Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746

Persistant vandalism by Anon Ip, suspected to be banned editor User:ColourWolf

Information on this vandal can be found here [[1]]

M.O. - Fond of vandalizing Singapore TV drama articles by introducing fake synopsis/content, after being banned and going through a list of successive socks, now tends to IP hop, currently around the 202.156.10.** range. occasionally acts self righteous and claims the reverting editor is the vandal.

Within the last few days made the following edits:

With 202.156.10.10 - [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. Note last edit includes information about someone who probably does not wish their contact to be publicised online.

With 202.156.10.240 - [[7]]

With 202.156.10.13 - [[8]]

If one looks at the edit histories of just the 1st 3 pages alone: The Unbeatables III, The Hotel and Honour and Passion (the vandalism is more widespread, these 3 are just the more recent ones), its fairly obvious the problem has persisted literally for years; specifically, since the Colourwolf account got banned. Previously he IP hopped on the 218.186.**.** range [[9]][[10]] [[11]][[12]]. Even though the IP ranges are different, the same type of fake content is being introduced. Probably switched service provider.

Considering the vandal is repeatedly introducing the same type of content (he's not terribly original), will Cluebot be able to help out here? On top of any other manual measure we can take? Zhanzhao (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Try here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I considered that, but it seems unsuitable as the vandalism introduced is unique to each article. Just this morning, the vandal went on another "spree" under 202.156.10.245 and 202.156.10.10 which resulted in the 2 IPs being banned. This cycle has been repeating itself and unless we can find a long term solution, the guy will just keep IP hopping. Simply banning the IP does not work. If we can monitor instead the individual articles for specific texts, and auto-roll back or even prevent the edits from being made, that would be the best. I am trying to submit a request via cluebot, but is there any other automated means? Short of semi-protecting all affected pages? Zhanzhao (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

FYK, it's blocking, not banning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, yeah the 2 Ips are just tempoarily blocked, which means it goes back into the pools og Ips the hopper can use once the block expires..... Zhanzhao (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

New Vandalism activities by Colourwolf

Guys on another spree again. This time back to the 218.186.156.** IPs. See [[13]], [[14]], [[15]],[[16]]. Now even adding dubious stuff on the talk pages. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Situation getting out of control, now he's apparently "outing" someone and leaving the victim's contact details on the edits.[[17]] Zhanzhao (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the pages have been protected, thanks guys. He's a stubborn one :P Zhanzhao (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fake warning

Is this OK? (A rhetorical question.) To which extent is it not OK? (Not a rhetorical question.) Drmies (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• As a lowly editor, I would say no, that it borders on a legal threat, just in the opposite direction. A two edge sword still cuts in both directions. If I had the mop, I would have slapped User:198.205.17.200 with it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The entire debacle isn't OK. Given the edit war mentality, the infobox has been moved back and the page semi-ed. - J Greb (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • And IP 198 has been given a heads up that the edit summary isn't acceptable. - J Greb (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Taken as-is, there's no question it's a legal threat; but given the IP's contribs list, it looks more like just being silly. (And this edit from another IP, yesterday, is priceless.[18]) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Man, that's hilarious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Note this discussion regarding the writer who picture the IP wants in the article. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Impersonator?

I think, [19] Just created the account and redirected to user:MuZemike Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Already resolved[20] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Been getting a lot of those lately... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, cross wiki we're suffering from a username vandal, and some other joker keeps creating spoof admin accounts. If you see em, just block on sight if you have mop, or report at the usernames board (for which I haz temporarily forgotted the alphabet code). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:UAA is the WP:ALPHABETSOUP you're looking for. Move along! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism/legal threats

A vandalism/legal threat spree on medical-related articles by an IP with an apparent grudge against MastCell with a consistent edit summary. See edits by 184.173.180.2 (talk · contribs), 184.164.128.10 (talk · contribs), 50.28.72.144 (talk · contribs), 27.50.93.122 (talk · contribs) using proxies, all blocked at present. No idea what they're on about. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the same as Timesroad2 (talk · contribs) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

Resolved

 – Already blocked as a sock per the SPI case. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts as a legal threat, but could someone take a look please? See this SPI case for background. Many thanks. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:35, 10 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.

Long term disruptive edits, vandalism, sockpuppertry II

Same individual as before, refer to previous report User:TwiceBlessedPape, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TwiceBlessedPape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronerreport (talk • contribs) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Refer to previous ANI: Long term disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, vandalism

I'd like to propose an investigation of User:147.203.126.215, who was also warned here: [21] and here: [22], has been reported here:[23], comments to article here: [24]. Coronerreport (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• We don't really poke around on the offchance we'll find some misbehaviour, and neither do we control or take much note of what happens on other sites. 147.203.126.215's edit history doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, and I can find no mention of that IP address on the sock puppet investigation you linked. If you're proposing that 147.203.126.215 is SCFilm29 and that SCFilm29 is evading their indefblock, you'll need to provide evidence. If it's something else you want administrator assistance with, you'll need to be more specific. EyeSerene talk 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It would appear this user: [25], appears "suddenly," here: [26], with same article edits as this user: [27], who is this user: [28], and this user: [29], all with comments to article here: [30], and same article and subject-related topic mentioned here: [31], as well as this user: [32], who makes User:Griot/User:SCFilm29-identical and -related edits here: [33], along with same IP range: [34], with identical User:SCFilm29 edits, as here: "23:57, 21 June 2010 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)" and stance, as here: [35], who was blocked for evasions, here: [36] like this: [37] and with the same IP range, and the same position on Julie Dash as this user: [38] and who was also blocked, here: is pretty much the same person, who is engaging in sockpuppetry, vandalism and disruptive editing. Clearly the same person, who uses Wikipedia to harass. Coronerreport (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronerreport (talk • contribs)

• Note I have bracketed your comments because, wow, there wasn't any way to make sense of them. Use a single bracket on each end of a full url please, we don't need to see the address for every single link you provide. Two brackets for wikilinks. NOW I can look at the merits, as it wasn't readable before. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply Ok, finally I can easily see you have copied and pasted an entire previous conversation, which is unneeded and obviously unhelpful. The user you are linking, User:TwiceBlessedPape, made a total of two edits a couple weeks ago, which do not look like vandalism. If you think he is a sockpuppet, take it to WP:SPI, not here, but I don't see it having a snowball's chance with two simple edits (one edit really, then a minor correction). Or simply revert it and explain why on the talk page. IPs made the other edits, this is a registered user. Even if it IS the same person, he can simply say "yeah, I finally registered an account", which is fine. There isn't anything that can be done at ANI. I also suggest reading up a bit on linking and presenting cases here, because honestly, this was dreadful to pour through and make sense of before I cleaned it all up. And please sign your posts with ~~~~, if you can file an ANI, certainly you can format it properly. And finally, you should be more careful about what you call vandalism [39], as reverting and declaring an edit vandalism when it is not (even if that user was mistaken in their edit) can boomerang on you and get you blocked. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

So many odious edits. Such a long history. I for one do not wish to keep cleaning up after this disturbed troll. Recommend a semi-protect on the article. Coronerreport (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• The place for that would be WP:Request for page protection, although I don't think you have a case. We can't block someone based on your "gut feeling". You are jumping the gun here. Watch the user, and if patterns of abuse show up, then start an ANI. Jumping the gun and accusing a new editor of being all these terrible things is disruptive when you can't provide clear evidence, and you haven't. Remember, if you are wrong (and you just might be...), then you have welcomed a new editor by dragging them to ANI for a "trial" because they made ONE edit, two weeks ago. Pushing this further looks WP:BITEy, and can lead to a boomerang sanction via WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate your opinions, which, respectfully, are incorrect. The evidence is quite clear. IP/s and sockpuppets have added odious and/or unsourced content, have vandalized this article and others, and/or have used articles on Wikipedia as a tool for harassment, for years. Furthermore, there is no question that this user name is intended to mock and harassment RW individuals, as per my sockpuppet report. I'm tired of cleaning up after it, and tired of witnessing it. It's time to put an end to it. Coronerreport (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see you have opened an SPI case [40], although no action has yet to be taken there. I have no idea, as ANI isn't the place to determine socks anyway. Even in the above discussion you improperly quoted, they didn't think you presented enough evidence nor want to take action, and no one else is jumping into this discussion. Being "right" isn't enough if you can't demonstrate and articulate what the "offense" is. This users sole contribution was:

• Mistaking Vanity for Art (2003)<ref><u>Women Filmmakers: Refocusing</u> by Jacqueline Levitin; Routledge: (2003)</ref> ~~~~

• You claim that this is the same person as some 147.203.126.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the editor is doing the same "disruption". You went out of your way to warn 209.216.198.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for them adding "Tupelo 77 (2012)" to that article, yet I see that same data (different year 2013 now) at Julie's IMDB page [41] so I'm confused as to how this could be vandalism or disruptive. 209.216.198.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made the same edit [42] and you warned them [43] but again, this info is at IMDB, but you warned them as vandals instead. None of the IPs in question here have ever been blocked for anything and have made very few edits, so not sure how this is long term disruption. There has been only 50 edits in two full years, hardly a large amount of edits, and 18 of those are your edits. The editor you are complaining about made a different edit on the same page. At this stage, you are making connections that may or may not exist but you haven't supported your case with diffs that clearly show any vandalism or disruption. I'm guessing you are wanting this new user blocked, on the basis of essentially ONE edit that happened to be to the same article you spend a great deal of time protecting? I would love to hear an admin viewpoint on this. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• - Seems like a decent report to me - don't bite the messenger - I also note the IP addresses are all proxy servers and could all be blocked. Youreallycan 22:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Youreallycan. I'd also like to say special thanks to User:MuZemike, who indefinitely blocked User:TwiceBlessedPape as a sock. Admins are now alerted to this persistent stalker and harasser. I'm thrilled and relieved to see that Wikipedia admins are sending the message that this sort of activity will not be tolerated. I consider this a great victory. It is absolutely a giant step in the right direction. Thank you! Coronerreport (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support Youreallycan's suggestion for some kind of long-range block. While being indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, the same proxies, same Iran-related article edits and sockpuppeeteer's harassment and sockpuppetry continues: [44] and [45]. I suppose the "Slut" reference refers to [46], while Odious Mortem mocks my use of the word, as here and here, plus Happiness! edits, here, perhaps mocking or mimicking mine, here coupled by, I can only presume, that the "Wikipedia Idiots" author and her sister Jeanne Marie Spicuzza's mother is a Latin scholar, per here and likely wishes I and/or they were dead. He is likely reading this, and, in his narcissism, thinks it is amusing. I suppose that, what this user does not understand, is that anyone would feel threatened by that and, if any harm should befall his harassment targets, whom he objectifies with his malice, he is the first person who would be suspected. Not funny at all. Coronerreport (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility issues in Talk:Colchis

I ask for an inquiry in what is going on this talkpage.

In this one message, GeorgianJorjadze called me "a truly ridiculous and poor Russian", a "poor guy", "just some Ivan from Russia", and "not worth it". Furthermore, he used language like "Just because some Russian is saying", "tons of these kind of guys", "this kind of pathetic people", and so on. Virtually every sentence of that message was intended to offend.

I asked the editor to revert the message, and apologize, and was in response advised to stop editing in expressions like "Don't even try to revert", "This is not your Russia [Russian Wikipedia, I believe - F.S.] where everyone can write whatever they wish for", and "whatever you guys in Russia think", and finally was threatened to be "banned for good".

I do not ask the user to be blocked. I do not feel offended by this type of hate speech.

However, other editors might be sensitive to insults of this kind. The user had been sanctioned several times since last December, so I thought this type of behavior was rather typical. I therefore ask to pay attention to this case and decide if any measures should be taken. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

GeorgianJorjadze's comments cause me a fairly high level of concern and I for one am tempted to block, but I'll leave the decision on whether to block or just give a stern warning to another administrator. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be worth noting that GeorgianJorjadze also has a habit of "blanking" comments and warnings from his talk page, without even acknowledging them. I am aware that a user has the right to blank their own talk page, but when a user is blanking things immediately after they've been posted without acknowledging in the form of a replied comment, then it is a cause for concern. Only a few moments ago, the user removed this ANI invite that FeelSunny (talk · contribs) posted a few moments ago. Wesley☀Mouse 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, blanking of warnings and notices by a registered user on their own talk page is considered an acknowledgement. If GeorgianJorjadze wants to go that rout, it's fine, they just cannot use "I was never told/warned/notified" as an argument if/when they are blocked as a result of those warning. - J Greb (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's always a bad sign in a conversation when users tell others they are "offending [X country's] statehood, [and] are naturally offending the [X] nation". GeorgianJorjadze seems to have a problem with communication. There's a distinct rarity of edit summaries, even when reverting a simple formatting change. I think we've passed the point where a block is preventative, but a warning that wikipedia is collaborative and we have policies like WP:CIVIL is well due. CMD (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have respect for you CMD but can you please tell me what kind of problem do I have with communication? The user from Mother Russia comes by and calling us "Racists" and that "we are a disgrace of our nation" and I should get that in a positive mood? I haven't done anything to be blocked for just because this above-mentioned Russian individual thinks and wishes to. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

From this conversation two issues can already be seen, blanking comments rather than responding, and not using edit summaries. It's also useful to note that FeelSunny never called you racist (although they did note your message was) or a disgrace to the nation (the way you used quotation marks was wrong there, you only use them around exact copy-paste, which in this case would be "Being a racist is always a disgrace to your nation"). Note above I said you shouldn't be blocked at this point, but you need to realise that unless you follow WP:CIVIL and engage in better communication a block become likely. CMD (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

About edit summaries, I agree. I am now using it. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, when I saw a first racist comment in the thread, I called it a racist comment. You may just not understand what was meant by that "Georgians are more genetically related to each other than any Russian (who are descendants of not only Slavs but also from Germanic, Turco-Mongolic and Scytho/Sarmatian peoples), no offense". Claiming Russians are Mongols or Russians are Sarmats is an often seen racist statement, implying Mongols and, thereafter, Russians are inferior to other peoples. Examples of this from the first page of google results to the quiery "Russians are Mongols": "Russians are mongols. Americans are half niggers. Germans are half Jews. Italians and spanishs are half arabs...", "Russians are Mongols and Jews plus alcoholics...", etc. All results are about Russians being inferior or not. And that was exactly why Mongols and Sarmathians appeared in User:Dj777cool's message.

Now the question is, imagine a user says "Americans are half black", or "Germans are half Jews", or says "you Italians are half Arabs," - would you call him a racist?FeelSunny (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I clearly said what I meant by that, it's just FeelSunny doesn't paid attention to it. Here is my comment ---- No,no,no.. I don't find the descent from turco-Mongolic peoples despicable, I just want to illustrate that the Russians are extremely heterogenous. You being a Russian, criticizing and separating genetically interwoven Georgian people is a real shame. I don't care what you think about the early Georgian statehood, because your ideas are just theories, thank god. By offending Georgian statehood, you are naturally offending the Georgian nation along with it, so choose words carefully.. I don't consider Georgians to be superior to any nations, and support racial equality. Criticizing the history of other nations than yours comes easy. While I do not think of Georgians as superior than Russians, I clearly see that they are far more Ancient. Perhaps this is the reason of your strong dislike, if not hate of their history and claims. that was after he said these words - No "Georgian state of Diauehi" never-ever existed, sorry again to disappoint, dear. No "Georgian state" of Colchis ever existed either, sorry. -- I naturally find this offending and FeelSunny doesn't get that. Moreover his cynical attitude towards Georgian statehood is very irritating ----Dj777cool (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dj777cool, sources I mentioned on the talkpage, and that are used in the article say those "Georgian states" from the article are in reality "proto-Georgian". That was clearly explained in my message. Now could you please explain what was offending in calling them "proto-Georgian", as they were? Please do so on a page you find relevant to the topic.

So, how does your reaction explain why right after your message about Mongols another user you know well comes to the page to say things like "just some Ivan from Russia", "Just because some Russian is saying", and so on?FeelSunny (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1) So far both user Dj777cool and user GeorgianJorjadze have this unfortunate habit of stressing my ethnicity every time they talk to me, or about me. In the Colchis talkpage, on my talkpage, and right now, even in the message above that CMD deleted.

2) At least in one case, this referring to ethnicity came to the level of hate speech.

3) After all this started, I checked GeorgianJorjadze contributions to better understand this user. It looks like it's quite normal for him to just stalk users asking them if their ethnicity qualifies for editing articles: [47], [48], [49].

4) Both users started to accuse me of racism right after I brought the matter to this board. Neither of the two cared to explain what exactly was the message of mine where I showed any racist views, i.e. claimed or implied that people of some ethnos are inferior. Well, I'd say - a nice try to switch attention, but does not explain any of the first three facts.

5) I asked for the admins' inquiry in this all when GeorgianJorjadze, in his very first message in the discussion, used expressions "just some Ivan from Russia," "Just because some Russian is saying", and so on. I personally do not want this type of language and mentality to become too wide-spread in Wikipedia. However, whether we decide that this type of behavior is normal or not, I'll agree with the community decision. FeelSunny (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

MikeyMouse10

Several editors - myself included - have talked to

on his Talk page about a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not sure if he has read these comments; he occasionally edits his Talk page but in a rather erratic way that seems to involve moving stuff around at random, including chunks of other people's comments.

This isn't simple vandalism. Many of his edits are legit (minor spelling/grammar fixes etc) but others introduce subtle errors:

• Breaking links in non-English alphabets (see e.g. the Chinese link on Nick Park)

• Introducing spelling/grammatical "fixes" that might be plausible to a bot but should be obviously wrong to a human reader - for instance 'correcting' a Danish movie title to English possessive form or changing "the characteristic one wishes to understand" to "the characteristic one wish to understand" (possibly parsing "wish" as noun rather than verb?)

• 'Correcting' titles that might look unusual but are true to the source, e.g. here and 'correcting' quoted text e.g. here

My best guess is that he's copying the entire article source into some sort of word-processor, sometimes making intentional changes, then running a spell/grammar-checker on it, and then pasting the result back into Wikipedia, without checking that all the automated 'corrections' are correct and without checking whether non-English characters have been inadvertently changed. He probably fixes more errors than he adds, but the ones he introduces are less obvious - sort of like unintentional sneaky vandalism.

He has had numerous requests on his Talk page to stop doing this, and a couple of days ago warned that he'd submit a blockuser request if it continued. I seconded that warning.

Unfortunately, since that warning Mikey has made at least two more of these edits [50] [51]. I don't like requesting a block for somebody who seems to be acting with good intentions, but he's clearly not taking any notice of his Talk page and maybe a short block will get his attention. I'm open to other suggestions. --GenericBob (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is that he's copying the entire article source into some sort of word-processor, sometimes making intentional changes, then running a spell/grammar-checker on it, and then pasting the result back into Wikipedia. It's possible that he's a slow typist and often gets burned by edit conflicts. What you suggest he's doing is one way of preventing it but can cause problems on frequently edited articles, ironically the same articles prone to the edit conflicts he might be trying to avoid. I also think he never quite figured out how to use talk pages which can sometimes be more difficult for new users to edit then articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think calling him "an incompetent robot or an insidious vandal" was really very civil. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I had originally thought, on the basis of limited looking at this editor's edits, that he was either a sly vandal or a buggy robot. After more looking, it's a buggy human using a grammar checker. Everything this editor does has to be double checked; nothing he does can be trusted to be correct. He's been notified repeatedly that he's making careless mistakes. But his response has been silence plus continuation of edits with careless mistakes. GenericBob says very reasonably: "A short block will get his attention. I'm open to other suggestions."

In the following edit by MikeyMouse10 on 6 Apr 2012, "Laon and Cythna" is wrongly changed to "Laon and Cynthia"; "create" is wrongly changed to "creates"; and most insidiously the Chinese zh:珀西·比希·雪莱 is wrongly changed to zh:珀西•比希•雪莱.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Percy_Bysshe_Shelley&diff=485913993&oldid=485686572

He made the same bad edit to the Chinese on 6 Apr 2012 at [52].

He was notified about those on 6 Apr 2012. In the following edit on 9 Apr 2012 "compleat" is wrongly changed to "complete" and the same bad edit to the Chinese is made again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eadweard_Muybridge&diff=prev&oldid=486434288

On 19 Feb 2012 MikeyMouse10 wrongly changed Persian fa:صخره (زمین‌شناسی) to fa:صخره (زمینشناسی). Someone discovered and corrected it on 4 Mar 2012 and notified him on his talk page to please watch what he's doing. The more recent errors to the Chinese shows that he's not paying attention. In the same edit on 19 Feb 2012 he wrong changed "ejecta" to "eject": [53]. "A short block will get his attention. I'm open to other suggestions." Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

With users such as this character who display such serial cluelessness, a block is really the only effective way to get through to them, I'm afraid. Reviewing the evidence here, I'd say a 24-48 hour break from editing would likely help prevent future problems. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think there's clearly a competence issue here of some sort - don't know if it's language, comprehension, not understanding Talk pages, or what. I've imposed a block in order to force their attention, and we'll see how they respond. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New user and personal attacks against himself?

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.

---

[54] user:BADDIE610 is also probably user:Sam5959 based on the page history. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely the same person user:Sam5959 created a hoax article [55] user:BADDIE610 posts on it's talk page asking for it to not get deleted. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  Both accounts kindly shown the door. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:20, 10 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.

82.18.191.248

82.18.191.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing, mainly in relation to religious and ethnic categories but also general constant addition of unsourced material. They have been blocked twice as their current IP, but also once as 82.18.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and four times as 82.16.122.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They are also extremely uncommunicative, you won't find a single post to a talk page or user talk page across any of the three IPs.

Problems since their last block include claiming Lucy Lawless is of Irish descent here when there's nothing in the article about it, violating WP:BLPCAT on Lauren Laverne here, violating WP:BLPCAT on Richard Ramirez here by claiming he's a former Catholic when the only mention of Catholic in the article is saying his mother was Catholic. Basically the same problems they've been blocked for time after time after time.

Constant policy violations despite multiple blocks and refusal to communicate, must be time for a longer block I think? Three months as 82.16.122.103 didn't deter them much, so something longer than that looks like being needed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A multi-year history of pushing an ethnically motivated POV -- even if the POV-pushing has been largely in the form of seemingly very minor edits, does warrant more effective preventive action than has been applied on this case. This IP user has been on my watchlist, but I was unaware of the history on other IPs. The short duration of most of the past blocks presumably was due to the fact that this is an anonymous IP, not all of the edits are disruptive (e.g., this recent edit was constructive) and the user's history on multiple IPs hasn't been available to the administrators who were making block decisions. Now that the ONIH has "connected the dots", I would support a 3-month block on the current IP, but I don't think it's a good idea to block the anonymous IP any longer than that. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Am also reviewing their edits, but it should be in the article that Lucy Lawless has Irish ancestry (one of those six degrees of separation things - I knew someone who used to work stunts on Xena:Warrior Princess, who mentioned this very thing). I'll go see if I can find a proper source so it can be added. And the article on Ramirez is really badly written, but I don't think I'm up for a copyedit tonight. It seems with the IP that the problem is adding things that are "probably true" but not verified (the 'I heard it on the radio' defence), rather than outright BLP violation, but it's very difficult if the editor won't talk to anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick look at User talk:82.18.191.248 and User talk:82.18.191.7 shows they have been warned countless times about adding unsourced categories though. For an earlier example, take this edit to Tobey Maguire. Now I can't find a single reliable source saying he's of Irish descent, although I can find some unreliable ones saying Maguire is an Irish surname when talking about him. That's blatant WP:SYN - Maguire is an Irish surname, he's called Maguire, therefore he's of Irish descent - no!! The issue isn't whether other edits are theoretically correct, but whether the category is merited by (ideally sourced) article content, and also WP:BLPCAT. The fact they keep ignoring this and refusing to communicate doesn't really leave us with many options. It's unreasonable to keep passing the burden of cleaning up after this editor's disruptive edits, when the disruption can be prevented at the source. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I became aware of this IP user after stumbling upon a series of edits adding American communities to Category:Irish-American neighborhoods and Category:Little Italys in the United States, in the absence of evidence that they belonged in those categories. (I later worked out that communities were being added to these categories if census data on "ancestry", as compiled on city-data.com, showed a relatively large percentage of people listing "Irish" or "Italian" ancestry.) This editing pattern is similar in many respects to the user's practice (noted above) of adding articles about people to categories like Category:American people of Irish descent, apparently often with no basis other than the person's surname. I am pleased to see that the user has quit categorizing Irish neighborhoods and little Italys. Most of the user's contributions are wikignomish in character (including some good edits); seeing that most of the messages posted at User talk:82.18.191.248 were templated warnings that did not provide details on the specifics of the problem, I think it's possible that some more detailed communications to this user will cause the user to understand why it's often not appropriate to tag or categorize people as "of Irish descent" or "atheist" or "Catholic" (etc.). (This discussion may help in that regard!) --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick clarification on the "template" explanation I leave on the IP talk pages when there are BLPCAT issues. The particular wording is completely my own; there are a number of these IP-hopping BLPCAT sock farms that I try to keep a lid on (a losing battle, unfortunately). The message is meant to inform (e.g. "these are the reasons your edits are inappropriate"), as opposed to the standard uw-unsourced or uw-bio warning templates. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how the subject is broached, the user is on a mission to have the categories included and is not interested in discussing why the edits may or may not be appropriate. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Short block requested for Schicagos to prevent disruption

Resolved

 – User has been indef'd and directed to the internet overlords.

