Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747

Youreallycan

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

---

User:Youreallycan (long blocklog), formerly known as User:Off2riorob (extra long blocklog), is repeatedly editing my signatures and comments. This user is unaware of the fact p.s. stands for post scriptum which is Latin and means: "written after" (according to our article that may be interpreted in the sense of "that which comes after the writing"). I informed him that he should stop (Warning 1 & Warning 2). In this edit he adds the unsigned template to a signed comment. I removed the second signature. He reverted me. I undid his version, removing the second signature again.

He is also breaking WP:NPA. On my talkpage he wrote: "stop actink a disruptive troll then - stay off my talkpage with your capital crap". He is also accussing another editor, Nomoskedasticity, of bullying and stalking. He is also misusing 3RR templates. Von Restorff (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly no reason to add {{unsigned}} to someone's PS after their signature, and there's especially no reason to edit-war {{unsigned}} back in after it's been removed. So YRC, please don't do that anymore. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What a strange, strange hill to die on, for either of you. It's a signature. It's signing something Von Restorff wrote, in a situation where it's not strictly necessary but not strictly prohibited, either. Why Von Restorff cares so much about it not being there, and Youreallycan cares so much about it being there are both unclear to me. Leave it be, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been nice if the user had simply signed his post at the end - I have given up attempting to have that happen. I added an unsigned termplate to the unsigned bit and left him a nice comment - but it just went downhill from there. Youreallycan 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The threat of a block was enough to make you obey the rules? Great! I learned Latin in school (a long time ago). People who are not named Von Restorff are not allowed to change my comments and/or signature. Are you going to apologize for your personal attacks and/or strike them? Von Restorff (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment, of , stop acting like a disruptive troll after you had posted in capitals on my talkpage is/was no worse than your edit summary in reference to me of, "no need to feed him" If you are so attached to your comments then be proud and sign them at the end please -The issues with User talk:Nomoskedasticity and my post on his User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Still_stalking_my_contributions are an onging and separate issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WTF...?!?? What happened here? Are you applying your own rules to yourself? Are you serious? Von Restorff (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC

• I think what 28bytes and fluffernutter are trying to say is: "will you two (Personal attack removed) stop wasting our time with this bullshit?" However, they were being polite, so the message may not have gotten through. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA. Von Restorff (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to think of a reason I shouldn't block you for making this pointy edit. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

AIV issue

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 requested a block on an IP that has received three final warnings (one today), and has almost 50 vandalism-only edits over the course of two years. ItsZippy, who has been on WP since Aug. 2011 and has been an admin for less than a week, declined this request on AIV based on "insufficient or inappropriate warning." I obviously disagree with the action, and on broaching a discussion, here on Zippy's talk, where he feels that the block might impact beneficial users because "it might not be the same person for each warning." We are at an impasse and could use some input, and another legitimate concern I have here is WP:COMPETENCY given both the user's term of service and lack of time in as an admin. MSJapan (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

IP {{anonblock}}ed for 3 months; I'll look at the user talk page and comment on that in a minute. But my first impression is that referring to WP:COMPETENCE (have you read what you're linking to) is kind of a dick move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. It may not be "uber-nice", but I see a lack of technical understanding and inability to use tools by a new admin with very little experience who likely should not have been made an admin after a second request and eight months of service, considering there was a CSD caveat in his approval. Those sorts of things are covered in COMPETENCE. MSJapan (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're correct on the vandal issue, but dead wrong on the admin issue. No one is expected to be perfect, and new admins are allowed to ease into the role of helping out at AIV without having that link thrown in their face. This was a judgement call, he used his judgement, politely, and suggested you ask someone else if you disagreed, proactively saying any other admin could block if they felt it reasonable. He essentially did everything the right way here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there's no need to discuss this further here. I've also given some feedback over at Zippy's page (in agreement with Floquenbeam), and I think we could leave it at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:New questions

I am bringing this up here as I believe it needs to be noted. I recently brought it up on the user's talk page about the notability of an article he created, Gensokyo, which describes a fictional setting. This incited him to nominate the article for deletion, and after a few days of being up against several editors expressing concern about the topic's notability, said user began nominating other setting articles in what I believe is to prove a point regarding the notability of such articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, I believe this user is doing exactly what is written at the top of the examples. So far the user has nominated these AFDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Atlas Shrugged
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in the Firebird series
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of A Series of Unfortunate Events locations
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of Dragon Prince

And has proded several others: List of Dragonlance locations, List of Record of Lodoss War locations, List of Doctors locations.

The user gave a comment on one of the AFDs which echos my, and others', comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gensokyo, and the rationales of the four current AFDs are given roughly the same rationale, doing to exact opposite of what it says not to do at the top of the examples. I, and another editor, User:Narutolovehinata5, asked the editor not to do this several times during the discussion: [1], [2], [3], and I believe the user will continue based on this comment. I also suggested to the user that merging in lieu of deletion reduces the number of AFD nominations. When another user contested the prod of Places of Dragon Prince with the comment "room here for a merge if nothing else", New questions nominated it for deletion, and in doing so, completely discounted the possibility for a merge into Dragon Prince and Dragon Star trilogies in order to further prove his point.--十八 11:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Those AfDs should all be merged together into a single group nomination, possibly along with future such nominations. You could note to the user WP:Summary style, which describes the way non-notable topics can become articles for logistical reasons -- they were split from articles that grew too large -- "List of locations in Atlas Shrugged" isn't notable alone, but it should be considered at part of Atlas Shrugged, the notable topic that, if merged with its sub-articles, would just be too long. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:17, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this could be my fault. I was the first one to suggest nominating articles for deletion. However, I did warn him that he should not do so to prove a point, and later told him not to nominate any further articles until the AfD is closed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that when I compared the article to other articles, concerns about notability of those other articles were expressed, and there was an opinion expressed that they would not survive AfD. I myself examined them thoroughly, and found them to be less notable than the Gensokyo article, and found them to have more problems in my own opinion, but since Juhachi did contribute to my reasoning, I duly noted that. Regarding Equazcion's suggestion that they be grouped together into a single AfD, I am not exactly sure what is the correct procedure for merging AfD nominations, although it should be noted that those AfD nominations were done on different days, so merging them will have to shift the days of some of those AfDs. In any case, I do not quite know why Juhachi is complaining about those AfD nominations since I think I already explained why those AfD nominations were done based on my own judgment rather than simply echoing what Juhachi has said.--New questions? 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you weren't trying to make a point, then you wouldn't be arguing for Gensokyo's inclusion so vehemently while also arguing for the deletion of similar articles using arguments I and others posed to you.--十八 22:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • They were not "similar articles." They were articles I have found to have even more problems with and for which my arguments for the inclusion of Gensokyo did not apply.--New questions? 23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• New Questions wrote in response to Narutolovehinata5 request to stop making new AfD nominations til the Gensokyo nom closes, "I shall do that if someone outside of this AfD actually complains about it, but I have heard no complaints so far. I shall stop if someone actually does complain."[4] Accordingly, I made such a request at User talk:New questions. New Questions' response was to ask for further opinions, so if anyone has some, they might want to weigh in. That response does seem a little bit like the No true Scotsman fallacy to me, but whatever. 67.117.147.20 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is terrible. A travesty, woe on us, a pestilence on Wikipedia. You may consider the foregoing a second complaint. Not that I disagree with Equazcion necessarily, it's possible that all such articles ought to be merged or deleted for similar reasons. Surely, there are a few "list of places in [fictional work X]" subjects that are notable, and many that are not. But going off on a tear nominating a bunch of individual articles for deletion is not the most orderly way to resolve that. Nor is it likely to get a reasoned result, as editors with some involvement in each of these various individual articles will likely react by defending them all. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I do admit that perhaps I should have exercised more caution with respect to Places of Dragon Prince and talk about it more on the talk page and its editors before going off to AfD since it was a contested PROD. That is why I am engaging in a discussion in one of the talk pages with respect to one of the contested PRODs to see what claim there is to notability before actually nominating it for deletion.--New questions? 23:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Coallty and Muhammad

• Coallty (talk · contribs)
• Muhammad

User is edit-warring to remove images at Muhammad. Before someone can says "WP:AIV is thataway", I will ask that the users (brief) history be considered. I'll omit the specific details so as to not get too WP:BEANS-ish, but one easily sees that it is the formula to bypass semi-protection. Indef for a vandalism-only account, not for simple 3RR please. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• What he is doing isn't vandalism. It is disruptive and appears to be a problem under NPOV and against consensus, however. I think his "other edits" can be discounted to zero easily, as well. Likely a sockpuppet, but I don't work in that space, so I'm not sure who the master would be. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a notice and warning for Coallty, and notified them of this discussion. There's a chance that they're a legitimate editor who just feels strongly about the issue, and who stopped editing once they were reverted (about 30 minutes ago). I pointed them to the RFC and told them that any further removals would result in an immediate block. Now, none of that stops us from blocking by consensus here, and I do find the rush to autoconfirmation troubling, but I also don't block editors with redlinked talk pages - not without at least a token nod to AGF. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No legitimate, new editor knows how to bypass semi-protection in this exacting manner; it is a tactic used by disruption-only accounts to get their way in articles they have a vested interest in. e.g. There was a years-long campaign against the Virgin Killer article where this same tactics was used to sub in the Mosaic logo for the album cover. Grundle2600 also used it to edit his pet conspiracy theories into Obama-related articles. I can't AGF on this one, have seen the act too many times before, but its upto y'all. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tempted to agree, but for the amount of time it took them to accomplish the task - one would expect someone with experience to just plow through. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ think Coallty sock slow? Coallty sock get autoconfirm fast, only take 58 minutes for 11 edits. Monster take 5 months. Coallty sock master probably smarter than Floquenbeam, that why so fast.

Also, if Coallty not sock of troublemaker, monster eat villager's hat. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... only one of the user's first 10 edits seem to have made any changes. The rest look like they're just adding or removing spaces as far as I can tell from the diffs. The intent certainly seems to be editing the semi-protected article. That said, I wouldn't know how to tell whether or not he/she is a new user or a sock-puppet. I don't remember it being that hard to find out what Autoconfirmed was and how to get that status when I was a new user. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, it looks like the user didn't actually participate in edit warring or breach 3RR. They simply went through the article section by section and removed the images, quite possibly unaware that the changes were reverted. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Deah zoger / User:Kibush / User:Lubavicher / User:71.183.145.114 / User:108.14.195.244 / User:71.183.144.25 etc.

User:Deah zoger / User:Kibush / User:Lubavicher / User:71.183.145.114 / User:108.14.195.244 / User:71.183.144.25 (and various other dynamic IPs) has been editing Chabad Lubavitch related articles in an inappropriate way. He started his career as Deah zoger (talk · contribs), removing any negative references to the Chabad movement or its deceased leader Menachem Mendel Schneerson. In addition, he would

1. add the word "Rabbi" in front of every occurrence of the movement's deceased leader Schneerson (e.g. [5])
2. add the word transliteration "Moshiach" after occurrences of the word "Messiah" (e.g. [6]), and
3. remove the word "late" from in front of Schneerson's name, as Schneerson's more fervent followers insist he never died (see previous link).

He continues to do these last three. The first is prohibited by WP:CREDENTIAL/WP:HONORIFIC, the second by MOS:FOREIGN, and the last by WP:V/WP:NPOV, but I've not had any success in explaining to him this to him, in part because of his constantly changing userids and IPs. Does anyone have any better ideas? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fully protect the articles for a few months - When WP:Pending changes is switched back on - reduce to WP:PC - Youreallycan 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Full protection is unnecessary IMO; semi-protection should do the trick. Very few of these edits have been from auto-confirmed users. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, again

I need to report a problem with User:Lecen. A pair of days ago he began a massive replacement of internal links to an article, which may be inappropiate for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War. I'm mentioning it only for context, not to duplicate it, and discussions about that issue should be discussed there, not here. The problem is Lecen's reaction to it. As I mentioned here, I noticed him and the other user I mentioned directly, and other people that may be interested at the article talk page (meaning, no canvassing of potential supporters). He replied with this message, just personal puns. He also calls me "MBelgrano", a former username I had, although he had been told not to do so (if it needs clarification, yes, I once used that username, and then requested a rename for a global account, it is not a secret at all, and I mention it at the top of my user page). Here, he accuses me of working in a tag team with MarshalN20, even when I did not canvass him into action. Even more, here he stayed neutral in a proposal I made, which proves we do not work toguether as Lecen suggests. He also said that we were "defeated", as if we were in a battleground. Here, he attacks Argentina in general, even mentioning the defeat in the Falkland War as "having their asses kicked". I'm from Argentina.

MarshalN20 suggests me to report Lecen, and (while I was offline and had not replied anything yet) Lecen goads me into doing it. Here, he opposes a proposal of Marshal with the edit summary "it seems that the Argentine editors are eager to ignore anyone else except for themselves". Needless to say, Marshal is not Argentine but Peruvian, and I had not commented on his proposal yet.

I should point as well that Lecen has already been blocked by "battleground mentality" a pair of months ago, according to this discussion, where other editors made similar complaints about his behavior. As it can be seen, I'm not involved with that case, and never said anything during it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have informed Lecen and MarshalN20 of this discussion Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What I find most bothersome in this whole matter, aside from Lecen's bad reactions to any criticism whatsoever on articles he works in (IMO a clear sign of ownership problems), is his indication that part of the reason he wants to revive "Wikiproject Brazil" is to use it as a tool for "edit wars" ([7]). I think this is a clear abuse of the purpose of WikiProjects (per WP:PJ), which is simply to have like-minded individuals work to improve articles (not to be a guild of edit warriors).

That being said, perhaps WP:PJ needs a list of what is "not" appropriate usage of Wikiprojects. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mischaracterizing his stated reasons for wanting to bring the WikiProject together. It seems legitimate that if you are involved in a dispute about a Brazilian topic, you'd want easy access to other editors interested in those topics to offer second opinions, etc. I don't think it's right to imply his motivations are canvassing or meatpuppetry. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenever more opinions are needed on a topic, we use that tool called WP:RfC (right?). That way you get the opinion of tentatively neutral editors (at least based on WP:AGF). The purpose of WikiProjects are for like-minded editors to help each other improve articles; not to serve as a tag-team in edit disputes (which breaks WP:GAMING). That is my understanding of what WP:PJ presents. If WikiProjects are going to turn into bases from which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen), then the whole purpose of them will be shifted towards a Shogunate where the strong WikiProjects impose themselves over the weaker ones (thereby breaking the whole purpose of WikiProjects).

The interesting thing is that Lecen keeps doing it right in front of our noses (although now using terms like "conflict resolutions" or "dispute resolutions"): (1) [8], (2) [9], (3) [10], etc.

Then there is also this disturbing discussion he held (or is holding) with another editor, all because he doesn't want other uninvolved editors to get into the discussion: [11]. You add all of this together, and his seemingly sarcastic comment ([12]) is no longer as funny as one might originally think.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree that we should make clear that WikiProjects should not be used for gathering soldiers. --Laser brain (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, you said "...which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen)". Nowhere I ever said that I wished to gather editors to make edit wars. In the link you provided I said that that's "felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles" and to deal with it "you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content". Laser brain was capable of understanding quite well what I meant, that is, the need for noninvolved third-parties' opinion. I wonder why you insist on fabricating things I never said or misundertanding on purpose what I said. --Lecen (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading your complete message (and other messages) provides a clear picture of what you are planning to do with the WikiProject. Let's highlight those interesting bits found in your first statement ([13]),

• "Being alive it's enough. Jokes aside, he and I are going to create a place for us to help each other. Let's say you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content, or you want us to review something you wrote, things like that. Unfortunately, despite our country's growth in the last 15 years, there are few foreign editors who seem intersted on Brazilian articles. That's more felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles. We're utterly alone and that's what we want to change."

The message here is obvious. On the good end, you are mentioning that you want WikiProject Brazil to help with reviews, article improvements, and form a good community of productive editors (nothing wrong with any of that). On the bad end, you are also advocating the usage of WikiProject Brazil as a way for Brazilians (note: "few foreign editors") to collaborate (note: "help each other") on disputes (or what you also call "edit war") against non-member editors (note: "another editor"). Seeing discussions such as Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War, and your recent dispute with a neutral bystander ([14]), places it all into context. You are promoting an erroneous foundation for WikiProject Brazil, where Brazilians will work together in "edit wars" in order to prevent non-Brazilian editors from prevailing (note: "we're utterly alone and that's what we want to change").

If we let your precedent stand, it shall set into motion more serious problems in other WikiProjects. I can already picture the formation of a counter "revival" for WikiProject Argentina (and other WikiProjects) which will turn a system meant for article improvements into a system for "edit warring". Hence, this really needs to be stopped right at the root.

Of course, that does not mean I think a revival of WikiProject Brazil would be bad (in fact, the good intentions are there); however, the bad intentions are also clearly present in your messages. Whether this means you should be warned, blocked, or clearer policies need to written at WP:PJ; I do not know for sure (that is up for the administrators to decide). That something must be done and said at this time is, nonetheless, undeniable (before a negative chain of events unfolds).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no one complained about my behavior on the move request at Cisplatine War. On the other hand, two different editors complained about your and Cambalacheiro's behavior [15][16] ("Also, with calling my comment an outright lie, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same."). And your assumption that I'm planning a mass edit war backed by countless Brazilians who behave as mindless ants makes no sense and it's quite ridiculous. Who I am? Somekind of Messiah? Lastly, Cambalachero opened this ANI as a retaliation for my oppose the move and to his FAC.[[17]] How grown up. --Lecen (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War discussions are mentioned to show that you are currently involved in disputes with editors, thereby showing that your messages of "edit war" collaborations are not abstract ideas (but rather concrete and current). No one has complained about my behavior in either of the links you present (why are you trying to mislead others?). What you try to mask off as "ridiculous" is in fact a truth that your behavior and comments validate.

The actions taken by your friend User:Alarbus may also seem "ridiculous" to anyone (who would be wild enough to create several puppet accounts? It sounds quite silly), but they were true. I am sure the administrators have also seen several "ridiculous" cases which, as it turned out, were realities. In the world of Wikipedia, anything is possible and nothing is ridiculous. In any case, my objective here is to stop the bad intentions associated with your revival of "WikiProject Brazil", and have provided evidence to justify my position. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were advised to report him to the Wikiquette board, which for all intents and purposes seems to be about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, but I felt it should be pointed out. This is where you come to get admin action, not for dispute resolution. Are you suggesting that Lecen needs to be blocked? --Laser brain (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here Lecen personally attacks Cambalachero: "No wonder you have no friends"
• Here Lecen personally attacks me: Calls me "Anti-Brazilian".
• Here Lecen goes into an offensive rant insulting Argentina: "having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it"
• Here Lecen resorts to belittle another user's self-confessed lack of knowledge ([18]), which would be an outlying incident was it not a trend for him to assault editors who disagree with him as ignorant (which I noted two months ago: "This little trend of 'you're ignorant if you don't agree with me' is a bully tactic used by Lecen throughout these discussions").
• Finally, you have the constant "MBelgrano" mentions which can also be considered personal attacks (albeit minor) on Cambalachero.

So, given that he was previously blocked for "battleground" mentality, and given that he continues to personally attack users, if I were an administrator then I would block him again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to request a block. Lecen has been requested several times, by several users (not just me, and not just now) to be more civil with users that say something he does not agree with. All such requests were received with puns and mockery. In fact, he was blocked by this very same reason just a pair of months ago. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So, is it just a coincidence that you opened a thread requesting that Lecen be blocked four hours after he cast an Oppose !vote on an article you nominated at FAC? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether coincidence or not, that in no way justifies Lecen's behavior. In fact, if Cambalachero simply posted this here in retaliation, it would hold no ground if no evidence existed to justify a block request (and plenty of evidence is there, regardless of how Lecen now tries to mask it). Would Cambalachero answering your question (either yes or no) in any way affect the outcome of this situation? I'd love to hear your response. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as someone who has contributed a bit at FAC, I do know how vexing it is when someone criticizes an article you've put a lot of work into. So I can sympathize with Cambalachero here. But, requesting a block of an oppose voter won't really help his article get promoted--so I'd advise him to try to work with oppose voters instead. Try to fix what you can in the article and discuss with the opposition why you think their criticisms are unfounded. (Assuming it's not a coincidence). Coincidences do happen though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, but wouldn't such a well-intentioned question best be asked directly on Cambalachero's talk page? Right now we're at a point in this discussion where the focus is Lecen's behavior, and (in that context) the question does not fit. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the FAC. Just see the hours and dates: Lecen insults at some place, at some other place, etc, and amid all that (and not as a start), he opposes a FAC. Seems like a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Notice as well that he made that review after I reported his massive changes at the NPOV noticeboard (see link at the begining), so if someone did something in "retaliation", it was him. Cambalachero (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to use a modified version of Mark's question: So, is it just a coincidence that Lecen cast an Oppose !vote on an article nominated by Cambalachero at FAC after he opened a thread about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard? Note: This question has no recommendation purposes for Lecen and, regardless of his answer, is suspicious enough to demonstrate a misuse of the FAC process.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Recap of Lecen's Actions

Considering this seems to have gotten lost in the discussion, and that Lecen continues his aggressive behavior:

1. Here Lecen personally attacks Cambalachero: "No wonder you have no friends"
2. Here Lecen personally attacks me: Calls me "Anti-Brazilian".
3. Here Lecen goes into an offensive rant insulting Argentina: "having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it"
4. Here Lecen resorts to belittle another user's self-confessed lack of knowledge ([19]), which would be an outlying incident was it not a trend for him to assault editors who disagree with him as ignorant (which I noted two months ago: "This little trend of 'you're ignorant if you don't agree with me' is a bully tactic used by Lecen throughout these discussions").
5. At FAC, Lecen voted against Cambalachero's nomination after Cambalachero posted a topic about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard. Coincidence?
6. Lecen constantly uses the "MBelgrano" mentions, which can also be considered personal attacks (albeit minor) on Cambalachero.
7. Here Lecen manages to insult three users at the same time (MarshalN20, Cambalachero, and Wee Curry Monster); ([20]): "As far as I know, you and your friends, Cambalachero and WeeMonstersomething, have turned War of the Pacific and Falklands War into a complete chaos."

As supported by the list of actions, Lecen continues to exhibit battleground behavior and disregard for the policy of WP:NPA. As a warning to the administrators, last time Lecen was blocked, he went through a long WP:DIVA process that may repeat itself again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like a lot of heat with very little light from my perspective. Deep breath everyone. Find peace within yourself, and you shall find peace in all you do. I'm honestly not seeing anything "admin. actionable" here. — Ched :  ?  01:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The more space that is provided to Lecen to take a "deep breath", the more he continues to insult other editors. One of his more recent comments continues to make wild accusations to Wee Curry Monster, Cambalachero, and myself: "Take a look at War of the Pacific and Falklands War: they ruined both articles". In that same link you can read his boast. The least he could do at this time is stop with the personal attacks, but that is apparently not a part of his plan. Are you to tell me that Lecen's behavior is acceptable?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I really don't get involved in the "Nationalistic" areas. To volatile and hostile for my tastes. At this point I'm just not seeing anything that Lecan did that was zOMG BAN HIM actionable. You point me to a link where he's talking to a friend saying to "ignore" folks. Sure - he could have been more diplomatic, but I'm sorry - I'm just not seeing the smoking gun. He created a patriotic project around a country he loves? So? I'm sure you have people who share your views too. I'm just saying that right now this isn't actionable; but if it continues along these lines then it's likely to end up being a royal mess that could end up with bunches of folks getting their knickers in a twist. I wish you all the very best of luck, but I have no desire to stick my neck out at this point. — Ched :  ?  00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not from Argentina, and therefore I cannot exhibit "nationalism" for a country which I have no linkage to. Here's yet another "funny one" pulled by Lecen: [21]. Are you going to tell me, again, that his actions are perfectly fine? Not only are they going against WP:NOTAFORUM (irrelevant to a serious article's talk page discussion), but they are plain un-funny and insulting (calling Maradona a "bastard ugly son", among other things).

I am 100% sure that if any other editor was making the same obnoxious and insulting actions, he would have already been blocked. What makes Lecen special? Is he everyone's favorite friend, a valuable a-hole everybody needs, or what exactly goes on? I'd love to know how a Wikipedian can get immunity. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried ignoring him? He might stop if you try that. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Right...because I'm the one that's misbehaving? Just because I disagree with him on certain topics concerning his dear "Empire of Brazil", he has a right to insult and mock me? What's worse, while these discussions have been going on about his behavior, he continues to exhibit even worse attitudes, and yet he still has not done anything wrong? By you telling me to "ignore him" and that "he might stop," you're basically agreeing that his behavior is wrong, but you can't do anything about it. I wasn't aware that Jimbo had a son. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I had been pretty much content in having stated my views; however, upon further review I am starting to understand how another editor might be driven to post a less dispassionate, perhaps even snarky post in situations such as these. Comments such as "his dear "Empire of Brazil"" and "I wasn't aware that Jimbo had a son" do indeed fan the flames of discord. Perhaps a little more stick dropping and a little less entrenchment would lessen the tensions here. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ched, right, right, I must be the reason the user accuses me of being Argentine, calls Diego Maradona a "bastard" in a discussion concerning regional powers, and loves to constantly mock Argentina's role in the Falklands War (and Argentine culture in general). Yeah, I tend to cause that effect on people, I call it "Marshal's Syndrome". How can I sleep at night knowing that I am the cause for such a mind?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A few things: A. I don't recall saying that "he has a right to insult and mock" you or that you're "the one that's misbehaving". My thinking here is that it appears that no admins are going to take action, so you're better off trying to avoid him. (There are several editors around here that I try to avoid, if possible.) B. I am not an administrator, so regardless of my views I really can't do anything to stop him, or anyone else, from saying whatever he wants. C. According to his wikipedia entry, Jimbo has two daughters, but no sons. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark, my prior statements were mostly done for the general audience (assuming someone who cares is actually reading them), and not really directed at you (making your point "A" largely irrelevant). Yes, I know that Jimbo has two daughters, but I've never heard of a son (hence the statement). It would be great to avoid him, but considering I enjoy working in Latin American articles, it's not an easy task. In fact, I only focus on the Spanish-side of Latin America, and the only topics we've ever engaged on happen to be those that connect the Portugese and Spanish worlds. I won't let a bully scare me away from an article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate administrator conduct

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

---

I am writing with regards to User:Jakew who maintains autocratic control over the Circumcision article as well as a few others. He is violating the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest by the following activities:

• Contributing to a pro-circumcision website http://www.circs.org/
• He is a self-proclaimed "circumsexual" (http://tweetmeme.com/user/jakewaskett) which is someone who is sexually stimulated by the topic of circumcision
• His involvement and associations with Circlist and Gilgal give the appearance of a deeper involvement in circumfetishism, circumcision porn, and other degenerate activities (http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_H._Waskett)
• His own talk page User:Jakew admits his pro-circumcision bias

It is difficult to justify that Jake can remain unbiased in his editorship of the Circumcision article.

Many Wikipedia editors share my concern regarding Jake. My own talk page gives one editor's point of view:

"Hello Erik, thank you for your concern regarding the circumcision article. There are many editors who share your concerns that the ethics section of the article is under weighted violating wp:undue. Even so, there are a few long term editors who do not share this view and attempt to stop additions by means of attrition. A great deal of new editors such as yourself give up after a few tussles and the minority long term editors dictate the article. We encourage you to stick around for a while and voice your opinion as we build consensus towards fixing undue NPOV issues on various topics. Gsonnenf (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)"

I found Gsonnenf's advice impossible to follow as Jake and his supporters (Yobol, Jayg, and Coppertwig) reject any and all changes that would improve the article towards an unbiased view. Even with well-documented sources directly refuting the current article, Jake and his friends reject all changes out-of-hand that do not conform to their pre-conceived point of view.

I am well aware that Jake has received lots of medals from his supporter friends. I am also aware that in my attempt to draw attention to this issue, I have brought attention publicly to these editors. At Wikipedia, this is called a personal attack. In truth, this was a last resort. We are dealing with irrational, unreasonable people who exert iron-fisted control over this article (a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus) and are convinced to see it remain with a pro-circumcision bias. You may choose to dismiss my comments here on the basis of my "personal attacks". This would not be prudent, however. Sometimes attention needs to be drawn to those doing harm -- even if it means breaking the rules.

What we have here is an editor of a critical topic who self-admittedly becomes aroused by the topic at hand. Parents look to Wikipedia as a reliable source and they deserve accurate information. They do not deserve information that might result in the critical decision of removing part of their child's genitals to be incorrect. Furthermore, does Wikipedia want to be associated with someone who associates with the sick twisted perversions of those who inhabit circlist and Gilgal? Erikvcl (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew is not an administrator. Please could you inform him of this report? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I placed the ANI notice on his talk page as per policy. Erikvcl (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

These personal attacks on Jakew by Erikvcl had to be removed from Talk:Circumcision [22] and he was given an official warning by Jayjg.[23] He has also made personal attacks here, despite the warning. Mathsci (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. I am reporting a violation of conflict of interest and consensus. This is not a personal attack. This is a violation of policy. Erikvcl (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? In that removed personal attack, you admitted to stalking a fellow editor, as well as posting personal information such as his Twitter feed. That is outing an editor, and I hope and trust you learn from the block you're about to receive. In that time, perhaps you'll go back and review Wikipedia policies and guidelines, none of which prohibit editors from belonging to advocacy groups, holding strong opinions or having sexual preferences. Ravenswing 03:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Ravenswing 03:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please read WP:BOOMERANG. You were warned explicitly about making personal attacks. Above you have written amongst other things, "does Wikipedia want to be associated with someone who associates with the sick twisted perversions of those who inhabit circlist and Gilgal?" That is a very serious personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when is a Google search considered OUTING? Since when is reporting publicly available information a "personal attack"? How does one possibly report conflict of interest without calling that person into question? You folks have a very strange definition of personal attacks. As I already stated, I've made what you call "personal attacks" to draw attention to this issue. If you continue to allow Jakew to edit, you are allowing a very sick individual to edit the Circumcision page. If that is the kind of person you want to protect and defend, it reflects on you, not me. Erikvcl (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot call somebody "a very sick individual" on WP. That is a personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So it's alright with you when someone admits to being aroused by genital cutting? Do you think that's healthy or appropriate for Wikipedia? Do you think that's good for Wikipedia's reputation? Erikvcl (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What he's aroused by is of no concern to us, only his edits matter here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And you think he can be impartial given his circumsexual nature? Do you honestly believe that the Circumcision article is unbiased? Erikvcl (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What you think is scarcely pertinent. You are in violation of WP:OUTING, you are in violation of WP:NPA, and I hope your block is not too much longer delayed. Ravenswing 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please delete my whole account. I don't want to be associated with the cesspool of sycophantism. Erikvcl (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A user was once blocked for calling admins sycophants, but I'm not sure if they're still blocking over that. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I rather hope not. In the meantime, Erikvcl, don't let the boomerang hit you in the backside on the way out. Somehow we'll just have to manage to do without the massive total of eight articlespace edits you've achieved in three years. Ravenswing 04:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! -Blake Burba (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Note, the ANI notification was placed on User:Jakew, I have now moved it to User Talk:Jakew where it belongs. Monty₈₄₅ 04:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we will not. A user cannot revoke their contributions as per our free content licenses, so "deleting" an account is not possible. --MuZemike 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Highstakes00 and Darkness Shines

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

 – Highstakes00 blocked as harassment only account by Floquenbeam

User:Highstakes00 I do not know whose sock this is, I no longer care. But I will not have a sock which was created for the sole purpose of reverting and opposing my edits to stalk me. Highstakes00 first contribution to Wikipedia was to revert me on an article rarely edited[24][25][26] He has not touched that article since being unblocked for sock puppetry. He then followed me to [ here an article I had created and was bringing up to GA class. His sock User:Repitile1 First edit was to revert me[27] on an article which since being unblocked he has not touched. As Highstakes00 the majority of his edits are in areas were I edit, not really an issue except all he does on these intersecting articles is revert me [28][29][30][31] or just cast his votes against me in any RFC I may have started[32][33][34] obviously for no reason other than to just oppose me. He also stalks my contributions, turning up at articles I have created.[35][36][37][38] and most recently being a subpage he has tried to speedy[39] and has now nominated for deletion[40] I should like something done about this fellow. I forgot, the reason I suspect him of being a sock is his very first edit ws an unblock request as he had created the account using a proxy[41] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He editwar with me when I started wikipedia still I agree to stay away from this fellow and follow procedure. My sock case is complete I am not sock of any one I was unblocked because I will not create other account. He still blame me telling future to admin [42]. Then he accuse me to edit his article as if he own the article evn when I edit single article he edit before and then he follow me to article I edit before [43] [44] and then he blame meee that I follow him. He also used bad language on my talk page and be rude when I inform him that his user list is attack page. I have follow admin advice to take it to WP:MFD. I edit in Pakistan topic also and he thinks only he can comment in rfc I went to rfc from request board and I noted it because this fellow was there to prevent fight. He need to be ban from topic because he has only made pov edit and then he makes lame excuse to other edit that they follow him or calling them sock and not discuss edit. He has list with my name on it with other sock I do not wish to be on his user list because he is monitoring me and then blame me that I follow him. --Highstakes00 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if this helps but they have this feature that shows which articles have been edited by both editors. [45] Dream Focus 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• God knows what led me to look into this, as I am not one of Darkness Shines' biggest fans, and I hate delving into contentious topic areas. But I did, and it appears that more than 90% of Highstakes00's edits are related to DS. HS does indeed continually follow DS to article and talk pages to disagree, and did so long before DS added HS's name to the page at MFD, and continued to do so after being unblocked. In the other direction, I can only find one time where it appears DS followed HS to a page (mentioned above). Rather than issue a final warning, or impose an interaction ban of some kind, I'm about to block Highstakes indefinitely as an account created only to harass DS. Any last-minute objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No, good call, I'd do the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks and fringe theory pushing at talk:Rajah Lakan Dula and Lakandula related pages

A number of Anons who claim to be descendants of Lakandula (the most recent ones were 112.204.246.39, 116.50.246.162, and 112.204.150.144) have been pushing a number of fringe theories on that page and in the process have repeatedly attacked me personally, even citing me by real name (although of course, my real name is openly displayed on my user page, so that's not really an issue, I guess). The most recent example, a mild one at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula&oldid=487662407, insists that the name be ordered "Lakan Bunao Dula", contrary to orthodox Philippine history and first hand accounts (which all say "Bunao Lacandola" or some other spelling variation). That fringe theory pushing has been accompanied by a series of attacks. This one accuses anyone who differs from their POV "Any deviations from this normal way is a suspect of being a paid hack for a family that has for so long been attempting to change the name so that it will be nearer to their surname and therefore easier for them to claim lineage to Lakan Bunao Dula." (That last part was a reference to the family of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who also claims descent to Lakandula.) An admin recently decided to archive the older edits, but if you look at the page as of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula&oldid=482156060, you'll be able to see that they've singled me out and accused me of being a "paid hack" by the Macapagal family. It's insulting enough to be called a paid hack, but it's made worse by the fact that I happen to dislike the people I'm being accused of working for.

Do note that I have thus far only confronted them on the Rajah Lakan Dula page (which is currently in discussion for a move). I've recently also discovered them pushing their POV at Magat Salamat (most recent edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magat_Salamat&oldid=486980712) and Dulay (most recent edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dulay&oldid=485439517), but if I confront them there, I'll leave myself open to even more attacks. As an editor, I specialize in editing Precolonial Philippine History articles, which is not a particularly popular specialization, so patrolling has been difficult. These attacks make editing on certain any article directly related to Lakandula almost impossible.

I'm uncertain what to ask for. But this has just got to stop. It would also be good if these edits, which I consider defamatory, could somehow be removed or at least marked as unacceptable attacks.

Seeking guidance, Alternativity (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User Bertrand101

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.

---

Fellow Wikipedians, It is with pleasure to announce that I am proposing a ban for Bertrand101 (talk · contribs), as he is nothing more than a sock-puppeting troll who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to destroy it to smithereens. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, adding hoaxes, major disruptive editing and nothing more than pure troll-business. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a problematic editor and it's disappointing that such a disruptive editor was never banned in the first place. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and stop him from being such a troll and shouting trolololol. Soviet King ^{In Soviet Russia, page edit you!} 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The ban won't stop him from sockpuppeting.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So what? Most bans don't stop truly problematic users outright, they just make dealing with them quicker and easier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As noted, a ban allows for {{bannedmeansbanned}} reversions, and a community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Due to proposer of this ban and I appreciate any effort to shut this troll up. Soviet King ^{In Soviet Russia, page edit you!} 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User shows no desire to be a productive member of the community, and so the community should show him the door. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User is only here to sock and vandalize.  --Lambiam 21:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Many, many socks and a history that clearly indicates they have no desire to be a productive member of the community. Banning won't change much, but still should be done as a matter of principle. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Quite obviously. Calabe1992 01:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: High freaking time. Throw the troll back under the bridge. Ravenswing 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

RFC Close

Can an uninvolved admin close the discussion here: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Request_for_comment. It's been open for about 3 weeks or so and the comments have dried up. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Niabot block review

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

---

Let's keep this short and easy to read. Earlier today, Niabot made this comment, a joking remark that is or is not a crude/inappropriate joke based on your viewpoint. In pretty much every case I can think of, everyone would ignore the joke and move on with the conversation. Instead, Salvio giuliano, the user that the comment was in response to, went and blocked Niabot for a week, a completely overdone block that also conceivably breaks WP:INVOLVED, since he considers it a personal attack against himself, meaning it was likely an emotional block.

Two long discussions, of which I have been involved in, took place on Niabot's talk page, which any of you can read if you'd like. There were some other things that came up and some other parties, who don't wish to be involved in this ANI discussion, so I will not name them. But, it all boils down to that this was a reactionary, overdone, out of process block for a comment that, at most, deserved a verbal rebuke to avoid crude jokes like that, especially considering Niabot's previously clean block log.

I should also add that when I brought up INVOLVED, Bwilkins stepped in and unblocked/reblocked for 31 hours instead, so as to avoid Salvio being considering involved in the situation. I don't think this really changes the fact that an emotional involved block took place, nor that the block in the first place is ridiculous and should have never happened for such a throwaway comment. Thus, I am requesting a discussion on the unblock of Niabot. Silverseren^C 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

...that ended up being longer than I wanted. Oh well. I'll go notify the three of them now, though we'll have to copy over any comments Niabot wishes to make, since he's blocked. Silverseren^C 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All three notified. Silverseren^C 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was a reviewing admin of the block prior to Bwilkins re-block and upheld it as being disruptive. The user was also told by Jimbo after the block that the edit was disruptive. Also, it remains unclear that the comment was targeted at Salvio and that doesn't void the unacceptable nature of it. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment was a troll type baiting comment of a PedoBear meme - he is lucky its not longer - Youreallycan 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose I should add for a everyone a link to Niabot's explanation of the comment, which is here. He was not relating the comment to the meme at all, likely not beyond another meme that just goes with Do Not Want, which you can read about here, if you haven't heard of the meme. Silverseren^C 23:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have seen - that is often a reason for publishing such a comment in a high profile location - to promote it. - they want to talk about it - they want to talk about how the pedos deserve respect for not acting on their desires , bla bla - block - ignore - is the way to go here - Youreallycan 23:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is rather offensive and has little relation to this discussion. Silverseren^C 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a chan phrase / joke called "Too old; do not want": http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Too_old;_DO_NOT_WANT!

During a heated discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Salvio_giuliano stated (diff's: [46], [47]):

"Now, probably I am too old to understand how such an image can be deemed educational […]."

The stress on "too old" is mine. As a result, Niabot decided to lighten up the mode by bringing up the chan joke that I've mentioned earlier: "Too Old: Do Not Want!". Niabot also unwisely made a statement that gave readers the impression that he or she was trolling ([48]):

Let's say i wanted exactly this reaction to happen, or lets say it was just coincidence. You should be well aware what i mean and intended to do.

Nioabot later explained what he or she meant by the statement ([49]):

Look at the comment from User:Delicious carbuncle. Thats exactly what i expected. You say something. Some innocent words and someone will start to dig and dig until he can knit a rogue out of it to blame a user, a group of users or an entire project like Commons for things that they never intended to do. Thats what i wanted to illustrate in the light of this discussions: [50], [51], [52], ...

Maybe not the best way, but if it was throwing out a baited hook, than i must say, that i should go fishing with it after ordering a truck to transport the haul.

The stress belongs to me. Niabot was involved in a previously incident where someone mistaken his or her signature, which is actually innocent in nature, with a pair of breast: commons:User:Niabot/Signature. That's where Niabot was coming from; he wasn't seriously trolling.

