but it seems clear something needs to be done. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This editor's behaviour is reminiscent of Jack Sebastian's in discussions about Santa Claus and alleged time travel connected to The Circus. I am not claiming the account is Jack Sebastian's sock. Edit times are all over the place, so the user might even be from a different time zone. But it looks like we are being trolled by the time-honoured technique of taking policies literally to the point of absurdity. The images currently on discussion at Talk:Tooth fairy also suggest sophisticated trolling to me. This behaviour needs to stop, and it will be no help if it just moves over to Easter Bunny. Hans Adler 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  After some googling I am now convinced that we are being trolled by a regular of 4chan. The image "Wikipe-tan as the tooth fairy" created by Penyulap gave it away. See Urban Dictionary on Wikipe-tan on why. IMO we have way too much tolerance for such idiots, to the point that we have become a troll asylum. Hans Adler 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  If that is indeed the case, I support an indefinite block, starting immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I read the Urban Dictionary entry, and I have no idea how that relates to this discussion or why it indicates a 4chan troll. LadyofShalott 02:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I briefly interacted with Penyulap back in June when they were brought to ANI with regards to their editing on the International Space Station. I'd left a suggestion on their talk page on their approach to interacting with other editorsm, but it looks like their hot headedness has got them into hot water again.. A topic ban at this point may seem the course to pursue, but I fear that Penyulap will simply move to another area outside their topic ban and begin anew. I saw that Penyulap has a pending unblock request on their talk page. I suggest that an unblock be granted only with the strictest condition of continuing with their mentor for a minimum 6 months. --Blackmane (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Penyulap has said that he/she has some replies to make here, and has asked for me to review them before they are posted here. I have agreed to this. Presumably the replies will be forthcoming. LadyofShalott 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

response

On the ISS talkpage I have worked with an editor here and on his talkpage he has ten images of Wikipe tan, 5 here and 5 here in userboxes. When looking for a button for an idea here I typed "Site:wikipedia.org button" into google images, the first ones to come up were exactly what I wanted, but in file usage links they all look smaller and can't be clicked, see here where wikipe-tan comes up again with the smaller unclickable buttons. In dispute resolution, which I do my very best to try to understand, there is something called a Wikipedia:Third opinion, which suggests "You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta" wikipe-tan is featured on that page also. When looking for a free image of a tooth fairy, I thought of these images, and that a suitable one may exist or be modified, rather than searching from fairy, which in hindsight has that image would require less work, and a similar image to it may exist. (so readers don't see the same picture in both articles).

I have used a sockpuppet once only before, and I am not aware of anyone knowing about it. I made this edit where I had stated neutrality on that subject. I have also vandalised wikipedia here, Robonaut is used to make jokes, by people including the ISS crew, I did add to the article also, here, most of which remains.

I will disengage from the Tooth Fairy article and its talk page.

Comments like those from Hans Adler and The Bushranger especially make me feel quite like a black man in texas, where reason is absent and mob mentality prevails, as if a noose is being placed around my neck, and any hope is a futile dream, and most certianly making any comment whatsoever would be certian to inflame the mob, regardless of it's content. In that mood Jimbo himself or ghandi couldn't get a response to be recieved as intended. Whilst ANI is not the KKK, the song it sings in emotion in some parts is like that. I quite feel like Joan of Arc, where everyone has brought a flaming torch or at least a stick of wood along and these two are dousing the petrol and lighting the matches without any kind of regard for natural justice.

Luna Santin, I hope it doesn't bother you for me to say, but you remind me of your (partial) namesake, a character I much admire from HP, a calming gentle voice amongst the rabble. It was a relief to see the 'break glass' thing on your talkpage, (which I copied, sorry/thanks), it's brilliant and cheerful too, very big relief in a time of such pressure. Especially after the block, the purpose of the topic ban is understood, however the purpose of the block is not understood, It's like beating on someone with a stick, it's not simply pointless when they do not understand the lesson you are attempting to teach them, but because it lacks any lesson, it's degenerates from whatever blocks are supposed to do as an educational tool into simple abuse. If it is meant to be punitive, but lacks any further defining, it follows the same course. A qualifier, even a single word, such as 'sarcasm' or 'humor' or 'posting unwanted images outside your sandbox' would give it some purpose. The topic ban on the other hand I can understand, although it's form is a rather blunt instrument however as 'all mythology' appears illogical, but that's all good. Across the project can't be sensible at all, as I only ever have had any kind of problems here on english wiki. File:Russian Orbital Segment.png is a picture I made and inserted on over 50 pages in more than a dozen languages in a few hours the other day, I edit articles and work with other editors in languages I don't speak a word of. I never have any problems with this kind of work. So maybe it's a mute button that makes me more attractive, or maybe the different cultures enable a better understanding. Other cultures do approach conversations differently. Shows like the tv series survivor make sense to some cultures, and no sense to others.

The first request I had made at ANI was a serious request as I couldn't see a logical way to exit from the situation that I could foresee would occur on the TF talkpage. SummerPhd, I could see was problematic and unhelpful. After she had crossed a brightline and offended me (twice), I had asked her on her talkpage to review her(second offense) remarks, which she refused to do, and did not apologise. I don't actually care that she did not apologize, that is who she is, not anything to do with me.

I would like to make something very clear here before continuing. There is a difference between causing offense, and not meaning to cause offense. They are not the same thing. After reading the straw horse, I see that it applies to this, where offense was caused, that is, I was offended, some editors are denying she tried to cause offense, rather than noting that she did not apologise when it was brought to her attention on her talkpage. An apology now would mean less, as I have pointed it out long after the many opportunities for her to apologise have been ignored.

My attempts to be real-life civil were deleted here, whilst I now agree that this is policy, I have pointed out that it is hypocritical for SummerPhd to delete my remarks about her lecture, whilst at all times retaining her own on the talkpage. This complaint about hypocrisy is met with the straw-man argument that my own remarks violate policy.

I cannot logically work with SummerPhd as it is abundantly clear there is no GF there, but how am I supposed to deal with this ? She stated "That leaves us with a female humanoid" I can simply try to illistrate quickly in GF why that won't work. Some would call it sarcasm, even if that is the case, which is better, belittling the comment outright ? insulting the editor ? these are not proper. Ignoring the editor seems innappropriate, so illustrating why such suggestions will not work seemed a logical solution. People seem to complain that I have either tried to ignore this editors remarks, or not taken their remarks in GF. Serious suggestions are taken on board whether I agree with them or not, as it is important to incorporate all suggestions, but if no serious or constructive comment, what can be expected. When an editor is very clearly trying to antagonise, what do you do ? I don't know and I have not found out yet. Danger is I expect busy, but then I didn't ask him specifically I think. Eventually things all worked out on the ISS page, so I thought incorporating what I had learnt there would be appropriate. I did ask for help from ANI, however I could not ban myself from the tooth fairy just because someone there clearly dislikes me. That is not proper wikipedia policy at all. There must be a better solution and I was doing the best I could under difficult circumstances.

Luna Santin said "I'm sorry that you were offended" which demonstrates real life civility, even though Luna Santin is not the cause of the offense. I obviously will listen to Luna Santin's comments and advice, and LadyofShalott's comments and advice, as they both demonstrate they are civilised people. LadyofShalott does not agree with almost anything I propose editorially, however I take on board all her advice, it's very clear on the talkpage that anything LadyofShalott has said in disagreement, I have accepted, as I see she is not making deliberate attempts to sabotage me or my work. SummerPhd I must treat differently. Because this person clearly doesn't like me or act in a civil manner towards me I cannot take her advice. I have to consider her comments differently also, as clearly both would be intended to do harm. Strangers as well as friendly editors I can work with no problems. Every suggestion from them is incorporated. Clearly there are one or two editors who are not working in good faith. Claiming "Zero references", when google has close to half a million hits, this demonstrates quite clearly they are making no good faith attempt to work together. Today, it can be seen quite clearly that SummerPhd has gone and found references she claimed did not exist, as it now suits her purpose. Beefcake6412 had no problem making intelligent suggestions, which were incorporated quickly. LadyofShalott said she didn't like the image, which is fair enough, so I continued to alter the picture, as she might like a new picture which is thereby created, but she didn't offer remarks I could incorporate or a better image to work from, or suggest that a new starting image should be used. It's a shame about the TB, as I have since seen that the fairy article has a lovely pic, and there are no doubt others related to it, by the same painter I expect, or something like that. However this is all moot, as I do not care to work on the TF now.

Hi Luna Santin you have asked "If you invited Thumperward to create their own image, how do you think they would react?" I think that the purpose of wikipedia and it's editors is to expand the content of the project. I think we are meant to encourage other people to create new content. I'm not certain what you mean, it's as if it was meant to be intended to be some kind of insult, I think the 'spirit' of the TF talkpage is very dark, and so the question you ask becomes ambiguous, as if it would be insulting to ask him to make content, and how would I feel if someone insulted me by asking me to create new content. I think one of those is what your asking, but I can't work out which. It does give me some ideas as to an essay that might be written on how editors can be more sensitive to the differences between editors who contribute with new content, editors who contribute to the formatting of that content, editors who contribute the mechs or bots, and so forth. I guess the question how do I think they would react opens up many thought dynamics. Looking at his contributions now, they are to do with improving formatting of the information. So I guess if you were asking the question as if I was insulting him by asking him to make an image, then I'd say he'd react in a similar fashion to when you demand an artist define what the final picture would look like at the beginning of the journey, the journey to find the final picture, the same way asking a composer how many notes will be used, for a yet to be written melody. It's a thought provoking dynamic question, all the more for the ambiguity. In retrospective reflection, that question, why don't you make an image, may be insulting and I'd like to apologize to thumperward for my remark.

I request an interaction ban from user:SummerPhd, user:only, user:thumperward, and user:Drmies.

There is a cultural divide here that cannot be bridged. I apologise also, for what has become a long reply, I should try to write an essay to help different editors on wiki to overcome these cultural differences between different kinds of contributors, so this doesn't happen as often elsewhere. Penyulap _talk 15:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have notified SummerPhD, Only, Thumperward, and Drmies of this new sub-section. LadyofShalott 15:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not, in general, see bad faith in Penyulap's edits (I see very little to support the idea expressed above re wiki-tan and 4chan). To my mind, it seems clear that ze feels persecuted (requesting an interaction ban involving four other editors (three of them admins), for example). Also at work, it seems is relative unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, at times feeding the persecution ideation (see the discussion above re the proposed tooth fairy image: every link from me is avoided as an invitation to view graphic sexual material, ghits vs. RSs, OTHERSTUFF, sources we don't have vs. sources that don't exist, etc.). I am unsure what "cultural" divide exists and how an interaction ban on four editors would begin to address this. Unless Drmies, only, thumperward and I represent something unlikely to be encountered elsewhere on WP, this would seem to be a bare beginning to a list that would necessarily grow. Penyulap seems to believe I aim to antagonize hir, edit and/or comment in bad faith, etc. I disagree (but I would, wouldn't I?). I don't know that the proposed topic ban (fictional characters, IIRC) is particularly productive, unless the idea revolves around Penyulap's possible feelings about what should/should not be clearly spelled out about the tooth fairy and other fantasy figures of early childhood. If there is nothing in particular about these articles, I would think either a narrower ban (Tooth fairy and whatever related articles there are) or a broader ban, based on whatever degree of hope the minds assembled here have that whatever needs to change will change. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SummerPhD's assessment here. If we placed interaction bans on everyone who was involved with disputes with each other on Wikipedia, we'd never get anything done. It's clear a more structured mentorship and/or monitoring of Penyulap is needed or else we'll continue to see conflicts like this. I, too, am confused on what this "cultural divide" is and how this situation is representative of said divide. Penyulap's inability to see the edits being made as disruptive shows that a change is needed. only (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And as a side note, analogies such as this "Whilst ANI is not the KKK, the song it sings in emotion in some parts is like that" are highly inappropriate, especially for someone who claims to be upset by "explicitly sexual material" being linked to. only (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuing elsewhere?

Penyulap's tone at Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Media_coverage_overseas_needs_improvement_in_the_article and Talk:"Occupy"_protests#Media_coverage_overseas_needs_improvement_in_the_article is already looking like it needs to be nipped in the bud. The tone and "lol" type nonsense are exactly what contributed to the issues at tooth fairy. only (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed both sections. Good call, Only. If this persists, I think it warrants a temporary block. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this version any better ? Penyulap _talk 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Here is the previous version for those who want to compare. only (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the second version any better ? Penyulap _talk 20:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there is no objection to the second version in my sandbox, I'll return it to that talkpage in a few minutes. Penyulap _talk 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no comment on the second version in my sandbox, may I ask what problem exists with the first ? would you kindly expand on the 'Nope". Penyulap _talk 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Occupy Wall Street talk material (see "Here is the previous version" link above) shows that a topic ban on mythical figures is not adequate since inappropriate editing or talk page usage will only occur elsewhere. My thinking has been influenced by WT:Disruptive editing where several editors are lamenting the way the community interprets "fair" to mean fair to the misguided individual with no concern for what is fair for content creators. This case is not at the level of disruption that people have in mind at that discussion, but why is so much time being spent over such obviously misguided activity? Perhaps the discussion could be closed after agreeing that it is up to Penyulap to work out how to avoid problems, and after there is an understanding that an admin should interpret this discussion to mean that blocking should be swiftly applied if needed to avoid any future disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely why I should simply retire. Please, tell me, how many times should you hit someone with a stick before they are educated ? I can ask all day long what is wrong with the versions in my sandbox, I removed any kind of humor from them, and still they fail. I ask why, I can't see why, I suspect it is because of the signature, and if the signature was different and it went on the talkpage it would be fine, but ask as I may, whatsoever the problem is, it's never to be revealed. I simply need to play some perverse guessing game whilst I am struck like a child with blocks to aid understanding ? And this is supposed to be some kind of mature interaction ? As for the original, it seems to me by reading the article and the differing press coverage for the tea party Vs the occupy movement that the people over there could use some assistance with pointers to information outlets about the articles content. Plus, people at the protest are not working, they are occupying, all sitting down with laptops and mobiles that have cameras, uploading images onto the internet all day long. They also have materials to make signs, that is what they are doing all day long. we can use images on wikipages, so why not request the pics at the same time as giving them a motherload of information, and letting people know i am not any kind of expert or interested party to that article. 3 birds, one stone. but it's taken out, sure ok, something must be wrong 'lol' so the humor is removed, and still a fail, cut it to the bone in the sandbox still a fail. why a fail ? oh, well, you can't tell me as that would help me understand. I ask for mentorship, I ask for assistance, I actually do no think it is in any way polite for me to burden some other editor such as LadyofShallot by asking her, as she has already done so much. But to ask my stalkers who watch my every move, comment on every move, ask them to take a 10 seconds from their busy concentrate on penyulap efforts to ask what they mean by nope, and no, no answer from anyone. Well keep your games to yourself. find someone else to torment and tease. find some other fetish to beat into understanding. Penyulap _talk 03:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

How much more obvious can a troll become than arguing for being 'NPOV' on the physical existence or otherwise of characters such as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? We really need a strategy for not feeding such trolls. Hans Adler 13:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here, Hans. There's nothing here which can't be adequately explained by a combination of youth and a language barrier. Nevertheless, we're not obliged to entertain editors who can't or won't recognise why others find their interaction methods unproductive on an indefinite basis, so if Penyulap is retiring then this has pretty much resolved itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is the result of a password being posted to 4chan, they have become much more focused, restrained and subtle than anything they've ever done before. This seems unlikely in the extreme. In any case, given the previous topic ban that died when Penyulap promised to essentially ban hirself and the similar occurrence at Tooth fairy, are we now taking this user's retirement notice at face value? (I do not mean to imply that there should/should not be a ban of any particular scope, I'm just getting the question "out there".) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if there is evidence that this account has been compromised through password sharing, then it should be blocked indefinitely. only (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but we don't seem to have any evidence that this is the case, only speculation. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An admin has redacted my 13:47 comment dramatically after the above responses, making some later comments look like non sequiturs. I am waiting for an explanation from that admin by email. My speculation that there might have been password sharing on 4chan was clearly marked as such and I explained what makes me think in that direction. For some other things I have mentioned there is clear evidence, so I don't understand why they have been removed. Nor can I agree with Chris Cunningham, who appears to blame youth or a language barrier for what is a clear case of trolling. How much trolling is acceptable from young users? Hans Adler 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For full transparency: diff of the redaction. The admin in question promptly notified me of the redaction. In so doing he appeared to imply that but for technical issues he would have used suppression. In our ensuing discussion he was unable to convince me that the redaction was justified. Hans Adler 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in youth or language here, and I also think that this has gone on way too long. This has taken a year out of SummerPhD's young and beautiful life--time she could have spent reverting unverified edits to Glee-related articles. I do think this was trolling, and I do think we need to block sooner. Why we didn't? Maybe AGF. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction: iCarly-related articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I share Thumperward's concern that despite whatever history the user may have these two talkpage entries are fairly innocuous.Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Non-admin closure of an AfD discussion by Rcsprinter123

Resolved

 – AfD has been reclosed by an admin. Initial closer has agreed to modify his behavior. All is now well. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This AfD discussion [68] was closed as a "Snowball Keep" by someone who is not an administrator. However, there were Delete and Merge votes in the discussion, so I am not certain if it was proper for someone who is not an administrator to close the discussion. Can someone tell me if the closure was in accordance with this website's rules? Thank you.And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Although it was the decision that would've been reached by any admin, it probably wasn't best for a non-admin to close it as WP:SNOW given that there wasn't by any means unanimity. I have re-opened it, closed it again, and left a note on the editor's page. Black Kite (t) 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Ford should've been no consensus, too. Updated the note left. And informed the editor of this discussion, which wasn't done. Black Kite (t) 01:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 again? A month ago I asked him to consider NACs on AfDs which weren't wholly uncontroversial after he's made a string of poor closes. Time for a stronger request to step back until he has more experience? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not inform the editor in question about this discussion. And thank you for addressing my question. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While WP:SNOW was quoted here, the discussion had run the full 168 hours and some change. This was one I probably would have punched back in my NAC days as the consensus was clear that this was more then a routine event. I really don't think it was necessary to admin reclose this but what's done is done. I do question why we need two articles on this subject as it seems that the farm itself is only notable for this event but that's a discussion for the article's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst I closed it as keep, quite a few of the Keep votes were weak (WP:ITSNOTABLE) so I don't think it was straightforward, and certainly not SNOW. Black Kite (t) 12:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I do agree that Rcsprinter used a poor closing rationale and I corrected him on that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Rcsprinter has been at DRV a couple of times recently and his closes have been mentioned here and I see from his contributions that he is now closing CFD and Files for deletion as well. In a recent file for deletion he snow deleted a file that an admin had deleted without any mention of frozen water. This is dangerous and is going to cause problems. This user has to stop and not get ahead of themselves. Should we be considering a formal restriction given they seem oblivious to being asked nicely? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  I suggested to Rcsprinter (off-wiki) at approx 6pm UTC on 28 October that he should "stop doing non-admin closes" (I didn't specify what of), and he agreed to this. From what I can see, his last non-admin close (of anything) was 19:55 UTC on 27th October. So possibly a formal restriction is unnecessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  His judgement in general is rather questionable as he was recently fooled by a vandal at WP:AFC/R into adding a bogus category to a bunch of articles. [69] [70] etc. He needs to slow down. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that was a totally routine thing and could have easily been real. Am I supposed to have heard of this category vandal? None of this is really relavent to AfD closures anyway. Rcsprinter (deliver) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) Bottom line, this particular closure was clearly in accordance with WP:NAC and is nothing to get worked up about (although they completely miscited WP:SNOW). If there's truly a problem with their closures overall, can someone provide some links? Swarm ^X 19:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bigdelete needed