Schicagos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm trying to get through to a new editor who has exhibited some problematic behavior. He's made repeated personal attacks (here and here), and has edit warred to include unsourced content on a few pages. This behavior has continued past warnings. I posted to WQA, hoping another editor might step in and discuss the matter with him, but he removed the section. I think a short 1-day block might help to prevent further disruption while the issue is discussed with him. If an admin feels a block isn't warranted, I'd ask that they step in and discuss the matter with him personally. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This guy is deleting edits on subjects that he knows nothing about, subjects that I have experience on the university level in. Unless he can prove that the chemistry is wrong, I would like him to stop deleting my edits. Plus he is annoying because he doesn't know how to take a joke. --Schicagos(Schicagos) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

I don't think "joke" means what you think it does. Your personal attacks themselves should be worthy of some adminstrative action. It also appears that you need to review Wikipedia policy on sourcing statements in articles. And deleting an entire WQA section seems symptomatic of wider issues.LedRush (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Schicagos (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for making personal attacks. I must say that the temptation to just indef him was quite strong; so I won't object if another admin feels less lenient than I was. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An administrator should probably have a look at User talk:Schicagos as there are currently three open unblock requests following his previously declined unblock request. Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive requests have been closed, several have been denied, various warnings have been issued, and there are plenty of eyes on his Talk page now. I think we're done here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Danrolo

Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has a long history of disruptive editing. After adding and changing certain ideology labels of (literally!) hundreds of political parties around the world without any verification for a long time and having been warned of original research and advised to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines umpteen times, Danrolo has now broadened his/her activity to introducing downright factual errors (diff1, diff2) and adding extensive unverified personal information to BLPs of Argentine showgirls.(diff3, diff4) The user knows that original research and unverified information are deprecated on Wikipedia, because his/her user talk page is full of kind advice, patient explanations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, warnings and final warnings. There is no reaction at all from the side of the user. Communication with Danrolo is impossible. I am afraid that only administrative action can solve the problems with this user. --RJFF (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor, whos userpage states that s/he is from Chile, has also clearly been socking from several Chilean IPs. See this sockpuppet investigation. RolandR (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Policy says to block the editors, not the page, in cases of these sorts of edit wars. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Ballard&action=history Three new users, all of which have no edits outside this article, which is one of the articles created by known paid group account, Expewikiwriter. Do we have more socks? 86.** IP (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

An SPI investigation is in progress at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Artie04. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How is he even notable to be here? MOst of the content is rubbish anyways...seeing as hes in PR it seems he wants to use WP to enhance isprofile.Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This looks like a really close call at AfD. I'll run a tag on it. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Spam talk deletion

(Originally posted on the talk page of the admin handling the report; I am unsure where to ask about this.) A discussion about a spam/unreliable source was completely deleted [56]. Can it be restored by an editor like me, or does it require bureaucrat/admin work? Especially since another edit has come after. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I have magic admin powers, but you could have done it too, yes. That's one hell of a discussion by the way. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was unsure, as it is a project page. I am less interested in the discussion than in the findings, and in seeing them properly archived. Thank you for also posting on the admin's talk page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. If I read the rules for user talk page guidelines correctly, it can be done on one's own talk page, but not on other pages. Thanks for your diligence. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with Kwamikagami

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.

---

Kwamikagami is an admin who has an interest in linguistics. However he seems to abuse his admin privileges by making unilateral decisions and changes to articles without establishing consensus. A case in point is the article on Pre-occlusion which he has moved and re-moved despite the objection of two editors, myself being one of them; the other is Angr. We have both asked for the article to be moved back to Pre-occlusion but he has refused to do this, and now because I'm not an admin I can't move it back over redirects. I think Kwami is abusing his privileges, and is being a bully. -- Evertype·✆ 09:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Evertype's argument is that we need to use his preferred term, used in his sub-sub-discipline, rather than the nearly universal term, because anything else is "prejudicial". He seems to forget that this is an encyclopedia, and that nothing is preventing him from using the term he likes where sources warrant it. The first move was done without any objection, and in fact in response to an objection on the talk page to the title at the time, when I merged the content forks and needed to choose either the name of one of the existing articles or a third or compromise name. The second, after Evertype objected to a term he had never heard of, was to the WP:COMMONNAME, which had been used in one of the two content forks to begin with, following Ladefoged and Maddieson, The Sounds of the World's Languages, the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, and just about everyone else, judging not just by the immediate sources I have, but by an overwhelming preference demonstrated by GBooks.

Evertype can make up whatever story he likes, but if Angr or another admin wants to move the article to one of the other names, I won't object. — kwami (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the initial move and no reason for Everytype to be "disgusted" by it. It's just another "bold" edit subject to WP:BRD. A minor quibble though, since kwami did propose it here he could have given a little more time for other editors to chime in. However, since a bot edit to the redirect Pre-occlusion makes the "R" in BRD impossible for for Everytype, kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion. Also I strongly object to the charge of "abuse of admin privileges". The article wasn't move protected so any autoconfirmed editor could have moved it. Kwami simply made a BOLD edit that he reasonably believed to be non-controversial. It had nothing to do with him being an admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with everything except the "kwami should consider moving it back pending the result of the discussion" part, which would just be process wonkery for it's own sake at this point, I think. I sympathize with Evertype's position (having been in it a number of times), but... things will be how they should be, eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Making a unilateral move without enough time for discussion isn't that serious. Nor is declining Angr's suggestion to move the article title "back to Pre-occlusion to allow a discussion to take place" (after all Kwami perhaps shares User:Ohms law's perception of such a move as "process wonkery").

Where Kwami's behavior breaks into inappropriate is when he undid Evertype's restoration of the article's title to "Pre-occlusion." The edit summary says[57] that the move is to an interim WP:COMMONNAME while they discuss which term is best, which makes it seem as though Kwami has made a compromise move, but Evertype's issue was that the title was not "Pre-occlusion" so changing it to something else is basically the same as a full revert.

If Kwami's thinking really was that his move was a good interim solution, then he simply made a mistake of theory of mind. It's important to be mindful of others' perspectives when making move decisions like this, but we should understand that the difficulties of communicating over text makes mistakes more likely.

I suppose it's fine if we want to discuss the issue of Kwami's theory of mind abilities and how to go forward if we accept that he's not very good at guessing people's perspectives. But, like User:Ron Ritzman, I think it's unfair to accuse Kwami of misusing administrator privileges when the actions in question don't seem to have used administrator tools. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kwami can move the article back to Pre-occlusion as Angr and I have asked him to do. Not being an admin on the English wiki, I don't have the power to do that. Note how Kwami has accused me of having a fiefdom (as if his behaviour wasn't worse), how he has belittled my view with the trope "sub-sub-discipline" and arguing that it is "my" preferred term, when Angr has also pointed out that it is the only term in Manx linguistics as well as Cornish. This phonological phenomenon is also found in Faroese. It's important to Celtic linguistics. I never have heard of "pre-plosion" as a term, which was Kwami's first bright idea, nor really of "pre-stopped consonants" which seems to be his second bright idea to avoid going back to pre-occlusion. Apparently in Austronesian linguistics these terms are used. So claims Kwami. How does this trump Celtic linguistics? Are we to trust Kwami's use of Google Books? Kwami says he refuses to move the article, but is that he will not object if Angr or another admin moving the article. If one of you will delete "Pre-occlusion" I will be happy to move it myself. -- Evertype·✆ 08:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Evertype, you should really consider how strong your case is here. Already, your main point of bringing up the issue, that Kwami is misusing his admin privileges, has been shown to be false. Now you are switching the issue to talk page conduct, though this very nearly approaches a Tu quoque fallacy considering the problems of your own behavior. It doesn't help that you are misleadingly referring to Angr's comment as an endorsement of your preferred title when he was actually just asking for discussion.

Because you brought a shrill tone to the conversation early on, because Kwami has outlined very clearly what his issue is and how he can be persuaded, and because you have chosen to report him rather than discuss the issue on his terms, it seems that you are the one that is acting inappropriately and attempting to misuse policy. Doing this is just going to make it harder for you when Kwami or another admin is actually abusing their privileges.

Go back. Discuss the issue. Come to a consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:50, 10 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.

Possible State PR rep as Wiki editor

In doing some new page patrol work, I came across a page on Biotechnology in Maryland. The page is written like a press release and the author is "Mdbizauthor" (i.e. "MD" is an abbreviation for Maryland.) Every page this individual has worked on is related to the state of Maryland, so I don't think it's a giant leap to conclude the person is likely employed or contracted by the State of MD to write/edit MD articles. Of course, I could be wrong and maybe the individual is just a devout Marylander. In any case, I thought I should bring this to Admin's attention to determine if further action is warranted.JoelWhy (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is the best place to try raising this sort of thing for review, unless there is some immediate admin specific action needed. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged Biotechnology in Maryland for speedy deletion as way too promotional in tone. It needs to be zapped and rewritten.--ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. I don't think the page should be deleted, just heavily edited (and we need to go through his/her other edits on different pages, as well.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy declined - I don't know why I bother, looks like a clear case to me.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

PROD it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's at AfD right now. To add, this editor created a similar article back in 2009 about Maryland business (Business in Maryland). That article's been edited by others since, but it still is very promotional in tone ("Maryland's world-class education system helps to fuel its highly professional and technical workforce."; do these people not realize how unpersuasive this is?). That said, the account doesn't seem to have been very active in the meantime.

What is the current status of paid/advocacy editing? I know there was some discussion a while back about clarifying the rules beyond simple COI policy. Shadowjams (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IP user in possible breach of 1RR restrictions set out at WP:NCMAC

(Originally posted at helpdesk and WP:AN, but I think it should really have been opsted here first) Greetings Wikipedians, I had originally posted this at the help desk, and have been advised to bring it to the attention of this page instead. User:109.242.108.54 has started to breach 1RR restrictions as set out per WP:NCMAC, in regards to the naming of "Republic of Macedonia". According to details at NCMAC, and also ArbComs decisions, when the country is being listed with other countries in articles, the we should refer to it as Macedonia. Both myself, and Kosm1fent (talk · contribs) have issued warnings to the IP; and the IP still re-reverts things back. The articles in question so far are:

• Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest
• Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012
• Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest
• Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Subsequently, the IP has accused myself of making up this decision, despite the fact its ArbCom's ruling; and has also submitted a request to rename and move article. What actions (if any) should be taken now, as I feel like we're hitting our heads against a stone wall, despite relevant wiki-guidance being shown to the user. Thank you in advance. Wesley☀Mouse 12:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning logged in the WP:ARBMAC decision. Since the case imposes a 1RR rule about changing the name of Macedonia in any articles, which he has already broken at Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, I recommend an immediate block if he continues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into that EdJohnston - very much appreciated. What happens about the IP's request to move Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 to Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012? Is their request eligible for speedy rejection, or quashed? Wesley☀Mouse 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:Jason James Scott

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, I am proposing a siteban on editor Jason James Scott (talk · contribs). Ever since his indefinite block, he has to date created 131 sockpuppets in a period of three years, in addition to another 18 suspected socks. Throughout 2009-2010, he has had the knack of creating a huge sockpuppet army. While what all seemed to rather peaceful, he has returned to create more socks, as per his WP:SPI case page, more recently in April 2012, where it is suspected and confirmed by checkuser that he returned to create more socks with the purpose of evading his block. It is disappointing to note that a serial sockpuppeter such as him was not enacted to a community ban in 2010, 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. Bearing the comments BMusician said to me when I commented on Mr. Curious Man's sock, Blinkybill, I have not fed the troll here. -- Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Looking back at the investigations archive, we have had problems with this user since 2009, it does appear that this user in question will continue to vandalize and will not let up. The MO appears to be creating fake article for his/her or others personal amusement. I support a Ban on the English Wikipedia, as this user has not shown any signs of stopping, and will continue to be a APT. Phearson (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, due to the nominator of this ban. Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, obviously. Calabe1992 18:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

20-Mule-Team Support: One hundred and thirty-one sockpuppets??? Hell, after looking things over, I'd support sending a team of bruisers wielding frozen trouts to administer seafood justice. This is someone in need of serious help from professionals. Ravenswing 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - yep, no question. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support with icy sushi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Adios Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that there are more supports than oppose, I'll be contacting an admin to mark this as close and put the ban into effect. Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 09:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban discussions are supposed to run for a minimum of 24 hours even in WP:SNOWy conditions. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:CBAN. We want the discussion to last long enough that people who may have a contrary opinion log in and have a chance to be heard, even if the first 10-20 people support something the next 10-20 may not or may have really good additional information to educate admins and users commenting and a potential closing admin. The policy only requires "normally" but the discussions that led to the existing wording strongly encouraged mandatory 24 hr or more runs before closure, and I doubt any admin familiar with the policy will close faster... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes for banning is silly, and I won't close it for that reason, but... George, take a look at the time stamps. Any admin familiar with policy could have closed this about 10 hours ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur Floquenbeam. This discussion has been running for an awful amount of time right now, and votes for banning just sounds totally silly. Soviet King ^{Говорите со мной.} 09:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - 100+ sockpuppets?? Ban this troublemaker now! Bmusician 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support So we can quickly nuke his contributions. This edit by one of his socks is plain vandalism, he was directing users to a user sandbox that contained misinformation. Seems to be interested only in inserting lies, disguised as legit content. Wikipedia is not for playing games. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Mrlittleirish 11:58, 11 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.

Bad Faith and Mr Bratland

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

---

In the article 'BMW R1100GS' motorbike there was a section on a book called Ghost Rider that featured the R1100GS bike. This section was non-relevant trivia and so it was deleted on 15 MARCH. The deletion was reverted several times by Dennis Bratland. A ‘Talk’ page discussion on the material began. D.Bratland put his case for inclusion based on his contention that the BMW R1100GS was the only motorcycle uniquely suited to its application in the Ghost Rider book. This - of absolute uniqueness - was the only argument advanced. (It would be the only argument advanced for the next 3 weeks, 30 posts and 3 venues.)

First, when evidence was presented that proved the original contention incorrect - that there was no evidence that said the bike was unique and, in fact, that there was clear evidence that the R1100GS was NOT unique - see ‘Talk‘ page - there followed a series of premature and heavy-handed use by D Bratland of policy code breaches such as WP:SNOW, WP:OWN, and accusations of trolling. In order to avoid ‘edit wars’ I didn’t revert the deleted section that DB had reinstated.

Instead I opened a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion.

The Noticeboard allowed far more detailed presentation of sourced evidence that again clearly proved the BMW R1100GS was not unique in the original way stated, thus undermining the sole reason for the inclusion of the Ghost Rider book material on the R1100GS page - (there is a blue-numbered list (1-6) summation of evidence 3/4 down the noticeboard discussion). Other editors - e.g. Coaster92 - contributed the same opinion, that there was no proof of the bike's uniqueness.

Then in what I contend was an attempt to derail and ‘topic ban’ the discussion, D.Bratland then lodged complaints of ‘personal attacks’ and ‘canvassing’ in ‘Request to delete personal attacks else topic ban’. These were investigated by non-involved editors who found that the accusations were unfounded, but also that Dennis Bratland himself was suspect of WP:GAME, WP:OWN, WP:BOOMERANG and of using multiple open forums. (The complaint against me was tagged as ‘No Action Needed’)

The Unintentional Reveal
This tactic not having worked at getting the topic banned, Mr Bratland continued to advance his sole argument for uniqueness of the R1100GS to the Ghost Rider book - even in the face of mounting evidence and opinion otherwise. However, when he then made a second attempt to suggest why the material be included on another bike article, he made the revealing mistake that brings us to the core reason for this complaint:

• On 7 April 2012 (15:56), Bratland said: - “if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" then I'd be happy to move the Ghost Rider section to BMW GS.’ (this can be found just after 'Section break 3')

Now, this is highly revealing because - in that one small, careless aside - he reveals that he knew his argument was false: in his attempt to make a new case for including the material on a generic GS page (though that doesn‘t stand up either), Dennis Bratland had accidentally and unintentionally revealed that he himself already knew there was evidence that the BMW R1100GS was not unique in the way he had argued himself for the last 3 weeks! Even quoting a sourch that proves there were indeed other similar bike models.*

• * (And, note: this isn’t an instance of the user changing his mind on the issue because of the evidence; it is an instance of a user unintentionally revealing that they knew full-well their argument was ill-founded.)

Basically, it amounts to Mr Bratland metaphorically saying: ‘Okay, even though I’ve argued for 3 weeks that the bike is totally unique, I actually already knew that wasn’t the case. But anyway - moving quickly on - let’s now look at my other argument…”

• I’m sorry, but this is too fundamental a breach to ignore. (And it's a wee bit depressing to have spent all that time collecting evidence to prove a case that the other editor already knew to be true.)

• It’s bad enough that a user falsely accused other editors in an attempt to topic ban the discussion
• But it’s even worse that they knew all along their case was false but continued anyway
• And it’s even more damaging to Wikipedia to have a case where an editor can spend weeks debating something that he clearly did not even himself believe and that knew to be founded on a falsity.

I would contend that that is the very definition of an argument that is not in good faith. And is exactly the kind of disingenuous, partisan, mendacious ‘arguing’ that drives potential new users (and some old ones) away from contributing to Wikipedia.
Rivercard (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice. Roll back the stone, This thread has been basically resurrected here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

* I thought a separate complaint would demand it's own seperate filing. Is that not the case? The other topic was not filed by me, and it was also recommended (by Dennis Brown) for closure. So for those reasons I didn't think of this as a ressurection, but as a new case (which, really, it is). It didn't seem right to tag this on to the end of the other one.
Rivercard (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, there was a dispute resolution case, and it was reopened. [58]. TransporterMan was the only uninvolved party to offer an opinion in the matter, saying: "There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so." In short, leave it in the article and file at WP:RFC. A search at RFC shows no such request, [59] telling me you ignored good advice. You both have been moderately rude to each other, and I think no action is needed against Dennis Bratland here just as I recommended no action against you in his ANI. My advice is to close this ANI, for you to stop deleting the info for now (based on the recommendation of TransporterMan above) and instead go file at WP:RFC. You both need to drop the petty sqabbles and go to RFC, or risk sanctions. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• And someone please change that title and anchor to the old name. Obviously a non-neutral title. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis (Brown, that is), couple of really important points, if I may: TransporterMan's initial comment was from 3 weeks ago and before most of the evidence supporting the case for deletion was presented, so the content of that initial comment is not up-to-speed as we now stand. TransporterMan has not contributed since, apart from when he reopened the Noticeboard discussion (one week later), but then he did not enter the discussion at all, and the only comment he made was to clarify that WP:WPACT was a indeed a part of communal consensus used to supplement established procedure. So for that reason, I think comments left later into the case are more conversant with the edvidence.

If I didn't think there wasn't a foundation for this ANI I genuinely wouldn't have filed it. (And I think you can see from the discussion exchanges so far that I'm not easy to rile and I don't cry wolf regarding the behaviour of others.) But when one of the two original contributing editors in a discussion (in this case, the user Dennis Bratland) clearly reveals that they themselves did not believe in the argument they were advancing, then that seems too important to ignore - it's the very definiton of a bad faith argument. And it actually disproves their own case (see quote in first post).

And in trying to look at this as dispassionately as possible, I still cannot see how a very fundamantal breach like that can pass without comment or sanction.
Rivercard (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also important to note, even the initial opposer Dennis Bratland has has now conceded (on 7 April) the case, and admitted that the BMW R1100GS is not unique. So I think that rather trumps the comment of TransporterMan from 3 weeks ago at the very start of the discussion.
  Rivercard (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough. This is a content dispute. This board is not for content disputes. There is no administrative action to be taken here. The applicable policies are WP:V - is the information verifiable, WP:UNDUE - is it excessive to include it, and WP:CONSENSUS - is there consensus to remove it. So far, you do not seem to have gained consensus to remove it. If it is really that important to you, I recommend taking the RFC step. However, I should point out that plenty of articles on cars, bikes, trucks, planes etc have a section about the vehicle's appearance in fictional media (Bond's Aston Martin DB5, Inspector Morse's Jag, Starsky and Hutch's Gran Torino) so the general consensus seems to be that it's OK if the media appearance is notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 11 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.

Sneaky date-related vandalism

For the past several weeks, User:76.103.171.69 has been making small changes to a number of articles ostensibly correcting facts and concentrating on dates. His edit have been repeatedly challenged by other editors and he has been asked to provide sources or at least to explain how he is coming up with these new dates. He has ignored all attempts to communicate. For this reason he just received his 4th block yesterday (his second 3-month time-out). Although it is possible that these are the edits of a well-intentioned person who is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, certain facts stick out for me which concern me. On the Moomin comic strips article, for example, 76.103.171.69 first claimed that the strip "Moomin's Winter Follies" was published on June 22, 1955 in this edit; he then later changed it to June 8, 1955 in this edit; and most recently he changed it to July 13, 1955 in this edit. Considering how many times the same strip has been re-dated by the same editor, it is clear that he is either using an exceptionally volatile source or he is just making the facts up out of thin air. For obvious reasons, this kind of "sneaky vandalism" is very difficult to detect normally and I think it merits special attention.