I believe that Niabot's block should be overturned. This was a misunderstanding. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally think that the block of Niabot was absurd. His joke doesn't look more disruptive than some of the other comments in that very heated discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Niabot was the only editor that posted a Pedo-bear meme - There is nothing joking about posting Pedobear meme's. - He has had his block reduced and should be happy he is not indefinitely blocked via WP:Office action - Youreallycan 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's rather amusing how determined you are to completely ignore what everyone else is saying. Silverseren^C 23:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If consensus is against me I will happily stand down - personally - I support indefinitely restricting this User:Niabot - and User:Saibo and anyone else/the others that supported that User:B.... at commons that required an WP:Office action to indefinitely block him - Youreallycan 00:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Niabot was being intentionally disruptive i na discussion about Commons problems of which he is a participant. He should take the 48h reduction as a generous gesture and be happy. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe this block should be overturned, in absence of any evidence that the remarks were anything but joking, aside from unsubstantiated arguments that he is trolling or being intentionally disruptive. Possibly inappropriate, yes. Blockable under WP:CIVIL, no. However I recognize that two admins have already declined to unblock, so I will hold off until consensus is reached.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Overturn and desysop Salvio giuliano. Clearly improper block. Salvio should read WP:INVOLVED. He is always here to unblock his friends and block those who disagree with him. The worst administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Youreallycan, Salvio twice saved you from long blocks, so your motivation to defend him is understandable. And for the record, I supported block of that pedophile Beta M on Commons, but this block is absurd.--В и к и T 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no position regarding Salvio - and your claim is false , / unsupported , no individual has saved me from long blocks - no single user has that weight here, - many admins have blocked me and many have unblocked me - most of them were decent npov actions - if you look on their userpage you will see me recently complaining about their removal from admins for recall - an issue we disagreed about - I support stronger restrictions on this User:Niabot - if I was an admin he would be indefinitely blocked - I support a WP:Office against him on all projects. Youreallycan 00:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Awkward block that's hard to solidly support or oppose. On the one hand, I (heavily steeped in meme culture, for what that's worth) read Niabot's comment as a lame, joking reiteration of a meme that the conversation reminded him of, not as a personal attack or harassment. On the other hand, Niabot seems to be here on en.wp to push - hard - a rather unattractive POV involving sexual images, Commons's right to be unregulated by the WMF, and expanding WP:NOTCENSORED to included the very most alarming edge cases. In his last few hundred edits here, I see few edits that don't involve one or more of those three things, and that combination makes it rather difficult to perceive his presence here as something other than pointy and borderline disruptive in a potentially very ugly direction. In short, while blocking for this particular comment looks weak to me, I think it might be a good thing, on balance, for Niabot to be given a timeout from this community unless/until he can refocus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• considering the past history and stance of Wikipedia on this topic, I have to admit that I'm very surprised that the block was reduced. I've seen some indef. blocks over this type of thing, but perhaps those days are no longer in touch with today's wiki. IDK. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• A lesson I've learned is that people of varying backgrounds and native languages often do not get humor when it is conveyed through the Internet. It would be wise for intentional jokes to be marked as such (such as :) immediately proceeding the comment or in the edit summary). Needless to say, it would be prudent to avoid making comments that could be misconstrued as inappropriate and/or remotely blockworthy. As an aside, I remind Wikiwind to refrain from jumping on the administrator lynch mob. If he/she considers Salvio giuliano a poor administrator, he/she should file an RfC or RfAC, depending on the circumstances. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Typical MBisanz stirring up drama. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren, I went out of my way to explain on Niabot's talk page, politely and pointlessly, that I am not responsible for Niabot's comment, for the thousands of links that Google returns for that phrase, or for Niabot being blocked. I asked you not to mention my name if you started a thread here and you agreed. I made clear on your talk page that I didn't want to be involved in your nonsense, even by allusion. Yet here you are, doing exactly what I asked you not to do. You really are an odious little weasel. You and Michaeldsuarez are getting Niabot worked up by misrepresenting the situation, just like he did on Commons. Niabot's innocent act isn't fooling anyone, but I don't think a block was warranted. There's no need for any of this drama, except for the fact that you thrive on it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I "alluded" to you in that manner as an explanation of why no one should bring up that part of the discussion on the talk page. That way, nothing would be focused on you and everyone would be focused on the subject at hand. Which was working just fine. If you hadn't commented here, no one would have even brought you up whatsoever. Silverseren^C 04:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any mention above of the fact that Niabot's pedobear comment was in the context of a discussion about misuse of Commons by people promoting extreme free speech (one of whom has been locked by office action, that is, globally banned). If someone made a joke with a pederast meme in some other discussion it might be overlooked as merely bad taste, but in the discussion in question the pedobear comment is indistinguishable from provocative trolling. Support block, but believe more may be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read any of the above comments or the fact that the reply was not meant to have anything to do with the pedobear meme whatsoever. Silverseren^C 04:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Of course I read the comments here and elsewhere, and of course Niabot knew what they were saying. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock massive drama-mongering overreaction to a jibe on Jimbo's user talk page in the context that Niabot has taken time to explain his actions, which they would have done if asked. Many times Jimbo has stated he does not want interference in free speech on his user talk page, so this block is not needed to protect Jimbo. Let this discussion also provide a clear marker for future problems, Salvio inappropriately used the mop as he was involved, he knows better and this does not appear to be a mistake. --Fæ (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Then why did Jimbo tell him it was inappropriate and not to do it on his page again? If it was so bad that Jimbo departed from his usual opinion, that would be good evidence to me that it was a severe violation. MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Most likely because Niabot holds an opposing opinion to Jimbo. If you look at the history of his talk page, he restores outrageous comments that support his opinion, but removes even relatively innocuous ones that oppose his opinion. Silverseren^C 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Let me clarify the OP statement: having read the situation, the original comments, and the context they were in, it appeared that the use of the meme at that time had a purpose that was either derogatory towards an editor and/or disruptive - espcially considering the comments afterwards. I upheld that the block was valid, took ownership of the block, and reduced it to what would have been approximately 48 hours - this block is the first of its kind for the editor, and I personally felt it to be a bit too long in that situation. Again, I felt the block was warranted - as I actually DECLINED an unblock request. Having understood the mem better now, I probably would have left the length as it was. As Niabot's argument since has simply that they were misunderstood, there's no valid reason to unblock: WP:GAB states that such action requires understanding that the actions that led to the block were perhaps inappropriate, and that future similar actions will not recur. As these are not coming, the block remains preventative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Two things and then I'll refrain from commenting on this block further. The first is that the fact I was the apparent target of a personal attack or trolling remark does not make me involved; I was not discussing with Niabot, he merely popped up and delivered his line. Now, it's been a common rule that when a person attacks another, the latter can still block the former (otherwise it would be exceedingly simple for a vandal to insult the admins who are online ata given moment and then move on to vandalise the site, arguing they're involved, when they block him). So, no, I was not involved. That said, even assuming for the sake of the argument, that I could be considered involved, those comments were most clearly trolling, meaning that they were nothing but disruption, which is an exception to the involved rule. By the way, I wish to stress the main reason I blocked him for was disruption, not the personal attack (which I called possible). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you point to a consensus for this common rule, I am unfamiliar with it as a valid exception to the Wikipedia:Administrators policy? I have never blocked anyone who was personally attacking me (as far as I can remember), I find there are plenty of other helpful admins available to take a look without making myself appear compromised in this way. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Review WP:INVOLVED at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps everyone here should. It states it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards, this seems to apply in this case. Best practice has not been followed, this is not a reason for Salvio to be proud of his actions. --Fæ (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • "The thing is, few outside of Niabot's Commons cohorts see Salvio as "involved", though. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • • Calling everyone who has an opinion that does not support Salvio's action as a cohort of Niabot is derogatory and lame. Perhaps you should take your own advice and review WP:INVOLVED at your leisure, alternatively you could do something more useful rather than lurking on ANI, it must be a little dull not for a non-admin. --Fæ (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Second Wikiwind's call to overturn and desysop Salvio giuliano. Note that in (Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan/off2riorob), one of the many previous discussions about Youreallycan here, in which Youreallycan told another editor "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?", Salvio guiliano chose to end Youreallycan's one-week block after 15 hours (see [53]). Note that that was not just an innocent joke like Niabot's comment, which was made in the middle of a huge nasty conversation where people were calling for Commons to be destroyed - which Salvio apparently seems to agree with, demanding censorship of professional, genuine artwork and saying "Commons is out of control and something should be done by the Foundation" - an edit made just after blocking Niabot, and just before posting notice of the block to Niabot's talk page. Does that sound WP:UNINVOLVED to you? Just last week I was appalled by his threatening to take User:Fae to ArbCom over a much more mild comment (see User_talk:Salvio giuliano#You're warning Fae?), having ignored all the outrageous abuses done against Fae in the past. Salvio is involved and he is running interference for some very counterproductive phenomena with these administrative actions. You have to take action, before these people are running Wikipedia their way. And I am seeing less and less hope that contributing to this project can serve any useful purpose at all unless you do. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you want an admin who's not open to recall to lose their bits, you have three options: one, open an RfC/U with an eye to establishing a pattern of misuse of the tools; two, open an arbcom case; or three, convince the admin to turn in their own bits. For better or for worse, ANI has no power to desysop anyone, no matter how strongly people may advocate for a desysop here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Having never done so, I'm not eager to personally start one of these heavy-duty processes; but doing justice in this case by unblocking Niabot by community consensus, with our apologies, would be a vital first step. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't support desysoping Salvio, who is a good admin, but this is a poorly-judged block. He seems to have a malfunction when it comes to dealing with editors who don't share his outlook on how WP should be done. There may also be a bit of ambulance-chasing going on here. Salvio should seriously consider leaving his tools in the van when it comes to anything to do with censorship/notcensorship. Formerip (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I almost forgot the important part: Overturn. Formerip (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Someone on one side of the whole commons-drama discussion really, really, really should not block someone on the other side of the whole commons-drama discussion. Shouldn't that be kind of blatantly obvious? --Conti|✉ 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Were the acts reasonably construable as warranting a block "within process?" Yes. Was one week the "right" amount? Not being discussed - the "31 hours" is clearly reasonable. Per MBisanz, BWilkins, Salvio and Tarc - the block is rational. Collect (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock Looks like an over reaction to a harmless joke. Perhaps I'm just desensitized to it because I've read that meme hundreds of times on the intertubes but I simply can't imagine it was said in bad faith (maybe bad taste, but that's not a blockable offense). SÆdon^talk 16:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• note - this block appears to expire in thirty minutes , warranting any unblock issue irrelevant - Youreallycan 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The block should still be overturned in order to remove the stain from Niabot's record. If this discussion is allowed to continue and if the discussion is closed as "block overturned" instead of "block expired; discussion closed", then Niabot could link to this discussion every time someone mentions the block in order to defend himself or herself. It's important to continue the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Needs a clear reversal of the block So, person "B" blocks person "A" at least partially for something that person "A" said about /towards person "B". Clearly this is INVOLVED. And clearly an overreaction. A clear reversal of the block (for the record, even if otherwise moot) (and expungement of their record, if possible) is the minimum that should be done. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin reverting a good faith edit as vandalism and edit warring uncited personal detail into as BLP

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.

---

diff - User:Nikkimaria has been edit warring uncited date of birth and has reverted a good faith edit as vandalism - Youreallycan 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like she's reverting wholesale blanking. Am I missing something? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know why YRC's linke takes me to "Staccato, Marcel Worms". You click on "history" or "talk", and it takes you to "Staccato". What nifty trick am I unaware of? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Keilana, and BB: YRC's diff had a typo (since fixed), so it was comparing the version of the page Marcel Worms that Nikkimaria edited to the version of the page Staccato from 4 February 2002. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The vandal revert was a misclick, as I acknowledged immediately after making it. The other reverts involved restoration of sourced information. Youreallycan undid edits wholesale multiple times before pointing out that the DOB was unsourced; had he said so earlier, I would have omitted it. However, DOBs generally don't need to be cited unless they're controversial, and given that it was originally added by someone sharing the same last name as the subject, I see no reason to interpret it as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The user has just removed an addition I made that exposed two citations were cited to the subjects website - why is that? - Date of births are controversial if uncited - for an admin to edit war an uncited date of birth into a BLP is completely unsupportable within policy - her comments that the date was added by an account with a similar name as the subject and that makes her revert warring it back ok in are incredulous.Youreallycan 02:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Because URLs aren't publishers, and your edit presented them as such. If you'd like to present them properly, you're free to do so. Why do you say DOBs are "controversial if uncited"? Furthermore, had you actually explained what, specifically, you objected to rather than removing large swathes of cited content, this discussion would be a lot more productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The admin is continuing to edit war on the article and revert my good faith edits - The user has over 3 reverts ands should be blocked. Youreallycan 02:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just cleaning up after you. Care to answer the question above? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Nikki's got it wrong on both counts. For one, dates of birth require citations. For another, the URL is where the info is located, no matter who wrote it. If a newspaper prints a column, was that column "published" by the columnist? No, it was published by the newspaper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The publisher is the name of the publisher, not the URL of the publisher. For example, "New Bay Media", not "www.nbmedia.com". At least that one looks like mindless reverting on the part of Youreallycan. --Laser brain (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know who the publisher is in this particular case? Just because it has the guy's name in it, Worm-something, doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could have a website called bbblog.com. That doesn't mean some actual guy or company named B. B. Blog is the actual publisher. The best info you have is that the publisher is the URL name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

BB, had he actually said that it was the DOB that concerned him, we could have discussed that. But edits like this remove large sections of cited content for no apparent reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He advised you in the edit summary that the DOB requires a citation. And you should know that anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, and once he said that I removed it. However, his reverts removed large swathes of cited content and undid helpful edits for no apparent reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, most of the Dutch article appears to have been written by Marcel Worms himself in 2009> He included his year of birth.[54][55]Mathsci (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The original version here, including the full DOB, was written by someone who is most likely the subject's son. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In effect, self-published. Totally reliable. Ha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He is a well-known pianist and the website is perfectly acceptable for these details. Here's another place where he's mentioned at length.[56] Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• You know, there's an article talk page for a reason. Any particular reason you two can't talk to each other? Edit summaries don't count. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Frankly the both of them should be blocked for edit warring. Both know better and this never should have been brought here without some actual attempt at communicating. AniMate 02:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd think long and hard before blocking Nikki, unless you have 10 volunteers handy who will cover her workload while she's away. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not really planning on blocking Nikkimaria. I'd consider blocking YRC for general disruption. The amount of conflicts he's getting into these days is ridiculous. AniMate 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • True dat. To how many ANI threads has he been a party in the last month or so? Ravenswing 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've spent a while reviewing Youreallycan's history, block log, and so on. Here is a highly relevant bit of history: [57] Back in December, an administrator suggested after the latest round of trouble-making that Youreallycan had a penchant for "absolutism", "faulty judgement", "excessive personalization", "excessive willingness to escalate", and "insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions". At that time, Prioryman suggested mentoring, to which Youreallycan seemed to partially agree, while writing "[I] do not expect to be contributing more than occasionally and with a degree of irregularity". Not only did the mentoring arrangement not seem to materialize, but Youreallycan seems intent on diving headfirst into conflicts left and right and displaying most if not all of the behaviors noted above. This pattern shows an unwillingness to accept community feedback and an inability to engage in behavioral introspection and control. A lengthy block is probably needed. --Laser brain (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope - this shows no use of incivil language - which was YRCs primary problem in the past, and trying to inject his block log here is woefully irrelevant. DoBs are routinely considered controversial if anyone considers them so. And suggesting that the messenger should be blocked because of the "number of AN/I threads" is neatly Becketian. Cheers - I think this one is "done." Collect (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is really about the content dispute itself—it's about the way YRC conducts himself, as in the thread I linked from December. The individual problems are only peripheral if he is engaging in one or more of them at all times. I don't see where in my statement I am "injecting his block log"; I only said I reviewed it, which is quite normal for an admin reviewing an AN/I report. Additionally, where did I say he should be blocked because of the number of AN/I threads in which he is involved? Just because someone above me wrote that doesn't mean I'm advocating that position. I suppose AN/I thread involvement is a useful indicator of how conflict-prone someone is, but only as a guide. If someone is either making constant AN/I reports or constantly the subject of them, don't you think that indicates something? I've noticed your m.o. tends to be taking contrarian positions even when the community discusses disciplining a user; may I ask what your reasoning is? Should Wikipedia be akin to Thunderdome? --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I think Laser's got it about right here. OfftoRioRob is passionate about BLPs-- sometimes to the point of missing the forest for the trees. When he's taking on a hard-working widely respected admin over a birthdate and with an issue where he didn't communicate well initially, and then misrepresenting Nikkimaria's vandal revert, which was a mistake she retracted, at ANI, we need to remind him to reign in his passionate stance on BLPs. It's an uncontroversial birthdate, and I'm sorry to see good folks discussing such a minor issue at ANI. Use the talk page, move on. Suggestions of blocking either-- both experienced users-- are over the top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • ↑ This, exactly. I'm going to close this. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Help with user Cyber17/ThunderBolt17

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.

---

Cyber17 (talk · contribs) now socking as ThunderBolt17 (talk · contribs)

Neymar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need some help, this user is not getting it, I copyedited about half of the article yesterday, before and after.

This user has been changing reffed info back to unsourced, adding non-NPOV peacocky stuff, messing up grammar and so on. I have reached my three revert limit and despite leaving edit summaries asking them to stop, appealing to them on the talk page they just continue putting their version back. diff 1 diff 2 diff 3

Each time the edit summaries seem to imply that they're just adding to the article but they seem to be copy-pasting their text back in, removing the stuff I cited above (for example the bracketed explanation that Peixe is the club's nickname). Proof of this is apparent where this IP's vandalism, which Cyber17 removed in his next edit now appears pasted back in his last edit to the page, see diff 3 above.

I left a level 2 warning about unsourced stuff on his talk page to no effect as well and the user has been notified. I'm off for now but would appreciate some input/action on this. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's not much here for an admin to do. I've left a note on their talk page. Competence (linguistic and otherwise) is an issue here; let's see if they revert. If they do, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, saw your tp messages, I was going to bring up competence, seems like you've nailed it. I will keep you posted. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this back in case Drmies is not around and before the editor in question copypastes his grammatically incorrect, peacocky version back in. Please see this at my talk and this at Drmies talk for more info/further developments, plus these diffs, proving it's exactly the same user. [58] [59] You need to scroll down a bit to see the peacocky stuff, but you'll also notice the exact same (grammatically incorrect etc.) edits that he keeps putting back in, despite being nformed by both myself and Drmies that this is incorrect. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A competence block is probably needed here. If nothing else, a sock block is already required. Blackmane (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. ThunderBolt will be blocked permanently (obvious socking is obvious), the other 17 for a week for avoiding (well, attempting to avoid) scrutiny. Thanks Captain. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries, wow, interesting tool. Thanks for your rapid intervention. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

user:CosmicLifeform reported by user:Whenaxis on behalf of user:SkepticalRaptor

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.

---

As a mediator, I am reporting this about a dispute between two editors. Urgent action needs to be taken. CosmicLifeform is edit warring, sending threats through e-mail and personal attacks to SkepticalRaptor for questioning the reliability of a source. Sufficient warnings have been given on CosmicLifeform's talk page. The current DRN discussion has been placed on immediate hiatus. For more information, please see:

1. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Younger_Dryas_discussion
2. [60]
3. User_talk:CosmicLifeform

Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was notified about all this business, but I was only involved in that I reverted an edit by CosmicLifeform, thinking that it was a misguided edit meant for the talk page. I had no idea there was an extensive edit war, for what it's worth. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The claims that I am threatening SkepticalRaptor are patently false as an IP analysis will indicate. Also a quick review of my editing history will reveal that the nature of my edits on the pages in question were demonstrably minor and well founded by the depth and bulk of the scientific literature available on the subject matter and my intimate familiarity with it. Furthermore, my criticism of his familiarity with the established scientific literature were extremely mild and certainly do not constitute an attack on his person, and those criticisms can easily be verified by consulting an unbiased expert in the field. 02:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talk • contribs)

I believe that the alleged threats are off-Wiki. I had to rev/del the edits of another editor (CometHunter (talk · contribs)) for possible outing of SkepticalRaptor. This was hot on the heels of a rev/del I did on CosmicLifeform's talk page for possible outing, and it looked like a sock and I blocked CometHunter. CometHunter got in touch with me using their real name, agreed to my terms about not revealing possibly identifying information and I unblocked. Another Admin blocked SteveGinIL (talk · contribs) for possible outing of SkepticalRaptor (I didn't know of this until after the fact as I hadn't seen the edits). Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

CosmicLifeform has requested (by email) that I block him. I don't think this is necessary at the moment and am trying to persuade him to change his mind, but am willing to if he doesn't. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hi there, this is indeed CosmicLifeform, I have discussed this extensively with the Administrator via email and I have formally recused myself from any further editing of Wikipedia pages until I have thoroughly familiarized myself with the software and the Wikipedia philosophy and its rules and regulations. I am totally new to Wikipedia editing and its obvious to me at least that I should not be doing this until I have properly researched it. I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused Wikipedia administrators and editors."—email from CosmicLifeform. He`s going under a voluntary editing cessation. Don`t block unless he continues his disruptive edting. Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Use of offensive language

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.

---

During a discussion with user user:JosephLoegering over WP:NOR issues on the page of Talk:Samaritans/Archive 1#Samaritans as a Jewish subdivision, the user used highly offesive remarks, accusing me of racism and religious persecution, directed to me without any provocation on my behalf. I notified the user that his behaviour would be reported on Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard and asked him to avoid such approach in the future.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you meant to link to Talk:Samaritan#Samaritans as a Jewish_subdivision, you have it pluralized above. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you K--I should have read your note before browsing. I have warned the offender; the case is closed. The plaintiff is urged not to run to this or any other drama board immediately but to pursue other avenues first, like, talking. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Sri Lanka

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 Sri Lanka article has been locked for editing but the version that has been locked has a lot of malicious vandalism in the infobox that was re-added with this edit e.g. Motto: All hail Distributor108; King: Distributor108; Legislature: Distributor108; Currency: Distributor108. I have brought this to ANI rather than use {{editprotected}} as this is urgent.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "Motto: All hail Distributor108", but there appear to be no further occurrences of "Distributor108" in the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:Distributor108 just had a failed WP:RFA earlier today. [61]. His rationale for wanting the mop were particularly interesting. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked Distributor108, as this recent outburst, coupled with that block log, does not indicate a constructive or collegial approach to Wikipedia. Any other admin is welcome to adjust the block without needing to consult me, but I would recommend that we should need to see a convincing commitment to work collegially before unblocking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Support the block. Clear issues either of competency or plain disruptiveness. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  And the proposal of an arbcom case ... Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oddly, Distributor108 recently filed an arbcom case over a specific content question on Sri Lanka. Several people there commented that perhaps editor behavior at the article should be the question instead. Distributor108 has a very, very strong POV towards the article. For example, he rejected using the Sri Lankan Constitution as evidence that there are two official languages at one point saying that the government site wasn't updated, suggested that the Constitution was changed without anyone knowing. Not even 24 hours later he's using the same Constitution to prove something about the official religion. Can he be a good editor? I'm not sure. He's got a very narrow definition of good sources, quickly rejected out of hand anything he disagrees with. He asks a lot of other editors, but won't do his own basic research. He's forced some tags on the article and I doubt he'll ever willingly allow them to be removed unless the dispute is resolved exactly as he wants. If they are unblocked, I'd suggest a topic ban from SR articles, maybe allowing only advisory comments on the talk page (ie, propose edits and sources, but not participate in discussion and is not included for determining consensus) for a while and see what happens. Ravensfire (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  The editors unusual behavior (including the RfA asking specifically so they could monitor the article...wow) is such that I don't think they are capable of understanding now to participate here in a proper way. I would agree that the block was appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for one problem: Distributor108 didn't add that piece vandalism--it was added by User: Joelcres, who I am going to now block as a vandalism only account. It was clearly an attack leveled by someone else (I assume a throw-away sock of one of the other editors on the article) making fun of how Distributor108 is trying to dominate the article. So, while I agree that Distributor108 definitely has a big problem with tendentious editing on the talk page and edit warring on the article page...the proximal cause for this block wasn't him. Given that, I'm not so certain an indefinite block is called for, though a fixed duration block is certainly appropriate for the more general problems. In any event, I'm at a minimum going to explain to Distributor108 that part of the claim on the block notice is wrong. Also, I would like Boing! said Zebedee's opinion on whether or not, given this new information, xe still would have made an indefinite block. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was having technical problems with that article, and every time I tried to do a diff or look at a previous revision, I got a server timeout. So I apologise for misidentifying the author of that specific vandalism. But I did also look back at Distributor108's history, and I saw evidence of a long-standing battleground approach, and so I think some sort of block was warranted, even if I got the immediate event wrong. Anyway, I'm happy for any admin to unblock without consulting me, if they feel they have enough of a commitment to approach editing in a more constructive and collegial manner. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:CarrieBee

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

---

I've got a user who's twice removed a large section of material against consensus on the article Hilary Rosen.

• section deleted due to WP: Recentism. Section without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention
• Entire section violated WP: Recentism. You dont insert controversial/questionable information into WP and then demand consensus to remove it. This is not historic. See talk and only insert after consensus

I've tried to explain the inappropriateness to user, but I consider myself already involved and suspect this needs some words from an outside admin. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

To complicate the matter, the subject of the article has been historically active on her own bio, so we have to watch for self promotion / whitewashing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments. First, you did not place a notice on the user's Talk page about this discussion; I've done so for you. Second, this appears to be a content dispute that doesn't belong in this forum. You can either keep it on the article Talk page, or you can always start a topic at WP:BLPN if it can't be resolved. There are other ways of resolving the dispute as well (WP:DR). Third, don't use the term vandalism unless it really is vandalism. Fourth, nothing wrong with your being involved - you're not an admin where that might matter in certain contexts (WP:INVOLVED). Finally, as an aside, CarrieBee's user page comment is a bit off-putting: "If you mess with me, I'll mess with you right back. Screw me over, and you get screwed. Mess with the bull, get the horns." I feel intimidated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no genuine debate on the inclusion of the section-- it's a behavior issue, not a content dispute. The article has attracted a lot of self-promotion both historically and recently. The subject is a professional lobbyist/communication strategist with a history of editing her own article-- so I can predict with some certainty we'll need an admin on this article sooner or later. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you believe CarrieBee is Hilary Rosen? If so, what's your basis for that? I don't think you've done enough to demonstrate a behavioral issue. Besides the issue of whether the section belongs in the article, is there something else?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No no-- I'm not making that claim to have identified anyone. It's just an issue the page has faced and probably will face again, so admins might want to be watching that article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry I am not really sure what this complaint about my behavior involves and it certainly is inappropriate and unwarranted in this context. I am also insulted you would dismiss the very valid points I made as "no genuine debate" and assume ill will on my part. I admit I am new to this and am probably learning about the rules regarding what goes and what doesnt in a WP article - and when the discussion warranted it, I would stand down. But regarding this recent debate on Hillary Rosen there is nothing of that sort and I believe that I have laid out my rationale clearly and politely and sourced it. I have not engaged in any kind of confrontational behavior or resorted to personal attacks questioning someone's intent and personal character/integrity to somehow score sympathy points because I cannot articulate my rationale. Please dont go down that route simply because you cannot support the rationale for your edit. I have done nothing in this recent edit that would warrant that.

Now to the actual topic at hand: please refer to the comment page for both the article and the discussion page. But to summarize my point regarding why I removed the section: I removed it because this is something that was just inserted (i.e. it has not been in the article for a while), it is controversial per WP: Recentism and insertion and keeping of such information ought to be reached through consensus. An editor cannot just go in and add any kind of information they please into any article, not just this one but any, and then insist on keeping it in there unless consensus is reached to remove it. I consider attempts to forgo such a discussion in favor of going behind someone's back to take the "this is a behavioral issue" route pretty unnerving.

So that is why I removed it. Not to vandalize or to pick up a fight or to just get a rise out of people as i am being accused of. Before inserting half a page of info in an article and violating WP: Recentism, I suggest a discussion on the talk page. Once consensus is reached, actions will follow accordingly. Thank you. CarrieBee (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Bee, how about you extend a wreath, an olive branch, a peace pipe, and remove that rather irksome warning from your user page? It suggests the kind of antagonism that worked well on Crossfire, but is outdated even on the cable "news" channels. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, there is nothing here for an admin to do. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page. Carrie, meet Hector. Hector, meet Carrie. Both of you must have the interest of the project at heart or you wouldn't be here. Hector, there was no need to run to ANI rightaway (REALLY--come on now). Carrie, blanking entire (sourced) sections is generally frowned upon unless they involve serious BLP issues. Continue this on the talk page and rather than fighting over recentism (which by definition is an issue here), consider discussing WP:UNDUE. FWIW, I personally think that inclusion is warranted, I disagree that this can be called "historical" by any stretch of the word, and I think that the section can be trimmed perhaps a bit more. I also think that the sky is often blue, and that edit-warring leads to blocks. Now, Hector, you dragged her here--you make the tea. Carrie, you put that combative comment on your user page--you bring the crumpets. Bbb will set the table. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Vost

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.

---

Vost (talk · contribs) is more than a little bit out of control. He left this message for an IP who disagreed with his POV (not vandalism, except in Vost's mind). He left me this message because he didn't like the fact that I applied WP:V and WP:BLP to his edits at Louis Farrakhan. When I warned him about making a personal attack, he again threatened to block me.

Vost should be counseled to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:NPA, WP:V, and WP:BLP. The editor should be counseled to read WP:VANDALISM, especially WP:NOTVANDAL, and to use the appropriate warning templates when she/he encounters genuine vandalism. And somebody should remind Vost that she/he is not an administrator and is in no position to block anybody.

I would appreciate if somebody would notify Vost about this discussion, as she/he has "warned" me that my IP will be "blocked from ever again editing on Wikipedia" if I post on the editor's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• As requested, Vost has been notified. Monty₈₄₅ 22:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The information that I provided on the Louis Farrakhan is in the referenced source. Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) is attempting to obscure the fact that he is removing legitimate edits by declaring that I am "out of control." This is an unsubstantiated and exaggerated claim. I will persist to correct the Farrakhan page as per the reference from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Please communicate to Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) that Wikipedia is not his personal playground for removing and adding information as per his own viewpoints. Vost (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vost
      • In your peremptory threats to have people who disagree with you blocked, you are, in fact, acting out of control. Characterizing the legitimate warnings of admins (who do have the power to block you) to your talk page as "defacement" does you no good. Ravenswing 22:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Another threat from Vost, this time for a warning I didn't put on her/his Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd love to see how he plans to do something like that without having something fly back and hit him. His (earlier) rant was pretty over the top. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that "Hi racist!" filth. Sounds like Vost is angling to be blocked himself. Ravenswing 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion; all of my edits that stemmed this debate (particularly, the African Slave Trade and Louis Farrakhan edits) were and continue to be properly sourced. Also, I have indirect ability to block users, though not through this registered name. Therefore, my response to users who removed my valid editions to the pages in question does not qualify as being "out of control." The sectarian inclinations of Malik Shabazz have prompted him to bring me into this argument, and he is attempting to obscure the fact that my recent edits on the two pages in question are in fact sourced and legitimate. By assuming the correctness of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) without having the facts at hand, you are committing the same logical error as Malik Shabazz. Whether this is because you enjoy exercising your authority over users at any opportunity or because your share Malik Shabazz's sectarianism, I know not. Please refrain from communicating with me again about illegitimate topics. Thanks. Vost (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vost

I think you'd better explain exactly what you mean by "I have indirect ability to block users, though not through this registered name" because at the moment my finger is hovering over the block button. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If you claim to have the ability to block users under another account, then you are an admin using an illegitimate sock puppet to harass other editors without scrutiny, and you should be banned without further hesitation. That being said, you have no control over this discussion, and it will run its course with or without your approval. Ravenswing 22:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Voss, no amount of "wrong" that another editor does justifies speaking to them in this manner. Frustrated or not, that is not acceptable behavior at Wikipedia. Ever. Threatening to block another user and calling an editor a racist is plenty enough reason to block you a day to prevent more disruption, and allow you to reconsider your attitude, and I would support that. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to explain anything to you, all right? And for the record, again, the sources provided on the Louis Farrakhan page from the Southern Poverty Law Center make it quite clear that my edits are correct and legitimate. The lot of you literally have no argument regarding that, and blocking is not used to punish, but rather to prevent vandalism and repeated defacement or inclusion/ deletion of legitimate material. Thanks for playing. Vost (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Vost

• Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps a day wouldn't be long enough. The issue isn't the content of the article, I didn't even look at that. I looked at your behavior, which is inexcusable under any circumstance. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no chance this person is an admin with the ability to block anyone. I wouldn't worry. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:02, 17 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Empty threats or not, I have blocked User:Vost indefinitely, with the caveat they may be unblocked if they can provide a suitable explanation for the claims above. Any admin may unblock without contacting me if they are satisfied that the disruption will stop. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [62] I'm intrigued. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:11, 17 Apr 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that they got the message... Monty₈₄₅ 23:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is time to block talk page access. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the invective again. If they restore it again I will do so. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • He acts like he has the secret password that will bring the whole interwebs down. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • To be honest I don't believe for a minute he is an admin sock or has any ability to effect a block, but the claim itself is blockable because of the chilling effect it has on editors. Add that to the quite nasty personal attack and unwillingness to see anything wrong with it and I don't think the block has resulted in a net loss here, IMHO. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed. I would hope that no one here really believed he was an admin gone rogue. The MO didn't fit. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • ...and he just reverted. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• For the record, good block, I say. And I'd have no qualms about revoking talk page access. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:36, 17 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • [63]. Talkpage locked. I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please look in to blocking Truthcon from editing Bo Lozoff page

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

---

• Bo Lozoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Prior ANI discussion

HI. I have been out of the country for several months but when I returned I looked at the Bo Lozoff page again and it seems that Truthcon continues to take off important edits. I looked in to Truthcon's history and it seems he only edits the Bo Lozoff page. I am wondering if he is Bo Lozoff or at least a personal friend. I would like to request that he be banned from editing that page. It looks like he was already blocked from editing the page last year but it was only for a week. He is back at the editing wars. Can someone at least look in to this? Thank you. Molliegiles (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is truthcon, and I edited a very small portion of the text that claims Bo Lozoff has admitted to any allegations that he abused anyone, verbally or sexually. Lozoff was very clear in the referenced article that he never abused anyone. The word "abused" is the key conflict here. The former edit clearly suggests he admitted to many allegations of abuse. He did not. He admitted to controversial and inconventional behavior and firmly denied ever being abusive.Truthcon (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are both at the wrong place. You need to go to WP:3RD or WP:DRN, not here. What you are describing is a content dispute, and that is beyond the scope of this board. No one is going to get banned or blocked from what I see here. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong place yes but I have noticed that both editors have no article space edits aside from Bo Lozoff, both editors in the past have been blocked for actions related to this article and one of them has "truth" in his username which is usually a red flag for narrow interest accounts. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nice catch, I didn't think to check that deeply since the "dispute" was minor. In particular, Molliegiles situation is troublesome, just off an indef for edits to this article. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I was told to take it here months ago (but then I went out of the country) by JFHJR . His email said: "Hi. I saw your post at the Bo Lozoff talk page, and though I think you meant well and raise valid concerns, you should instead post at WP:ANI or at WP:BLPN because you're discussing the behavior of another editor, not particularly the subject of the article or any of its contents. I've removed your comment from the talk page, but please don't take it personally. I'll keep an eye on ANI and BLPN, in case there's a way that I can help you further. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)" Was he wrong as well? I am not actually disputing that one particular thing, just noticing a pattern of Truthcon taking out or editing things others have put up on the page. If you look in to the history of the page you can see all of the edits Truthcon has made, including trying to take off important articles that help reference the page. I am no longer editing the page, nor do I want to, but I am not sure Truthcon should either. I just would like a few people to check in to it. Thanks! Molliegiles (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Having some experience on this article and, in particular, with Truthcon, I can say that in the past his editing style has been very problematic. Previously he has simply blanked content without even attempting to engage in any discussion. The positive change in that regard is promising, and I do believe that Truthcon is capable of participating in consensus editing. That said, he has admitted to a conflict of interest concerning the article, which seems to be at least as relevant as any Molliegiles may have on the basis of her expertise concerning certain disputed content, which is as far as I can tell the sole reason for which she has been asked not to edit the article, which does not make sense to me. To me, Molliegiles has been very reasonable and compliant with admin requests, to the extent that she has understood what is going on, being new to Wikipedia. Her treatment by admins so far seems to me a significant failure of WP:Bite. I don't think that she should remain blocked if Truthcon is allowed to continue editing. Floorsheim (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• For clarity, Molliegiles isn't blocked per se [65], although the unblock was conditional on not editing the article, only the talk page. In the 3 months since being unblocked, I don't see a single edit to any article, and the few user talk page additions are about this subject. That bugs me a little via WP:HERE. They say they have been out of the country for "several months", and I believe them, but it would be easier to agree if they were actually doing something besides editing or commenting on this one article. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• And ditto for Truthcon who seems to be here to give us the "truth" about Bo Lozoff. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Nicely put, Ron Ritzman. The double standard regarding these two users is really what I object to. Thanks, Dennis Brown, for the clarification, but in effect, that means she is not permitted to edit the article. However, Truthcon is only interested in participating on this article as well, but he is treated differently. Why? --Floorsheim (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Truthcon violated WP:3RR (removing negative unsourced BLP info) and blocked for one week. Seems perfectly fine. Molliegiles was indef'ed for negative BLP info without sources after being given a few warnings. Completely different situations. Molliegiles was taken off indef and given this one restriction just two days after the block. I don't see anything inappropriate in the admin actions here, even if some might not have done the indef. If Molliegiles was editing a variety of articles and asked to be able to edit this article again after a probationary period, likely it would be approved, but that isn't the case. Having a single purpose account (or having a conflict of interest) isn't against policy here, its what you do with it that matters. You could always ask the blocking admin his thoughts on the matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Check the diffs. The content Truthcon was removing when he was blocked was sourced. As recently as Wednesday, April 11, he has done the same. Truthcon's first warning came five days before he was blocked for one week (and a year prior to the most recent removal). Molliegiles's came just over an hour before she was blocked indefinitely. Is it possible that she never saw the warning or that she didn't fully understand it? After all, she says she does have sources for the information she added. Could it be that she wasn't aware what Wikipedia's standards for viable sources are? Wouldn't a better condition on her unblocking be to point her to WP:RELIABLE and ask her not to add negative information that does not meet its standards anymore than to require her never to edit the article again? Based on her tone, it seems to me she would be happy to comply with the former. I think admins previously involved have mistaken unfamiliarity with Wikipedia on Molliegiles's part for bad faith, which is not consistent with WP:Bite or WP:Assume. If I had been treated like her, I probably wouldn't be that interested in editing any more articles, either. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Again, a topic that you could take up with the closing administrator first. If he agrees, then problem solved, if not and you feel that strongly about it, then you could initiate separate action. This is a bit outside of the scope of this discussion, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• The relevance is that it does not make sense for Molliegiles to be asked not to edit the article, under penalty of indefinite blocking, if the same does not apply to Truthcon. Will you agree to that much? --Floorsheim (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, as per his user page, the blocking admin is no longer active on Wikipedia. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Then I think that Molliegiles should open a separate request at WP:AN, rather than WP:ANI, to request the restriction be lifted. I still feel it would be better to wait until they have at least 3 months of edits in other areas first, both to show that the editor has dealt with the issues of previous BLP violations, and to offer a better chance of it actually passing, but that is just my opinion. This kind of action should be initiated by her, not tacked onto a pre-existing ANI, particularly since we would be overriding an valid action by an admin who isn't here to participate. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• In that case, in the meantime, Truthcon should not be permitted to edit the article either. His most recent violation was much more recent, and he was given much more extensive warning. The double standard is completely inappropriate. --Floorsheim (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. Please don't bother too much about me being blocked for good from this page. I understand why it was done and think that since I do have a conflict of interest it is probably best that I don't edit it. I just wanted to make people aware of Truthcon and his edits. It seems like Floorsheim has been aware and has worked with Truthcon, so perhaps he will be comply with the rules now. I just wanted some awareness is all. Thank you for that. Also, for the record, I am interested in editing other pages, however, it was this page that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. I do love what you all do and hope to contribute to other pages. Though I must say it isn't an easy site to navigate and I seem to screw up often so that is a little intimidating. Thank you again for discussing this issue. Molliegiles (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• You might consider mentoring. This will help you get started in the right direction in regards to guidelines. Yes, it is confusing at first, but the standards are high, and I think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information because of it. I've been a small part of Wikipedia for over 5 years, and find it very rewarding, hopefully you will, too. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Your positive attitude is noted and, to me, suggests further that, now that you're more familiar with the rules, you would be a positive contributor to the Bo Lozoff article. As Dennis Brown has pointed out, single purpose editing, while not encouraged, is not actually against the rules at Wikipedia despite what others have said. What is against the rules is editing for the purpose of advocacy, etc. As long as your interest is simply to see that properly sourced information is included in the article, which as far as I can tell it is, you should be welcome to edit the article. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, as Dennis Brown also points out, conflict of interest editing, while discouraged, is not officially against the rules, either--especially if the result of not doing in it is that properly sourced information is excluded from an article, cf. WP:IGNORE. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on Molliegiles as I have not reviewed her history. I have reviewed Truthcon's (pretty easy to do as he edits only the one article), and I see his editing as disruptive, biased, and contributing nothing of value to the article. This is now the third place I have made this comment (or something similar), the other two being the Talk page of the article and WP:BLPN. Truthcon's latest edits to the article are three unexplained reversions of my edits, all of which were explained. If this is "improvement", I'd hate to see what he improved from.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

While I was writing the above post, Truthcon was busy reverting yet again. JFHJr had reverted Truthcon's three reversions of my edits. Truthcon reverted here. This only confirms my view of the problems associated with this editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He's now at 3R (I'm counting his three reversions in a row as one). I've left a warning on his Talk page. He's also complaining about JFHJr on his (Truthcon's) Talk page and inserted at the end of a rambling paragraph: "Wiki admin people, please check bbb23's vandalism."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now looked at Mollie's edit history - didn't take long - even less than Truthcon's. She, too, has been POV in her edits (negative instead of positive, which is actually more dangerous). However, unlike Truthcon, any wrongs she's committed are stale as she hasn't edited the article since January 8, 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have left a very strongly worded warning on his talk page. He has a bunch of mini reverts and is trying to game the system. I did not revert (I'm not wanting to get dragged into this mess) but if he reverts now, I would think a block is in order to prevent him from disrupting further. His comments are beginning to make it clear that he would rather risk a block than have a version he disagrees with. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 01:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am about to log off for the evening, and it pains me to see the article in its current state. I was mildly reluctant to revert Truthcon because, even though it would be only my third edit of the day, I was hoping others would take some action. That said, I'm going to revert and then skedaddle. However, if anyone (other than Truthcon) thinks what I'm doing constitutes edit-warring (not a 3RR violation but still), feel free to undo my reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just filed a 3RR report based on events subsequent to my last post. It's somewhat stale and may be rejected, but I felt it was still the right thing to do. Truthcon reverted a fourth time. He was reverted back, and there has been no history on the Lozoff article since. The last contribution by Truthcon, about 2.5 hours after his last revert, was on his Talk page and directed to Floorsheim (probably because he is the only editor who has been sympathetic to Truthcon). His comments clearly indicate he doesn't get it. It's along the lines of the usual stubborn editor who is being thwarted in his inapprpriate efforts (blaming Wikipedia and other Wikipedia editors for their evil ways): "I am just about ready to give up, which is clearly what you all wish, and it is with disgust and frustration that Wiki is being so unreasonable with childish things like not mentioning that Bo Lozoff is a musician. It's stupid and vindictive." That comment and this next comment show an obvious conflict based on his relationship with the subject: "I told Bo I would be decent and reasonable as you requested, and have an intelligent forum, but that is not what is going on here ..."

I don't know what the reviewing admin at WP:3RRNB will do, but assuming Turthcon is not blocked or a block expires, if he returns to the same article with the same issues, he should be blocked indefinitely, blocked for a much longer time, or banned from editing the article (which for him is the same thing as a block).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The report is no longer even possibly stale as Truthcon has, unsurprisingly, returned and reverted a fifth time. I've updated the 3RR report accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We should grant him his request ("Go ahead and block me forever.") and and allow JFHJr and me to continue our hateful objectives ("I just wish you would stop pretending that haters like bbb23 and JFHJr are some sort of objective journalists. They are haters who know how to use the internet for their personal emotional agendas and pretend they are respectable people.").--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Noozgroop

Resolved

 – Noozgroop blocked for 1 week for disruption

Noozgroop (talk · contribs) is again changing the style of articles from numbers in words to numerals (see WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM and WP:ORDINAL to see why it is wrong). Nooz has been warned multiple times, explained in plain and simple English to not do this, even he was reported and blocked due to this--see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive741#User:Noozgroop. Nooz prefers to edit-war rather than discuss, so that's why I'm reporting him now. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is commonplace, when speaking in terms of music chart positions (e.g. Billboard), to represent the numbers above 10 in numerical form. Otherwise the data is hard to read, especially when in a sentence with other figures ("dropped twenty-five places to number fifty-two in the April 30, 2000 issue"). Noozgroop (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Noozgroop

Well, we are not Billboard, we are an encyclopedia, and if our guidelines states that both styles are preferred and making these changes is discouraged, then the first thing to do is not edit-war to suit your POV. If you have a problem with the style, you take it to WT:MOS, WT:MOSNUM and/or WT:CHARTS. That's not a justification. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Both styles are not "preferred" when the text is hard to read. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to have information presented in an easy-to-read manner. Noozgroop (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Noozgroop

• Regardless of what looks better of fits better (to be honest I don't care much) it's concerning that the editor, even after being blocked, continues to edit in a manner that they have been told is unacceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Unacceptable" by whom? Noozgroop (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Noozgroop

By the community. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• The blocking admin on 27 February, 2012, presumably. Noozgroop has been doing this for years; it's their hobby horse. Tb, a better link (than the somewhat gratuitous MOS) would be to the ANI discussion from around that time. I'm off for now. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The relevant links are at ANI/Archive 741, but I can link the relevant guidelines:
• WP:MOS: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable"
• WP:MOSNUM: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable"
• WP:ORDINAL: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. This type of disruption is just a time sink, which is the whole point behind that Arbcom decision (and similar rules like WP:ENGVAR. Next thing you know, people will be arguing about whether to use an en-dash or an em-dash in...never mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no brony, but I'd still rather this type of dash (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mm, I expect we'll be right back at this soon enough. This kind of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" editing, backed by that long a string of "Dude, stop this" talk page posts, never ever turns out well. Ravenswing 09:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone sees it pop up again, just let me know directly. I've already told him that he'd be reblocked again, very likely indefinitely, because returning to the behavior after this declaration that it's wrong is a clear sign of WP:IDHT. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronz behaviour

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.

---

Many have commented on his behavior in the past. [66] Even Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, warned him last month. [67] He removed Jimbo's message with edit summary "harassment". He claims everyone is harassing him, he post messages threatening to have them blocked, he argues nonstop and distorts things such as at the Talk:Alicia_Silverstone where he claims "overwhelming consensus" when no one else has stated an agreement with him. He insist that a reliable source is valid when linking to an article there that says what he wants to quote from, but dismisses other articles on that same reliable source that say something he wishes to ignore. [68] Dream Focus 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an RFC/U might be an order more so than ANI. I might be missing it but I don't see anything blockable in the above SÆdon^talk 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Dream Focus left alerted eight editors about this thread who have had conflicts with Ronz in the past but aren't involved in this specific issue. [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] Looks like canvassing to me. AniMate 23:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was showing a pattern of behavior, he having conflicts of the same type with many people. A long term problem editor should be banned for his constant problems. Jimbo Wales himself commenting on him. "Your recent reverts to this article were in line with your past POV pushing behavior. This has to stop. The statements you removed were neither promotional nor inaccurate, and were both uncontroversial and easily sourced." I thought that and what others have said was relevant to this. And when you bring someone to ANI or wherever don't you usually ask for others to come and participate? He was warned about this behavior, and on the Alicia Silverstone article he removed things which were also "uncontroversial and easily sourced". If someone complains about your past behavior and warns them to stop, but they keep doing it anyway, I thought that'd get him banned. Dream Focus 23:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He also didn't inform Ronz of the discussion SÆdon^talk 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I did too. He just hit undo on the edit. Check his talk page history. [77] Dream Focus 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies DF. I went to his page right after you posted this and so didn't think he'd have had time to revert it and I wrongly assumed that you forgot. SÆdon^talk 23:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DF, you didn't show a pattern of behavior. You didn't hunt up diffs to show that this is a problem. You left messages recruiting others who had conflicts with him to come here. That's canvassing. AniMate 23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think an RFC/U is the best venue for this. If it's true that he's had this much conflict then it should not be difficult to find a second certification. SÆdon^talk 23:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely a problematic pattern of behavior from Ronz. Dream Focus just didn't present it. The editors he "canvassed" are probably the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who have had run ins with Ronz and his peculiar style of tendentious editing. An RfC/U would probably be good, but if he's at it again I don't see why people should have to deal with the hassle of that.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn right about this being just the tip of the iceberg. This seems to be a continuation of the behavior detailed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. In that mess as documented by User:Griswaldo 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Ronz was

• Removing talk page comments he doesn't like, then collapsing them after being reverted and edit warring to keep them collapsed, and then finally after being reverted again putting his own subject headings over the comments.
• Issuing BLP warnings to editors who in good faith are trying to evaluate the reliability of Barrett as a source - Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and Griswaldo
• Unilaterally deleting talk page comments, claiming that they are BLP violations - [78],[79]

On 22:08, June 19, 2011 I informed User:Will Beback ([80]) about Ronz apparent continuation of spamming user pages with templates.

On 1:00, August 24, 2011 I told User:Elen of the Roads ([81]) of Ronz's apparent continuation of spamming user pages with templates.