Resolved

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux (3rd nomination) as "delete", but cannot delete Comparison of Windows and Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it has more than 5000 revisions. Can somebody who has the required permission please press the button? And is there a standard process for making such requests so that we can mention it at WP:Deletion process? Thanks,  Sandstein  08:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The directions on the deletion page (admin only link) said to take it to meta:Steward requests/Speedy deletions, so I did. Someone'll notice either here or there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I used an AfD closing script and so did not see the actual deletion prompt. I've added this information to the deletion process page.  Sandstein  13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting side-issue. Looking in the now-deleted history shows that the page has only 4,106 edits. Still a lot, but it's shy of the 5,000 that is supposedly the threshold for needing BigDelete permission. This makes me wonder if the threshold is actually lower than we think, and what is the actual threshold? - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Poked around for a bit, and mw:Manual:User rights says it's based on the value of $wgDeleteRevisionsLimit. I'm not sure how to look at the php code to get the actual value, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

The film Dazed and Confused was located at Dazed and Confused with a disambiguation page at Dazed and Confused (disambiguation). The film article was moved today to Dazed and Confused (film), and Dazed and Confused was converted into a disambiguation page. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Dazed and Confused page move, there is some dissent about this move, and considering that there was a requested move a couple of years ago at Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), I think that the move should be reverted and for there to be an official request to move. A neutral admin can determine if there is a consensus to make a move or not. After all, per WP:RM, potentially controversial moves should not be unilateral. There was a similar situation where Caché (film) was moved unilaterally, but it was reverted and went through a request and stayed put. Can we go ahead and have it done here? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps wait until consensus is reached, about whether to revert or keep title "Dazed and Confused" as the dab-page listing all 3 articles (the 1993 film, the magazine, and 1967/1969 song). The recent move might be upheld by consensus, because since the song was on Led Zeppelin's first album, perhaps there is no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case, even though the 1993 film Dazed and Confused (film) has become somewhat of a cult film about Austin, TX and starring the Texan actor Matthew McConaughey (I had edited the film article a while ago). -Wikid77 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  The problem is that if there is a request to move and the outcome is no consensus, then the normal step is to leave the setup as-is. That's why I think the move should be reverted back to the status quo. If the outcome is no consensus, then the status quo will be kept. It shouldn't happen the other way around. Any admins willing to undo the move? I'll set up the request myself. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert to the status quo, per Erik, until consensus one way or the other has been reached. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just done so now. Note that at the WikiProject Film discussion, Timeshifter (the person who made the move) said, "I agree with Lugnuts. But I don't want to argue about it. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is another idiotic Wikipedia rule. As if making titles clearer is a bad thing. Dumb, dumb, dumb. " Luckily, Timeshifter's opinion about what rules are "dumb" or "smart" has no bearing on how we edit Wikipedia. As was stated above, we have to first revert to the long-standing version until such time as a discussion shows consensus to change how the set of related articles are organized, due to the way that no-consensus defaults in move discussions. I'll open a discussion on both places about whether or not a move should take place (I have no personal opinion myself, beyond the fact that I happen to like one of the artistic works more than the other :) ). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, Erik, you should have notified Timeshifter of this discussion when you opened it, per the big orange box at the top of this page. I've done so now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not perceive it as an editor-related issue, so I did not mention him here. If I could revert the move myself, I would have done so and started a move request myself to get a fuller consensus. So this was just a request to set that up. Thanks for making the moves. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) - Requested move. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeat offender making personal attacks

Resolved

Apparently User: Hermanator1, who has been blocked once before for making personal attacks, hasn't learned his lesson. Here he is up to his tricks again... Difluoroethene (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post about this user as well. He refuses to get that not all presidential candidates need to file with the FEC. Now he's making personal attacks, acting disruptively by adding the non-notable candidate Ken Grammer (who is possibly him) and making threats. It seems obvious that he made these edits. He needs to be blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week given the NPA violations as well as the edit warring. I'm sure there will be some sort of response on their talk page; whether it is something constructive or not is up to them. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

... and as soon as I posted, this gem. Extended to an indefinite block. I'm sensing some serious WP:COMPETENCE issues here. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This user has continued trolling and violating NPA on their talk page, so I've revoked their access and WP:DENYed the page. I see no evidence that they are here to contribute constructively. Behavioral evidence also suggests possible IPsocks; one was already tagged and one was already blocked not too long ago. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any other users contributuiong to these attacks? There may be a sock situation were not hearing about. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Olaf, not all vandals and serial violators are socks. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but many are. Never take any chances. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• LOL. Well, that was amusing. causa sui (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Krishna Hates Fags

Resolved

 – Already blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Krishna Hates Fags (talk · contribs) is the latest incarnation of a serial sockpuppet. Please block it. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems Jayron took care of this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Internet_Archaeologist (talk · contribs) seems to be relevant to deal with.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. Yo, Jayron, if you're up for it, he's got a bunch of similarly-named socks, some of which I think are currently unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been busy blocking and deleting and cleaning up. If you have a list, I'll take care of them. --Jayron32 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you got all the ones he had created and updated today. Jolly good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a way to get a list of users containing a particular character string. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The UAA reporting bot already has the "fags" string (and variations) in its dictionary, so most of these should show up at UAA pretty quickly. --Jayron32 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Groan) This creep again. I'll tag the new accounts if someone else doesn't (fair warning) ;> Doc talk 04:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that he isn't easy to spot, but feel free to go ahead and tag them. I'm heading to bed myself. --Jayron32 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I used the {{blockedsock}} template, since CU was not involved enough to mark it as confirmed via CU per {{CheckedSockpuppet}}. That confirmation would be nice, of course :> A "Suspected" sockpuppet category could be created, but it's awfully "ducky". Doc talk 04:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't need to tag them as "suspected"; it's quite obvious. –MuZemike 05:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Are they all blocked without access to email? Part of this guy's MO is sending nastygrams via the email system. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Syjytg's return to Disruptive Editing

User:Syjytg was indef blocked in late March of 2009, after a history of disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and proven cases of sockpuppeteering. Per discussions between Syjytg and Users Frank and LessHeard vanU, the indef block was lifted in November that same year.

Since October of this year, it has appeared that Syjytg has returned to his previous behaviour of tendentious and disruptive editing. Discussions and reminders in that user's talkpage have done nothing to stop it. Given the user's past behavior, I would like to recommend that Syjytg be indef blocked again, this time with extreme prejudice. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see a ton of small edits (see UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group G) that, apparently, no one is taking offense to. We can't block him for not providing edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Drmies, please take a look at the user's talkpage. There were complaints made, and warnings issued. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• While the editor was previously indef blocked for much the same issues, I feel that the near two years of block free editing should mean that past issues should not be brought into any current dispute - that any decisions should be based on the current concerns only. Under the circumstances, I feel that the full range of dispute resolution processes need to be exhausted before "re instatement" of the indef block need be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  I guess I pretty much said the same thing on my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe we need to see this from the perspective of his past sockpuppeteering. This user has seriously breached an important tenet of Wikipedia rules before, with reckless disregard for the rules that he already knows. Also, it should be noted that the user only returned to active editing in late 2010, so it is not 2 years of block-free editing, but 1 year, and another year (more or less) of absence (and absence means you can do no wrong, because you did nothing that will get you in hot water to begin with). These things alone means that the leash should always be short, at least for a few more years. If he has shown proof that he has reformed, I would agree with LessHeard VanU and Frank, but has Sykytg shown such proof? Not by a long shot. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, it has come to my attention that Syjytg attempted to apply for rollback rights a mere 10 days after his unblock request was granted, with the reason "to fight vandalism" ([71]). Fortunately, the rights were not granted. This is yet another proof that Syjytg never had any intention to play nice after his unblock, and had he received rollback rights, he would have reverted edits that he did not like in a very, very efficient manner. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  The purpose of this forum is to determine what action, if any, should be taken under the circumstances. Certainly, discussion is welcome in the course of achieving (or attempting to achieve) consensus on the matter. I try to be wary of the thought that WP:SILENCE is assent (or, perhaps, dissent), but I think the fact that there has been precious little input on this thread - and almost all of it from the originator and two previously-involved admins - more or less indicates that the community isn't concerned enough about this to take any action at this time. Whether that is the right decision or not remains to be seen, but it seems to indicate the current thinking on the matter. I am aware that co-editing with Syjytg can be frustrating; I'm not saying there's no problem here. What I am saying is that what I am seeing does not rise to the level of blocking. That could change, and, if Syjytg's editing becomes increasingly tendentious and disruptive, it probably should change...but right now, I think there's nothing more to be done here.  Frank  |  talk  20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:AbsoluteGleek92 and copyvios

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644 § User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication

Can someone be blocked just for being a serial copyvio offender? AbsoluteGleek92 (talk · contribs) does not understand the harmfulness of cut-and-paste plot summaries. It is very easy to find them, because he maintains his own list on his user page, and with that on my watchlist, I just check the new entries and find fresh copyvios every couple of weeks. He has been repeatedly notified and warned, and recently a CCI was opened in his name: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/AbsoluteGleek92, but he's got a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and his constructive edits are of negligible value, so I recommend he be blocked for refusal to cooperate and to prevent further legal damage to the project. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

-Has anyone noticed that not ALL of what I do on these pages are stolen? Like the Youth in Revolt film page, when I made the summary for that, it all came directly out of my head; and for the record, I'm aware that I copy/pasted the Lucker summary, and yes, I edited it a bit to escape being noticed, but NOTHING ever gets past you, doesn't it Elizium23? - AbsoluteGleek92 (and people say I'm a "silent editor") — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteGleek92 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we can indef in such scenarios, and based on the response above, we probably should in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the easy question here for you, AbsoluteGleek92, is do you "steal" material and print it on Wikipedia pages? And if so, why would you do that? Dayewalker (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of a question is that? Is it not obvious? Despite numerous warnings over a very long period, and a CCI, they've copy/pasted text into Wikipedia as recently as just now, and they admittedly tried to edit it to avoid detection. In other words, they know they shouldn't be doing this, yet they're doing it anyway. The only thing that baffles me is how the hell this user hasn't been blocked yet— and if there's any reason we should not do so right now. Swarm ^X 05:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's obvious, Swarm, it's admitted above. I was just interested in hearing how they were going to justify what they did. AG's comment above certainly seemed to have a "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy" tone to it. Just curious as to what his rationale was. And now that he's made his comment/threat below, nothing left to do but end all of this with a well-deserved block. Dayewalker (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do block me, fine. I'll be back eventually. I have my ways. Always remember AshTFrankFurter and his many sockpuppets ;) BUT I should get a LITTLE credit, I did start using edit summaries. - AbsoluteGleek92

(edit conflict)This user never engages in discussion, unless it's in ANI. Please see his talk page of the many times, I and others have tried to guide him to editing within guidelines and policy. His copyright violations have been going on for almost a year now. —Mike Allen 05:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you know what? I don't need this, if it'll shut you all up, I'll keep my edits to a minimum and I'll think up my own summaries. Happy, you vultures? - AbsoluteGleek92 (by thew way, Mike Allen, you have been helpful, so I give you props, the rest of you can suck it)

• (edit conflict)I would suspect it is time for an indef. I would also ask if above is an admission to already socking or having done so in the past (plus the promise to do so in the future) to continue such behavior? If so, it almost seems like AbsoluteGleek92 is asking for a permanent ban as opposed to an indef block - though I could be wrong in that interpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside (while I'm pondering whether or not I can "suck it" as above), should AG92 have some kind of link in his signature to his user or talk page, as per WP:SIG? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As per the second one, I suspect so. I'm still pondering the first one too... though while pondering both, I came up with the idea that besides some indication of an understanding of WP:COPYVIO (yet forthcoming), that perhaps AG92 could provide a list of the other articles he's violated copyvio on. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow I'm ashamed for wasting a whole year trying to help you. It's now obvious you may be a sock and want to disrupt Wikipedia with your childish behavior. If you are blocked and come back I can guarantee from your editing partern I will catch and tag you each time. —Mike Allen 06:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the long history of the issue, the repeated unsuccessful warnings and attempts to deal with this to no avail, the refusal to communicate and the blatantly malicious comments in this ANI thread, I'm blocking this user indefinitely. Copyvios cannot be tolerated and this has gone on for too long. Swarm ^X 06:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@AG, I didn't know I was helpful, since you never talk back. That's another main problem, other than the copyright issues. I don't understand anyone on Wikipedia, a collaborative project, that does not communicate. —Mike Allen 06:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to warm up the mallets for a game of Whac-A-Sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

CCI updated. MER-C 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Given his persistent copyvios, serious lack of collegial communication, generous helpings of WP:IDHT, disruption and threats of socking I think we should take RobertMfromLI's suggestion and formally consider banning him. Blackmane (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Support - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Support ban. Swarm ^X 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a sockpuppet invesitgation should be launched as well. Fanatical editors such as this usually create socks. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Support a checkuser determining the validity of the need for a sock investigation. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Not Yet The editor appears on the road to a ban, but I don't think the conduct justifies one yet. Until they follow through with a string of socks, or get unblocked and return to misbehaving, an indef block seems like enough. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Not Yet He certainly deserves this block, but he seems to be a young user and he's only been blocked twice before. An indef seems premature, although if he starts socking and being disruptive, we can certainly revisit this. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Monty845 and Dayewalker. I would be fine with a sockpuppet investigation, considering the comments made about creating them. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• CheckUser comment: I don't see any need for an SPI at the moment, but if accounts pop up that look like socks, by all means file one. The behaviour is pretty distinct and should be easy to notice and easy to whack. WilliamH (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. After only two blocks, I would normally say not yet. But looking deeper into this, it's obvious that this user is either incapable or unwilling to "play nice" with other editors. I do not see enough positive contributions to displace the amount of disruption he causes. Trusilver 06:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support my biggest concern is it seems clear from their comments that the user does not respect our copyright policy and has no desire to follow it, instead simply trying to hide copyright violations so they aren't spotted. I consider persistent copyright violations without any desire for reform one of the worse forms of behaviour since it wastes time not only of those tracking down said violations, but potentially of everyone who edited the article in the meantime. Combined with the indicated desire to create sockpuppets, I think a community ban is merited. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Copyvios are a serious problem that are difficult to handle, and if someone has not understand the proper procedures by now they need to try another website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the concerns by Blackmane and Johnuniq. Copyright violations are a very serious matter. Also, the user has failed to communicate in a collegiate manner. With that said, it's game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Obvious support - Furthermore, their lack of talk page usage was briefly interrupted by their few posts to ANI, where they proceeded to attack others, typical WP:NOTTHEM behaviour. Banning them will make it easy to deal with any copyvio mess that arises from socks. --Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - After thinking about it, I'm going to have to support a ban also. They clearly understand they are infringing on copyright and obviously don't care. Just because they do perform some "good" edits shouldn't excuse them from the bigger picture here. He simply doesn't use Wikipedia for what it's designed for anyway (communicating, editing within guidelines/policy, etc), so a ban from this site is appropriate. —Mike Allen 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This was archived without being closed resolved, so bringing it back. Would an admin please review? --Blackmane (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Bullying from user Causa Sui

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

When discussing a dispute at [72] I was accused of "disruption" and "fanaticism" merely for raising the concern. The complaint has been brushed aside by what appear to be Maunus's buddies, and now user Causa Sui is threatening me[73] for no apparent reason. I find this disturbing and I want editors not associated with Maunus to review. Sorry for the trouble. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, I was notified on my talk page about this. causa sui (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I also don't much care for your lecturing me for standing up to that admin who abused his authority. Since nothing was done about the admin's actions, we can only assume that such abuse will continue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So that's editors not associated with Maunus. Thanks. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is going to generate more heat than light. Take discussion about content to the article talkpage. Take claims of abuse of tools to WP:RFC/U because consensus is that protection of the project seems to have outweighed other things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know if I qualify as "associated with" Maunus or not. I don't think we've had much interaction. But I do know that admins have been blocked for less than this. What Maunus should have done was to ask an uninvolved admin for help. Maybe he'll learn something from this fiasco, and do better next time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block review: Colofac

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

---

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

I have blocked Colofac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for being an unproductive and disruptive account. He had previously been blocked for disruptive editing (here is the previous block discussion). Since the block expired on Sept 25, he has made about 40 edits. In this time, he has added next to nothing productive including [74], openly stating he has no desire to edit productively, created absurd SPIs, andadded aggressive/disruptive user boxesto his user page. Looking at his overall history, he has added nothing but disruption to Wikipedia. Since the block expired, he has had one edit to the main space, and 5 welcomings of new users. That's the extent of his productivity.