Someone reported User:76.103.171.69 at AIV yesterday and I also expressed my concern that User:24.4.254.10 was a sockpuppet account for User:76.103.171.69, but no action was taken against 24.4.254.10. Today's edits all but confirm this considering that 24.4.254.10's first edit since mid-March comes 1 day after 76.103.171.69 was banned and 24.4.254.10's edits match 76.103.171.69 precisely. At AIV I had asked where would be a good place to alert editors about "sneaky vandalism" and got no response, so I'm taking a stab at it here. If this is not the proper forum then please point me in the right direction. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure I just haven't explained it well. Is it that you don't see the connection between 76.103.171.69 and 24.4.254.10 or that you don't see the edits as characteristic of vandalism? -Thibbs (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Well I'd really hate to have this fly under the radar so I made up some evidence sheets for you. Please let me know if these are enough to convince you. And if anybody else could weigh in here I'd be mighty obliged. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Proof of sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Location: 76.103.171.69 geolocates to Moraga, CA, USA 24.4.254.10 geolocates to Lafayette, CA, USA The two towns are both located in the same county (Contra Costa County) and are separated by just less than 4 miles of road (~10 minute one-way car trip). Chronology & articles & style: Jan 1, 2012 - 76.103.171.69 is blocked for 3 months. Jan 3, 2012 - March 22, 2012 - 24.4.254.10 awakens from a 5 year sleep to make numerous date-only edits in the exact same style as 76.103.171.69 to the exact same articles as 76.103.171.69 (compare 76.103 edit on 1/1/12 with 24.4 edit on 3/1/12) April 1, 2012 The very day the block is lifted, 76.103.171.69 is back to editing the exact same articles in exactly the same way (see 76.103 edit on 1/4/12, and 76.103 edit on 2/4/12). April 10, 2012 - 76.103.171.69 is blocked for another 3 months. April 10, 2012 - 24.4.254.10 resumes editing the exact same articles in the exact same manner (see 24.4 edit on 10/4/12; compare 76.103 edit on 1/4/12 to 24.4 edit on 10/4/12). Other items from WP:SIGNS include edit warring, an account with occasional usage, and arguably knowledge that an obscure article exists. These two accounts are quite obviously used by the same person. -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As for whether or not it's vandalism,... I suppose that's the beauty of sneaky vandalism. It often appears indistinguishable from legitimate errors. There really is no way to prove that these edits are vandalism short of extracting a written confession from the vandal, but there are clues we can look at that would lead us more toward or more away from the determination of vandalism. I guess the strongest clue I have comes from the fact that in three edits to the same article, a newly introduced date was changed to three different days. Paying specific attention to the date for the strip entitled "Moomin's Winter Follies", please note that 76.103.171.69 initially claimed the strip was published on June 22, later changing it to June 8, and finally settling a few months later on July 13. The question that naturally arises is "what sort of a situation would result in an editor changing the date 3 times in 3 edits?" One option as I suggested above is that the source is volatile. If the NYTimes source prints a date and then issues a correction and then later another correction then I suppose we have our explanation for this kind of an edit pattern. In most cases, though, sources covering facts like dates are static and can be relied on to remain the same from day to day. Further evidence that these edits may be vandalistic in nature comes from 76.103.171.69's and 24.4.254.10's respective talk pages where over a dozen warnings have been issued for adding "incorrect information" or dates without sources. Edit warring to restore incorrect information is not proof of vandalistic intent, but it might be considered suggestive evidence. -Thibbs (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. The user is almost certainly the same, but I'm not persuaded by the evidence that it's vandalism. The user added quite a bit of content, and it's possible that the three changes to a single date were either a mistake, or some other informed revision. For me the test of sneaky vandalism is whether you can come up with any source to prove any of the information is false. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP has already been blocked for 3 months.--Atlan (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The other subject of the complaint, 24.4.254.10 (talk · contribs · block log) is not currently blocked. I believe a talk page notification is traditional. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a talk page notification would be helpful if this is a case of sneaky vandalism. Given that I've outlined an MO above, why provide an opportunity to change style? It's a judgment call though so if someone wants to alert the editor then go for it. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As it's clearly a sockpuppet account evading a block, a new block (simultaneous with or without a warning) seems like the obvious move, but I wanted to raise awareness of the possibility of sneaky vandalism with this one since it seems likely to me. If nobody else is concerned about that possibility then perhaps I'm just being paranoid. I'm willing to entertain that possibility. -Thibbs (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relatedly, would it be a good idea to file with SPI? I'm uncertain about the rules regarding IPs as socks of other IPs. Is such a thing possible or would I be wasting my time? -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... I want to add, that first off this date change vandalism (height changes to bios is common too) is pretty pervasive and I suspect there are a few dozen socks that account for a large amount of it (aside from the typical one-off vandalism). I've followed a particular sock for similar date changes to a bunch of music articles. I've also seen IPs doing exactly what you showed here, often on children's cartoon articles. In fact, I would not be surprised if this was the same person[s]. However I don't think I ever dug much deeper on the cartoon-date changes, so I can't direct you to the appropriate SPI case... but you might look through the edit history on those pages and see if there are some IPs in similar ranges that did some prolific editing in the past. You might be surprised what you find.

I've been talking about this kind of subtle vandalism for a long time, and it's pernicious because it goes unnoticed for so long, and because in my experience these individuals are persistent. Factual changes like dates are particularly bad because they provide no context to help evaluate their truth, often you have to take a date at its word. For example, if I change the date of Henry VIII to 1984, then it's obvious. But if I change it to 1490, would anyone know the difference?

When you come across an editor who's making lots of sequential date changes, or even adding more specific dates (as in the case of the music sock), it's a completely valid question to ask them where they're getting their information from. If they respond adequately, then great, especially if follow ups on that check out. But I've found most of these editors never respond on the talk page, they just go on with the edits until they're blocked. I've even seen IPs I've monitored be blocked for spans as long as a year, and they're editing again within 24 hours of the block letting up. I've honestly considered the possibility that there's some sort of automated bot making their edits for them. Shadowjams (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I did a little digging and there are dozens and dozens of these accounts flitting about in the children's cartoon articles (Several from California, some from Wisconsin, others from WA, OH, NJ, etc., etc.). I suspect you may be right about it being bots because with so many active accounts (only one of the first ten such accounts that I noticed had ever seen a block) it's not as if these editors are waiting with baited breath for the their blocks to expire. The fact that they seem to immediately resume their activities hours after lengthy blocks expire sounds very robotic. We need a new Voight-Kampff test for the tag filters as they've obviously stepped up their game a bit. Some of the accounts I was looking at have been active for 8+ months and they are still operating block-free. It's disheartening to see how devoted some people are to discrediting Wikipedia. The only motivation I can guess is some kind of spite or revenge... As it is I wouldn't trust dates in any of the TV show articles at this point. I wish I had time to make an in depth SPI report. Anyway thanks for your comment Shadowjams. Glad to see I'm not the only one who cares. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit-warring and incivility by user:DonCalo

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.

---

DonCalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds BLP-violating material without citations to the Propaganda Due (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He has also resorted to edit-warring and gross personal attacks on his edit-summaries: diff. Admin action is requested. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the editor is templating me on my talk page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war. I properly referenced the inclusion of a member on the P2 list, which was subsequently removed without explanation. Then I restored a dead link which has been removed as well. Dr.K. should first check what he is deleting before deleting it. - DonCalo (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The citation they attempted to add does not support membership of Publio Fiori in the P2 Masonic lodge. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• How has this gotten to ANI when no one has tried to use the article talk page to discuss?
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Because of the gross personal attack on his edit-summary. I add it again for you convenience: diff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that edit summary is clearly a demeaning personal attack in the form of bullying - if User:DonCalo refuses to apologize or retract its worthy of a block - Youreallycan 20:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you YRC. The user has expressed regret for his actions. I accept this in good faith and I think the matter should be marked as resolved. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:04, 11 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.

Persistant copyright violations at 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season

The past few months on the 2011-12 Arsenal F.C. season page, Arsenal's premier league fixtures have been placed on the page. This is a copyright violation which was best summed up in this description by User:Spiritofsussex and the page was semi-protected for it.

Recently, user Ricky Sen has been doing the same thing over and over again and he has been told several times in the descriptions that he cannot do that and he has also been warned twice on his talk page by me but he still continues with no acknowledgement of either. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon this ignorant yankee, but I'm seeing him provide facts with citations, not prose. For the sake of people like me, can you provide some info or a link to the guideline this violates? I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just confused and could use some education on how this violates copyright law. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  The Premier League fixtures are copyrighted. Including them here, with citations or otherwise, is a copyright violation if we don't have prior permission to reproduce. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I apologize for taking this away from the topic at hand but I have to ask: The list of who a team played is copyrighted? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• That was my point. I don't see how this can be copyrighted according to US Copyright law (which is the controlling law for Wikipedia), as it is just facts. That is why I asked for further explanation, beyond what the edit summaries are saying. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) How can it be a copyright violation? National newspapers (both British and International) publish league fixtures and league results, as do media broadcasts. If it is a supposedly copyright violation, then wouldn't the global media also be in breach of the same law? Wesley☀Mouse 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, is it a copyvio? Your communications with Ricky Sen strongly assert that it definitely is. But you don't cite a policy, or a guideline, or a discussion, that clarifies that this is the case. We have one, right? Maybe. Searching for clarity isn't easy:

• I see you and Spiritofsussex discuss the possibility that this is a copyvio at Talk:2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season#Premier League fixtures. In that discussion (in which only the two of you take part) neither of you seems very sure, saying "it would seem that the fixtures are copyrighted" and "it's a copyright issue then maybe the fixtures should be removed." So "it would seem" that "maybe" these are copyvios?
• You'd think Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would have discussed this to death. But all I find is this rather unsatisfying discussion. So it's okay after all?
• Or has WP:FOOTY a guideline about this (just writing down the outcome of previous discussions helps us avoid having to revisit the same issue over and over). I cant' find one. I can find this discussion. So they're definitely forbidden?

Don't get me wrong - I don't know if these are copyvios either. Are we really saying that even naming the very next fixture ("Newcastle are playing Leeds away next Wednesday") is a copyvio? If not, how much is too much? To my mind Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and WP:FOOTY needs to sit down and at least write up a clear guideline, which you can in future direct people like Ricky Sen to. I'm rather unhappy at the prospect of blocking someone on the basis of a rather poorly documented miasma of guesswork - at least let's have a well documented miasma. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this article from BBC News is any help. But is does explain that the fixtures are protected by copyright, and that media and betting stores pay a licence fee to a company called "Football Dataco". The article goes on to state that anyone wishing to publish the needs to pay Football Dataco a fee in order to be given permission. Although there is legal proceeding on-going in the British courts to have this overturned. Wesley☀Mouse 18:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, it has no legal weight in the US. Facts cannot be copyrighted, only the presentation of the facts can. So, we couldn't use their specific table layout, but the facts therein are free game. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no idea what this means for the law, since IANAL in copyright or anything else, however my understanding of the idea-expression divide is that expressions may be copyrighted by ideas may not. That is, the simple fact that a match occured, or is scheduled to occur, cannot itself be copyrighted, since that idea is not fixed in a permanent form. A specific example of prose which meets the threshold of originality describing said match would be copyrighted, but people cannot own the copyright on a simple fact. --Jayron32 19:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*The UK has different laws on copyright than the US, perhaps, but it is US law that applies here. Wikipedia's servers are in Florida, US, where facts can not be copyrighted. According to the US Copyright Office, "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."(cite: [60]). I would say this can't be protected, but would invite a larger discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just on a technical point, Football Dataco have sui generis database protection rights in the fixture list under Section 3A of the (UK) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which implements Article 3 of EU Directive 96/9. See Football Dataco v Smoot [2011] EWHC 973 (Ch). Not strictly a _copyright_ violation, but definitely against EU law. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• (IANAL!) It should be noted that this was a default judgement, due to the findings in the Yahoo UK case, which was about publishing or copying the database as a whole, which itself is on appeal (according to the case you linked). Even if UK law was supreme in this case (and I can't see how it is), then the question would be about Fair Use exception (in US law) for these individual facts. Most of the guidelines on WP cover "files" (works) rather than snippets of text, so the policies aren't helping much. Still looking.... Dennis Brown (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE is relevant, but far from definitive. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've asked Moonriddengirl to participate. Since she works on copyright all the time, she may have already come across the issue before. If this was published in the US, there would be zero issue. I just want to make sure that the Berne Convention or some other treaty isn't into play. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • We should keep this discussion within its narrow scope. It's not the job of administrators, or ANI, to decide what the copyright policy should be on English football fixtures. The only matter here is whether administrators should take some action against Ricky Sen for adding this material (or I suppose against those who removed it). I think the weight of ambiguity shows we can't in good conscience do so. So I move that this discussion be hatted (with a suggestion to both parties to desist until some actual clarity arises). A discussion about what should, or shouldn't, be permitted should either be at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or a content RFC. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are right, it does need a bigger venue than this discussion. Moonriddengirl can possibly shed some light as to prior consensus (if it exists) but this isn't the forum to make a wiki-wide decision on bigger issues and it wasn't my intent to do so. I was assuming there was precedent, but I shouldn't have. I absolutely agree that no action should be taken against the editor, for reasons you have already articulated. I have no issue with hatting it, so the bigger issues can be handled elsewhere. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for some of the clarification on this. I don't think anything should be done to the editor for now and I would like to see what Moonriddengirl's thoughts are on this. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Just got this message and it's bedtime in my household, but I wanted to stop by and say that we are bound by US copyright law here. We do not, for example, recognize "sweat of the brow". Many months ago, I engaged in some extensive discussion about copyright in lists with one of the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers. I was working on an essay about the issue; what I have is at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. I have never completed it because the advice we received was actually more conservative than the approach we had traditionally taken (it's the big bit that's stricken out). The basic rule of thumb is this: if it is actually fact, the information in a list or table is not protected, but sometimes what looks like fact may be expert opinion and lists/tables may be protected for other factors, including creativity of selection and arrangement. Is a list basic fact, selected and organized in a way that would be conventional for any source discussing the subject? We're probably safe. If there is creativity in information, selection or structure, we may not be. I haven't had a chance to look at this table and won't tonight, but I would recommend looking at in that light - assessing creativity of content and organization - to determine if it is usable here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and finally moved that essay into project space. I would have liked to get a successful discussion going to expand the recommendations for fair use usage of lists that we agree are copyrighted, but since my one real effort to get something going on that failed to attract any attention, I've just summarized what the actual state is - kind of nebulous - and reproduced the advice at WP:NFC based on our attorney's feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, S3 &3A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says [61]

• 3 Literary, dramatic and musical works.(1)In this Part—

“literary work” means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes— (a)a table or compilation [F1other than a database], F2. . . (b)a computer program; F3. . .[F4(c) preparatory design material for a computer program][F5and (d)a database] “dramatic work” includes a work of dance or mime; and “musical work” means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music. (2)Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise; and references in this Part to the time at which such a work is made are to the time at which it is so recorded.

• 3A Databases(1)In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—

(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and (b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means. (2)For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation.

I believe that the fixtures are created by random draw (can someone confirm that) which means there is no creative input, (eta, apparently the fixtures are a designed set, not a random draw, which is significant for UK copyright) and the selection of the contents is all the fixtures (ie there is no creative input to what's in the fixture list, it's just all the fixtures) so the only thing copyright can be the arrangement of the contents in the database. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• In the Yahoo UK case[62], they describe in great detail how the list is created, describing it as part science and part art. In the end " the computer software is used as a tool to assist in finding a solution to problematic fixtures." (they hand pick certain matches that must take place, the computer fills in the rest I believe) then it is reviewed again by humans and perhaps tweaked. It is a mix of both. But even if we assume the UK allows that to be copyrighted, it is very clear that in the US, it could not be and the law is very clear on this. So does Wikipedia conform to UK or US law here? Normally, US because of location, so it would have to be some kind of exception I don't know about to apply UK law. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but no reasonable person would consider a sports league's schedule to be protected by copyright... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, but in the UK, they are. Very unAmerican of the Brits ;) So again, no action should be taken against the user adding them. And like Finley said, an admin probably needs to tell them both to stop adding material until RfC or some other final ruling is made (or pointed to if already been done) as to whether or not is ok to add them here. I think it is fine, but it isn't my call to make. Moonriddengirl just added an interesting note above that seems to indicate that in this instance, adding it should be ok. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to how it is very clear that these lists cannot be copyrighted in the US as in my opinion deciding when certain games are definitely creative and is not a fact. Of course once the game is played it is fact and so lists of results are no problem. So from the court case information Dennis Brown gives I think we must err on the side of caution and assume these lists are copyrighted even in the US and so we can not use them. I am uncertain as to whether a court would decide the creative content was enough for copyright protection but, as wikipedia is not in the business of making case law, I think we must be cautious. Whether they are copyrighted in the UK is largely irrelevant although it may be relevant to people editing in the UK and posting the material. As an aside, the state in the UK seems to be debatable at the moment due to various court cases. All that said the edit wars here seem to be over the addition of one game at a time and I think a case could be made for fair use of just the next fixture, although this may require more discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I link it above, but the actual Copyright office for the US govt. makes it very clear that it can't be, only the way that it can be presented is. Phonebooks can't be copyrighted either. I've also run across it a few times in my day job. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is the point, really. If I say, for example, that my team is playing team X tomorrow, that's clearly not an issue. If I list the entire season's fixtures in the format they're originally presented, then that might well be - which was what the editor was doing here. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A sports league plays games; this is a fact. A sports league schedules its games; this is a fact. The dates and times of these games are made public; this is a fact. Ergo, the league schedule is a publically known fact. Or is everyone who says "I'll be at the Foo vs Bar match on Foosday" be slapped with a copyright infringement suit? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That Wikipedia is not in the business of making case law is irrelevant; I don't see at all how that leads to "we must be cautious." That's another term for "we need to self-censor because the other side's lawyers are making scary lawyer-noises." I say that - especially since copyright law in the location of Wikipedia's servers is not at issue - we tell them to stick it in their ears and dare them to do something about it. As Bushranger says, we are dealing with public facts, publically released and known. Wikipedia is not in the business of protecting the Premiership's bloated profit margins. Ravenswing 06:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think my concerns stems from the fact that games may not actually be played as per that schedule and so although it is a fact that they are scheduled to play on that day it is not a fact that they will play on that day. The scheduling element introduces enough element of creativity, in my opinion, to possibly be copyrightable. We can't get away saying anything we want just because it's a fact otherwise we could say things like "Author X wrote [insert entire text of copyrighted book]". It's a fact but we can't do it because of the creativity in what they wrote and so it's copyrighted. Although an extreme example I hope it illustrates my point. Personally I think it's very debatable as to whether a fixture list such as this has enough creativity to be copyrightable but, given the advice by our attorney mentioned above, I also don't think it's worth running the risk as we don't want to get wikipedia into some sort of test case with all the costs involved. Dpmuk (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More to the point - given that the article is one which covers the history of the season, does it need a list of upcoming fixtures? I think the answer to that is no. As an aside to Ravenswing - Football DataCo is nothing to do exclusively with the Premiership; it covers all eight league divisions in England and Scotland. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel a bit different on this one. I'm not convinced that the schedule would be copyrightable in the United States under Feist. Although it is true that some courts get wonky about schedules ([63]; [64]), these cases turn on the skill, judgment and labor of compilation, as I understand it, and the US is indifferent to that. I'm inclined to agree with User:The Bushranger here. That said, copyright is not the only factor to consider in including such material. To quote from WP:NFC footnote 1, relating advice from the WMF counsel, "She also recommends that the use of even uncopyrightable lists be considered with regards to licensing agreements that may 'bind the user/reader from republishing the list/survey results without permission', noting that 'Absent a license agreement, you may still run afoul of state unfair competition and/or misappropriation laws if you take a substantial portion of the list or survey results.'" Speaking strictly as a volunteer, of course, I do not believe that this would create liability for WMF, but there may be risk for the individual who copies the content. Whatever decision is reached, I would urge contributors to be careful for their own liability. I think sometimes Wikipedians forget that we are individually responsible legally for our actions here. Even if we were to decide that appropriating the entire list is within US copyright law and a-ok for Wikipedia, editors who live in the UK need to remember that they answer for their actions in that jurisdiction and are bound by those laws. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, allowing reuse is a priority. On the other hand, we allow non-free content as well as images of people (which are protected by personality rights), so I'm not too worried. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Ravenswing - I think you may have missed my point a bit - it is my opinion that whether this data is copyrighted in the US (and more specifically the location of the servers) is at question here. I'd agree that if it was clear-cut in the US there wouldn't be a problem. My comment about not making case law is related to the fact that I think the status is questionable in the US. If we do conclude it's possibly copyrighted in the US, even if probably not, then I think we should err on the side of caution. I doubt the foundation would appreciate it if they got dragged to court about content on their servers.

In response to Mooniddengirl - I'm not convinced that it would be copyrightable under Fiest but I'm also not convinced it wouldn't be. If the fixture list was completely machine generated I'd agree that it wouldn't be under Fiest. The addition of humans fixing certain games to happen at certain times introduces some creativity and so I think means that Fiest does not directly apply. There's two elements of creativity I see there - firstly which games are worthy of fixing which doesn't seem to be decided in any deterministic way and once that's decided when to schedule those games, which again I doubt is in any way deterministic and is instead creative. Whether that creativity is enough for copyright protection is the question I'm less certain on. I would have no problem with those games that were entirely computer generated being included as I agree they are not copyightable in the US.

All that said it's clear that this is a judgement call and I can definitely see the argument for the fixture list not being copyrighted so don't I don't feel too strongly either way. Dpmuk (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, IANAL, but based on the logic that game scheduling is creative, you could claim that any schedule or calendar is copyrighted - note that nobody's (AFAIK) ever complained about NASCAR, NFL, MLB, etc. schedules being posted - because even if you include the game date and time, they are still a simple statement of fact - "a sports game between W and X will occur on Y at Z". The argument that they "might not" is hairsplitting - barring rain, terrorism, or the catch-all "acts of God", the games are expected by any reasonable person to go on as scheduled. Now, those countries with more restrictive (silly?) copyright rules than the U.S. might well consider a sports schedule copyrighted (and that's very silly, stop it at once!), but I fail to see how any reasonable person could consider any sports schedule to be copyrighted under U.S. law because, arranged by human or computer, they are still simple lists of scheduled facts. Now, that said, the format of the list might well be copyrighted, but the content? Inconceivable! (Oh, and you might want to use a different term than "fixing" to describe the game scheduling, as that has another, rather less savory meaning.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"note that nobody's (AFAIK) ever complained about NASCAR, NFL, MLB, etc. schedules being posted". I'm guessing that's because the "owners" of such fixtures have never taken anyone to court for reproducing them? I'll just re-state what I said above; these articles don't need a list of upcoming fixtures, the article is not degraded by not having them, so why are we still having this discussion? Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think you missing the point that in the US, this type of list can't be copyrighted. In the UK, it can be, and it is, in the UK. You can't compare it to any schedule in the USA. The only issue is which law do we follow, which is likely US copyright law. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm not missing the point; if the content is copyrighted in the UK, UK contributors (which the majority of those on this article are likely to be) may still have issues if they add it. OK, unlikely I know, but since the article doesn't need that information anyway, it's somewhat pointless trying to decide whether or not it should be in there. Common sense, surely? Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger - I think I've made my point and we'll have to agree to differ on the main point. However as an aside I will point out that your statement 'barring rain, terrorism, or the catch-all "act of god|acts of God]]"' is wrong when it comes to UK football, a club having a cup or European run will often play havoc with their league schedule as these competitions take precedence. I have no idea how many Premier League games are played at a time different to that originally scheduled but I would be very surprised if it were less than 10% and wouldn't be surprised if it were as many as a quarter. I will agree that my use of the word "fixing" (rather than fixture) could be open to misinterpretation in the UK as well but the term fixture list is also the term that is almost always used in the UK so no I'm not going to stop using that term if that was also part of your request (and I'm not sure it was). Dpmuk (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) ANd it wasn't a request to stop using the term, so much as a caution that some people will misunderstand your use of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Right. As of the last appeal, fixture lists are not copyrightable in the UK. Is there a consensus amongst ANI's armchair lawyers that they're not copyrightable in the US? If so, fixture lists can be included at editorial discretion. What am I missing? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're correct, near as I can tell. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've cited above, the US Copyright office says that the facts can't be copyrighted, only the presentation style *might* can be, which doesn't apply here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And as I point out above, based on the advice of wikimedia counsel, I wouldn't like to say for sure that this isn't copyightable in the US. Moonriddengirl is also not 100% sure (which she mentions on her talk page) but comes down on the side of it not being copyrightable. You are obviously quite certain that it isn't but presenting that like it's an agreed upon fact is misleading. That said I think there is a consensus here that the material isn't copyrightable, and so I don't think it should be removed as a copyvio, but I'd also suggest that anyone adding the material read the copyright in lists page and this discussion and make their own mind up as the situation isn't completely clear cut and while wikipedia is protected by the DMCA users are not. Dpmuk (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri separatist

131.183.0.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is on a quest to dissociate India from Jammu and Kashmir: removes mentioning of India, replaces Hindi script with Urdu (whatever they are names), etc. In a number of cases this activity broke the infobox templates and interwiki links. Also removes whole phrases, such as "The airport connects to all major cities in India".