It is blatantly obvious this editor is continuing to violate-ignore-distort wikipedia policies (first WP:BLP, then WP:BITE, and so on). WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS GUY?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to Ronz, you can't ever believe anything he says. Misuse of policies, edit warring and distortions of the truth is an understatement of epic proportions. You have to be a sociopath to commit the wrongs this guy does with the calmness of a sleeping baby. I've never met any other editor like this guy. This guy acts like he's an administrator threatening that editors will be blocked at the drop of a hat. Think I'm overstating, go ahead and read his contrabutions. He adds almost no value to any article he's involved with whatsoever (and I'm being nice). Time after time he seems to slither through fingers of countless administators, never getting banned. Far too many times, he gets the benefit of the doubt, be let go with a mere slap on the wrist. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. Ronz has IMHO become the de facto a poster child of what can go wrong with Wikipedia--an editor that appears to game Wikipedia to the point the administrators just don't get the scope or length of the violations and so continues to tarnish the community.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A user is allowed to remove coments from their own talk page. If there really is a problem here, why are editors like BruceGrubb producing diffs from 2011 and 2010? And why also is TFI using inflammatory language like "sociopath"? Please produce some recent diffs from 2012 to show what is going on now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenever Ronz comes into conflict with other editors it becomes a fiasco. It's a well known problem. I'm sure it's well known by you as well Mathsci. When I had a run in with him over Stephen Barrett I recall him claiming to quit just as things weren't looking so good for him in various community venues like this one. I don't have the diffs, nor do I have the time to find them, but someone who is more dedicated to this should dig them up, because that kind of slithering out of trouble is itself a problem.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not been directly involved in any editing where that has happened. There were problems concerning Weston Price which involved several editors commenting here. Certainly an RfC/U is in order if other editors have found systematic problems with Ronz. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You want examples from this year? Fine, I give you ones for this freaking MONTH: [82], [83]=], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] (that is NOT Ronz's talk page but another user's talk page he is messing with!); [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]] and that is NOT all of them!

Instead of handling these matters on the relevant talk page he spams user talk pages--"It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location" (Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

"On the contrary, you've been contacted on your talk page—per best practices—and asked to stop bullying and harassing users. Your response has been to ignore these requests—by multiple users—and instead to make false accusations in return. That is the kind of "unacceptable behavior" you have been engaging in for some time now, Ronz, and it needs to stop." Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time." (Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

Harassing users in October 2010 and Harassing users in April 2012. How much evidence do we freaking need that Ronz is out of control?

AGAIN, WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT RONZ?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see three editors with strong views that Ronz is disruptive, but no recent diffs of anything blockable. Please could one of you choose ONE diff (the most egregious, perhaps) from the last month and explain what the problem with it is? Most of the string of diffs above look like templated warnings and I can't immediately see why they are blockable offences. You need to present a case here, not just SHOUT DEMANDS FOR SOMETHING TO BE DONE. Please calmly give a good example of blockable behaviour with a narrative explanation of why it's a problem. Otherwise this is for RfC I think. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about what the appropriate course of action is at this time. In terms of particularly egregious edits, I would mention these two: [98] with the edit summary "rv - as with last time - undue weight, inaccurate info, promotional info, off topic", [99] with the edit summary "some info fails verification". All of those claims proved to be untrue, and the information is in the article and well-sourced today. The information removed was not inaccurate - indeed, Ronz re-introduced a blatant factual error on the date by reverting the edit. It is also worth noting the WP:OWN issues around this article, with Ronz having made 240 edits to the article, over complaints spanning a very long period of time, with the 2nd runner up making only 61 edits: [100]. What should have been a calm discussion of the issues with the article quickly degenerated into Ronz claiming harassment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the diffs you've provided, your interpretation is not completely correct. The text removed by Ronz includes a claim about being awarded a $10M contract by NASA, but as it was written the claim wasn't supported by the refs; the LA Times ref is the only one that mentions the contract and it only speculates that the contract could be worth up to $10M. Considering this, Ronz's claims that the edit includes inaccurate and promotional material is correct, at least based on the provided refs. Also, this text is not found in the article at the time of your writing the above comment, contrary to your claim that "All of those claims proved to be untrue, and the information is in the article and well-sourced today". 92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think his claim of undue weight is particularly unreasonable either. Why add info from the Moon Express article about the NASA contract rather than something directly about Naveen Jain e.g. the interview with Naveen Jain about Moon Express? If you wanted to be promotional I can see why an actual interview with the subject of the article would be ignored in favor of material describing the award of a contract. Really all that should be in the Naveen Jain article is a summary that is reflective of the lead of the Moon Express article, plus anything that directly pertains to Naveen Jain. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• On the Alicia Silverstone article he kept removing the part about her being an animal rights activist, despite she getting ample news coverage for that, and references found and added to the article to prove that, plus she doing a commercial for PETA that got ample coverage, etc. I add in sources to a magazine which interviewed her about her bestselling novel, which said she was an animal rights and environmental activist. [101] He then tags that with undue weight, and argued constantly on the talk page. He insist she be mentioned as being known only for one movie she did, Clueless, despite two other films she was in making several times the amount of money, and many news sources saying she was best known for other things as well. [102] He mentions an article in UPI which says she is best known for Clueless, and I link to another article in UPI which says she is best known for her work in the films "The Crush," "Clueless," "Blast from the Past" and "Excess Baggage," as well as the music videos for Aerosmith's hits "Cryin,'" "Amazing" and "Crazy." He then calls that "tabloid trash" claiming its not reliable. I find several other articles in UPI which state she is best known for more than one thing, and he argues against that. Originally the article did mention the other things she was well known for, not just Clueless, he removing it. I think the talk page of that article says it all. You have someone determined to keep out referenced information he doesn't like, and make it say what he does like, then claiming "overwhelming consensus" when he is the only one saying it should be there. Dream Focus 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Having read over that discussion, you are clearly in the right. He's engaging in an inappropriate synthesis by systematically excluding sources that don't support his views. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read some old posts you made on his talk page, one of which he reverted with the edit summary "harassment" as mentioned before. After that, he added in a banner at the top of his page about having recently been bullied or harassed [103] and its stay there ever since. That was in June 2011. Of course he's had the tag saying he is considering retiring for over a year now, so maybe he just forgot its there, or maybe he believes everyone is regularly abusing him. Dream Focus 20:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The retirement banner showed up just as some serious heat was coming down on him surrounding the issues I was involved in. He stopped editing and put that banner up and avoided further scrutiny. We let editors slither away from the consequences of their actions like that all the time and it really infuriates some of us.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's why he was doing it. I've seen people leave for that purpose then return soon after. I'm thinking the other banner, claiming harassment, might be against some rule, not sure which one though. Dream Focus 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The retirement banner come up during the whole Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard fiasco. "A retirement template, he has a template for everything, doesn't he? We've been duped, and made fools of here by the process." (THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

It is WAY past time to do something about this editor; his behavior is just as disruptive in April 2012 as it was in October 2010 and it is more or less the SAME behavior. I have seen editors banned for far less so why is this guy still here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I recall at least one incident last year in which Ronz goaded a long-term highly knowledgeable, highly valued contributor into a block by persistently exasperating behavior that stayed just within the margins of policy. Someone should probably take a look into the overall pattern of this editor's contributions and make a disinterested recommendation as to whether any action should be taken, whether it be an RfC or dispute resolution or something else. Of course Ronz is entitled to respond to such analysis before any action is taken, but he should also be on notice by now that several experienced editors here are concerned about his overall pattern of participation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to mention a name so we can look into that. Dream Focus 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Brad, if I recall correctly Ronz does not show up to explain his actions when they are discussed either. It's another pattern of his. He'll delete advice or warnings from his own talk page as harassment and then stay away from AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Once again he has tagged properly referenced material with "undue" tags as well as add in something which seems rather bias. Different sources say Alicia Silverstone is notable for different things, and she gets coverage for far more than just the film Clueless. Long never ending discussion on the talk page does not result in anything. Additional input would be appreciated, otherwise its just an edit war between two people. [104] Dream Focus 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I just added academic sources which discuss her environmental and animal rights works and he has tagged those as UNDUE and OR. I am not a happy about that at all. I get the feeling he has a thing for the film clueless. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a variation of the nonsense we went through with Ronz in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch.

Please note this comment from October 2010 and see how much is still happening in April 2012:

"Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:

1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?

As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing." (Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

I again ask how much evidence do we freaking need that Ronz is STILL out of control?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I can see some issues here. Has anyone approached this from a mentorship angle yet? — Ched :  ?  09:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"•Oppose on the basis of an idiotic imposition of punishment. Help him become a better editor by offering him advice on how to resolve disputes. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) ◦I agree that it should not be punitive. I've suggested other options below that are not punitive. I think your suggestion to have people help Ronz become a better editor is fantastic, but I don't see any volunteers. Please note that mentorship is one of the options below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ■I've gotten Ronz in touch with some people who may help through some off-wiki e-mails. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ■Well cheers for doing that and I hope it does him some good.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

■So SA, since you've become Ronz's mentor, I assume you'll be following up to see that improvement actually take hold and grow. Good luck. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I am Ronz's mentor and am unsure why you think my post above indicates that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)"

Mentorship was apparently tried almost two years ago. When are the administrators going to get out the big hammer and do what should have been done long ago? When? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He has been around long enough to know what he should be doing, surely. Do you really think he is going to be listening to anyone? He doesn't seem to have done so thus far. Dream Focus 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at his user page. How many people spend 2/3 of their user page talking about disruptive behavior and associated policies? It seems this is all this fella thinks about. I call it projection. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ronz is far from alone in using his userpage as a soapbox; it does help other editors to know with whom they deal. pablo 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the Alicia Silverstone article for one week. There's entirely too much back and forth, bickering, changing, reverting, and disruption going on with this article. Since I've likely protected the Wrong Version, Any admin. is fully free to change, lift, modify, or extend this protection. I'm not precious about my efforts here, so I won't consider it anything confrontational in the least. — Ched :  ?  18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a mop, but that's too much IMO. Kick it down to 48 hrs, and topic ban the related parties instead pbp 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We can't topic ban at will without a wide community agreement. The one week lock is a normal first step. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban on Alicia Silverstone?

I, for one, believe that a logical first step would be to topic-ban these two editors from the Alicia Silverstone page. Thoughts? pbp 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Which two? Have you read this? Talk:Alicia_Silverstone#Undue_weight_of_animal_rights_and_environmental_activist_in_lede He changed his tune as more people showed up. How long will that last though? Dream Focus 02:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the way BLP has been misused by Ronz before (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard for that mess) I have to wonder if it ever really applied in the first place. The more I look at Ronz's BLP claims the more they look like SAME 'because I say so' crap the community went through with regarding the use of Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price article.

"Like many animal rights activists, Ms. Silverstone is leather-averse, so it has been particularly challenging for Ms. Haze to keep her attractively shod. There are synthetic shoes, of course, but there aren't many I like looking at, she said." (BELLAFANTE, GINIA (August 19, 2003) "Front Row; Clothing the Vegan Star" New York Times)

"“Clueless” star turned animal rights activist Alicia Silverstone is passing her vegan diet along to her infant son — literally. She shot video of herself chewing food for him and then passing it directly into his mouth." (Schulz, Sam (Mar 27, 2012) "Alicia Silverstone Chews Her Son's Food for Him...and shoots video of herself feeding it to him, mouth-to-mouth" NBCUniversal, Inc)

"What about all the coverage of her book, it even on the NYT bestsellers list. Any objection towards saying Alicia Silverstone is an American actress, author, and animal rights activists. Dream Focus 21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"

How about NBC News out of freaking Chicago, Ronz?!? Or better yet the New York freaking Times article of nearly NINE years ago?!? This appears to be a variation of the same WP:CRYBLP crap the community put up with in the Weston Price article back in October 2010. Also instead of BLP warning templates he is now spamming user talks with COI warning templates (as shown above)

Again, WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT RONZ?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is going to work here. Certainly Dream Focus doesn't need one. Ronz seems to be the user behaving badly here and it doesn't seem to be an isolated incident. AniMate 09:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is what Dream Focus, Griswaldo, The Founders Intent, and myself have been saying--this is NOT isolated case and more over seems to be continuation of the behavior seen back in October 2010.

Lambanog's October 2010 comment regarding Ronz's behavior below is just as valid regarding his behavior in April 2012:

"This is not an isolated case. I had a content dispute with Ronz not even a month past and the same pattern of behavior showed up. A search of ANI archives will show lots more. WP:AGF I think is being abused and used as a shield for his behavior. I also agree with the observation of gaming the system. The way he posts on talk pages, the way he refactors comments, and the way he edit wars are technically not in outright breach of guidelines, or if breached, there is some token understandable reason. But taken all together and with its regularity I think Ronz's behavior is unsupportable and is causing a poisonous atmosphere. Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We are basicly seeing the SAME BLASTED THING. WHY in the name of sanity is this editor being allowed to continue to cause "a poisonous atmosphere"?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that since different admins are looking at this over the years, and because Ronz has not done something outright crazy (like stab someone in the eye), they are hesitant to drop the hammer on him. I've said it before that Ronz is an expert wikilawyer and policy wonk, who has perfected this behavioral technique over probably a five year period. He knows that admins are hesitant to not give lots of chances, and when they do punish it's only for 24 or 48 hours (a slap on the wrist), at which point he returns to business as usual. I can already smell it here. The talk of topic bans already lacks decisiveness, which is what we see all the time. Already talking about reducing the ban time, which is typical. Counseling or mentorship will probably suggested next, none of which will work. We have a pathologic behavior that has been demonstrated for YEARS. So many editors have attested to the exact same behavior, yet those in charge seem to still question whether there is fire beneath the smoke. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Did I call it on the counseling decision or not? Do I know this place or not? And the cheerleaders are the counselors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To throw in my tuppence. I've seen calls for an RFC/U to be filed against Ronz as part of due process. Based on my understanding of his behaviour, Ronz would most likely refer to this as more harassment and bullying by the filer, and the certifiers, and refuse to take part in it. An RFC is only useful if both parties partake, which I don't see happening. Given that Newyorkbrad (who hasn't been seen round these parts in a while) has commented and Jimbo has warned him, this issue is definitely something that needs to be dealt with by the admins. Long term combatative and disruptive behaviour is usually solved by an indef if I'm not mistaken. Blackmane (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have run into trouble with Ronz at Talk:Animal-assisted therapy where he has inserted himself in a dispute between myself and another editor, who support AAT as legitimate alternative medicine and two editors who appear to consider AAT to be mere pseudoscience. This is a normal discussion about moving an article from being too much one POV to too much the other, but Ronz has been improperly and unilaterally interpreting MEDRS and rejecting all attempts to provide a balanced POV. This is the second time I have tangled with Ronz, I cannot at the moment locate the other time I had problems with him, but his pattern with me is similar to those above, and on the topic below, I believe his issue is not only with the celebrity in question, but with animal-related issues as well. Montanabw^(talk) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw was canvassed to comment here: [105]. Ronz's response in the current issue here: Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy#Deletion_of_Barak_et_al..2C_.282001.29 is fully consistent with MEDRS. Montanabw appears to insist on using a small scale study when reviews also exist on the same area. Montanabw himself has been extremely aggressive on the page, repeatedly characterizing editors who disagree with him as having "anti-animal therapy POV" (including me), WP:BOOMERANG. The "two editors" you refer to, me and presumably Salimfadhley have both stated we do not view AAT as pseudoscience in threads you have seen, so please stop spreading things which you know to be false. I do not think it is pseudoscience so please do not put words in my mouth. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of what happens to the editor(s) involved here, I'd suggest to User:BruceGrubb that shouting "BLOCK THIS EDITOR BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THEM" repeatedly is unlikely to forward his ideas. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not because "I don't like him" but rather that he is clearly ABUSING Wikipedia's rules to ANTAGONIZE other editors and has getting away with it for YEARS. "Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." (Wikipedia:HARRASMENT#Harassment_and_disruption) BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

More to the point it is not just me that is clammering for this guy's block. The Founders Intent, Griswaldo, and Blackmane clearly are along those lines as well and I suspect that Viriditas and Dream Focus are either leaning if not in that camp themselves.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're still resorting to shouting (using caps), which is merely diminishing your point. You're now claiming this is a long-term pattern: that's WP:RFC/U territory (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As I recall it was Dream Focus who pointed this was the latest in a mutil year pattern of behavior to begin with. As for my shout it is because I we are getting this "oh this isn't our problem" and "I not hearing you because you used the wrong form. La La La" attitude and nothing is being done to address the problem brought up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, shouting is not productive. Cut it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

An Admin speaks up

Okay, I spent sometime reading this thread, & looking at related pages, & I'll add that I'm concerned about what I've read. To the point I'm seriously considering dusting off my Admin powers & doing something about it -- although I'd rather not; I'm far more content just reading articles & doing WikiGnome stuff. Further, it appears that Ronz has asked for help from a couple of established contributors who have been here almost as long as I have to counsel him & maybe act as a mentor. So I'm going to give both CrohnieGirl & Ched some time to investigate & decide if they can make a difference here -- but not that much time. If nothing changes in at most 24 hours, I'll do something. Everyone/anyone feel free to email me until then. (P.S. To Dream Focus: Guy, you're user page is at 212K; it's time to shrink it to a much smaller size. There's a reason why people write stuff Wikipedia essays, & blog about Wikipedia, like I used to do. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid problems before he just pretended he was leaving, and now he is just pretending to cooperate. Just like when more people went to the Alicia Silverstone talk page, he started acting more civil, and tried to bring attention away from the previous talk page sections. Its all just an act. And my user page loads up fine for me. Does anyone else have problems loading it? Just look through the index at the top to find something interesting to read. I do regularly archive chunks of my talk page so it doesn't get too long. Dream Focus 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I doubt he'll be blocked for this incident. He's reaching out for a mentor. The best course of action for those of you who have been in conflict with him is to start an WP:RFCU, so should these issues come up again you'll have something to point to and a block or topic ban can quickly be issued. AniMate 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's reaching for a mentor, but one has to accept him for things to work. Both CrohnieGirl & Chad know it's important to let everyone know that a relationship has been agreed to -- or not. A successful mentoring means the problem is fixed; a failed one, is just as proof that there's a history of questionable behavior as an RFCU. Far as I am concerned, the clock is still ticking. And Ronz, it would look far better for you to respond to the concerns here, in WP:AN/I, where people interested in this issue are looking for information, & not just in private email. -- llywrch (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi llywrch. First, thank you for looking into this, and your patience before doing anything. I personally don't want to be ANYone's mentor as I have enough of a time monitoring my own edits. :-) Anyway - I have now dropped Ronz a note on their talk, including the suggestion that he walk away from the article for now. I just became aware of this editor and the situation a couple days ago, and I can understand the frustration if this has been going on for some time. I am familiar with this, and not everyone is a good fit for our project. No slight to anyone, just that different people have different skills. (trust me - NObody wants to hear me sing.) You folks do what needs to be done, I took a shot. cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  21:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x? @DF. Hey, it's your page (so to speak), so <cough> I guess it's fine. OK .. TBH - it's about as TL;DR as I've seen. :-). A LOT of people seem to be aware of the situation now - and I'm not going to ABF in that he's "acting". I admit, if NYB thinks something is amiss ... (nuff said). Perhaps it's just the way he processes information and feedback - IDK. We'll see what happens I'm sure. (btw - I appreciate all your hard work at ARS - a lot of good hard work .. ty) — Ched :  ?  21:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Ronz for the period of 1 week, per [106]. I hope that he does find a mentor, and we can all move on positively, but if not the right place to go from here is WP:RfC/U. I should also point out that I do not believe this was handled well by some of the editors on the "other side", as has been raised in the thread, Dream Focus appears to have canvassed inappropriately, BruceGrubb has provided over-emotional responses to the extent of shouting. Jimbo, looking into your comments at at Naveen Jain, I believe they would hold a lot more weight if you backed them up with diffs and went through normal dispute resolution processes. Simply asserting Ronz has a history of "negative" edits or assuming that he "hates" the subject is not good enough. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have taken reverts at AAT out of context. Monatanabw had been performing reverts even though there was a talk page discussion listing why I had removed the original material: Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy#Book_check_-_Becker, first post: [107]. He reverted the material, without addressing the concern of the reliability of the source: [108]. Ronz reverted him specifically asking him to join the discussion, but once again Montanabw reverted [109] without discussion. It was not until the 13th that he actually did respond on the talk page: [110]. Note that the revert that you marked was performed very similar to the time of Montanabw's first comment on the talk page section, and Montanabw had reverted the material once again before commenting (i.e for the third time), so perhaps Ronz did not notice Montanabw's first comment. Also, if you look in the article history, editors were asked to mark dubious citations etc by Montanabw, but you say Ronz was spamming templates: [111]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The actions at AAT were only part of what lead me to the decision. As I said on my talk page, it was his tactics that lead me to blocking, rather than content work. There was no need to tag every single instance of a problem with multiple templates, whether or not the citations were dubious, one tag for the section and discussion on the talk page would have sufficed. In any case, I welcome review of the block in general. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blackmane has already explained why WP:RfC/U would have been a useless endeavor: "To throw in my tuppence. I've seen calls for an RFC/U to be filed against Ronz as part of due process. Based on my understanding of his behaviour, Ronz would most likely refer to this as more harassment and bullying by the filer, and the certifiers, and refuse to take part in it. An RFC is only useful if both parties partake, which I don't see happening. Given that Newyorkbrad (who hasn't been seen round these parts in a while) has commented and Jimbo has warned him, this issue is definitely something that needs to be dealt with by the admins." Which is exactly where Dream Focus brought this mess.

I should also point out that Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard#BLPN_dispute which had this comment:

"As someone with no involvement on the other arguments it all (as far as I remember), your behavior on this board itself is disruptive. Users have presented a number of clear, specific complaints about your behavior. Your response to every one of those complaints has been (paraphrasing) "I don't see any legitimate complaints". That's not a response--it's a refusal to listen to the complaints. I'm not saying certainly I support a block since I haven't looked at the details, but if this is the same way you were behaving in other places, it's no wonder to me that others are questioning your ability to work collaboratively." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

With Qwyrxian and the various other editors comments in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard#BLPN_dispute in mind it comes no surprise to me that Dream Focus came here rather than WP:RfC/U.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be that Ronz ignores the RfC/U, if he does and carries on with the same behaviours, you will likely find administrators much more happy to block him "to get the point across". But to skip it all together on the assumption that Ronz won't participate is assuming bad faith. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really unrelated to my comment. I have no knowledge of the disputes you refer to. I am referring to a specific point made in the reasoning for the block which referred to the Animal assisted therapy article and gave specific diffs of that article. I have no position on the block, just concerns about the rationale. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I should have probably made a somewhat extended comment but the grey matter is still suffering from the tail end of a cold and stringing that many words into a sentence was enough of a struggle. Although I said that Ronz would most likely ignore an RFC/U, I should also clarify that an RFC should be the next step, whether he partakes or not. Worm's block basically now marks a stake in the ground that from here on out there'll be scrutiny from admins. I'll leave it there, I'm still struggling to string 2 thoughts togther into something cogent. Blackmane (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As the Admin who drew the line in the sand, I'm endorsing how Worm That Turned handled this -- a week-long block. I was intending to hit him with an indef block -- which could have run a few minutes or forever -- until either he found a mentor who was willing to help him change his behavior or another Admin reversed my block, & thus take responsibility for Ronz. I hope that a week-long block is enough of a clue-by-four to tell Ronz he needs to change his ways. On the other hand, I believe that the next step here should not be an RfC/U, but a ban, either by ArbCom or the Community; Ronz has shown he won't participate in such voluntary resolution activities. And he's been told enough times by enough people to knock it off, so he doesn't need any more chances to change before we kick him out.

FWIW, I didn't even know Worm TT had an account on Wikipedia, let alone that she/he was an Admin, before I saw an email from Worm this morning. There is no collusion or cabal here; just two uninvolved, objective Admins looking at the same evidence & drawing similar conclusions.

Further, there simply aren't many good tools to use with the troublemakers, cranks, & trolls who infect Wikipedia. Blocking or banning someone is effective inversely to how big of a problem that person is. A sufficiently motivated individual can create one or more accounts & continue as before; jumping to another IP address is trivial. It requires a great deal of effort & motivation to keep someone banned from Wikipedia, a fact more people would know if there were more Admins. Better to try to work with a problem person first before dropping the banhammer on her/him, & dealing with the timesink that will follow.

Now to address some other issues in this thread. First, ranting on & on about someone -- as BruceGibbs did above -- conveys nothing more than you are mad at this person, & possibly that this person did something to get under your skin. Nor does Dream Focus's extremely long, diary of every thought or insight about Wikipedia; that makes DF appear to have the same disingenuous agenda that Ronz has demonstrated. Read this forum for any length of time, & you will find a great many conflicts consisting of 2 or more individuals who are so angry with one another that they all broke the rules in a disagreement, & it will take a lot of time to get to the bottom of things. Most Admins come to Wikipedia to edit, not to sift thru the history between a bunch of crazies to find out who is at fault; only a sense of fairness keeps most Admins from simply blocking everyone involved in those kinds of disputes, & moving on. If you want an example of how to complain about someone, look at what Viridias wrote above: detailed, succinct, & to the point. (His contribution was probably buried under all of the TL;DR posts others made.)

Another point is that Ronz' behavior is not unique. In my many years on Wikipedia, there have been many people who have acted much as Ronz has -- abused the rules & process, ignored or talked over what other contributors add to a discussion, & resorted to all sorts of other objectionable tactics with the goal of simply getting their preferred version of an article accepted. Sometimes they are, indeed, correct; I think everyone would admit that Ronz has made some good edits to the articles he camped on. But people who engage in this kind of behavior end up creating a toxic enviornment here, & we lose people every day due to people like Ronz. And if you think Ronz is rough on the newbies, consider veteran editors like me -- I've been contributing for over nine years, with a few breaks. On one hand, people who abuse the process like this really get under the skin of someone who has tried to follow the Wiki philosophy, who bend over backwards to be collegial, who find their finger on the block button itchy & struggle to remain objective. There are times when a veteran Wikipedian finds that scene at the end of the move Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back very appealing, where the two go to the homes of the people who flamed them on their forums & beat the crap outta each of them. (That's why I gave Ronz 24 hours to shape up; I wanted to be sure my instincts on this incident were right, & I wasn't just responding based on my own frustrations with these folks.)

Lastly, if you think you can be a better Admin than the ones who are active, nominate yourself. Not too many people apply for this job any more. I have my guesses why this is so, but that's based on what I've read; I haven't frequented that part of Wikipedia for a very long time -- I don't know that many active Wikipedians to have a strong opinion about anyone who gets nominated -- so I don't know if, in truth, the process is just like running a gauntlet for the nominees. But if that is the case, more people involved would help to change that. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

One comment and one correction. Comment - Somewhere in there you critique "TLDR" comments ... really? :) Correction - Viriditas didn't comment here. His comment was copy pasted by Bruce within one of those "TLDR" comments in such a way to preserve a blue link over his name. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Touche. One of these days I will learn to write succinctly, Griswold. I thought about that as I wrote the above, but the most important part of my message is in the first paragraph, so no one really needs to read beyond that; however, many posts in the discussion above were not as well structured, & one either had to wade thru the entire post -- or not read it at all. This lack of structure is why I had thought Viriditas posted. In any case, WP:AN/I is better served by posts like V's. -- llywrch (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I put Viriditas' comment in quotes with a link to where it had come from--Ronz's own talk page which like Dream Focus' AN/I notice was promptly removed.

I should point out that much of the anger you saw from myself and to a lesser extent Griswaldo and The Founders Intent is summed by this comment from Founders Intent 27 October 2010 (UTC) "You've had a Talk page, two Noticeboards, this space and 12 days to resolve issues. We're done." Griswaldo (27 October 2010) was even more blunt "Ronz we're here because people have exhausted their patience for your antics." We had done this before, gotten the freaking T-shirt to speak, seen not only the elephant but the entire freaking circus and all the sideshows, and lo and behold as Founders Intent hinted at the end of that mess here we are again. Of course I was peeved because if that had been handled properly back in October 2010 we likely wouldn't have had to go through this now in April 2012.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• User has commented here. — Ched :  ?  18:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully no one is naive enough to believe his speech is sincere. Here is my interpretation of it: "Oh, I was totally going to stop editing that article anyway, since every single person that showed up to discuss it, was against my pointless tags, and the page has already been blocked from editing for a week." And "yes, I'm going to listen to my mentor, and I totally take all the concerns everyone said to heart, even though I previously ignored these same people and their concerns for years now, you should totally trust me to actually be listening this time." I notice a lot of people try to get out of punishment by saying they are listening to the concerns of others, and willing to change. Dream Focus 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment echos that of The Founder Intent's 28 October 2010 comment in the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard that was result of the community having a 12+ day migraine thanks to this guy: "That doesn't detract from the truth of the matter. We need real solutions, and not promises and warm feelings."--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You two both need to read the comment by Llywrch. Stop being lazy and file an RFCU. AniMate 23:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to AniMate's good advice above I'll add another hint. Try a little less ABF. Some People process thoughts and such differently than others: (such as Autism, Asperger syndrome, etc.) I'm not saying that is the case here - I don't know. What I AM saying is that regardless of WP:CIR or WP:NOTTHERAPY; or whatever is decided; it doesn't hurt to be a bit kinder in the postings. There do indeed seem to be some WP:IDHT concerns, but I haven't seen any vindictive, mean or nasty posts from this editor. K? Got it? — Ched :  ?  00:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds more than reasonable. I'm all for Ronz getting a mentor and I was back when I had a run in with him as well. ScienceApologist made it sound like there was some unofficial mentoring going on back then, but at this point I'm not so sure what that was all about. If Ronz does get a mentor I suggest this mentor is someone who is not afraid of taking charge, and I suggest Ronz agrees to do as the mentor says when the mentor tells him its time to back off or change course. One of Ronz' biggest problems is that he starts doing something completely infuriating and then he just keeps at it ceaselessly.Griswaldo (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I am indeed naive enough to believe his speech is sincere. Well, you may call it naivety, I'd call it assuming good faith. Ronz has not been blocked in the past (besides a short block years ago), so this block may indeed be the wake up call he needed. It wasn't intended to punish, but to draw a line. As others have said, read Llywrch's comment, it is well written and persuasive. I'll say here and now that if he does find a mentor I'd unblock. Indeed, I might unblock if he can show active methods for improvement. In any case, he emailed me that I'd made a mistake on one of my links and I shall go and sort that out now. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay Worm, you're the man and made the decision. I hope it works out for you. If Ronz returns, business as usual I hope you'll think more kindly on what we said. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 10:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Folks. I've had a good read of this now, have looked at the evidence presented, and I pretty much do generally agree with the descriptions of the problems. And I wish to voice my support for Worm's approach. There has been a lot of frustration aired here, and because of it there have been less-than-ideal inputs to the discussion. That frustration and reaction is, I think, understandable, but the resulting emotionally-charged atmosphere is not ideal for making decisions on a matter like this. We have a bit of breathing space now, and one of our calmest and most constructive admins with their eye on it, and I think that's the way to go about it - if any more drastic action should be needed, it will happen in due course -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. But you need to remember that "due course" has been more or less promised before, thus the emotionally charged frustration. Try to understand that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal for User:Sju hav

Fellow Wikipedians, I intend to propose yet again another commumity ban, but this time on Sju hav (talk · contribs). He repeatedly sockpuppets on the English Wikipedia and according to his sockpuppet archive, he's been socking since October 2010 who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to rather just try and evade scrutiny to just edit his preferred article over and over again. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, major disruptive editing and nothing more than pure troll-business that just so happens to annoy the community and try to evade scrutiny. It is also come to my attention from his sockpuppet casepage that he was banned from the Norwegian Wikipedia for the same behavior that has been demonstrated here on the English Wikipedia. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and throw this troll back under the bridge. Soviet King :  ?  01:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: Because I am the proposer of this ban. Soviet King :  ?  01:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sju hav reveals this user is unproductive to Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion here on a ban; typically for this type of sock they seem like a waste of time to me and there's usually no list of contributions to nuke. I actually looked at this SPI just before this note came up, and I just blocked the most recent one (Flowerwall). I'd like to ask the smart people if it's worth protecting some of the targets, like Forsvarets Spesialkommando. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of the SPI: I could do with a decision there and a CU on User:No parking here. I just protected Jonas Gahr Støre temporarily and will do the same for the kommando article. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • By 'smart' people, are you referring to the admins? Soviet King :  ?  03:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
      • No, because I got that covered. I mean the people who know Sju hav and his MO, on the one hand, and who understand that whole autoconfirmed thing on the other hand. As a sidenote, I've been looking at a bunch of SPIs tonight, and it is clear to me that the regulars who take care of those issues should be on payroll. Seriously, we should pay them generously for their time investment; they have a hell of a job and I can understand that they all up and left yesterday (is that what happened?). In fact, I'll be happy to donate half my admin's wages to share between them. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification Drmies. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just a formality at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It shouldn't make any difference to those who know the MO and will just indef block new socks anyway, but if it helps others to block and revert on sight, then I guess the formality can't hurt. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support – This user is a prolific creator of new socks. Anything that streamlines dealing with him in the future will be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock of unknown (apparently banned) user

At Talk: Anders Behring Breivik, a "new" user (User: JCMullen) basically admitted to using proxy servers in Russia and Romania to circumvent a previous block. He also leveled personal attacks against MuZemike. [112] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked several things, please re-report if situation re-occurs. TNXMan 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Spamming at Rugby union in Afghanistan

User:Iamziar recently arrived and put some new life back into Rugby union in Afghanistan ; good timing since their team is going to play its first overseas game ever in late April. However, Iamziar insists on putting in unencyclopedic material such as blog-style musings, "follow us on Facebook!", pushing the need for donors to support this Worthy Cause, submitting photos with huge email watermarks to "protect from hackers", etc. For example, here's one of his recent mass reverts, with no lede whatsoever, and the massive redundant (to the wikilinks) over-hashes of related topics we'd advised against. He spends a huge chunk of the article explaining what rugby is vice just linking rugby union.

Three different editors are trying to advise him on making it into a decent article, but he's been largely ignoring or offering excuses, and doing mass reverts and additions of unencyclopedic text. He's been repeatedly warned and hasn't bother to respond back on his Talk page today, and we're going to run out of 3RRs soon.

Can someone maybe temporarily block him so he can chill out a bit and discuss the article? I've put out translation requests and also just made a Spanish version, so this is not a good time to go spamming the article, especially with the side's big game coming up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• from the desciption of the images uploaded by this user on wikipedia and on commons,(e.g. File:Asad Ziar, Chief Executive Officer, ARF in the process of developing and expanding rugby into a larger sport.JPG ) it appears that this user "I am Ziar" (Mr. Ziar)is the chief of Afghan rugby and hence has a conflict of Interest with the subject of the article. this observation explains his actions mentioned above. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• its also evident [113] that User:Iamziar is aware of the talk page discussions as he had responded first before blanking the page and has decided to ignore the messages now.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Sju hav

Fellow Wikipedians, I intend to propose yet again another commumity ban, but this time on Sju hav (talk · contribs). He repeatedly sockpuppets on the English Wikipedia and according to his sockpuppet archive, he's been socking since October 2010 who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to rather just try and evade scrutiny to just edit his preferred article over and over again. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, major disruptive editing and nothing more than pure troll-business that just so happens to annoy the community and try to evade scrutiny. It is also come to my attention from his sockpuppet casepage that he was banned from the Norwegian Wikipedia for the same behavior that has been demonstrated here on the English Wikipedia. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and throw this troll back under the bridge. Soviet King :  ?  01:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: Because I am the proposer of this ban. Soviet King :  ?  01:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sju hav reveals this user is unproductive to Wikipedia. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion here on a ban; typically for this type of sock they seem like a waste of time to me and there's usually no list of contributions to nuke. I actually looked at this SPI just before this note came up, and I just blocked the most recent one (Flowerwall). I'd like to ask the smart people if it's worth protecting some of the targets, like Forsvarets Spesialkommando. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of the SPI: I could do with a decision there and a CU on User:No parking here. I just protected Jonas Gahr Støre temporarily and will do the same for the kommando article. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • By 'smart' people, are you referring to the admins? Soviet King :  ?  03:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
      • No, because I got that covered. I mean the people who know Sju hav and his MO, on the one hand, and who understand that whole autoconfirmed thing on the other hand. As a sidenote, I've been looking at a bunch of SPIs tonight, and it is clear to me that the regulars who take care of those issues should be on payroll. Seriously, we should pay them generously for their time investment; they have a hell of a job and I can understand that they all up and left yesterday (is that what happened?). In fact, I'll be happy to donate half my admin's wages to share between them. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification Drmies. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just a formality at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It shouldn't make any difference to those who know the MO and will just indef block new socks anyway, but if it helps others to block and revert on sight, then I guess the formality can't hurt. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support – This user is a prolific creator of new socks. Anything that streamlines dealing with him in the future will be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

John Searle

Something fishy is going on. A User:Hibrido Mutante (who has suggested that he is in fact the French philosopher Jean-Michel Salanskis) has been arguing against several editors who thought his additions gae undue weight to a minor dispute Searle had with Jacques Derrida, and that they were also not very well written. Today after a two week break Hibrido Mutante came back today, and two new accounts (User:Sonduarte & User:Sofia Almeida) also registered and their first edits were declarations in support of his edits on the talkpage. Some admin attention might be useful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you can always try an SPI, though Sofia seems to be a horse of a different color. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are sockpuppets. Judging from some of his comments I am thinking it may be a kind of breaching experiment regarding some of Derrida's ideas about the construction of power and knowledge through language. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Sonduarte is your edit-warrior 2.0. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Did not notify the users in question, because I was distracted by something else. I do apologize.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some admin attention might be useful. thanks. best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hibrido Mutante is guilty of ongoing edit warring at that article, most recently here, and I'm considering reporting him for it. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry there, that should be investigated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Buckshot06 protected page after a one good faith edit

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.

---

Buckshot06 who is a admin protected the article "Sudanese People's Armed Forces" and moved it to Sudanese Armed Forces without sources after a editor made a good faith edit once (see page history of the article) i do not see the point of talking with him on his talkpage due to his recent behaviour. "Sudanese People's Armed Forces" has been the article name for a very long time and just because he doesnt like it, it does not mean he can protect a page after a single good faith edit, and renaming it due to WP:POV 95.199.151.53 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have notified User:Buckshot06. Article renaming aside, the page protection does seem unjustified, at least according to the stated reason of "persistent vandalism". The last instance of obvious vandalism to the article was December 2011. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that this isn't a particularly serious issue, I think the IP editor should attempt to resolve the issue directly with Buckshot06 before its considered here. Point out it was a good faith edit, and there is no recent vandalism, and give Buckshot06 a chance to correct the issue. Monty₈₄₅ 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody unprotect the article then ? Since it was unjustified. and if one admin resorts to such actions, one can assume he will not willing to change anything (except confuse the whole situation by turning it outside in) 95.199.151.53 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are upset that the admin failed to WP:Assume Good Faith regarding your edit, but yet you refuse to allow for the possibility that Buckshot06 was acting in good faith or that they will act in good faith going forward? Monty₈₄₅ 18:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how that should work in practice ? if i leave a message on his talkpage, i do not think he will reply, seeing how he does not respond to this ani (hes been informed) or revert it as "vandalism" or something, and even if i were to discuss the issue with him, he will probably bombard the discussion with policies and outside in arguments, nothing will change that way anyway 95.199.151.53 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I neither understand what going on here, isnt someone going to do something about it ? this was not about me being upset according to some policy, this is about a admin protecting a page for no real apperant reason, and acussing me of "vandalism" because of one single edit, and the move are not justified either as it amounts to new original research 95.199.158.210 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How this should work is that you should always try to discuss things directly with another editor/admin first before bringing it here. Buckshot hasn't edited anywhere since 04:42, 18 April 2012. That was 13 hours before you posted this so there is a good possibility they don't even know about this thread yet. Give people a chance to respond before accusing them of not responding. GB fan 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem you're reporting is. Is it a) the page needs unprotecting (RFPP); b) that you disagree with the admin (then you should have spoken directly with them first); c) you think the admin needs a spanking (then you're in the right place) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"spanking" ? are you serious ? dosen't anyone see the disruption taking place ? and yes the page both needs to be unprotected and moved back to the name it belonged 95.199.158.210 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear Buckshot06's reasons before jumping to conclusions. I would extend this same courtesy to you. It might have been a mistake, a good reason we don't know about, or maybe he does need a spanking. Since he is an admin, the likelihood that he will come here and explain himself is very high, so we can at least wait a little longer to hear his reasons. As to the name change, he did provide a rationale, New apparently used name - SPAF is c.1991 at latest, whether or not that is correct, I couldn't say. Normally, that is a discussion that happens on the talk page of the article, not here. As to unprotecting the page, I don't see the persistent vandalism that he used as a rationale for protecting anywhere in the article history. I don't see any reason it needs to stay protected, but that would be up to an admin to decide. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

Come on people, comments so far have agreed that this isn't a legit protection, dust off your shiny tools and fix it instead of process wonking the IP to death. Arkon (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand where this is coming from, but the article isn't going anywhere either. Give it 24 hours (at least), to give Buckshot06 (talk · contribs) an opportunity to reply, at the very least. It's also important to reinforce the point that AN/I is a last resort, not a first.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly reinforces the point that even simple things aren't corrected/handled without hoop jumping. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How it it "hoop jumping" to say that policy states that issues should be handled at the lowest level possible (namely, by the people directly involved), before going through process? That's been the standard here... forever.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon: You're assumning that there's something to be "corrected."

• A few minutes of Googling shows decisively that the armed forces of Sudan are now called the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), so the move of the article was legitimate, and there's nothing to "correct" there.
• That leaves the question of whether it should have been protected or not, and it's perfectly reasonable to give the protecting admin some time to respond, considering that the haven't been editing since this happened.

In short, chill out. This is not evil "process wonkery" it's simply finding out what happened before deciding what action (if any) needs to be taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Ohms, hoop jumping, process wonkery, call it what you will. But all voices so far have stated they don't believe the protection to be correct. This has not been corrected, due to....see first sentence. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, as I said in my first comment, I spoke only about the protection, which all (so far) have agreed isn't justified. The protecting admin isn't somehow excluded from responding if this protection is reversed, and consensus is that it should be. Yet, here we still are. Wonkery. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the theory that an article should remain protected in the absence of an appropriate reason from the protecting administrator is not correct; Wikipedia's default is that all articles are unprotected unless there is clearcut reason to protect them. Like every other editor who has reviewed this page protection, I cannot see any reason for the protection. (The page move, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable editorial decision and is supported by reference sources that were included by the editor who made the page move. Any discussion of the article title should be taken to the talk page of the article.) It is preferable to assume good faith that Buckshot06 was mistaken in protecting the article he was editing and moving (the buttons are beside each other, and errors can occur) rather than to assume an error in judgment or any form of ill intent. I am going to unprotect the article, while also reinforcing to the IP editor that if he would like to start a discussion about the article title, he should do so on the article's talk page. Risker (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Note: I forgot to point this out earlier: We even have a noticeboard (WP:RFPP) where unprotections are routinely processed without required discussions with the protecting administrator. This is a standard practice, particularly in a relatively clearcut case. Risker (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly. I assume this can be resolved now? Arkon (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

208.81.184.4 shared IP address linking to malware sites?

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 IP address made these two edits [114] and [115]. When I went to varify them I recieved a mass attack from the site that my computer blocked.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The site linked to at [116] is the official site of the LDS Church (see Whois lds.org and when I visited the link (Macintosh running Lion, Firefox with Noscript) I had NO problems. I think you have a false positive here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem from those URLs. (Using Chrome on Vista). 78.150.212.13 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It could well just be something entirely unrelated just happened at the moment I was attempting to check out these links and the problems encountered in opening them may be unrelated to the attack on my comuter. But I am looking at a few more references to be sure as I could have even made th mistake of hitting the wrong reference on the list. But at this point I feel it is better to retract this for the moment and look a little further. The Shared IP address threw me a little i suppose and made me suspicious. I apologize for the mistake--Amadscientist (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but my computer had no problems with the link either (Firefox in Windows 7). ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK.....so I went back and started at the bottum of the references and the same thing happened again. This time I am reporting exact details. Internet Explorer could not open the web page and Norton blocked this: Web Attack Mass Injection Website, Attacking Computer: themormonworker.org-IP (208.109.181.140,80), Attacking url= www.themormonworker.org/, Source address= 208.109.181.140 (208.109.181.140)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the bottom of the references". As far as I can tell, there's only one URL (in both of the edits), and I have no problem with it, either in Firefox or in IE. I do not use Norton; nor do I use the antivirus program I have to verify websites, so maybe there's the nub, can't say. BTW, we have an article on The Mormon Worker that lists the "attacking" website as its official site. You might have better luck with this at the Pump or even at the Help Desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IANA computer specialist...but this smells to me of the notoriously...we'll call it "quirky"...behavior of Norton. Microsoft Security Essentials+Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is the current preferred combo for computer protection, AFAIK, while Norton is contrareccomended. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Aye, MWB has no problems with it; Norton ... well, I won't say. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

um... I use Norton (came with the comp), and haven't had any problems. I'm not sure what you guys are going on about, to be honest. (regardless, the help desk seems like a much better venue for this, as suggested by Bbb23 up there ↑)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Saccyind

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.