I welcome review of this. It might seem to be too long/aggressive, but I have seen very little that is productive out of this account in its 2 months here. The account is just her to stir up and participate in drama. only (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, with this edit he is bluntly stating "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" so at first glance this seems like a sound block but I'd like to hear what others have to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then again, aside from his userpage he hasn't had any edits since the 5th. I'm curious as to how this user was brought to your attention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a conversation with this user at another ANI discussion a month or two ago, and when I saw him blocked, happened to watch his talk pgae. Then these edits to his user page popped up today (for which he had previously been warned) and that triggered in my head. only (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Colofac has responded and requested unblock at his talk page. only (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd urge caution about putting material in quotes when that material wasn't stated by the user. Some may think the statement " I've been slighted on this site far too many times for me to want to build it" expresses exactly the same as "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" but I see a difference. The actual statement made sounds like an expression of frustration, an underlying desire to build an encyclopedia that has been beaten down, and a hope that someone will address the issues so the user can return to the real purpose. The second sounds more definitive, and an explicit statement that one's goals are in opposition to the WP goals. I don't want to debate whether some see the two as close enough, but the user didn't say what was in quotes. We would not allow a paraphrased statement in an article in quotes, why should we allow it here?--SPhilbrickT 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• unblock I agree that it seems unlikely that this editor will be staying here long, but I do think that a fair trial with input from the community is required to impose an indefinite block like this. Productivity is not an argument - editors are volunteers and do not have to fill any quota of "production". Disruption is an argument but the previous block was supposed to be a wake up call, and it doesn't seem that he has caused any disruption after coming out of the block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the gravedancing, the diving back into drama-discussions, the self-SPI to "clear his name" and the user page statements (for which he was previously warned) that have all occurred since the block show a continuance of the pattern already set before the previous block. Those examples all come from about 40 edits so it's clear to see a non-intent to reform. only (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak unblock The "gravedancing" doesnt appear so to me and the SPI seems good faith but wrong procedure. Despite the diffs above the user has made a constructive edit. The userboxes need to go though.--v/r - TP 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention above that he had a productive edit plus several welcomings, but it does not seem like much compared to the rest of the sample since the previous block. only (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak unblock per TParis. I don't see how that diff can be construed as gravedancing, but agree the userboxes need to go. Kcowolf (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - I have to go with only on this one. First of all, they clearly have some sort of agrudge against Wikipedia and have openly stated that they have no desire to help build it (Pillar #1). Secondly, considering the vicious history between this user and user:ChristianandJericho, I certainly do agree that their edits to that page were "gravedancing", which they were appropriately warned for and provided a totally inadequate excuse. They've added to ANI drama, they've added borderline hate speech to their userpage, and what's the tradeoff? One edit to the mainspace? In my opinion, this user isn't here to contribute constructively to the project and is a net negative. I'm all for second third fourth chances, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if they were unblocked. It just seems that an unblock now would only be postponing an inevitable reblocking of this 'problem user' in the near future. Swarm ^X 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Very weak unblock, mostly due to WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block If users are here to build an encyclopedia they can demonstrate that with their actions and he clearly hasn't. We really don't need to be wasting endless time with disruptive users as we are sometimes want to do, so it's nice to see an admin putting their foot down.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Even the users advocating unblock above admit he will not be a net positive to the project. Why should we let him drive a few good faith contributors from the project before getting rid off him? We have few enough editors as it is.Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Looking at the evidence relied on by the blocking admin to block this editor, which confirms the correctness of that decision beyond any doubt, I cannot comprehend how we are even considering an unblock without a credible indication from the user concerned of behavioural change. Making constructive edits here and there is not a licence to do whatever else you like.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment IMO the gravedancing bit links to the wrong diff. While modifying the comment may violate TPO, and I don't really see why Colofac cared since it wasn't negative, I can understand how it might a bit frustrating if you are named and feel you can't respond (and if Colofac had left a response, it probably would have been seen as worse). However[75] does seem like grave dancing.Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - If an editor admits to not being here to improve the encyclopedia, there is clearly no place for them here-- we are not a debating society, and should not encourage drama for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Unblock- per WP:ROPE.OIFA (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Have they not been given enough rope thus far? Is a fourth chance really warranted? Swarm ^X 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. Yes, he does appear burned out, but some his actions were in good faith. He requested SPI against himself to prove his innocence. Although the English Wikipedia doesn't allow that, it's not an unreasonable request, and is even allowed in other Wikipedias. See reply from admin [76] We need to see more serious evidence than this kind of mild disruption. Not everyone takes the time to read the huge and often poorly written policy pages. What happened to "blocks are not punitive"? Do you truly think for instance that he is going to file another SPI on himself after he was told "no"?! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• And people should stop edit warring over his fringe politics user boxes [77]. That is disruptive and a waste of time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• And if unproductive editors are your concern, head over tothis RfC, where there's evidence of umpteen times more unproductive chatter (and that's a polite understatement) + IDHT, yet no blocks have been issued.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support unblock. My word, I thought this was a no-brainer. There is no policy that says that a user has to make a certain number of edits to mainspace to be allowed to stay. I don't think I've made more than half a dozen in the past month! I gave him the talking to regarding gravedancing and he backed off. I agree he should not be showing disruptive userboxen and he should be blocked (for a time period) if he keeps replacing them as that is disruptive. But blocking him indefinitely because he hasn't done enough good - especially when he hasn't done that much at all - that seems like a dangerous ball game. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC) - Update: If he isn't interested then nor am I[78] - I won't go so far as to support the block, but I no longer oppose it. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock for insufficient grounds. Simply being an "unproductive user" is not grounds for permablock - or any block. There are a truckload of FAR more "unproductive" users that should be getting the axe long before this guy. On top of that - while his userboxen might not be acceptable to a user or three, they absolutely, 100% do NOT wiolate WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:NPA as claimed in the reversions to his page, as there is/are no specific editors that are targeted by those. While I appreciate the spirit of the reverts and the grounds - it does not fall within the letter of WP policy, despite what some admins might think. If you want to block this cat, you are going to have to come up with far better reasons than being offended by his position and claiming he is "un-productive". If we were to whack all the unproductive accounts there would be less than 1/3rd the current active accounts. If you start with this one - don't stop until they are ALL done. Srobak (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Very first bullet point of the policy you linked, WP:UP#POLEMIC: statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).This falls squarely into that criteria. It doesn't require that a specific editor be named to fall under that criteria. - SudoGhost08:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock so long as the editor agrees to keep this off of his userpage, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Other than the userbox issue I'm not seeing any gross disruption (the gravedancing was out of line, but it was discussed with the editor). While these behaviors might warrant a shorter block, I'm personally (from a non-admin standpoint) not seeing anything overly warranting an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (See below for why I no longer support unblocking) - SudoGhost 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, one thing is clear to me: he lacks the emotional intelligence to take part in editing Wikipedia without hoisting himself on his own petard every so often by starting pointless fights. Because of that, I think he will ultimately be indef blocked or banned, if not now, then later. I no longer support unblocking him because he fails to recognize that his actions were a big part of this drama, and because so far he has not given any indication that he will not restore those boxes or engage in similar behavior. But I cannot support this block either because it was doled out too easily relative to the proximate offense. A RfC/U would have been more appropriate given how similar behavior of other editors is commonly dealt with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Shorten the block to two weeks. His previous block was for one week, so this seems an appropriate intermediate measure. I support immediate unblock iff he promises to stop provoking fights with polemical statements, including in user boxes.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The following snippet from his talk page is indicative of the problem we face here, and also a reply to my comment right above, so I'm copying it here:

I find Have mörser, will travel's comments on ANI regarding me "provoking fights" completely outrageous. I have never, not once provoked or goaded a fight on Wikipedia, and unless he can provide links to back up such a claim, it should be withdrawn. Colofac (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The homosexuality user box had been removed from your user page on Sep 20 [79] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [80]. That counts as provoking a fight in my book. Good bye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not count as "provoking a fight" and has been discussed earlier, I now request you withdraw that comment at once.Colofac (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"has been discussed earlier" where? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in the sense that other users have brought up that matter without the need to make personal attacks regarding emotional intelligence or erroneous statements regarding picking fights. I now feel your continued involvement in this matter unhelpful. Colofac (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of your edit history is that nobody discussed your Oct 22 edits (with you anyway) prior to your indef block. Your last Israel/Palestine user box was added at 09:54, and you were indef blocked at 16:41. At 16:51 (Oct 22) the administrator who placed the block informed you of it on your talk page. There is no other post to your talk page before that going back all the way to Sep 26. If you think that's a discussion of your latest edits, or that blocks are more helpful to your understanding than my frank remarks, so be it, I'll stay away. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that I was referring to the ANI discussions, where other users have brought up the matter sans untrue accusations. Your dramatic change of tune and selective presentation of my responses to your accusations show that you have no intention of helping, hence why I asked you to cease commenting here. Please respect that request. Colofac (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I have copied here all his replies addressed to me as of the timestamp of this message, so I'm unsure what he means by "selective presentation", but I won't engage him anymore per his clear request. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh, I actually missed one:

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Nableezy and their userpage. I think you'll agree, what is on that page is far more disruptive than mine. Colofac (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support block. The fact that the blocking admin chose to phrase it in terms of "lack of productivity" makes me squirmy, but the fact is that Colofac appears to be here to fight, and pretty much only to fight. He has repeatedly failed to engage in a constructive manner, as evidenced by the history of his talk page for the past month or so - calling other editors namesoh bugger, that wasn't him in that diff. I'm off to find the right one, sorry about that! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC), making discriminatory nationalistic and sexist comments, and generally refusing to get the point when other editors ask him to stop doing these things. Block for not being productive enough? No, we don't really do that. Block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and in fact appearing to be here to help tear one down? Yep. Amend the block reason to reflect that and let's turn our energy to editors who show some sign of wanting to work collaboratively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Correct diff for "calling other editors names" was intended to be this one. 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous block & warning

Blocking admin noted in [81]:

As a consequence of your inappropriate conduct, I am blocking you from editing for a period of one week, and strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to interacting with other contributors in the future; otherwise, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Kirill Lokshin to comment here because he seems more aware of the background here than most other commentators.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting as it was prematurely archived, without resolution. Unless there is further input on this - it would appear the consensus is to unblock and for Colofac to ensure he will refrain from reproducing the objectionable material. Final or further thoughts? Srobak (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, we seem to have a hung jury. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• There's definitely not a clear consensus to unblock here, at least at this point. Srobak, please keep in mind that because you're friendly with Colofac, you may be interpreting what's said in this thread in a different manner than other editors might. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

* date tag here +1 week to prevent premature archiving - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think that simply unblocking Colofac merely because the particular userbox in question has been removed is a particularly good idea. The fundamental problem with Colofac's behavior—which Colofac has yet to acknowledge—is that deliberately trying to make one's fellow editors (whether they happen to be gay or Chinese, or some other group) feel unwelcome is simply not in keeping with the standards of collegial behavior that Wikipedians are expected to follow. The fact that Colofac has chosen, in this particular instance, to do this via userboxes is not particularly important; so long as Colofac refuses to recognize and correct the underlying problem, we are going to continue having incidents of this sort.

  Having said that, if the community feels that he must be given yet another chance, then so be it. My only hope is that the cost of doing so does not become too high; we should not forget, after all, that the editors whom Colofac so blithely attacks may choose to find a more welcoming project rather than continuing to contribute to ours. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps admins with experience in mentoring like User:Worm That Turned, who support(ed) this unblock, should mentor or monitor Colofac? (I'm still not sure how that stuff works.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think my style of mentoring wouldn't really help here, as someone needs to encourage Colofac to start participating in the encyclopedia in general, whilst I generally work on increasing understanding and helping the "young hotheads" understand the dispute resolution process. I'd happily help out, but I think that Colofac wouldn't be amenable to that. As I mentioned, I was the one who told him of for gravedancing, and I've already helped out ChristianAndJericho quite a bit, two factors which would mean he'd find me difficult to work with. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Given Colofac's behavior on his talk page after supporting an unblock, I'm hesitant to continue to support unblocking the user. He seems to have a battleground mentality concerning Wikipedia, and without any evidence that his behavior will change (which he has not given in the slightest), I think unblocking the user at this point would be a mistake, as his behavior towards other editors is extremely likely to driver other editors away. Given that he has already demonstrated this behavior multiple times and shown no intention of changing this behavior, I think that the very likely cost of unblocking the user by far outweighs what would be gained by unblocking the user at this time. - SudoGhost 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what changed my mind too. I tried to be frank with him and told him what behaviors he needs to avoid regardless of whether he thinks he is right (e.g. provocative user boxes), but alas the message didn't get through. Someone else should point him to WP:Free speech, as I'm apparently not welcome on his talk page anymore. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block- Does not seem to be a positive to the project, still assuming WP:AGF, but he does in fact state that he has no intentions of positively contributing--SKATER ^{Is Back} 16:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Though he's been unproductive in the past, the editor hasn't actually caused too much trouble recently (apart from an offensive userbox on his user page). Deserves a fair chance to choose the straight and narrow with input from the community. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block. Colofac's attitude toward other editors and the project is directly (and possibly intentionally) damaging, with almost no positive contributions to weigh against. Any attempts to help him have been abruptly turned away, often with an equally harsh tone. He's made no indication he understands there's a problem, and as such there's no reason to believe he'll begin acting differently if given the chance. Even if he's acting in good faith, he's only serving to harm the project as a whole, by intentionally discouraging other editors based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors he personally finds actionable. His presence here serves only to dampen our collegial atmosphere, and drive away positive contributions, and as such I strongly disagree with unblocking, unless he directly and clearly represents that he understands his behavior is problematic, promises not to continue, and seeks help to achieve that goal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support block per Mann jess. --John (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. When an editor states that they have no intention of contributing productively here, why are we even having this discussion? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Block Throughout this ordeal, Coloflac had ample opportunity to simply accept that his behavior was inappropriate and to make a statement assuring the community that his attitude would change and that he would work harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. Being that he hasn't done this, the block is appropriate. What matters here is not the extent of his offense, but that his attitude in general is not appropriate, and this block is preventing his contribution unless and until he shapes up a bit. I'm more than happy to AGF and change my block to an unblock if he makes an effort, but something that he has to accept (regarding his user boxes) is that this isn't a social networking site on which to share your extreme views. We accept anyone here regardless of their views, but if their views are deemed to be offensive by the larger community, we can and do curtail their advertisement. If someone is here to edit - as oppose to proselytize - they should not have a problem with this. N^oformation ^Talk 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block – Colofac does not appear to wish to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia; therefore, he/she should remain blocked. —mc10 (t/c) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Whilst we have WP:AGF as one of our solid tenets here on Wikipedia, we are not obliged to extend editing privileges to the ranks of the unproductively belligerant. This editor appears to be a net negative to the project and is likely to continue dramatising his various personal issues here rather than get on with articles. I really see no other course of action given discussion has been attempted to no success, as was escalated enforcement, and his response at every juncture is to continue being combative. Unless he has a very profound change of heart, there is nothing to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Nitpick: he was productive in his belligerence, just look at all the drama here. You probably mean "unproductive except in their belligerence". Uʔ (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefblock. I was actually going to close this, but esp. early in the thread there is a somewhat surprising number of editors supporting an unblock in various flavors of strength. I think my support for the block puts it at 8 unblock and 14 block or thereabouts. Not yet a crazy overwhelming consensus, but it's getting there. To get to the point: this editor is no benefit to the project, and I fully support the indefblock. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Both the user and the project would benefit from a separation. If, after a suitable period, Colofac would like to help build the encyclopedia, they are welcome to put a suitable message on their talk page (preferably with an explanation of how future issues will be avoided). Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

View from afar

Why would the original poster block somebody if they weren't sure it was the right thing to do? If a block is questionable, better to review of the situation beforehand. If a block is clearly needed, we should avoid a long, needless discussion about the action. Our goal is to do what is necessary with minimal fuss so that people can concentrate on writing great articles. I recommend this discussion be shut down and we let the matter be worked out on the blocked user's talk page via the normal unblock request and review by an uninvolved administrator. If that process deadlocks, then come back here. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Request formal closure

Would an admin assess the consensus in the discussion? A close as "keep blocked" or "unblock" is needed to determine whether WP:CBAN #2 is met. Cunard (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

User BigzMMA (again)

As soon as his 96 hour ban ended, user BigzMMA recreated all of the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA. He recreated the UCMMA article as Cage Rage UK and the articles on UCMMA individual events were recreated by adding a number. For example, Ultimate Challenge MMA – Fists of Fire became UCMMA 20 – Fists of Fire, Ultimate Challenge MMA - Warrior Creed became UCMMA 22 - Warrior Creed, etc. All of the just deleted articles were recreated just as he said he would during the deletion discussion. Papaursa (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm checking the articles and deleting them as appropriate. I'll see how he responds to that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This was expected, given he said he was going to do it. It's also rather pointy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And he hasn't been blocked because ... ? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, good question. C.Fred? Bushranger? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My first instinct was to block, but I thought I recalled a comment when he was brought up before about giving him more time (to either mature as an editor, or as WP:ROPE), so I wanted whoever had commented to comment here first. However, looking back at the disucssion in question, it seems I was remembering a discussion about some other editor. Given that, a block is in order; I've given him two weeks, but wouldn't be opposed if anybody else believes it's indef time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you've handed him rope right now, in a very good faith manner. Advise him quite carefully that in 2 weeks, if his behaviour continues, it will be indef. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Myself and another admin have both declined unblock requests, and there's some pretty clear indication that BigzMMA isn't getting what the real problem is--xe's specifically asked us to tell xyr what xe needs to say in order to be unblocked, rather than, oh, trying to figure out what was wrong with the behavior in the first place. We'll need to be watching xyr contributions after the block expires. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's another unblock request, and quite the lengthy one. Let's just say, if I were playing bad-AFD-argument bingo this morning, I'd win. I've attempted to lay out precisely where this editor is doing it wrong, as I'd feel bad (for a few minutes, at least) if this editor went to indef without at least the attempt at helping them to climb down off the reichstag. I'm not optimistic, but (per WP:ROPE) I don't think it's indef time yet. Though watch for threats, as he reiterates several in the unblock request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

He ranted again afterwards. He's now had talk page access removed. I've given him some reccomended reading to pass his block time, but alas my gut feeling is they won't help. :( - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

String of unhelpful edits by user Apoorvmehta9

This guy has been making either blank edits or vandalizing the article on the Tokyo earthquake.I request that he be banned from editing this article for at least a week. --Sam 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Userpage link[82] (above link incorrect)
• UserStats: Apoorvmehta9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.I had no idea how to link anything :| --Sam 02:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Those edits don't appear to actually be vandalism. The one that was closest was the edit that removed almost all of the article, but subsequent edits make it look like the editor may have just made a mistake; some edits, including to other articles, definitely seem to be at least trying to help. If the problem persists, the best thing to do is to warn the editor, and then report at WP:AIV if xe doesn't stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maunus pushing POV on Race related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Another admin has protected the article in question. No additional administrative action seems to be forthcoming, and the discussion is devolving. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) the IP reporting now blocked as an ipsock of Mikemikev (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Maunus, an American based social anthropologist who ascribes to the minority position in international biology and anthropology that race is a meaningless concept, is attempting to censor factual information from impeccable sources from race and genetics articles, and describing the addition of said facts as "vandalism".[83][84][85] (In Soviet Russia it would be "wrecking" and I would be starved in Siberia, so perhaps I should be grateful for small mercies).

A common argument parroted by the quasi political AAA and editors like Maunus is that "there is more genetic variation within races than between them, therefore race is of no taxonomic significance".

This argument has been discredited in several ways, one by the eminent British geneticist AWF Edwards who argued that this over simplification ignores correlations in the variation, and recently and perhaps more forcefully by Long (2010), who found that there is more variation within chimpanzees and humans than between them, in fact a very similar ratio (0.12 for human races vs. 0.18 for human races and chimpanzees).[86] It is this second, rug pulling fact, that Maunus wants swept under.

My simple request is that user Maunus is warned to stop his partisan censorship of facts which expose the fraudulence of his and his ilk's POV.