This account also removes warnings from their user talk page. Please keep an eye on their activity and explain wiki policies in this respect in a proper way. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made an additional warning to the IP. I'm right on the borderline for being involved, as I've reverted the IP a few times already, and agreed with the IP on another (for an article outside of India, removing Hindi is actually correct), so I'm not sure I can block, but if the removal doesn't stop, somebody should. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian has now blocked the IP for 48 hours, per this thread. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Bruno

I want to bring to your attention the case of Daniel Bruno, who is currently trying to promote his business on Wikipedia. A major concern among Bitcoin community is the way he uses the concept of bitcoin in order to swindle, thus harming unaware people and also discrediting this electronic cash system. His recent company, First National Innovation Brokers, has been exposed as a fraud about half a year ago on a bitcoin talk forum:

https://bitcoin-talk.org/index.php?topic=47438.0

https://bitcoin-talk.org/index.php?topic=47496.0;all

https://bitcoin-talk.org/index.php?topic=51820.0

https://bitcontalk.org/index.php?topic=52843.0

He tried recently to create a favorable Wikipedia article about it and it was deleted fairly fast. However, it remains as a lingering problem the fact that he continues to be active on Wikipedia, with a potential to harm people.

At this moment, there is a low level debate, with him complaining that I delete his name across Wikipedia.

Here is the moment when I should introduce myself. I am a former contractor of Daniel Bruno, I created for him the article about Charles Lampkin and I used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles a paper of him about banking in Tunisia. When the article on FNIB was proposed for deletion, he prompted me to intervene there. I wrote there what I thought about the company. Then other users replied, giving a different picture. The client continued to put pressure on me to refute their assertions. I start searching online about this company and then I realized the mess I got into. Probably his other things, like the paper on Tunisia banking are not clean at all too. I mean, I am happy to make articles like the one about Charles Lampkin, but not this kind of stuff.

When I refused to continue, he changed his attitude almost in the same way he did on bitcointalk, using demeaning language and threatening me that he will not pay the hours billed until that moment. There followed a few days of conflict, Elance system ruled in his favor (they have a strong bias towards the clients) and the billed hours were deleted with no payment. Plus, I got from him the worst possible rating on Elance, which effectively compromises my Elance account. So, it looks like I'm out of this business (not that I was really active, as you can see in my Elance job history, I worked only on 3 projects in the last 2 years). I thought that at least I should do a good thing and warn about his actions. The concept promoted by him on Kuru's talk page, "our articles", looks very troublesome. And I find almost unbelievable the way he accused me there of conflict of interest, when he is actually the person who hired me (and not even trying to hide this). To put it mildly, he has very high expectations from the people he is talking to and he is very disappointed when things don't go his way.

The problem is that the other contractors did not stop when they realized what was about. On Odesk, the main place where he is developing his websites, it appears that he keeps hiring people from Wikipedia (admins are the most preferred):

https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Wikipedian_~~24f51cfc5368e24b?_redirected

https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Wikipedia-expert-with-previous-EXPERIENCE_~~4a9a918afc37c192?_redirected

It seems that on Odesk there is no possibility to turn the information to private. On the other hand, on Elance it is possible to make private the terms of the contract (I am the "nightmare" guy there):

https://www.elance.com/e/swift11/

Another thing that I have found is that his other area of interest, his "academic works", does not deserve either a place on Wikipedia. For example, Cuba at a Cross Roads should be proposed again for deletion. When looking through his Odesk account, I found that it was written by hired people, with him only "drawing the conclusion":

https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Writing-Assistant-book-about-Cuba-English_~~7ea0469498e6ac90?_redirected

Now about accounts. I mention that the other accounts Ardsarea and Kuttares are mine too. I retire all these three accounts, eventually I will use my home account (Yaratam) to give further replies here, if needed. I guess you can consider them sockpuppets. In this sense, I could only say that I ended up with three accounts rather because I did not consider a "Wikipedia career" as an user, usually I edit with my IP. When I started working recently for D. Bruno, I created this account (Yaratam), but when I was on the computer from work and the one from my parents' house, I did not remember the random password, thus I created another two accounts (you can see that I did not really use them for sockpuppeting). Anyway, I guess this doesn't matter too much as long as it cannot be verified and I give up.

The other accounts mentioned on Kuru's talk page (Jonkerz and Altairisfar) are not mine, probably they just happened to edit Charles Lampkin's article (a sockpuppet investigation can verify this). There are still the accounts of his other contractors who continued to work for him. Yaratam (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On April 9 and April 10, 2012, Yaratam, previously employed by our firm via Elance, sent us signed emails demanding payment of US$500 and US$4000 or he would destroy the reputation of anyone associated with our firm. We did not pay him and the result is seen above.DazzBand (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked both of these editors indefinitely. Wikipedia is not here to promote one's business interest, nor is this noticeboard here to use as a bludgeon in pursuing vendettas against other editors. I leave it up to others whether any of these users' articles or edits need deletion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted per WP:CSD#G4 the curious article Первое Национальное Инновационное Биржевое Агентство (First National Innovation Brokers - FNIB) , a repost in Russian of the one about Bruno's firm recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First National Innovation Brokers. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at the contributions of Jdc wms (talk · contribs) in connection with this. --Calton | Talk 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran into this little cluster of paid editors after running across the articles at Editing Now What? A Guide to Retirement During Volatile Times and Can I Retire?. Both were non-notable works supported by outright fabricated references. First National Innovation Brokers was another of the same ilk. The AFD was oddly supported by a series of SPAs or accounts with a similar pattern of edits (creation of random non-notable, promotional articles with marginal or fake references). There were also patterns around "Daniel Bruno" (self-published works, or mentions) or the "Huffington Post Union of Bloggers". I presumed these were all separate individuals, so I did not pursue a checkuser. I did block Adotrde (talk · contribs) indef as the primary source of the outright faked references. With the blocks of DazzBand, Adotrde, Yaratam, Kuttares, I would note that Jdc wms (talk · contribs) is also clearly part of this group (I'm not comfortable blocking myself as he's recently engaged me on my talk page to defend a coi edit). There are a few others, but the edits have been minor and I don't want to speculate too much. Maybe a checkuser would help, since a few of those tuned out to be socks. I'll make a list of affected articles in userspace to review, while some are clearly notable, others are pretty fuzzy. Kuru (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaratam Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo1qaz

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.

---

Jimbo1qaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a user with a long-term pattern of disruptive editing, POV pusing ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]), vandalising pages in the main, user and Wikipedia namespaces ([80], [81]), hiding the disruptive editing as minor edits, and using personal attacks. The user has already received 7 warnings ([82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]), including level 3 and level 4 warnings, but decided to blank his talk page each time. His reponse to a "last warning" (level 4) was vandalising the warning, renaming the editor to "the idiot" ([89]), renaming his talk page to "talk about his stupid 'accomplishments'", and subsequently calling the reporter "a troll" ([90]), which, as always, means that the user does not have any plans to change his behaviour.

Suggested solution: Blocking the user for 1 year.

Rationale: This is a chronic, long-term problem, not an isolated incident, the user has received more than enough warnings, including a last warning, and completely ignored all of them. The user does not communicate at all, and refuses to change or acknowledge anything. Furthermore, the user has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines at once, including WP:NPOV, WP:VANDAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:NPA. This is very serious, so a shorter block (like 1 month) is inappropriate. An indefinite block may not be entirely suitable, either, as the user has made a couple of legitimate edits, too.—J. M. (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that J.M. has also filed a report at WP:AIV. -- Dianna (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the AIV report to avoid duplication.—J. M. (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, they made this edit to Blu-ray Disc, which another editor sees fit to roll back, without any explanation. Why? J.M. has this edit listed above as "disruptive editing, POV pus[h]ing"--why? I'm not disputing that the editor may be disruptive et cetera, but sheesh, a one-year block? Plus, I want to know what was so vandalistic about this Blu-ray edit, and will ask the other editor to explain that here. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I rolled back that edit as vandalism for several reasons.

• Changed header from "Digital rights management" to "Digital Restrictions Management"; not a neutral point of view
• changed sentence from "preventing the copy of copyrighted content" to "preventing the copy of copyright restricted content"; by copyrighting something, it IS restricted; no need to be so explicit
• Added sentence "This stops people from playing Blu-Rays with standard monitors."; untrue, hooking a standard monitor up via an analog signal will force a lower quality image, not prevent it from playing.
• changed sentence from "possibly to patch an otherwise insecure system" to "possibly to patch an otherwise free system."; it's not free if it is copyrighted.

Clear vandalism, so I rolled it back. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit can be seen as both vandalism and NPOV violation. The name of the technology is "Digital rights management" (DRM). Jimbo1qaz changed it to "Digital Restriction Management", which is a deliberate (and actually quite famous) mockery of the correct official name. And once again, this was one of his many POV-pushing edits for which he received numerious warnings (the main theme of his edits is anti-DRM and anti-copyright propaganda). Acps110 rightfully reverted it without any explanation, because that's what you (can) do when you revert vandalism. Jimbo1qaz's edits were considered vandalism, that is reverted without any explanation, multiple times by multiple people. It's not a coincidence. The warnings he has received were also sent to him by several different people. And a bot. He received multiple warnings for both vandalism and POV pushing.

As for the one-year block: like I said, the user has been doing this for many months, has received much more than too many warnings, and still refuses to reply to anything, communicate, change anything about his behaviour or even acknowledge there is anything wrong with it, which is evidenced by his mockery of the last warning (see above). The last warning mockery also means the user has made a disruptive edit after the last warning, which means he made it clear that he does not want to improve, and that he intends to continue doing this.—J. M. (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] No, this is not clear vandalism at all. Vandalism requires evidence of "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and none of that is in here. That things are possibly untrue (it's your word against theirs), or not neutral in your opinion (I don't see that for that heading) is not enough to make it vandalism. Was there a long-term pattern of such edits? Edit-warring? Previous warnings for the same changes? I see none of that. Sorry Acps, but this dry statement "clear vandalism" isn't good enough. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It seemed pretty deliberate with a cursory look at his contributions page showed every recent edit had something to do with copyrights. Seemed like he had an axe to grind, so I reverted. If it had just been NPOV or just mis-information, maybe. Combine several of those in the same edit, that's deliberate. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Non sequitur: lots of editors have a specific interest. Did you know it was "mockery", as J.M. argues below? Why can't you explain what's wrong, instead of having m be your entire edit summary? Sorry, but I just don't get that all. Instead, you revert, and J.M. leaves a "final warning" on their talk page, and neither has spent a word trying to explain what's going on. Y'all just reverting and templating--no wonder the user gets pissed and screws up someone's vandalism warning. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" can be seen in many of his edits, including the DRM mockery. "Digital rights management" is a precise technical term. That's not a matter of opinion. It is called exactly like that. Changing it to "Digital Restrictions Management" is not a matter of opinion. It is the exact equivalent of changing the Barack Obama name to Barack Ohaha. That is, changing the official, correct name to an intentional mockery. And that is vandalism, because firstly, it means intentionally presenting incorrect information, and secondly, making fun of it in a defamatory way. This has nothing to do with personal opinions on DRM. I don't like DRM either, but his edit was clear vandalism, and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Furthermore, he has been doing this for months, despite numerous warnings.—J. M. (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why can't you explain that more clearly? Where's the conversation? No, you must be right, so reverting and templating is sufficient. And then you drag him off to ANI, where you think the administrative corps will administer swift justice. Sorry, but I'm getting tired of this way of interacting. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He was explained everything in the standard warnings. Everything he had to know was written there. And in a very gentle way (the level 1/2 warnings). There was nothing to add there, as the warnings are very well written. That's also why the official Wikipedia rules encourage users to use them.—J. M. (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• J.M, just to get things straight: that Blu-ray edit (their first edit since 5 April, and their second since 23 February), that was enough reason for you to give them a final warning for vandalism, even though it is entirely not clear that it is vandalism in the first place, and their last warning for vandalism goes back to 28 November 2011? I'm inclined to close this thread right now, and present you with a big fat trout on your user page. Please, someone else look at this and tell me I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong; I do mind wasting my time. Imagine, I could have washed all the dishes and cleaned the counters in the time I've already spent on this. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmph. Given edits like this, which appears to be general tenor of this user's POV, I'm not convinced they're a net positive to Wikipedia. Not that I don't disagree with them, but that's hardly the point either. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For what it's worth, I really don't think blocking him is necessary. He hasn't been terribly active lately, and giving him a warning for vandalism - especially one so harshly worded - may backfire and upset him, which is not anyone's intended outcome. He isn't vandalizing, per se, just POV-pushing, which is a different issue and should be addressed differently. When he's not editing in digital-rights type articles, he's been somewhat helpful, besides. Furthermore, blocks are meantto be preventative, not punitive, and I certainly don't see any evidence that he's on a trend of disruption that needs to be stopped right now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He is vandalising, per se. [91], [92], [93]. Besides, I can't see anything "harshly worded" in the official warnings (templates).—J. M. (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If it had been purely vandalism, I'd have blocked him myself. He does certainly need to dial down the DRM stuff a bit (OK, completely) though. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I didn't start this on ANI, I would support a preventative block of this user. The warnings he has received obviously haven't done any good. A block may be the only thing that will work. His response after blocking would be very illuminating to his future here. If he launches into a tirade, then clearly he is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Competence is required, since he hasn't shown any effort to learn how Wikipedia works. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the main problem is that he will do it again (he stated it quite clearly), which means I and other editors will have to waste our time reverting his edits again instead of doing something productive for Wikipedia. This is one of the indirect harms. The vast majority of my energy on Wikipedia in the last couple of years has been wasted for dealing with vandals, spammers and disruptive editors (in the articles on my watchlist). Every time a user like this is not blocked despite the Wikipedia rules clearly saying he should be blocked, I have less time for improving Wikipedia. I don't really have much time for improving articles anymore. Blocking the user would be a statement that this will not be tolerated. Even if the block was shorter than 12 months, it would still at least send him a message. He refuses to understand anything else.—J. M. (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh knock it off. The only thing you've done is a couple of reverts and a few templated warnings. Please use words next time, like human communication, before you bring this to ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the standard user warning templates is exactly that we can use them in standard situations like this one instead of writing something on our own, in an inferior way. I really find this the most absurd comment in this whole discussion, and possibly in any ANI/AIV discussion I have ever seen. And I have been participating in them for many years.—J. M. (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm biting my tongue to tell you what I think about your comment. I'll stick with insensitive and ignorant. WRITE a fucking message. It's really not so hard. If you don't understand how a templated level-4 warning looks to someone, then I don't know what you're thinking. Look at all the time we wasted here, which could have been prevented if you hadn't been so damn heavy-handed in the first place with your level-4 warning a half a year after the level-3 message. Even Recent Changes Patrollers aren't so quick on the trigger. Sheesh. I'm going to leave you to it here, but here's a hint: if you get a one-year block for that editor out of this, you were right. If you don't, I want to see you eat crow and not complain about lazy admins. This lazy admin had the courtesy to use language with your vandal, and I will block him if need be, but it won't be on your schedule. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, he is disruptive, has serious NPOV issues, won't communicate, but this isn't vandalism (ok, a little...). A one year block sounds punitive and inappropriate for someone that has never been blocked and rarely edits. The NPOV is unacceptable, but the only communications that others have tried with him are template warnings. Maybe a more personal approach can be tried once. If it continued, then a 30 day block solely to force him to communicate. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse 24 hour block....and using normal graduations of time for subsequent blocks.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• No block yet. The guy has been given a final warning. Let one of the two knights post a message on his talk page that they're on to him on his DRM lingo, and that future occurrences will be treated as vandalism, resulting in blocks. A one-month punitive block, or even a one-year punitive block, the very thought of it is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've tried the "more personal approach". It's kind of sad that such a message only comes after ANI; it should have been done long before. Dennis, I've never seen it happen that a 30-day block made someone more communicative (think about it). Drmies (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I wouldn't classify his recent edits as "vandalism" but here's two from last July that were vandalism by any definition. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, so there's no point to blocking now for something that happened months ago. At least, I'm certainly not going to perform a block like that. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:38, 12 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.

Competence

So, MastaRhymes (talk · contribs), in 13 months, has exhibited the following behaviors:

• Repeatedly failing to understand how to add something to a category
• Multiple re-creations of speedily deleted content (e.g. Blackout 00, which was A9'd twice and re-created in March)
• Additions of links to disambiguation pages — he has no fewer than six warnings and has continued to do this even today
• Forgetting to add fair use rationales to images — count how many image warnings are on his page
• Refusal to use edit summaries
• Removal of prods without explanation (Urban Legends (Black Ice))
• Restoration of poor sources (the above has links to YouTube and Amazon, which he restored not a day after I removed them)
• Refusal to communicate with other editors — not once has he edited a talk page

I have yet to find more than a couple good, constructive edits from this user. The signal to noise ratio is just too big — and the user has been here long enough now to figure out how things work. This is definitely a textbook WP:COMPETENCE issue here, and in short, I don't think the user is competent enough. Nothing seems to get through to them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "not once": This is not entirely true. He made 4 edits here, but they still don't demonstrate much in the way of competence. Something does need to be done here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a block may be what is needed to get this editor's attention. That may sound harsh, but it can work, and falls under the "preventative, not punitive" rule. I recall some time ago I was dealing with a good-faithed Canadian IP editor (96.51.68.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 68.147.196.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 68.147.163.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who worked on obscure sport articles of various countries. This editor would constantly capitalise all nouns (like in German), even after he had been reprimanded numerous times for it. This guy/gal, after failing to heed many warnings, racked up 6 blocks across those IPs, finally falling dormant after 1-month blocks were put in place on each. Recently I saw him/her around (68.147.106.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and whaddaya know? No needless capitalisations! Granted, this one's still rough around the edges, but blocking him/her did seem to beat that bad habit out of them. Being blocked from editing will give this guy a chance to slow himself down and—hopefully—work out his issues around here. And if not, I don't think we would have lost much. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"In my opinion, a block may be what is needed to get this editor's attention. That may sound harsh, but it can work, and falls under the "preventative, not punitive" rule." You don't need to be so verbose. In my neck of the woods we call this a "whack with the cluebat." Sounds like this user needs one. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. A block might wake this user up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ai yi yi...I concur. 48 hours might give him a chance to think and read up on policy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that the guy didn't have it coming, but maybe he should have been notified about this discussion before the block? And maybe a better explanation of his shortcomings than just a template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.179.3 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He had a link. The explanation of shortcomings is here. Why duplicate efforts? --Golbez (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing in AFD

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.

---

At ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Tomlinson (2nd nomination)‬, the nomination is swarming with SPAs, and Boing! said Zebedee has pointed out that some canvassing is afoot. The first AFD had a near-unanimous consensus to redirect all five articles to One Direction, and that was a mere two months ago. Can I ask that someone put an early end to the AFD shoo out the fanboys, and lock the articles after redirection so that they are not undone again? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it's more than "some" cavanassing, it's a "OMG THESKYISFALLING" Twitter campaign. Facepalm - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wanna shoot it out of orbit, kill it before it spreads? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Close the AFD, create redirects, then protect the redirects fully, and protect the "1D" article so only auto-confirmed can edit. Any chance :))))?? Murry1975 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That'd be good actually; I can't imagine having to bear 7 more days of this. Any chance we could semi protect it (the AfD) if we get more of the meatpuppets? How did it get recreated in the first place; it was redirected after the last AfD. Lynch7 18:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

AdabowtheSecond recreated them today and when Zebedee redirected two of them Isy1995 undid that. Murry1975 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't talk. Do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read this [94] Isy1995 and Adabowthesecond are apparently the same editor. Murry1975 (talk) 19:03, 11 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.

• I've indef blocked User:Isy1995, as the two accounts were being used for !vote stacking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• There might be a WP:Merge and delete problem here. The individual biographies were split out and merged back a few days later (history excerpt). They look similar, but the diff is complicated by minor formatting changes. I will look into it, but I'm noting my concerns first. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mass revert?

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

---

Does anyone have a tool to mass revert the edits of 187.192.109.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ? Its been reported to the vandalism noticeboard and so should be blocked momentarily. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done - Equazcion ^(talk) 22:02, 11 Apr 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.

AuthorityTam

Unresolved

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [95], [96] and [97] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[98] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [99], [100], [101] and [102].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [103].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[104] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [105]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[106] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [107]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[108], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[109] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[110], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[111], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[112], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[113], and falsely attributing comments to me[114]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[115][116], after indicating something was only his opinion[117][118], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[119][120], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[121].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [122],[123]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [124] and "windbaggery" [125]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[126]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [127],[128],[129],[130]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [131]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [132] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam makes various out-of-context claims above about my past edits he's selected, most of which he accused me of back in 2010 based on his fixated efforts of trawling through my edit history for various edits from years before that, to which I've previously responded here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [133][134][[135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[146], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[147], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [148].

I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.

Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me (of the remainder, seven were raised by neither me nor BlackCab; three of the four matters raised by BlackCab were sockpuppet queries upheld by admins, and the fourth was to report unambiguous vandalism). The first was uncontroversially given admin support[149]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[150] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued at length in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group (see from about halfway through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_49, Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_50, and about one third through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_51).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier when I stated that the links were to show the tandem relationship between the two editors in question and not to show whether the other party was in the right or wrong, I will repost my statement that Jeffro77 pretends to have missed:

"The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Willietell (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First, lets clear up one thing, you filed the sockpuppet claim after I told everyone on the talk page what had happened, so you knew in advance of filing the sockpuppet claim what had happened, got me blocked for about 2 or 3 days and complained during that time that I wasn't detailing my objections to the beliefs page, even while you knew I was blocked for a false sockpuppetry claim. Still you repeatedly bring this subject up when addressing any disagreement with me to attempt to taint the perception with which I am held by anyone considering the argument at hand. Secondly, I don't really care how many user ID's you use, you can have a dozen for all I care, and pretend that each and every one is another Sybil. You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student...I simply really don't care. What I object to is the constant goading and smear tactics employed to create a hostile environment for fellow editors, this I find objectionable, the other stuff is simply childishly funny. I have finally read the long diatribe on the talk page, and there is no way in an unbiased persons eyes that the two of you, namelyJeffro77 AND BlackCab CAN BE VIEWED AS FAULTLESS IN THE EXCHANGE THAT BROUGHT US ALL TO THIS PAGE. As you stated, I have only been active on Wikipedia since some time in late November or early December, I can't remember the exact date, yet I personally have endured sustained and repeated attempts by both editors to drive me away from Wikipedia as is shown here[151] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[152] with more insistence that I just don't work well within Wikipedia, even as I am continuously hounded from page to page having edit after edit reverted by one of the two editors based upon one flimsy excuse after another. I have personally experienced the points that AuthorityTam describes. I am therefore not just "taking his side" without knowing what is going on, I am speaking because I have observed firsthand what he has had to endure for an even longer period than I. Willietell (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite baffled by your bizarre suggestions about editing from other accounts. Your ranting claim that "You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student" suggests you imagine specific user accounts (though I have no idea who), and if so, it's unclear why you seem reluctant to name them so a CheckUser can be performed and summarily show you to be dishonest. Your continued dishonesty about the supposed ANI links above, your paranoid claims about me (and/or BlackCab) acting as other editors, your false claims of copyright violation in attempt to have an article you don't like deleted do not tend toward veracity, and are directly counter to claims of honesty made in your unblock request. I was alerted to the likely sockpuppetry by another editor (not BlackCab)[153] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[154] (before the Williewell account had been created on 13 December). After I subsequently explained at the SPI that "The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet). The anonymous editor has now created an account as Willietell"[155], the closing admin decided to block you. It's also amusing that you've gone from being "somewhat uninvolved" to "have personally experienced".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somewhat uninvolved" because I had no involvement in the issue that brought us to this ANI, namely the diatribe on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, my having a personal experience with the complaining editors is a separate issue, but I'm sure you already know that. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you're claiming that two editors, who you believe to be one person, are operating in 'tandem', while also claiming to be several other editors, each with different fictitious strengths and weaknesses. Since I've been on Wikipedia longer than BlackCab, you are actually accusing me of this. So, I don't care if you care. If you are making these allegations, you are expected to prove it or retract your lies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, experienced editors can sometimes become frustrated by new editors who spring up and attempt to make drastic changes, as you've done. You tried repeatedly to have an exhaustively sourced article deleted, ignored repeated and earnest requests from a range of editors to explain your specific objections to the page and now regard as harassment the reversion of your often poorly conceived edits. I have tried to be patient with you, and I'm sorry if sometimes my patience wears thin. Jeffro has also been courteous towards you, but you test everyone's patience with these quite bizarre suggestions of dishonesty and deviousness, particularly when you refuse to back them up with any evidence. You are also driving me nuts with this empty "POV spin" phrase every time you don't get your way. I again implore you to report me for any incivility or disruption. Report me if you seriously think I am a sockpuppet of Jeffro, whom I have never met, and with whom I once had one brief email exchange. If you do not, then stop this stupid behaviour. We are here to discuss the belligerent and inflammatory behavior of AuthorityTam, though apparently it's not something of any great interest to the admins. My suspicion is that this thread will soon go stale, be removed and we'll be back at square one. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up that I tried to have the page [Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] deleted, which I did initially as a very new IP editor to Wikipedia because I felt that the page was so full of biased material that it would be nearly impossible to fix[156]. I changed my mind after several editors demanded that I present a breakdown of what I thought was biased, I did present several points that I thought, and still think need improvement and was in discussions with editors to make such improvements[157], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[158]. Due to this conclusion, I posted a tag stating that I thought the page was a copyright violation, only to have several editors assure me that it wasn't. I was skeptical, but nonetheless, relented and decided that with effort the page could be corrected in such a way as to make this irrelevant in the long term and began working to fix the page in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which I am currently attempting to do. I have not attempted to have the page deleted recently nor do I intend to attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. To continue to bring these issues up along with the false sockpuppet claim is simply a form of character assassination and needs to end. Additionally, since Jeffro77 went to the trouble of requesting a sockpuppet investigation (which was declined on the reason that check user is not used to prove innocence)[159], I will assume good faith and take the two editors word for it that they are not the same editor and no longer speculate on this page or any other whether they are the same editor. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was you who first discussed the sockpuppet case against you at this discussion, and you who accused me of sockpuppetry here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A cursory look through Willitel's talk page shows that s/he is far from uninvolved with JW issues. It appears as though that which disagrees with their POV is "POV spin," and it may be the case that they have confused WP for a No Spin Zone as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be uninvolved in JW issues. I only stated that I was uninvolved in the current issue of the long diatribe and back and forth argument that happened in the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page that was the straw for bring us to this ANI. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be repeated, I'd like something to come out of it. I would like to propose:

• A topic ban for JW articles to AuthorityTam,
• An interaction ban between AuthorityTam and BlackCab (and maybe topic ban for him too, depending on responses from people more knowledgeable),
• Possible sanctions of some sort against Willietell (which, while he engages in some tendentious editing and such (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), I have not seen him break any rules egregiously yet in my personal interaction. I will not propose these personally, as I do not feel what would fit (the WP:IDHT behavior continues across a selection of articles, from Genesis creation narrative to the topic of this discussion).

I'm going to run a few options up the flagpole and see who salutes. Feel free to propose modified sanctions or comment to dismiss or oppose all sanctions. I apologize in advance if these are draconian, but I oft get aggravated with the same old shit being brought to AN/I over and over again with no end in sight, but just turning in to a bitch-fest or vent with no proposed solutions to the problems. I have not interacted with BlackCab enough to know if he should get a topic ban too, but I have no doubt that interaction between the two editors is poisonous from comments here alone. (AuthorityTam has seemed fair when I've dealt with him, but from the diffs and a perusal of edit history, there is a problem.)

(AuthorityTam's contempt has consistently been directed at editors whom he believes to be former members of JWs. AuthorityTam employs circumlocutory regarding his claims that he 'does not wish to self-identify at Wikipedia as a JW' and has never denied that he is a member. The manner of his edits not only in support of JWs but also unsupportive of other groups such as other Bible Student movement groups, along with various other edits, make it appear very likely that he is a member of the religion, which in itself is immaterial, but seems to be a contributing factor to his attitude of contempt toward other editors whom he believes to be former members of the religion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam: Topic Ban

Please suggest alternate sanctions if these are unacceptable - something to keep this from coming back to AN/I over and over.
We propose AuthorityTam be blocked from editing JW-related articles for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing to date has impressed upon AuthorityTam that he can't continue this type of interaction with other users. I support comments from other users that he often includes valuable information to JW articles and provides pro-JW balance. Despite his allegation at the talk page, I have not asked for him to be banned. (Another editor has falsely suggested I am trying to knock off pro-JW editors one by one, which is also utter rubbish). But I think a temporary block may be useful to help modify his conduct. BlackCab (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Authority/Tam is an important editor to the project and his use or continued use of the reference to TSally does not in any way harm editor BlackCab, even if it seems distasteful to him. Additionally, to bring up an editors previous edit history seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, and AuthorityTam is certainly not alone in doing so. I personally think this ANI resulted from an overreaction by a couple of editors who seem to judge their own action through rose colored glasses and filed the ANI without first considering WP:boomerang. It seems to me that AuthorityTam has reacted as many people would after having spent many years being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI. I think that sanctions enacted against him would be tantamount to a punish the victim mentality. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the "aka LTSally" phrase "distasteful"; it is a pejorative term that implies deviousness or subterfuge on my part. He has used it now for two years without letup. I have asked him to stop, and three other editors have agreed it is unnecessary. His continued use of it, even in this very ANI complaint,[160] is further evidence of his determination to goad, and his lack of willingness to cooperate. We all over-react sometimes. But AuthorityTam has a deeply embedded pattern of taunting. He is disruptive. He refuses to put the past behind him. He is unrepentant. He doesn't know when to stop. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are separate problems with Willietell's behaviour, as have already been commented on above, and his claim about "being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI" is dishonest, because only one editor filed the ANI. I learned of the ANI because AuthorityTam's Talk page is on my Watch List (all pages I edit are automatically added to my Watch List).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional Support - It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise. If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not find anything disruptive from AuthorityTam. His pro-JW defensive edits and comments might be not fitting to the JW-defaming taste of user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77. However he have contributed a lot in removing ex-witness bias from the article and have played a leading historical role in raising JWs article to GA status. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that comment is inappropriate and out of line with Wikipedia policy as I read it: a "pro-JW bias" which doesn't fit the "JW-defaming bias" of everyone else are reasons for blocks all around if true. I have to pull a modification of a line of Avraham's: Thou hast been accused by editors four; go forth now and battle no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; ye great Adminnes will break out ye olde bannehammer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging out through the edit history of user:BlackCab and Jeffro77 I could'nt find anywhere they are helping to increase the fame of JW's. These two editors are from Australia, one of them explicitly written an essay regarding his reasons to renounce the JWs faith. Further in most cases I find these two are taking sides almost together and tend to be a watchdog for JW supportive edits as user:Willietell brought-out. On the other hand through the edit history of user:AuthorityTam I could'nt find anything that is trying to defame JWs and he is not as active as the other two editors. Further I personally know few-self claimed ex-witnesses and they always have a tendency to defame their former faith and not so happy as well. May be because they feel so pissed off that they were not able to do anything for years to collapse the growth of religion. So generalizing self advertising ex-witnesses I thought the phrases I used were appropriate. If it is inappropriate I apologize because I am very busy person with no much time to read all Wiki policies and guidelines. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I do not like the JW religion, but I do not come to Wikipedia to defame it. I simply present accurate information from reliable sources. Every WP article on a subject of controversy will attract editors who are supporters and opposers. Fazilfazil is welcome to his assessment of ex-JWs (which happens to mirror the statements of the religion), but he is wrong. I simply want people to have facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact that Jeffro77 and I agree on many things doesn't mean we are "taking sides." This discussion (as with many discussions at JW talk pages) sadly degenerates to team-like face-offs where the details of the complaint are forgotten in an effort to simply protect a team member. Let's stick with the specific complaint about AuthorityTam's specific conduct. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's irrelevant ad hominem regarding former JWs (and Australians??) has very little to do with AuthorityTam's persistent inappropriate conduct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - AuthoityTam has made significant contributions to JW-related articles, and is an important piece to keep the article balanced. I don't concider his behavior significant worse than some of the other users. The fact it appairs only two users have serious objections with his behavior, makes it easier to oppose for topic-ban, though I do think it could be justified to give him some kind of warning regarding the use of "aka LTSally". I think several users could need a topic break, the article won't disappair within a few weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose: Having observed and intermittently participated at the JW talkpgae for some five years now I must state that I believe that the article's current state is a result of a balanced stalemate between editors with complementary viewpoints. Furthermore I don't think that AuthorityTam's conduct is more egregious than that of BlackCab - I would perhaps support a topic ban for both, but not for either one of them alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello Maunus! And what evidence would you cite in support of a topic ban on me? I have provided specific complaints about AuthorityTam's behaviour, including a refusal to acknowledge my direct request to him to cease this infantile "aka LTSally" tactic that suggests duplicity on my part, and his ongoing pattern of goading and taunting. I'd be interested in seeing what specific edits of mine from, say, the past year suggest a failure to collaborate or a tendency to disrupt that would warrant me being blocked from editing JW pages. I have always insisted on reliable, verifiable sources and I have always sought outside comment when discussions meet a stalemate. I have provided diffs for examples of that above. AuthorityTam has had the opportunity to defend himself against my grievances, so do me the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself against your accusations. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Blackcab - I don't know why you'd be surprised to see me. I am not the one making any accusations here, and so am under no requirement to present evidence. I acknowledge that you are generally civil (if often curt and abrasive) and respect policy guiding content creation. In my experience so does AuthorityTam - he just doesn't consistently have someone to back him up in arguments, which I can only imagine leads to some measure of added frustration. The double topic ban I think would be to the benefit of both you (since it would let you both focus on less stressful stuff), and for the article (since topic banning only one of you would likely lead to gradual degradation of the article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The implication that I 'consistently back up BlackCab' is false. The suggestion that AuthorityTam does not have editors supporting him is also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I acknowledge that tehre have been problems between AT and BlackCab, but they are problems that I would expect under the circumstances. Maybe if we could get one or both to agree to some sort of voluntary ban on content addition or reversion, for at least a time, that might be enough. Under such circumstances, they could propose the edits on the relevant talk page, and ask others to make the changes requested. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims that none of his behaviour has been inappropriate, even though he employed the same inappropriate behaviour in his response at this discussion. The main problem relates to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages, which would not be addressed by a ban relating to article content. A better solution would be a ban on AuthorityTam making reference to other editors, by name or by implication, and address his comments at article Talk pages solely to article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro, your proposal sounds like one for "discretionary sanctions" as per WP:AC/DS. I could see that as an acceptable response myself. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think it would be a reasonable request to require AT to comment on content only. It does require of course that he not be baited (I am not suggesting that someone would - but the provision should take into account the possibility).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam/BlackCab: Interaction Block

We propose an indefinite interaction ban between AuthorityTam/BlackCab. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not so sure that would work. There are times when we do need to discuss edits. And given the lengthy (and potentially infinitely-lasting) tit-for-tat discussion here I think any such interaction ban should also include at least one other editor. Quarantining me, alone, from any discussions with AuthorityTam would not be helpful or fair. But someone may like to explain the practicalities of such a proposal. Bottom line is the need for a change in AuthorityTam's behaviour, just as I have learned to do. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest that the three editors Jeffro77, BlackCab and AuthorityTam be restricted from reverting one another's recent edits(30 days) without first taking the matter to discussion in talk in a civil attempt to reach consensus before making any change. This would allow for cooler heads to prevail and keep tempers from flaring so much. This could be put in place for a time period that will allow the editors to learn to "play nice". Willietell (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am "nice". I do discuss. I am civil. I do seek external comment when discussions reach a deadlock,[161][162] and I accept the consensus at those noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There have not really been frequent recent issues of edit warring. Most of the problems related to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages. I am not claiming that this is all AuthorityTam's fault. I have previously advised BlackCab about some things that 'trigger' AuthorityTam's tirades, and also acknowledged that I've also been uncivil at times when things get heated. The main problem is that AuthorityTam just doesn't stop, particularly with comments about editors that have absolutely nothing to do with article Talk, and frequently rehashes past irrelevant disputes. (There is the 'two to tango' aspect, however, although I don't like having to rebut AuthorityTam's misleading claims about me at article Talk pages, nor will I allow him to malign me undefended.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - This would help to cool down the issue. Because I believe if you cannot work along with a person just stop interacting would help for while --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has not acknowledged that any of his behaviour is inappropriate, but has actually described his current behaviour of frequently attacking other editors' motives as 'avoiding interaction'. Because of this distorted perception of what constitutes 'interaction', it's not clear that he would understand what an 'interaction block' would require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: Willietell: Topic Ban

We propose that Willietell be blocked from editing articles related to Christianity for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I may live to regret this, but at this stage there are probably better ways to deal with Willietell. There are significant issues involved with his editing. He finds it very difficult to accept consensus, and does not listen to other editors. The thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted and the resulting thread immediately below it strongly demonstrate the difficulties of dealing with him. That thread produced a good range of uninvolved editors who all tried to help Willietell, without great result. See User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1#Your recent edits. He has responded to these effort, and outside intervention, by threatening admins[163] or complaining of COI[164]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[165] and hostility[166] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[167] Willietell is a deeply irritating editor and borderline disruptive because of his recycling of previously settled debates (because they didn't produce the result he wanted). He accuses me and others of hostility, despite earnest efforts to walk him through the issues involved. There are issues of maturity here, but hopefully he is on a learning curve. I think a block here may be counter-productive because it may fuel his paranoia. Hopefully at some stage the weight of opposition to his views may persuade him there are alternative viewpoints that sometimes have greater validity than his. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose As you yourself point out, my edits on the page Genesis creation narrative were no more egregious than any other editor on that page, including yourself[168]]. While, at first I had little understanding of how things worked on Wikipedia, I have made attempts to learn how to do things properly and have not repeated the early missteps I made as a new editor. My opinion that material which does not fall within the guidelines of WP:NPOV represents POV spin is "my opinion" and as such can be expressed in a civil manner and should not be cause for character assassination, whether you personally like the term or not. I have performed no action nor exhibited any behavior which would in any way justify such a proposed "Topic Ban". I would like to thank BlackCab for notifying me of the existence of this proposed topic ban, since the proposing editor failed to do so. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally here[169] is the diff on that page, showing the edit in question was not only a minor one, but justified, as the current page content shows[170] . Willietell (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Willietell has asserted some quite bizarre suspicions about the motives and actions of other editors without any evidence, and has also asserted a fairly narrow world view in various articles related to religion. However, he does claim to have learned from his problematic behaviour. My main concerns largely relate to matters discussed at the essay, Wikipedia:Competency is required, and I would like to think that Willietell can continue to develop skills that may make him a better contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Each new editor have his own way of approaching discussions and they will adapt. Some may be vigorous and some may be calm. Nevertheless it contributes to the whole improvement and to reach consensus. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am running out of daylight, I will have to continue with this ANI tomorrow, and I have some sanctions of myself to propose. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, purely on technical grounds. Either someone is blocked from all editing, or he's able to edit everything that's not protected; you can't block someone from editing pages that have a certain topic, such as Christianity. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can, we do it all the time. It's called a WP:TOPICBAN. SÆdon^talk 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this due to a philosophical opposition to topic bans? (In which case it wouldn't be a technical issue.) Kansan (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And he's an admin? Who has never heard of a topic ban?! We need to remember to never give Calvinists the broom, because it's all or nothing to them ;-) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that proposal of proposed sanctions (if any) be left to admins

[non admin comment] In the words of the Bard of Ayrshire “Oh what some power the gift he give us, to see ourselves as others see us!” ... I admit to being totally uninformed here, I've only had my eye caught by one relatively well conducted and resolved edit fuffle in JW-article space about the church's excommunication practices, plus there was a cooperative attitude shown by participants (AuthTam and Jeffro) from both sides in getting Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion pulled back into generic WP:Christianity space. Seeing as that can be acheived, why not just drop this before something like the "vile nutcase" comment WP:BOOMERANGs into all 4 being invited to spend a month contributing to the non-JW bits of Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I will bend to the editors suggestion and withhold requesting sanctions against Jeffro77 and BlackCab to allow time to see if the editor who filed the ANI (since I have been corrected and Jeffro77 didn't file it, but discovered it in some manner) heeds your advice and withdraws it. If he chooses to do so then this will be a moot point. However if he persists, then I will propose a Topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors based upon their hostile behavior towards editors who disagree with their POV as well as barring both editors from editing the same article or talk page within a 31 day period the lessen the tagteam effect of their overly co-operative tandem edits, which a perusal of each editors contributions will demonstrate without much investigation. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia tomorrow, this will allow about a 36 hour period for the editor to make up his mind as to what he chooses to do. Willietell (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an ultimatum, Willietell. Numerous editors have advised you to stop screaming "POV spin!" every time you see wording you disagree with. The latest example is Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Lede in which Willitell keeps complaining of a "factual inaccuracy" about who establishes doctrines for the religion, and yet is apparently unable to see that the article simply does not contradict his claim. The long thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns is a window into the thinking of an editor who throughout the entire exchange gained no support for any change from a wide variety of editors. I don't think an editor whose biggest response is a thunderous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in much a position to be sitting on the judge's bench. We all agree that this subject is something that divides editors. I will happily work with editors with whom I disagree. I do not, however, accept that editors who continually goad, taunt and ignore requests to engage on matters of conduct should be permitted to do so freely without a sanction of some kind. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly bizarre that Willietell insists on "topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors" unless some action is taken by BlackCab. And then he accuses me of being "overly co-operative"(?!), but conveniently ignores all the times I've also agreed with other editors, including AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've already stated above, AuthorityTam is capable of collaboration. The problems largely arise when he verges off into irrelevant attacks on the motives of other editors (mostly of BlackCab) at the mildest of perceived provocation, and often with no provocation at all.

I should note that although I expressed agreement with some of his suggestions at Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, he did not actually acknowledge any contribution by or agreement with me, and the only time he mentioned me was earlier at that page when he felt the need to state that "the AfD proposal [opposed by AuthorityTam] by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep", which seemed to have been stated that way to highlight the supposed 'failure' of my proposal, despite the fact that a) the closure was self-evident from the removal of the AfD template, b) all the editors involved at the Talk page were also involved in the AfD, and c) I had accepted the result of the AfD—in isolation, the comment might seem innocuous, but in a broader context is part of AuthorityTam's dismissive comments about editors he doesn't like. If this is not the case, AuthorityTam should be able to provide evidence where he's made special mention of AfD closures that were a) not closed the way he wanted or b) not proposed by me, BlackCab, or other editors he considers to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good thing. I was never a JW, but my most vocal support at the Jesus Crucifixion page came from AuthorityTam - my personal interaction has been fine, but the diffs and a trawling of edit history (since I had nothing better to do than keep refreshing this page and work on some Wikidramatics) reveal problems. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI process: a final thought

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a view coalescing that my complaint that AuthorityTam’s actions in (a) repeatedly goading me with his mischievous “aka LTSally” line despite my asking him several times to stop, (b) maintaining generally antagonistic and combative comments towards me, (c) recycling years-old exchanges and (d) repeatedly quoting a line I deleted from my user page two years ago .... was not worth raising. Apparently I should stop bullying the poor soul, because he’s just reacting to the fact that sometimes there are two editors in a discussion who disagree with him.

Maunus has previously warned AuthorityTam to minimise his personal attacks[171] and has also advised editors to treat others as they would like to be treated.[172]. He has also suggested (without supporting evidence) that Jeffro77 and I have bullied AuthorityTam.[173].

In the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint, despite his best efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. It’s worth noting that in the dreadful Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Can we wrap this RfC up? thread, which is probably one of the low points of all JW discussions, the thread began on February 6 and was still going at March 30. I withdrew from the thread on March 3. My earlier condemnation of AuthorityTam’s behaviour was all turned around as evidence of my “attacks” on him. If you can stomach it, read the thread in its entirety.

Or try this one for a prime example of his tactics of misrepresentation and escalation. Follow this trail of breadcrumbs: (1) AT's "Keep" vote of Feb 27 that concludes with a sneering dig at "the nominator's decision" (that's Jeffro) that clearly misconstrues Jeffro's initial comment. (2) History2007's comment of Feb 28 seizing on ATam's "evidence" that Jeffro is being devious. (3) My comment immediately afterwards with the fairly innocuous observation that "I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion". Then ... (4) AuthorityTam's over-the-top spray of March 1 employing his "aka LTSally" device, links to comments of mine from 2009 and April 2010, before he (yet again) parades my userpage comments before I deleted them in January 2010. My chiding his unnecessary denigration of anothereditor as "mischevous" prompts his rants of "hyperventilatingly caterwauls" and "outrageous namecalling". His links are all ancient history. They're three years old! Again, I have learned a lot about civility and respect since mid-2009. AuthorityTam has learned nothing.