---

Saccyind (talk · contribs) has been causing some problems. The root issue is WP:CONSENSUS: Saccyind either doesn't understand the concept or is simply willing to disregard it. He's been told numerous times why his edits are problematic, and been asked numerous times to discuss them on article talk pages, but the only responses he seems to give are all-caps rants, profanity, and accusations that every single editor he interacts with is "misusing power and bullying" (specific examples can be viewed by checking pretty much any talk page edit he's made). He's been blocked twice in the last 3 weeks for edit-warring, and when the blocks expire he just resumes making the exact same edits to the same articles. At least 7 other editors have tried to communicate with him and straighten him out, but to no avail. At this point I feel safe saying he's exhausted the patience of the community and demonstrated that he's a net negative to the project, and I think an extended or indefinite block is warranted. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --Blake Burba (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. I would also consider an extended or indef block on Saccyind, since he refuses to follow consensus. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the various attempts I've made to guide this guy towards an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, he clearly has no interest in abiding by it whatsoever. He has recieved a short block before, which did nothing to stop his mindset; I can't see further short-term blocks being effective if they haven't already. A longer-term block, or an indefinite one, is probably the only way to go here—at some stage it becomes clear when the project is better off without an editor than it is with them. GRAPPLE X 02:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this user's behavior, and I think IllaZilla's estimation of it is justified, unfortunately. Would support an indef. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I felt kinda too lazy to start an ANI-section at the moment; but yeah, echoing all of the above... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made at least two attempts to discuss the user's edits, along with an explanation for why I consdier them to be inappropriate, under the assumption of good faith. Both times I've been ignored and the reverted material reinstated almost instantly. Euchrid (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeff'd. The immediate resumption of bad behavior upon the last block finishing is a clear WP:NOTHERE indication. However, should Saccyind be willing to commit to good faith, collaborative editing, xe can be unblocked at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

God (or administrators) save the dispute resolution process

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 approach this group as a last-ditch appeal for assistance with the following matter of concern: In February, a content dispute re-erupted at Template:Music of Canada. The previous two times the same editor tried to make the same deletion, the matter was resolved quickly. This time, however, more editors became involved and the debate dragged on. Fair enough. However, the discussion quickly evolved into a nest of personal attacks (some quite vitriolic), assumptions of bad faith, revert warring, and defenses for those reverts based possibly on misinterpretation of policy. The dispute was going nowhere.

Within that context, the dispute resolution process was started:

• An appeal for outside input was made.
• An RfC was mounted, which, unfortunately, resulted in only a bare majority (7-6 favouring inclusion of the royal anthem (with an additional supporting vote given in a confusing additional straw poll at the talk page)).
• A MedCab case was opened next, but consisted of repetition of the same arguments (with the same vicious personal attacks), thereby resulting in a continued stalemate.
• A MedCom case was then started, but key participants in the dispute are refusing to participate, either by not signing on or stating their categorical refusal to take part, while they continue to revert to their preferred version, both at the template and now at other articles (see below).

Additionally, to minimise the number of distracting side issues:

• A request was made for assistance with ending the sub-dispute over Wikipedia's consensus policy and how it applies to the template, but this was dismissed.
• The personal attacks and bad faith assumptions were raised at WP:WQA, but received no attention from anyone other than those involved in the dispute.

To make matters worse, this has all now spilled over to the infobox at the Canada article, taking the same edit warring and misunderstanding of policies and guidelines with it.

I'm not right now so much concerned with the outcome of the dispute (i.e. whether the royal anthem stays or goes) as with how the dispute is being resolved (i.e. via many breaches of policies and guidelines). I therefore ask if we can get some administrative help with this matter, even if it's only some oversight and prodding here and there to keep the parties involved focused and acting within WP's rules. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal is pushing a Monarchist agenda on the template and most editors have tired of his constant shifting of venue. There would be no dispute if he were to drop the matter. As for the nation article, since there is a parameter for royal anthem, it's probably acceptable to leave it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, running off the opposition is certainly one way to reach consensus...

I don't necessarily agree with Miesianiacal here, but this justification always bothers me. It's one link to one song on a template though, so really the criticism cuts both ways in this dispute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Walter's claim that the dispute would end if I were "to drop the matter" certainly works both ways. I may well have dropped the matter if not for the fact there are currently nine editors favouring inclusion of the anthem and six opposing it, meaning there's certainly no consensus to delete the song from the template. This isn't the "Mies against the masses" scenario that Walter paints. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of observations:

1. Mediation is not possible if all parties to a dispute do not agree to participate.
2. As WP policy clearly states: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." We would need consensus for the addition of the God Save the Queen to the Infobox (not the other way round). There is no such consensus. We do not decide things by a vote on article talk pages. At best, voting is a way to gauge support for a particular option. One can only conclude from the poll, that there is not adequate support for the proposal. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The song was there for a year and a half (since June 2010) and the last discussion about it (in December 2010) resolved to keep it. Is it not now up to those who want to delete it to find consensus to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• As usual, Miesianiacal is being economical with the truth. The inclusion of the song has been disputed for two years, and the only reason it made it into the infobox in the first place is his usual tactics of strongarming, wikilawyering, and wearing everyone else down. → ROUX ₪ 18:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the template's edit history and the talk page will show the above to be patently false. Roux here has provided an illustration of the kind of nasty attempts at character assasination that have marred this dispute almost from day one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, if you're trying to gain sympathy for your position, making personal accusations is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If you want support for this addition, you need to show there is a policy-based consensus for its inclusion. I don't see that you have done that, and I don't see that there is any admin action needed here - you have not asked for anything specific, and admins don't have the authority to override the WP:DR process. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking here for support for inclusion; that's a content matter that doesn't belong in this forum. However, whether or not a consensus for inclusion of the song existed prior to the current dispute is one of the sub-disputes that hasn't yet been resolved and continues to bog down discussion about the wider issue. I asked this above, but I'll pose the question here again: apart from two attempts to delete the song (one six months and the other a year after it was added, and both of which were quickly reverted), the song was there for a year and a half (since June 2010) and the last discussion about it (in December 2010) resolved to not delete it. Is it not now up to those who want to delete it to find consensus to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And there's more dishonesty. Two attempts? I count nine. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that's something that can only be decided by the Dispute Resolution process, and cannot be decided by admin fiat (because we have no authority for such a fiat) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mies knows that, of course; he's just forumshopping this around until we give up and let him have his way. This is not a new tactic, it's how he operates: forumshop everywhere he can, wikilawyer everything he can, and generally be obstinate and obstructive. → ROUX ₪ 18:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a fairly straightforward question: Was a consensus established for including the song that now needs to be overturned by those who want the song removed? AQFK seems to agree below with my interpetation: Yes, those who want to delete the long-standing material must find a consensus to do so and otherwise leave the status quo alone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Aw, it sucks when people come along and show your lies for what they are, doesn't it? Looking at the diffs below--even a cursory glance--shows I'm right. → ROUX ₪ 18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it shows that the song "made it into the infobox" not by "strongarming, wikilawyering, and wearing everyone else down", but with ease (no immediate dispute), and that the presence of the song was disputed on three separate occasions at six month intervals over a year and a half, not coninuously for two years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You think a great number of things, I'm sure. It's such a shame how few of them have any relation to reality. → ROUX ₪ 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't know about that. Yes, Miesianiacal was the one to add it on June 25, 2010 but that version remained stable until December 16, 2010. I would think that if the article is stable for 6 months, that is the concensus version, and it requires concensus to remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A brief (and perhaps incomplete) history of an edit-war A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article history: Added by Miesianiacal on June 25, 2010[117] Removed by UrbanNerd on December 16, 2010.[118] Added back by Miesianiacal on December 17, 2010 [119] Removed by UrbanNerd on the same day.[120] Added back by Moxy on the same day.[121] Removed by UrbanNerd on the same day.[122] Added back by Miesianiacal on the same day.[123] Removed by UrbanNerd on July 18, 2011[124] Added by Moxy on the same day.[125] Removed by UrbanNerd February 5, 2012.[126] Added back by Miesianiacal on the same day.[127] Removed by Walter Görlitz on the same day.[128] Added back by Miesianiacal on February 8, 2012.[129] Removed by UrbanNerd on the same day.[130] Added back by Miesianiacal on April 10, 2012.[131] Removed by Walter Görlitz on the same day.[132] Added back by Miesianiacal on the same day.[133] Removed by Roux on the same day.[134]

Without commenting on the behavior seen here, I think the infobox should not carry the earlier anthem; it should instead be covered in the article body, not the infobox. The infobox is for right now. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a 1RR per day rule, should be imposed on the articles-in-question. Back-and-forth reverts only make opposing editors more frustrated. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Could some brave uninvolved editor take a look at Talk:Canada, as well as the recent edit summaries on that page, and figure out some way to cool down the situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, A Quest For Knowledge points out that "God Save the Queen" was listed in the Infobox long enough to be the stable version. In any case, as Nikkimaria says, the dispute continues on the talk page. I'm uninvolved, so will look in on that. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• One thing that I'd like addressed here is the comment above that: "(User) is pushing a Monarchist agenda". To me, this makes the whole dispute appear to be a political fight. If that's true, I find that to be extremely concerning. If there's some sort of test for political affiliations required to edit certain items on Wikipedia now, I think that we need to get rid of that behavior ASAP.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Miesianiacal's extreme pro-monarchist POV is not news to anyone who edits anything which relates even tangentially to the monarchy in Canada. Virtually every edit he makes is in service of that POV; NPOV isn't something he seems to comprehend in this area. Coupled with his obstructionist tactics, it makes any page he edits--and, more to the point, challenging any edit he makes--a nasty, toxic, energy-draining wasteland. This is not a new problem. This should illustrate how far back these problems go. → ROUX ₪ 19:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't odd that an editor is regarded as pushing a monarchist agenda in an article about Canada, a monarchy? The impression I have seeing for afar is that there are strong republican feelings going around, trying if possible to diminish or remove any monarchical character on Canada's articles. But this is merely my opinion, of course. --Lecen (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • No more odd than, e.g., someone pushing a pro-gun agenda in an article about the USA. There is a wide range of feelings about the monarchy in Canada, from full-on republicanism to more-British-than-the-British fawning adoration. Miesianiacal falls into the latter camp. And fyi, I too am a monarchist, but unlike Miesianiacal I don't try to use Wikipedia to advance any agenda. → ROUX ₪ 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • To use your example though, if the "pro-gun agenda" (which should be "gun rights", but whatever) is being whitewashed, or even just outright removed, by "Gun control advocates" in the name of some sort of "neutrality", then that's a severe behavioral problem which should be dealt with. The claim made here seems to be a quite serious one, so I hope that you're willing ot back it up with some concrete evidence.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • He's a bit more subtle than whitewashing; his edits serve to support an extreme pro-monarchy agenda that simply does not exist outside of a very, very small minority in Canada. Any edit of his which is disputed is met by intense wikilawyering and obfuscation, and now we have moved into the phase where he feigns stupidity/disingenuousness in order to make opponents repeat the same points over and over and over and over and over. See the current discussions at Talk:Canada and Template talk:Music of Canada for the most current examples. They are nothing new. This problem with Miesianiacal goes back to his multiple previous usernames (User:G2bambino being the most recent). His use of the passive voice in opening this section quite neatly obfuscates the fact that the endless discussion is so only because he is making it endless; he is forumshopping relentlessly to try and get his way. → ROUX ₪ 20:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
            • • Ohms', you may also wish to look here, a discussion with which I have been uninvolved, for more evidence of the obstinate behaviour, the obfuscation of issues, the wikilawyering, and the pro-monarchist editing. → ROUX ₪ 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
            • ROUX, you used a bad example. By talking about "pro-gun agenda", which is generally view as a conservative agenda, and comparing it to "pro-monarchy" you're clearly showing your political view, which is... the opposite side. In fact, by writing "pro-monarchy agenda that simply does not exist outside of a very, very small minority" you made it all too clear. Let's make a better example, by taking your words and changing it a just a little: "...someone pushing a pro-republic [not to be confused with Republican Party] agenda in an article about the USA". Would someone here see it as odd? But someone writing abou monarchy in... the Kingdom of Canada is seeing as a bad thing? I simply can't understand. --Lecen (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
              • • Okay, the example was poor. But to address your confusion: yes, Canada is a monarchy. But in very real terms, the monarchy has little impact on the day to day lives of Canadians (far less than the day to day lives of the British, with whom we share a royal family). The institution--an institution which I love, respect, and cherish--is simply irrelevant to most people in the country. Yes, the Crown is everywhere in government, and yes, there tends to be an outpouring of interest when members of the family visit (e.g. last time HM was here I got up early in the morning just to go see her. Got to exchange a couple of words with her, even, which was a definite high point in my life), and yes, The Queen is on all of our money. But in real terms the effects of, and the feelings about, the monarchy are low-key at most for most Canadians. If pressed, most Canadians (and without evidence other than gut feeling, I would say that 'most Canadians' in this case are basically WASPs and/or those in the military, which is necessarily very closely associated with the Crown) would mumble something about history and tradition, and then get on with their lives. And, FYI, pro-monarchism in Canada is largely correlated with small-c conservative/right-wing positions. → ROUX ₪ 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If I might be able to speak on my own behalf here: There's no doubt I focus almost exclusively on (mostly Canadian) monarchy related subjects. However, as far as I can tell, concentrating on a topic doesn't equate with pushing a point of view. What I add to Wikipedia is not my opinion; it is (to the best of my ability) reliably sourced (such as "God Save the Queen" being the Canadian royal anthem). Where the facts go or how they're presented can be debated (the dispute around the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" in Template:Music of Canada being an example) and I suppose one could push a POV by inserting material (even that which is sourced) in many inappropriate places. But, I don't believe I'm guilty of that; I do try to be reasonable. (For instance, it doesn't seem like a POV push to argue it's apt to place the Canadian royal anthem below the Canadian national anthem in a navbox relating to Canadian music.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Except of course that there is no Act of Parliament, regulation, or order-in-council defining GSTQ as anything, much less Canada's royal anthem. This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the POV-pushing I am talking about. There are Acts of Parliament defining our national flag, our national anthem, and so on. There is no such law defining a 'royal anthem' (in fact if you search the database of the Revised Statutes of Canada, the words 'royal anthem' do not even appear together anywhere). While the song is used, it simply has no official status in Canada whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Roux, you were presented, more than once, with more than a dozen reliable sources that affirm "God Save the Queen" is the royal anthem of Canada. Yet, still you persist with this assertion that an act of parliament or an order-in-council is absolutely necessary to prove "God Save the Queen" is the royal anthem of Canada, even going so far as to imply Canada doesn't even have a royal anthem and call the aforementioned sources "incorrect". In other words, you've set down your own personal parameters for inclusion of content and tried to enforce them. With respect, I think you should be careful with accusations of POV pushing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@Roux: I can see from the comments here and elsewhere that this is a nasty, toxic editing environment. The problem is that Miesianiacal is not the one making the nasty, toxic comments. Now maybe Miesianiacal is a civil POV-pusher - I don't know - but to the outside observer, it does not appear as if Miesianiacal the one causing the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The MedCom case has, of course, been rejected, since those parties on the "delete the anthem" side refused to participate in that stage of the dispute resolution process. Since that was the last step of the DRP, what's to be done now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ... you're still forum shopping the hell out of this? What's next? Arbcom? Why do you think I wanted nothing to do with the informal mediation? I knew right away you were going to ensure this would be a long, drawn out waste of time. Resolute 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get a dispute resolved via the dispute resolution process isn't forum shopping. It's the editors who refuse to follow policies and guidelines who're lengthening the dispute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly this is not the place to continue this discussion. I suggest that editors either take it back to the article talk page where I am willing to facilitate the discussion, or open an arbitration case. Sunray (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this aint the place. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:Serbia100 again

Talk page is inappropriately being used to host what looks like Soccer rosters. Multiple editors have blanked the page but he simple restores it. He was warned and blocked by User:Bwilkins here, but has since restored the material without comment.

His entire contribution history since inception in 2010 is to his user page (with 2 or 3 exceptions), so obviously WP:NOTHERE. SÆdon^talk 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the content (though kept the ANI notification). There are no edits outside of the talk page bar a November 2010 edit to an article, then on the following April and one in January. Not here to use the encyclopaedia I would say, but is he causing active disruption? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from skirting the rules regarding user talk pages and making other people take time to constantly revert and discuss his page, no not really since he doesn't edit out of user space. Since they haven't responded to any editor concerns I don't know if they even understand what the problem is. My recommendation is an indef block, because they edit sporadically enough that they're unlikely to notice short blocks. If we indef hopefully they will make an unblock request and we can start a dialogue. SÆdon^talk 18:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we forget sometimes that WP is not just for the editors, but for readers. They are our audience...our "customers." Most people have an account, not for editing, but for ease of use, like keeping a watch list for example. User space can be used for multiple purposes other than editing; taking notes and keeping lists seem like a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to do who is actively researching their interests. In short, there is no rule that you have to edit WP to be welcome here. So if he's breaking some sort of rule about talk pages, then fine, take action, (I'm not familiar with every aspect of the alphabet soup), but it seems to me keeping a list of soccer rosters is not especially disruptive, especially if it is a subject the person is interested in, and is useful for him in the way he uses the encyclopedia. Talk of indef blocks and how many edits to article space he's had seem a little over reaching. Also, he obviously put a lot of work into a page that is know gone. Admittedly, I have not looked in detail at this particular case other than the ANI posting and the history of the user-page, but wanted to interject a broader point that I often observe on this board and others. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 20:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still not a webhost. The question is not whether this particular user page is disruptive. The question is whether letting everyone in cyberspace know they can use Wikipedia for a webhost is disruptive. It is, and furthermore it's against Wikipedia policy. Ravenswing 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I spend half my life on here blocking users who put c*** on article space pages. However, what we have here is a user who is misusing/misunderstanding his user space but who is actually doing no harm and, so far as I can see, is not acting in bad faith and seems not to understand the nuances of our policy. OK, what he is doing is against policy but I see no urgency to block him. Let's try to educate him and take him along with us; who knows, he might one day might become a good editor. What I have done is moved his squads to User:Serbia100/Squads. We should encourage him to develop them there and perhaps move part of them, if appropriate, to article space. If he shows no intention to do so, and continues to misuse his talk page then we might need to block him, but I would prefer a softly, softly approach first. We are not "letting everyone in cyberspace know they can use Wikipedia for a webhost" we are dealing with this particular user with his particular misuse of his talk page. If another admin considers I'm being too soft and wishes to block him then fine; I just think that in this particular case trying a slightly less harsh approach is worth the attempt. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't recommend that he be blocked out of any sort of malice or desire to see him blocked; I only recommend it to get his attention. Since he doesn't edit much, it's possible we're not going to get him into a dialogue any other way. A block isn't a big deal in a circumstance like this, and if we can get him talking we can explain WP:WEBHOST. Anyway, I object to you moving the page to user space and I don't find the comparative argument to be convincing (i.e. that half the people you block put crap (I'm assuming the word was crap, though I suppose it could have been cunt) on their user pages). That WP is not a webhost applies equally to good content and bad, harmless and disruptive. There are plenty of free hosting providors out there but this isn't one of them. SÆdon^talk 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we must disagree on the use of admin tools. I do see blocking as something of a big deal and I see absolutely no basis for the use of the block tool to catch someone's attention. My view is that in these particular circumstances we can take time out to try to educate a user. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• To lay out the chronology here, Bwilkins deleted the content [135], then the user reverted Bwilkins [136] on the same day. Then Drmies reverted it clean again and left them a personal message [137] (still on the 6th) and the editor reverted and put it back on their page 1.5 hours later [138]. A few days later, Bwilkins caught the revert and cleared the page yet again on the 10th of March [139] and blocked them for 48 hours. This isn't the second time, this is the 4th time. Three times in 4 days, and now here again in a 2nd ANI. I'm not a fan of blocking, but this might be the right time to use the tools. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib)

No worries, TF, I can't really fault you for being conservative with your tools as it's much better than over zealous use. I still don't think you should have moved the page to a subpage and so I'm going to MFD it. Best. SÆdon^talk 02:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have listed at MFD here.

@Dennis: I copied your chronology post above and put it in the MFD, thanks for that. SÆdon^talk 02:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And because of this chronology I re-discovered my involvement. I thought I recognized the name. I'd appreciate a note next time. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered your concern regarding the note at MFD. SÆdon^talk 02:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have tried with this guy but in the light of further talk page abuse I withdraw my objection to him being blocked. For preference, I would block for 1 month in the first instance to let him know we are being serious, rather than indef. TerriersFan (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about this: he does this again, we block indefinitely. A temporary block right now smacks of punishment--if anyone wants to block now I think it should be for good, but I prefer to wait and see if they change their ways. Hope against hope. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me. He's just passed his one-year anniversary since his last edit to mainspace, so he's not here to build an encyclopedia (or at least our encyclopedia). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Denhaagandy

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

 – Denhaagandy blocked for legal threats, sock blocked

User:Denhaagandy (contribs) has been repeatedly edit warring to remove the section on child abuse at Downside School. Despite being warned by User:Peteinterpol[140], User:Purplewowies[141] and me[142], this behaviour has persisted, and has also developed into a number of personal attacks, threats to continue disrupting, legal threats and thinly-veiled personal threats:

• "I think Hitler had the same views about Jews"
• "I have access to many thousands of ip addresses... I have limitless time"
• "My lawyers say I have a case now in the courts to present a legal action"
• "I will mention your name in areas where your name should not be mentioned. I assume you do not have children, but you probably have parents and maybe a girlfriend."

This user has been given an unusually large amount of slack (most new users who blank sections for their first few edits run up against AIV pretty quickly, but in this case every effort has been made to try and explain the situation to them). However, the grace offered to new editors can only be stretched so far, and repeated claims of IDIDNTHEARTHAT suggest Denhaagandy is not here to build an encyclopedia. I request a block, for the legal threat if nothing else. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked for the legal threats. Would be happy to lift the block, or see it lifted, if this user can assure us that s/he will edit more collegially in future. I'll look out for a block appeal myself but if others see a convincing one, please lift! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I find the vague mention of Yunshui's family members worse than the legal threat. Why would you ever consider unblocking someone like that?--Atlan (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Purplewowies family, actually... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Well, just as bad.--Atlan (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The legal threats were bad form, but I can see a beginner user not being aware that such conduct was prohibited. The veiled threat against family members, however, makes me think that the person should be permanently banned.JoelWhy (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, I hadn't realized that was a veiled threat at my family. :/ I just shook it off and tried to explain things, since he seemed pretty new. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Now apparently socking as User:Potty1234 - I'll file an SPI if I must, but since this is still open, could an admin perhaps step in and block? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Obvious duck. Maybe semi the article for a few days as well?--Atlan (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock blocked, article protected by User:Lectonar. Nice work. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, if "MI5 are scared of" this guy, maybe we should be good Wiki-citizens and notify them of his activities so they can go get him and "question" him "as they always do"? MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, fetch the comfy chair. (please) Drmies (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Onoes! Not ... the comfy chair! Pesky (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

This may not be over yet... User:Bunglezippy has just emerged as another Downside SPA, and has posted some fairly serious personal threats([143] and [144]) directed at the users who have been reverting Denhaagandy. Lectonar has asked me to copy his comments across here:

"I'll post that here, but it goes for all involved: I've hardblocked the new sock, but the seriousness of the threats makes me think that it is really time to contact the police. Alas, I'm not savvy enough to do that, but I'd say to let the ANI thread stay open, and would you be so kind as to put my comment over there to, as I will not be able to edit more today. Heads up, 109.45.0.1 (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC) (User:Lectonar, from smartphone."

I'm not sure that this is quite at the level where the Foundation needs to be e-mailed, but it's pretty close; I'll leave that decision up to another. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is definitely at the "report to the authorities" level. Best to err on the side of caution rather than dither. Blackmane (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You think? Very well, I'll send an emergency email. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good move. I was going to put an emergency mail together at lunch when i had a bit of time. Blackmane (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy continues to slow-edit war and stonewall at Red Hot Chili Peppers

• Relevent background first:
  • Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Radiopathy's history of these kinds of problems
  • most recent discussion regarding this same issue 1 month ago

Nothing much has changed in the past month. Radiopathy has a version of the article Red Hot Chili Peppers he prefers, and he continues to edit war to force it in, albeit slow enough to avoid 3RR, most recently yesterday: [145]. The discussion on the talk page is enlightening. Radiopathy insists he is correct, but he is the only person who thinks so, and has also provided no sources which state that he is. Several people, on the RHCP talk page, and on his own user talk page, have provided sources, and he ignores these insisting that, because the sources disagree with him, they must be wrong. Also problematic is the fact that he seems to be possibly logging out to avoid the appearence of edit warring, as shortly after the above edit, this edit showed up: [146]. I am at a complete loss over how to handle this, and am open to any suggestions for sanctions and/or fixes to get this problem to stop. I had never run into this user before last month, but as evidenced above, he's been having these exact sort of problems for years, and it needs to stop. --Jayron32 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left this warning on the editor's talk page to ask that they respect consensus at the RHCP article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

HISTMERGE gone wrong. Help?

Basically, a HISTMERGE was performed on one of my articles, Rosalina (character), by adding onto the history from User:Androids101/Sandbox/Rosalina (yes, it is deleted). I wish that the Histmerge be completely undone for the following reasons:

• Since at the time the article was not a real encyclopedia article, the page was repetitively blanked, then written, then blanked etc. And since it is a sandbox, there were edits I definitely would not do on a normal Wikipedia page, ranging from testing my signature to testing fonts to others, which are completely strange as no edit summaries were provided.
• The page in question has already been deleted. I had on purpose tagged the page for speedy deletion as I felt it would be not necessary; and I did not want the content to be there.
• As it is a sandbox, there was a time where the subject of the sandbox is completely different from the subject at hand; this would obviously also been confusing as I did not add an edit summary, as it is, originally, a sandbox.

I did know about the tool, but I did not move due to the reasons stated above - with the state that the sandbox is in, it would be impossible to do due to the problems stated above. Since it is that confusing, and I do not feel comfortable with the merge at all, is it possible for it to be completely undone, or the edits removed?

Thank you for reading, Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Answered on user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Taiga000

A search of User:Taiga000's talk page and contributions reveals numerous warnings for vandalism and speedy deletion. This user appears either incapable or unwilling to contribute effectively to Wikipedia. A heavy warning at the minimum, and a block at the maximum, should be considered to prevent further damage. Chutznik (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Twenty edits in total? This isn't an issue that needs wider administrative attention. Stick a final warning template down and take it to AIV if it happens again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Final warning given, take it to AIV if he does something stupid again. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Autoreviewer Rights

• Alexxander3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been creating more than 200 articles recently related to motorcycle racers with a speed of 1 or 2 articles per minute. most of these do not follow the notability guidelines for sports persons and does not provide wp:RS , and should have been deleted. Patrolling is needed on such articles. I propose revoking the autopatrolled/autoreviewer rights. Please guide me If this is not the correct place for reporting this. thanks and regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also an admin would need to check the articles recently created by him as they have escaped from the newpage patrolling. also see [147] -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NMOTORSPORT would suggest notability, and he does provide one source. It's another situation where the question is - is it better to have a pile of stub articles, or is it better to have fewer, better articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about notability? Of course people who have competed in MotoGP are probably notable, but these mostly haven't; they have only ever ridden in the "minor" leagues of Moto2 or Moto3, which aren't fully professional. I would have thought that these don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT - anyone with more knowledge of the subject shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the source was saying they had competed in Grands Prix, but I only looked at Álvaro Molina. If they've only competed in the second division, I'd say probably not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that data, Molina has only ever competed in Moto2 and 3 (250cc and 125cc). MotoGP is 990cc. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Second-level series are a bit murky at times, but certainly don't pass the "competed in one event at the top level" standards (bit tautological there!). I'd say that MotoGP riders = notable, Moto2/Moto3 riders = possibly notable (per WP:GNG like everyone else!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Considering I got my autopatrolled rights revoked, seemingly on a whim and in the middle of a dispute, I'm curious as to why this user's rights haven't been removed yet, either... (oh, and incidentally, did anyone ask or notify Fastily (talk · contribs) about this?)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • It might have something to do with the fact that Fastily left this project in disgust. Or they just forgot, no one reads the instructions at the top anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I saw his gripe about "...frivolous claims that could have been easily resolved through talk page discussion." In the case I'm thinking of, he stonewalled and absolutely refused to discuss the issue. It took a ridiculous amount of jumping through hoops to get his bad-faith deletion reinstated. So I would have to quote Elmer Fudd at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that a further look at the articles reveals poor formatting, typos, 404 links and content which is effectively completely copied from a third party website, I have removed the user's autopatrolled status. I will inform them, though they appear to use talkpages very minimally. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The user also does not seem to pay heed to so many deletion notifications on his talk page. besides with a speed of 1 to 2 articles per minute its obvious that he is creating articles for all the persons listed on that site with no second thoughts about notable or guidelines, Thanks for looking into the matter, but some one interested would want to take a look at the articles that had been created as they have not been patrolled. (is there a way to mark the articles as unpatrolled again ? )-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@Ohm's Law - what's the link to Fastily - I'm missing something here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The connection to Fastily is that he is the one who granted the autopatrolled permission in 2011. See logs and Special:PermanentLink/434813722#User:Alexxander3000. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we be reverting the article creation, or just PRODding them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, the pilots of Moto2 and Moto3 is encyclopedic because it is a world championship, the highest level! Then, all entries have been created offline and then put together after all of wikipedia. I must say that I think is important to include the articles of these pilots, these people certainly encyclopedic. I await instructions on what to do.Alexxander3000 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And I apologize for any inconvenience that I created.

Moto2 and Moto3 are not "world championship[s at] the highest level". MotoGP is the top level of this sport, the Formula One to Moto2's GP2 and Moto3's Formula Three. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, Alexxander3000 has since created another 11 reference-less stub articles after posting here. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that 14 stubs. Blackmane (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A look at his talk page shows a distinct lack of communication; I also notice he got a BLP-4 warning back in October. I've given him an unsourced-3, along with an explanation of the need to reference (and a couple of BLP-PROD notices)... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs

At Garner Ted Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the last few days, several (now blocked) users and IPs have been edit warring over the addition of an image which has copyright concerns.

• The image was initially uploaded by Garnerted (talk · contribs) (now indef blocked for "Disruptive editing: / using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle, personal attacks, ownership of articles")
• Then added by TheWorldTomorrow (talk · contribs) (received a username block) - the user included an edit summary stating "We are the sole Copyright and Trademark owners and it is our "picture of a picture". www.cogwwm.org (All rights reserved)"[148]
• Then added by 64.134.189.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for making legal threats)
• Now being added by 12.124.83.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has made the false claim "Photo cleared by admin" [149]

Could use some more eyes to watch the page and review the situation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected the article for a week. Garnerted is free to appeal his block, but circumventing it with IPs is not the way to go. I'll leave him a note at Commons explaining the copyright problem with the file. Jafeluv (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat over World Tomorrow

• merged "Legal threat over World Tomorrow" with "Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs"

Julian Assange has a news show called World Tomorrow. I visited the talk page of the user who created the Wikipedia article for this show and saw that he had received a legal threat for creating it. The threat is here - User_talk:Sladen#Lawsuit_talk and I am posting a notice of it on this board per Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. I do not want to be further involved in this and am reporting this here because the rule is to report legal threats when anyone sees them. I do not want to participate in this issue or give any comment. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP that issued the threat has been blocked for a month, and I don't see any WP:DOLT issues here, so I guess this resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will watch the article, as I suspect the socks will return after block expires in a week. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IP 76.75.41.66

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

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The user 76.75.41.66 is a repeat vandal who has received warnings every month without fail, so I am suggesting blocking him for 1 month for continually vandalizing Wikipedia.--Deathlaser ^talk 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. In the future, WP:AIV is the best place to report vandals such as this. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

user:RepublicanJacobite, Steampunk, WP:OWN and forum shopping

There is a long-running WP:OWN issue regarding RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) and Steampunk. Part of this involves the film The City of Lost Children, which is widely regarded as having been an inspirational film in the steampunk genre, at a time (1995) before the genre was widely recognised or known under this name.

At the end of last year, RepublicanJacobite retired with the traditional page-blanking flounce. To be honest, I've missed him since - although we disagreed on the issue of new additions to an article on a pop culture scene that's at its most active right now (see Talk:Steampunk/Archive 9#David Bruce.27s .22Steampunk.22) we probably agreed on more edits than we disagreed, at least when it came down to pruning the obvious spammy crap. Since then the steampunk articles have suffered somewhat from the addition of poorly-written and over-promotional content. Unfortunately I'd be seen in the steampunk world off-wiki to have a COI about some of these, so I've felt unable to remove them.

Recently though, RJ appears to have returned - I noticed this when once again he removed the category Steampunk films from City of Lost Children. I restored it, he removed it again with the (not unreasonable) message, "Provide a source showing this is steampunk; whether I've retired is none of your damn business.". So I did. Three of them, with added text. Since then he has removed these three references.

More than that, I now notice that he has been forum shopping amongst admins, presumably to seek a block against me. User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Andy_Dingley, User_talk:NawlinWiki#Andy_Dingley, "I reported this to another admin., but he took no action."

In a not-entirely unrelated issue, there has been a question about one of the refs I added. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#The_City_of_Lost_Children Another editor added a fourth reference and removed one of those I'd added. Now I accept their point - it's a low WP:RS blog cite, however we're not required to hold every ref to the standard of WP:RS, when the crucial issue of notability etc. has been demonstrated by solid WP:RS and this ref adds something in addition. In this case it's a pop culture blog discussing a pop culture issue with a useful direct quote [150] that indicates the strength with which this film has been adopted by the steampunk community.

I would not have brought this pretty trivial issue to WP:ANI (and I don't think I have done previously, even though the WP:OWN goes back years). However secretively forum-shopping amongst admins is not a practice that we should stand for. If admin involvement is required on either side, then let's do it openly. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RJ has removed the three added refs once again.

One of these, Blake Peterson. "City of Lost Children" (PDF). Film Notes. Brattle Film Theatre. The cyberpunk fringe movement commonly called steampunk is a page from the regular viewer's notes for a serious and established cinema. Far from a lightweight blog, but WP:OWN doesn't see a distinction, just a pre-judged goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

First the two of you should stop edit warring. Second the content is still there, only now it is sourced to academic sources and not blogs. I fully agree with you that there is an OWN issue, I also fully agree with the last edit by RJ. If we have academic sources the others are not needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So would you claim that any statement on WP should have at most one citation to support it - and that any that have more than this (as here) should have all but one removed? That's ridiculous. Other sources, particularly as here, where we use such a strong direct quote, add breadth. After all, this is a content issue that has been challenged so strongly by RJ so far that he has repeatedly removed the category, even though that one source was already listed on the talk: page.

Why do you claim that the Brattle Film Theatre reference isn't WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said Brattle Film Theatre was not reliable, I said as there are now two academic sources the others are not needed. Especially the blog . Is there a particular reason that source needs to remain? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are the two "academic" sources? Cohen, yes - although it contains almost no content beyond the title, the word "steampunk" and a vaguely professorial imprint. Even then, this is no more than a student dissertation that we're reading. The Vandermeer anthology is far from academic - it's one of those innumerable sf anthologies that rushed out a few years ago to jump on the steampunk band-zeppelin. Removing the three other references removes the two that (whilst hosted on wordpress) actually contained accessible on-line content that benefited the readers of WP articles. I don't believe RJ is concerned about such matters - indeed, I believe that he deleted this content more because of who had added it than because of the content itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Steampunk and dubious references again? Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

At least it's not dieselpunk.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor Deleting Content

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

---

This morning I created a page for Asia Food Recipe. The page was marked for speedy deletion within minutes of creation and was deleted within 10 minutes of being marked for speedy deletion. I contacted the editor and the page was reverted and allowed for comments on the talk page (which was also deleted and had to be recreated). The page was deleted again within a few minutes by another editor with whom I also left a message. Since that time the page was returned and marked as recommended for deltion, but not speedy deletion. This is a good process as others can now weigh in on the matter.

However, I made a comment to one of the original editors (user: JamesBWatson) reasons for wanting the page deleted. The comment can be seen=HERE. This user has since gone through my article page and deleted another article (TravelFox) that I just published. This is not the way to edit on Wikipedia. I understand that he/she may not agree with my opinion on why Asia Food Recipe is notable; however, the retaliation just to make a point is unacceptable.

I would request that both Asia Food Recipe and the article TravelFox both be protected and that this user refrain from going through my edits just because they disagree. --Morning277 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional Information - The reason posted for the deletion of TravelFox was A7 which is listed below. Note that the bold section applies so I am unsure of why the article was deleted without being tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for deletion. This falls within vandalism. --Morning277 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions),[5] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.[6] The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

• No, they won't be protected. If anything they'll be protected from recreation. Sorry if you feel like your welcome was less than hearty, but these articles simply do/did not credibly claim importance, and the article currently at AfD is headed for deletion as well. Notability must be established using reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've just looked at the deleted TravelFox, and it was a good A7 deletion. It was an article about a website that was only launched on March 1, and it gave no indication of the site's importance - it just described what it does. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  (I see the article contradicts itself and says launched March 1, 2012, but founded in 2010, but no matter, there's still no indication of importance) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for both responses. The issue that I have is with the process. I have no issues with an article being nominated for deletion so that others can weigh in. Here, an editor disagreed with a comment that I wrote and instead of coming to my talk page (which is the first step in the process), he simply started to go through and delete anything that he could within what he probably thinks he can defend. The process A7 is if the claim of credibility is unclear, then it can be improved (which it was not), propose deletion, or list the article at article for deletion. None of these were done, it was just deleted. So, aside from the credibility of the article, I have an issue with the editor as although I will not consider it vandalism (as I think it falls short of the Wikipedia definition), the conduct is not appropriate.

As far as claim of importance, there is one for each article. TravelFox is a different kind of travel search engine that uses other travel search sites and not the travel companies (hotels, airlines, etc.) themselves. This is notable to me however, we seem to disagree. This is why the page should have been left and nominated for deletion instead of blanked. For Asia Food Recipe, it is the largest recipe submission site in Asia and also uses YouTube uploads (you should try the site it is actually pretty cool). They also have Asian recipes for diabetics which is soemthign you will not find on other recipe websites. If Asia Food Recipe is deleted because it is not notable, then the following should as well: AfroFoodtv.com Cookin' with Coolio Epicurious FoodPair RecipeBridge Yummly. Some of these articles have NO SOURCES yet they still remain. I pointed this out to JamesBWatson but instead of going to those articles, he decided to delete TravelFox. I would delete the other articles for recipe websites; however, I fear that I would be blamed for vandalism and blocked from Wikipedia. All I am saying is that things need to be fair. If Asia Food Recipe is not notable, then neither are the others and they should be nominated for deletion or deleted immediately as TravelFox was.

Finally, sorry to rant. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and have made numerous edits and page creations. I now need to delete my "bragging" section on my page in fear of another editor doing what JamesBWatson did for me disagreeing with him. Thank you for taking the time to respond and please consider the other articles listed above as a base for Asia Food Recipe. I looked at all of these prior to creating the article and determined that it was most certainty notable compared to the others that are still on Wikipedia. --Morning277 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:otherstuffexists? The "but these pages are here and they're worse" argument is never taken as valid in deletion discussions. When determining the notability of a subject I really recommend that you don't use other pages as examples, as there are plenty of not-very-good Wikipedia articles. Regards, ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar. What I am trying to say is that I feel that I am a very good contributor to Wikipedia. I have reverted countless vandalism and have made may edits and article creations. I would not put something up that I feel did not meet the guidelines. I felt that this article was not only notable but an overall improvement to the category. Thank you for the information. As far as the other articles, can I delete them without being accused of vandalism? --Morning277 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that you're not a good contributor. I believe that you are, and if others feel that something you created should be deleted then that doesn't make you a bad contributor. People disagree and all that. And yes, you can nominate the other articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. That's certainly not vandalism. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I have no idea why Morning277 thinks "The page [Asia Food Recipe] was deleted again within a few minutes": it has been deleted only once. After I deleted it and Morning277 questioned the deletion, I restored it to allow him/her to improve it even though I still thought (and still think now) that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards. (Incidentally, the deletion did not take place "within 10 minutes of being marked for speedy deletion", it took place 29 minutes after being tagged: the times were 12:33 and 13:02.) The deletion of TravelFox was not "retaliation just to make a point", but because the article made no claim whatsoever of significance. I wonder what makes Morning277 think it was "retaliation just to make a point". As for "this user [evidently meaning me] refrain from going through my edits just because they disagree", rightly or wrongly the way the Wikimedia foundation runs Wikipedia involves entrusting certain editors, called "sysops" or "administrators", to make judgements as to whether pages satisfy Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. Rightly or wrongly the Wikipedia community has decided that I am one of those entrusted with that task. As long as that is so, I will exercise that trust in good faith, to the best of my ability, and the idea that I should abstain from doing so in the case of articles created by one particular editor because he/she disagrees with some of my judgements does not seem to me to be within the spirit of how Wikpedia works. Finally, if there are other articles which you think should be deleted, then please nominate them for deletion. It is unreasonable, however, to criticise another editor for not doing so. There are over three million articles on English Wikipedia, and there is a limit to what any one editor can do. It is inevitable that among the millions of useful things I could have done but didn't, there will be some which you think would have been more useful than some of the things I did. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Ultimately, "credible claims of importance" need to turn into evidence of notability (though actual notability doesn't need to be demonstrated to avoid A7), so we're not looking for "I personally think this site is important because it's different from other sites in that it has xxx", what we need is "People out there think it's important, because they've said xxx", or it's featured in mainstream media, or things like that. So ultimately, an article needs evidence that the subject is considered notable by independent parties, and that must be supported by reliable sources. Now, to judge the "importance" needed to avoid A7 speedy deletion, I tend to think along the lines of "Is anything currently in the article likely to be the kind of thing that could ultimately turn into notability as defined by WP:N?" In my opinion, nothing in TravelFox came close. It's a meta-search that uses other searches? That's no big deal - sites have been doing that for years in all sorts of fields. But if you disagree and you believe there is more out there that can at first support a claim of importance, and ultimately show notability from independent reliable sources, an admin can userfy a copy (that is, provide a copy in your user space) for you to work on - ask the deleting admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thought has occurred to me. Morning277, you accuse me of deleting everything you created that I could "within what [I] probably [think I] can defend". How does that fit in with the fact that I restored a deleted article to give you a chance to improve it? I suggest you reconsider your view that I am out to get you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, you are an expert contributor. As such, I feel that you know the guidelines of nobility and know the process for when an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability. The first is to contact the article creator or an expert on advice where to look for sources. The second is to use a notability tag. The article could also have been nominated for deletion instead of simply being deleted (I am referring to TravelFox at this point). That is why the immediate deletion of an article that has been online for a month without leaving any comment on my talk page (which I did to yours before coming here and not getting a response) led me to conclude that you were trying to prove a point.

Again........I have no issues with you. What is done is done and it is only wasting time talking about something that obviously will not be undone. I will do what I can to find more sources for TravelFox to show its notability. This may take more time but I will make sure it meets your definition before re posting it (and according to Wiki guidelines, will even let you know before I re post it). I appreciate what you are doing by protecting Wikipedia from vandalism, spam, and un-notable articles. I get upset when the process is not followed as I am a good contributor on Wikipedia and not someone who is just spamming information. I do give credibility to my edits (even if others do not always agree with them). With that being said, you can close this discussion unless you have something else you want to get in. I will hopefully run into you again in the future under better circumstances. --Morning277 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Morning277, you're really not correct about the process here. If an article doesn't make any credible claims of importance, then it is not required to discuss it with the creator first - we get so many thousands of A7 articles that we'd never have time to deal with them if we did that. And it is not necessary to go to AfD either. If an article on a topic that fits the conditions in A7 does not make a credible claim of importance (and in my view, TravelFox did not), then it is perfectly proper to nominate it for Speedy Deletion, and if an admin reviews the nomination and agrees with it, it is perfectly proper for them to delete it. I understand this is frustrating, but please don't see it as criticism of you. When an article is tagged, you can contested the deletion - but if it is deleted before you get the chance, you can still have a word with the deleting admin and ask if it can be restored, or possibly userfied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I copmletely agree. I have reverted hundreds of vandalism edits so I understand that there is no time to go through the entire process with every article. The issue here is that the TravelFox article was not tagged. It is important to look at an editors credentials as most A7 articles are created by people who only have minor edits. I am an experienced editor and we simply disagree about the notability. Unfortunately, I am an editor and not an admin so your interpretation is what sticks. I accept that fact. When editing content made by another editor, I always look at their contribution history as their experience also gives weight to the information they edit (this does not mean that it is correct, but it would lead me to contact them as opposed to someone who only has a few minor edits). Again, it is no longer a big deal. I will either find the information (if it is available) or wait for it to become more notable and re-post the articles at a later date when they will meet the requirements. Thanks for the comments. --Morning277 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I should also have said is that is that if an admin sees an article that is a valid A7 candidate, they can actually opt to delete it without tagging it first. But one other thing - I don't get to be right just because I'm an admin, and you have just as much right to opine on policy decisions as I do. Anyway, the first thing to do if you have an article deleted is have a word with the deleting admin - so what I'd suggest is that you just ask if he'll userfy the article for you - then you can try to produce a version that is properly supported etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what you are saying about not getting to be right. I am an attorney by profession (not quite starving yet) and my opinions do not always agree with the judge's opinion (some of my clients will tell you so). That was my point. Although I do not necessarily agree with the notability as discussed, I honor the fact that you and JamesB are admins and that the final say is left to you. As such, I will do what is necessary according to you in order to have the article included. Also, I have a copy of the template that I used to post the original article so I will just use that when it is posted in the future. And yes, I am experienced and know the editing process. Although he probably will not speak with me, I will contact JamesB prior to re posting the article as he is the one who deleted it. Hopefully, it will satisfy his opinion on the notability requirement. If not, I will just keep doing what I have to until it does. Thanks for the advice. --Morning277 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we put a "resolved" tag on this thing or what??? --Morning277 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

DeFacto's sock's sock

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

---

Resolved

Recently, User:DeFacto's sock User:6 foot 6 was blocked. As stated on the talk page of 6 foot 6, he created a new account, User:6feet6.  megaphone Can someone block 6feet6? Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - File an SPI case next time though please. It helps to create a better paper trail. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

RFO Backlog?