In addition Maunus is adding material by a philosopher, Kaplan, who entirely misses the point and argues that perhaps variation does not structure into races (he does not and cannot know whether this is the case). This, however, is entirely irrelevant to the section, which is simply about the argument "there is more genetic variation within races than between them, therefore race is of no taxonomic significance", which the chimpanzee finding proves to be nonsense. Clearly a case of shifting the goalposts and trying to claim "Lewontin was right all along". 94.116.120.5 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not suitable for ANI. You should look into the possibilities listed in WP:Dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I think that perhaps he wants to report me for abusing the admin tools: I have semiprotected the two pages where the above IP has been repeatedly removing sourced material without having attempted to establish a consensus to do so on the talkpage. I am clearly an involved admin so perhaps I shouldn't have done that. On the other hand the IP is very likely a block evading sockpuppet - his fourth edit was stalking me to an unrelated talkpage an wherre he accused me of being a "wikipedia Jew". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: Maunus has now abused his admin tools by locking the article so IPs cannot edit. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks like Maunus is trying to exercise ownership of the article, and using his admin authority to do it. That is not appropriate, and that makes it an ANI issue. Maunus should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to force the IP to use the talkpage instead of editwar his preferred version into existence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the edit-war? I can see you two fighting *across* articles but on article I just looked at, he makes an edit, you revert and then Indef protect the article - isn't that a text-book case of using admin tools in a dispute? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have given my reasons for why I did it. Unprotect if you wish. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Heat > light causa sui (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you're serious about "dialogue", you should restore it to the version of probably October 16th, before the current debate began. What you've repeatedly added is nothing more than an essay trying to push a minority viewpoint, and the fact that it's "sourced" is a weak argument, a typical POV-pushing argument. Also, you chopped "races" off a sentence, leaving it as "Also other factors such as endogamy for cultural reasons may give rise to genetically differentiated." That sentence makes no sense. In short, your changes are not an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) That is nonsense. It is not an essay pushing a minority viewpoint. You apparently know little about the topic otherwise you wouldn't suggest that a viewpoint advanced by the forempst specialists on the biology of "race" and an entry in Wiley's encyclopedia of the social sciences is a minority view and summarising it in the article is an "essay". I have unptrotected the articles - there seems to be enough eyes on them now. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Scientists can argue their wishful-thinking viewpoint all they want, but they don't rule the world. The reality is that the concept of race is alive and well. Also, the revert will have to go back farther than October 16th to remove your POV-pushing essay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for offering your opinion on the issue of race, I am sure you feel better now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, I would feel better if race really didn't matter. But in the real world, it does. And no amount of wishful thinking by scientists and a few blinders-on editors here will make it otherwise. Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy. You should know that already, yet you insist on doing it. Not good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Are you going to back up your personal attacks with evidence?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What "personal attack"? That you should know better? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC) That I am pushing a POV in order to give it more weight than reliable sources require. I am not going to speculate about what you should know, because by now it is obvious to everyone that you don't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems both sides are at fault here: a censring admin and a fanatical Ip editwarring. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• ANIs filed by obviously logged-out and/or block-evading IPs aren't worth the pixels the complaint is printed on, honestly. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, I would agree. But that does not justify an admin exerting ownership of an article and screwing up its intelligibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would beg any admin (or any editor who considers herself mature and gets involved in these things) to read over the talk history of the article before judging Maunus. Maunus is very clearly not a single-purpose account, and has a well-established reputation for contributing good content to articles consistent with our core content policies and consistent with sober, thorough research. I have never seen her add content without reliable sources, and I have seen her make constructive edits to a wide range of articles, "Race" being only one of a great many.

However, the "Race" article has attracted a great many SPA's, including one or two SPA banned users who have returned several times as sock-puppets. The reason they were banned had to do with edit-warring characterized by a lack of reliable sources or demonstrable misuse of sources, as well as outright racist edits. All of this is in the edit history of various articles including the Race article.

Shakinglord is right that we have a fanatical IP edit warring, and I would add that this IP is trying to include views that have been discussed ad nauseum by registered non-banned/not-sockpuppet editors and have been removed from the article. And removed. And removed. And removed. And removed. And removed. Are you getting bored of my repetition yet? Well, I got bored, which is why I hardly watch the Race article anymore. I would have to repeat "And removed" a hundred times before you begin to reach the level of boredom that anyone actively participating in the development of the Race article experiences.

And you accuse Maunus of "censorship?" This boggles my mind. What else do you expect a responsible editor to do, when a "fanatical IP" &mdash: Shaking Lord's words, not mine — keeps restoring material that well-informed, policy adhering editors have discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed (sorry i am doing it again again again) and keep concluding that it is not-notable and misrepresents the scholarly research? What else should Maunus do? If you truly believe the anon. IP is fanatically edit warring, Maunus has no choice but to raise the protection of the article. It is the only responsible thing to do. Maunus is not censoring the article and is not asserting ownership — ownership? what a ludicrous accusation when this article is the result of dozens of very knowledgable and skilled researchers collaborating over many years to produce a stable and credible article!!!! — Maunus is protecting it. That is the only responsible thing to do. You should all be giving her barnstars. And someone with checkuser or other privileges might consider investigating the possibility that the IP is another sock-puppet. Maybe I am wrong, but that is far more likely than Maunus claiming ownership and censoring other good-faith editors! But at least take the time to read through all the archived talk. You will see that Maunus is only protecting a well-established consensus version from changes that a host of anonymous IPs have tried to force on the article over many years. Read the archives; then you can judge Maunus. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would to express my condolences to Slubenstein because he gets bored trying to censor facts he doesn't like. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flaming causa sui (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, at least Maunus fixed the unintelligible sentence that he caused. Now all he has to do is remove his POV-pushing essay, and he'll be good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) ...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Bugs... please READ the sources involved before you throw accusations like "POV-pushing essay" around. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not backed up by reliable sources. eldamorie (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What the Hell are you even talking about? Do you even understand the article/s? There is a difference between social perceptions and scientific reality. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Bugs, put a cork in it. You clearly know nothing of the subject, and we don't need your facile off-topic commentary here. This is a serious matter. Go watch your cartoons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Race is a serious matter in the real world. Wishful thinking won't make it otherwise. Put your own cork in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been a long-running attempt by endless IP/sockpuppets to spin 'race' related articles to suit a minority POV - often accompanied by personal attacks and innuendo. Maunus was clearly doing what any responsible admin would - which is to prevent such POV-pushing by individuals unwilling to either work within Wikipedia policy, nor engage in meaningful dialogue. Give the complaining IP a clip round the ear with a boomerang, and send him/her on their way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flaming causa sui (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Scientists can argue their wishful-thinking viewpoint all they want, but they don't rule the world" — must be one of the dumbest things I have ever read, in relation to writing an encyclopedia. Andy, I think it's pretty clear that the bunny actually does not want to be taken seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Maybe the next time there's an ANI filing about an editor being "racist", I should send the offender your way so you can scientifically prove that race doesn't exist. Good luck with that! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Who is right in this content dispute is not relevant to AN/I, as difficult as it may be for any of us to detach from it, given its emotionally charged content and context. Maunus should not have used sysop tools to enforce his own position in the content dispute, no matter what. Using semi-protection to favor registered over unregistered editors is already bad when you're uninvolved; when involved it's a serious problem. Do it like everyone else does it and work through WP:RFPP: if you're as right as you think you are, it shouldn't be hard to find an uninvolved admin who can agree with you. causa sui (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  I see that Maunus self-reverted the semi-protection. A good call. I fully protected Race and genetics for 3 days to give the parties time to follow WP:DR. "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper) is another locus of dispute but the edit warring doesn't yet seem severe enough to justify protection. causa sui (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  And by your fully-protecting Maunus's version, he gets to continue to own the article. Good for you. (At least his unintelligble sentence got fixed first.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my version you obnoxious *****.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's a copyvio, BLP matter, or the like, the version shouldn't matter. Everybody agrees that admins shouldn't use tools when they're involved in a content dispute - or in Manus' case, when they can't keep their cool - but they are allowed to deal with suspicious or disruptive IPs, and that the line between the two is sometimes fuzzy. The rest of the stuff about race, particularly the long-running sideshow of mutual disparagement among the "race does not exist" cast and crew, belongs on NPOV or some talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please cease your attacks on Maunus, or raise a proper complaint (though expect a boomerang if you do). You clearly have no knowledge of the subject matter, and your comments have achieved nothing beyond making this discussion more heated than it need be. This isn't a forum for uninformed opinion on article content. Or if you think you actually do know what you are talking about, find some relevant WP:RS and contribute to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're funny. I live in America. I know plenty about race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why has Maunus not been warned for his intemperate language? Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think everybody is waiting for you to do the honors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The heat death of the Universe is some way off yet. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out which is the most commonly-used obscenity that has 5 letters instead of 4. Maybe I'm better off not knowing. We wouldn't want Maunus to erupt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I use neither obscenities nor four letter words.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So I should read "you obnoxious *****" as "you obnoxious 5-star rating". Sounds good! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• As we all know, protection of the article is not an endorsement of the current revision. The purpose of protection is to encourage dispute resolution by closing the door to edit warring. I'll do the honors and suggest that editors who continue to engage in personal attacks and flaming (on AN/I of all places) may find themselves blocked, whoever they are. The article is protected and it's now time to resolve the dispute on the relevant talk pages. causa sui (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Maunus has been constructive contributor to the R&I article arena. I don't always agree, so I'm not here as a supporter. What is clear, however, is that there was a disruptive IP that needed to be dealt with. There's a conflict here on Maunus' part only iff there were some genuine attempt to control content; clearly, Maunus' involvement in this topic area has not taken that form—although the behavior of some others certainly has. Much ado about nothing. Nothing to see here, move on. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all of Maunus's buddies for jumping in to give me a kicking. I'm sorry for being a "disruptive" IP. Obviously the fact that I am right is of little importance. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry, forgot to apologise for being a "fanatical" IP. Sorry for that. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

People should donate a dime for every time they're "right"; it'd keep wikipedia going for a decade... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do us all a favor, take a time out from the smug cynicism, read what I wrote, and tell us whether A) You think I'm right B) You think I'm wrong C) You don't understand. Humor me. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Disruption at AfD

Resolved

 – AfD closed to redirect all articles; unless disruption restarts, no need to worry about what the exact cause was Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellator 55

Bit of an odd one this; a number of SPAs turning up to !vote "Keep" (with no decent rationale) on an AfD I started a while back. At least one of them (the interestingly named User:WR Reader), has only ever edited before to !vote Keep on ... an AfD that I started. Now we also have User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive with phrasing interestingly similar to WR Reader. All this just as we were starting to develop a well-discussed consensus that the articles should be redirected to the season articles - even good-faith Keep !voters such as User:Thesteve agreeing on this one. Thing is, what to do? SPI isn't for fishing, as we get repeatedly told, so are we just dependent on the competence of the closing admin? Black Kite (t) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Could this have anything to do with the section about User:BigzMMA above? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark em as SPAs and let the closing admin sort it.--v/r - TP 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Already done; my Spideysense is tingling though and I don't think it's User:BigzMMA. Black Kite (t) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Call the Checkusers, we obviously seem to have sock/meat problem. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't Bigz. But I do smell socks. SPI time? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether this was socking or off-wiki canvassing, I've closed the discussion as Redirect to the season articles. Now I just need to go through and actually do all of the redirects.... Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Stoshu

I'm not sure if this page constitutes an attack page or not. I think it falls foul of WP:UPNOT though. NtheP (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is, obviously, an attack page, and a possible copyvio, judging from the amount of text. Just wipe the attack off and warn Stoshu. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleared and watchlisted. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Does that need oversighting? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how volatile the information Stoshu presented was. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a simple attack page presented in legal terms, as far as I can tell. It's enough of an attack that I've deleted it and restored only the most recent version, which doesn't have any attacks. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

Please someone, look at what has been happening to the article List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and take appropriate action immediately. For example, look at this edit: [87], and then look at what the citation actually says. There are tens, perhaps hundreds of these edits made while we all assumed good faith. I would revert them all, but there are too many and I don't have rollback authority. Please take appropriate action as soon as possible. Chrisrus (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hard to make sense of this without a link that actually works. Looie496 (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please just go look at the history of the article. I don't know how to fix the other link. Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there appears to be a dissonance between what has been recently reported, and what has since come to light.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[88] is cited by [89]. If these guys have some updated information that contradicts the citation they are using, where is it? This Robert Howard item is cited only by citation number 112, which says nothing about any subsequent facts coming to light. Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's just the beginning. Keep checking the citations. There are many such edits with citations that say the exact opposite. Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about the edits by WhiteMako (talk · contribs), yes? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and others, too. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but if one has a citation that says that earlier reports were wrong, you can't just change it and leave only the old citaiton saying the exact opposite of what the article says, you have to provide the new citation. Maybe they just don't understand that. It wierd to think someone wouldn't understand that, but I suppose there is a possibility they are trying to improve the article, but editing the text to say NOTX while the citation says X looks very bad. Chrisrus (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] Chrisrus made a simple typo, including two brackets on each side instead of one or none; we want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=449009365 for the edit he's bringing up. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

His error was a little more extensive than that. In any event, I fixed the link in the original post. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Playing in the wrong sandboxen.

I'm not confident that i've read this correctly, but it looks to me as though IP 213.149.163.147 has created a number of accounts and then is editing in sandboxes of each account, making new articles, perhaps with the intention of creating them in the mainspace sometime. Or, he has stumbled across some inactive accounts which happen to have sandboxes, and is editing in them. Either way, multiple accounts or using someone else's userspace, it seems he is doing something he shouldn't. I have tried communicating my concerns, both the the IP [90] and to several of the accounts [91], [92], [93], &c., but with no response, other than the continued pattern by the IP. Action needed? Maybe a brief block of the IP to help (give him time) him to look around, see how the place functions? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the usernames of the sandboxes he's playing in, I'd say it's a mini sockfarm, but likely from someone without a clue ... any checkuser wanna do the honours? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP created all of them. I believe you are right that he was trying to create articles, but couldn't because he is an IP. I have blocked all the users indefinitely, and the IP for a week, while someone tries to talk to him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen. Let's hope he listens. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:67.172.41.106

This IP has numerous instances of vandalism today. -Arianism I am recommending it for a block.

- A ML-Talk-Cont-Count —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

I have blocked for 31hrs, but WP:AIV is the best place to take vandalism AND you are required to notify any user you report to this board (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo slow editwarring on Adolf Hitler's religious views

• Adolf Hitler's religious views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Mamalujo has repeatedly an unilaterally reinserted his favourite version of the article over the last couple of days. His only participation in the discussion on the talkpage has been to state his disagreement with those editors who are against his insertion. He has been repeatedly told that a strong belief that you are right and everybody else is wrong does not justify editwarring. I do not consider myself to be involved, but since I have offered my own arguments in the discussion section I think it is reasonable to let other admins take action - otherwise I would have blocked him for editwarring myself. I am not taking this to the 3rr notice board because more than the editwarring it is the behavioral problem of not respecting consensus or engage in meaningful discussion that is the problem here, the editwarring seems to be a symptom of that. I hope that when informed about the correct interpretation of policy by multiple administrators he may change his conduct. I also note that his userpage, talkpage and edit history suggests a possible pattern of tendentious editing that may also underlie the unwillingness to dialogue with other users. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully protected the page to put a stop to further edit warring until user conduct issues can be sorted out. causa sui (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick review of the talk page and edit history appears to confirm Maunus' version of events. Specifically, it seems that (1) Mamalujo (talk · contribs) has the minority view that the eradication of Christianity was a goal of the German National Socialist movement or of Hitler himself, and (2) has edit warred on the article to pursue including that view in the article instead of following dispute resolution, and (3) has argued explicitly that other users' disagreement with the interpretation of his sources is not relevant because he's right and they're wrong.

The protection policy suggests that it is better to block disruptive users rather than protect a page, because protection prevents constructive edits from non-disruptive editors. If others agree with that assessment, I'd suggest blocking Mamalujo (talk · contribs) and removing my protection. I also give leave to any administrator to lengthen, shorten, or remove the protection I set according to their own best judgment. causa sui (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've recently observed an edit war a couple months ago involving an ip. Perhaps sockpuppetry is afoot here. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 23:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You would have to provide a little more context for that part of the issue to become actionable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is, in fact, Mamalujo's modus operandi - he adopts a unique or extreme minority view regarding a topic (typically that some individual or group is or was attacking the Catholic church), and then slow-editwars his version of events into an article, sometimes over periods of many months, hoping to wear down his opponents. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Edit Conflict Then it is a completely diffent subject then the Ip, who was try to add unsourced matiriel into the article. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo's edits generally have one purpose - to promote and defend the reputation of the Catholic church as he perceives it. On William Shakespeare's religion he edit-warred to promote the idea that Shakespeare was a Catholic, on Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs he edit-warred to claim that Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity. The pattern is to include "asssets" like Shakespeare (creative genius was a Catholic) and exclude "liabilities" like Hitler (he was nominally Catholic but really he wanted to destroy the faith). The edit warring is, unfortunately, sometimes accompanied by twisting and misrepresenting of sources to push for the desired outcome. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would endorse this assessment of the situation. He has also done the same thing on the War in the Vendée article, repeatedly deleting sourced text by claiming it is "factually inaccurate" without coming to the talk page or addressing any of the disagreement with his version of history, coming back every couple of months to push this view. Perhaps a user RFC is warranted? eldamorie (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mamalujo hasn't edited at all in almost three days, so for now I don't think a block would be fitting, but I've left a strong warning that he's already been warned about this before and if he does it again, a block will most likely be forthcoming. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this constitutes vandalism but the user created a page called Other Stuff with just a link to Sand box. They seem to be making other edits now as well. I think the situation should be looked at by those in the know to determine if their recent edits constitute vandalism or not. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that was quite clearly just a botched attempt to make a subpage to his talkpage. I've made the same mistake myself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd seen that too, lifted an eyebrow, then thought, "Oh, he meant that to be in his userspace." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Jayjg and Paul Barlow have written above - and Mamalujo distorts quotes, I've just looked at a quote on the Faulhaber page where a writer says Faulhaber displays 'typical Christian antisemitism' and this is juggled by Mamalujo unil it comes out as - he doesn't display antisemitism. Bloody hell. Sayerslle (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

NLP

Anyone fancy taking a look at Neuro-linguistic programming? There is an edit war over the use of the word "controversial" [94], possible outing [95] and accusations of socks of User:HeadleyDown William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fully protected 3 days for the content dispute. The outing diffs should probably be revdeleted. I'm going to do a quick review and probably delete them. causa sui (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Further review has only left me with more questions than answers. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HeadleyDown suggests that the article has been the subject of long-term and severe abuse by a sophisticated and determined sockmaster. The quoted diff appears to be an effort by an IP who, while loading the narrative with unhelpful histrionics, is making some sincere effort to identify sockpuppets of HeadlyDown. The question may be whether we think WP:OUTING is a protection also enjoyed by long-term abusers like HeadlyDown, and whether protecting the privacy of returning community banned vandals is a priority over using available means to protect the project. By the way I worded that loaded question, it's obvious what my inclination is. Further, we should expect that an article being the subject of such determined and complex abuse (reaching RFArb twice, and without any complete resolution) would give rise to an atmosphere of witch-hunts. This bears closer examination. causa sui (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This summary seems fair. We don't engage in outing, even of our worst abusers. If someone is that bad then in the event of legal action the information should perhaps be available to WMF if reliable, and if a few seasoned trusted users (such as Checkusers, Arbitrators and a few admins) who directly work on the case are aware of the relevant background it could possibly help them to detect or prevent abuse better, but it should not be put on the public wiki, and if posted by anyone on-site it should where practical be removed per WP:OUTING. That goes even for long term abusers.