Put simply, I can’t win. I can’t make him stop this shit, and when I try, I’m accused of bullying or being thin-skinned. Really, this whole ANI complaint was a complete waste of time. AuthorityTam doesn’t admit any fault, few others see anything wrong with his conduct and now editors are discussing possible sanctions against me for doing nothing more than asking him to stop. Really, I’d rather just drop the whole thing. I have zero faith in Wikipedia processes for dealing with inflammatory behaviour ... but then I would, wouldn't I? BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly some frustration here. Thing is, even the editors supporting AuthorityTam, despite some fairly evident bias, have acknowledged above that at least some of his conduct has been improper. Maybe the admins are just busy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that since my proposals fail another users proposes a proposal

This is now marked "unresolved", which means it's going to come back here in no time. RfC/U seems like the next step: the question is, RfC/U on which user? Additionally, everyone seems to have their own cheering squad, which makes getting anything done look very, very difficult if not impossible ("unstoppable force, meet immovable object"). From my reading of this (granted, I've only been involved in about half a score of these processes now) it - the process - seems to have broken down (and shall continue to as long as each and every editor on such a polarized topic has, as I mentioned, their very own cheer section that will oppose/support according to that). What is the next step? Wait for this to come back to AN/I and leave "unresolved" next month? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on AuthorityTam

Based on comments above, I believe a possible option here would be to apply discretionary sanctions as per WP:AC/DS on AuthorityTam. Specifically, I would propose that any uninvolved administrator be free to impose sanctions on AuthorityTam should they see he engage in unacceptable conduct. In this particular instance, that would probably include violation of WP:TPG, specifically including making personal comments about other editors. I have asked for input from the ArbCom regarding whether it is considered acceptable to impose such restrictions here, and, if it is, I myself would Support such an option. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? John, I'm no fan of either side in this subject and would like to see all 4 spend a month on non-JW topics, but with both you and DougWeller taking the side of BlackCab and Jeffro vs AuthorityTam and WillieTell I can only only assume you must have seen something I haven't.....? What actually has he done? Frankly if any of us had been called "vile nutcase" by BlackCab here on ANI we would have gone ballistic, and yet AuthorityTam just sucked it in turned the other cheek (must be a Buddhist), and now we're sanctioning him? Someone link for me what exactly we're supposed to be sanctioning for please? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a few very good points here. FWIW, discretionary sanctions would only be applied if the individual actually did something specific to bring them about. AT has, for some time, been leaving messages in a number of places, particularly article talk pages and user talk pages, criticizing BlackCab for being a former JW, and such long-standing questionable conduct is something which can reasonably be considered. There are possible, legitimate, POV concerns there, but they would apply equally to AuthorityTam and, basically, everyone who has ever indicated a position on the JWs. Including me, who is a self-described Catholic, and, thus at least theoretically opposed to the JWs. From what I've seen before, being insulted at AN/I is something most of us have come to expect to happen occasionally. And, FWIW, I would not necessarily oppose sanctions on other editors, maybe including BlackCab, if I knew of longstanding similar conduct on their part. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - In between I could not find anywhere user:AuthorityTam criticizing user:BlackCab for being a former JW. But he points out at many occasions that user:BlackCab is having a former JWs bias. The recent aggravation of the situation came from specifically this thread for this (humourous?) comment from user:AuthorityTam and user:Jeffro77s failed Afd for Jesus' execution instrument. It appears both the editors have made insults. For example user:BlackCab mentioned user:AuthorityTam explicitly as 'stupid','obsessed', 'inane','bitchy','childish' and user:Jeffro77 though apologized as his mistake/misunderstanding by mentioning towards AuthorityTam as 'juvenile','infantile','AuthorityTam and Hitler are guilty of incivility and exterminating Jews','hostile' etc. On the other-hand AuthorityTam have mentioned user:BlackCab as 'hyperventilatingly caterwauling at his talk page','outrageously namecalling' and quoting BlackCab's feelings about his past religion "sickened" by the {ahem} "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses found at his user page in a derisive way as a response to user:BlackCab's referral towards user:AuthorityTam as mischievous. So making sanctions against AuthorityTam alone is not justifiable. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of having an "ex-JW bias" is the same as criticizing them for being an ex-JW, as, if they were still JWs, they could not possibly have the aforementioned bias. You shouldn't try to become a lawyer (unless the main weapon in the attorney's arsenal is the ad-hom). Do you realize that you see no bias, because it's a bias that you agree with? meta:MPOV. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I guess I realized many things. Indeed you could compare meta:MPOV with your removal of this section (minor edit?) and meditate. I would also appreciate if you have any concern about my past edits feel free to take it to my talk page rather than to continue in this irrelevant page. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If I marked it as a minor edit in mistake, I immediately re-edited to mark it as a non-minor edit. That deletion had nothing to do with any POV, as was established by half a dozen editors on the talk page, but merely the policies of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My comments were an expression of exasperation over AuthorityTam's continued attempts to inflame situations by needling ex-JW editors. AuthorityTam then collected all adjectives I had used in criticizing his inflammatory behaviour and linked them as an accusation against me. This is what I call escalation. Rather than cease his antagonism, he uses my complaints as ammunition against me. What am I supposed to do? BlackCab (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• support - perhaps extending the restriction to editors commenting on talkpages of JW articles in general? Basically a sharpened civilty requirement for all editors on those pages? With possibility of discretionary sanctions on sight from uninvolved admins.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• support - Extend civility requirement to all editors involved in JWs talk page setting aside personal preferences (including me)--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have received responses on the possiblity of discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#AN/I proposal for discretionary sanctions on an editor. Based on the fact that the ArbCom are much better informed on such matters, I do think it makes sense that perhaps, under the circumstaces, and given their input, it might be best to not take this option, given the likelihood of appeal to ArbCom. It looks to me like the above comments are talking about placing JW related content like at WP:AP#General sanctions. That would, unfortunately, maybe be a separate proposal, although in theory I wouldn't necessarily oppose it myself. The one problem I might foresee, being new to discussing such sanctions here, is that maybe it might be as likely to require active ArbCom review as the original proposal limited to just AT. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin comment] Hi again John, presumably if it does go to ArbCom that would give all 4 participants equal opportunity to list the top ten worst edits/comments/offences of the opposing team. I spent 20 min when this appeared last week trying to follow the Talk history and couldn't see anything that would pull the sky down. The objection of one editor to being referred to as "previous User name aka current User name" doesn't seem like the worst sin, you yourself have (correctly and I was glad you did) nodded to me to a User name change in the past. (I still think all 4 being invited to work on non-JW articles for a month would benefit everyone). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, if only there were a real chance of such "invitations" being necessarily listened to. I agree that the objection you mentioned above is probably not the worst sin, although when it is repeated as often as this one has been, I can see where it might be at least quite irritating to that individual. And repetition of even such minor matters, if done often enough, can be problematic. As the ArbCom members indicate in the ArbCom talk page linked to earlier, if we really want to do this, all things considered, maybe sending it to ArbCom directly might not be such a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[non-admin comment/no further comment] It should be left to admins to support referral of all 4 to ArbCom if that's proposable. (btw "invited" was code for 1 month TOPIC BAN on all 4 disputants. Apart from anything else, it's not as if there aren't 1000s of not-remotely JWish religion articles which don't need work. And if the 4 are not willing/able to contribute to non-JW article space for a month, well there's always fresh air and exercise, or go read the Mahabharata or something). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone gets referred for anything .... I have already stated that in the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint. I have fended off his rants and not escalated them. My "vile nutcase" comment was an ill-timed and ill-considered remark made out of complete frustration over the absence of admin response to my complaint and the usual degeneration of discussion into teamlike behaviour, with guilt or innocence apparently determined by whether one is a JW or not. Surely it is here, if anywhere, that an editor is able to explain frankly one's complaints about another editor, and although I do in fact still regard AuthorityTam's behaviour towards me as vile, I did remove that comment and regret making it. That one lapse aside, I would challenge anyone to find an edit or comment of mine in the past year that could be described as an attack or uncivil, and therefore warranting sanctions.

Someone used the "boomerang" phrase early on in this discussion, and it looks to me like several others are about to now suffer the consequences of one editor's behaviour. My complaint against AuthorityTam was a response to his long pattern of antagonism towards me. I agree that the "aka LTSally" tactic is, to an observer, a trivial issue. In his case it was one more goading action of his after I had repeatedly, specifically asked him to explain why he did it and then desist.[174][175] His continued use of it, I suspect, is a direct reaction to that plea. It comes on top of the sort of inflammatory conduct I have already referred to, in which he regularly, systematically rehashes comments of mine from as long ago as 2009 as examples of my "namecalling", which he then uses as a launching pad for more OTT attacks on me. The AfD thread I referred to in the "A final thought" subheading above was a fair example of the type of conduct I object to. For the 99th time, I will say that in the often heated environment of JW-related articles, I have written things in the past I now wish I hadn't. But it is in the past. I learned and acknowledged it was unhelpful behaviour on my part. I would like AuthorityTam to come to a similar realisation and also stop. That's all I ask. BlackCab (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My last understanding on this topic was that the editor who brought the matter to an ANI wished to drop the matter, I have therefore, until today, not revisited it, if the editor/s wish to continue this matter again, please make me aware of this, as I have currently been considering this matter closed. Willietell (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to have been some confusion here... Discretionary Sanctions are specifically authorized by Arbcom in cases where an ongoing dispute is expected, as part of them resolving a case. Admins and the community don't kick them in on other cases (or at least, admins can't, and the community hasn't to date and has no pre-established authority to do so). Administrators can separately and independently act to discourage, calm down, or curb disruptive behavior including users picking on or insulting each other, and we always have had authority to do so.

It's not clear that the discussion above established a severe enough situation for admins to necessarily intervene or even optionally intervene. It might be best if both parties voluntarily stepped away from talking to and about each other for a while, but we don't usually impose bans (interaction, topic, or otherwise) without more severe abuse than this.

I encourage both sides to back off and hopefully avoid each other for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is levelheaded advice, which I was already trying to follow even before you gave it, hopefully I will not be alone in this regard. Willietell (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also keeping away from JW articles and Wikipedia in general. This whole thing is doing my head in. BlackCab (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, as can be noted here[176]and here[177] Willietell (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin required

I need an admin to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes and see what, if any, blocks should be applied. Three of the four socks have been active tonight, messing with an AfD. I hope I'm not stepping on the toes of Tnxman, HelloAnnyong and the other cool kids at SPI, but I could really use some help to stop ongoing disruption; I don't want to ask for protection of the associated AfD, article, and article talk page, and I don't want to start blocking them myself since I'm an editor of the article and the nominator of the AfD. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified the SPI; that'll teach 'em. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I haven't interacted much with SPI but I believe I have a good understanding of it. I'll attempt take care of this, but don't hesitate to let me know if I do something stupid. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait--who made you an admin?? OK, I'm not complaining about the blocks you just handed out: thanks! Now, you need to leave a brief note explaining your blocks, including on the master account--they're not always blocked indefinitely, though in this case I personally think it's warranted given the nature of their edits. Also, explain why you didn't block Charles.UTD, in a sentence or less. (I'm not criticizing you for not blocking; I'm going to keep my eye on him.) Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you missed his RfA the other week. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and they forgot to report on it in the signpost... :*( Ok, I commented at the SPI. I welcome any and all opinions on what I've done. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 03:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

They got my RfA in a week late too, it happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you're supposed to do all that stuff? I never do...Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC) <--and don't we know it User:SPI Clerks(talk)

You are a checkuser. You can get away with anything. T. Canens (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus as an arb you get an extra get out because everyone knows that arbs don't know anything about anything ;-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashermadan

A discussion at ANI last week, regarding two users was archived in Archive 745. While action has been taken on one user, the other, User:Ashermadan was not looked into, hence I'm reposting a part of the thread here. Coming to the point, Ashermadan's behaviour towards other editors has been very uncivil and possibly harassing. A compilation of his comments over the last six-months or so, has been made into a report, found below. Please look into it :

Ashermadan
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Sharukh_slaps_Sirish_Kunder "X.One SOS: Congrats for being the biggest Salman Khan fanboy on Wikipedia and being the biggest hypocrite on the internet. If you include the slap incident where SRK slapped some guy, then why won't you include Salman Khan murdering a man in 2002, him hitting countless women, and killing endangered species for fun? Good job! Keep it up!" "Now that Shirish Kunder has been revealed as the guy who was drunk, messing with women, sending vulgar tests to Sanjay's wife, Mr. Fanboy aka X.One will go cry to his lord and master Salman Khan and leave this topic. How much do you guys want to bet? I would heed the following advice to people like him: Stop being a Salman fanboy and stop trolling SRK's every move. The media has revealed how truly vulgar Shirish Kunder is and no matter how many Salman fanboys like you try to put nonsense like a slap on Wikipedia, the fact is that Wikipedia is not a place for such news. You may love to spread useless news about some nobody getting slapped but do so in the comfort of you own homes, stop putting rubbish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA Mr. X.One SOS. An encyclopedia has no use for a slap. If he had run over someone or if there was a case lodged against him then that would be news. So, Mr. X.One SOS, stop being a Salman fanboy and grow the heck up." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User_talk:Meryam90/Archive_1#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "Scieberking is vandalizing the Bodyguard 2011 page. He is changing it to 253 crores when we still use BOI for HINDI ONLY films. Help me stop him. He has gone crazy with the mad-for-Salman disease." "Scieberking has gone crazy and is trying to pull down Ra.One! The Lallu fan inside him awoke finally." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeLynch&diff=prev&oldid=475997997 "Funny coming from the biggest abuser on Wikipedia. Ha ha." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475975360 "Here's looking at your Salman Khan fans." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475974519 "The reference says 210 crores, which cheap Salman Khan fan change it? STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE IDIOTS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ashermadan&diff=prev&oldid=476584567 "I'm not going to assume good faith, X.One SOS. Wikipedia isn't paying you so stop being so personal." "You better stop trolling me, X.One SOS. Or you'll indeed need to say SOS. Ha ha. Stop ruining Wikipedia and stop pretending like you're getting money from it. Stop being a troll." "I don't want to have any dealings with you at all. Go cry home to Lallu." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "I thought Scieberking was actually confused as first but his double standards are clearly showing through." "I will oppose using that source no matter what. Zubeida, Anikit, Meryam will too. The last thing I will say before I sleep is that you need to stop being a Salman fanboy and think of wikipedia first." "Scieberking must be useless" "He is Salman Khan fan who is upset that RaOne broke Bodyguard record. He is not a trade analyst so he does not know what he is talking about. He is two faced and a manipulator." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475346178 "ADDED WARNING, I AM DONE WITH REVERTING VANDALISM. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475345653 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 16.5 CRORE (BOI) YOU IDIOT, STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. AGNEEPATH IS NOT DOING SO WELL OVERSEAS! STOP IT." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467357781 "WE DO NOT ADD THE FINAL VERDIT UNTIL ALL REVIEWS ARE IN! STOP CHANGING IT BLOODY VANDALS! WE DISCUSSED THIS ALREADY! YOU PEOPLE STUPID?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Boyz&diff=prev&oldid=462473828 "VANDALS, STOP LYING ABOUT REVIEWS! DON'T CHANGE THE RATINGS AND DON'T LIE! I'M SICK OF FIXING THEM." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=474039432 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 14 TIMES IVE HAD TO FIX THEM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473997657 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 12 TIMES IVE HAD TO REVERT VANDALISM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473826752 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE, KOIMOI CANNOT BE USED. EVERY OTHER ARTICLE USES BOX OFFICE INDIA FIGURES. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472576708 "WE DISCUSSED IT AND 240 WAS THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON UNTIL BOI PROVIDES DATA FOR WORLDWIDE GROSS ALL VERSIONS" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472190453 "STOP CHANGING THE POSTER! JUST LEAVE IT AS THE DEFAULT ONE WHICH WE HAVE PERMISSION TO USE!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=469663137 "WORLDWIDE GROSS IS NOT OUT YET! JUST WAIT A FEW WEEKS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468631127 "THERE IS NO SEQUEL ANNOUNCED. STOP ADDING STUFF WITHOUT REFERENCES." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468629822 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES IT GOES [[ ]] GOES TO WRONG PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468557397 "PLEASE PROTECT THIS PAGE, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE MESSING IT UP, SOMEONE PLEASE HELP" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468556825 "NO SEQUEL HAS BEEN CONFIMRED" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468319316 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468029725 "THE SCREEN COUNT IS 3105 ACCORDING TO LIKE 10 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE SAY 2800 WHEN THAT'S WRONG?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468007871 "THERE IS NO ARTICLE FOR ALY KHAN BOLLYWOOD ACTOR, THE LINK LEAD US TO THE KING OF OMAN OR SOMETHING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467940068 "FART SCENE? REALLY? DELETE THIS NONSENSE. SUCH ABUSE AND IDIOCY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467720077 "BASIC MATH, ADDED ALL THE NUMBERS UP!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467600378 "WORLDWIDE GROSS FROM ALL VERSIONS TO UPDATE THE INFO BOX. UNTIL THEN USE THE BOX OFFICE SECTION OF THE ARTCILE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467570916 "DABANGG ALSO RELEASED ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 10 2010 so it beat DABANGG. PLEASE LEAVE iT IN SALMAN KHAN FANS! STOP MESSING AROUND WITH THIS PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467578411 "75+% POSITIVE, 85% MIXED TO POSITIVE, ONLY 4 REVIEWS ARE COMPLETELY NEGATIVE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467517057 "WE ONLY USE BOX OFFICE INDIA, WE USE OTHER SOURCES ONLY IF BOI DOESNT GIVE US THE NECESSARY DATA AS IN RAONE's and TDP's case." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467498682 "FIRST DAY DOMESTIC NETT! WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BECAUSE USUALLY WE HAVE GROSS WORLDWIDE (GROSS IS BEFORE TAX AND OTHER FEES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454399 "THESE ARE ALL EARLY ESTIMATES AND USE WORDS LIKE 'AROUND" and "EARLY ESTIMATES" PLEASE WAIT FOR CONFIRMED NUMBERS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454191 "BOX OFFICE INDIA ONLY! UNLESS DISCUSSED! WAIT A FEW DAYS UNTIL FINAL FIGURES ARE IN!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454014 "ONLY WORLDWIDE GROSS FIGURES GO THERE. THEY ARE NOT IN YET SO DONT PUT NETT FIGURES IN THE INFO BOX. THERES A SECTION FOR BOX OFFICE NETT FIGURES DOWN BELOW!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467452493 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS USED, DONT QUOTE SOME RANDOMASS SOURCE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467378199 "JUST WAIT TO ADD THE OVERALL VERDICT ABOUT MIXED REVIEWS ETC WHEN ALL THE REVIEWS ARE IN. SO MANY REVIEWS ARE PENDING! PLEASE. DON'T JUMP THE GUN LIKE RA.ONE. WE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE WHEN WE JUMPED THE GUN WITH RA.ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467353164 "TOOK OUT THE LAST PART OF MY PLOT BECAUSE IT RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE IF YOU HAVENT SEEN IT. WE"LL ADD IT IN LATER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=466853929 "CRITICIZED FOR "OVERRATING"? WHY WOULD YOU ADD SOMETHING. AND THE SOURCE JUST GIVES TARAN'S RATING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_Story_2050&diff=prev&oldid=466394712 "THE GUY WANTED TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME BUT ACCIDENTALLY TRAVELLED TO 2050! JESUS. GET YOUR PLOT RIGHT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sohompramanick&oldid=465157247 "DONT VANDALIZE THE RA.ONE PAGE. THE SOURCE SAYS THE COST IS 135 CRORES. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED FOR THIS ACTION." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=465156256 "THE SOURCE SAYS 135 CRORES SO STOP CHANGING THE NUMBER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Shahrukh_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=463828795 "SHOULD BE A , AFTER BEN KINGSLEY AND BEFORE ETC" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)&diff=prev&oldid=463250533 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 227 CRORES, NOT 252 CRORES. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=463101304 "EROS INTERNATIONAL CFO KAMAL JAIN SAID IT IS AT 230 CRORES IN AN INTERVIEW" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=458390617 "SHAHRUKH SAID BUDGET OF RA.ONE IS 130 CRORES ON TALKING CINEMA WITH TARAN ADARSH, HE SAYS MEDIA IS SPECULATING AND IS WRONG" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712886 "ROTTEN TOMATOES REVIEW ADDED, NO ONE SHOULD REMOVE THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST UNBIASED ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712729 "ADDED FIRST NONBIASED RATING FROM ROTTEN TOMATOES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457626400 "TARAN ARARSH UPDATED IT, BOX OFFICE INDIA IS WRONG)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varunn_pandya&diff=prev&oldid=457467684 "STOP VANDALIZING OUR RA.ONE ARTICLE. IT RECEIVED MOSTLY POSITIVE REVIEWS AS STATED. DO NOT CHANGE THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457454121 "STOP MENTIONING OTHER FILMS IN RA ONE ARTICLE. MENTION 7 AM ARRIVU IN ITS ARTICLE. ILL REPORT YOU IF YOU DONT STOP." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457453705 "FILMFARE REVIEW IS OUT. REDIFF ALREADY MENTIONED DOWN BELOW. TOP PART FOR TOP CRITICS." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457412307 "THESE PEOPLE ARENT PROPER MOVIE CRITICS! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? PEOPLE LIKE OMAR QURESHI, KHALID MOHAMMED, etc. are" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457410976 "DO NOT ADD WEBBLOGS, ONLY GO WITH PROPER CRITICS! CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

After I reported him last week, he vandalized my talk page. Secret of success 12:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been said to you, he's a little over the top; speaking all in caps is rude; and the edit to your talkpage isn't vandalism - he's asking insisting you to leave him alone in a way that you will see. I see no personal attacks, maybe a little tendentiousness, but other than you submitting an WP:RFC/U as has been suggested, what more do you want here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I pressed the issue a bit too much, but an admin suggested that I repost it here as Asher was not contacted at all last time (the issue was mainly highlighted on Ankitbhatt). And well, blanking someone else's talk page and putting a comment in all caps isn't vandalism? And no personal attacks can be seen? Telling me that "Go cry home to Lallu" is a BLP violation (Lallu) and a bad faith comment, directed at me. He has used the term "Lallu" many times. Um, and could you kindly elaborate what an RFC/U is? Thanks. Secret of success 12:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Asher was a party to the last ANI filing, and was aware of the discussion about them. They obviously would have become aware that their behaviour needed to change. As the editor typically uses all caps, them using all caps on your talkpage is not abnormal. Blanking it to make sure you actually read their message is not vandalism, and was easily reverted by you once you saw it - they did it once, to make sure you saw it. I still see nothing that meets the definition of WP:NPA. I see no WP:BLP violations. Please click the link for request for community comment on long-term user issues for more information on RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm: Secret of success left a note on my talk page over the weekend reminding me that the original ANI thread had handled only one of the two editors and asking if I could take a look at the circumstances around the second one. I told him that I wasn't likely to have time soon to look over the situation, and that he should consider asking another admin or re-opening the ANI thread. It appears he's just following my suggestion by re-raising this thread now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I started this only after Fluffernutter's suggestion. Regarding WP:BLP, let me be clear. He regularly uses the word "Lallu", which means "Idiot" in Hindi, to refer to Salman Khan, whose nickname is "Sallu". Calling a notable living person "Idiot" is certainly a BLP violation. He also has indulged in accusing others of bad faith regularly. Well, if need be, I shall open an RFC/U, but I see no basis to let this kind of a behaviour pass, given the extent of time in which it has been going on and the intensity of it. Regards, Secret of success 11:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Uri1234

Uri1234 continually removes speedy deletion tags from DAEWOO International, a page which she/he created. Can she/he please be blocked from editing? West Eddy (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, the user should have been notified of this ANI submission. I've just done that now on your behalf. Also, I posted a notification explaining to them about removing AfD templates from articles. It could be that the user isn't aware of the wrong doings, so hopefully the general notice will assist in that process now. Wesley☀Mouse 13:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for forgetting the notification. This is the first time I've done this. The user in question has been warned multiple times. West Eddy (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• This editor was attempting to add paragraphs from the company's website to this new article, which was why it was tagged for deletion. It appears to be a new user, and there may be a language barrier as well (as per some of the edit summaries on the deleted version). I've gone ahead and deleted the article, then put down a redirect to Daewoo. If they stop, or engage in discussion, I don't think a block is warranted. But if they continue to attempt to force their (copyvio) version, we may have no other option. Since it was just the one editor, I deliberately did not protect the redirect, though I strongly considered it - I leave that to other admins. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Daewoo does list the six surviving brand divisions, redlinking Daewoo International Corporation; 4 have articles, one other redlink. Seems a valid subarticle could be written if NPOV can be met. Dru of Id (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he/she appears to have stopped editing for the moment. I'll watchlist this one on the off chance they return to form. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Z-CARD

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

---

I'm currently at work, so can't edit articles on Wikipedia. However, someone has drawn my attention to the article at Z-CARD, which is a complete mess, has edit wars going on, and needs an experienced editor to take a look at it. I also suspect there is some socking going on... but can't be sure, and I can't run a CheckUser during work hours. Could someone take a look at it - either an experienced editor, or an admin? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems mostly as one editor is performing tests, and while doing that, reverting other users edits. The history is crazy and full of reverts. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, article hasn't been edited since March 19th. Don't think this is an emergency incident, more a cleanup needed really. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not an emergency incident. It's a normal incident which needs investigating and discussing. After all, this page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors! The Cavalry (Message me) 16:29, 11 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.

Persistant Vandal Colourwolf is back again.