Hello, I put an RFO request in early this morning and have not gotten a response. It could be that it got lost in the system, but is it possible there is a backlog at RFO? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User Compy90

Compy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

This editor has been going through articles on major championships and fleshing them out. I admit the articles need this but I have become greatly bothered by the inaccuracy of the work and Compy 90's regular removal of inline citations and unnecessary changes aka making something from correct to incorrect. I have addressed my concerns to this editor but he continues to make mistaken edits.

Removal of inline citations

• 1970 US Open. Here he removes both a controversial quote about the golf course and its IC.[151] The quote is still famous 40 years after it was made.
• 1975 US Open. Here he removes mention of a golfer setting a scoring record and its IC.[152]
• 1984 US Open. Here he removes two IC about a golfer's past history at the golf course.[153] This edit also includes a unnecessary change to the location of the golf course. It was originally pointing to the town article but was changed to disambiguation page.
• 1986 US Open. Not just the removal[154] of a inline citation, but changing the total of the amount of golfers tied for the lead from 9 to 7. The IC and the supposed sources Compy90 is using say its 9 not 7.
• 1994 US Open. This edit[155] is strikingly similar to the one for 1986. Compy90 removed a IC but also changed a golfer starting bogey-triple bogey in a playoff to the golfer starting bogey on the first hole and triple bogey on the 3rd hole. Again the IC and the supposed sources Compy90 is using state the original score as being correct.

Content mistakes

Let me first say this editor is knowledgeable about golf history. He's made a long list of mistakes, and I'll provide a link to some of them later. The mistakes were preventable but somebody will say WP:AGF but two of them are so egregious they need to be pointed out.

• The 1984 U.S. Open edit I already mentioned above he edited into the article 'Jim Thorpe finished in a tie for 4th place, becoming the first African-American to place in the Top 10 at the U.S. Open since John Shippen in 1902.' This is very wrong not to mention WP:OR. Calvin Peete, the winningest African-American golfer in golf history prior to Tiger Woods, had finished in the top 10 of both the 1982 and 1983 U.S. Opens. I don't know how this editor couldn't know that when his edit history[156] clearly shows he worked on the 1983 golf article before going on to the 84 one. The bit about John Shippen is unsourced and out of thin air.

• The 1960 U.S. Open. This particular open is part of golfing lore(due to Arnold Palmer's huge final round comeback) so why would this knowledgeable editor write 'Ben Hogan, aiming for a record fifth Open title, got to within three of the lead, but he found the water on his last two holes and finished in 9th, four back of Palmer.'[157] Someone knowing golf history would know Hogan was tied for the lead not within three before finding the water. The sources Compy90 is supposedly using is clear on that also. Hogan's late failure in this tournament is brought up every time the 60 Open is discussed. It's not some obscure factoid.

His Open Championship edits

After working on U.S. Open articles, Compy90 moved onto ones about the Open Championship aka The British Open.

The verification of anything Compy90 edits into these articles is difficult because 1- He doesn't do inline citations and 2- The locating of News articles on the Open Championship using Google News Archive to corroborate facts is not easy.

Nevertheless I have found these problems. Compy90 changed the par scores for the 1949[158], 1950[159], 1952[160], and 1953 Open Championships.[161] In each case from correct to incorrect ones. For instance the 1953 Open, he changed the scoring to that for a par 71 course than that of a par 72. Ben Hogan from -6 to -2 when -6 was the correct score.

In all these edits, Compy90 does not cite a source for his changes. The sources he is putting into the article(external links at the bottom) don't back up his changes. How did I verify them? Google News archive. Note- till recently golfobserver.com would have been the source for scores but that website's owner recently put that information and more behind a pay wall.

Other wrong edits Compy90 has been making to the Open Championship articles has been the changing of golfers nationalities from either ENG to GBR or SCO to GBR or ENG. Why he has done this is hard to understand because these golfers articles show their nationalities clearly in most cases and they don't backup the changes Compy90 is making.

Another golf editor has gone back and reverted these changes. They can be seen here[162] and here[163] for example.

Notifying this editor about my concerns

I've done so on multiple occasions. Here[164], here[165], here[166], and here[167] Note The last of those talk page posts has a list of other factual mistakes I have found and alluded to earlier in this post.

There is a editor who does considerable work on golf articles, and I addressed the issues I have with Comp90 to him. These talk page posts can be found here[168] and here.[169]

Have I notified Compy90 of this post

Not yet, but I will when I complete this post.

Clear about myself

I'm not the most diplomatic of editors. The factual mistakes I keep finding in golf articles is one of my admitted bugaboos especially when most of them are easily preventable. I pointed out mistakes to compy90 gently but but when he said in one talk page post[170] that he didn't see where he was wrong, I started losing patience with him because I had sources to back up what I was saying.

What am I asking for from administrators

I'm not sure. Either that this editor have someone mentor him or that it be required that he provide inline citations for any golf article changes he makes so another editor can verify them. The adding of content to these articles is good but it needs to be accurate and verifiable....William 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the cites yourself instead of coming here and posting all these words? Jtrainor (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the burden of proof should be on him. Has he gotten it from Sports Illustrated The Vault? Google News Archive? A paid subscription to GO? A book? A golf website? Why should I play or any other editor have to play guessing games?

How many citation needed things are put in by editors on WP wanting confirmation? Thousands, over a million? It's quite routine to ask facts be verifiable.

Oh and if you bothered to check, I've added citations after proving what he's written is wrong. For example here[171], here[172], here[173], here[174]....William 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's difficult to tell exactly what's going on here because this user appears to believe he is adding correct information from reliable sources. If you challenge any of his edits (and you seem to be challenging quite a few of them), he needs to provide a reliable source backing them up. Is there any consensus among golf editors or a relevant WikiProject about which golf sources are considered reliable and which aren't? Hopefully the user will chime in here with their version of what's going on. We can't have people adding masses of incorrect information to articles that has to be monitored and challenged. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There has never been a discussion among golf editors about what is a reliable source. Generally anything on the websites of the pro tours around the world is accepted. The World Golf Hall of Fame is acceptable too. Golfobserver was also considered a RS but as I said earlier it is now behind a pay wall.

Just about all those reliable sources have or had errors in their stats. I've ferreted out quite a few and gotten the tours to correct themselves. Here is one example[175] and the World Golf Hall of Fame took note[176] of it almost at once. Because of this I usually poke around golf articles looking for mistakes. I don't blame the editors if all they're doing is copying from the tour websites and the tour websites are incorrect. Like they were in this case[177]

Other sources, well....Golf history(like a lot of sports) has a tendency to lead to exaggeration over the years. For example a ESPN writer told a tale about Arnold Palmer at Pebble Beach one year. Out of curiosity I checked it and found what was described to happen by a writer today didn't match how it was described when the event actually took place in 1962. The ESPN writer said he was relating Arnold's story. I therefore give more weight to golf articles written at the time something took place rather than one written 30 years later. That's me but some golf editors don't practice it.

Compy90 is continuing to edit even though he was notified of this discussion and his edits still continue to have the same problem. For instance here.[178] He changes the nationality of certain golfers from ENG or WAL to GBR in the 4th round section of the article. The thing is....

• These golfers own WP articles say they are either from ENG or Wales not GBR. Golf biographies say Dave Thomas is from Wales.
• Compy90 changes the nationalities only in the 4th round section of the article. For instance, Dave Thomas is listed as being from Wales in the 1st round, but after Compy 90's edit, he is from GBR in the 4th round section.

Compy 90 has done these nationality change in every Open Championship article work of his that I've checked on. NOTE- I haven't checked every year and some article only have final round scores, not scores for after round 1 etc etc.

In the 1957 Open Championship edit of his that was done after this conversation began, he put in bits about a rules violation and the site of the tournament being change. There is no inline citation for this, but one of his EL backs it up. Problem is- I can't find Google News Archive news articles that corroborate either the rules violation or the site change. Update I found a source.[179] It mentions the petrol rationing that causes the site of the Open to be changed but makes no mention of the rules violation and the article was written days after that Open took place.

Yesterday Compy90 edited three open championship articles, 57, 58, and 59, and I reverted all three because of multiple mistakes in all of them or unverifed information in them. I told this editor I would do this....William 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments section

• Holy tl;dr, Batman... I just wanted to chime in saying that the current convention in the sport internationally is to list the specific nationality (intimating ethnicity) of golfers from the country of Great Britain — so England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland would be correct, not GBR. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the current convention of golf editors to be specific about nationality. There are some golfers who have no WP article of their own and their history is murky and unknown and the consensus in that case with the British Open is that they be listed GBR. I would go blank myself but I appear to be a minority. Compy90's edits haven't so far as I know involved any of these golfers....William 16:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is somewhat tl;dr, but there seems to be a lot of history here. Compy seems to be editing incorrectly on a quite frequent basis and either unwilling or unable to communicate clearly about it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Compy90 has edited again. This time it is the 1960 Open Championship.[180]]. Once more he has incorrectly changed nationalities for golfers but only in the 4th round scoring section of the article. Which puts that section in conflict with other sections. For example in the 3rd round Syd Scott is listed as from ENG but in the 4th round as being from GBR. Factually, the article looked fine to me except for one potential quibble. He described a player hitting a ball out of bounds. The news source I used to check it, Sports Illustrated, described the ball as ending up top of a wall not OB. OB might be right(The wall might have been out of bounds), but I tweaked that bit of article, added a online citation, and reverted all the nationality revisions....William 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A different point

Why are so many of these golf articles full of little flag pictures? Specific example of the problem:

• Does Darren Clarke carry a Northern Ireland passport?
• Was Clarke playing on some kind of "Northern Ireland" team in the 2011 Open?

If the answer to both those questions is "no", why is Clarke's name always prefixed by a little flag picture that looks almost but not quite like an English flag? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is that precious few sports-related WikiProjects pay MOS:FLAG much attention, and even those that do get locked into interminable discussions as to what is and is not an appropriate use of representative nationality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with fixing it is that it's an utter nightmare to remove all of them without AWB, and with AWB (which is what I did in articles about supercentenarians) one typo can completely destroy a table. If anyone wants to learn how to quickly get remove all the flags in these articles, ping me on my talkpage and I can give you a crash course; WP:FLAGBIO is very explicit on this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been standard to put the flags into golf articles as long as I have been contributing to them. I myself think the info is not necessary and it would be a royal pain to remove them all. Want to see alot of flags? Go here[181]] where a golfer has 88 wins and 28 playoff results all of which contain at least one flag. BTW I did those boxes for Kathy Whitworth....William 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It took me about 2 minutes to fix that article by simply pasting the stuff into notepad++ and replacing every flagicon entry with a blank space. Kaboom. Jtrainor (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

...aaaand it took someone else 2 milliseconds to undo it. --64.85.221.126 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well AWB basically does the same thing, except more efficiently if done right; all you have to do us put the flag icons in once in ind/replace, then go to every article and hit the edit button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted back and put a note on the original reverter's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• On a related point, quite a lot of these sports articles have rather dubious nationalities. Considering the earlier example of 1960 Open Championship, the source lists lots of people with a nationality of "GBR", but in the article these were changed to "England", "Scotland", "Wales" &c. bobrayner (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (Sorry, this isn't really something that requires administrator intervention, is it? I'd like to throw some light on some of the murkier corners but this may not be the best venue)

Blocked

Unfortunately I have had to block Compy90 since he has ignored this matter and continued to edit. The block is indefinite since he has not engaged in any discussion. As I noted on his talk page, any administrator should feel free to lift the block without consulting me if they are satisfied he has addressed and discussed the concerns raised here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want this outcome, rather have this editor change his ways and I would have been perfectly willing to teach him the tricks of trade for verifying info for golf articles. One question- He's banned but how can he try to communicate any willingness to change if his account doesn't work any longer? I am just curious....William 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he is not banned. He is blocked from editing until he displays a willingness to discuss these matters at the very least. He can edit his Talk page; that is where he can discuss and place an unblock request. Right now, my only goal is to get him to acknowledge and discuss the matters you've raised. If he does that, we can unblock and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation and I hope Compy90 eventually replies back and we move on as you say....William 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent need for admin support

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

---

ADMIN MuZemike has blocked JSeroff and our project creating accounts for 64 new student users. We need immediate action, I am teaching classes tomorrow, and students need access.

KSRolph (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended log

(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jseroff (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jolejolejole (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17calder (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17nbarch (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17bcachay (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mcarter (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17ccho (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17uchoudhury (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17ccontreras (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17gcusing (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17kdreyfus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17fforstall (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17hdyson (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mfrick (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17gfrome (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17egarreau (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17sgerber (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mgoetz (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mgoldberg (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 22:57, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mgray (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block) (del/undel) 22:57, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17kgreatwood (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)

Is this what you are referring to? I'll go notify MuZemike (talk · contribs) of this thread. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry for what has occurred above, as I was seeing many, many accounts being created off mobile ISPs and not what we would normally expect - which is off of school IPs. I have gone ahead and unblocked all of them. --MuZemike 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colleagues-

Yes, this is it. We still need to create 6 more accounts - hope they can be generated at the same IP? We understand, of course, that there can be problems and vandalism. High schools are targets, so no worries as long as we can push ahead and introduce students as newbies to contributing! KSRolph (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally instructors investigate WP:SUP beforehand. Good luck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ACC to create accounts. MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

URGENT - Please suspend Autoblock - is blocking multiple accesses from this IP address and tomorrow all students will use same IP due to school's internet service provider set up. Please unblock librarian JSeroff and IP address. Thank you all for responses. KSRolph (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Karen, the students who were unblocked above (and Jseroff) can now edit normally using their user accounts. If any additional students need to create accounts who don't have one, please e-mail me their desired usernames and e-mail addresses and I will create accounts for them immediately. I'll also e-mail you this information. Dcoetzee 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not currently seeing any autoblocks at the moment. If there are any, they should expire by tomorrow. --MuZemike 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Friday, April 20 are the Wikipedia contributing classes, beginning 15:30 UTC. New users will be in Simple English. Sorry for complications and thanks to all. KSRolph (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There are security issues, for this reason, usernames were not posted, working with school's regulations and protocols - not my own plan, otherwise would have utilized resources. Thank you kindly, KSRolph (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Administrators, please update your applicable administrative process checklist or best practices page with what occurred here so that the same mistake won't happen again. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify this as a "mistake" on the part of Muzemike. 9 times out of 10, someone creating a bevy of new accounts is up to no good. That's why we have a limit of 5. I think his actions were entirely reasonable and any number of admins may have made the same judgement. I think a misunderstanding is a better way to characterize it.

For the record, nobody *needs* anything on Wikipedia. Editing here is not a right. However, I'm glad this was able to be worked out. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a right in the penumbra of the First Amendment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but if I catch anyone emanating in the penumbras I'll revert him faster than you can say open and gross lewdness. EEng (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia anymore than there's a First Amendment right to have the New York Times publish someone's article. It doesn't apply to private organisations but to states and the Federal government. "the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion." but that doesn't seem relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FREESPEECH might be relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the rapid response of admins and our ambassador. Cool. High fünf to Alles. KSRolph (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:Pureobjectivetruth possible sockpuppet

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

---

User talk:Pureobjectivetruth is disrupting by removing speedy deletion tag from Horrification. That alone doesn't warrant bringing to ANI, but the username suggests he might be a sockpuppet, so I was wondering if anyone could go fishing for possible matches to other accounts this person may have used. Chutznik (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

● Outlook not so good. Doc talk 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• No indication of socking, and it wouldn't be an issue for this board anyway. Also, Chutznik, "We are watching what you do on Wikipedia"? Please put your big brother back in your pocket. This is a simple case of some vandalism, that's all. Someone, please close. Nothing here for ANI to begin with.

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.

Unregistered User:50.95.41.4 threatening, racial slurring in Deletion proposal

Please take into serious consideration this comments [182] here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj. Obnoxious and dreadful nationalistic threats towards another user and a whole community. This IP [183] should be blocked immediately, not only for vandalism, but for serious threatening of Wikipedia's continuity and welfare. I advise a serious investigation to be carried into consideration since such threats have been materialized into real deletions, POV edits, ultra-nationalistic policy and propaganda hidden behind pseudo-encyclopedic articles that only intend realizing the aims of this mentally-unstable-looking comment. All this then concludes with real frustration towards users, contributors and readers of a whole community.

You kindly oblige me by working on this issue. Sincerely, Empathictrust (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, consider also this new user's dubious edits [184], who seem to have opened his account for the sole purpose of eliminating Gjekë Marinaj in wikipedia and his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empathictrust (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The first IP has been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 48 hrs. The second IP last edited almost 5 days ago. If they're an IP hopper, they'll have likely moved on already. Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift answer Blackmane, they probably did move on. Sorry for bothering you again but even after the deletion nomination's closure there still seems that such users are disrupting this article. A new unregistered one with IP 87.236.90.110 seems to have logged in after I had commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj yesterday, mentioning the fact I wrote you here and these highly disruptive IPs. Seems that this user is accustomed with the rules, despite editing for just some 2 hours, he has written to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes/Archive, mentioning me as "definitely a sock puppet", even writing to another user page that voted for deletion [185] and misinterpreting my edits. Nevertheless, I just ran into this article when it was nominated from deletion at WP:SQ, and found sources that were in favour of his notability so voted for keeping it and made a long comment regarding issues I saw problematic.

You can investigate on me and on them, I don't know how it works, I'm totally open for anything. Just I see the need that Future Perfect at Sunrise restricts the edits on this article Gjekë Marinaj for at least the autoconfirmed users, since vandalism and POV pushing is still evident, in favour and against the article as well. With all due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive

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.

---

Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for apparently having a sockpuppet, ThatManAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Schro is an editor who is otherwise in good standing, and I would suggest that this is a wrongful block that I would like another admin to look at.

The block seems to be very light on justification. There is no WP:SPI case, as far as I can see. Conceding that ThatManAgain is a relatively new user, the two users have barely interacted with each other according to Scottywong's Editor Interaction Analyser. There does not seem to be any previous, current and/or continuing disruption to the project.

It seems likely, then, that the explanation that Schro gave in her unblock request is likely. That the two users use the same connection and they happened to cross the same page, once at some point. If that was a reason to block, then you'd probably have to block me because no doubt I've crossed paths with half the staff and students of the NSW Department of Education. For example, one of the history teachers at my old school who, after discussion with me, has responded to vandalism on a couple of pages that I also edit occasionally. This is a weak case for a block.

Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declined the unblock request on the basis of a decidedly unWP:AGF reading of what Schro said and then followed up with a suggestion that Schro do some performing pony tricks with WP:GAB to get unblocked. This isn't reasonable.

I realise that I'm sounding a bit militant here, but, hey, I'm definitely not in as good standing as Schro. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Separately, while I'm posting as a result of discussion at Schro's talkpage, I think the block on ThatManAgain is also worthy of a second look. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would unblock both accounts. The cat is denying its him and a minor meat issue is the most there is - explain to him as the two accounts are from the same ip to avoid any editing that might appear meatish and unblock for time served. - Please don't do it again, or rather, allow an appearance of doing it even if you didn't and unblock. Youreallycan 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive has been unblocked by User:JamesBWatson.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I don't know how thoroughly Danjel checked the editing history, but there are several pages that both accounts have edited. Nevertheless, having read Schrodinger's cat is alive's comments and looked carefully at the editing history, I see no unambiguous evidence of abuse (both posting to the same AfD is the one that looks most doubtful), so I have unblocked Schrodinger's cat is alive. I do wonder why I wasn't consulted before this thread was started. My understanding is that, if you disagree with someone's action, the first thing to be done is normally to raise the matter with that person, and only to start administrators' noticeboard discussions if you have tried and failed to reach agreement. As for ThatManAgain, it seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do is to consult DeltaQuad, the blocking admin, because as far as I know he/she is the only person who knows what other account(s) he/she had in mind when blocking for "Abusing multiple accounts". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that blocks should be used to prevent disruption of the project and generally shouldn't be fired from the hip. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a general understanding of what the American colloquial expression "fired from the hip" means, but could you explain what you mean by it in this context? If you mean that you presume that I blocked without due consideration of the evidence, I can assure you that you are mistaken. I spent five minutes carefully considering the evidence. I would also have thought that AIV discussions should not be "fired from the hip": your failure to consult the relevant people before starting this discussion, suggests that you may like to think about whether your house is made of glass. I have also just looked at your posts to User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive, and I do wonder why you thought such an aggressive response was the right thing to do first, rather than beginning by politely consulting the relevant people. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that you gave the situation due consideration, and, yet, you blocked a user in good standing on the basis of what? There was no disruption to the project, ongoing or otherwise, there was no SPI case, no other complaint anywhere else. Why don't you leave the holier-than-thou and innocence-abused attitudes behind and just leave a mea culpa? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• So this is one of those mornings I woke up to one of those 'you've been taken to ANI' messages. Nice and I did not even know what this could have been about. I go with JamesBWatson's comment in the fact that I was not consulted at all either before the issue was taken here. If you need the link, it's in the block message or right here for you. Anyway, I'll speak more to my block below, but just for the record, I don't need an SPI to issue blocks, I can call it as I see it without an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ThatManAgain

...is still an open issue for discussion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As the user has only a few recent edits I suggest leaving him blocked unless he requests unblocking. Youreallycan 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me that this is a particulary bad way to welcome and encourage a new editor. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well he did have a chat with his amigo and with his first edit he then opened a ADF discussion - not bad for a newbie - I say, let him explain if he wants unblocking - Youreallycan 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this, DeltaQuad's block reason (inappropriate use of alternate accounts) is spot-on. ThatManAgain has another account that they used to edit Carratu International. Editors should not use multiple accounts to edit the same article. TNXMan 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are the socks? I see 4 edits from ThatManAgain on Carratu International, none of which seemed contentious in the light of edits from the one other intervening editor. Where's the disruption? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• So my block was done on the basis of not knowing who the master was, and was done because the likelihood that a new user, would not be able to pull of an AFD nomination in so few edits. That combined with the policy WP:ILLEGIT #2 which says "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." is why I issued my block. Could it of been a meatpuppet, I doubted that fact unless the person was standing over their shoulder and told them to type [[WP:CORP]] into the AFD. New people don't just know project acronyms like that. So with that being the case, I don't have to make the differentiation between WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT as WP:MEAT states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."". So my block is completely valid and I will not stand down from it. I'm not pointing the finger of the master at anyone, but the technical trail lead for at least a discussion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You blocked this user on the basis of:

• The fact that s/he opened an AfD;
• Knew some WP acronyms;
• A suspicion that he was a sock;

...and nothing more. No apparent disruption. No complaints at any noticeboard. No CheckUser involvement (I note that you are not a CheckUser).

Are you serious? Of course this should have been discussed, perhaps at SPI or here or wherever else, beforehand. You have the temerity to say that you should have been personally consulted before this discussion, yet you act without any consultation at all on the basis of nothing more than suspicion and block a new user? No wonder we have issues with attracting and retaining editors.

I don't know if ThatManAgain is a sock or not, but, you're right, it does deserve discussion. As does your action here as an admin.˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser Note

←Alright, so I have been asked to look into this in my role as a Checkuser. I will preface all of this by saying that the range that these accounts are operating on is large, and according to my research is problematic on other sites as well. From a purely technical stand point, the following accounts are  Confirmed:

• Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ThatManAgain (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The following account is highly  Likely related to the above two:

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

That said, Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) and ThatManAgain (talk · contribs) tend to edit within hours of each other, but when they do 99% of the time, their useragent is different. So, this could mean that the person gets up and spends an hours worth of time changing computers with the intention of throwing off a CheckUser, or the story that Schrodinger's cat is alive is telling is correct and the IP range is shared but they are two people editing from two different computers. I will note though, that their useragents have overlapped before. Additionally, there is some "editing while logged out" going on. For obvious privacy reasons, I will not publicly release the IP. That said, it appears that ThatManAgain (talk · contribs) is the one doing the editing via that IP given that useragent matches. Lastly, as I said before, the ISP that they are editing via has been blacklisted on a number of sites for excessive spamming and torrents. So, take all of that as you will. Tiptoety ^talk 18:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so all we have is some very circumstantial evidence that appears well explained by what Schro has already said (keeping in mind that Schro is a user who is otherwise in good standing). All being told, there would be no gain for Schro to use a sock in the way that would be suggested from ThatManAgain's edits (being that the one apparently contentious edit where the two users overlapped was an AfD that ended non-contentiously). If ThatManAgain has been editing under an IP, as suggested, then it's entirely possible that s/he does have more experience with acronyms.

I suggest that the way forward to to WP:AGF and unblock ThatManAgain's account with some stern advice to both users to avoid creating a perception that they're related. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Danjel, an important thing to realise is that administrators and checkusers are entrusted by the community to make judgements. Very often those judgements have to be made on the balance of evidence, where there is no absolute certainty. If you disagree with another person's judgement, it is helpful to politely raise the matter with that person. My best judgement at the time when I blocked was that the evidence strongly suggested sockpuppetry. My judgement at the time when I unblocked was that new evidence had cast enough doubt to encourage me to give the user the benefit of the doubt. It is perfectly reasonable for another person to hold the opinion that one or other of those judgements was unwise, but holding such an opinion is not justification for ranting about how grossly unreasonable I have been, that I "shoot from the hip", that I have a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and so on and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are entrusted to make judgements, absolutely. However, the community including myself expect those judgements to be made on the basis of black & white policy. Where there's some doubt, we expect the situation to be discussed.

In this case, there wasn't even confusion. There was nothing more than suspicion. There was inarguably no disruption occuring, and there was no reason to believe that disruption would occur. Basicly put, there was no part of WP:BLOCK#Common_rationales_for_blocks that was (or is; ThatManAgain is still blocked) at issue here. The net result is that one user who is otherwise in good standing got blocked and a new user is blocked for... suspicion of "Abusing multiple accounts: Inappropriate use of alternate account". This is shooting from the hip. I can't even call it shooting first and asking questions later, because questions weren't asked. all I can see here is defensive circling of the wagons to avoid any taking of responsibility for one wrongful block, and another block made on top of that wrongful block. ThatManAgain should be unblocked, and an apology should be made to him/her for involving him/her in this mess before we lose him/her as a productive editor.

This is not OK. The community expects better.˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Holy cheese and rice. The editor admitted to chatting with their friend, then editing the same article. I politely declined the first unblock, and gave them FRIENDLY advice on how to compose a new unblock that would address it and get them unblocked. In short, I highly suggested the re-request unblock and pointed them to GAB where it says "show the community it won't happen again". Suddenly I'm asking for some dog-and-frickin-pony show? No. All I said was "do another unblock that says this you'll get unblocked". What a bloody waste of time some people like to perform around here. A single declined unblock, and someone else gets their shorts in a knot instead of doing the right thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• The checkuser evidence combined with Scottywong's tool points in the direction of a sock connection between Schrodinger's cat is alive and Hydeblake.  --Lambiam 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't the actual theorem suggest the hypothesis that neither the editor nor the IP actually exist until they log in? That statistically, it could be any one of us and that by sheer chance it's not? FWIW, I do believe I'm Drmies. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • With probability greater than zero you are a Boltzmann brain, though.  --Lambiam 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't remotely agree with Daniel's interpretation. There is strong evidence of sockpuppetry. (I unblocked because I decided to give the benefit of a small amount of doubt.) If it isn't one person then it is meatpuppetry. Contrary to what you say, there was disruption, in the form of one account supporting the other in an AfD. Daniel, you refer to "wrongful" blocks as though that were an objective fact. It isn't: it is your judgement. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The CheckUser casts sufficient doubt on your "strong" evidence by pointing to the different useragents used by the two editors. If there was meat puppetry in the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carratu_International), it isn't (and wasn't) a very effective strategy. Where was the benefit gained in using a meat puppet to do what Schro could do just as effectively her/himself? If you suggest that this was an attempt to pile on the votes, then (a) how did Schro see that that was needed; and (b) why didn't s/he follow through and actually pile on the votes?

What did DeltaQuad have to go on in the first instance? There was no SPI report and no CheckUser involvement (until now). So why was the block given in the first place? On the basis of "again" in the username? Where did the suspicion (because that's all we had, and all we still have) come from? That there was no discussion or investigation or 'anything prior to this block says that this is inarguably a wrongful block in contravention to WP:BLOCK. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's your very poor judgement speaking again. It was a fully-valid block according to that policy. Your bizarre interpretation is not getting you anywhere, except causing additional embarrassment for the now-unblocked user. Suspicion is enough. Stop screwing with the poor editor - you're making them (and yourself) look bad. Your involvement in this has been poor from the start. Drop the stick. Oh, and if you don't know the different between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN yet, even more reason to move along (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just saying that it's poor judgement on my part and that it was a fully valid block etc., then how about you explain how it is compliant with policy instead of circling the wagons? A new user has been blocked, for no good reason. That's the situation. It's abhorrent.

Separately, yeah, I wrote ban rather than block, quickly fixed. But, whatever helps your ad hominem case. Pointing it out makes you look like a tool. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And now you're warning me about personal attacks? Have you tried reading that policy before you make such accusations? Funny how you accuse me of such where none exist, yet include your own. Brilliance - sheer brilliance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So would you like to explain how pointing out a minor mistake on my part that I quickly fixed was relevant to this discussion? It isn't. It was an argument "to the person" rather than to the actual content.

While we're on the topic of reading things we link: from WP:DUCK: "The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." Emphasis added. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can a "non-involved" Admin go over this?

I'd like to ask that a non-involved Admin look at this, because it's clear that this is going to get nowhere when people are unwilling to take responsibility and just fix the situation.

The issues at hand as I see them are that: (a) A new user has been blocked on the basis of suspicion, and nothing else and this damages the project; (b) The blocking admin put on the block without any discussion, complaint or consultation with, for example, a CheckUser; (c) There was no disruption to the project and there is no continuing disruption to the project.

Either explain how the above is acceptable per Wikipedia policy/practice or do what DeltaQuad, JamesBWatson and BWilkins are unwilling to do and work on a way to repair the situation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the attempt to close this discussion by Bwilkins before I posted the above because he is clearly and unambiguously WP:INVOLVED. This was raised on Bwilkins talkpage (diff), but the response was a revert with an abusive edit summary (diff). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So, are all three admins you mentioned above "involved", and not just BWilkins? Because none of them appear to be actually involved in the way I think you mean; and searching for an "uninvolved" admin does not mean finding one who agrees with you when the majority do not. The blocked user can simply post an unblock request. They have yet to do that. Doc talk 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or are you seriously arguing that this was a bad block because the checkuser that confirmed these editors was carried out after the block and not before it? Is it perhaps that you feel it is only socks and not masters which should be blocked? Sorry if these seem like very simple questions, but I don't actually see that you've answered them in between all the polemic you're firing around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see SC has been unblocked; as editors go there are few more industrious when it comes to getting articles promoted to GA. As for the "meat puppetry", none of the edits were undertaken to avoid a 3RR violation so I question whether there should have been an immediate block as well. I don't see the harm in two real-life acquaintances collaborating on an article, all they need to be aware of is that their edits won't be considered independent with respect to 3rr/edit-warring considerations. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Evading the three revert rule is by no means the only reason for blocking sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Doc: it seems pretty clear that the three admins above are circling the wagons. It is their decisions that are in question, and therefore they are involved. In the real world, if I and a couple of my colleagues did the wrong thing, it would be unreasonable for us not to recuse ourselves from "resolving" the situation. That would be because we're "involved".

Thumperward: No worries. I'm probably struggling to be clear because I'm saying roughly the same thing over and over trying to get some concession from the other side (instead I get told that I need a clue). The CheckUser's statement, together with the circumstantial evidence, leads to significant doubt about the point that the two users are one. I personally believe that socks and masters should both be blocked, but this does not seem to be the circumstance here. What seems to be the circumstance is that a new user has been and is still blocked based on "suspicion".

So, yeah, I'm not happy about the process. Because if blocks can be handed out on the basis of suspicion without investigation and those decisions then become sacrosanct, then there is a real problem with how the community works. But the other problem is that a new user has been blocked needlessly. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that hunch blocks are bad if they are baseless, but we have never required checkuser prior to sockblocks and if an admin has the savvy to identify socks without a checkuser then it that can only benefit us. In this case, considering the facts (SC and TMA are on the same IP: SC and TMA discussed TMA's plan to AfD an article on his first edit; the first comment at that AfD is from SC), it can certainly be argued that SC went about the process of introducing this new user to Wikipedia in a way which brought suspicion upon himself, because the pattern of edits is literally identical to that of any average AfD sock. Now given that SC has until now been in good standing and that the disruption here was minimal, would I have leapt straight to a dual sockblock? No, but it would not be baseless to do so. In the end this has been unpleasant for a number of reasons, most of which is due to editors assuming the worst of one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am I missing something? Apart from Danjel, 11 editors have posted to this discussion, seven of them administrators, unless I have miscounted. Asking for more admins to comment looks strikingly like admin shopping. Could it just be, Danjel, that consensus is against you, and that you would be better off accepting the fact and dropping the stick? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right! Several editors and admins have posted to this. This is the breakdown:

Danjel (Editor): Does not support block

Youreallycan (Editor): Does not support block

EdinburghWanderer (Admin): Non-commital Comment

JamesBWatson (Involved Admin): Supports block

DeltaQuad (Involved Admin): Supports block

TnXMan (Editor): Supports block

Tiptoety (CheckUser): Non-commital Comment

Bwilkins (Involved Admin): Supports block

Drmies (Admin): Non-commital Comment

Lambian (Editor): Non-commital Comment

Erm... I wrote that I saw evidence for sock puppetry by SC.  --Lambiam 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Doc9871 (Editor): Non-commital Comment

BettyLogan (Editor): Does not support block

Thumperward (Admin): Does not support block

That's not a very clear consensus your way when you take out the involved admins... Apologies in advance if I have misrepresented (1) anyone's positions or simplified complex positions as either for, against or non-commital; (2) an editor as an admin or vice versa. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Doc talk 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This user is unblocked, yes? After properly requesting unblock and agreeing not to cause the problem again? The block was valid (and I would have Supported it - and the unblock - on the merits), and it's already been lifted. What did this dead horse do to you, Danjel? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive has been unblocked, yes. User:ThatManAgain, the new user who probably has no clue what happened (there's not even a block template on his/her talkpage for him to appeal against) is still blocked. Schro can fight for him/herself at the moment, I'm advocating for ThatManAgain. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a note at Thatmanagain's talk page, explaining the block and showing how to make an unblock request. I absolutely and categorically oppose an unblock prior to that unblock request - but if they show that they understand what happened, and that they'll edit in other areas from Scrhodinger's Cat, I don't see why they could not be unblocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted. It's not the outcome I want, obviously, but it's a way forward and you've done a good job of saying how to move forward for that user. I would suggest also that anyone reviewing his unblock request take special care with a new user, but don't know how to word that properly. Happy for the above to close (now), but still not happy about the below. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why I put it as I did - you're right, they don't know. But if we unblock without helping them understand what happened and why, then they're just gonna get blocked again. The critical point is to edit in areas where Schrodinger's Cat isn't editing - that reduces the possibility of another block like this one. My wife edits once in a long while, and I stay right the hell away from those articles for that specific reason - no need to tempt fate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I see your point. I work in schools, but I try to be very careful about who knows that I edit here (primarily because I'd like to avoid telling my supervisors that I won't "spruce" up work-related articles for them as I have had to say once in the past). Wife is utterly disinterested in wikipedia (which is a shame because she's a researcher with substantially better writing skills and knowledge about certain things than I). *shrug*

Can you close everything above now? Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins

Bwilkins has twice closed this discussion despite his clear involvement. This is a clear breach of WP:INVOLVED, particularly where a consensus has not completely formed. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been formed by the community long before you became involved in this single case. The newer consensus to come is your upcoming block for disruption and edit-warring. You cannot invoke involved because the reason I'm closing it is to protect both YOU and the editor you claim to be protecting. If you want WP:INVOLVED, just post one more misguided post on my talkpage that shows your ignroance for policy, and your contempt for this commmunity ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussions at ANI are routinely closed when either A) the issue is resolved, B) The discussion comes to a consensus, or C) when no further administrative action is requested/required/warranted. For the first section, A) applies. For the second, I look to point C) - What administrative action are you looking for? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to you above. We're not arguing for Schro (who's situation is resolved, except for a messy block log, and I'm sure s/he doesn't care that much). User:ThatManAgain is still blocked so the issue is not resolved and further administrative action (or at least an explanation) is still required.

I've unclosed this again. I'm not going to do it again and give someone an excuse to block me for 3RR, but I think Bwilkins is in breach of WP:INVOLVED, so that's a second issue that needs a resolution. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's 3RR you need to worry about; edit warring on ANI has always been spectacularly unwise, and Edit Warring is not defined solely by 3RR. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin actions (i.e., thread closure) by involved admins are meant to be unwise as well. So... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone want to do the honour of blocking, I'm afraid the editor cannot understand WP:INVOLVED nor edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly resolve the situation, does it? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does - the still-blocked editor can follow the same rules and policies that every fricking other editr has to follow without the Lone Ranger misquoting and misinterpreting the norms, policies, and common sense that this community has built for years. Don't you see: you have become the problem, and are destroying any possible solution. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How? Put yourself in his/her shoes. There is no block template on their page. They probably won't be able to understand how to get through getting unblocked anyway, so how does closing this resolve the situation?

As for having me blocked, this is how the discussion has gone:

• Bwilkins: *involves self in discussion*
• Danjel: Asks for non-involved opinion
• Bwilkins: *closes thread in his favour*
• Danjel: reopens thread, points out WP:INVOLVED, asks Bwilkins not to close thread
• Bwilkins: *closes thread*
• Danjel: reopens thread, again points to WP:INVOLVED

Where's the resolution there? Or are you above the rule of WP:INVOLVED? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

WTF? "In my favour?" My closure of the thread is well-explained, and I'm not sure how any of this involves me other than I declined an unblock and tried very hard to explain to the editor how to become unblocked. You really need to read and try to understand the most basic of policies around here before appointing yourself to be someone's laywer on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in your favour. In favour of the position that you adopted and, whether by design or not, to head off having to explain your actions. Schro might not have an issue, but I have a problem with people who accept a position of power and then either abuse it or don't put the necessary effort in. You really need to read WP:INVOLVED or, if you can't do your job right, just hand back the mop. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Slow down, take a step back, and relax. I've posted at ThatManAgain's talk page with a path forward. Now you need to stop with the disruption and the accusations. Disrupting ANI will get you blocked, and I don't give a good goddamn if other editors have done BAD THINGS or not - your conduct is at issue. It would be well for you to take a step back before you do get blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, how is my conduct at issue? Because I have a problem with an admin working in breach of WP:INVOLVED? What's the point of having WP:INVOLVED if the moment it's brought up it's either blank ignored (as by Bwilkins) or the result is the party who brought up the issue is considered to be conducting himself badly? The admin conduct here has been shameful from the block on suspicion (without a template) to the circling of the wagons to the involvedness. I've seen first grade teachers work better with their charges. It speaks to a very broken culture. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204

In addition to several other disruptive behaviors (e.g. deleting cited information - [186][187][188][189]), User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204 has been posting fairly nasty comments about me on my Talk: page; for example, this one and particularly this one. After his IP was blocked for the latter comment, he apparently convinced the blocking admin to allow him to edit through a hard block. The IP is obviously HasperHunter's; they both edit and revert for each other on a variety of unrelated articles (e.g. List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Kathmandu, High Five Interchange, 2011–12 La Liga, Ghana) - almost every page edited by the IP has also been edited by HasperHunter. I'm bringing this issue here now because HasperHunter is not only apparently deliberately logging out so that his IP can act as a "bad hand" account, but has also gotten his account modified so that he can edit even when his IP is blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what this claim is about at all. The IP that I use is the one that I am using right now . This 38.114.81.204 looks like from my workplace. This is a group IP address of a university. There can be 100s of people with that same ID but that does not mean I was the one using them for all the edits. I have no idea what bad hand, account modifies and all this claims is. I dont think anyone can claim what a random IP did and blame it to random users like me. There could have been many users using wikipedia at the same time when I was using it from my office. It could also have been possible that I had left my user id logged in although i doubt it. I am sure though there were many users using from the same ip as it is of a workplace.HasperHunter (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference on the interactions between HasperHunter and 38.114.81.204, see Snottywong's new tool. Monty₈₄₅ 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hasper, I believe the quacking behaviour is a bit too loud to ignore. :) Salvidrim! 01:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying every edits from that IP which probably is connected to over 100 computers in a university is done by me? I would like to see what edits were done from that IP and I can prove that it was not me, definitely not all the edits as I usually only edit from my home.HasperHunter (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, that IP seems to mostly edit the exact same (apparently completely unrelated) articles that you do! And with the exact same POV! You even revert for each other! Are you really claiming you didn't leave those comments on my Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not touched your page at all! I dont even know what for? How did you and me get involved in the 1st place! I am being blocked for reasons I dont even know yet and out of nowhere. You tell me why would I edit pages without being logged in. If i ever did would be from my workplace but as I already said that IP must be connected to over 100 computers. I am just curious as what are the wikipedia edits from that server. If i were disrupting others pages or reverting edit my own edits from a different server why would i not be doing this all the time!?HasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not plausible - the evidence is too strong to be simple coincidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to consider logging in from school? This would be helpful. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do i need to do that? I do my edits from home. I am ok with this.HasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, logging in would clarify the situation. It seems there is someone in your school who thinks, edits & behaves exactly as you do, which certainly is a surprising coincidence. Salvidrim! 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can definitely do that. But still not sure how logging in will help. How can that person think edit behave exactly like me when there are articles that I have never edited and that ip has. I have already mentioned I use that IP sometimes while I am at work but then others might be using it at the same time as I did, can they not? I usually edit the la liga and football records, kathmandu (my homeplace) but definitely not that user talk pages of others that is being claimed. Now, I am not a computer expert. But if a few users use the same IP can they edit a few articles at different times? my workplace is a university so it can be possible many users editing same articles.HasperHunter (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead and login from my workplace tomorrow as per your request.HasperHunter (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst looking at the evidence I was quite happy to indef both the account and the IP, I've just noticed the comment made by a CU here, so I think I'll hold back until they've commented. Black Kite (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I originally blocked HasperHunter, but after taking another look at the situation after an unblock request from him, I have erred on the side of caution to AGF and unblock, mainly because of the difference in edits between the two accounts.

That being said, if another admin and/or CU wants to look at this, I don't mind; alternatively, a full WP:SPI case can be opened up, in which I would naturally be recused. I know I am capable of making mistakes as an admin and a CU, but I would be more comfortable knowing that I have prevented more than likely sockpuppetry than feeling guilty about indefinitely blocking an uninvolved user who is happening to be sharing the same IP as some other troublemaker behind it. --MuZemike 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After comparing the edit histories of the articles mentioned above, I wonder if I have made a grave mistake in unblocking; in this case, I will need an uninvolved admin to reassess this situation. --MuZemike 05:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would endorse an indef on the account at this point. Block the IP for a couple of months. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, what I was doing was comparing User:DBSSURFER's edits with HasperHunter's edits, in which I saw virtually no overlap there, even though there clearly is (as a lot of people are noting) between HasperHunter and the IP in question. That was why I decided to unblock, as it is very much possible that we may have run across a false positive. --MuZemike 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:DBSSURFER is, though your explanation for your actions makes a lot of sense. My issue was with the inappropriate edits of 38.114.81.204, including some rather nasty bigotry. Now that it has been shown that 38.114.81.204 is HasperHunter (logging out to avoid detection), and that rather than admitting this and apologizing, he chose to deny it, could you please block/re-block? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Logging out to avoid detection--- what does this mean? I am always and right now logged in as well! I have repeatedly mentioned that IP belongs to a university where all the computers have that same address. I will in no way take responsibility of 100% of the edits that were made from that IP. I have already said, I edit the Kathmandu, Prime Ministers of Nepal etc pages. I am OK if everyone thinks I should be blocked but in no way I am responsible for the talk edits Jayg is accusing me of so apologizing for this ridiculous accusation is out of question. I am actually trying to find with the IT services who might have edited those pages and who might have used my account if any. I have no more to contribute here. I will be editing and contributing the pages which I normally do. Its funny you accuse me straight of random article edits when you dont even know me? I edit articles which are interesting to me. Who gives the rule of specific articles edits for specific editors. Goodbye for now. I have a busy weekHasperHunter (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reblocked. Checkuser shows this account was created five minutes after another account, User:DBSSHASPAR, was created on the same IP with the same computer; the coincidence is too strong to ignore. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Pumpie back?