In HeadleyDown's case there doesn't seem to be any kind of overriding urgent issue of harm to others. The stakes are just the project, frustrated editors, and him. The sole exception is if he attacks and defames users off-site, which he's done more than once, in that case the users concerned may legitimately wish to defend themselves in real-life too (in their private capacity). But that's WP:BATTLE, it's not something we want to be part of in any way, nor is it our place to provide support to the extent of allowing the posting of alleged personal details all over the wiki. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. Another counter-argument to what I said is that we don't actually know that the accused user is a sock of HeadlyDown and so we ought not allow personal information to be revealed publicly on account of a presumption of guilt. The upshot of this is that people familiar with HeadlyDown should evaluate the situation, block the ducks (if any), revdelete the outed information, and submit anything worthy to en-Arbcom-l. causa sui (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly User:Snowded/Dave Snowden has a massive COI and should stop editing the article - or we should move it to Neuro-linguistic programming as per Dave Snowdon - I am reminded of the satirical comment, ..I created a POV unbalanced article and vandals are coming to balance it up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes the COI is clear and has been identified before [96]. The web of meats may be wide as Snowden has a lot of contacts. The sockmasterouting site is accurately based on wikipedia information [97]. A ban is necessary. Colemchange (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob seems to take a general approach that I should be banned from editing any article where my position contradicts his and his comments verge on a personal attack. On a previous occasion he made the same proposal after the position I and others was sustained on the Unite against Fascism Article. Having failed to get his way he lashed out. Pity really he does good work elsewhere but has a blind spot on right wing articles and editors (such as myself) who are prepared to be persistent. I and others have been very patiently trying to take an evidence based approach on the NLP article in the face of multiple editors who are openly NLP proponents.. We also have web sites of NLP proponents who are campaigning here with clear meat puppetry (happy to provide the links if someone wants them. I'd welcome some senior editors getting involved and I'm happy to reveal any personal information they want (its fairly public anyway). The "controversy" word has been there for a very long time and appears to have been removed by an SPA while I was on a wiki break. --Snowded ^TALK 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is likely the main problem here is commercial promotion of the neuro-linguistic programming. Since editing the neuro-linguistic programming article, I (and other editors) have been accused of sockpuppetry [98][99][100][101][102]. Some of these accusations have resulted in blocking of other editors (on the pro side)[103][104] (this happened after the appearance of the outing/recruit site posted).

After some investigation following the main accusers’ edits, it appears that there has been a long term adding of promotional links to neuro-linguistic programming related articles, specifically from a commercial site named Inspiritive.com that promotes a “New code” of the neuro-linguistic programming: [105][106][107]

Here is information consistent with this compiled by User Snowded:[108]

Subsequently, more Inspiritive.com related commercial links were recently removed:[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116]

Some similar edits have appearing since yesterday[117][118]

They have now been removed: [119][120]

A broader community of editors on neuro-linguistic programming article is desirable. Removing of the commercial links will likely also need the further work in future. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

NLP must be controversal, the article is 'protected', along with the likelihood it is attracting socks. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Id used only for vandalism

Stale

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

I think user In8214 is an id created for vandalizing the page Azim Premji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.58.109 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't edited since December last year (unless something's been revdelted?), so I don't see why any admin action would be required. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In8214 has no deleted contributions. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No action can be taken from this forum due to a lack of "immediate" concern (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The IP/OP's own editing history might be worth a look. This,[121] for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

He does appear to have a wee bit of a problem with WP:CIVIL and quite possibly WP:COMPETENCE. Not enough to be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG (yet), but enough to have one brandished in his general direction (i.e. warned). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:2011khan

• 2011khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Burki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Problematic user; WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:CIR, WP:EW. After a break he has returned to today to continue edit-warring on the Burki article from which a number of his edits were removed (mainly Youtube links which were clearly copyrighted - a number had adverts and TV station logos on them). He refuses to understand the copyright problem ("If there is a copyright violation then that is the hosts responsibility, in this case YouTube"), even when explained clearly to him, to the extent that at User_talk:Qwyrxian#Burki, Qwyrxian had to ask if he actually had a good grasp of English. This edit seems to point to a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE. He has edit-warred to remove the Farsi spelling of the Burki article (calling it "propaganda"); he may well be over 3RR already. More problematic is his incivility issues both in editing and edit summaries; "Ignorance and Stupidity", "Wiki Fascist Admins", "Faschists (sic)", and has invented the glorious term "Wippocryt" which I presume is a conflation of "Wikipedia" and a badly-spelt "hypocrite" here, "unlearned" (sic),"Wiki Mafia" etc.

Whilst myself and Qwyrxian (and previously other admins) are thick-skinned and can laugh off this nonsense, User:2011khan clearly doesn't understand the concept of editing collegially here, so I am wondering if it would be possible for someone uninvolved to have a quiet word? I suspect you'll probably get the same response (incivility or just having your words removed), but it's probably worth a try before he talks himself into a block. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 16:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Edit: and this latest edit is simply vandalism, plus yet another revert of the farsi interwiki link. Black Kite (t) 16:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indeffed until we figure out what the hell he's doing. Won't accept assistance, continually violating major policy (including vandalism and NPA). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's going to insult us with his massive inferiority complex, then the least he could do is spell "fascist" correctly. –MuZemike 23:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The last point actually relates to one of the core problems--it's fairly obvious that English is not 2011kahn's first language. This is making it quite difficult to get key points across, like how he (see either my talk or Talk:Burki) he quotes WP:RS and then interprets to say exactly the opposite of what most of us think it says (i.e., the fact that YouTube is not only not a good reference, we can't even usually link to it for copyvio reasons). Since I believe he is Burki, and the article (as poor as it is right now) says that most Burki speak Ormuri along with a dialect of Pashto, it might help to have someone drop him a note in his native language...but I don't know if we have any ANI-watchers who speak Ormuri or Pashto.

If you look through the history on 2011kahn's user talk, as well as Talk:Burki, you can see that I and others have tried to explain the relevant policies, but to no avail. The thing is, I really do feel sad for him in this situation, because I legitimately believe that it is at least likely that the Burki were the victims of major violence and possibly even attempted genocide (given that the term is used in RS for the general area...just not for the Burki specifically), but, unfortunately, no one has yet presented what Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources to back up the claim. This is one of those cases where I wish we had a parallel project that allowed people to record their own personal stories that are not recorded in "official sources" to serve as a counterbalance to systemic bias...but we don't have such a project now, so we have to stick with our rules as written. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he did get it right the second time around. –MuZemike 00:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time Godwin's law has been broken with regard to this subject; I found this little tirade some time ago. The response is the best I've seen to someone shouting "NAZIS!!!!!!!!". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked users and misuse of user talk page

Resolved

 – Passage voluntary removed.Tarc (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• diff in question.

In the course of discussing the manner in which an indef blocked user seems to be trying to make a comeback, said blocked user has decided to user her talk page to launch a crude counterattack. As we all know, I am quite loosey-goosey with civility junk, but passages such as

• • "the thing is that every time I am lied about by tarc it feels like I touched something really dirty, and I have a strong urge to take a very long, hot shower. In a few last months that I spent on Wikipedia our water bills were really high :-),and now they are way down, which is good" are way above and beyond anything I would ever post to another editor, or tolerate seeing on any user's talk page.

I tried removing it myself, with all-too-expected results. There's a lot of backstory here to mbz's continuous nasty behavior that led to a voluntary-but-not-quite indef block, plus the numerous topic bans and blocks and such before that. If others here wish to make this about that, then by all means lets dive into it all now, though I will soon be off til morning. If not, then can we deal with the IMO straightforward abuse of talk page privs by a blocked user? Tarc (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a personal attack in the diff presented above. Mbz1's accusation presented above is cited with a diff. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS #5, the accusation was cited, and can't really be classified as a personal attack. Your comment here, on the other hand, doesn't cite evidence... WP:BOOMERANG? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, what bullshit. On this and related forums, mbz has had it out for Malik Shabazz, has made that quite plain. This is a user blocked for intemperate remarks and harassment, it is not out of bounds to consider them as the source of an anonymous vandal spree, we've seen disgruntled editor vendettas here a million times before. And if you really do not see an attack/insult in the "long hot shower" line there, then quite frankly you have no business weighing in on this or any other ANI filing. Tarc (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you reading the same diff I am? I don't want to get too involved in this, but that's a pretty damn clear attack if I ever saw one. I'm not sure it's her who engineered the raid (I doubt it, honestly, but it's impossible to prove), but I'm not sure how much clearer a personal attack could be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The principle attack here came from Tarc. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Tarc, According to the block log, it was a self requested block. Making an assumption that a vandalism spree was caused by this blocked user is neither civil, nor assuming good faith. Yes, the "hot shower" comment was unnecessary. Though it did provide an accurate metaphor (letting false comments just roll off one's back). The first part of her comment, about your attack on a blocked user, describing it as "dirty" (as defined by definition 4) is fairly accurate. The user is blocked. So making such a comment when you know they cannot argue against it, is fairly cheap. If you believe there is strong evidence between the vandals and Mbz1, then you can file an SPI. If you don't have strong evidence, then why make a potential attack against a blocked user? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Battling with a user who has an indefinite block serves nothing. What is an administrator going to do, unblock them and re-block for the personal attack? — Moe ε 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant, you're chasing after a swiftly swimming red herring that has nothing to do with this discussion. Mbz's block was self-requested in exchange for having an entry in her block log rev-deleted, that is all.

Moe, did I ask for something silly like that? No. What I wanted last night was for the passage to be removed. It now has been, so we're done here. Thank you for the input. Tarc (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:7arazred - disruptive editing

7arazred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user persists in adding GA and/or FA status to Revolution Software even though the article has failed twice at WP:GAN; Talk:Revolution Software/GA1, Talk:Revolution Software/GA2. Several edits by 193.111.221.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follow the same pattern. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4 Efforts have been made by several editors to communicate with User:7arazred on this and other issues as can be seen at Revision history of User talk:7arazred, The only response has been the user blanking their talk page and no change in behaviour. There appears to be a pattern of disruptive editing so I am bringing this here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User has also recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Revolution Software and the corresponding Template:WikiProject Revolution Software without, as far as I can tell, having gone through WP:COUNCIL/P first. I suspect a conflict of interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am this User, and I want to tell You a few things - First of all, every time I renominated Revolution Software as GA, I always improve the Article, and fixed the problems that the reviewer stated. For example: The Reviever of the first GA nomination said that a few sources weren't reliable - I replaced it with reliable ones. He said that the source of the image has to be provided - I provided it. He said Sources used for citations are also present in the external links section which is not permitted - I fixed that too. He said that Wikipedia can't be used a source - I fixed too. I also presented the info more logically, which he said I needed to do. He said I should add sales figures, and I added many. I even added Average Review Scores. But, even if I improved the Article and the issues it had (almost all of the issues), they kept saying that nothing was fixed, which made me furious. I made WikiProject: Revolution Software so others could help me improve the Revolution Software-related Articles.--7arazred (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out on the second GAN, you made it look like the problems were all fixed, by evaluating it yourself. That seems like poor judgment at best, and down-right deceptive at worst. Relisting a second GAN only 10 days after the first failed is a bit fast. Second, a Wikiproject for a single company is very rarely necessary; in fact, I was just guessing and trying some of the biggest companies in the world, and I can't find any Wikiprojects for individual companies outside of WP:WikiProject Disney. Revolution Software has, what, less than 20 pages in total associated with it? I'm inclined to agree with Redrose64, and worry that there may be a conflict of interest here.

We may want to consider deletion of the second GAN page, given that from the beginning it wasn't a nomination so much as it was an attempt to declare by fiat that the article had met all of the previous concerns; then, if someone wants to renominate again, in maybe a month or two, and ideally a different editor, then a second GAN could be opened. Alternatively, if any regular GA reviewers think the article may be on the right track, we could just blank that page and move forward with an actual second GAN. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not just about the GA nomination. The problem is that you don't discuss your edits, make big changes, and simply blank your talk page after someone tries to communicate with you. You have not followed community guidelines, you ignored other editor messages, and afterwards repeated the same edits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, :D ! --7arazred (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dearchived. The user [122] just made Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti Justin Bieber and copy pasted and modified GA review from Talk:Revolution_Software/GA1 onto Relapse_(album)/GA1 and promoted it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indeffed 7arazred, deleted the "anti" Project as BLP violating. I have not touched the false GA reviews. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also did the same with Talk:Relapse (album)/GA1. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Final comments regarding the Tooth Fairy Scandal.

Continued from discussion here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action requested or necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

For a final solution to the problem of working with others, I will simply lower my expectations. Problem solved. Co-operation means different things to different people. Western unskilled workers commuting to work think they are co-operating to build a nation or something or other. Everyone arrives at a cube farm and is carefully partitioned in their office cubicle. So there is that valid point of view, where people are working for the same company and so are involved in a co-operative effort. Other cultures see specialization as an essential upgrade to this individualistic approach. It's a more complex form of co-operation where each person has specialist skills they bring to the project, like an Amish barn-raising, which many of you are probably familiar with, from the movie 'witness' with Harrison Ford. More enjoyable, and faster too, most westerners spend 30 years each to build a structure (as in mortgage for their house) while the amish do it in about 1 day times the number of people in the community, and each of those 'workdays' is a festival.

I recently realise my specialist tools which I use to predict and pinpoint readership reactions (and vandalism) to article text are actually perfectly useful to predict the reactions of other editors to my talkpage comments. I can extrapolate from previous comments their future reactions with varying degrees of success. I have had great success stabilising the ISS article from edit warring, so I know this works just fine.

I see the idea of mentioning my request for an interaction ban, especially with user:only is pointless and rhetorical.

To help educate those who need it, Penyulap is not a personal name, it's a common noun. Feed it into google translate and it will auto-detect the language and give you a rather crude translation. It can't handle the full tukang pesulap, but if you drop the prefix, (tukang sulap) it starts to get the idea. Just ask the indonesian embassy on wikipedia for assistance if you still don't get the point. Anyhow, my handle, which is a common noun would be a less outlandish explaination of my interest in the tooth fairy image with a magic staff and magical powers than any of these other outlandish ideas. (Further on this topic, I may improve and adopt the "wikipe-tan as a penyulap" image for my TP or for wider useage. Wikipe-tan may have narrowly missed out on being the worldwide face of wikipedia as a mascot, but rather than being with the losing team in an increasingly multicultural globalized community, I'll side with the inevitable winners.)

However the idea that I'll return to the project is in doubt, I'd say I'll probably make an edit to something here or there, maybe, but overall the tyranny of the masses is overwhelming, at least on english wikipedia. The way Off2riorob was cut down for voicing his opinion, plus, on a wider issue, the way Professional author Lee-brandon Kremer has been mistreated, the way the well known astrophotographer Ralf Vendeberg was deleted with no thought at all. I mean I can see that english wikipedia culture is not far removed from, say, new york culture, but english wikipedia culture and it's idea of co-operation IS far removed from a global worldwide ideas. I think that english wikipedia is as doomed to fail in the outside world as western culture is doomed to fail in it's ongoing interactions with the rest of the world. Maybe I should consider brushing up my mandarin and looking for a chinese project. Certainly would serve well on space-related topics. I will adjust the retirement templates on my tp's to something that reflects my updated thinking. Penyulap _talk 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I do not see an incident that requires the immediate action by administrators. I do see a WP:SOAPBOX, or perhaps a misguided screed based on 1 person's misunderstanding of process/discussion. If you can show me that there's an actual incident here, excellent...if not, I'll be removing it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins, the comment is a response to the very recently archived discussion linked at the top of the section. I have trouble to respond properly to the accusations made against me quickly. It helps if I take a short time to calm down first. The accusations made against me allow me to respond to those accusations. If you wish to delete my response to the accusations against me, I have no opinion on that. Penyulap _talk 15:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Spland and the use of non-free files in userspace

Three times prior to today, I have removed non-free files from this user's userpage [123][124][125]. I warned him about this behavior on 31 August 2011 [126], and after he ignored the warning and added another 105 non-free images to his userpage [127] I gave him a final warning [128]. Today, he's returned from a two month absence in editing to add another non-free file (File:Network12.jpg) [129] to his userpage. I have removed it [130], and am seeking a block of this editor's editing privileges until such time as he agrees to stop adding non-free images to his userpage. Editor has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Behavior is continuing. He's just added another eight non-free files to his userpage [131]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• And still, despite being informed this report was asking for his indefinite block due to willful violation of WP:NFCC ([132]), he has continued the behavior [133]. Full protection of his userpage may be required to stop the behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I don't see how that user page complies with WP:UP - is it supposed to be a draft article or is it being used as a free webspace? – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected until they start discussing this. Looks like they're saving copies of plot summaries from various articles, probably violates WP:UP, but if it's WP-related I wouldn't get too excited about that. They tried to use their talk page for this instead, then thought better of it. Let me know if they start using their talk page for this again, and I'll block the account do something else (I guess a block wouldn't solve that problem). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocking while revoking talk page access would solve the problem if it continues. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You told them not to put them on their userpage so they tried the talk page. Blocked for 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Userpage is a copyvio - copies content from Wikipedia pages without attribution. I have deleted the page - can email it to him (minus the images) if he needs it for a school project, but he doesn't need it on his userpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Help requested

Resolved

Hi some idiot (ME) attempted to move Military history of Canada during World War II to Military history of Canada during the Second World War but ended up with Military history of Canada during the Second World WarWorld War could some helpful Admin sort my mess out thanks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved back to the starting point. I think that move should be discussed at WP:RM before it is moved again. The current form appears to be the one commonly used. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what's going on here - research into bias on Wikipedia?

Resolved

 – He wouldn't say 'boo' to a goose, but the goose said 'boo' to him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See the recent edits to Boudica and the comments on the talk page of Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk · contribs) (and mine). Does any of this ring a bell? I'm not saying Admin action is needed here, but it seems vaguely familiar and this is the most likely place to ask. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed this is "the most likely place to ask", please remember that all contributions to wikipedia are logged, and so can be downloaded and stored. Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does that include the intimidating speech you're using above? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain Dougweller is aware of that. Your point, Boo? LadyofShalott 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I warned him against posts that can be very easily read as attempts to stifle discussion. He responded thus. This isn't a serious researcher; it's a troll. (Note that I have no interest in Scottish/English history and have no foreknowledge of the troubles at Boudica.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The prompt rattling off of WP:POLICY, WP:POLICY and WP:POLICY, along with his edit summaries, has me smelling sock. In addition, as has been mentioned before, we're building an encyclopedia here, we're not rats in a cage for researchers to study. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The three links in the beginning of the post I quoted are the exact same ones I cited in the warning to him, links and all. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a sock, but, per WP:AGF, I will give some leeway to the user who did that so, hopefully, that user will not do it again. –MuZemike 07:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an editor who was blocked (or perhaps banned?) for exactly the same type behavior. Actually, I think there were two instances in the last 14 months or so. That would probably be why Doug thinks it familiar. Sorry, I cannot place the names, but if anyone is really interested, I could probably dig through AN/I over the next couple days and find the instances. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going crazy after all. :) Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly you are both thinking of User:Marshallsumter, who was using a combination of Wikipedia and Wikversity to do some sort of nebuluous research (i.e., determining what was "true" based on what articles got kept on Wikipedia). The whole mess, including ban discussion, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes.. This seems like a slightly different modus operandi, more like the way some long term users claim to do "research" by editing as IPs or new editors to "see how the other side is treated". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief, that guy. He was banned and for good cause, he was causing even more of a headache than the usual disruptive person because he wasn't quite so blatant about it. If this is the same person we should definitely try to keep him off of this site. -- Atama頭 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A research project into "bias"? Really? That smells like WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Any chance we could show this editor the door? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow! That was not the editor I was thinking of (well, except of course as a possible sock of each other). The editor was one who was going on rants on Jimbo's talk page, as well as here, their own talk page (and possibly elsewhere). Seems a recurring theme... :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page has been revoked thanks to this gem, which pretty much confirms he's just a troll. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this guy a possible sock, Researcher77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because this [134] looks suspiciously similar to a few diffs posted above. Heiro 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this other user. My only purpose here on wikipedia (i joined today) was to get the biased afrocentrism removed from the race of egyptians page. It is absolutely shocking that no one has removed the biased afrocentric/distortion etc on the egyptian article - so i would ask an admin/or mod look at my post showing these errors and secondly delete all the afrocentric lies on the page. Researcher77 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Researcher77 indefinitely per a recent AIV report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This IP is up to no bloody good whatsoever

I don't have the competence to change its edits to Des Moines but they're vanadalistic, as will become obvious if you look at them. And they're still there a couple of days later - not to mention the crap I just removed from photophobia.