[178] old report just got archived, and the guy's back again, see [179].Zhanzhao (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see 2 IPs have been newly banned so far, but his new M.O. Seems to include addind a huge swartztika flag graphic in Jewish/Muslim related pages [180]. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Durresaryl1 - list of edits

I wish to bring the actions of the above named user to the attention of the admins, particularly on the subject of the outpouring of non-constructive edits on Rita Ora that stretch back to mid-2011. His actions were instrumental in the full protection of the article which was lifted in the last few hours. Consensus on presentation and origin section were the topic of the disputes and the cooling-off period saw very little contribution from this editor, let alone participation in discussions. Be that as it may, a consensus on origin was reached here, modified from an earlier constructive discussion here. I was initially frustrated at the timing of the protection measure simply because the page was in a state of deadlock: amended information supported by old source which substantiated previous details. That is by the by. My point is that no sooner had I fixed the edits per consensus than our old friend reappeared, see what I have reverted here[181] which shows that he evidently flouts every aspect of the agreements. I had long suspected this to be a duff account and the lack of activity from the editor during the frozen period unequivocably testifies that this is both a single-issue editor whose intent is to push POVs and ignore consensus. I believe that anyone can now see the elephant in the room on the issue. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this renewed grievance, another violation of consensus has occurred here[182]. This will go on and on so long as the page which attracts vandalism is free to edit and this user is unblocked. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How about finding a reliable source for her place of birth, or else remove it completely. That's far more useful in a BLP, and even "consensus can't hold a candle to that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)we

Well origin is a bit of a sticky patch, could mean a number of things but then that was the key reason the page was protected (NB. place of birth is known and not disputed). All possibilities have sources but for the time being, we have opted to remove it entirely[183] (as you stated). This move also observes the original consensus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Some recent incivility on Malleus' talk page by Anthonyhcole

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

---

Please review [184], specifically "You people make me sick. You people who deign to intuit how much a person is hurting. Fuck you. Really, fuck you, all of you. How dare you? How fucking dare you?"

Please also review one person at talk:Malleus Fatuorum telling him to drop it, the talk page owner saying he will no longer respond on the subject, the frequently pointed to "block unblock block" log that proves someone is truly problematic.

Please discuss. Then explain why justice is/is not blind. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That type of language is completely uncalled for. I think Anthonyhcole has earned himself a block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If civility is meant to apply to everyone here at Wikipedia, then Anthonyhcole should not be allowed to partake in a no-holds-barred "fuck you" fest on another editor's talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole has apparently gone offline for the night. His personal attacks have been redacted by me and Ched Davis, and Anthony has been sternly warned that any continuation of this behavior will be responded to with a block. My personal feeling is (to quote what I said to Hipocrite on my talk page a few minutes ago) that "this strikes me as an edge case mostly because his going offline almost immediately muddies the issue of whether he would otherwise be acting on the warning I gave him", and I'm falling slightly on the "let's hold off on any blocking until we see his behavior in the morning" side of the line, but it's a very fuzzy line and input by other admins here will probably be useful in determining exactly where it lies. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there's several angles to consider here.

1. Consider to who (whom?) the incivility was directed at; given Malleus' colorful history, the bar has to be really, really high for someone to really take umbrage at a comment thrown his way.
2. Personally, I take a dim view at NPA/civility filings not being filed by the target himself.
3. The "heart's in the right place" defense. For good or for ill, Anthony is passionate in what he believes in, and feels that Hawkins' mistreatment is to the detriment to the encyclopedia. Being a bit brusque while one is sincerely making an effort to better the project should be a mitigating consideration when pondering a block. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In a word, bollocks. 72 hours to cool off. Whatever he intends to offer by way of contributions to mainspace isn't so important that it cannot wait. A bit more stick and a whole lot less carrot is needed. For transparency, I fully agreed with the 72 hours MF received last week. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I will edit the civility policy to make it clear you can be uncivil to people who are frequently incivil. We should immediately ban linking to m:DefendEachOther, as apparently it is depreciated, and I will also note on the civility policy that if you are passionate about what you believe in, you can, in fact, be incivil. Got it! Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sigh. Every user here is responsible for their own behavior, regardless of who they're interacting with. Insulting someone with a long block log is no more acceptable than insulting someone with a pristine one, and telling someone "fuck off" because you care just-oh-that-much is no more acceptable than telling them to fuck off because you're secretly Lucifer himself. Our civility policy makes that plenty clear as it stands. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fluffernutter - personally I'm thinking that I'd like to see Anthony NOT editing any page other than his own, mine, or yours for 28 hours from the time stamp of his post on Malleus' talk page. That is the amount of time that the recent block of MF lasted for the exact same discussion. I'm not inclined to do the "technical" blocking part as I think that should be reserved for vandals and children who think this is a playground rather than an encyclopedic project. I'd be willing to trust him to adhere to a "consider yourself restricted" idea. I'm willing to view Anthony as an "adult" at the moment, and I do understand his strongly held beliefs in regards to the Hawkins issues. My thought is along the lines of "what's good for the goose..." here. I'm also interested in further input from other editors; both admin, and non-admin. It's your project folks. I'd also mention that the title of the thread should be changed. There was no Malleus incivility — Ched :  ?  17:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

While I understand and am fighting the same impulse to be "scrupulously fair" by basing our reaction to Anthony's behavior off of exactly what was done to Malleus in a similar situation, I think we need to be wary of basing one person's block off another's. That opens the door to never-ending ranking of people's behavior - "well, so-and-so did X and got [time]. I think Person Z's offense is [foo] more bad than so-and-so's, so their block should be [time+foo]..." I think a more logical block length for Anthony, if this thread concludes a block is warranted, would be the next step up in time length from his last block - which looks like it's either about 1 week (if we go by assigned block lengths) or about 6 hours (if we go by time served in actual blocks). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Leaky caldron — Anthony deserves a block as long as Malleus received last time. Anthony knew what he was getting himself into here and going offline to avoid a block is inexcusable. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Minimum 72 hour block. Anthony ignored two suggestions to disengage and get off MF's talk page: 2 days ago and today. Then, he posts an over-the-top diatribe that goes way beyond civil discourse, also proving that his emotional involvement in the topic should earn him a topic ban faster than anyone else. If we're going to block Malleus over a bit of belligerence in the face of sustained baiting, we've got to come down even harder on the other party when they continue to escalate the conflict even after the original block. We can't have it both ways. I do not buy the argument that he "went to bed" so maybe we should let it blow over. You don't get to avoid justice for a hit-and-run just because you drove home and went to bed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm amused at the hypocrisy that anyone is trying to defend Anthony for that incivility, when Malleus was blocked for making a comment that was far, far less incivil. Silverseren^C 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care if he's sleeping now or not, those comments are completely unacceptable, and a 1-week block would be entirely appropriate, given that he was just given a very explicit warning about baiting Malleus. He was repeatedly and politely asked to disengage from Malleus' talk page, and he responds this way? 28bytes (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Endorse block Was getting ready to block, but Samir did it. The fact is that there's been a few days of drama over civility and now that things have finally calmed down he does that? No. It's not excusable. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been more entertaining than a soap opera/how ESPN covers sports. Popping up a fresh batch of popcorn now. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Entirely inappropriate diff and worthy of block in my opinion; consensus here is the same. Diffs listed above show that there were attempts to disengage User:Anthonyhcole from the user talk page in question. WP:CIV is a core policy and must be adhered to for us to have an effective collaborative project here. The duration of 72 hours was chosen given prior block history. -- Samir 17:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Before any sympathetic admin unblocks him, please see this [185] in which he states that he'll accept whatever the community thinks is appropriate. Leaky Caldron 17:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. That kind of deliberate and aggressive antagonism should not be tolerated. 28bytes (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • and a classic example of how block discussions should be carried out. Short, sharp to the point and effective. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an administrator, but I do believe saying FU to anyone on here is worthy of a block, regardless of the circumstances. We're supposed to be civil...and I've seen incivility lead to more than a couple people leave wikipedia since I joined the community in January 2006. If I am allowed to, I endorse the block. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, of course. Blatant personal attack after incidents and warnings that explicitly involved the target editor. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:53, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Childish rant laced with a spate of profanity following the non-stop baiting of another editor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, IMO. Persistent engagement after repeated warnings. I'd say that going to someone's talk page after playing a role (intentional or not) in someone's block and then bringing up the same topic that led to said block is at the very least ill-advised and should quite likely constitute deliberate and intentional baiting.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Although I was approaching things from a different angle, and was not convinced of any appropriate time limit, I can not disagree with a block. — Ched :  ?  18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• No doubt Anthony should not have gone to Malleus talkpage to bait him...I agree with this block.MONGO 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Pile on good block. That diff was done with specific intent. He just had a warning last week. He shouldn't have reengaged Malleus on the exact same topic that led to personal attacks last time.--v/r - TP 20:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, obviously. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment about block. Isn't it obvious that Anthony has engineered a block of himself to "equalise the punishments"? It seems to me that he carried out an honourable action tonight, in the guise of incivility. It's also a sad reflection on the pavlovian nature of the responses on this board that anyone could foresee how it would turn out. If there's any sense left, someone needs to make sure he has a chance to appeal his block after, say, 28 hours. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Did he inform Malleus of this plan beforehand? Or was he just gambling that Malleus wouldn't fire back and get himself re-blocked in the process? Playing a round of "block martyr" can have pretty nasty side effects for people who aren't in on the game. 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the assessment by RexxS. But honourable behaviour seems to have little currency value on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps that's true, but in reading (again) the entire dialog today on Malleus' talk page, it appears more to me that AHC is emotionally vested in the Hawkins issue, and was attempting to force others to view things the way he saw them. All respect for both RexxS and Epipelagic, and an enduring respect for Anthony's sticking up for and being willing to accept the consequences in the original incident. Perhaps that will hold sway in some admin's mind should he actually post an unblock request tomorrow night - I don't know. The fact of the matter is however that he did go "OTT" as they say, and if there's going to be consistency then the block was warranted. It's a slippery slope that would be impossible to justify if we start allowing personal attacks (and I remind you it was not directed solely at Malleus, but at the others engaged in the conversation as well), because we [try to] "judge" them to be of "honourable behaviour". If Anthony posts something on his talk, I'm sure enough people will be watching that we can evaluate the matter at that time. — Ched :  ?  00:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He did seem to go into meltdown, which is not the best strategy on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:54, 12 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 copyright violations by User:Ricco Baroni

I'm not sure of the correct notice board for this issue, so I'm putting it here. Ricco Baroni (talk · contribs) has a history of committing copyright violations ([186] from [187], [188] from [189], [190] from [191], [192] from [193], [194] from [195] and more) and most recently in the creation of 2012 in M-1 Global events (using text copied from 2012 in mixed martial arts events). The user has been warned about this a couple of times([196], [197]). I've reviewed all of the user's edits and have removed any copyrighted text still in current versions of articles, so an investigation into the user's edits are not needed IMO. However, considering the multiple warnings the user has received and the most recent copying of text from one Wikipedia article to another, the user doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of copying text from other places (on or off wiki). Maybe some action from here can do that. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:CCI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that, but since I've already cleaned up after the editor, I wasn't sure if that was still the best place. If the report should still go there, even if there is nothing to clean up after, then I can do that. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wisdomtenacityfocus accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying

Since a while user Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) (signing as WTF) has been constantly accusing me of vandalism.

Background

WTF would like to organise the template Template#Frank Zappa and the article Frank Zappa discography in a different way than it was up to when he started working on it. As this reorganisation is problematic in some ways, the edits were discussed on Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template by WTF, myself and a number of other users: Sexually Aroused Gas Mask (talk · contribs), Mystery Roach (talk · contribs), Friginator (talk · contribs), Aerosmith366 (talk · contribs), FunkMonk (talk · contribs) and some IP's 68.0.118.130 (talk · contribs), 113.117.201.52 (talk · contribs).

The content was ultimately restored to its original format. After some edit-warring (in which I took care not to take place) and a 5th revert, I reported WTF at edit the warring notice board wp:ANEW — see the entire case here.

Immediately thereafter WTF stopped edit-warring and opened a case at wp:DRN (see opening statement).

The DRN was closed against WTF's viewpoint (see closing note and entire case here).

Without being closed or commented upon, the ANEW case was archived without result, presumably rightfully so, as WTF had indeed stopped editing or commenting after the DRN closure.

Meanwhile WTF started editing again and has made two RFC's about the matter ([198]), [199]).

Accusations

Against the above background, user WTF has been accusing me of vandalising, ownership, edit warring and lying:

• After several accusations at Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template I put a final warning on his talk page (text and diffs: [200])

• [201]: "...this guy rolled over me because he thinks he owns the article"
• [202]: "You removed massive chunks of the discography...", "You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism"
• [203]: "... stop enabling DVdm's vandalism"

This warning was seen and removed

• A new request to stop: [204] about [205] "Also, you falsely accused me of edit-warring. I merely stated what you actually did."

This warning was seen and removed

• On my talk page I explicitly listed (User talk:DVdm#Content dispute) all my contributions to the article and template and asked WTF to explain how these edits could be vandalism or to retract the accusations.

No reply on that.

• Another request to stop: [206] and [207] (text and diffs: [208])

This warning was seen and removed with edit summary "DVdm lies again".

• Finally, on my talk page: "I'm not accusing you of something you haven't done. I'm stating what you have done. It is misleading and blatantly false to deny what you have done"

Comments

Could someone please look into this and perhaps explain in clear terms to WTF that his allegations and accusations are unfounded, and somehow intervene to make this stop? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User notified: [209] - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about you stop vandalizing, trying to own articles, edit warring, lying and making the list and template I brought up issues with unreadable? This is not a "incident" if everything I've said is true. Please own up to what you've done and stop bothering people with something YOU started purely to spite me? --WTF (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I could put your buddy on here for telling me to "shut [my] hole" and falsely stating that I'm "on the noticeboard for edit warring", when, in reality, he was reported by me for edit warring. I'm really getting tired of this nonsense. Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do. My actions are should be rewarded, not disparaged. --WTF (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been proven to you numerous times that DVdm never reverted your edits on the pages in question and wasn't involved in the change of the template and discography page. You have continuously ignored this fact and accused him of things he already showed he didn't do. You indeed were on the noticeboard for edit warring, just like Friginator claimed. DVdm even linked to it here. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Having been over this before, I'd just like to say that I would gladly testify under oath in a court of law that to my knowledge, DVdm has not recently vandalized an article or template (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), assumed ownership over one (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), engaged in an edit war (according to this and/or any Wikipedia policy I've ever read), or lied to anyone about anything that I know of. However, Wisdomtenacityfocus had, in fact, prior to this thread accused the other user of vandalism, claiming ownership and lying on such occasions as, but not necessarily limited to, here, here and here. Also, he pretty much made all four accusations three paragraphs above this one anyway. Friginator (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding WTF's above remark ("Neither of you bother to look at other articles or read up on the guidelines, and then harass me for doing what I'm supposed to do."): I pointed to many guidelines and policies about consensus on the thread Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa template. According to the closing note WTF's DRN case, it was "apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting...".

Regarding WTF's edit summary of the removal of the ANI notification at his talk page, and regarding the above comment with yet again the same false accusations: dear administrator(s), could someone, independently of what I think for WTF is a content dispute of great importance, please make this user somehow stop doing this? I most certainly did not start something here to "spite" this user. Rather I started something to somehow stop these blatantly false accusations. A little warning on WTF's talk page might help. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Outside Observation This seem to be already covered in a number of places, linked above. That said, WTF seems to suffer from both civility and hearing problems, per his edits summaries and comments after being informed that he improperly made changes to a template [210], per User:TransporterMan's closing note:" It now being apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting, above, of 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC). If WTF wishes to build consensus for his/her preferred version, I would recommend the use of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan...14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)". Claiming other people's actions are vandalism [211] plus [212] and taking a generally combative tone [213] [214] [215] and too many others to list. He also has problems understanding policy [216] regarding 3RR, when it applies to others. While disagreements can be a little heated at times (by all parties), and a degree of terse comments can be overlooked, Wisdomtenacityfocus (aka:WTF) seems to be going out of his way to go against clearly established consensus in his edits and claim other's contributions are vandalism, to the point of being quite disruptive. Ignoring this will not make it go away. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, did you miss where these editors are reverting WITHOUT discussing and one of them DIRECTLY ATTACKED ME (the words "shut your hole" were directed at me), and there is NO CONSENSUS for the edits being made by DVdm and others? I POSTED THE GUIDELINES, I posted ground where it is handled better on other lists and templates, and these editors ignored it, reverted, attacked me and dismissed valid points. I am not being uncivil, the editors that have chosen to harass me because they can't get what they want ARE being uncivil. Not to mention, DVdm FALSELY accused me of personal attacks, ignoring the actual personal attacks that were directed at me. Clearly you think that I am stupid, Dennis Brown, and I don't appreciate the complete lack of regard and respect toward me. --WTF (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are claiming that DVdm reverted any of your edits. It has been pointed out to you numerous times that this is not true, but you persistently ignore it as if nobody ever said it. I am also not aware of any guidelines you claim to have posted, but you are more than welcome to prove me wrong. You did post counterexamples of lists and templates that are handled like you want the Zappa discography to be handled, but this alone doesn't make you right. Neither were your points ignored, the editors in question civilly disagreed and made counterpoints. None of this has anything to do with thinking you're stupid or lack of respect towards you. You are quite simply ignoring facts and this is not acceptable. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another personal atack: "DVdm has proven nothing other than that he has no respect or regard for the people around him" and "FALSELY, by a vandal"- DVdm (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So are any admins going to comment, or are we just going to keep pointing out that User:Wisdomtenacityfocus doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy or the people around him? Because it seems like that's what this boils down to, and that's what needs to change. Friginator (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment. WTF, per WP:NPA, accusations lacking justification are personal attacks. Please note that vandalism has a narrow definition on Wikipedia and necessitates that an editor is intentionally trying to harm Wikipedia with their actions. Accusing someone of that is pretty extreme and requires evidence. I haven't seen anything from you here that justifies your accusations. Therefore I'm giving you an official warning to either provide justification for your warnings, or to stop making them. Continuing to harass other editors can and will lead to you being blocked. You've made over 6,000 edits over the course of more than a year without being blocked, don't start now. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Atama, Dennis, Mystery and Friginator, thanks for your comments. The attacks seem to have stopped now, so I assume that user WTF has seen and understood the message. Let's move on. Cheers all. - DVdm (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

A suspected ip sock User:74.101.6.158] of indef blocked User:Hershebar is violating 3RR over at Louise Vyent (well if they ARE an indef sock, they shouldn't be editing in the first place). Can a block be placed on this user as well as protect the page? Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like either of you have violated 3RR yet, but both of you are about to. Also, what makes you think the IP is a sockof Hershebar? Hershebar has never edited Louise Vyent. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Related to this case, looks like Hershebar and all the others may be related to KYNY (talk · contribs) and the others associated with it. Weakfoot (talk · contribs), who was a sock of KYNY, has history at this article. This all appears to be coming together. Calabe1992 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the ip has made 4 reverts on 4/12 already. [1] [2] [3] [4] Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation on transsexuals' articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

User:Pillarsofsalt has been removing the birth names of transsexuals on various BLP articles. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, reverted. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so I understand... how is removing a name from an article considered a WP:BLP violation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggested it's a BLP violation, but rather that it's vandalism on articles that are Biographies of Living Persons. - Nunh-huh 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'd call it vandalism either; they did offer an explanation for what they're doing. 28bytes (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a note that the editor Pillarsofsalt was not informed of this discussion, and the IP made no attempt that I can see to discuss this with the editor before bringing it here. It is not obviously vandalism, though I don't see the need to remove birth names either. Syrthiss (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Am I correct that no one warned Pillarsofsalt, even once, before this indef block was placed? This is not vandalism; if it continued after attempts to discuss it with them, it might be disruptive editing, but it appears to be in good faith, and an instablock is not a great reaction. If someone hasn't already done so, I'm going to unblock and leave a note for them on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the editor's contributions, and I saw a user whose only purpose was to remove information (often sourced information) from various BLP's in quick succession, and I thought that stopping that editor ASAP would be a good idea. I'm ok with an unblock if you believe that's the right course of action. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not good, young admin master. You must learn the ways of the wikiforce; don't succumb to the dark (blocking) side of adminship so soon... Nobody Ent 17:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that policy, I was generally acting on the statement, "...users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." Call me crazy, but I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret this as vandalism. He was removing sourced information about people's real names from many articles in quick succession. *shrug* Again, I have no problem with the unblock and the interest in discussing this with the editor. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Those edits were misguided but there is no evidence of deliberate bad faith editing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At least one article subject (Gwen Araujo) was murdered in 2002 and is not currently a living person :(. 67.117.147.20 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi! I undid one of the edits (at Jennell Jaquays) before I checked Pillarofsalt's contribs and noticed it was just one of a series of edits of the same sort, and noticed that Scottywong had reverted most of the remaining edits. Before I came here and noticed that the status of these edits as vandalism was under dispute, I reverted a similar earlier edit by the same user at Silvia Rivera following suit after Scottywong's.

Now I have no strong opinions (nor have done much research) as to whether those edits should be considered vandalism, but in the case of the edit to Jennell Jaquays, the edit was certainly a highly disruptive one: the subject of the article produced a large number of products under her birth name. In such a case, it is inappropriate to remove the name the subject originally became noteworthy for. I imagine that a number of the other edits Pillarofsalt performed could be equally disruptive. To engage in such indiscriminate editing without regard to context or impact on the article certainly seems to be disruptive behavior to me. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please add me to the Unblock and discuss group here. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note to uninvolved passing editor. .. as the user has since been unblocked - you could likely "tag-and-bag" this thread as closed and resolved. — Ched :  ?  02:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Calabe1992 02:46, 13 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 Zloyvolsheb threats and disruptive behavior

Zloyvolsheb have threatened me on my own talkpage that if he does not get to keep his WP:OR edits he will revert all my edits and report me here , he keeps edit warring over the soviet union article about the insertion of "federal" into the main lede , be will probably edit this message to pretend that i said wrong stuff , please help someone , am not sure where to say this but this needs to be somehow resolved Ocnerosti (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Ocnerosti. It seems that this is an unresolved content dispute where no clear consensus has been established. I have fully protected the page for a few days and suggest that further discussion is pursued on the article's talk page. Looking at the talk page, there does not seem to be a clear consensus either way, so discussing this with others involved would be a better course of action than reverting back and forth. If talk page discussion yields nothing, try using the dispute resolution noticeboard. I would also warn all involved that edit warring is discouraged and users who persist to edit war may be blocked. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this dispute is Soviet Union. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Zippy, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaosname and User:Zloyvolsheb/Evidence to see what the real disruption here is about. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone has a moment...

...could they swing by Adam Ant Is the Blueblack Hussar in Marrying the Gunner's Daughter‎ and address Adamantdotnet (talk · contribs)? They seem to be related to the person and claim that he wants the page removed. It looks as though they have tried to start a malformed AfD. Thanks. Calabe1992 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• They put an AfD template on the article without going through the rest of the steps. I'm inclined to block the account (given the name) and remove the template, since it'll go the way of SNOW KEEP (given the references). Drmies (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An IP address already removed the AfD (I would have done so myself as it's an obvious snow keep). I have blocked the user indefinitely for the improper user name and attempting to assert ownership over that article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn Qwyrxian. I'll see at our SPI, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikemikev

Resolved

 – Both IPs blocked as OPs. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One open proxy from China currently in use by this banned user has been blocked.118.112.185.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The other two (currently at SPI) have not. Please could this be done a.s.a.p? Here are the other two 118.112.185.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 118.112.185.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Here he is in full flood, [217], [218] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elockid. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gizgalasi COI

Unarchived--see below. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I brought User:Gizgalasi to this board before in January (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Conflict of interest---block requested, and there wasn't much interest, with only a few comments either way. After that discussion, the editor decreased xyr frequency of editing, but has since resumed xyr unbalanced COI editing. This revolves around a cluster of articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story and its author, Kurban Said. The name "Said" is a psuedonym, and the author's real identity is not known for certain. Gizgalasi is associated with Azerbaijan International, a cultural/literary magazine, which published a very extensive analysis of the question, and arrived at a specific answer. That's fine and good, but Gizgalasi has repeatedly attempted to highlight AI's analysis to the exclusion of all others.

The best recent examples can be found in this series of edits, which culminated in Gizgalasi removing the NPOV and COI tags in the this edit. The article is not even close to neutral; for example, see my edit, which attempts to just start fixing an extremely obvious POV point (the article was asserting that one theory was wrong in Wikipedia's voice).

Another example is this series of edits to Lev Nussimbaum which attribute to another author (the one whose theories AI reject) an opinion he never held.