Could some people who are more familiar with the sad old case of Pumpie (talk · contribs) have a look to see if Chuckles260 (talk · contribs) might be a sock of his? I'm not familiar enough with the old case to be certain enough to file an SPI, but some of his behaviour rings a bell (like, very poor English, posting machine translations from el-wp, stubborn unresponsive behaviour). See User talk:Chuckles260#Warning for a summary of problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Chuckles260 (talk · contribs) used to be Chuckles250 (talk · contribs), until this user got a 48 hours block for disruptive editing. After the expiry of the block, he/she decided to start with a new account. If both were accounts of Pumpie, this would be a case of full-fledged sock puppetry. --RJFF (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I had missed that earlier account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the contribs of all three, which is thankfully very short, I see there are commonalities among them. The lack of edit summaries, marking every edit as minor, the focus on Greek topics. However, I don't really see any connection between Pumpie and these two. The two Chuckles accounts do a lot of gnomish edits with a few mistakes with their edits removing refs, but otherwise they don't use the talk page so it's impossible to tell if they communicate in the same distinctive style that Pumpie did, which led to a lot of facepalming. The two Chuckles accounts are obviously connected but I don't see enough evidence that Pumpie is connected with the two. Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The 250 block is still in force, so shouldn't 260 be blocked for block evasion?  --Lambiam 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked in March, not April. If I read 250's block log correctly, 260 was started a few hours before the block expired. I personally don't think it's such a big deal, but starting a new account is needless and certainly smacks of some kind of evasion. If it is any kind of clean start Chuckles should indicate such, but given the lack of communicative efforts they may have to be strongly urged to do so. Can we simply block 250 permanently? All of this says nothing about the Pumpie matter, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:173.163.76.157

User at IP address 173.163.76.157 seems to have a pattern of vandalism. Many revisions are small and easily overlooked (Special:Contributions/173.163.76.157. I'm going to go through some of those changes and double-check that they're legit. Just bringing this to someone else's attention. — OranL (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• WHOIS shows that this may be a business class broadband customer, so the odds are reasonably high that the IP is static. The history does seem to be one of vandalism, some more obvious than others. The edits are a little stale for WP:AIV, but a softblock might be in order here. There could be several good editors behind that IP but there is obviously at least one petty and somewhat persistent vandal who likes to edit in a rather narrow time window. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

 Done Blocked. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User page issue

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.

---

Hey guys. Just stumbled across User:Chaddy youngmoney. It was created last September and that revision feels a bit promotional in tone (and includes a minor's DOB), and a few days ago it was vandalised to become an attack page about the young rapper. The kid whose userpage it is hasn't edited since last September (and only made two edits total). I've blanked the page for the moment, but I reckon the best bet would probably just be to delete the thing. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. If the user wishes to recreate their userpage later on, they may do so, but it seems wise to delete it if the history contains a promotional page with the DOB of a minor, and then an attack page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Anatomist90 image spam

This user seems to be doing one single thing on Wikipedia: Rapid-fire posting of his own photos of cadaver dissections with no regard for policy or guidelines and no communication. Images are usually added to a gallery rather than integrated within the text. There are often minor variations of the same image. Some images are only tangentially related to the article and there is usually only a simple title for a caption rather than an explanation. He has 1,075 live edits after 141 deletions, and a quick scan of his history suggests that nearly all of his edits represent this problem. He has never once edited an article talk page and has made only two edits in user talkspace.[190] He often makes 20-40, sometimes as many as 70 (April 11), of these edits per day, typically with only one or two minutes between each one. He has had numerous warnings and one block related to image posting, with four warnings[191][192][193][194] closely related to the problem I describe here. He has not responded to these warnings, neither by communication nor by change in behavior.--Taylornate (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to "he has not responded to these warnings". Let look at this one [195]. The user in question has responded here [196] and appears to be a "she" not "he".

A couple of these are not "warning" but rather guidance. This [197] is some advice and looking at one of the pages in question we do need a better image to replace this [198]. The other one starts with "I am very pleased to see you contributing" [199]

The user in question also is from Romania and there might be a bit of a language barrier. I think we need to assume good faith at this point.

I have send the user in question a well deserved barnstar! And will provide a little further guidance. I make at least 70 edits a day. Hardly a judge of a bad editor. In fact if you look at the number of images they have uploaded it is greater than 1000. So they are not adding the same image to every page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In Romania the given name "Adrian" is normally male.  --Lambiam 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Where is the multiple attempts to discuss this problem with this user that the OP has surely attempted before coming to "the court of last resort"? All I see is one message 7 days ago but no further attempts at resolving this with the user or attempting to get people involved with pictures (or anatomy articles) to help weigh in. Can you go back and try to work with the user? Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I should have said I don't think she is doing this in bad faith, but I don't know what to do if she won't communicate and I'm frustrated. I think we can agree there is a communication problem and I don't understand how I am to go back and work with her. I guess there is no harm in posting a couple more messages even though I don't expect a response. If this is not the right place to post, then I think the welcome message at the top could be more clear. Help from administrators and experienced editors sounds like what I want and I don't see anything about "court of last resort" or multiple attempts to discuss. I did consider posting to the anatomy project page instead, maybe that would have been better.--Taylornate (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The user in question has emailed me personally. I am happy to continue providing feedback/guidance. Ping me if you have further concerns regarding anything to do with medicine.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

SPA rv warrior sock?

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

---

Veidaknyge (talk · contribs) looks like a SPA engaging in disruptive revert warring. I don't indent to fight it out with a SPA, but I'd suggest an admin review of his edits, and, admin/community-consensus-pending, a block and revert of his edits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a little unusual. 14 contribs and they are all reverts of one editor. I've looked at a couple of pages, and there seems to be some back and forth reverting going on between the same few editors. I also notice that one admin has been previously into some of these articles, and I will drop him a note. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is obvious that Veidaknyge is somebody's sock created so that their primary account would not be associated with that series of reverts. Anyway, as I said above, I have little interest in this, but I consider the SPA's actions disruptive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• I notified Drmies since he has made edits on several of these, and did a little digging of my own. While I see some back and forth reverting, it is usually two edits a day, every couple of months. Not exactly warrior efforts. Veidaknyge just started today and while his edits have been narrow in scope, having a single purpose account isn't against policy, it is what you do with it that counts. In this case, his edits *appear* to be consistent with previous consensus, but feel free to provide a diff if a consensus was formed and I'm mistaken, as there is nothing on the talk pages recently, except a couple of editors talking about how it shouldn't have that same info on one of the articles. Otherwise, it seems a part of WP:BRD with a lack of D. The more steady state of the articles appears to be without the material. I also didn't see anyone actually approach the editor on his talk page, except for a notice for this ANI, which might have been the better place to start. As to the merits of including or not, I would leave that up to the editors of the articles as that is a content dispute. Regardless, I just don't see any evidence of what I would call warring, vandalism, sockpuppeting or abuse, and only a content dispute. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• I should add, that if you feel this is a case of sockpuppeting, and have more info than you have provided here at ANI, the proper place to go would be WP:SPI. Without a name to compare contribs to, or more specific information of some kind, I don't see an obvious connection to another editor. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Orionus (talk · contribs) went around reverting the changes of Mathiasrex (talk · contribs) to just about all these articles back in Feb. The reporting party reverted all of Orionus' changes, months later, quickly followed by Veidaknyge reverting those reverts. Orionus (recently inactive) and Veidaknyge (fresh off the boat) may be unrelated, but there are systematic reverts happening between a relatively few editors. Doc talk 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I noticed the edits (including Drmies reversions that deleted the info on some) and checked other contribs, but what makes me hesitant to jump to conclusions is the amount of time between reversion, two months. There is no advantage that I am aware of to using a sock when you wait 2 months between edits. Without more evidence, it looks more like a group dispute happening in slow motion, which isn't particularly troubling yet. Attempting to talk to Veidaknyge directly on this talk page would have been the best first step, however. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. I personally think Veidaknyge may not respond, but you are certainly correct that it's best to attempt to talk it out before running to AN/I. SPI seems to move about as quickly as a glacier, even for the duckiest of cases, as of late. All the editors have been notified, and with any luck they can explain why they are methodically reverting each other across several articles. Doc talk 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Removing/adding of Polish names to some Lithuanian settlements has been a slow edit war for half a decade. I stopped caring about it years ago, but don't like seeing reverts w/out any explanation, as Orionus was doing. And the sudden appearance of a SPA to quickly revert me, which ignored my request to discuss thing, is a worrisome sign, and harks back to the battleground days where editors in this area would edit war much more actively. I'd hope that the community has not forgotten enough about this issue to tolerate a revert-dedicated SPA. I am all for AGF and such, but I bet you all of my 150k wikiedits experience this SPA is not there for the D part of BRD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it is late and I may be dense or otherwise incapacitated, but is there any reason not to slap Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacurek/Archive in the edit summary that reverts those edits? Dennis, consider adding it to the SPI and mass-nuke their edits (and then tell me how to do it). An obvious sock is obvious: blocked indefinitely. If I'm wrong, I'm terrifically sorry and will apologize to the brand-new nameless editor with their boilerplate summaries. Piotrus, can you stick the appropriate template on their user page? Drmies (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're a little confused. Jacurek would've been on the other side. This *might* be one of the Lithuanian-side users that got banned along with Jacurek.VolunteerMarek 05:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe Western-Europeans shouldn't be asked to dance the polka then. Go ahead and change my indef-block explanation to "indef block for boilerplate and thus unexplained reverts by an obvious though at this moment unidentified sock of whichever persuasion." Marek, don't insult me by calling me a "little" confused. I may well be utterly confused. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to insult you - ok, you were utterly confused. But it's ok, even I get confused with these things sometimes.VolunteerMarek 05:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. I'll file my desysop with my power bill and the Costco leaflet. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked the block log, rm comments from a few minutes ago. I see you already blocked. It did look duckish, but didn't have a name to tie him to so I didn't want to start templating editors, and knew you would have the answer. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

COI tag usage for Wikipedia articles used as educational assignments

Is it appropriate to tag Wikipedia articles whose development is part of an educational assignment under the Wikipedia:United States Education Program with {{COI}}? User:LauraHale has tagged Dimensional models of personality disorders with COI stating that the article is being used to assess student work. As she has accused participants of the Online Ambassador program of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, I'd like for non-involved admins to comment. See Talk:Dimensional_models_of_personality_disorders#Conflict_of_Interest_not_resolved as well as the article's AFD and Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#DYKs_and_students. Smallman12q (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. There is about as much COI there as between any random editor and article. Educational projects and editing have been an accepted part of Wikipedia for many years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That tagging is just silly. The COI tag is there to warn of potential spam, sneaky neutrality problems &c. Just how severe is the threat that students might gain marks on their assignment by, err, making a better article? bobrayner (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be one of the most rediculous and boneheaded things I have ever heard. Wikipedia, with direct Foundation guidance and support, has long been involved in actively helping educators use the editing of Wikipedia, including creation and improvement of articles, as educational tools in their classrooms, per WP:SUP and the Online Ambassadors Program, among other initiatives. There have been probably hundreds of projects that have happened, and what this tagging does is the equivalent of giving these good-faith contributors the middle finger. No, no, and no. This needs to stop yesterday. Seriously, this cannot be allowed to go on. --Jayron32 04:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, perhaps you would be willing to take your comments to the talk page of the article, where there is a post insisting that the lack of demonstrated consensus for removing the tag means that the tag must remain. So far, I'm seeing a pretty clear consensus in *this* discussion that the tag should go, but... Risker (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Facepalm. I agree with Jayron's assessment of the situation exactly, and I've delivered the seafood express forwith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear me. Firstly, do editors not get informed that they're being hauled to ANI these days? Secondly, while the COI tagging of the article is plainly silly, there's still the matter of the alleged vote-stacking at DYK: is that something that we actually care about? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I had informed the user (rev).Smallman12q (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My bad. Right: there seems to be consensus that the tag was inappropriate, and the editor who placed it has been informed of this discussion and declined to comment on it. Are we done here, or is the issue with DYK getting overloaded with a student project a) an issue at all and b) something which needs immediate action? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This tagging is one of the silliest things I have ever seen done by an established user. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is if we have a class of 50 students who write a DYK and than they all come and support it, is this a problem? Should we allow fellow classmates to review and promote each other GANs? If we have a group of editors who are brought here by a single person (their teacher) does this count as "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia".

Should their be community consensus to determine in what manner Wikipedia can be used to teach / what sort of class assignments are reasonable / what sort of over-site or review of students work is needed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be problematic for students to inappropriately use any of WP's peer-review processes, especially reviewing each other's articles. The profs are trying to use peer-review as a way to get more community involvement with their students work. That's a good thing. I don't think there is any other motive that I can see. Could you point me to the 50-student DYK and fixed GAN review you are describing? Before talking about draconian solutions, and before we start biting the students currently involved, it might be good to have a neutral assessment of the problems, based on real examples. The Interior (Talk) 19:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure these are not real examples but theoretical ones. My point is we should consider these issues ahead of time. An actual recent example of inappropriate use is listed here [200] where a student nominating a single article for DYK after making 10 mainspace edits. And then before address the concerns at DYK nominates it for GAN. I came across a half dozen cases of this last semester. I do not think we need draconian measures or to bite anyone. Just may be but in requirements that new users make a certain number of edits to Wikipedia as a whole before bringing content to DYN or GAN. Anyway we should move to the Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard as this is what it is here for.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feline1 again

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#Vandalism by long-term user Feline1 which resulted in a one week block, we now have this from Feline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a blatant BLP violation. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it? I'm not sure I even know what a "BLP violation" is, but edit I made was supported by the existing references, so I felt I didn't need to add any additional ones. It's quite a notable fact. I think it merits being in the article. In fact, I don't really understand why this is on this Admin noticeboard, rather than the article talk page. Although doubtless I'll find out soon enough.--feline1 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to tell us where in the supporting reference the wording is that supports the claim "whom she had been grooming since his adolescence" is then? Since I, and doubtless 99.99% of other people, can't see it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, again, I don't see why we're not having this discussion on Talk:Iris Robinson rather than here. Having just read WP:BLP, I think you're quibbling about the legal definition of "grooming"? In most jurisdiction, it's taken as inappropriate fraternizing of an adult with a minor, with the intent for having a sexual relationship with them. The article and sources already explain that she did exactly that with a teenage orphan. --feline1 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Nowhere does it say or suggest that phrase. As such, it's a violation of our biography of living persons policy. Do not add your own commentary or synthesis like that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the term due to cultural difference, grooming refers to child grooming, especially due to the addition of the "since his adolescence" part. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

precisely! I thought it was a matter of public record? It's quite clear from the references already in the article (and is mentioned in the Iris Robinson Scandal article) that her 19 year old lover had been a family friend since his early teens. I don't really see what's controversial here, but you've already reverted my edit and I don't propose to get into an edit war about it.--feline1 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That you don't see what the problem is precisely the problem, and why action is needed to prevent similar disruption to other articles. It says nothing of the sort in the Iris Robinson scandal article, the closest it gets is "Billy was a close friend of Iris Robinson and she had known Kirk from childhood" (which is sourced) and neither that nor the source suggest there had been any grooming going on. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect, the fact that they embarked upon a sexual relationship as soon as Kirk reached the age of consent clearly does suggest there had been grooming going on.--feline1 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not yours to interpret. At least not here. if you're not able to understand that then it would indicate that this isn't the project for you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I still suspect it would be more appropriate to have having this discussion on Talk:Iris Robinson than here. The content of the Child grooming grooming seems a good match for the reported facts of the matter (she had been a family friend of her lover since he was 9). Doing a google search for "Iris Robinson" and "grooming" gives about 10 thousand hits, so that's clearly an opinion which found a fair degree of support amoung the public. The first page of google hits has it expressed in the Guardian amoungst others, so these are not all gutter sources. I guess if it was to be mentioned in the Iris Robinson article it would be more appropriate to say something such as "which led to public accusations of grooming", with refs, rather than to simply state it *was* grooming. But to suggest that I should be banned from wikipedia for 'synthesizing' and 'interpreting' the connection seems quite disproportionate to me (particularly when one of those proposing it has a past history of hostile interactions with me).--feline1 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"A matter of public record" must still be reliably sourced, especially one with such deeply negative implications on a living subject. Given this account's history, I think it;s worth considering whether we're beyond cluebat time here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the ANI archive linked at the top, this is a recurring problem that a one week block has failed to solve. Struck due to amended comment during edit conflict 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There has not been a 'recurring problem' of me violating WP:BLP on the Iris Robinson article, I've made constructive edits to it and contributed to its talk page several times over the years. I do, however, remember User:One Night In Hackney being rather unreasonably hostile towards me in the past. I doesn't seem their behaviour has changed at all in the intervening years.--feline1 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, just violating BLP on other articles. Obviously I missed the part in policy that says you're allowed to BLP with impunity on other articles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The edit you refer to on Kenny Everett was a deliberate silly joke. The edit you are complaining about today was not, it was made in good faith, and simply seemed to me to be an accurate way to succinctly label a highly notable aspect of the subject matter. This has been characterised above by BWilkins as "synthesis" and by User:Thumperward are "interpretation". Perhaps as I'm more used to editing scientific articles, if I see something in an article which appears to fit an established definition/term/label, but isn't stated as such, then I'll generally add said term. --feline1 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Silly joke"? 50.22.206.179 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Silly joke" indeed. Feline1, you should have been blocked for that "joke". This is an encyclopedia, and we take biographies of living persons seriously. Your inappropriate comment about O'Connor runs afoul of WP:BLP, even though that article is not about her (you might want to see here for unblock requests we won't action - including jokes). I cannot fathom that you would entertain such writing on scientific journals either. Please understand this to be a final warning against such jokes, synthesis, and other similar improper editing on this project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I *was* blocked for it!--feline1 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant indefinitely. Didn't learn your lesson the first time, did you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I already stated clearly above, my edit to Iris Robinson was *not* a joke! It was made in good faith. There was no applicable 'lesson' to be learnt from that other incident.--feline1 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well ... since you oddly don't see the similarity, have you learned your lesson this time? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall remain civil even though you are steadfastly goading me :) If you're asking me whether I can see that my edit (which I believed was supported by the refs) strayed too far into 'synthesis'/'original research' in the way that it was phrased, I say yes, I accept that. It asserted too much. I would know now not to phrase it like that. If enough notable, reputable, verifiable sources alleged grooming was involved (or she was convicted of it), then the article would be able to report that. But it cannot draw that conclusion off its own bat.--feline1 (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

{ec}Such editing not only falls under not only WP:SYNTHESIS but also WP:OR. Although, I don't edit scientific articles on Wiki, I do write engineering papers and reports where I'm expected to synthesise my results. This is exactly the wrong approach to writing on Wiki and you should think about being more liberal in the use of the Preview button prior to submitting. Also, your "silly joke" has gotten many an editor blocked in the past and it was rightly reverted as vandalism. Blackmane (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading some of the exchanges on feline1's talk page just made my brain melt.Chillllls (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of them? How do you think *I* felt, I had to read *all* of them!--feline1 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppet and meatpuppet solicitation by User:129.215.149.96

User::129.215.149.96 has accused me of soliciting sockpuppets and meatpuppets to join the discussion at Talk:Touré on whether to include Touré's surname in his article. This user also has commented, "This isn't surprising considering nightscream's slimy debating tactics and ad hominem smears." For the most part, 129.215.149.96 has failed to show any substantiation for these remarks. 129.215.149.96 has shown, however, that User:Halaqah is Touré, pointing to the numerous posts on Halaqah's talk page in which Halaqah indicates that he is Touré. I was not aware of this, as I certainly did not read Halaqah's talk page; I merely contacted editors who has previously expressed in an interest in the topic of including Touré's surname in the discussion we had last November, to inform them that a new one had developed this April, nothing more.

It should be noted that 129.215.149.96's upon me come on the heels of a series of exchanges I had with User:DracoEssentialis on the Touré talk page, in which I criticized DracoEssentialis for reacting to the developing consensus in that discussion by lashing out at those who had argued against her position (most established editors there favored including Touré's surname in his article, whereas Draco is one of the few who did not). I pointed out that Draco attacked other editors, cast aspersions on their edit counts and edit histories, and used ad hominem comments to smear them, which I thought was "slimy". This exchange, in which I falsified most of the statements and claims that she made, began with a post by Draco on April 14, and concluded with my 00:34, 16 April 16 post. This is important, not only because the low number of editors who favored omitting his surname in the article makes the number of people with a motive to attack me low, but because of the language that 129.215.149.96 used in their attack:

This isn't surprising considering nightscream's slimy debating tactics and ad hominem smears

The fact that 129.215.149.96 employs wording that I used in my statements to DracoEssentialis: "slimy", "ad hominem" and "smears", would seem to imply that 129.215.149.96 is making a deliberate reference to my own past statements to DracoEssentialis as some type of jab at me, perhaps by DracoEssentialis herself, a confederate, or like-minded individual. (I do not know if it is DracoEssentialis, and do not wish to falsely accuse or malign anyone, so if someone would like to perform an IP checkuser, it might be a good idea.) It certainly can't be because 129.215.149.96 genuinely believes that I have engaged in any ad hominem remarks or smears against other editors, since 129.215.149.96 never bothers to offer any diffs or any type of elaboration on this. This is also illustrated by 129.215.149.96's attempt to join another ANI discussion above with this comment, in which she references the Touré talk page matter in a completely unrelated and irrelevant discussion about edit warring and 3RR at the Cash for Gold (South Park) article.

Unless 129.215.149.96 can illustrate validity to these accusations or remarks, he/she should be politely informed that this behavior is not permitted on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I left the user a polite note pointing out that their behaviour was inappropriate, and suggesting the right way to pursue such complaints if they have any merit. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bunch of issues with user Poesam

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.

---

While doing new page patrols, I came across this page which has no citations and is overtly POV. I tagged it as such. The editor, Poesam removed the tags. I put them back and added a note on the Talk page. He removed them again. I then started looking at all the pages he's created lately, and they are almost all on the same topic (Native Americans) and they all have absolutely no sources. I posted this friendly piece of advice on his page. I also submitted the Chippewa Indians page for deletion (and have started to comment on some of his other pages which are up for deletion.) Poesam responded with this less-than-friendly response, complete with this gem: "You know what happens to criminals who intrude. Incredible numbers of innocent people end up killed." I don't know if it's exactly a threat, per se, but I figured it was probably something that should be addressed by admin...

Aside from banning him (which is I'm assuming what will happen here, but if you guys decide a warning is warranted, I don't really care) I believe we need to go through and delete most or all of the pages he's created. But, I can just go one by one and have them deleted through the usual channels.JoelWhy (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to be melodramatic here or anything, but...do I contact the cops to notify them of the pseudo threat? I really don't think he was threatening me, directly, but if his comments are forewarning that he's planing a mass killing spree, I'd feel pretty bad if I didn't say anything. (But, seriously, if I'm totally overreacting, please tell me.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked - that attack was not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Users still autoblocked

Hi there. This is in reference to the above discussion about 64 or so students and teachers being blocked from editing. I received an email from editor User:KSRolph stating that she is still unable to edit Wikipedia or work on her project with her students because "A user of this IP address was blocked by MuZemike for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "17ccho". The reason given for 17ccho's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts"." The screen shot she sent me says it's set to expire at 22:40 20 April 2012. KS is requesting that this autoblock be removed sooner for educational purposes. I'm merely a messenger (and not an admin!), so there ya go! SarahStierch (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything there currently. Don't these autoblocks sometimes take a little while to "wear off"? or are any of the other accounts still blocked? I'll try and have a look, but I'm not good at this fancy footwork. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I cleared all the autoblocks off all the accounts. Let me know if there are any more issues, since autoblocks tend to proliferate when multiple users share an IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reaper, what was it that you did? And how did you do it? Drmies (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm sure I'll (or we!) will hear from KS of there are any other problems. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There should be something called an Autoblock ID in the screenshot she sent you. We would need that to clear the autoblock if it has not been already cleared. MBisanz ^talk 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Students got through throttles, and autoblock disappeared miraculously in the nick of time (thank you Reaper E). There are important take-aways from this. For one thing, I won't let regular teachers overrule my recommendation that usernames be created with unique passwords. I will also insist that the usernames not be created the day before the class... one picks ones' battles. The gang of 64 will now begin to edit and create in Simple English. Some were way in front on this, already nabbing image strings, etc. Others, well... I'll continue to support the effort. I recommended the Teahouse, let's see if they follow up. Thanks for support of all, KSRolph (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've managed to get our IP autoblocked for the same thing--I didn't know there was a limit to how many could sign up. The easiest solution is indeed to have students sign up individually before class, and then you'll only have the few that forgot to do so--fewer than five, hopefully. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Those of you who know more than I on this, might suggest where this kind of thing might get written in as a coursework protocol. It never occurred to me an entire school would have one IP (Comcast). Published 'guidelines' might help reduce outcomes such as this one. Now it turns out, pushback would have saved about 12 admins and all the students a measure of frustration, upset, and time. KSRolph (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUP is always a great place for teachers to start. Maybe pass this on if other teachers at your institution are planning any projects? :) Ishdarian 06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Somali disambiguation

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 wanted to move the article 'Somali' to Somali (disambiguation), because that page is a disambiguation. But there is already a page existing as Somali Disambiguation but that one is redirecting to the Somali article. My purpose was to rename the Somali article to Somali disambiguation, and redirect the Somali article to the Somali people article. But this issue is standing in the way. Is there a way to swap the title of those to articles? Thank you. Runehelmet (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not quite mistaken, current guidelines actually favour leaving such pages at the simple title, unless there is one clearly most prominent "primary topic", i.e. an actual article that should be at the simple title Somali instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, I wanted to move the Somali article to Somali people article. And make the current Somali article a disambiguation page. For example if you search Arab it will refer you to the Arab people but it will notice you too for the disambiguation page. Runehelmet (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the difference is that "Arab" doesn't do this double duty: the word only refers to the people, while the language is called "Arabic". "Somali", in this respect, appears to be more like German, Greek, English, Chinese and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto to Future Perfect's comments... and Runehelmet, if you've any more questions this is where you want to be... AN/I is for messier stuff than this. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 04:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Racist vandalism by Sherepunjab

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.

---

[202] Call me old fashioned, and many do, but I believe this is racist vandalism. The user has just come off a one week block for personal attacks and then does this. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I notice he has only made 3 edits since being off his 3rd block, none of which are very constructive. I'm not sure if this is obvious racism or not, but it is clearly and blatantly and malicious vandalism, at the very least. I don't think that escalating templates on his talk page regarding his vandalism are going to get the point across here. A brief look through his contrib history is a mixed bag but recent activity make it appear he is no longer here to build an encyclopedia. Seeing that he just came off of a block, the failure may have been in its duration. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

User has been blocked indef. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

In 20 minutes without dicussion or a possible counterpoint?Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

22 minutes actually, but it was obvious vandalism and no administrator will want to miss out on the chance of a quick indefing. Meowy 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

user:Evlekis, keeps edit warring on my talkpage and other article

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

---

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hopelesscross&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Evlekish http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_peoples&action=history

he accuses me of vandalism for good faith edits, he is olny here on wikipedia to constantly revert everthing, it is true just look at his edits and he keeps edit warring over it that means he constantly reverting edits and edit wars over several articles and talkpages Hopelesscross (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Deny claim. Asides restoring my vandalism warnings on Hopelesscross' talk page, the issue at hand concerns his abrupt approach to Slavic peoples. My honest impression is that this is a phoenix account of a blocked user as this person has very quickly familiarised himself with ANI and other policies whilst boldly moving articles without consensus and blanking edits as on Slavic peoples citing WP:OR though not explaining what he objects to nor opening a discussion on the talk page. I recently took exception to a matter on Aleksandar Lukashenka and opened a discussion on the talk page and when I failed to obtain a consensus, I left the article and the section I disliked remains to this moment. There are three ways I can think of for handling alleged WP:OR issues, the first as we said is to open a discussion on talk, the second is to place a WP:OR tag by the section in question or the third is to place a citation tag. But courtesy implies - particularly for a new user which this person claims to be - that the article is left alone while the topic is being discussed. I demonstrated this with Lukashenka and have done so many times, there are many things I do not approve of on WP but we don't run amok on bold editing speights. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• • what about your massive reverting across the whole wikipedia ?! , a simple click to your contributions reveals that you are in a massive edit war over EVRYTHING Hopelesscross (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can you please stop shouting? First, if you're goig to accuse an editor of "massive" reverts, then provide at least a bunch of diffs in support of that rather than just telling us to look at his contributions. Second, registering your account 4 days ago, making a handful of edits, and running to ANI probably sets some sort of record. Third, why haven't you brought up these issues on the article Talk page rather than coming here? As for Evlekis, I frankly don't see vandalism here, so I don't see why you're using that label. Also, you, too, could raise the topic on the article Talk page. As Judge Alex Kozinski famously said, "The parties are advised to chill."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have pointed out to Evlekis that users may remove warnings that have been left on their user talk pages—and that said removal is deemed to be acknowledgment of the warnings. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Hopelesscross accused him of vandalism [203] when it wasn't vandalism, and he reverted on your talk page [204] when he clearly didn't have the right. You are both in the wrong. Vandalism is very narrowly defined and accusing someone of vandalism when their actions are in good faith can get you blocked. You need to talk to other editors before making major changes to articles. What he did was to put templates on your page to inform you that your edits were a problem, and likely he was right. It isn't personal, we use them all the time, and it was proper. Next time just NICELY ask the person who put the template on your page to please explain if you don't understand.

• Hopelesscross, you need to actually use the talk page at Talk:Slavic peoples and work with editors there when adding material. You are new, so ask for help, learn the ropes, but try to deal with problems on an article talk page before coming to ANI. Second, I would like to see Evlekis simply acknowledge that he should not have reverted on Hopelesscross's page. When a user deletes, you know they have read it anyway. You did add some personal notes with your templates, so it is easy to cut you some slack on the revert, but it was improper. Maybe you can take a break from editing and offer to help him a little more, we can call it even. This is just a misunderstanding, a couple of mistakes, nothing got broken. What this situation needs is just a little more communication on the article talk page first, not administrative action. Or you can wait for the guys with the mops to come here and notice that you both screwed up. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

if you look at his contributions directly, you will see the point, what i meant 99% of his edits are reverts Hopelesscross (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All right - I am not now restoring any deletions from the talk page. I believe I claimed vandalism because it was the closest of the options in the automated dropdown to what I could see from the editor. Naturally what he did does not constitute outright vandalism but you must see my point. A new user removes information citing WP:OR, naturally I revert that and this is followed by the amicable decision to alert the new user of his actions by using a L1 warning from the menu - initially it was blanking. The wording is friendly so I believed it to be in good faith. The next two actions by the user were to wipe my caution note AND boldly restore his revision with blanked information and it was at ths point I used the vandal label. Now looking from one angle, true this was not conventional vandalism, but from another point, was it constructive? Nevertheless, it is irrelevant now. I am happy to discuss changes to articles but at this point I still do not know what it was the user was implying when he claimed WP:OR! As soon as he clarifies this, I am only too happy to examine the part and start discussing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit I wasn't wholly aware of the blanking policy and how my actions violated this so I admit I was in the wrong. To rectify the matter at hand, I have begun a discussion here which I will be watching for the time to come. I believe this is the best way to resolve the matter. Hopelesscross is also correct that a fair chunk of my edits are rollbacks and reverts but each one I can explain if impugned, they are all in good faith. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent start. In the future, don't call anything vandalism unless it is clearly an edit that is trying to do bad things at Wikipedia, and I think you get that now. What I'm hoping is that you will calmly go work with him on the talk page, cut him a little slack since he is new, and point him in the right direction. IF he will agree to this. Who knows, he may have some great ideas for the article once he learns a little about the guidelines here. I'm hoping that he will listen to me, not revert back, and take the time to learn from all the editors on that page. I don't want to see either of you blocked because I think you both are capable of working this out, and that is always a better solution. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

stop lying as i said, an editing pattern of constant reverting can hardly be considered "good faith" while also considering your edit war on wikipedia Hopelesscross (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusing editors of lying will not get you very far here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hopelesscross, you are at a crossroads here. You both made mistakes but both of you were really trying to do what was right, so I'm recommending you calm down, go to the talk page, and learn a little bit. Go read WP:BRD first. You don't have to agree with me, that is fine, but you will later. Calling someone a liar and pushing this will get you in trouble, and I really do not want to see that happen. You are frustrated because the "rules" at Wikipedia are confusing at first, but acting out will only make it worse. He has admitted his mistakes, you are new and you aren't even aware of yours yet, but you made some. I'm trying to cut you some slack, let me and just take my advice. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Hopelesscross, no one's quite articulated this point to you: there is, in fact, nothing wrong or illegitimate with spending your time on Wikipedia doing reverts. That is, in fact, what many vandal patrolling editors do. Ravenswing 01:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Massive RFPP backlog

Resolved

RFPP just got pwned by over 50 requests for protection, if any admins would like to help with that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I got three edit conflicts while clerkin' the page. And then when I clerked it I saw what was wrong. Bmusician 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say just delete all of them, per Ohm's Law in the section below. This looks like just disruption to me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Lonelydarksky and twinkle

Lonelydarksky (talk · contribs) is in the process of blowing up WP:RFPP with what are to me frivolous requests for full protection, all apparently relating to a discussion on Talk:108 Stars of Destiny. I'm going to rollback their nominations at RFPP, since they're clearly disruptive. Beyond that, I think some discussion about removing this users access to twinkle would be appropriate, at the least.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Frivolous? There's no clear consensus on Talk:108 Stars of Destiny#Merger with individual character articles. Despite obvious objection from at least three other editors, User:Neelix still persists in redirecting the individual articles to 108 Stars of Destiny. I requested full protection to prevent edit wars. If this isn't the right thing to do, then I'll revert my edits. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

already reverted; find another way to go about this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, then do you have any suggestions on what I can do about this? Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Do about what, exactly? Are you threatening to edit war in the future, here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You need to keep talking to whomever you disagree with; if you feel there's an edit-war, report it; if it's something longer, go to dispute resolution. Flooding the protection noticeboard via TW isn't cool. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, wrong way to go about this. You had me an inch from either full protecting RFPP or blocking you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So sorry about it. Your views are welcome at Talk:108 Stars of Destiny#Merger with individual character articles. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 05:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute with Editor 7&6=thirteen

Yesterday I made an edit to Edward Terry Sanford's See also section which had a link to List of United States Chief Justices by time in office. Since Sanford was never Chief Justice so a link to the list is irrelevant. This particular associate justice served under just one chief justice and most AJs serve at most under two or three. How is a link to a list of mostly people he had no association with relevant. There is a SA link to cases of the Chief Justice(Taft) he served under and I have no problem with that.

I've noticed similar links to the list article in other justice articles and this morning and began taking out more See Also links. This editor, 7&6=thirteen , reverted my Sanford edit and a few others I do. I reverted them and also posted to a talk page[205] so to work this matter out.

This editor though has been belittling me and I'm getting a little tired of it. My edits and even reversions were never personal however he wrote "Nobody else is "confused." Its not confusing to readers." Why the bringing up of confused? I never use the word. He addressed me as Mr. William before listing every post I changed. Nobody calls me Mr. William. It's obviously a first name.

My reply to him- An offer to get another editor to mediate. His response included more swipes at me 'your new found epiphany'.[206] J A check of my edit history will show me regularly cleaning up See Also sections including in one particular instance where I took out some 20 or so links and which he didn't like but another editor ruled in my favor. It's possible he's carrying a chip on his shoulder from that or he thinks he owns certain articles. I'll let somebody else determine that. No epiphanies, just me poking around parts of wikipedia I follow and making attempts to improve articles in certain subject areas that interest me.(Golf, Baseball, Judges and law articles, aviation incidents, Florida, town articles to name a few)

I told him I didn't like his attitude(The harshest thing I said about him to that point was 'one editor disagrees', So he replied. 'I'm sorry that you don't like my attitude. WP:Civil precludes me from discussing yours.' He also wrote 'You either overlooked or chose not to respond to my proposal. Duly noted.' I went to the talk page, made my points, offered to settle this through the help of another editor and promised to maintain the status quo till the matter was settled(I've made no more changes since I made that offer), but get this reply 'While I have no problem with mediation or arbitration in theory (I do that for a living), I don't think we are there yet. Let's get the input from the other concerned editors. This is actually a bigger issue (with other implications) than this relative 'tempest in a teapot.' I expect that we can come to a consensus, and do this through reason.' Is he now saying I can't reason?

He defends the links because they have been up for a long time but where in WP does it say something can't be removed just because of the length of time something has been in an article.

So I brought the matter here and I'll inform him as soon as I leave....William 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand on the record. I am not belittling anyone. If I got his name wrong, I am sorry. No offense was made and none was intended. I was suggesting that we ALL should try to come to a reasoned consensus. Hypothetically, even if WilliamJE and I agree, it is no substitute for informed debate and consensus by the larger community. When I said, "This is actually a bigger issue (with other implications) than this relative 'tempest in a teapot.' I expect that we can come to a consensus, and do this through reason." I was trying to work through to consensus and to put the matter in perspective. I was not impugning WilliamJE's intellect or rationality. In fact, I was hopeful that we could harness it and come to a good wikipedia solution without intervention by third party intermediaries. WilliamJE is being overly sensitive. It isn't about him. It isn't about me. It's about coming to a good solution through recognized debate and decision making.

I note that he indulged his editing decision by vandalizing a bunch of pages. He then invited debate and told me to go to the judiciary page. He continued his editing, notwithstanding calling for a truce. I went to the section of the page that he created, and tried to engage him and other editors. I also asked him nicely to stop the wholesale changes, and to engage in the debate he started. Those pleas have been ignored.

I truly don't understand his complaint, if there is one in there. Apparently he doesn't want the matter debated on its merits. If this is a personal complaint, I request that you DISMISS it outright. If this is an attempt to invoke arbitration of mediation, I have not and do not consent. While I could ask for retribution from the Administrators, I choose not to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Retribution? For what? Complaining? I don't see the vandalizing you refer to.  --Lambiam 21:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing and this editor is more than sufficiently smart enough to know the difference. The edits are ones he did and the attitude he's shown in reply to my removal of them gives me the impression he feels he WP:OWNs these articles or at least the parts he's worked on. See this content dispute between the two of us from Feb 2012 for why I get that impression. The See Also section in question was bursting at the seems and not in line with similar sections in other justice articles. I cleaned out the clutter and he took objection.

BTW at the talk page where these most recent See Alsos are being discussed, the only two editors to chime in so far have supported my stance.[207]...William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor also accuses me of violating a ceasefire I called for here.[208] I clearly wrote "In the meantime I won't change anything more and you don't do reversions either. The status quo till this matter is settled. Agreed?" A check of my user history[209] will show I haven't edited one single judge article since making that call. He is misrepresenting what took place....William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

William, what administrative action(s) are you requesting exactly? After looking at this, what I see looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. Wouldn't it be better to wait and let this discussion pan out?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting to see how the discussion pans out. My coming to here was to get this editor to stop his jabs at me. He's made his dislike of my edits into a way to make subtle personal attacks....William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, I know 3 unrelated families whose last name is "William" (no, not Williams). As well, calling someone "Mr *insert first name*" is usually a sign of respect) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is big family. I'd never run across this particular editor before. In a place that is rife with pseudonomyous names, it was a mistake as to which name he was using. Not unlike calling the former president of Korea Mr. Il, not Mr. Kim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He has come across me before and we had a content dispute in February 2012. Posts are here[210] and here[211]. This dispute was settled through a third editor at the talk page.[212] Like this dispute it was also about the See also section. Note I offered to settle this the same way, he refuses. I am still willing to settle it the same way.

As for the use of Mr. in front of my name, I also go by Bill(JE as in WilliamJE my WP identity are the first two letters of my last name), when someone puts Mr. in front of it I'm reminded of this[213] and when addressing a person as Mr. Bill the Bill in question may not feel very flattered. In the light of the tone he's taken and the use of word retribution, confusion, and vandalism towards me, the calling of me as Mr. William makes me think his use of Mr. wasn't sincere....William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that a generous dose of good faith is in order followed by some tea. At this point it would be best to drop any differences and continue in the content discussion. Fortunately, there are more editors who have joined the discussion so the two of you don't have to continue as before. I don't see anything sanctionable here...these sort of civility issues are also best reported at WQA.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Bill has a better memory of the prior content dispute than I. In fact, I have no memory of it at all. I expect that I will go along with whatever the consensus is. I have no interest in going to war or arbitration over a minor content dispute. That of course is just my perspective. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I always liked "Mr. Bill." But at the time I was inadvertently butchering "WilliamJE" nom de plume, I was thinking William was his surname, and the connection never crossed my mind. That WilliamJE is keeping a log of our contacts brings to mind questions. But I am going to assume [WP:AGF]], as this whole exercise has been unproductive for me, and a diversion from preferred activities. I will no longer monitor this discussion, so please let me know what, if anything, you decide to do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody needs to "keep a log". :D Pesky (talk) 08:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2012022210008719

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 order to process an OTRS ticket I need to know the author and any other relevant information as to the source of the following images:

• File:Faceless_girl_in_stockings.JPG
• File:Sasha_lying_on_sofa.JPG
• File:Study_of_a_girl.JPG

Thank for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They were all uploaded by Artcollectorgirl (talk · contribs) and described as "Source = http://www.thcayne.com, Author = T. H. Cayne, Permission = granted by the author (T. H. Cayne)". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Joeyhorrace and Editing of Delta Goodrem

This user continues to add unsourced speculation to the page, despite being warned to not do such actions. And they continually do it everyday, adding the same piece of information. And I felt it should be brought to the attention of the AN/I. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a message on their talk page explaining the situation a bit more, so we will see what happens. You did leave him two personal notes previously, which is good. Sometimes a more verbose and softer touch works more effectively. Hopefully he will start communicating and no further action will be required. I'm thinking it is just a lack of understanding of the guidelines, and not any kind of malice, but it does need addressing. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis. I just know that they've been continuing at add it over the past few days, since the first notice. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It is always better to take a personal approach and given someone the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. Not vandalism, might be true, not controversial, in good faith, but disruptive. If he keeps it up and we are forced to block him for a day, I will feel better knowing that we took every possible step to educate him and avoid the block first. Blocking someone seems easy and painless, but it is also a good way to turn someone into a sockpuppet or vandal, so I would rather not do it in good faith situations unless it is clearly needed and after all other methods have been exhausted. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 11:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic editor using multiple accounts & IP addresses

Starting Easter weekend we've had someone going through Islamic-related articles and adding attacks on Islam, using so far at least 3 IPs and 2 accounts. These are StrongChristianEurope (talk · contribs), 122.11.46.99 (talk · contribs), 98.215.146.75 (talk · contribs), 88.172.167.226 (talk · contribs) and AndrewBrevikNorway (talk · contribs). Most edits but not all the most recent ones (today's) have been rev/deleted. We need to keep an eye on these articles and nuke the editor on sight. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

An edit filter might be crafted for this, and the revdel interface could be better adapted (rather like the nuke delete) to allow all contributions by a single editor to be revdel'd. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a tool that does that, but it's only accessible to stewards and works at the global level, deleting all edits on all wikis. ☮Soap☮ 15:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, don't forget to disable talk page and email access to accounts. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments wrt User:ThatManAgain and meatpuppetry

I intended to post my views on this in this thread but it has been closed and will soon be archived has been archived. When I first evaluated the AFD in question for closure, I did take notice of the fact that the nominator had few edits but I approached it strictly in a "strength of argument" sense as I noticed no other SPAs. (though Deed89 was later blocked as a sock of Yaratam) When I notice a newbie nominator, I do take a quick look at the account's contribs but unless there are other SPAs on the delete side, I assume that it is an editor with experience editing as an IP and Tiptoety's checkuser findings in the original thread support this view. What I think this is is 2 completely different editors who know each other IRL and share the same connection or at least live close enough to each other to be assigned IP addresses from the same dynamic range.