A MASSIVE BLOCK is suggested 86.176.78.175 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just report them at WP:AIV if you think they need to be blocked; it's regular minor vandalism, and we get this a lot, so a "MASSIVE BLOCK" is not needed, IMO. HurricaneFan25 | talk 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, you're supposed to notify people when you post about them at AIV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Salisbury STEAK House"? Cute. The IP must be hungry. In any case, HurricaneFan25 has fixed it, and the IP only made the 2 edits to the article, and 4 total in the last month, all of them vandalistic, but he's probably too sporadic (at present) to warrant a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

****ed up? No, fucked up!

• Speedfish (talk · contribs · block log)

So we have a kid who is passionate about Wikipedia and who tries to make useful edits. What he doesn't realise is that his browser has a "smart" parental filter that replaces profanities with asterisks, so sometimes he unknowingly "censores" articles he edits by e.g. turning "fuck" into "****". What is wikipedians' response to it? First, admin wannabees throw "not censored!!!11oneone" templates at him. Because he didn't censor anything himself, he didn't understand WTF was going on and was probably too confused to ask. Then, he gets blocked by admins who don't really care that he's not a simple vandal or puritan zealot. Then, other admins are too busy to actually look at his case so they decline his pleas to take a look at the situation. Remember that he's a noob and still did not understand then that the porblem was NOT in his wikification and categorisation! Can you look at situation for longer that five seconds before declining, pretty pleeease?

So the question is: who fucked up is this affair? I don't think that it was him. Can someone please advice this gentleman how to disable or work around his wordfilter and unblock him, after all? Oh yeah, and apologising would be great, too. 46.44.46.91 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious sock, also, competence is required. Once he saw that his parental filter was messing up articles, he either should have asked his parents to disable the filter (or make Wikipedia an exception to the filter), edited on a different computer, or edited different articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe this is a sock. Speedfish has been editing since Feb 2010, and has been blocked before. This block was not just for the parental filter - there are warnings on his page about several competence issues. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? As far as I can see all the warnings are related to this issue. Some editors have used different warnings for it but having look at this users edits to the pages in question the only objectionable things I see is the censoring. Am I missing something? Dpmuk (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not seeing socking activity here, Ian; i think he's just trying to edit helpfully. Obviously, the filter is an issue, but maybe when the block is ended (and one month is too long at this point, IMHO) he'll show he can edit on the right computer. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is disruptive, even if it's just due to negligence even after being told that his edits are causing problems, whether it's his fault or in his control or not. Wait, how can it be "didn't know" after he's been told? So at best it's a wall of warnings and harshness falling onto a newbie who doesn't know how to react. I agree a month is a bit long. But if the result of his edits is a pattern of problems, and warnings don't lead to a change in behavior or at least an attempt on editor's part at dialog to figure out the mess, a block is pretty much inevitable. One can't just plow ahead when there's a problem, hoping it will go away and others will stop telling you about it when you keep doing it. DMacks (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But the warnings aren't very informative as to what the problem is. Not a single one gives an actual edit where there's a problem - they just refer to the article. As a new editor they may not be fully aware of how to use diffs to find out what the problem was and so I expect they genuinely didn't know what the problem was. I happen to believe that it's a filter that's causing the problems as in every case it appears that wasn't the only edit to make and I can't believe someone that was manually censoring would censor "snatching" to "*****ing". Given these changes were in a wall of text I doubt the user noticed them when they made the edit. Maybe they should have asked a bit more about why they were getting warnings but given how new they were they may have just thought there was a glitch somewhere and they were a mistake. As the editor is now aware of what is going on I think they should be unblock as soon as they agree not to edit with the problem browser. Dpmuk (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification - Speedfish is not a new editor, at least chronologically. Registered back in 2010. ~2000 edits as well. Syrthiss (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I suppose "new" was probably the wrong word. "Inexperienced" may have been a better description. From their user page and what they've edited (almost entirely article space) I think they're very much a content editor and they may not have had any need to use many wikipedia features, such as diffs. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems Speedfish was wrongly blocked. I f he knew about the filter, he probably would have disabled it. I see competence issues in whoever blocked him. Oviviously he is not doing it intentionally and tries to ake helpful edits. I don't see any sock activity here either. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

46.44.46.91 is Speedfish, that is where the socking comment stems from. If we could just get a simple "I will no longer use Safari to edit the Wikipedia" promise, I think that should suffice to unblock? Tarc (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep the block for socking, but shorten it to one week and get an agreement with the user not to use Safari to edit. That's all. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that 46.44.46.91 is Speedfish's sock? Their writing styles are completely different. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Since no one seems to have notified the blocking admin of this discussion, I have sent out a notification on their talk page. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HurricaneFan25. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole section is a brilliant example of why I usually stay away from administrators' noticeboards. Why on earth do people make such a big deal out of such a minor incident? There seems to have been an innocent mistake which led to an editor being blocked. Naturally, as soon as I knew about it I unblocked, and left a message which I hope will be helpful to the user. AS far as I can see, that should be all there is to it. But instead we get all that stuff above, admittedly a tiny fraction of the amount that I have seen in many other equally simple cases, but still excessive. We even get "I see competence issues in whoever blocked him". Why? The editor seemed to be editing disruptively, was warned, ignored the warnings, was briefly blocked, continued in the same way, again ignoring warnings, and was eventually blocked for longer. There was no reason that I can see to know that the problem was called by a filter (I didn't even know that there were filters that work like that). The editor did not say "What do you mean? I haven't been censoring anything", but just ignored at least nine messages on the subject. If there is some reason why I should have guessed what was going on then please tell me, but to me it seems that every effort had been made to communicate with the user. Also, why anyone thinks that opening a discussion here was a better idea than just telling me so I could unblock, I can't imagine. Its so simple: Innocent mistake made, now realised, unblock, smiles all round. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Speedfish is posting on their talkpage that they are still blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock. I sorted it - he should be able to edit now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what his browser settings ****s up now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dxdestroyer and Stargate Universe

Resolved

 – Dxdestroyer destroyed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting in March this year the user Dxdestroyer (talk · contribs) started inserting this edit into Stargate Universe. He failed to listen to what was told to him, which resulted in several blocks. Today he's back inserting the same phrase twice so far. This user has nothing productive to add here, can we just get an indef block please? Яehevkor ✉ 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If he had a source, it wouldn't be so bad, but his argument is that it's being removed because other editors don't like the show and he's a diehard fan....????? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock. Just protect the page and remove the edit. An indef may be needed. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think the user is a sock? N^oformation ^Talk 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Olaf thinks everybody is a sock. :) As for the account in question here, it's pretty obvious judging by his edit history that he's WP:NOTHERE. Indeffing accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks The Bushranger. I doubt sock also - they're just someone who doesn't get it. Яehevkor ✉ 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Coconn04

Resolved

 – for now.

Well, I warned Coconn04 (talk · contribs) and he won't stop, so I'm invited him here. I'm not quite sure where to bring this up, but it seems like a good place to start. The editor is constantly adding lengthy quoted segments of various sources to Jack Cassidy and others associated with Cassidy. In addition to unencyclopedic-sounding copyright violations, it's also just way too much detail - like he's trying to turn the artice into a fanzine. But he won't talk about it. He gets warned, he waits, then starts up again. Any suggestions on what to do? Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that he's been issued a 3-day block. He's been at this awhile, so I'm not optimistic. But maybe this will at least get his attention. Thank you, Timotheus Canens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

COI edit war over Alexander Misharin

There is a problem with User:Gritzko who is at edit war in the article Alexander Misharin despite instructions established by independent mediators (additionally, he is not civil). The instructions included admin involvement, so I am making this request. The matter of the case is described at Talk:Alexander_Misharin#Removal_of_the_.22Controversies.22_section_on_November.2C_1. --ssr (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a rather straight-forward and appropriate removal per WP:BLP concerns. We tend to avoid sections entitled "controversies" in BLPs, especially when it appears to be a simple laundry list of opposition remarks. Politicians from different parties/ideologies disagree, that is the natiure of politics. The thing's that one's opponents say in the course of political wrangling isn't very notable to a person's biography, esp with lines like "Local and regional opposition figures claim A.S.Misharin embezzles funds", sourced to innuendo and guilt-by-association to other people. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Sources are reliable (top business periodicals). You may argue about the tone. I may do my best to correct it. But those accusations are far beyond "remarks". They were made in a very straightforward way by several regional MPs, city MPs and a federal magazine (the Russian Reporter). Why do you think it is sourced to "innuendo"? No innuendos at all, the subject was accused of corruption in a very direct way. IMO, that is quite significant for the biography. Gritzko (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusations made by The Russian Reporter: После назначения нового губернатора деньги пошли через дружественную новой власти дорожную фирму. Теперь солидные контракты достаются ей. Но так как у «дружественной компании» нет ни достаточного опыта, ни нужного количества техники и специалистов, она тупо берет на субподряд нормальных дорожников, в том числе и фирму Степаныча. Правда, оставляя себе 20% от суммы контракта. Это обычный в России властный бизнес — создавать посредника-паразита под существующие ресурсы или финансовые потоки. Translation: After the appointment of a new governor the money went through the new government's-friendly company. Now, solid contracts go to it. But as the "friendly company" had not enough experience nor the required number of technicians and professionals, it subcontracted normal road maintenance companies, including the firm of Stepanich. Except, it left itself 20% of the contract amount. It is common in the government-related Russian business - to create a proxy parasite for the existing resources or financial flows. http://rusrep.ru/article/2011/05/17/maphia

Is it "a remark"? That is a very direct and detailed accusation. Later, the governor threatened to sue, but failed to do so. The proxy company had to leave the region because of the scandal. That was the story. Quite a serious one, in my opinion.

If you'd like to discuss other entries, I'm ready. Gritzko (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, political disagreement is routine, you can't make half of a person's biography into a laundry list of;

• train project may run over budget
• campaign to change/cancel some mayoral posts
• questionable Mercedes purchase
• edit-warring at the Russian Wiki
• another over-budgeted project
• Embezzlement claims by "local and regional opposition figures". (This is the most problematic one on the list).

"responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" is strike one, two and three as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might push it to another extreme. If some information is completely neutral that simply means it makes no difference. Let's find some middle path.

The subject is mostly notable because he is a governor. Otherwise, he was quite an obscure official. Thus, we should tell enough about his work as a governor, because his parents/school info falls into the "makes-no-difference" bin. But there is a catch. For example, if I write about the Expocenter/Innoprom story, it automatically becomes a criticism: it was built without proper planning, x2 over budget, not completed, and now it sinks (literally, into the swamp, 10cm a month). Those are just facts. And the political part is that nobody knows whether the Expocenter is/was/will-be of any real use. So, should I move it to the bio or to rework it at the "Criticisms" section?

Regarding the embezzlement part, I may agree it should be removed and maybe rewritten later, but the rest should be put back then. Gritzko (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I page fixed - please repost comments that were deleted

An editor accidentally doubled the size of AN/I by copy pasting the whole page into the edit box, so there have been two versions. I fixed it but some comments got deleted, please check the diffs and repost if your comment is gone. N^oformation ^Talk 02:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Extensive copyright violations by User:Night w

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Night w is now open. MER-C 07:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got some serious concerns about the editing of Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I'd like to raise with the community.

This issue first came to my attention when I was directed towards a template that the user had created. Given that I was a major contributor to a nearly identical template, it was immediately obvious that the editor had copied the template's code without any attribution (diff).

I left a note on the users talk page explaining that copying content requires attribution, but the user described this as "silliness". I also tagged the source and destination template to indicate attribution, after which the user complained to an admin that this was unwarranted (while being sure to briefly log out of his main account Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and into his WP:SOCK Night w2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to avoid WP:SCRUTINY).

About two weeks later the editor added some content to Palestine 194. I've just noticed some very striking similarities between the content added and provided sources:

Night w	Source
Some scholars have warned of consequences for the rights of Palestinian refugees.[135]	Some critics have warned of legal consequences for the Palestinians themselves.[136]
Israeli officials have suggested a variety of possible measures should a resolution go ahead, such as restricting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders, withholding the transfer of tax revenues to the PNA, and annexing settlement blocs in the West Bank in an attempt to circumvent ICC legal action.[137]	Israeli officials have suggested a range of possible measures, including limiting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders seeking to exit the West Bank, halting the transfer of crucial tax revenues to the Palestinians and even annexing West Bank settlement blocs to try to sidestep ICC legal action.[138]

Upon further investigation, this seems to be a very systematic behaviour of the editor. Most of the prose in Palestine 194 and International recognition of Palestine appears to be blatant copyright violations with a few minor word changes:

Night w	Source
given the Israeli government's intransigence, the option of settling the conflict through bilateral negotiations was no longer available. [139]	Given the Israeli government’s intransigence, the option of settling the conflict via bilateral negotiations − the path pursued by the Palestinian leadership for 20 years − is no longer available. [140]
warned that if the Palestinians made a unilateral approach to the United Nations, they would be in violation of the Oslo Accords, and Israel would no longer consider itself bound by them. [141]	warned that if the Palestinians made a unilateral approach to the United Nations, they would be in violation of the Oslo agreements, and Israel would no longer consider itself bound by them. [142]
Though some Hamas officials reportedly suggested they would support a peace deal based on the 1967 lines [143]	though some Hamas officials have suggested they would support a peace deal based on the 1967 lines. [144]

There are plenty more examples of this in the article. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I've perused some other articles that the user has recently created and found identical issues. For instance, in Al-Nurayn Mosque:

Night w	Source
extremist group amongst the settlers who had previously announced a "price tag" policy whereby Palestinians and their property would be targeted in response to every measure by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings. [145]	extremist fringe elements amongst the settlers, dubbed the “hilltop youth”, announced a “price tag” policy, whereby Palestinians and Palestinian property would be targeted in response to every move by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings. [146]
Palestinian security authorities claim settlers have attacked at least six mosques in the West Bank in the last two years. [147]	Palestinian authorities claim settlers have attacked at least six mosques in the West Bank in the past two years. [148]

This issue is as fresh as yesterday:

Night w	Source
For membership to take effect, the PLO, as the state's governing authority, must sign and ratify the UNESCO charter.[149]	For its membership to take effect, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution [150]

and seems to go all the way back to the editor's first few edits in Americas:

Night w

Source

The mainland of America is the longest north-to-south landmass on Earth. At its longest, it stretches roughly 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometres), from the Boothia Peninsula in northern Canada to Cape Froward in Chilean Patagonia. The westernmost point of mainland America is the end of the Seward Peninsula in Alaska, while Ponta do Seixas in northeastern Brazil forms the mainland's easternmost extremity. [151]

The mainland of America is the longest north-to-south land mass on earth. The greatest distance of its mainland from north to south is about 8700 miles (14000 kilometers), from the Boothia Peninsula in Canada to Cape Froward in Chile. The westernmost point of mainland America is at the Seward Peninsula on the west coast of Alaska. Northeastern Brazil is the easternmost point. [152]

I've raised the issue with the user again, though he doesn't seem to feel it's a problem. I think it's clear that a WP:CCI needs to be commenced immediately to review the entire history of this editors contributions. Given that the user has made >12,000 edits, it's going to be a huge mess to clean up.

Since I'm involved in a content dispute with this editor, and the editor has made it quite clear that they don't think very highly of me ([153], [154]), WP:CCI recommends seeking community input before launching an investigation. I'll allow others to decide on how to proceed and what administrative actions are required to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, but I've got plenty more diffs that can be provided on request if more evidence is required. Unfortunately, Palestine 194 is currently featured on WP:ITN so something probably needs to be done with that ASAP.

Sorry for the extremely long post! TDL (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've just left a post at WT:ITN asking that it be pulled from the template. Your examples here are abundantly obvious--this is at best plagiarism/overly close paraphrasing, and at worst major copyright violations. I want to comb over your examples once more, but then I will probably open a CCI. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked that Nightw temporarily stop adding information to articles while we start sorting this out, and also asked that they comment here. From xyr talk page, it looks like there's some bad blood between Nightw and Danlaycock, but that doesn't alter what appears to me to pretty clear problems with overly-close paraphrasing. I've checked out a few of the examples above, and I can at least confirm that TDL has reported the problem accurately, though I cannot (yet) speak to how extensive the problem is. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede that these particular examples are overly close paraphrasing that I submitted probably without really thinking. I recognise that this is not acceptable, so I'm perfectly happy to cooperate in any way required. I'll restrict myself to talk pages and superficial edits for now. However, I refute the claims by Danlaycock (TDL) on how extensive such errors are, and hopefully a CCI will show this. Nightw 06:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I popped in on one article at random: Al-Nurayn Mosque. This is the first passage I checked:

Extended content

Night w Source No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but newspapers reported that the perpetrators were believed to be militant Jewish settlers.[4] Residents claimed that settlers had also attacked the village in the past, refering to an extremist group amongst the settlers who had previously announced a "price tag" policy whereby Palestinians and their property would be targeted in response to every measure by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings [155] No one claimed responsibility but it is believed that militant Jewish settlers carried out the mosque attack. Residents report. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniattacked the village in the past. A few years ago extremist fringe elements amongst the settlers, dubbed the “hilltop youth”, announced a “price tag” policy, whereby Palestinians and Palestinian property would be targeted in response to every move by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings.[156]

I do not know how extensive problems may be or if there are other problems in the article, but it does raise concerns that the first article and first passage I checked were that closely paraphrased. I did not find it by looking at the cited source, but by a google check. The fact that the source is cited suggests no intentional plagiarism, but if this is a pattern, then cleanup is likely to be necessary as this doesn't constitute writing from scratch. I have blanked this article, as I do not have time to evaluate it fully for additional concerns and can't just yank this section in case there are, and will list it at WP:CP. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A CCI has been opened (you can find it at the bottom of WP:CCI#Requests). So far, Night w's responses have been extremely positive, and xe has committed to helping fix the problem, as well as agreed to stay clear of potentially damaging edits on mainspace for the moment. I've offered to help monitor re-writes of the affected articles/sections. Since the problem is likely to not be ongoing, I think this thread can probably be closed by someone not involved. If for some reason the problem persists, we can always re-raise the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Night w. MER-C 07:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Chairman Information on Derwent College

An IP recently deleted information on Derwent College. The removed was Neil Chauhan, from the list of former chairman of the school. I reverted the deletion, but the IP udid my revert, sayinfg that Chauhan was not a former chair, but a current student of the school, stateing he was a student of the school. I am not sure whether to add the name back to the list or leave it. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 17:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, leave it out until it is sourced. 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

...And it looks like he's vandalizing other pages, which I've warned him for. Still, we shouldn't restore unsourced material to the article if we have no idea it's true. 28bytes (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Having said above that you'd leave it out until it is sourced, your next edit was to to put it back in, unsourced. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Google does seem to indicate he's a current student there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. I have no idea if any of it is/was true. 28bytes (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the chairs until Neil were accurate according the list pasted in the JCR, however I can only say with certainty for the chairs post Oliver Lester. And more proof that Neil is a student http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=510463313 94.195.251.61 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You're slowly destroying the page on my college :( 94.195.251.61 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Source, please? You'll understand I can't take your statement at face value given this edit. 28bytes (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I made that edit to the Langwith College page would show I'm a true Derwentian, if you understood the latin I changed the motto to and the rivalry, you'd believe me. 94.195.251.61 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed understand the Latin. But ain't nothing going back into the Derwent article until it's sourced. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 28bytes, the edit doesn't inspire confidence in the editor (or for that matter the universitycollege they're evidentally are or was a student of if that's how 'a true Derwentian' acts) Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant the removal was unsourced. Whoops on my part. Trouts galore for me I guess. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New user repeatedly analyzes primary sources

User Gyanvigyan1 insists repeatedly on examination of primary sources despite being told by two separate and much more experienced editors that this is WP:OR. He is displaying a serious case of WP:IDHT. This is in the context of one of the many Indian caste disputes.

Gyanvigyan1 asserts that the secondary sources misrepresent the primary sources. Links: [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162]

Gyanvigyan1 insists on analyzing primary sources. Links: [163] [164] [165] [166]

Gyanvigyan1 is told repeatedly by both Sitush and Qwyrxian that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and that if he wants to pursue the matter, to take it to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN, as appropriate. Links: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]

Gyanvigyan1 has not taken this matter to any of those boards but continues to argue the point on the article talk page. He is a fairly new use and has edited almost exclusively on Kayastha and Talk:Kayastha. Can he either get a mentor, or perhaps a short vacation in which he will not be distracted from reading policies? JanetteDoe (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have said that I am not going to respond further to the thread in question, and I intend to stick to that in the hope that Gyanvigyan1 will either escalate the matter as an appropriate part of the dispute resolution process or else comes to realise that their arguments in fact are for the most part WP:OR etc. They have been asking around about policy - eg: at User_talk:MangoWong#Can_you_advise_me_on_where_I.27m_going_wrong - but there certainly does seem to be a big chunk of IDHT going on. I could of course escalate the matter myself, but it would be quite difficult for me to even summarise Gyanvigyan1's points because they have become pretty convoluted & self-referencing/self-supporting - best that they do it themselves in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I see one comment about a High Court decision. I don't know the specifics, but such decisions are often interpreted in a way that fits best one's opinion. The rule about primary sources is not absolute, I believe; when there is disagreement about a courts verdict, maybe the ruling itself should be quoted verbatim. Not saying that's practical in all or most cases, but a claim that secondary sources misrepresent a judicial decision shouldn't be discarded a priori on the basis of WP:NOR; again I stress that this is my personal opinion. This does not mean that his objections necessarily have any merit of course.DS Belgium (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to, in a better suited venue (such as his talk page), go into detail about the specific policies and guidelines and how they interact? It may seem a little less confrontational, minimize or eliminate the IDHT issues, be a bit more educational and point a very new editor in the correct direction. Or perhaps suggest mentorship so he's got someone to turn to with questions about what's going wrong? May not work, but it's a thought. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's hoping no one minds my taking an interest: I won't claim to have read even 1/2 the talk page and have read none of the article or the sources. What I have seen is what I think might be a good example of the problem. See: User:Gyanvigyan1 say "I don't want to come down to any specifics, right now. What I do want is an agreement in principle that..." and User:Qwyrxian say "You will never get an agreement on such principle from me. Anyone who agreed to that would be, frankly, irrelevant, because they would be violating Wikipedia's most important policies. Why can't you understand that?". The former seems to enjoy the discussion too much to want to resolve it and the later reacts quite sharply (is there a something that would equate to WP:DTFOTF (Don't throw fuel on the fire)? Perhaps something in WP:DIVA about not encouraging them). I'll mind my own business if told to do so. fg^t_c 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that was an atypical message from Qwyrxian, born out of frustration. I wouldn't read too much into one comment without reading the entire discussion which, as you intimate, is lengthy. I stand far more likely to be accused of inappropriate comments than Qwyrxian, and in some instances the accusations would be correct. As much as the "regulars" try to deal reasonably with newcomers to this sort of article, the scale of the abuse received, the certain knowledge of off-wiki campaigning, the constant socking etc does tend to wear them down from time to time. Gyanvigyan1 has receivedd many explanations of policy, many explanations of where they are not compliant with those policies, and many offers to reinvestigate the points being made by them. And still, the mantra goes on. That is why WP:DRN or similar is to my mind the most appropriate forum if they wish to pursue the matter further. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Almost all of his edits are on the talk page. There's no rule against discussing primary sources, or their interpretation, and in fact it sounds like a good idea, as long as controversial interpretations aren't put into the article. Is there a behavior problem that needs attention? Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem, per se. They can raise the issue on the talk page and discuss for as long as they wish, provided that any edits to the article itself are compliant. Whether they will continue to get a response on the TP to their raised points is moot, and that has now become a part of the problem. I suppose that if the talk page situation persists then it might move into the sphere of WP:TE, and especially so if it effectively becomes a repetitious monologue. But I think that the point being raised by the originator of this thread was that things are not moving on and the reason for this is that Gyanvigyan1 is unwilling to progress the matter via the dispute resolution process and that others (including myself) are of the opinion that the DR process, in one form or another, is the only way to move forward. I certainly cannot adequately summarise the points that Gyanvigyan1 is raising: they have become so complex etc that starting over in a forum that has most likely a more broad range of input seems to be the most sensible thing to do. Stalemate, I suppose, but I am concerned that a fairly new contributor is becoming frustrated, and it seems only right that the issue is examined on a wider basis. I do thank JanetteDoe for raising this issue here because it does need extra eyes from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what admin action is requested here. For my part, my position in that discussion is already stated: Gyanvigan1 is engaging in OR. Yes, OR is allowed on talk pages, but Gyanvigan1 wants to take the results of that OR and thereby rule out certain sources as not reliable, because they do not agree with one other source which he considers definitive, despite that article being a primary source, and only an incomplete summary of a relatively involved event (a court case). Xe says that because another source says something about the trial that is not contained in the final judgment (despite the judgment clearly stating that there was a lot of evidence that is not explicitly covered/reported in the judgment), that other source is necessarily suspect and likely non-RS. Now, if Gyanvigan1 merely wants to push that idea on the talk page, I have no problem ignoring it. If xe edits the article in accordance with that agenda, I'll revert it. If xe disagrees, it's xyr problem to take it to the relevant noticeboard or RfC, since currently a consensus does not support xyr position. In other words, as with so so many of the editors on these caste pages, they can make whatever statements of bias and unfairness they want on the talk pages (though if they're particularly egregious, we remove them per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM), but editing against policy is where the line is drawn. JanetteDoe, do you think any particular admin action is needed here? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am mind-reading, but it seems to be that admin attention might be necessary with regard to either seeking a mentorship solution or a short-term block to give some space for reading of policy. Gyanvigyan1 seems to me to be an intelligent person and one whom, despite their relatively new status as a registered contributor, has spent some time familiarising themself with procedural issues etc. A block would probably not be the solution, but some sort of guidance might be appropriate or, as I said above, just some uninvolved/additional eyes on the specific points in question. Whatever the outcome, there is an issue here that has the potential to run and run, or to cause frustration to a new contributor because those whom are already involved basically give up responding to what is perceived as repetition. This is quite a narrow field of contributions & comments: it should hopefully not be too difficult to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd favor either mentorship, or a short term block, or both. Sitush has summarized my concerns very well. I'd add that Gyanvigyan1 has tried at least once to claim a variation of silence equaling consent [172] which is also not going to end well, and probably lead to a cycle of reverts and more frustration on each side at perceived obtuseness. Is there something we can do to get him on the right track, given that we are trying to attract and retain new editors, especially for less covered subject areas? JanetteDoe (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dicklyon has it wrong. There is something wrong with discussing novel interpretations of original sources on article talk pages, and that is WP:NOTFORUM. causa sui (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Talk pages are meant to improve the article. OR SYNTH and analysis of primary sources on a talk page does not (and cannot) improve the article; it amounts to disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with both of the above, although in fairness to Dicklyon, that isn't exactly what he said. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Use_of_article_talk_pages is relevant here - "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth." Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to JanetteDoe's points above, I personally don't think a block is quite warranted yet. In my opinion, talk page behavior has to be quite egregious before it gets to the blocking level, even though I support blocking people who are disruptive in articles quickly. However, I do think it would be great if Gyanvigan1 were to agree to mentorship from someone currently outside of the topic area (and, of course, that we could find a willing person). He clearly has a lot of knowledge about the sources and the subject. He has the potential to be extraordinarily useful in this topic area (especially since he's gotten quite a bit better in the last month on the civility issue). I don't suppose there are any volunteers? I also don't know if Gyanvigan1 is interested; he hasn't edited WP since before this thread was opened (possibly related to Diwali, which just ended yesterday or the day before). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this thread, and I see this as a kind of politics to suppress a voice of reason. I am being accused of discussing OR on the talk page, when what I am doing is pointing out the OR being pushed by certain editors on the article page. Is OR allowed by "older editors." I would welcome a mentor, however, I don't think an understanding of rules is the problem here, rather, the abuse of those rules to push a POV by the other side.

I do believe that the ultimate goal of all of us is to see that only the published facts find space on Wikipedia. What is happening here is wrong information is being thrust in the article by some editors who are pushing an OR, but refuse to discuss it, when challenged (only on the talk page, mind you). I am keeping myself off the main article unless an agreement is made, but to put any kind of censor on me at this point, while giving a free hand to those who are pushing a POV in the article would kill the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm referring to Sitush and Qrwyxian.

Don't go by the long discussions. I'm no more interested in discussing the primary sources. Here's my current position in one sentence -- I am asking for a secondary source that specifically says that "the caste status of Kayasthas is debated (the controversial sentence in the article, which is not even indirectly supported by the reference provided)." And if that cannot be found then the sentence should be held to be an OR. Is that too much to ask for? The other party has formed a particular opinion about the caste situation in India and wants to push that in the article without having to provide a secondary source or to discuss it on the talk page, and is unnecessarily politicising the issue here. I really think its awful that one has to resort to blocking or some other such method, as a way of suppressing opposition that one cannot tackle through the straight channel. Please remember, that Kayasthas are not guinea pigs but living people, and any irresponsible reporting will have a negative impact on their lives, and if Wikipedia cannot do justice to the topic based on valid secondary sources, then it would be better to shelve the topic altogether -- rather than penalising those who try to talk reason.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Also, JanetteDoe, is wrong when she accuses me of continuing the discussion after being advised to refer to WP:DRN. Although, I'm not obliged to, I have not discussed the issue after that advise (actually, there is nobody to discuss it with, right now, as both Sitush and Qyrwixian refused to answer my objections), and I'm right now trying to learn more about these processes, but the discussion is no more in progress as anyone can see. I wonder, why such baseless accusations are being used against me by certain editors, bent upon seeing me censored. She's also wrong in accusing me of 'exclusively' editing on the Kayastha page. I have just edited once, after four months of discussion, after showing on the talk page, specifically, that the statement "caste status of Kayasthas is debated" is not supported by the reference provided, and after giving adequate time for people to respond. Sitush immediately reverted my edit, without even bothering to discuss the issue on the talk page, yet, I didn't not re-revert, because I'm aware of the intense politics on Wikipedia, and that some editors are more "equal" than the others.The non-western ones seem to be the less equal ones.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Ah, so all the stuff about law reports etc was completely irrelevant. One point from the lead of WP:V is that "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged". I accept that you are challenging, and I accept that if the statement is attributed then the citation should support it. A request for confirmation has been made. However, even if uncited it remains a valid statement: there is a whole paragraph subsequent to it which clearly demonstrates that there are numerous opinions. Treat the statement as an introduction to the paragraph, rather as the lead is an introduction to the article: it makes it clear that we have not lost our minds and just dumped a whole load of contradictory opinions in there. We could take it out but that is a content issue best discussed at the talk page (where we have done, interminably). It is your behaviour which has caused the issue to be raised here, not the statement itself. You have spent a very long time putting forward a very complex, very repetitive argument that relies on OR of court cases etc ... and you had shown no inclination to stop, indeed saying that you would take silence from others to mean agreement with your POV. This is such a shame as it appears that you do have a lot to offer if only you could let this issue drop. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see that it is your bias against me, combined by a firm belief in the POV that you are pushing, that stops you from seeing the issue clearly. If you had indeed participated in the discussion and looked at what I have been saying, it would be clear to you that I had stopped focussing on the court case eversince Qrwxyian said she is uncomfortable with it, and instead been focussing on the citations being provided to further your and Qyrwixian's POV.

For quite sometime now, my focus has been the secondary sources provided. If I challenge a secondary source, and you fail to answer that challenge, then I have all the right to change that statement, whether or not I'm new is irrelevant here. How else would you change a wrong information included in the article? Are you saying this method is against the spirit of Wikipedia? Or, is what you are doing against the spirit of Wikipedia?

It was your duty to put forward the arguments you are putting forward here about the citation/ statement in question, in the Kayastha talk page, rather than seeking to censor me with this politics. Just because I am new, and don't fully know my way around doesn't give you a right to lead me into a pitfall, just because you can't win in the regular way.

I don't concurr with your arguments about the disputed statement, but that is an issue, I'd like to discuss on the Kayastha talk page. You seem to be saying here, that if you and some other editors do OR (maybe because, right now you are the majority, for whatever reasons) in order to push your POV, its alright, but everything else that doesn't go with your POV needs an exact citation to prove itself.

If you really think I know something on this issue, then, you should pay heed to what I am saying, that the "caste status of Kayasthas, per se, is not debated." At least, it should help you look at your own biases and reexamine the secondary sources with an unbiased approach, and not reject it summarily with a hollow haughtiness which is not backed up by enough knowledge about the issue.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

And as far as behaviour is concerned, let's talk about your behaviour in this case. You are thrusting a POV, which is supported only by OR and you refuse to discuss the issue -- like its blasphemy. You misrepresent the issue here, and instead seek to paint me as the problem and try to 'censor' me, using your 'contacts' on Wikipedia.

Also, there are clearly differences of opinion about what a valid source is (although, I've not touched this issue for quite sometime now, seeing your opposition to it). Apart from me, a "senior" editor also concurs that OR by an author should also make a source invalid. Now, there are two people who interpret such source as invalid and two (you and Qyrxian) as valid. The best way to deal is to throw this question around and have a wider debate. What you and Qyrwixian are doing here amounts to claiming that your interpretation of the rules is the only one.

You have also been guilty of reverting bona fide editing by me, which was conducted after due discussions on the talk page and after giving enough time asking for objections (and lest you should misguide others here, there was no question of using any primary source here, the edit and discussion on it was based only on secondary sources). I guess, I am too new here, to really ask for punitive action against you.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

You say "The best way to deal is to throw this question around and have a wider debate." Great! The place to debate the validity of sources is the reliable sources noticeboard. In fact, there is an ongoing discussion there now about the reliability of the Volumes of the Anthropological Survey of India [173]. If you want to completely short circuit this ANI thread and stop it in its tracks, then formulate a short, coherent argument, with links, and open a new thread on WP:RSN. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues to make allegations of slander

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

---

In the course of discussions around Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, recently closed, it was noted that the userpage of User:Lihaas contains not only a userbox stating that he is a National Socialist but also contains a number of userboxen supporting various political views and individuals in politics [174]. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) repeatedly made allegations during the RfC/U that myself and another editor were slandering Lihaas by saying that it appeared from his userboxen that he might espouse some right wing views - to which he is entitled if that is the case, the discussion did not cover the merits of such views. Apparently, to Kiefer.Wolfowitz, it is absolutely beyond imagination that anyone should support a political position to the right of Nick Clegg, and to say so is the worst insult imaginable. I hoped this quasi-legal allegation would cease now the RfC is over, but he has started the whole thing up again [175]. KW is entitled to hold any opinion of me he wishes, but can someone please explain to him that it is not acceptable to continually repeat on wiki that I am guilty of slander (which would in any case be libel, as I wrote it down).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black... —Ruud 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so where have I said that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has slandered anyone (or libelled them even). Renmember, I'm not complaining because he's being rude - I wouldn't even bother. It is the specific legal accusation that is objected to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to the heated relationship between you and Kiefer if he would agree to refrain from charged words such as "slandering" when referring to you (or in general)?--v/r - TP 15:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with British libel law, and I do not use slander in a legal sense. I used "slander" in the sense of a "despicable smear", despite the patient and naive explanations of myself and Geometry guy. Most civilized politics takes place to the right of Savuka, and all takes place in opposition to National Socialism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Further, if Elen must continue this, she should learn avoid the sarcasm/hyperbole that has disrupted WP business before. Alleging that somebody is a Nazi is so despicable that it deserves ostracism. I am sorry that I am the only one who has suggested that she have be removed immediately from ArbComm and being an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. User:Lihaas has a user box that says "This user is a National Socialist". With that link. Which goes to Nazism. Added by the user.[176] You know, in general, I'd agree that alleging that somebody is a Nazi would be pretty despicable and a smear. But in this case, I'd say Elen seems to have some fairly firm grounds. What am I missing? --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree. One thing you and Elen may have missed is that the user has an awful lot of userboxes, with some apparent inconsistencies. While there is a clear pattern of userboxes supporting extreme rightwing ideology, there is also a small number of userboxes that are surprising in this context, such as one supporting non-violent anarchism and one supporting the very short-lived (essentially just April 1919) Bavarian Soviet Republic. Overall I am getting the impression of a Nazi with at least some Third Position affinities.