Now I know what WP:MEAT says but when I think of "meatpuppets", I think of a situation where someone is pissed that an article is going to be deleted (or that an article exists) and puts out a "red alert" to an offsite forum urging people to flock to an AFD they would not otherwise know about and vote keep. (or DO NOT DELETE which seems popular among SPAs for some reason) This isn't the case here. Though I think it was a mistake for SchroCat to !vote in this AFD, I believe this was simply a case of someone "helping out a mate" and I would suggest that User:ThatManAgain be unblocked. Also, I would suggest that anybody evaluating an AFD for closure or even to !vote to not make an issue of nominators with few edits unless there is socking on the delete side and/or the account is making a lot of nominations and is doing little else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Makes sense. If one isn't a sockpuppet of the other, then the inverse is surely true. After reviewing the talk page [214], perhaps we should have done this sooner. It might have looked sockish or been a little meaty, but based on the trust we put in Schrodinger, it seems appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt here. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Move Brian McFadden

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

---

Could I get someone to move Brian McFadden (singer) back to Brian McFadden. The BMcF articles got a bit messed up by someone trying to make space for another BMcF. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done but was this sarcastic comment really necessary? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Users need to appreciate and be responsible for their actions. Susan seems not to see any problem with her actions. I disagree. Meanwhile, thanks for moving the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A comment was likely in order, but not necessarily the one you made. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Being a WP:DICK to an editor then coming and asking for a favour from admins? Not wise. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A "favour from admins"? Do me a favour. I was asking an admin to clean up Susan's mess because the design of wikimedia prevents non-admins moving pages in such situations. You have the wrong end of a couple of sticks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

About eleven days ago, I'd agree with you. Thank you to Ron Ritzman for moving this article back. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And you were given the bonus of learning that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It isn't enough to be right, you still need to be able to work with others. Dennis Brown ® © 16:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon, "users need to appreciate and be responsible for their" comments. Yours was unnecessary, and you've only compounded the problem by not acknowledging it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. I acknowledge that I could have been more civil in my final comment. That said, I mean exactly what I said. It is not good to see an editor move a page unnecessarily, nor to walk away from a problem of a hundred or so broken links because she was "done with this issue". I spent eleven days being civil and provided pointers to guidelines. None of that worked. Eventually you do lose patience. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just a couple more hopefully constructive comments. Your acknowledgment would be better worded if you changed "could have" to "should have". All editors understand frustration. However, restraining yourself when frustrated will only enhance your credibilty. Assuming your frustration is justified (I haven't reviewed the history), other editors, when reviewing the history, will say, "boy, he kept his cool even though he was provoked."--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP 71.89.24.10 making several incorrect edits in a short time span

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

---

A Streetcar Named Desire (1951 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A Streetcar Named Desire (play) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jamie Farr Toledo Classic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Horseland (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hello, Dolly! (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Raisin Bowl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Skelg (talk • contribs)

• 71.89.24.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Adding links to IP. Dennis Brown ® © 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like an WP:AIV issue for obvious stealth vandalism, unless an admin wants to just mop it up from here. Not sure more templates are needed in this type of case. Dennis Brown ® © 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

I'd say its pretty run of the mill vandalism and should go through the normal warning process. Also, ANI notification delivered to the IP [215]. Monty₈₄₅ 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Request community ban for Nangparbat

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

---

user:Nangparbat is a long term sockpuppeter, edit warrior with those socks and major POV pusher. I believe the time has come for a total community ban on Wikipedia rather than just an indefinite the block he is currently under. For all his sockpuppets seeThe SPI archive For his latest see The case page for other see Here. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Not that I'd oppose this, of course, but why do we have this recent fashion that every de-facto-banned sockpuppeter needs to have their ban formally confirmed in this way? Why is the old habitual rule no longer good enough that indef-blocked users who then continue into a career of habitual sockpuppetry are treated as banned as a matter of course? (It's actually still written in WP:BAN: "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned.") Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Because, as is pointed out every time it is questioned, even a de facto ban is just that - de facto - and could, conceivably, be overturned by a single admin at any time should the user in question provide what they, but not necessarily the community, believes to be succificently convincing arguments - and, in addition, there is the possibility of somebody WP:WIKILAWYERING that they're not really banned and, thus, reverting on sight isn't kosher. A formal community ban, on the other hand, requires the consensus of the community to overturn, and allows for {{BannedMeansBanned}} reverting and hammering of sockpuppets on sight without any ambiguity in the least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • En.wikipedia is not very good at process change, but this may be one area where we need improvement. bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting it as an editor has seen fit to replace the banned tag from Nangparbat's talk page[216]. A prolific sockpuppeter like this needs to be community banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shrines, the reason i removed the banned tag is because Nangparbat hasn't been banned and from all the ANI discussion i've seen in the old archives, there aren't any, and putting a banned tag without a discussion/conformation that he was doesn't make any sense to put it up there. True the guy is a socker. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  13:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Soviet King's response shows exactly why "De Facto Ban" is pointless. "De Facto Ban" is no different from a regular block. And if someone decides someone else is De Facto Banned there's nothing to stop anyone from saying "no he's not" and removing the tag. Community Ban discussions eliminate edit warring over whether someone is banned or not, among many other things. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This chap has been at it since before 2008 (User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat ends when he was stopped being tracked, abuse reports were filed with BT, nothing came out of it), and I've blocked at least 30+ registered socks, and all in all over a 1000 IPs and 100+ registered user names have been used, 200+ pages protected (and a majority of them unprotected last year). Yet, we need to spend time on a community discussion, an unfortunate situation where we have to waste more time on this individual. The defacto ban aspect is really pointless right now as despite many discussions on AN/ANI etc regarding this particular puppeteer, we have to go through the motions again when the 50-100 editors who haven't taken admin/clean-up actions after him in the past are around. —SpacemanSpiff 08:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse report, some Wikispace discussions including mention of defacto ban.—SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Having read the evidence in support of nefarious actions and seeing a user who has recently come back from semi-retirement to remove the block tag on very weak WikiLawyering grounds I agree with the assessment that this should be a de jure CBAN. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support this ban: We don't want profilic sockpuppeters such as Nangparbat. High freaking time to throw this troll back under the bridge. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  13:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Ban already. Pointless waste of time, this discussion. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• SupportThe sooner the better, besides such abusers set a bad example, Lets say no to community headaches.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly needs it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Not a lot of votes sadly, but as nobody is objecting can we take it as read he is now community banned? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Dude, an admin needs to mark it for close, and yes he is community banned until an admin marks this case for close. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  13:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support immediate and indefinite community ban and hardest block possible to prevent evasion I think we've all had enough. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• And for anyone interested, he was at it again today[217] twice[218] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Tolea93

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.

---

Tolea93 (talk · contribs) is nonstop modifying demographic info in many pages without references and makes other strange edits, despite extremely numerous warnings by many users in their talk page and even block. IMO it is time to block this user for good. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that you are required to notify editors if you are making claims against them at ANI. I went ahead and notified them for you. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• A closer look at the contribs does show two previous blocks (24/48h) and lots of edits without sources as you state. No vandalism, but it is disruptive. They have refused to communicate, but since a great number of their edits are almost exclusively Moldavian in nature, I wonder if it is a language barrier. Most of the edits have been numbers, not words. I've been to Chişinău, it was nice, but I noticed that most Moldavians don't speak English and I don't speak Romanian (Moldovan) so I'm no help there. For now, a short term block might be warranted. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

  Yes, no vandalism, therefore I didn't report it at the anti-vandal page. Language or not, if the person does not cooperate for whatever reason, they out. There is a full Romanian Wikipedia for them. (BTW, some think there is no Moldovan language, so if you don't speak Portuguese, you probably don't speak Brazilian language too :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• And an indef block is a pretty extreme step when there isn't intentional misconduct, *and* I haven't seen that their edits are incorrect, just unsourced. They've had two strikes, I would rather give them one more time at the bat and see if we can communicate better before I throw them out of the game. To be sure, it isn't my call, just my opinion and not an easy order to fill. As to the Moldavian language, the people I know who live there there call it Romanian and Moldavian interchangeably, but you are right, there is a great amount of confusion over it. Some Moldavians are defensive if you call their language Romanian, which is why I qualified it. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

I don't think an indefinite block is extreme at all. He's been warned before, and his edits ARE inaccurate, not simply unsourced. I opened up an ANI ticket a couple of months ago on him, but only one or two folks replied and it was closed with no action. There is no language barrier. He isn't solely focused on Moldova, and randomly changes statistics on many USA related sites as well. He started out in June 2011 with a series of edits to Moldova-related articles, and then suddenly this little offensive tidbit appears in an article about Nebraska, USA: [[220]]. None of the edits appear constructive, none are supported by sources, and they are so widespread across unrelated articles that I would only describe the account as being set up solely for random vandalism. Eastcote (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

An indef is extreme by its nature, we are telling someone to go away and never come back, which is why it should only be done in extreme cases. The vandalism link you provided is the only one I've seen but does offer better evidence. If you have very good reason to believe that the stats edits were actually factually incorrect, and not just unsourced, that would also lend credibility to the idea that this is one of those cases. In light of this new info, it is getting hard to give them a benefit of the doubt, and while it isn't the strongest case to indef, I would find it hard to argue against it at this point. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

Colleague, I am afraid you are confusing an indef block with ban. Nothing that drastic and extreme. If a person starts talking and promises to be more careful in the future, I see no problem with unblocking. Heck, DYK that there even is a special template for unblock request? I suspect even a Transylvanian can guess that "unblock" means "deblocare". Piece of cake. Also, you are putting the policy WP:CITE upside down: I don't have to chase this guy and double-check every number he changed. If you don't want to do a single action and just block him, for month or three, then sure as hell I will daily check his edit history and revert on sight without waiting it goes down the page history so that one would have to manually cut and paste. Face it, this guy is an annoyance to many without important contribution so as to care not to insult him into a departure. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm not confusing the two, but an indef has much the same result, forcing the editor to seek approval from *someone* before ever editing again. As I said above, I can no longer argue against blocking at this point, so we are now on the same side of the issue. Before I would want to see someone indef blocked in a case that isn't obvious and clear vandalism, I want to be sure that we aren't blocking just because they are an annoyance, which could be seen as punitive. I didn't ask anyone to prove their edits were false, I only qualified it as very good reason to believe that the stats edits were actually factually incorrect and I was willing to trust their judgement. Since the number of edits involved over the last few months have been rather small, there wasn't a pressing need to indef block this very minute. In this situation, hearing a third opinion from someone who isn't involved was warranted. Reaching out one last time on their talkpage while waiting for another outside opinion was the right thing to do, even if the likelihood of them responding was low, and cost us nothing. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 13:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]

• I also thought an indef-block was way too much, but after looking at the block log, the user's contributions, and the recent warnings (thank you Eastcote--this is why god gave us warning templates) I decided that this editor has had plenty of changes to change their ways. However, they chose to not cite information, to not provide edit summaries, and to not engage in talk page conversations. There is an offer out there that they can take if they promise to change their ways; let's hope that they do. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I endorse the block. Unfortunately if someone refuses to talk about their questionable editing, we have to send them on their way, good faith or no. "Indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, if somehow they had a change of heart and started discussing, they might be unblocked. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Requesting RANGEBLOCK

Persistent editor who has been removing categories & using multiple IP addresses to avoid a block. This problem has been going on quite some time & both myself & User:Murry1975 have tried talking to the user to no avail along with a number of other users who have been reverting. There seems no intention of the user of stopping & with the emergence of two new IP's this week that is why I'm requesting the rangeblock. Note that along with constant removal of sourced categories there is other forms of vandalism. Here is a list of the different IP's 86.46.148.17, 86.44.247.148, 86.46.131.76, 86.42.8.99, 86.46.142.51 ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Random note: IP's are Dynamic, not Static. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I and Duckisjammy have tried to reason with the IP. Some of their edits are good edits, others fail to follow guidelines or just plainly ignore them. They removes sourced catergories [[221]] and adds unsourced on BLPs [[222]], also adding POV comments [[223]] and unsourced "facts" [[224]] . He displays a unco-operative approach [[225]] "Irish International and passport holder. Self identifies as Irish. Grow up", and [[226]]"Included is offical source. I am getting sick of having to edit this because of someone's stupidity.)".

Their behaviour has resulted in blocks on the IP including [[227]] after the appeal failed he hopped IP and done it again [[228]] even after stating in his appeal "I believe I have been blocked for improper reasons. I merely edited the Wikipedia page of Stephen McPhail to correct the fact that he isn't FROM Westminster. He is FROM Dublin. He is not ENGLISH. He is IRISH. He was merely born in Westminster. The Clash' lead singer, Joe Strummer was born in Turkey. Maybe you should edit his Wikipedia page, to state that he is Turkish. Otherwise, it is upsetting to see Irish people referred to as Irish. I would simply like my privileges back, so I can edit football stats. I will do nothing else. I would be much obliged." which was turned down. He has been at this since at least December [[229]]. It is disruptive on the project and in general his behaviour needs to be addressed. Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The level of disruption caused by the block evasion does not justify the collateral damage of a range block wide enough to be effective as the edits have come from multiple /16s subnets. Monty₈₄₅ 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am getting sick and tired of people abusing their privileges on Wikipedia. I am doing nothing wrong. I didn't even know what an "IP" was until a few months ago when I found out it refers to someone's internet address, so I am not "evading" a block intentionally. All of my edits are very constructive and I would like to point out that when I edit something and PROVIDE A SOURCE, Murry (who has been stalking me for over 6 months) reverts it, out of spite and maliciousness.

As for removing categories referring to ie. James McClean and ie. Darron Gibson as Northern Irish, I am doing absolutely nothing wrong. They hold Irish passports, identify as Irish and are referred to as Irish on multiple sources.

Now if you want to try and take away my civil rights and refer to people as something they aren't, I have no problem setting a legal precedent.

Now, stop harassing me and stop abusing people's Wikipedia pages. It's going to stop one way or other, very soon.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.148.17 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... and the comment about "setting a legal precedent" was loud enough of a WP:NLT violation for me to act on at least this IP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You done nothing wrong thats a joke, please note that the IP has made threat towards User:Murry1975. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

[230] basically the same as above "Keep harassing me, and there will be consequences. Regards." Clear legal threat now. If the range is too large what other options are there? Murry1975 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have calculated a few tight range blocks that may stop him. Implementing now -- Dianna (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has tangled with this uncooperative individual, I endorse Murry1975's statements above. Numerous attempts to talk to this editor have been ineffective. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, indeed, there were consequences, and indeed this sorry mess has stopped ... just the one way, though. Ravenswing 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC Close or some suggestion

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.

---

Tau (2π) still needs an Admin (or anyone uninvolved would probably be ok) to close an RfC there: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Request_for_comment (previous request [231]). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Requesting RANGEBLOCK

Persistent editor who has been removing categories & using multiple IP addresses to avoid a block. This problem has been going on quite some time & both myself & User:Murry1975 have tried talking to the user to no avail along with a number of other users who have been reverting. There seems no intention of the user of stopping & with the emergence of two new IP's this week that is why I'm requesting the rangeblock. Note that along with constant removal of sourced categories there is other forms of vandalism. Here is a list of the different IP's 86.46.148.17, 86.44.247.148, 86.46.131.76, 86.42.8.99, 86.46.142.51 ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Random note: IP's are Dynamic, not Static. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I and Duckisjammy have tried to reason with the IP. Some of their edits are good edits, others fail to follow guidelines or just plainly ignore them. They removes sourced catergories [[232]] and adds unsourced on BLPs [[233]], also adding POV comments [[234]] and unsourced "facts" [[235]] . He displays a unco-operative approach [[236]] "Irish International and passport holder. Self identifies as Irish. Grow up", and [[237]]"Included is offical source. I am getting sick of having to edit this because of someone's stupidity.)".

Their behaviour has resulted in blocks on the IP including [[238]] after the appeal failed he hopped IP and done it again [[239]] even after stating in his appeal "I believe I have been blocked for improper reasons. I merely edited the Wikipedia page of Stephen McPhail to correct the fact that he isn't FROM Westminster. He is FROM Dublin. He is not ENGLISH. He is IRISH. He was merely born in Westminster. The Clash' lead singer, Joe Strummer was born in Turkey. Maybe you should edit his Wikipedia page, to state that he is Turkish. Otherwise, it is upsetting to see Irish people referred to as Irish. I would simply like my privileges back, so I can edit football stats. I will do nothing else. I would be much obliged." which was turned down. He has been at this since at least December [[240]]. It is disruptive on the project and in general his behaviour needs to be addressed. Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The level of disruption caused by the block evasion does not justify the collateral damage of a range block wide enough to be effective as the edits have come from multiple /16s subnets. Monty₈₄₅ 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am getting sick and tired of people abusing their privileges on Wikipedia. I am doing nothing wrong. I didn't even know what an "IP" was until a few months ago when I found out it refers to someone's internet address, so I am not "evading" a block intentionally. All of my edits are very constructive and I would like to point out that when I edit something and PROVIDE A SOURCE, Murry (who has been stalking me for over 6 months) reverts it, out of spite and maliciousness.

As for removing categories referring to ie. James McClean and ie. Darron Gibson as Northern Irish, I am doing absolutely nothing wrong. They hold Irish passports, identify as Irish and are referred to as Irish on multiple sources.

Now if you want to try and take away my civil rights and refer to people as something they aren't, I have no problem setting a legal precedent.

Now, stop harassing me and stop abusing people's Wikipedia pages. It's going to stop one way or other, very soon.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.148.17 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... and the comment about "setting a legal precedent" was loud enough of a WP:NLT violation for me to act on at least this IP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You done nothing wrong thats a joke, please note that the IP has made threat towards User:Murry1975. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

[241] basically the same as above "Keep harassing me, and there will be consequences. Regards." Clear legal threat now. If the range is too large what other options are there? Murry1975 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have calculated a few tight range blocks that may stop him. Implementing now -- Dianna (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has tangled with this uncooperative individual, I endorse Murry1975's statements above. Numerous attempts to talk to this editor have been ineffective. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, indeed, there were consequences, and indeed this sorry mess has stopped ... just the one way, though. Ravenswing 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC Close or some suggestion

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.

---

Tau (2π) still needs an Admin (or anyone uninvolved would probably be ok) to close an RfC there: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Request_for_comment (previous request [242]). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2012031210010214

In order to process an OTRS ticket I need to know the author and any other relevant information as to the source of the following images:

• File:Millennium_Gate,_gallery.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_room_exhibit.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate_Arch.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_exterior_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_rear_exterior_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_exterior,_lake_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_philanthropy_gallery.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_interstate_behind_it.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_residential_background_view.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument.jpg(The local version not the image on commons)
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_skyscrapers_background.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_residential_view.jpg

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:Tabby146. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise being very careful with that OTRS ticket based on the block log and talk page of that user. N419BH 04:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They were all described as "sent to me personally" by "Rodney Mims Cook, Jr." (i.e. apparently Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., a person to whose bio article the editor in question also contributed), evidence "will be provided on request". That evidence was requested and wasn't provided in time, so they were all deleted as "no evidence of permission". The editor in question seems to have been socking after their indef-block, with a new account called TabithaClark (talk · contribs). TabithaClark has made identical uploads on Commons, but with different authorship claims:

• File:Millennium Gate, philanthropy gallery.jpg is commons:File:Millennium gate, philanthropy gallery.jpg (this was identified as a copyvio from [243]
• File:Millennium Gate, entrance hall.jpg is commons:File:Millennium Gate Arch, entrance hall.jpg
• File:Millennium Gate, exterior, lake view.jpg is commons:File:Millennium Gate, lake view.jpg
• File:Millennium Gate, exterior view.jpg is commons:Millennium Gate monument, sunset view.jpg

All these Commons uploads are now marked "I took this photo while touring the millennium gate monument", so something doesn't add up. TabithaClark has also re-uploaded other items that were previously identified as copyvios, e.g. File:Rodney Cook Jr.jpg, claimed as "own work", earlier uploaded by Tabby146 as File:Rodney-cook.jpg and identified as taken from http://www.rodneymimscook.com/. Several of the Millennium Gate images are also on [244]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The relevant files have been tagged for speedy deletion on commons. N419BH 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The above images have been deleted on commons. Since the permission email was not sent from an email address associated with the two online sources mentioned above, I have replied accordingly. Thank you for assistance, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Request For Blocking IP:90.218.99.61

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

---

This User(IP:90.218.99.61) has done two edits in recent past on April 21, 2012. Both edits were totally unacceptable with intense inclination towards Chuck Norris and deleted or added content that is unacceptable. Having fear of more unwarranted edits/ Vandalism by this IP address I request blocking of the IP:90.218.99.61.JPMEENA (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really warranted at this time. Two minor instances of vandalism from 11 hours ago and they have been warned. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And you were supposed to notify them that a report had been made here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I have notified him/her. Further vandalism even after this will surely make him/her liable for blocking. JPMEENA (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter for AN/I. In cases of vandalism please report to WP:AIV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Multiple IP vandalism

I've taken this to the Admin intervention against vandalism page but it's ridiculous to have to keep going there every time this guy changes his IP. We've been having a lot of vandalism of Formula One race articles - mostly changing the reasons why a driver has retired from a race. These retirements are sourced and accurate, but this guy is basically changing all of them to incorrect information. A few of these IPs have been blocked for a short time by various admins, but the guy keeps reappearing with a different IP. Is there anything that can be done?

• 31.185.32.164
• 31.185.217.42
• 37.152.228.94 (currently blocked)
• 87.112.131.18
• 87.112.171.111 (was briefly blocked)
• 87.112.26.178
• 87.112.95.26
• 87.113.148.97
• 87.113.148.184
• 87.114.241.179
• 87.115.172.120
• 87.115.174.141 (currently blocked)
• 87.115.25.25 (was briefly blocked)
• 91.125.24.60 (currently blocked)

Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you have only a couple of choices, WP:RPP for all of the articles (how many are there?), or range blocks, but in just the list you show you have IP addresses that start with 31, 87, and 91, putting aside the other lower parts of the address. Others know more about range blocks than I do, but it doesn't look like a viable option.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are around 150 articles affected, which makes life a little difficult when it comes to protecting them. I definitely see your point about a range block being a problem. Hopefully someone can come up with a solution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Can filters or protects be applied (at the technical level) to specific articles in a WikiProject or to a specific category? If possible, that might do it. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting RANGEBLOCK

Persistent editor who has been removing categories & using multiple IP addresses to avoid a block. This problem has been going on quite some time & both myself & User:Murry1975 have tried talking to the user to no avail along with a number of other users who have been reverting. There seems no intention of the user of stopping & with the emergence of two new IP's this week that is why I'm requesting the rangeblock. Note that along with constant removal of sourced categories there is other forms of vandalism. Here is a list of the different IP's 86.46.148.17, 86.44.247.148, 86.46.131.76, 86.42.8.99, 86.46.142.51 ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Random note: IP's are Dynamic, not Static. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I and Duckisjammy have tried to reason with the IP. Some of their edits are good edits, others fail to follow guidelines or just plainly ignore them. They removes sourced catergories [[245]] and adds unsourced on BLPs [[246]], also adding POV comments [[247]] and unsourced "facts" [[248]] . He displays a unco-operative approach [[249]] "Irish International and passport holder. Self identifies as Irish. Grow up", and [[250]]"Included is offical source. I am getting sick of having to edit this because of someone's stupidity.)".

Their behaviour has resulted in blocks on the IP including [[251]] after the appeal failed he hopped IP and done it again [[252]] even after stating in his appeal "I believe I have been blocked for improper reasons. I merely edited the Wikipedia page of Stephen McPhail to correct the fact that he isn't FROM Westminster. He is FROM Dublin. He is not ENGLISH. He is IRISH. He was merely born in Westminster. The Clash' lead singer, Joe Strummer was born in Turkey. Maybe you should edit his Wikipedia page, to state that he is Turkish. Otherwise, it is upsetting to see Irish people referred to as Irish. I would simply like my privileges back, so I can edit football stats. I will do nothing else. I would be much obliged." which was turned down. He has been at this since at least December [[253]]. It is disruptive on the project and in general his behaviour needs to be addressed. Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The level of disruption caused by the block evasion does not justify the collateral damage of a range block wide enough to be effective as the edits have come from multiple /16s subnets. Monty₈₄₅ 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am getting sick and tired of people abusing their privileges on Wikipedia. I am doing nothing wrong. I didn't even know what an "IP" was until a few months ago when I found out it refers to someone's internet address, so I am not "evading" a block intentionally. All of my edits are very constructive and I would like to point out that when I edit something and PROVIDE A SOURCE, Murry (who has been stalking me for over 6 months) reverts it, out of spite and maliciousness.

As for removing categories referring to ie. James McClean and ie. Darron Gibson as Northern Irish, I am doing absolutely nothing wrong. They hold Irish passports, identify as Irish and are referred to as Irish on multiple sources.

Now if you want to try and take away my civil rights and refer to people as something they aren't, I have no problem setting a legal precedent.

Now, stop harassing me and stop abusing people's Wikipedia pages. It's going to stop one way or other, very soon.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.148.17 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... and the comment about "setting a legal precedent" was loud enough of a WP:NLT violation for me to act on at least this IP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You done nothing wrong thats a joke, please note that the IP has made threat towards User:Murry1975. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

[254] basically the same as above "Keep harassing me, and there will be consequences. Regards." Clear legal threat now. If the range is too large what other options are there? Murry1975 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have calculated a few tight range blocks that may stop him. Implementing now -- Dianna (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has tangled with this uncooperative individual, I endorse Murry1975's statements above. Numerous attempts to talk to this editor have been ineffective. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, indeed, there were consequences, and indeed this sorry mess has stopped ... just the one way, though. Ravenswing 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC Close or some suggestion

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.

---

Tau (2π) still needs an Admin (or anyone uninvolved would probably be ok) to close an RfC there: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Request_for_comment (previous request [255]). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2012031210010214

In order to process an OTRS ticket I need to know the author and any other relevant information as to the source of the following images:

• File:Millennium_Gate,_gallery.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_room_exhibit.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate_Arch.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_exterior_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_rear_exterior_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_exterior,_lake_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_philanthropy_gallery.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_interstate_behind_it.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_residential_background_view.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument.jpg(The local version not the image on commons)
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_skyscrapers_background.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_residential_view.jpg

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:Tabby146. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise being very careful with that OTRS ticket based on the block log and talk page of that user. N419BH 04:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They were all described as "sent to me personally" by "Rodney Mims Cook, Jr." (i.e. apparently Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., a person to whose bio article the editor in question also contributed), evidence "will be provided on request". That evidence was requested and wasn't provided in time, so they were all deleted as "no evidence of permission". The editor in question seems to have been socking after their indef-block, with a new account called TabithaClark (talk · contribs). TabithaClark has made identical uploads on Commons, but with different authorship claims:

• File:Millennium Gate, philanthropy gallery.jpg is commons:File:Millennium gate, philanthropy gallery.jpg (this was identified as a copyvio from [256]
• File:Millennium Gate, entrance hall.jpg is commons:File:Millennium Gate Arch, entrance hall.jpg
• File:Millennium Gate, exterior, lake view.jpg is commons:File:Millennium Gate, lake view.jpg
• File:Millennium Gate, exterior view.jpg is commons:Millennium Gate monument, sunset view.jpg

All these Commons uploads are now marked "I took this photo while touring the millennium gate monument", so something doesn't add up. TabithaClark has also re-uploaded other items that were previously identified as copyvios, e.g. File:Rodney Cook Jr.jpg, claimed as "own work", earlier uploaded by Tabby146 as File:Rodney-cook.jpg and identified as taken from http://www.rodneymimscook.com/. Several of the Millennium Gate images are also on [257]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The relevant files have been tagged for speedy deletion on commons. N419BH 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The above images have been deleted on commons. Since the permission email was not sent from an email address associated with the two online sources mentioned above, I have replied accordingly. Thank you for assistance, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Request For Blocking IP:90.218.99.61

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

---

This User(IP:90.218.99.61) has done two edits in recent past on April 21, 2012. Both edits were totally unacceptable with intense inclination towards Chuck Norris and deleted or added content that is unacceptable. Having fear of more unwarranted edits/ Vandalism by this IP address I request blocking of the IP:90.218.99.61.JPMEENA (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really warranted at this time. Two minor instances of vandalism from 11 hours ago and they have been warned. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And you were supposed to notify them that a report had been made here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I have notified him/her. Further vandalism even after this will surely make him/her liable for blocking. JPMEENA (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter for AN/I. In cases of vandalism please report to WP:AIV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Problematic editing by Kwamikagami

Article moves, deletions, problematic fact insertions, and then deletion of dispute and cn tags. Kwamikagami seems to regard linguistics as his/her possession.

January 2012

• The article nasal consonant is moved to nasal stop [258]
  • all interwiki carried over, bots change the links in other language WPs to en:nasal stop and when then nasal consonant is re-created as article, they are all wrong.
• The template:Manner of articulation is altered to link to Nasal stop and not to the general concept anymore [259].
• The template:IPA consonant chart (!) is changed, now linking to nasal stop. [260]
• Introduction of plural article names in phonetic articles, which is against common use, by moving:
  • Nasal click consonant -> Nasal clicks [261]
  • Glottalized click consonant -> Glottalized clicks [262]

April 2012

• The article palatal nasal that gave an entry point for 1) voiced palatal nasal and 2) voiceless palatal nasal is deleted before discussing it anywhere [263]
• Then the article voiced palatal nasal is moved to the ambiguous title palatal nasal
  • if you are lucky you still find your way to voiceless palatal nasal
• The article voiced nasal that gave an entry point for voiced nasals is deleted before discussing it anywhere [264], claiming "No content."
• Inserting the claim The palatal nasal ... in the International Phonetic Alphabet ... this sound is ⟨ ɲ⟩ [265]
  • when "disputed" and "cn" tags are added, because the view is contested, the tags get removed by Kwamikagami
• Removing the sourced term voiced palatal approximant from palatal approximant [266]
• Removing tags
  • Dental nasal: "disputed" and "cn" [267]
  • Pre-stopped consonant: "cn" [268]

Can please someone stop this user! HTML2011 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• For starters, you failed to notify him that you have come to ANI. If you read the top of this page in the instructions, it clearly says that you MUST do this. I went ahead and did this for you. While you ponder that, I will continue to read through your contributions and interactions, which at this point, do not look very encouraging. Dennis Brown ® © 12:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are 126 articles that have been edited by both of you in the last few months, a remarkable coincidence, although I'm not sure what to make of that yet. You are both passed WP:3RR territory here [269] and appear to be edit warring here[270]. There may be other problems that I just haven't found yet. As to the merits of the edits, that is beyond my pay grade and not an issue for ANI, so I won't address them. Since none of the edits that I've looked through are obvious vandalism, this appears to be a case for WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but would prefer another opinion before taking it there. I've issued 3RR warnings to both editors and strongly suggest they discontinue this back and forth reverting until some discussion takes place. Dennis Brown ® © 12:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As a professional linguist I looked at Palatal nasal and the "dispute" is ridiculous from a content standpoint. Kwami is correct in the content issue. I removed the "disputed" tag since there is absolutely no dispute among linguists and provided official references from the International Phonetic Association to demonstrate it. Then HTML added this comment to my Talk Page, a clear example that he is unable to interact on a civil level with anyone who disagrees with him. --Taivo (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't doubt you and already had a sneaking suspicion, but my concern is the behavior of the two editors. Edit warring is clearly against policy here, even when your edits are factually correct. HTML2011's overall behavior is disruptive, but as an admin, Kwamikagami surely should know better than to get into a revert war. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, and hoping both editors can come here and communicate that they aren't going to continue this war and instead go through the proper channels to resolve disputes, as a way to avoid sanctions against both editors. It is my hope that they both are wise enough to do this, soon. Dennis Brown ® © 13:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• I forgot to add that I'm a little concerned about a block Kwamikagami made [271] that might have better served Wikipedia had an uninvolved admin instead performed, but will reserve judgement at this time. Dennis Brown ® © 13:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Notice At this point, I'm asking an admin to step in and temporarily block User:HTML2011 who has managed to continue reverting[272] after my warning on his talk page[273] and here. Please note that I don't have a mop or I would myself. We can hash the rest of this out afterwards. Dennis Brown ® © 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still concerned about User:Kwamikagami who also violated 3RR, did the block on this user (linked above) and was blocked for edit warring 6 months ago. [274] Not sure what to do, but I don't think sweeping it under the rug is going to make it go away. He doesn't have any edits since the ANI started, and would like to hear his side of the story, but I think that more experience and maybe a tool box may be needed once we have more information. Dennis Brown ® © 14:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It it keeps getting worse. One condition of his previous unblock was to not edit Dwarf Planet and he accepted this [275], yet a look at the first page of history on that article shows his edits, including two reverts [276] and [277]. Unless Materialscientist backed off this, he appears to be in violation of his unblock agreement by doing the exact same behavior that got him the block to begin with. Dennis Brown ® © 14:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's normally a big red flag when an admin blocks someone they're in a dispute with themselves, though after a look at the block summary ("blanking my user page, edit warring over my talk page after request to stay off") and the admin's talk page history, it doesn't seem too concerning. In the future Kwami should probably request another admin have a look instead, and he definitely should have reported the block here for review after making it. But I don't think this was the kind of situation where the admin used his privileges to implement his way. It was pretty cut-and-dry blockable abuse. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:00, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the blocking the editor, but in view of the clear 3RR violation and previous block (and potential and continuing violation of that block) I wanted to put everything I found on the table since he appears to not understand that there needs to be a wide gap between his actions as an editor and as an admin. Dennis Brown ® © 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit warring is troubling, and I'll also note that I'm not crazy about the block notice he left. Gonna wait for Kwami to come comment now though. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:28, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over the histories and am saddened by what I see as Kwamikagami is one of the best editors we have IMHO. Looks like he tried to take things into his own hands and things spiralled out of control. Sometimes a request for outside comment is just essential, as we can see here. He makes massive amounts of edits almost every single day so don't worry, I'm sure he'll stop by soon. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 17:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kwami's use of admin tools to gain an advantage in disputes is, to put it mildly, not an uncommon ANI subject. This is long past RFC/U time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

The block was for edit warring on my talk page after vandalizing my user page and repeated warning to stay off or be blocked. Another editor (one I don't know) told him his behaviour was inappropriate,[278] and he responded with this.[279] I've known admins to block people for vandalizing or edit warring on their personal pages before, and it was considered kosher, which is why I didn't come here. I also followed up with a block notice here.[280] Informal, but a standard tag wouldn't show up after self-reverting—he'd already told me to stay off his talk page.

As Taivo said, the tags are ridiculous. They appear to be spiteful. I see I did exceed 3RR on the template. I'm sorry about that. (It was over a link HTML2011 knew to be wrong: it appears he may want the appropriate article moved, but he's not started a discussion or move request, and disrupting the template is not the way to get it there. But it wasn't highly visible enough a template to justify doing it myself.) Before I went to bed I had asked the WP:Linguistics project at his complaint section to keep an eye on the IW's he was edit warring over, as they had the potential to disrupt 35 other WP's. That was important to revert immediately; if the bots had started trying to harmonize the IW's, it would have been a real mess to clean up.

— kwami (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have to ask the obvious, if you knew you were getting into 3RR territory, why didn't you come here, WP:3RR or just ask another admin to look at it and get involved? Why would you knowingly get into an edit war when it could have easily been reviewed by someone else? I'm not calling into question your judgement as to what should or shouldn't be in the template, but you have to admit, your judgement in getting into an edit war and not getting an uninterested party involved, after a previous block for edit warring, well, wasn't good. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was tired, past my bedtime, not feeling well (which is why I'm only making these two edits today), and didn't want to open up a formal request, with effort of gathering histories and diff links. I had lost track of the articles, as there were quite a few undiscussed and inappropriate edits I was reverting. In other words, I just messed up. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple IP vandalism

I've taken this to the Admin intervention against vandalism page but it's ridiculous to have to keep going there every time this guy changes his IP. We've been having a lot of vandalism of Formula One race articles - mostly changing the reasons why a driver has retired from a race. These retirements are sourced and accurate, but this guy is basically changing all of them to incorrect information. A few of these IPs have been blocked for a short time by various admins, but the guy keeps reappearing with a different IP. Is there anything that can be done?

• 31.185.32.164
• 31.185.217.42
• 37.152.228.94 (currently blocked)
• 87.112.131.18
• 87.112.171.111 (was briefly blocked)
• 87.112.26.178
• 87.112.95.26
• 87.113.148.97
• 87.113.148.184
• 87.114.241.179
• 87.115.172.120
• 87.115.174.141 (currently blocked)
• 87.115.25.25 (was briefly blocked)
• 91.125.24.60 (currently blocked)

Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you have only a couple of choices, WP:RPP for all of the articles (how many are there?), or range blocks, but in just the list you show you have IP addresses that start with 31, 87, and 91, putting aside the other lower parts of the address. Others know more about range blocks than I do, but it doesn't look like a viable option.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are around 150 articles affected, which makes life a little difficult when it comes to protecting them. I definitely see your point about a range block being a problem. Hopefully someone can come up with a solution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Can filters or protects be applied (at the technical level) to specific articles in a WikiProject or to a specific category? If possible, that might do it. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging problems during heated editing at 1929 Palestine riots

There is a problem at 1929 Palestine riots - bringing it here as it involves a number of experienced editors, the consensus building atmosphere has broken down on the talk page, and it doesn't fit in to other obvious notice board categories.

In the last two years, only 70 edits in total were made to the page until the last week when 11 users have made 115 edits so far. There is a very heavy talk discussion, and many open disputes. However two experienced editors involved in the discussion have removed two instances of tags from the article which were intended to give readers an indication of the ongoing dispute:

• [281], relating to the whole article, despite a clear explanation and 15 open parallel talk discussions here
• [282], here relating to a specific unresolved dispute, despite clear discussion here

The addition of these tags was done with the guidance in WP:TAGGING in mind, but the two editors mentioned appear to disagree that these tags were constructive. Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit which occurred on 17 April 2012, the reason was explained to you; three sources were provided to substantiate the information. You at no point explained why this information was 'dubious' despite being requested to explain yourself by different editors several times. Indeed, you still have not responded to this simple request. The reason you gave for the other edit was this, you did not identify any NPOV concerns which editors could seek to rectify.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I am glad you cited this particular contribution to the talk page discussion, as I think it is a very good example of the issues we are facing with the article at present (and why in my opinion it is appropriate to use a POV tag until such time that we able to resolve them). The contradiction between sources was outlined in the first post in the thread [283] and then subsequently by several different editors [284], [285]. Can you not see why it is problematic to ask at the end of the discussion what the contradiction between sources is, and to subsequently use a lack of response as justification for removing the POV tag from the article? Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are misleadingly quoting people's comments which were said before other sources were provided. Please re-read this diff again, in which the problem cited was that the information came from an "isolated tertiary source". This problem was rectified and three other sources were provided. Or re-read this diff that you cited. The editor asks, "Are there any other sources quoting the 6+110", and in response to this more sources were provided.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The detailed academic secondary sources (eg. Morris 1999) that cover the topic do not support the figures, nor does the Shaw report that, the official British investigation, on which historians rely. Your reliance on tertiary sources for these figures when we have a number of far more suitable secondary sources gives the impression that you are fishing around for sources that suit your narrative, rather than looking for the best sources on the topic and accurately representing them in the article. That you have now found three such sources rather than the original one makes little difference, Zero's criticism in the the diff you cited applies to all three sources you have brought, "it looks very odd to cite the Shaw report repeatedly, then jump to a poor tertiary source for one specific bit of information in contradiction to the report, then continue with the report again. If Bregman was a strong secondary source that states the report is wrong or cites some alternative primary source, there would of course be a place for it." The source is no longer "isolated", it now has the company of two sources of similar quality, but the contradictions already noted still apply. Dlv999 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You keep on reiterating this that the Shaw report is in conflict with other sources but you have refused to elaborate why this is so, despite many requests to do so. Please look at the discussion. Onceawhile's asks "Are there any other sources quoting the 6+110?", and "Please provide sources that underpin this." Zero notes that, "it is a poor tertiary source" and "it is just an isolated tertiary source making an unusual claim". In response, several other sources, including a BBC article, are then provided at which point, Onceawhile claims that,"The bbc link would not be the first time that the bbc's history articles were incorrect (their anachronous usage of the term "Palestinians" is a clue)" and decides to label the content as dubious without explaining why this is the case. At this point neither you or Onceawhile bother to answer several requests to explain your newfound objections.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the only reason why that point is still open - to be responded to - is because there are so many other points open at the same time. The article is red hot at the moment, am I am hoping to let it calm down. Many objections have been raised, and I could raise many more about recent edits. Some editors who have been supporting your editorial position have dealt with challenges on the talk page by sidestepping the issue. Just because a great deal of WP:wikifogging has taken place doesn't mean the issues are closed. The "6+110" issue is a good example of this.

The key point here is that the article remains very much under dispute. Whoever is right or wrong editorially will be ironed out in due course. For now, there is no justification for experienced editors to unilaterally de-tag the article while all this is still going on. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a content dispute and as such ANI is the wrong venue. WP:DRN would be a better bet. SÆdon^talk 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "1929 Palestine riots". Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

Let Me Be There and If You Love Me (Let Me Know) are both being vandalized repeatedly with false information on who sings the backing vocals. Even after I added a source verifying it as Mike Sammes, the article is still getting vandalized with someone removing the source and changing the name to Navin Harris.

Nothing so far has worked. An IP block won't work since the vandal is on a dynamic IP and half of the edits have come from totally different ranges. Protecting the page only works for so long, because the vandalism comes back immediately after the lock expires.

I don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole with the article and repeating the lock-unlock-vandalism cycle. The only other thing I can think of is to blacklist the phrase "Navin Harris", whom as far as I can tell is not a real person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I notice these are all coming out of Malaysia Telecom, but no way to easily range block. Sounds like you've already been the semi-protection route, but not sure what else can be done except longer protection. Dennis Brown ® © 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• As a side note, I found a "Navin Harris" who could easily be using Malaysia Telecom, off wiki. Not going to out him, however, and let you draw your own conclusions. Dennis Brown ® © 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• But as I said, I don't want to keep this up. We're just playing whack-a-mole here. The cycle is always lock, unlock, revert vandalism, re-lock, unlock, revert vandalism. Blacklisting the name "Navin Harris" seems to be the only way to outright stop it so we're not just repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Would putting "Navin Harris" into the edit filter work? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is beyond my level of expertise and experience, so I would invite input from more experienced editors. Dennis Brown ® © 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to address content, this and this refer to Navin Harris, but the first has a reply comment that says it was Mike Sammes. The first could conceivably be an RS, but not the latter. Sammes is listed at discogs.com with the credit as well as two source sites, but there is no Navin Harris. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sources were likely copying info from the Wikipedia article while it was vandalized. The Navin Harris credit was on Let Me Be There for quite a while. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

TPH, I assume you know about abuse filter (aka by its sanguine name, "edit filter"...), I think you should talk to some of the people there. Its been a while since I've dealt with it, but there are blocks in place for persistent stuff like this. It's a question of tailoring the rules, which will probably be hidden. I can help with the regex on it if need be. But I don't have edit-filter rights myself. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The solution, once again, is requiring Sign-In-To-Edit. Why that isn't standard operating procedure at WP is beyond me. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  That would only make our job harder. Publicly displayed IPs allow all kinds of connections between peristent vandals to be revealed. It's been the hallmark of SPI for a longtime. Checkuser is simply too small a group and too cumbersome a process (as it should be... i'm not complaining about it) to handle the multitude of vandals we have. That they edit by IP is one of the greatest blessings we have because it makes the patterns much clearer. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Carrite: the reasion it isn't SOP is because WMF lolno'd it when a petition was submitted to them to require it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why not just indef semi the two articles? Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

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

---

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2, 66.87.7.109, 66.87.0.137, 66.87.2.142, ‎66.87.2.193, 66.87.0.36, ‎66.87.0.87, 66.87.0.230, ‎66.87.0.210, 66.87.0.254, 66.87.7.209, ‎66.87.0.15, ‎66.87.0.60, ‎66.87.7.149, ‎66.87.0.48, 66.87.7.19 ‎66.87.7.36, 66.87.2.116, ‎66.87.2.110, 66.87.7.141, ‎66.87.7.126, 66.87.2.217, 66.87.7.204, 66.87.2.96, 66.87.4.165, 66.87.4.17, and 66.87.7.158, apparently all the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here [286], but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.

Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?

Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC

You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's benign spam that hurts no one. I don't think it's any big deal, possibly aside from the misrepresentation of some as most active. If we got to the point that we're worrying about devaluation, much less desecration of barnstars (if that's even an appropriate use of the word), they're being taken far too seriously. I've gotten two spam barnstars; they made me smile for a minute, then shrug my shoulders. Frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry around here, particularly given the recent outbreak of incivility that's lead all manner of strife. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had two 'awards' from this anon editor now. The behaviour is odd, but I was a little surprised to see that an ANI was raised. This would seem to come under WP:CIR, but seems 'mostly harmless'. I was initially a little concerned that editors who responded to the anon IP might then be targeted with further 'mundane' conversation that might lead to some form of con, but this doesn't seem to be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If an editor with a username similar to Jimbo Wales posted comments on user Talk pages about a cash prize for the top 5% of editors in return for a small down payment, that might be considered 'fraud'. I'm not sure this qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, the verdict is: let's break a butterfly upon a wheel.  Tigerboy1966  20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Methinks there was an editor some months back who was indef'd for similar activity. That might be in the ANI archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A quick survey of the archives indicates that this kind of thing comes up every so often, and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This incident, for example. (I found it completely hilarious, but then again I have a very strange sense of humour.) It ended in an indef block; a benign time-sink is still a time-sink. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's the one. 13 months ago. Wow. Fruit flies like a banana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked [[User::66.87.2.96]] since I saw it active now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else seem to think that this is someone on a cell phone? My phone's IP (not similar to this IP) comes back to the same spot northeast of Wichita, and I'm nowhere near there. Notice that the actual data does not mention the city. Perhaps the map is defaulting to that location because it is near the center of the US? Calabe1992 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be unusual, but I suppose it's possible. Geolocation services usually to err towards the nearest big settlement (ie. where a telco has a presence) rather than just sticking a pin in the middle of the map. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using T-Mobile in the UK. I'm in Bristol at the moment. My IP geo-locates to London. 31.110.67.249 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(I am one of the users in this IP range who made some of the good-faith edits mentioned by Qwyrxian.) Yes, this IP range is a mobile system. Use "whois" instead of "geolocate" and you'll see all 66.87.x.x IP addresses are registered to Sprint-Nextel at their corporate offices in Overland Park, Kansas. Each time a user connects, the system seems to issue a different (effectively random) IP address: blocking individual addresses will have no effect on the offending Barnstar Bandit. Blocking large ranges would block anyone using Sprint's network, a bit extreme for such cutesy vandalism. 66.87.0.37 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(Same user here) I just disconnected and re-connected and was given this IP address 66.87.2.151 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This IP 67.80.64.128 is pro active in giving such awards. This is far bigger racket then I first thought.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a Virgin Mobile USA phone which i occassionally tether to my laptop. I have not left Michigan's state lines for over two years, yet geolocation on my phone's IPs always comes back to Overland Park, KS because I'm assigned an address out of the Sprint range. ~Crazytales (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to plaster these few IP pages with alternative wikilove messages he or she might use ?. How about a few messages 'Hey you're doing a great job, try this cute message as well'.... Give them your favorite message, they may well pick up on it, one of the messages might take their interest, and you have a one editor welcoming/wikilove/cheersquad committee. Penyulap ☏ 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 FormerIP and +1 MelanieN. This place needs more eccentric editors, it's way to homogeneous. Penyulap ☏ 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

well, Penyulap I posted a wel come message earlier and gave cheese burger to the other one but still no reply. There are a whole range of IPs working here.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly didn't upset me, getting a WikiLoveSpam message. I just wish I had been one of the top contributors! I like the idea of showing them some alternative messages (and Penyulap is an absolute ace at creative stuff, mega-impressive mind :D ... I am perpetually astounded at the capabilities). Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky, Vyom25, spam the IP range with wikilove, if you can find anything appropriate, I had a look at what's available on the superbright whimsical skipping in the afternoon-sunshine kind of thing and thought eewww, we got nothing in the wikilove standard messages. Give it a go just the same, cut and paste wikilove so that the IP editor has a larger vocabulary than just barnstars. If he or she has never seen a wikilove message, they can't use it. Spam wikilove, it is the proper response for cases like this. Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966's comment makes me think that people are bringing guns to a foodfight, which is ill-advised, like 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. So it's more a matter of fighting butterflies with butterflies, and I would think it's bad sportsmanship to use a vacuum cleaner on all the butterflies that have been left on peoples pages. Sucking them all up causes more harm than good. Penyulap ☏ 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified one of Penyulap's:

		Good little things mean a lot
		This is in recognition of all the helpful little things you've done. Pesky (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just adding that I got one that said I was in the top 5% most active Wikipedians. My thought is that we make it so you need to be autoconfirmed and have an account to give barnstars and other WikiLove. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what mine said, too. I kinda like the autoconfirmed + account thing, except for the fact that we do have some people who are regular IP editors (and have been so for ages, some of them on static IPs) and it would be a bit of a shame if they couldn't hand out WikiLove where they see fit. It's one of those swings-and-roundabouts things. Pesky (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• IP 66.87.7.204 has been awarding Golden wiki award appears to be the same person. A lot of editors whom i interact with have been awarded the same (I am not sure if they were the same or different IPs). -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen numerous random barnsters given by 68.87.... IP's in Kansas. This DOES do harm in various ways. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"DOES do harm"... how? The whole WikiLove thing is meant to be light-hearted and fun. If some people treat the whole thing as a bit of a joke it's hardly a surprise. This is like criticising someone for disrespecting the flag of Grand Fenwick.  Tigerboy1966  08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Crank calls are also "light-hearted fun." But if someone does it to everyone in the city, repeatedly, it ceases to be fun and moves into disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We highly encourage IPs to get an account to gain extra benefits. WikiLove should be one of those benefits. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear any pummeling. Why don't I hear any pummeling ? I see a notification on the user's talkpage but I don't see any attempt to fix the problem. It's been like a week, with people wanting blocks, and others objecting to them in roughly equal numbers, so the solution will never be found there. A solution that everyone would be somewhat happier with is available, but has yet to be attempted, so the problem can simply drag on in a deadlock, or we just find one of the many solutions that everybody is comfortable with.