But in any case, if anything is so despicable that it deserves ostracism then it's definitely the posting of pro-Nazism userboxes on one's user page, not taking them seriously. Hans Adler 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I never said he was a Nazi. KW eventually modified his previous attacks to say - apparently without any irony at all - that I had accused Lihaas of being a National Socialist. I did say that some of his userboxen suggested his views could be similar to the BNP, but he put the boxes on his page. I didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong argument to be made that modern adherents of National Socialism aren't that bothered by inconsistency, and mostly just want to shock their parents. (Or onlookers, etc.) --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• @TParis - I'm not sure that the language with which Kiefer.Wolfowitz responded you your suggestion is much better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I think this is getting to the point that we may need to enact a 6 month interaction ban. I see from both sides an unwillingness to back away, backup, or simply turn the other cheek. No office to either of you, you know I've got nothing but respect for you both, but it's time to separate you. I think 6 months with no interaction, broadly construed to include discussions where the other is already involved even if the context of your discussion does not address the other, are in order.--v/r - TP 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TomParis, I believe that's an outrageous suggestion. What have I done wrong here? I don't want to interact with KW - I have no reason to. We don't edit in the same places. All I want KW to do is stop saying what he said above, because there is no justification for it. As you can see from the rest of the conversation, other editors are also noting that Lihaas has a variety of right wing userboxen on his talkpage. I am sure that if we wait for a little, KW will come back and say exactly the same things about them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do explain how pointing out that someone has a userbox which says "This user is a National Socialist is a personal attack on that user.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You may not be a Christian, but I'd like to point to the Bible for some great words of wisdom here. Mathew 5:39 "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." It goes along the same lines of WP:DGAF, if you ignored him it would stop. Let Kiefer do his worst and show him it doesn't matter. It's like I say in WP:MYPRIDE, my pride will not be hurt by what is said about me. I know I mention the parts about reports, but just forget that. Kiefer is smart and he uses charged words that he knows will get to you. I'm not implying bad faith on his part, I am sure he considers what he is doing to be to the benefit of the encyclopedia. But I am saying that if you turn him the other cheek and let him know it doesn't phase you, he wouldn't have a pedastool to stand on. Should you have to ignore him? No, it's your choice and I'm only making a suggestion.--v/r - TP 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. No I definitely am not a Christian, so let's put that one to bed now. Why should I have to put up with him endlessly wandering round the project accusing me of slander and demanding that I be removed from the project. For the record, here are some of the things I HAVE let go. All I want him to do is stop.

Here are a few of the things KW has said so far that I *have* turned the other cheek to. (edit summary) an ArbCom member who defends a sociopath's smearing a valuable editor as a Nazi, (edit summary) non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists, (edit summary) your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, (edit summary) Calling L a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect, (edit summary) the "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke, on Lihaas's talkpage, (edit summary) the "barbaric pride of a Hunnish and Norwegian stateliness" of an ArbComm member abusing her power and disgracing her office, from SandyGeorgia's talkpage. All of those I ignored. I thought he would stop when the RfC finished. I am not the one who cannot let this drop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to appeal to a Christian who puts stock in the bible, I am just pointing to some wise words in a book. The fact is that the RFC/U didn't come to any actual tangible/actionable consensus to prevent Kiefer using charged words. I can't think of anywhere else for this to go besides Arbcom. I had intended to take my time closing the RFC to prevent this from going there by trying to find something firm we all could agree to and stick to but the RFC was degenerating into mudslinging and I didn't want it to spiral out of control. I don't think ANI can help you here other than an interaction ban. I can't imagine what else you expect to happen. If an RFC/U didn't result in a ban or block, what do you expect to get out of ANI. So unless you are intending to bring this to Arbcom, and I really hope for my sanity sake you don't, there isn't anything else to do but ignore each other. An interaction ban could, and I would intend it to, prevent Kiefer from slinging mud your way.--v/r - TP 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, exactly how many interaction bans does this guy need? One with Elen. One with Worm, apparently, that he's "long sought" - or so he says. One with me, since I'm apparently the "sociopath" mentioned above. One with Pedro? One with Peter Werner, judging by the RfC/U. One with any editor who admits to having been a member of certain fringe U.S. political groups in the 1970s. Also one with Hans Adler and with GRuban, since they've dared to question the Official View of what the userbox means. Isn't this getting a little silly now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Why are we hashing out this little drama? Certainly if a user were to put up a box implicitly endorsing National Socialism, there would be nothing libelous about asserting they are a Nazi. So why are we here? Turn the other cheek. K-Wolf is free to associate with whomever he wants and if he feels a friend's honor has been sullied, he's free to commiserate with him. There's no need to start a new chapter in an episode that has already been mooted and decided at RFC. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Lihaas didn't put up a box implicitly endorsing National Socialism, he put up a box explicitly endorsing it. That being so, why do you feel that KW's behaviour during the RfC/U (for which he still hasn't apologised) was acceptable?

• Also, who suggested that KW is not free to associate with whomever he wants? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is clearly in the wrong here. It is not slander to say that someone who self-identifies as a National Socialist is a National Socialist. There is no justification for Kiefer.Wolfowitz's attacks. Period. Ellen does not need to be informed about Christian Forgiveness, the Eternal Calm of the Buddha, or the Stoic Ideal. That's pure distraction. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And? What do you expect to happen at ANI that an RFC/U couldn't do? Please enlighten me since my words of advice are pure distraction. What have I missed? Personally, I see things as less stressful for Elen if she just ignore Kiefer.--v/r - TP 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see things as less stressful for Elen if Kiefer would cease his baseless accusations. It does seem to say in WP:NPA that unfounded allegations are a form of personal attack, and I think it's fairly clear that Kiefer's commentary has well and truly crossed the NPA border. Are you suggesting that administrators are powerless to enforce this policy, and that the solution isn't for Kiefer to follow our policies, but rather for the recipient to effectively 'suck it up'? If true, that is very disheartening for the project. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TechnoSymbiosis,

What is disheartening for the project is that you write junk which has already been rebutted by Geometry guy.

Lihaas collects and displays hundreds of wildly contradictory user boxes.

You should brush up on WP:NPA, particularly its prohibition on unsubstantiated allegations about a user's politics. Picking one n.s. user-box from hundreds, almost all opposed to nazism, and then putting in an aside that Lihaas displays a n.s. user box is a smear, and violates WP:NPA and decency.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong. I have gone through all of Lihaas' userboxes, and most of them are consistent with Lihaas being a Nazi. In particular:

• Numerous userboxes supporting various parties ranging from just populist right-wing to openly fascist (Jobbik, National Union Attack, Popular Orthodox Rally, Front National (France), Alliance for the Future of Austria -- founded by Jörg Haider, New Flemish Alliance, Vlaams Belang, Estonian Independence Party, ). The user claims to be a member of the "Pedophilia Article Watch Project" (nothing wrong with that, but it's a topic that Nazis traditionally use to gain mainstream sympathies), supports the anti-globalization movement (a well known point of agreement between extreme left and extreme right), opposes NATO (ditto), opposes Imperialism (ditto), wants the UN dissolved (a right-wing only concern), opposes the EU, supports self-determination in general and the independence of various countries, parts of countries or minorities in particular (fully consistent with, e.g. Horst Mahler's ideology, as expressed in his plans for a 4th Reich with separate cantons for the various German tribes, where self-determination is a key aspect).
• Five user boxes having the letters "NS" instead of an icon, all in the same style. The first of them explicitly supports national socialism. The others support various causes consistent with a certain flavour of Nazi ideology.
• Also a (smaller) number of libertarian, anarchist of pacifist userboxes. There are flavours of Nazi ideology which embrace these.
• And a very small number of userboxes that appear to be tongue-in-cheek, such as the one supporting annexation of Canada by the US. Hans Adler 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ugh. Can we please get a grip and move on folks? The RfC/U was closed 3 days ago. It is over. What "started the whole thing up again" today was User:Lihaas catching up on messages and asking KW to explain what the matter was. KW replied to Lihaas with evident feelings about the RfC/U: the segment causing (most) offence here linked Lihaas to discussion about "a very selective discussion of a few of your user-boxes, which shamed the editors slandering you and shamed Wikipedia, in the judgment of honorable men". Opinionated, judgmental and grandiose, perhaps, but this was a reply to another user on KW's user talk page, and it names no names. Is such user chat worth reigniting this incident? Should the whole of Wikipedia be up in arms that KW called it "shamed"?

Well, no. Elen overreacted by posting this ANI notice, and now KW is overreacting in return. So, is it "here we go again", or shall we stop this now? Geometry guy 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I did not raise this during the RfC, because I thought Kiefer would stop when the RfC is over. My concern now is that he is going to spend the next year repeating this allegation - he appears to be obsessed with it. If he agrees not to mention it again, that would be an end of it - he can think what he likes, I have no control over that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I get him to stop? Alas I have no mind control abilities :) and can only offer to reason with you both. However, one of the main points of my comment here was that KW was prompted to refer to the incident again by Lihaas. That doesn't (in itself) amount to the appearance of obsession. Lets see. Geometry guy 00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. In case anyone here has further general comments on the appropriateness or otherwise of discussing an editor's worldview, based on their userboxes, in a public forum such as article talk, ANI or an RfC/U of a different editor, I'd be happy to discuss the matter on my talk page.

Acknowledging the valuable contributions of both editors, I encourage both to voluntarily disengage, drop the subject, and move on to more pleasant and useful things. I also encourage their friends and associates here on Wikipedia to do nothing that might escalate the situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If no more is said, then no more needs to be said. Let us await the response of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Before letting the issue lie, I must point out that whilst the participants of the RfC have suffered a long drawn out mess, the editors who are really suffering are the ones who have been endlessly canvassed over such issues, I've seen both fetchcomms and SandyGeorgia request that it be taken from their talk pages and the dross that has been found at the logic wikiproject is amazing. Why am I mentioning this? Because 10 minutes before KW requested EotR's neck, he posted a non neutral message to WikiProject Jewish history. I've not commented even once on the National Socialism issue so far - except to inform Lihaas that it was going on, but in my opinion it was simply KW making a stink over a side comment to deflect attention from a long post about... KW's canvassing. For the record, I do not believe that pointing out that someone who has a National Socialist userbox has said userbox is tantamount to calling said user a Nazi. I should also point out that not once have I seen Lihaas comment on his userboxen. I would personally like to see the whole issue dropped...Worm^TT · (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply by KW

As Geometry guy explained, I responded to Lihaas's question; in responding, I had forgotten that I had described the "national socialist" smear already on his talk page. Had I remembered, I should not have mentioned it explicitly again, to save myself some measure of renewed disgust.

Geometry guy and I explained that Lihaas has huge numbers of political user-boxes, whose contradictions strike me as Dada. I have explained to Elen that her assertion that Lihaas has a coherent political position, combining libertarianism, national socialism, and support of (conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justices) Scalia & Thomas was unwarranted. Nonetheless, Hans Adler wrote instead of reading and informed writing. Would that an Adlerian retraction, recognizing the importance of the ban on unfounded political charges in NPA, be forthcoming!

WTT/David again violates WP:AGF again by speculating about that I was manipulating the RfC by "making a stink" . Would that he correct his AGF/NPA violation about my editing of Penn Kemble, in which he accused me of removing content because of my personal political objections, an accusation made after I had restored the salvageable content!

Shame, shame, shame!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Noting that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has again (since we started here) accused me of a "despicable smear" in this remarkable piece of canvassing. He's also referred to it [177] [178] on Volunteer Marek's talkpage, in another piece of canvassing.

It's obvious he's not going to let this drop unless told to do so, and this diff explains why - (edit summary) you picked one from those hundreds, to smear him and by association me. It is as I said, he perceives this as an insult to him, to suggest that he might be associating with someone whose politics he would disagree with. The administrator action I am therefore requesting is that one or more administrators tell him firmly that it is not a personal attack, "despicable smear", "slander", "deserving of ostracism" or warranting my immediate removal, to point out that someone has a userbox stating that the user is a National Socialist - or indeed that a user has a whole set of userboxen relating to right wing positions, left wing positions, sex positions, positions of blue plaques or indeed anything that the user themself has chosen to proclaim on their userpage. In fact, simply telling KW that it's not an attack on KW would help. As said before, he can think what he likes, and I also make no complaint if he chooses to make more general insults. But he has got to stop saying that I am making false and unfounded claims that another editor is a Nazi in an attempt to smear either the other editor or KW. As someone pointed out above, accusing an opponent of being a Nazi is usually the point in an argument where a block swiftly follows, because it *is* beyond the pale. Falsely alleging that this is what I did, and demanding that I be punished for it, should also be beyond the pale. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I quite agree that KW has overreacted. "Nazi" is one of those words that can cause otherwise sensible people to lose their capacity for rational discourse. However, if you wish to pursue the matter further, it is worth remember exactly what he was overreacting to. Here are some key comments.
  • Demiurge (at RfC/U): The last is particularly interesting; a much more subtle request for attention, to a user whose userpage states that they are a National Socialist (wikilinked).
  • Elen (at RfC/U): Lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire (Political parties wikilinked).
  • Elen (KW talk): I fear you cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him ...<as before>... I'm sorry, I think you've been had.
  • Elen (KW talk): If he's using some clever definition of National Socialism that separates it from Nazism, point me to the edits where he does it.
• I further agree that it is not necessarily a personal attack to point out that someone has userboxes stating a particular viewpoint. It all depends on where you do it, how you do it, why you do it, and what you intend to be inferred. Try substituting: "whose userpage states they are a communist", "a paedophile", "muslim" or "gay" into the first statement. If the purpose was not to discredit another editor in a discussion where they had not even contributed, then what was it? We focus on the edit, not the editor on Wikipedia. The whole discussion was unseemly. Geometry guy 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• In at least one of those examples that you suggest "substituting", the editor with such a userbox would not be permitted to edit Wikipedia in any case. And yes, in a discussion about canvassing, if the matter at issue were a religious topic, then it may sometimes be of tangential relevance to note that the editor being discussed had directed their requests for support to professed adherents of a particular religion. Just as it is relevant to note that KW has more recently raised this at WikiProject Jewish History in what appears to be a bizarre and misguided attempt to cause others to "lose their capacity for rational discourse" as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  "At least one"? Which others would you proscribe: communists, muslims or gays? I deliberately included one that would lead to a ban - feel free to substitute it with something as objectionable and emotive (Zoophile, for example?). The elements of the list can all be applied as labels and the particular choice is not relevant (although I was curious to see whether it would be picked up). What is relevant is that among the hundreds of userboxes at User:Lihaas, you decided that one was particularly relevant to him being contacted by KW. Why? Well, you now note that KW has not only been contacting National Socialists, but also WikiProject Jewish History (hmmm, that's a wide demographic!). Your comment there may hold the answer: your "pal" Lihaas has a userbox identifying himself as a National Socialist, and you consider it a smear for others to point this out and to draw the obvious negative conclusions from it. Negative conclusions about KW by association, perhaps? Geometry guy 20:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"We focus on the edit, not the editor on Wikipedia." That really only applies to WP:NPA. Otherwise, we focus on editors frequently. A person's intentions are very important when trying to determine such things as vandalism or conflicts of interest. We do need to strive to avoid prejudice, but discussion of a person's beliefs or background can sometimes be useful or necessary at times. -- Atama頭 16:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. I agree it can be useful or necessary to focus on the editor, but we need a good reason to do so. Please check the history in this case. In a public discussion to which an editor never contributed, why was it "useful" or "necessary" to draw attention to one userbox among many on his/her userpage? As I noted earlier in this thread, you are welcome to discuss with me the general principles on my user page. Geometry guy 20:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For the love of god WP is no t to discuss political positions. If ive made a baltantly biased anywhere then discuss that. My opinion of natsoc is (and its NOT Nazi alone, i was the one to (at least at some pont) move that link AWAY from nazism because it s much broader and not euro-centirc in definition). the whole discussion here seems to stem from my userpage and political views and libel against me. In that case, drop the conversation and lets get back to businmess.

For the record: "Geometry guy and I explained that Lihaas has huge numbers of political user-boxes,..." by KW does show that he is not guilty

sdome WP:BOOMERANG on "Demiurge (at RfC/U): The last is particularly interesting; a much more subtle request for attention, to a user whose userpage states that they are a National Socialist (wikilinked)." the issue of individual politics is nothing to do with discussion on hand and then an NPA on demiurge. + on the contrary its Elen thats been "had" per "]\[179]" its not up to her to make judgement calls on where one stands, she could write that on her weblog not WP. Lord forbid theres an opinion in the world that people dont agree with! the wolrd is not neatly packaged into an anglo-worldviewLihaas (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So Lihaas, are you saying that you are a supporter of National Socialism broadly defined? As I've said repeatedly, you are entitled to your political opinions, whether I disagree with them or not. Kiefer.Wolfowitz is the one saying that you put these userboxen on your page for some other reason than to show approval of or support for the statements made in the box or the article linked to. According to him, they are ironic and show your disapproval of things like nationalism, libertarianism etc etc. If that's the case, perhaps you need to make it a little clearer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas is correct that it is improper to discuss any editor's politics, unless the editor has been editing in a way that violates WP's policies. I have never seen Lihaas violate NPOV, certainly not in a POV-pushing fashion, so it is improper to question him about his politics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My, that was a quick leap to his defence. Afraid of what he might say? After all, this whole 'smear' nonsense depends on him NOT being a National Socialist (broadly defined, since Lihaas says that it has other significance than merely its association with the Nazi Party). The only one who actually knows what he means by that userbox is Lihaas. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Elen, can I encourage you to read the above: the question of smearing does not depend only on the information, but on how it is used. If you still think that Lihaas userboxes "neatly position him between the British National Party and the English Defence League", and that it was appropriate to make that comment at the RfC, then please say so. If not, then please step back a bit. Escalating this conflict is utterly pointless. Geometry guy 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is of course relevant. Yourself and Kiefer are convinced that Lihaas puts those userboxen up for any reason other than that he actually hearts the causes in the boxen. Kiefer's whole rant that this is an outrageous smear depends on Lihaas having that box on his page for some other reason than supporting the cause. Part of your reasoning is that the boxes are random, they don't make a pattern. All I was doing was pointing out - as Hans Adler has done above as well I note - that actually the political boxes are not random. You can put them together and they do actually make a workable philosophy. I have no idea if Lihaas adheres to this philosophy - maybe he just likes the pretty colours - but it's not true at all to say that one cannot see a pattern in the political statements. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex-ArbComm member and Ex-administrator Elen,

Since you cannot abide by the prohibition on unwarranted allegations on politics, it is time for you to make your resignation official, as you have made it in principle.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What prohibition where? I make no unwarranted allegations. I don't care what a wikipedia editor's politics are, as long as they stay neutral within the project. You are the one insisting that it is a slanderous smear to point out that a user says on his userpage that he supports certain right wing positions. That is the heart of this whole argument. You insisting that the political views stated on Lihaas's userpage are so unacceptable that not only can they not be true, he must be saying it for some other reason, but also that it is libellous even to refer to them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If I put a userbox on my page that says "This user is a Milli Vanilli fan", it is not a smear for someone to say "28bytes is a Milli Vanilli fan", and it certainly not a smear to say "28bytes has a userbox that says he is a Milli Vanilli fan." It does not matter if I put that box there sincerely, ironically, or as a tribute to my inner Dadaist, or whether I put it there alone or among 100 other (possibly contradictory) userboxes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I am not going to defend everything Elen has said to you or about you, but she is certainly within her rights to ask you to stop accusing her of "smearing" and "slandering" people based on this userbox, and I sincerely hope you will do so. 28bytes (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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