Remember Skeptical of Love ? he was excluded from wikipedia, effectively banned (has he been back anyone ? I don't know) and stopped editing because of too much warm fuzzy attention. Whilst it was unintentional for us to exclude S.o.L., the principle has proven itself effective.

Admin action is not required here, regular editor action IS required here. I'm not a party to the barnstar exchanges, so it's not appropriate for me to thank that editor. Further, I don't watch recent changes, so I have no opportunity to respond in the window of opportunity indicated by the contributions page, it seems to last on average at least ten minutes, and up to 40minutes, plenty of time for a pointman to intervene with some WL. Penyulap ☏ 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just made a page for people to vote on what to do to solve the problem. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I usually take a Napoleonic stance on barnstars, but spamming them around just devalues them. Barnstars may not be some vital cog in the wikipedia machine, but rather a drop of grease that helps the gears turn a little more smoothly. As well as the devaluation of barnstars, spamming them is simply wasting people's time. bobrayner (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux, are we supposed to vote below, or at the link? Please don't make people post their votes twice, as seems to be what is required. Please delete one of the voting areas. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The full list of spammers/trolls (for admins, etc.):

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2, 66.87.7.109, 66.87.0.137, 66.87.2.142, ‎66.87.2.193, 66.87.0.36, ‎66.87.0.87, 66.87.0.230, ‎66.87.0.210, 66.87.0.254, 66.87.7.209, ‎66.87.0.15, ‎66.87.0.60, ‎66.87.7.149, ‎66.87.0.48, 66.87.7.19 ‎66.87.7.36, 66.87.2.116, ‎66.87.2.110, 66.87.7.141, ‎66.87.7.126, 66.87.2.217, 66.87.7.204, 66.87.2.96, 66.87.4.165, 66.87.4.17, and 66.87.7.158. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "full list" is more than 65,000 addresses. As I stated above, this is Sprint's nationwide wireless network with dynamically allocated IPs (ie randomly assigned at each use). The above addresses just happen to be ones the offending editor has been assigned... so far. I found this discussion because I was assigned one of the listed IPs last week and read the 'new message'.66.87.4.191 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes for what to do about barnstar issues

Votes In Support Of Rangeblock

1. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC) (Unless and until autoconfirm is in place)
2. (second choice, but preferable to no action) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes In Support Of Showing User How To Give Appropriate Barnstars

1. Pesky (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes In Support Of Wanting To Make It So You Have To Be Autoconfirmed To Give Barnstars

1. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
2. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Vyom25 (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the Above

Me  Tigerboy1966  22:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Close this discussion without taking action. Option 3 is beyond the scope of WP:AN/I, if you want to require autoconfirmed to send wikilove messages, head over to WP:VPP and start an RFC, the RFC can discuss option 2 as well. Option 1 is extreme for something that is minimally disruptive at worst. Monty₈₄₅ 22:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Monty, close this discussion without taking action. Rangeblocking Sprint over this makes no sense, no vote is needed if anyone wants to provide the IP with guidance, and a policy change like requiring autoconfirmed status for Wikilove is not appropriately !voted on at ANI (especially when !votes are not accompanied with arguments. very few things on wikipedia are actual votes, and policy changes like this usually aren't among them.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, for heaven's sake, is this still being discussed? Close the discussion, and let each editor do what they will with the awards. All this is doing is giving the offender (if you can even call him/ her that) attention that eggs him/her on.--Drmargi (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely - really this is very, very, very silly indeed. While I am not a terrific fan of these sorts of "random acts of Wikilove" - they are not unduely harmful. Trouts all round and close this thread please!Nigel Ish (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Is this such an enduring, damaging problem that we need to change the way Wikipedia works to prevent it? Oh hell no. I'm with Nigel - this is Frozen Trouts of Seafood Justice time. Ravenswing 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Part of me 2

Part of me 2 (talk · contribs) has received several notices about verifiability/NOR, including blocking warnings, but has again edited contrary to these policies. Perhaps a block or other action is needed. —Andrew_stalk 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• A block for such disruption is possible. No edit summaries, no communication, etc. But they made a lot of edits to various Ugly Betty articles, and at the very least someone should assess whether those are positive or not before I'd commit to such a block. Their edits to Glee (TV series) were not, apparently, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes it's concerning that he never says anything but his talk page isn't as bad as some I've seen. Also, I wasn't impressed with this piece of "advise" he was given which was completely bass ackwards suggesting that he needs to get permission to make any edit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was digging through the contribs late last night and then got sidetracked with a separate issue of my own here, so didn't get to finish this at that time. It's hard to tell if the edits are just unsourced or stealth vandalism, or just enough of one to hide the other. I notice that they have already added two more edits that had to be reverted[287] since this ANI started, so they have had the opportunity to come here and just haven't done so. The more I look at the edits, they less likely it appears they are just unsourced, however. Some of these edits are of the same type we found with Tolea93 earlier in the week, Drmies, just injecting numbers that are hard to prove or disprove without doing some research. Dennis Brown ® © 10:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• note Just to bump this, I notice that the editor has come back, but has opted to not come here and explain. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Nyttend and User:Cabj1905

Over the past 24 hours or so, there has been a dispute between Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cabj1905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over UFC 145. I'm posting to get a 3rd opinion, as I was asked to block Cabj1905 but saw a more extensive dispute and didn't want to take any unilateral action without another opinion.

Yesterday, Cabj added scores from the matches: [288] Then, Ricardo1701, who is evidently uninvolved in the dispute, added the same type of information: [289], [290] A little while later, Nyttend removed all of the scores added by these two with the comment that "this is not a score blog": [291] And an edit war ensues: [292]: Cabj reverts with a standard summary [293]: Nyttend reverts citing BLP (which I don't think is entirely applicable in this situation). [294]: Cabj re-adds the information. [295]: Nyttend reverts citing BLP again. [296]: Cabj undoes Nyttend's edit. [297]: Nyttend rolls back Cabj's edit. [298]: Cabj undoes Nyttend's edit.

Nyttend asks me to block Cabj: [299]

A discussion ensues on his talk page and mine (here and here), in which I decline to block at the time, and put a template on Cabj's talk page asking him not to put uncited information in the encyclopedia.

Ultimately, this boils down to the question of whether or not BLP applies in this situation, and how severe the violations of 3RR were.

Thanks for your input. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's odd, most discussions about MMA topics are very peaceful ;) Short answer is: Scores don't belong there without citation and it isn't a BLP issue. I would rather see both parties come here and agree to this than block anyone. That would defuse this situation quickly and we can all go home having learned something. Now let's see if that happens. Dennis Brown ® © 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They have been at least somewhat communicative with me, but quite hostile towards each other. I notified them and whatnot, so we'll wait and see, I suppose. (Can you tell I don't enjoy handing out blocks?) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like recommending them either. I have been plenty involved in past MMA disputes as an outside observer and found that sometimes you just have lay it on the line in plain english. Blocks in MMA events aren't nearly as effective as one would think, and in this case, both are mistaken so if they both can just acknowledge it, we can cut a little slack and move on. Dennis Brown ® © 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on Cabj's page, but to Nyttend I just want to say that while I understand why you think it may be a BLP violation and believe you made the claim in good faith, I don't think the score itself is. It shouldn't be added without reference via WP:V, but I don't believe that sports scores by themselves are "personal" enough to quality as a BLP concern, thus they wouldn't qualify as a shortcut to blocking. Dennis Brown ® © 16:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There's some 3RR violations on both sides. I'm not thrilled about the idea of Nyttend asking a particular admin instead of just going to the 3RR board either. Especially when there's nothing extreme here.

Even if adding negative box scores was a negative-blp issue (it's not, so long as it's true), that is not a pressing disaster that needs a fast resolution.

New scores are getting added all the time, they almost never are referenced (and if they were, almost never are checked). Of all the factual changes out there, I let most score changes pass unless they're clearly erroneous (when someone's career points go down, or when someone scores 100 home runs in a game).

I don't see anybody questioning the veracity of the edits here. I find Nyttend's interpretation of those scores from a boxing/mma match as "BLP" as particularly over-expansive. That worries me a bit.

However, while there is a technical 3RR going on here, but I wouldn't support a block on any parties if this is all it is. All need to disengage, someone needs to verify if those scores are correct, and if they are, then they should stay (what other boxing series would describe a fight without the score?).

I'm a little surprised this deserved escalation at all. Shadowjams (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw in the history, Ricardo added a citation to the scores later. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have preferred to have seen Nyttend actually participate here since he was the one that asked an admin to make a block, but I don't see a need for further action. All the points that needing to be made, were. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the scores, why is the event even notable? On the basis of those sources you could have an article for pretty much every professional football match played in the UK. Why aren't they in a "List of..." format? WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOT#STATS were policies last time I looked. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Glad you asked. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and feel free to jump in. 2012 in UFC events is one of those lists you speak of. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• To summarize briefly, there's a cabal of MMA fans, spurred on by a couple of activist MMA forums, that's hit Wikipedia hard in recent months. They feel strongly that every MMA event ever, however obscure, is notable and articleworthy, and their fundamental contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines is palpable. (I know, the same hyperbole that shows up on ANI all the time, but even so.) There's been serious disruption at AfD, on the MMA WikiProject and in certain disputed articles. At this point, the number of indef-blocked sock- and meatpuppets is into the dozens. Ravenswing 13:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was trying to lure him into going there and helping out, but you had to go and spoil it by telling him the truth. ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Footwiks

• Footwiks (talk · contribs)
• FC Seoul‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This could probably benefit from outside intervention. Issues of edit warring and ignoring the consensus of a 3O because "its just your opinion". Korean speaking would be helpful - one of the issues is whether a source appropriately supports the content as written in the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm korean and my english is poor. So I can't explain this circumstance in detail. Anyway, Somedays ago, TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) picked holes in FC Seoul‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He is not korean and also can't read and understand korean at all. But He ignore korean newspaper references. I think Redpen is god. He can't read korean, But He juded korean newspaer is unrelible. He also picked holes in fluffy expressionsins. They are common knowledge in Korea. So I didn't tag a references But He can't understand it. 13:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 13:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs)

What we have here looks to be a lack of understanding of what can and cannot go into the article. Footwiks, "fluffy" expressions as you call it or peacock expressions as it is known here, are not allowed into any article, unless they are reliably sourced. That is to say that you need to find a source, which has been judged to be reliable. Any type of media, for example Chosun Ilbo or Yonhap, would do. From the history, I see you've been adding ilovefcseoul as a source and it has been reverted by Curb Chain and RedPen. Ilovefcseoul is a blog and blogs are often not counted as a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight, meaning no one checks what is being published. Newspapers, like Yonhap, have editorial oversight to make sure that what is being published is true and not just rumours. There is nothing wrong with using Korean sources, it is only allowed, by policy, if there are no english sources around. However, if FC Seoul is the best team in Korea then I'm sure Yonhap or Chosun Ilbo would have reported on it and would have an article on it. If you can find that, then there would be no problem in stating that they are the best team. Common knowledge in Korea does not mean common knowledge everywhere else. Blackmane (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Footwiks, if you really do not understand the English guidelines, wouldn't the appropriate course of action be to follow the guidance of the multiple editors who do, rather than simply ignoring them and doing what you want instead? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Colapeninsula

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

---

I have never considered reporting a user before, but telling me to "fuck off" to the "Youtube comments section" and "reading some Wikipedia policy documents on the way" is certainly too much. This is the edit I am referring to. I certainly understand that my comment wasn't friendly either, but I had two good reasons for this response: First, the user has completely ignored everything that our reliable sources and our notability guidelines say, something that should be crucial background for every Wikipedia editor. In particular, neither are 2 to 3 sources significant coverage, nor are a comics book for boys and a schools book (that's 2 sources in total) reliable sources for the topic (the situation where different of course if it were a common textbook example for pupils... maybe). Second, and more importantly, the user didn't even bother reading the abstract of his own link, which is freely available! As I said, I didn't expect a friendly reply, but telling me to "fuck off" and all that was too much. Nageh (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for using the word "fuck". The rest of my comment stands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind the use of that word, it's the context in which you used it. Nageh (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem like an AN/I issue. He commented. You commented and were rude. He responded and was rude. No administrator action needed to discuss if a source is good or not. WP:WQA if really needed...but I'd just let it go or discuss it on your own talk pages. --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You really think this is a way forward? I replied in the same way, if only to make a point. Feel free to ask me to redact it. Nageh (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether you redact it or not is up to you, but obviously you're on pretty weak footing running off to ANI to report him for said comment when you immediately responded in kind. I agree with Onorem that admin invervention is hardly necessary here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• No action is needed, nor likely to benefit any party. Both editors realize that they were not civil and they are discussing it. It happens, we are all human, but the key is to move on. Redaction isn't necessary. I would remind both parties that "He started it!" is not a defense when it comes to incivility. The best way to deal with it is to ignore the tone and focus on the merits of the discussion when it is a single comment. Both of you should just forgive and forget this one, singular slip of good judgement. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Bullied by an edit warring admin

Nightscream (talk · contribs) has been constantly adding ([300] [301] [302] [303] [304]) the words "Max Nicholson of IGN compared" to a simple observation stated by a reviewer. The observation merely points out the similarity between a part of the episode and a bit by Bill Hicks. Since this is a simple compare and contrast between two spoken texts, backed up by a RS, it falls under WP:NOTOR. A conversation was initiated on Nightscream's talk page; he carried it over to mine with a snide comment about what is and isn't his job and how he is above the EW law by WP:GAMING (quote: "3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of valid, sourced material"), then shut me down and refused to communicate after asserting that it's an opinion and I'm removing valid sourced material. The material was sourced by me. The addition was initially made by an anonymous IP, and Nightscream kept reverting it ([305] [306]) instead of doing what I did – Google a source. Jc37 (talk · contribs) protected the page and urged us to solve the dispute through talk, but Nightscream quit replying. Now he's bullying me on my talk page into quitting. This is no longer an edit warring matter, it's intimidation and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by an admin. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's no 3RR exemption for "clear policy violations", last I checked. Left a 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The source says that the "kill yourself" joke in the episode was "almost eerily similar to a standup bit from Bill Hicks." The content that you're trying to save says that the joke was "a nod to Bill Hicks." I'm afraid I have to agree with Nightscream on this one, there is no source which states that "this joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" as a fact, it's clearly an opinion and if it's going to be included in the article, it should be stated as such. It's also an extremely minor issue, certainly not worth climbing the Reichstag over. How about we all just calm down and move on? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I thought the only exemption from 3RR was a BLP one? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There's been a burgeoning list.Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've just looked at the timing of this issue and self-reverted the 3RR warning. This issue happened three days ago, why only raise it now? Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't get to a good Internet connection until just now, and besides, the bottom line is that I'm still under Nightscream's threat of being blocked. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After numerous ECs: There is no 3RR exception except for BLP, and this does not fall under BLP. You may be right abotu the content and wrong in the approach, which is where NS and SW are falling. That given, this is basically a very stale EW report + a warning from an involved Admin. The admin did not block. Is there anything to be currently done regarding this? I suggest we wait until we hear NS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x manyI was going to say the same thing as Scottywong. It's better to have the statement fully attributed (both by ref and in the article) to avoid the possible misunderstanding by a reader that the "joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" is universally accepted. I think this can be solved by a simple case of "if I were a reader.." Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Scottywong (talk · contribs): I didn't write that it was a reference, just that it's similar. We don't have to add the reviewer's name and the fact that he made the comparison, the footnote is more than sufficient. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The text was that "it is a nod to Bill Hicks", which implies that you know that the writer intended this as a reference to Hicks, as opposed to an unintentional similarity. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Unattributed opinions are problematic at best, policy violations when presented as fact. When rephrased, they can be even more problematic. Nightscream was correct there, and so is Scottywong. The warning NS left was entirely appropriate, IMO. And you are making this a content dispute on ANI, not about the admin's alleged bullying. If you want to argue content, go elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do you mind explaining why it is so important to you that this comparison is not presented as an opinion? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I believe there is a huge confusion. The "nod" diff was by an anonymous IP. My version is here, and it states as follows: "Stan's phone call to J&G, in which he angrily urges the host to kill himself, is similar to the "Marketing and Advertising" bit from comedian Bill Hicks' 1997 album Arizona Bay." What exactly is problematic here? And KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), I'm not arguing content, I tried that with Nightscream and was rudely shut down, which is why I came here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are arguing content, and so is Scottywong. Could we please stick to the issue at hand, which is whether Nightscream acted appropriately by his numerous reverts, and giving the warning? All else is inappropriate on this page except as context, which has been clearly established. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to Scottywong: because it's as clear as the sky is blue, and we have a reliable source that also states that. Nightscream's edit is an unnecessary bureaucratic word clutter. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment to KillerChihuahua: "acting appropriately by his numerous reverts"??? Don't you mean "inappropriately"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because you have the information doesn't mean it's common knowledge. It would be a good thing to leave the reasonable preamble identifying who has that viewpoint before the quote. Otherwise the text implies it's a widely held viewpoint (which from what I can tell it's not). Trout for you for raising this old edit war after it's been quiet for a while. Trout for Nightscream for participating in an edit war. Happy? Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment for Scottywong Because when this editor gets a bee in his bonnet about something and decides that he's right, [307] [308] he's right, and let's you know in no uncertain terms! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Bravo, Captain Screebo. Now we're resorting to "let's get the editor who dare come here and complain about our administrative brethren". Cue the booing audience! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Look in our brief encounter, I found your behaviour stubborn, rude and self-opinionated, and I let the talk page stalker deal with your aggressive and uncivil comment to avoid getting into a spat. So I was just adding some context in response to SW's question. When you're wrong or consensus is against you, why not just accept it gracefully? Cue round of applause and a self-congratulatory pat on the back! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Something may indeed be "as clear as the sky is blue", but that's not succificent for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Bushranger: this is why it is backed up by a reliable source, therefore completely in compliance with WP:V.
• To Captain Screebo: if calling you out on your rudeness is rude, then cue the sympathetic chants. There was no consensus, just Nightscream continuously reverting me in a self-righteous manner. Besides, your attempt to discredit me by quoting an unrelated incident borders on a plain personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From your own talk page, Get some manners and use them. Sound advice, I'd say. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• • If there weren't consensus there, there certainly is now that there's been some discussion on it. You are, simply put, wrong that a journalistic interpretation of the similarity of these works somehow makes it an obvious fact which can be presented as such. Nevertheless, Nightscream should have been mature enough not to edit war with you over it, let alone escalating it to warning templates. That is ideally what we should be discussing, and the actual content dispute dropped (as you're the only one who apparently doesn't agree with Nightscream's interpretation of how we report opinions). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I say, put yourself in the reader's shoes and think, if you knew nothing about the subject matter and just wanted to read Wiki to get some info on that particular episode and read that statement without an in-article attribution to the journalist who stated it, would it not be reasonable to expect the reader to believe that he comparison is exactly what the episode writer wanted? Before the usual ANI shitfight kicks in, can we all settle down and chill out? Rather than dig up past dirt lets deal with the, content-unrelated, matter at hand. Tea anyone? Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• If we leave out the various digressions that have come into this discussion, the essential points are:

1. Nightscream and Hearfourmewesique have both edit warred.
2. Contrary to what Hearfourmewesique says, this edit was not bullying, but a simple explanation of what the problem with his/her editing is.
3. There is a clear consensus that Hearfourmewesique was mistaken.
4. Contrary to what Nightscream says, there is no exemption to the edit warring policy for "addressing or reverting clear policy violations". (Though, contrary to what some other people seem to think, BLPs are not the only exemption: the policy lists eight different exemptions.)

What is the way forward from here? We could consider blocking one or both editors. Better, though, in my opinion, is for the matter to be simply dropped now, with Hearfourmewesique accepting consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw the message on my talk page regarding this discussion. I think a lot of what I would have said in response was covered by the quite-reasonable reactions already here, so in order to avoid a comprehensive rehash of everything, I'd like to narrow my focus this: The notion that I edit warred; violated 3RR or came close to; and the suggestion that I should be blocked. I'd like to explain my position here, but I have to go out now, and don't know if I'll have time to compose the thoughtful response I'd like to by later this afternoon, later tonight, when I get home from the city (and might be tired), or first thing tomorrow. May I be allowed this time to respond? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at WP:AN3 or WP:DRN?  --Lambiam 20:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be at DRN when there is no apparent discussion on the article talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The DRN "enforcer" approves of this comment Hasteur (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream's response

Arbitrary break. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any "edit warring". Edit warring does not refer to the reversal of clear and unambiguous policy violations, and presenting an opinion as a fact is indeed such a violation, since attributing such claims or opinions to their authors, rather than stating them matter-of-factly, goes to the core of Wikipedia's neutrality. Any claim that is evaluative, interpretive or analytical not only requires the citation of a reliable secondary source, but needs to be explicitly attributed to its author. It is for this reason that The Shawshank Redemption article, for example, does not state as fact that that film is an allegory for maintaining one's feeling of self-worth when placed in a hopeless position. It properly attributes that analysis to Roger Ebert in the article text, and not simply with a citation footnote at the end of the passage. If repeatedly reverting an edit that presents an opinion as fact constitutes edit warring, and is not an exemption to 3RR, then by extension, that would mean that every time violates WP:NPOV by making such edits, and refuses to back down, that I have to hold a consensus discussion on the matter, which is silly.

To provide an additional context for this, keep in mind the South Park articles are frequent targets of unsourced or poorly written ([309][310]) trivia, fancruft, POV and other material by editors, mostly anonymous IP newbies, many of whom can't compose a coherent sentence, and not only have no interest in learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but show outright contempt for it and the editing community here. (One editor once said to me in a talk page discussion "And no, I won't sign my name with four tildes or sign up with a username to Wikipedia in order to ostensibly be taken more seriously. I don't see the need to follow those suggestions either".) These editors often leave less-than-constructive posts or make bizarre comments on the article talk pages, rarely following up or showing any interest in my attempts to explain policy and guidelines to them, and in some cases, violating Civility and even vandalizing my talk page and user page because they don't like it when I try to explain to them policies regarding content and sources. I used to have other editors like User:WikiuserNI to assist me on the SP articles, but I haven't heard from him in a while, and I don't notice a lot of traffic nowadays on those articles from skilled, experienced editors who understand policy and basic article composition. Can you imagine how those articles would grind to a halt, as would the work of lot of the editors who take time to participate in consensus discussions and on noticeboards like this one, if every time some ignorant, quasi-troll who no regard for basic writing or the standards by which an encyclopedia is written, makes some edit that clearly flies in a face of a core guideline, and have I have to come running to those more dedicated editors to say, "Mother may I, is it okay to revert? Can you participate in a consensus discussion on this?" Isn't reverting such disruptive edits, and cautioning those who make them, one of the reasons that we have admins in the first place?

Editors should discuss editorial matters, but only when there is not a clear-cut policy violation, and there is a genuine, good faith disagreement on the proper application or interpretation of policy or guideline. Hearfourmewesique had none, as seen in his edit summaries, his conduct on his talk page, and his statements here.

• He argues, for example, that including attributive wording "clutters up the text", which is preposterous. Should we go through all articles on works of fiction that feature analytical or evaluative material, and remove the names of those who provided those viewpoints?

• He argues that when an evaluative claim is supported by a secondary source, then "It's not opinion". So in other words, that The Shawshank Redemption is an allegory for what Ebert says it is is a fact? Do I really have to elaborate on this? This is not about a good faith difference on policy; it's about an editor with an only modestly skilled vocabulary. If he doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, then he has no business making any edits that require such judgment, assuming he has any business editing Wikipedia at all.

• When I warned him not to remove valid, sourced material (specifically, the in-text attribution of the claim's author, Max Nicholson), he seemed to engage in what was either willful mendacity, or just sheer obliviousness to his own self-contradictions. When responding with a list of four numbered points, his first point was the question, "The info is sourced by me, so how exactly can you accuse me of removing it?", suggesting that he didn't know what material I was talking about. But then, in the third numbered point, he argumed, "I think the better wording is to state the observation with a footnote. Cluttering the text with redundancies hurts the spirit of Wikipedia." So in one breath, he claims ignorance of what I'm talking about, and in the next, he concedes that he favors removal of the material in question.

• Perhaps the most telling behavior by him concerns the methodology by which matters of fact and reason should be argued by disagreeing parties. If one person provides a claim, and backs it up with some line of argument, and you disagree with it, then you have to falsify the claim, either by showing how the line of reasoning or evidence being employed is false, or how it does not lead to the conclusion in question. Many people, however, do not do this, and instead engage in behavior that is either intellectually dishonest, or just rhetorical. This pertains to Hearfourmewesique thus: I tried pointing out to him that 3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of attributive wording whose absence would violate NPOV, as I pointed out above. Did he falsify my argument? Did he challenge my reasoning? No. His response was the following: "You are still on the verge of violating 3RR, no matter how nicely you put it otherwise." So in other words, he just repeated the original assertion about 3RR, and mischaracterized my reasoning as "putting it nicely". This is the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying, "I can't here you, La-la-la-la-la...." He also linked the word "nicely" to WP:GAME, but because he refused to falsify my reasoning, or even addressed it, he never bothered to explain how it constituted "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia."

With this, I realized that he was neither willing nor capable of conducting a discussion in which he could argue his case with intellectual honesty or coherency, maturity or basic decency, so I ceased my attempts to discuss this matter with him, thinking he'd cease his disruptive edits. (His presentation of himself here as a victim by co-opting a current social movement and histrionically referring to that legitimate warning as "bullying" only serves to further underscore this.) By virtue of both the lack of merit to his position, and his inability to engage in dispute resolution or discussion to show otherwise, both my reverts and the block warning I gave him were perfectly legitimate, and did not constitute edit warring or a violation (or near-violation) of 3RR. If anyone here can falsify what I have said here by way of evidence or reason, please do so. Nightscream (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. I thought that the only significant problems here were on Hearfourmewesique's part: his/her refusal or inability to accept consensus, his/her belligerent attitude here, etc. I thought that, while Nightscream had edit warred, and had mistakenly thought that "clear policy violations" were an exemption to the policy on edit warring, there was no significant problem there. The edit warring was on too small a scale to be very important, and now that the misunderstanding of the edit warring policy had been pointed out, he/she would realise his/her mistake, and that could be an end of that matter. However, things have turned out to be different from that.

1. Nightscream persists in the belief that "clear policy violations" are an exemption to the policy on edit warring, despite having had it pointed out by several different editors that this is not so. Technically speaking, the edit warring policy does not list any exemptions at all to edit warring, but it lists eight exemptions to the three revert rule, which are in practice treated as exemptions to edit warring. Those eight exemptions are as follows: 1 Reverting your own actions; 2 Reverting edits to pages in your own user space; 3 Reverting actions performed by banned users and sockpuppets; 4 Reverting obvious vandalism; 5 Removal of clear copyright violations; 6 Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida; 7 Removal of material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons; 8 Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page. Nothing there can possibly be taken as meaning that "clear policy violations" are exempt.
2. Nightscream has presented a long diatribe about why he/she thinks that his/her repeated reversions were justified. Time and again I find that editors blocked for edit warring use "but my reversions were justified" as a defence, but to see this defence used by an administrator is disturbing: any administrator should know that you may not edit war even if you are "right".
3. Nightscream evidently thinks that his/her long post is a defence against the charge of edit warring, but a large proportion of what he/she writes is irrelevant to that charge. He/she is essentially arguing at great length "some articles are very badly edited, and some editors edit very badly, so it ought to be acceptable to keep reverting what they do to save time and trouble". His/her arguments might or might not be good points if they were presented in a discussion as to whether the policy ought to be changed, but he/she seems to have completely failed to see that they are irrelevant to a defence against the charge of edit warring according to the current policy.
4. Although I did not agree with the main substance of Hearfourmewesique's complaint against Nightscream, I do think that Nightscream could have handled the matter better. For example, this edit is distinctly contemptuous in tone. An administrator should be more civil and constructive, even when he or she is dealing with an editor they think is in the wrong.

Frankly, I am alarmed that an administrator should behave in this way. We have the following: (1) Edit warring. (2) Uncivil behaviour towards another editor. (3) Erroneous belief about exemptions to the edit warring policy. OK, we all make mistakes, but more serious is the stubborn persistence in the mistake, even when several people have pointed out the error. Nightscream should have checked the policy, and come back and said "thanks for pointing out my mistake". (4) Erroneous belief that edit warring is acceptable if the editor doing it is convinced their edits are "right". (5) The inability to distinguish between the two concepts "what I think the policy should be" and "what the established policy is". (6) Responding to suggestions that he/she had edit warred with a long post that exhibits a combative, battelground approach. What is more, this was done when consensus in the discussion was clearly in support of Nightscream in most respects, with the matter of edit warring being a side issue, which had ceased days ago, and was likely to be simply dropped.

None of this is the sort of behaviour which I think we should see from an administrator. I did think that, although Nightscream had edit warred, and had made a mistake about what policy was, there were no serious problems, and no need for any action, but unfortunately the latest post by this editor has raised very serious concerns. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

see also Nightscream's recent contributions to the talk page at Touré and response to clear evidence of both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as your reaction to my explanation about the poor quality of the edits on the South Park articles, I never stated nor implied that "it ought to be acceptable to keep reverting what they do to save time and trouble". While there was a time element involved in my argument (funny, I had a feeling someone would distort the point of that argument) the central criterion on which that statement hinged was the unambiguous nature of the violating edits. I do not argue that reverts should be made when there is a genuine conflict in interpretation of policy, a point I subsequently emphasized above. What I did was point out how perverse it would be to have to ask others' permission, or have a consensus discussion, every time someone clearly and unambiguously violated a core policy, and refuses to back down from it before I reverted it. Again, if every time someone changes the wording of a passage so that the attribution of an evaluative claim is removed, and that claim is presented as fact, and that editor refuses to acquiesce after I initially revert it, that I have to hold a consensus discussion on the matter before I can revert it as a second or third time? Yes or no?

To be fair, when composing my messages to Hearfourmewesique, I did initially misremember what someone had told me about 3RR back in April 2007, when a 3RR block imposed on my was reversed because that article was a BLP. I had not double-checked that portion of my talk page archive. But with regard to your emphasis on the specific list of exemptions at 3RR, please see WP:LETTER and WP:IAR (the latter of which I admit should be changed to "Use Common Sense" instead of "Ignore All Rules"). All policies and guidelines need to be interpreted and applied with common sense, and according to their intent and spirit, and not with perverse adherence to the letter of the law, or to the exclusion of all rationality. A blatant violation of WP:NPOV that occurs when an editor changes a passage so that a critic's observation or opinion is presented matter-of-fact should be reverted, and when the violating editor fails to offer a single cogent argument (which as I showed up, Hearfourmewesique, failed to do), requiring admins to jump through more and more bureaucratic hoops is simply not reasonable.

There is nothing "contemptuous" in tone of the message in question. It is assertive and critical, but polite, and its statements reasoned. If there is a single thing in that message that exhibits "contempt", please point to it. By contrast, your repeated dismissal of my point of view as a "long diatribe" or complaining of my "long post" hardly came across as a good faith attempt on your part to hear my side of the story. Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of WP:ER and WP:3RR is to discourage people from doing the same thing again and again without discussion. You might well be right about the content issue, but that isn't the point. The point is whether the issue is at least arguable, and that's why 3RR's exceptions are as narrow as they are. When I find myself reverted, I try to apply some humility and ask myself whether the other editor might be right. I am a little bothered that there is no hint of this in your response. If you find yourself in a similar situation in future, will you handle it differently? Bovlb (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note a couple of other non-admin-like bits of behaviour: In a section below, Nightscream muses that DracoEssentialis may be a sockpuppet of User:129.215.149.96. A stronger such claim is made on Talk:Touré#Users_using_sockpuppets_.28and_meatpuppets.29_in_this_discussion. Now for the non-admin-like bit of behaviour: if you mention someone on AN/I, and especially if you imply they're socking, you drop them a courtesy note on their talk page. No such note was posted on DracoEssentialis' talk page. Second, Nightscream accused DracoEssentialis of a "slimy smear tactic" for pointing out that one contributor to that talk page of the biography of a notable African American had a Ku-Klux-Klan logo on their user page. I wouldn't call that a slimy smear tactic, but reasonably fair comment under the circumstances. Lastly, the idea that DracoEssentialis is a long-time disruptive IP address from Edinburgh University does not make sense, especially as she is siding with the biography subject at Touré, and the Edinburgh IP address is accusing Nightscream of collusion with Touré. So I do think Nightscream could have handled this a bit better; as it is now, the Touré talk page is turning into a slap fest, which helps no one. (I can vouch for DracoEssentialis not being an Edinburgh IP, as I'm married to her, and she was neither in Edinburgh nor at her computer at the times in question.)

So, Nightscream, gently does it. Admins are – ideally – supposed to model behaviour that mitigates disputes, rather than inflaming them. (And the Touré talk page is jolly well, and sadly, inflamed now.) --JN466 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: the problem isn't necessarily with Nightscream but with the editors who have been defending his bad behavior for years. I've pretty much removed any article he shows up on from my watchlist, so I don't worry about it anymore. I recommend others do the same. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas! Seeing your name always brings a to my face. Wikihugs! Draco^E 14:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Viriditas is cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You’re plenty cool yourself, you know that? Or rather warm and full of empathy. Also, when I first came across you, you had this righteous reading list on your user page with the. funniest. short. reviews. Yes, I've been known to stalk you. Always a pleasure to see you, Anthony. Draco^E 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bovlb, I appreciate your thoughtful words, and your attempts to assist in this matter. You asked me, "If you find yourself in a similar situation in future, will you handle it differently?" Again, as I asked above, in what way specifically do you think I should respond? You say people should be discouraged from making same reverts without discussion. Are you saying that I should have a discussion with Hearfourmewesique over what the definitions of opinion and fact are? This isn't intended as rhetorical; I'm actually asking.

JN466, it is not a reasonably fair comment. It's an ad hominem remark in which Draco, rather than falsifying that other editor's stated rationale for including Toure's surname in his article, brought up a completely irrelevant fact, and even omitted that the editor in question displayed that logo to make a statement about supporting unpopular speech. You, Draco and myself may object to that logo on aesthetic grounds, and even object to the wisdom of that editor's rationale, but that does not make him a racist, much less falsify his position on the surname issue, which should've been the focus of Draco's response, had she wished to invalidate that editor's participation or position. This is underlined by the fact that she also cast aspersions on other editors as well, making snide comments about them because their edit counts or edit histories were a bit less substantial than hers. When I pointed out to Draco that she herself didn't have a huge edit history, especially compared to other editors like myself, she responded that well, she's a mother, and has other responsibilities, as if that makes her any different those other editors she maligned. The KKK logo thing, therefore, was just one line of attack in an overall response to the consensus in that discussion that Draco simply didn't like, a response that was one of misdirection. It is for this reason that the logo was irrelevant.

However, JN466, your point about the courtesy of notifying editors named in ANI discussions is well-taken. I apologized for DracoEssentialis for this oversight, though I'm not sure if this would really make a difference to her, given her continued insults, taunts and a new accusation she has leveled against in this message, which is hardly in the spirit of WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a fine question and thanks for reflecting it back to me.  :) I don't have a magic bullet for resolving such situations, and you know the editing history better than I do. Yes, perhaps you could have started/continued such a discussion. Article talk pages discussions aren't with just one editor — they raise the issue for everyone. Perhaps you could have come up with some orthogonal approach to the problem text, for example by using {{by whom}}. Or you could have just backed off and let someone else handle it.

The reason I raised this question is because, given your new understanding of the limited exceptions to EW/3RR policy, it's one you'll have to answer for yourself (more) in future. At the risk of being presumptuous, I thought that giving you the opening to express your response here might be the thing that satisfies some of the editors who have expressed concerns above, and resolves this overly-prolonged thread. Bovlb (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying real hard to abstain from further comments, but I'll say this much: Nightscream, I actually told you that we're dealing with text here, and as demonstrated here, comparing and contrasting two texts is not original research, as long as it is backed up by a reliable source. My statement was "the bit is similar to Hicks' bit", with a footnote; it has nothing to do with the philosophical observation made by Roger Ebert in your example, it's a simple comparison of bunches of words (in case "text" is too complex of a word at this point, forgive the sarcasm). You never responded to that, and you're preaching to me about sticking fingers in ears and going "lalalala, I can't hear you"??? This should become the new definition of WP:KETTLE, I tell ya – which also reminds me that both bits being similar lines perfectly with WP:COMMON SENSE, which you are also (wrongfully) implying that I lack. You stopped the discussion, forcing me to revert back based on that, and then started a new thread on my talk page with a threat to block. How's that not bullying? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Bovlb, the problem with "backing off and letting someone else handle it", is that there isn't anyone else, as I mentioned above, at least in terms of competent, literate editors. Just take a look at the contributions that are typically made to the South Park episode articles if you don't believe me. When I so much as take my eye off the articles a bit, I eventually find them filled with unsourced fan cruft, trivia, synthesis, informal wording or slang, bloated plot summaries filled with irrelevant details by editors who can barely compose a coherent sentence, etc. When I neglected to place the Butterballs (South Park) article on my watchlist after initially writing the synopsis, for example, I found four days later that other editors omitted the name of a salient character, introduced a falsehood into a scene that had been correctly described by me when I first wrote it, added their own personal opinion as to a bit of "irony" in the episode, and cited a YouTube video as a source for the claim that the video seen in the episode was similar to a real-life one, violating WP:PSTS. (Someone eventually added a secondary source for this. Here is when I fixed these matters.) Want another example? Check out the bloated plot synopsis of the current episode, and tell me which "someone else" is going to rewrite it. I appreciate the other editors who fix my grammatical errors or who figure out betters turns of phrase or wording for some passages. (Here is one instance in which I thank such an editor for doing this. Please note who that editor is.) But I just wish that this typified the contributions to those articles.

As for Hearfourmewesique's comments:

• The issue is not original research, and hasn't been since April 6, when you added the Max Nicholson cite, during which you called me a "laxy deletionist". OR and synthesis was an issue when editors were adding that material without the IGN source. Once the Nicholson's cite was added, I no longer challenged its inclusion; I merely ensured that it was properly presented as Nicholson's viewpoint, instead of presented as a fact. Whether the fact that you're still focused on the now-passe issue of OR/synthesis is due to an inability to figure out what the central point of a discussion is, or deliberate misdirection on your part, I honestly don't know.

• If we reworded the comments of critics like Roger Ebert in movie articles in a way that presented their opinions as facts, then yes, it would indeed have everything to do with it, which is why I made that quite valid analogy.

• I have indeed addressed your argument about the comparison between the two bits of dialogue/monologue. I did so by pointing out that the conclusion of any comparison is an opinion. I did so in this edit summary, I did so in my block warning to you on your talk page, and I did so repeatedly during this discussion.

• I stopped talking to you for two reasons: One, I figured you had dropped the matter. Two, I felt continued discussion with you was pointless, because you had demonstrated that you were not capable of discussing the matter with intellectual honesty, a proper knowledge of vocabulary, or even any sense of maturity or decency. In the last two bulletted points of my April 20, 05:50 post above, I illustrated your apparent dishonesty and your refusal to approach the disagreement by explaining why my argument about 3RR was false. (This is underlined by the fact that as others have pointed out here, you could've done so had you wanted to, just by doing some double-checking on 3RR that I had neglected to do.) Not surprisingly, you're doing it again now by again repeating the same accusation about dropping the discussion, without falsifying the reasons I gave for doing so.

• A warning to block is not "bullying", by virtue of the fact that that isn't what the word "bullying" means, much as the word "opinion" does not mean "something that isn't supported by a secondary source". Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Nightscream from Touré and Talk:Touré

Nightscream’s attempts at discrediting my contributions to the current Rfc at Talk:Touré (about whether to keep or omit the subject's slave name from his BLP) by way of loaded rhetoric, out-of-context quotes and sockpuppet accusations are getting old fast, and it saddens me to see that you regulars on here have seen him behave like this before.

My “crimes” at Talk:Touré: asking him a polite question and listing some of the results of my preliminary investigation into the more disturbing aspects of the voting patterns in the Rfc [311].

I mentioned that an editor voting Keep is displaying the KKK symbol on his user page, complete with links to the articles on the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church [312]. Stating one’s “support for the rights of people with unpopular views” is one thing, but if a user emphasizes that by flying the KKK flag on their WP page, they may not be the best person to vote in an Rfc concerning a notable black writer, especially when they previously made comments such as this one: “I certainly don't think it's only Jews and Sexual minorities that get special treatment on Wikipedia …”. Nightscream, however, saw no problem with that user’s vote: “Another user displays the KKK logo on his user page? So what?”. User:ToureSyndrome (2 edits to date, all to Talk:Touré) picked a name that mocked the subject and posted a link containing sensitive personal information. User:JohnnyScotland, another SPA, reposted that link. Admin Nightscream did nothing in reply to these acts which, if perpetrated against a fellow Wikipedian would have seen these users banned in a flash. He also failed to tag the various SPAs as such.

I pointed out that a user with a current total of 76 edits since 2004 appeared on Talk:Touré to make 3 edits, including a Keep vote. That led Nightscream to attack my own edit count. Comparing a count of 76 edits in six years to a two-year count of 663, which, BTW, include 7 DYKs and 4 new articles, seems childish and unfair, especially given that at the time, I was one of only three contributors who had voted to omit Touré’s slave name from his biography. I explained my reasons for no longer contributing new BLPs to the project to Nightscream in some detail here. He chose to ignore my concerns about how we are currently treating our biographical “subjects”, and focused on the fact that I’m a mother. I had only mentioned that to make it crystal clear to Nightscream that mothers tend to take a dim view of people like the two SPAs posting the kind of stalker-friendly information that he failed to redact. (NB: The subject has a wife and young kids).

A neutrally-minded administrator would have looked at my findings dispassionately and concluded that they were posted with the project’s best interests in mind. Nightscream instead chose to attack me by insinuating I was using ‘slimy smear tactics’, among other niceties.

I decided to ignore Nightscream after he posted a 6+K rant which included lots of hot air and more insults against me. However, he then went on to accuse me of sockpuppetry, both here and on this very board – note how he was referring to the disruptive IP from Edinburgh as ‘she’. Now why would I, as a user who voted Omit, appear as a sock and accuse him of acting in favour of Touré, when he had voted to keep Touré’s name in the BLP?

This additional outburst of unreasonable behavior led me to conclude that Nightscream just didn’t like the fact that I did some much-needed research into the voting irregularities on Talk:Touré and found three BLPs that do not mention their subjects’ birth names, when Nightscream is hell-bent on keeping Touré’s birth name in the BLP, regardless of the harm this will cause the subject. Now Nightscream is even accusing Touré of using sockpuppets to edit his article [313], again without any proof.

I therefore propose that Nightscream is topic-banned from the article on Touré including the talk page. His below-the-belt attacks indicate that he seems far too emotionally involved with the subject, to the extent of displaying behavior that is very much unbecoming of an admin. I am not doing this in retaliation to the many personal attacks Nightscream heaped on me. My responses show that I’m quite capable of replying in kind when sufficiently needled. This is purely about preventing Nightscream from doing even more damage, in line with our BLP policies. Draco^E 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as per reasons stated above. Draco^E 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)