Gizgalasi is a perfect example of the reason why we have the COI policy. Gizgalasi is too closely connected to AI, and is unable to see that xyr edits are not, in fact neutral. I don't know what else to do other than to block this editor until such time as they agree to stop editing the articles directly. They could either use "edit request" templates on the talk page or try Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help‎. Outside of WP, Gizgalasi's commitment to a specific academic position is a good thing; here, it prevents xyr from editing per WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic sidebar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apropos of nothing really, but what the heck does "xyr" stand for? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Just one of the many knots that people who don't like singular they tie themselves into about gender-neutral third person pronouns.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see! I've seen "xr" before, but I just couldn't parse this "xyr" thing... that's actual nonsense, for crying out loud! I had a suspicion that it had something to do with the "xr" silliness, but I couldn't quite be certain. I really hope that this fad dies out soon. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I actually enjoy conversations about gender and language (and even grant creeedance to Ohms laws' concerns), and I know that bringing an issue to ANI means one opens up one's own behavior to scrutiny, is there any chance that anyone is interested in actually looking at the articles/editor in question? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who are able to contribute to Wikipedia successfully while writing about subjects they are personally close to, but G. is clearly not one of them. He obvious subscribes to an "us vs. them" attitude, where "us" is Azerbaijan International and other Azerbaijan-related topics, and "them" is anyone who disputes his take on things. I do not believe he is able to edit with a neutral point of view and is the poster child for the precautions prescribed in the WP:COI policy. I would suggest that an admin review the situation, and put G. on notice that he must follow the guidelines prescribed in the COI policy, which are not to edit those articles directly, but to make editing suggestion on the articles' talk pages to be put into effect by other, neutral editors. (And one of the problems here is that G. thinks that anyone who disputes his edits is not neutral, and editing per policy, but is instead "against" the magazine, or Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis in general.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For an example of G.'s sensibility, see this comment on his talk page, where he implies that Q. and I are the same person because we agree with each other, a totally ludicrous conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've unarchived this. I really, desperately want someone(s) uninvolved to take a look at this issue. Please note that this isn't just a random set of problems...the issue surrounding these topics (Lev Nussimbaum, Kurban Said, Ali and Nino: A Love Story, etc.) were previously so serious that The Guardian wrote up an article about problems with their Wikipedia articles: [219]. Now, I don't think that Gizgalasi was the one who caused those earlier problems, but the problems that (I and Beyond my Ken believe) are being caused by Gizgalasi are still quite serious: this cluster of articles currently treats the research done by Azerbaijan International as fact, not as one theory among several. If this were just a regular content dispute, I'd take it to the content boards, but this is the case of an editor who is a researcher for that magazine trying to promote the magazine's theories to the exclusion of all others; of reference bombing these various articles such that the AI references outweigh others by a massive factor; and now, as Beyond My Ken states, is accusing the only 2 of us to have been trying for neutrality to be the same person. If I'm wrong, and this is all reasonable editing (or "just a content issue"), please, someone tell me. Trout me, even. Without the assistance of other admins, I simply cannot see any constructive way to proceed other than simply allowing Gizgalasi to write whatever s/he wants, since s/he is 100% convinced of his/her own neutrality (because s/he is 100% convinced that the AI analysis of this topic is completely right, so it is, by definition, neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have absolutely zero experience or, frankly, interest in this; however, I can sense your frustration here, and I think that my little OT commentary above added to it (I honestly thought that a dozen or so others would pipe in here right after my comment...), so I feel compelled to say something. Assuming that everything you're presenting here is accurate (which I do, but, you know... I've got to make it clear that I'm assuming here), then this sounds like a good case to impose a topic ban on Gizgalasi.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  Only a little bothered. It was more the lack of interest after 2 separate times bringing this to ANI. If no one else is interested, I'll just have to assume that I and Beyond My Ken are somehow wrong, and give up on the articles completely. I believe in working with COI editors (I'm an irregular member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help; but I also believe that COI editors who don't follow the rules and don't understand that their POV is not the same thing as NPOV need to be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  With the amount of interest that perceived conflicts of interest and paid editing stuff typically generates, I'm a bit mystified at the lack of interest in this myself...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that in order to determine if a COI exists, the determining editor has to actually be familiar with the corpus of research that has been done on the topic - in the case of your previous request, the Ali and Nino scholarship question. If Gizgalasi is presenting neutral facts (broadly agreed upon in the realm of RSes or otherwise properly attributed) then there may be no problem. If he's hacking out portions of contrary research to replace them with AI's research or if he's stating opinion as fact then he's clearly acting in violation of COI. There is quite obviously at least the potential for a COI here. The number of edits Gizgalasi's made to the "Azerbaijan International" article is something that warrants a close look, but from my cursory examination I don't see anything too terrible. Usually the insertion of superlative of promotional expressions as in this edit is a violation of NPOV and thus COI but it's hardly a breathtaking example. I'd say keep your eye on the situation for now. You've warned Gizgalasi about COI and you can now assume he's aware of it. The mere potential for impropriety doesn't seem like enough to impose sanctions on. -Thibbs (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I only skimmed his edits so if there are any particular diffs I missed where COI is unambiguous even to a layman like I who knows nothing of Azerbaijani literature then please link it and I'll change my recommendation accordingly. -Thibbs (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggested in the old discussion that the self-citation was excessive. I still think so. This editor has had nearly 2,000 edits, my question is whether or not those edits have been productive and if they've had the sole purpose of advancing an agenda that promotes the AI publication. If this person is only here to promote a magazine, whatever the nature of that magazine, they shouldn't be here. I remember the last time I looked at this person's edits (back in January) they didn't seem to be adding anything of substance, their edits were primarily promotional and/or pushed a POV shared by the publication. If this is the case, I think we're letting the COI question sidetrack us and should just be treating this editor like any other spammer (block them since they've continued despite numerous warnings). -- Atama頭 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thibbs, you raise a fair concern; let me see if I can drag up a few diffs/discussions. Note that I know literally nothing about this subject other than what I have read in connection to writing these articles.

• • • Take a look at the article in Kurban Said [220] this revision. In the next edit, Gizgalasi removed the POV tag saying, "Article shows all points of view - Kurban Said from point of view - Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli, Lev Nussimbaum and Bello Vacca. Article is so thorough - does not deserve statement that information is under question". This is so obviously and ridiculously false that it shows that Gizgalasi doesn't understand what neutrality means on Wikipedia. As a quick example of why, take a look at my next change in this diff. Prior to my change, the article stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice that one commentators theory was wrong, based entirely upon the analysis on the AI article; I rewrote it to clarify that no, it's not a "fact" that Vacca is wrong, merely the opinion of AI.
    • For a good explanation of how Gizgalasi doesn't understand COI and POV, see User Talk:Gizgalasi#COIN. Note that there (and throughout every interaction I've had with G), the assertion is not that one theory is more widely accepted than another, but merely that the AI theory is correct because "No one has done deeper research into this issue that the staff of Azerbaijan International. Nearly 60 people were involved with the research and translations." This is no different than any pusher of any POV who asserts, "If you just look at the quality of our work/research/company, you'll see that this is obviously the best/most extensive/most accurate work, and therefore our conclusions are what Wikipedia should say."
    • One more: See this sequence of edits on Lev Nussimbaum (the bottom part about Nussimbaum's death). Basically Reiss (an author with a book about this topic dating to before the AI special edition) argues that Nussimbaum died of one disease, while AI argues that Reiss was wrong because that specific diseases tends to effect females more often than males. As a result of this, AI concludes he died of a different disease. Of course, our article should state both of these theories. Gizgalasi, instead, makes the article support AI's theory over Reiss's; worse, the edit implies that Reiss was somehow aware of the opinions of AI--that is, it misrepresents the Reiss source. Why? Because Gizgalasi is certain that AI's POV is correct because they did better research.

A final note to tThibbs: you say that I have no warned G, and I should keep an eye on their edits. That isn't going to happen. I've raised this issue at WP:COIN, and this is the second time I've brought it here. If I get no support on the issue this time, I can only assume my analysis is wrong, there is not COI/POV issue. If there is no action, I'm taking all of these articles off my watchlist. Every time I warn Gizgalasi and no action is taken, the warnings simply lose power. I'm not going to keep edit warring if my view is not community supported, and I'm not going to tear my hair out in frustration because a set of articles on books I've never read seem to be being controlled by an involved party. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. I actually noted that you had warned Gizgalasi and that now you could consider him to have had fair warning (i.e. so if he does anything clearly on the wrong side of COI then it's fair to give him a block without further ado). But anyway thanks for the further evidence. It does seem like he is showing signs of COI. I had focused more on his edits to the AI article which seem to have at least the color of neutrality. I still say that if it's just a matter of correcting the record and it's done neutrally then there's no problem with an "involved" editor making the edit, but the edits you've shown most recently just above are indeed somewhat more concerning. It would help in recognizing COI if I knew more about the underlying topics... -Thibbs (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I decided to have a quick look at the diffs that Qwyrxian posted and one thing that popped out was that the sheer level of referencing to AI does rise to the level of spam to the point that that the articles are skewed. Anything that Gizgalasi has substantially contributed to should have a NPOV tag slapped on it asap, if it hasn't already done so. The Kurban Said article is almost solely sourced to AI. I remember the WP:COIN report that Qwyrxian raised (re-read it as a refresher) and agree that Gizgalasi has a COI. Rather than letting them edit unconditionally, the usual COI restrictions should be placed on Gizgalasi, i.e. proposals for edits on the article talk page and discussion re the suitability of their references which other editors should then add rather than they themselves doing it willy-nilly. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:RBMA

Please look at Special:Contributions/RBMA. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I saw one his edits earlier and didn't think anything of it, but now it looks like he is on a mission to promote his website, which now makes his username a likely violation as well. I don't have a mop, but I think an indef and mass revert is likely in order. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I notified the user about this ANI, as SupernovaExplosion had, ahem, forgotten to do that. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted his addition of EL spam. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since we are already here, no need to go to WP:UAA, I'm guessing someone will mop up shortly. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting back to me regarding this issue. And yes, indeed, I'm on a mission to update all linked wiki content to our rbma website since it's been redesigned and most of the URL's which are linking there are no longer active. I assure, I'm updating and adding appropiate content to our former lecturers and I definitely don't intend to advertise or misuse your page. Sorry if there's any misunderstanding. (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is the very definition of spamlinking and is not permitted. Please stop.--ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for coming here and addressing the issue. Please read WP:COI, the guideline for 'conflict of interest' before editing. There are some steps you should consider that are covered there. Additionally, your username appears to stand for Red Bull Music Academy, which is likely a violation of the username policy as being promotional. It looks like you are removing links from one website, and replacing them with links to your own website. It also appears that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to promote your own interests. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  As for the username issue... it's not as though he registered User:Red Bull Music Academy. Choosing to use an innocuous acronym like "RBMA" is exactly the sort of thing that we want people to do, I'd think!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• ok, i understand. sorry for this whole issue. my main intention is to exchange any url's to our old website since they're not working anymore. the very same content is still existing and moved to a likewise url (but just not the same as before). that means that there are quite many dead links on wikipedia existing, that i just wanted to correct. obviously this is a violation to your terms. and yes rbma means redbullmusicacademy and this account was only created to update those links. RBMA (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hang on a second here, guys. You may be correct, but I just glanced at a couple of his contributions. It appears as though most of the edits that User:RBMA is making are to change existing links. Combine that with his explanation above, that he's updating links to the site (which I'm guessing that he administers), and this doesn't look like "spamming" at all. Well, it doesn't look like inappropriate spamming, at least (unless we want a bunch of broken links, for some reason?). Dragging the guy to AN/I and throwing accusations about conflicts of interest at his isn't very constructive. You guys didn't even try to talk to him before bringing this up here!
  I can understand checking up on this user, and I think that they bear continued watching. Their interest is obvious though (updating mostly existing links after a sight update), and that interest isn't completely at odds with Wikipedia's goals. There's no need to create dramaz and angst, especially with users who we can work with (Short version: Don't bite the newbies!. (and now it looks as though you guys have run him out of town. Great. Now who's going to update all of the links that will probably be broken soon?)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, well after going through your argument, I've self-reverted. But the user should have used edit summary. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  The guy is communicative (he replied here and on his talk page), so... talk to him! He's probably not even aware that edit summaries are important. I did notice one or two badly formed links as well, so his edits bear watching. It needs to be explained to him that he's responsible for his edits, and that the addition of links to pages that do not currently have then needs to be approved by someone.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I only looked briefly at the two domains and at first glance it didn't look like it was the same company, but a closer look would be in order. Only one of his edits were in my watch list. And assuming his edits are pure good faith, he still would benefit from reading WP:COI to prevent this confusion in the future. At first glance, and second for that mattter, it looked like textbook spamming. His contribs have disappeared so it is hard to compare the two websites "contact us" page to verify that it is the same company. Admin assistance on that would be helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

    It's weird though, because some of his edits were decidedly spammy looking, while others are exactly the kind of thing we need. For example, great looking change: [221] Not so great looking change: [222]. I kinda wonder what made Bootsy Collins a target here, outside of the potential fact that User:RBMA is working off of some sort of list of performers who are "alumni", or something similar. Not that we want thousands of links added (that sort of thing should be thouroughly discussed), but again we definitely want existing links updated as needed.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• And anytime I see someone new and they have around 15 contribs, and every contrib is to add pages from the same domain as external link, and there are NO other edits....yeah, the Spidey sense starts to tingle. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohms law speaks from my heart. Imagine my name were say Brian Bradley Conway and I was a television expert, and registered a clever pun on my initials, how would I be treated on arrival here? Also, Red Bull Music Academy links on producer articles are in fact highly likely to meet the EL policy. - filelakeshoe 12:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you tried to use the user name User:BBC, you would clearly be asked to change your name or be blocked, per WP:USERNAME. This case is more borderline and based mainly on his actions. It isn't an obvious violation, I guess now that I look at it again, but it is saying that he is officially from that company, which uses RBMA themselves as an identifier, per the article itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson unblock request

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

---

Resolved

 – Consensus is to unblock, and Boing! said Zebedee has done so.

There's an unblock request at User talk:Chrisjnelson, but because of the editor's extensive block log, I don't feel I can make the decision myself. He sounds contrite now, but that block log goes back a long way, and he was still making personal attacks not that long ago - Aug 2011, and was being abusive on his Talk page Sep 2011. Personally. I'd be minded to give him another chance, but what does the community say? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If he can avoid edits like this one from Feb 2011, sure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, laughing out loud Youreallycan 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• (copied from Talk page... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for posting at ANI. I can't excuse anything I've done in the past and I realize the block log is extensive. But I would ask that I not receive a lifetime ban after all my contributions to the encyclopedia, but rather just get one more chance to show I can be a positive member of the community, not just in contributions but also in interactions with other members. If this is indeed not intended to be a permanent ban, then I'm saying now that I am ready for that chance to return and prove that I can avoid the sort of behavior that got be blocked in the past. I just want to keep football rosters up to date and help shape player article--not fight with others or be abusive. Thanks for listening.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OFFER - see how he behaves on another project, ideally. If he can behave himself for six months, sure, let him come back--on the crystal-clear understanding that any fuckup and he is permabanned. → ROUX ₪ 18:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  You seem to be applying a higher standard to Chris than you apply to yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  If only I gave a fuck about what you think. → ROUX ₪ 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think you just proved my point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  If only I gave a fuck about what you think. → ROUX ₪ 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• He's been blocked for 8 months, as far as we know he hasn't socked for at least 7 months. I would be ok with giving him one last chance, as long as he acknowledges and understands that the next block will absolutely be permanent. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Why would you take an extreme position like that? He's be smirked at above by someone with a longer block log than Chris's. Obviously we all would hope there are lessons learned and understand that further stupidity will be dealt with harshly, but there's nothing death penalty worthy that I'm aware of... Fabricating sources? Engaging in wanton sneaky vandalism like date changing? Engaging in systematic and concealed copyright violation? THAT'S death penalty worthy. Calling somebody names or trying unsuccessfully to sneak around a block are transgressions of a far lesser magnitude. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Being uncivil and calling someone names is one thing. Being uncivil and calling people names enough to get blocked two dozen times is something else. We don't have to endure people forever when they repeatedly demonstrate that they're incapable of following some very basic rules of engagement. Of course, a truly permanent block is technically unenforceable, but the suggestion of it certainly would motivate him to behave. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 19:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's only been four months since he last socked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  True, I missed that one. Although I think this single edit isn't quite enough to change my opinion. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fabricating sources? Engaging in wanton sneaky vandalism like date changing? Engaging in systematic and concealed copyright violation?" Diffs, please. If all that is true, this guy should never be unblocked. Deor (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I believe those are a list of the sort of 'crimes' that this user did not commit. The point being that these are the types of things that would deserve an eternal block, as opposed to that CN actually did.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess I misread the comment. Deor (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Before I consent to this (I have no objection to the principle) I'd like to hear Chris Nelson say something specific on his user page about a certain email, sent September 02, 2011 11:41 PM. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Doesn't "I can't excuse anything I've done in the past" cover it? Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm yes, I guess it does--but he could try. Anyway, my current un-consent doesn't mean I will oppose. I'm hoping for a Sir Gawain moment, I guess. (And I agree with your agreeing with Carrite.) Drmies (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Of course he should be unblocked, as per Scottywong. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock - THIS is a fine indicator of an active content-writer. More than six months gone + penance for having messed up seems adequate. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I know of Chris from another site, and I have to say that I'm a bit shocked that he was blocked in the first place. Maybe he deserved it, I don't really know (we don't talk regularly, and I wasn't around for any of the past incidents), although id the diff above is the worst of things then I really wonder. It strikes me as rather thin skinned to be upset enough to block an editor because he said "pussy"... Regardless, from what I know of Chris, he's the kind of editor that we really need on Wikipedia. I hope that an unblock of Chris would be OK here, based on SW's observation that he's paid his penance for 8 months.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock I see no reason to require groveling from him. He says he won't cause problems. Just unblock him and if he resumes being disruptive then block him again. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock I'm taking at face value the that what's been said earlier that it's been 7 4+ months with no socking. It also looks like all the issues are the 'working well with others' type not harm to the content of the encyclopedia. If he's willing to come back knowing what's expected, give it a go. For the record, the zero tolerence one mistake and you're eternally blocked is unrealistic. I'd suggest a more general 'if significant violations continue to occur the indef block will be reinstated'.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock. He seems to have sorted things out since, and 8 months is a good long time to put things in the past. The block's served its purpose. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock per many reasons stated above. People have emotions, sometimes they come out in the posts - not a reason to sentence them to a life in Siberia. — Ched :  ?  21:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock if he hasn't committed sock-puppetry during his block. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• He has, which is why his block was changed (by me) to indefinite. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chrisjnelson. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Once a sock-master, always a sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to sneak in edits as an IP isn't exactly Massive Sock Incursion Syndrome. Just a dumb decision. Carrite (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, this line of reasoning is a little over the top. I suspect that there's something going on between Chrisjnelson and Eagles247, actually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock: As has been correctly cited, there are editors participating in this conversation - more than one, as to that - with block logs as extensive. If he offends again, we can slam him down again. Ravenswing 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support giving the guy another chance. In response to GoodDay, while his socks were of teh stupid, there's a difference to my mind between attempting to edit anonymously while blocked, and spawning socks to disrupt the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Assuming good faith, I am willing to give this user the benefit of the doubt. Reyk _YO! 03:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I've tangled with him in the past, but given the amount of time that has passed and his sheer amount of content contributions, on balance, I think it's worth giving him another chance. Kansan (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose When I declined Chris's previous two-sentence unblock request I said that he'd need to provide a detailed explanation of the serious issues which led to his previous blocks (many of which were for harassment of other editors), how he'd avoid this behaviour in the future and what he wanted to work on. In my view his most recent unblock request does none of those things. Given the serious problems with his previous conduct, I don't see any reason to take it on good faith that he won't harass other editors again, especially given his failure to post a serious unblock request here. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Harassment"? I'm totally ignorant of the history of this user, but harassment is a hefty claim, so could you explain further please? Or were you just referring to the boilerplate use of the "personal attacks or harassment" verbiage in some of the block logs? There's an "or" there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Strong oppose"? How is that different from an ordinary oppose?Nobody Ent 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It's stronger ;) In all seriousness, this unblock request is seriously lacking given the extent of Chris' problems and as a result I'm not confident that the problems won't reoccur. I'm obviously in the minority here though. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock the guy already Forcing editors to grovel is childish -- he could have been unblocked, pooched it up, and indef'd in the amount of time we've already spent discussing this. Nobody Ent 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unblocked. There seems to be a clear consensus here, and the blocking admin's specific issue seems to have been addressed, so I've unblocked - thanks folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support of those that gave it and the time of all who participated in the discussion. While some of you understandably remain skeptical, time will show that I will earn this new chance. Thanks again!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:23, 13 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.

BLP violations are now "content disputes"?

I refer you to this. Consperanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 188.221.0.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a series of BLP violating edits to Ian Bone, such as this, with virtually the same unsourced negative commentary being repeated in this edit and this edit. Yet not one but two admins have called this a "content dispute". So exactly when did the unsourced addition of "thereby perpetuating the observation that he is not an anarchist but rather an attention-seeker with a self-regard vastly out of proportion with his miniscule influence" and "strongly suggests that he has not developed either politically, intellectually or emotionally since Class War described peace campaigners as "wankers" in the 1980s" cease being a BLP violation and become a content dispute? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 23:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with K303. That final paragraph added in the first two edits Consperanza made are BLP violations. I have also just reverted their edits to Anarchism, where they had added commentary/analysis. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem was really in reporting it to WP:AIV. The responders there were half correct, in that BLP violations are not vandalism; however, you are correct that it's not a content dispute. In the future, it's best to bring the issue here if it's urgent, or to WP:BLPN if its a matter of judgment and needs to be discussed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who took it to AIV originally. I'm not seeing which bit of WP:NOTVAND you're referring to, since the only mention of BLP there is "Some material—sometimes even factually correct material—does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism" and the issue was with material the editor was adding, there's no free pass in WP:NOTVAND for saying BLP violations aren't vandalism. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of whether or not this falls into the category of vandalism, the guys at AIV were clearly asleep at the mop when they dismissed this out of hand as a content dispute. AN/I is probably the best place to deal with these things, though I see no reason why an admin at AIV could not step in in such a situation—if not as an AIV responder, then as a plain old admin. At the very least, they should recognise that this is clearly not some "content dispute". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP gets a warning at Ian Bone, immediately the account starts to reinsert the same edits. Obvious sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring the semi-protection to clear the playing field of vandal IPs. I propose that a next act of vandalism is met with a block; we'll see what happens afterward. If it continues, I see blocks and a possible SPI in my crystal ball. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The accusation there is vandalism. I'm not familiar with the topic, but that doesn't look like vandalism to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quest, look at the last paragraph in this edit. That's vandalism. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We have edit-warring, sock puppetry and now editing after the editor was asked to reply here and my comments on their talk page. Do we really need anything else to block? Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, pull the trigger if you like, but I won't block on the basis of this alone. They haven't reinserted the paragraph I referred to above, which is the clearest example of vandalism, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bit about "Tory scum; Fuck off back to Eton"? Apparently, he really does have such a video.[223] Look, I'm not saying that these are good edis or aren't BLP violations. If this account is edit-warring to include questionable BLP material, I think it's well within an admin's descretion to issue a block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the mention of the video, but the commentary after it: "...strongly suggests that he has not developed either politically, intellectually or emotionally since Class War described peace campaigners as "wankers" in the 1980s." Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat (Did you miss us yet?) :)

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

---

I would request that someone look at the recent behaviour of Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As per the header on the Prem Rawat talk page, the article is under probation and sanctions may be applied by an uninvolved admin. While the atmosphere on that talk page is usually somewhat adversarial with some editors, I feel that a line has been crossed. In the last 24 hours, Rumiton has referred to my posting on the RS/N board as "extremely stupid", twice.[224] & [225]. The second time was several hours after I suggested he may want to remove the first instance from the talk page, at the end of this diff [226]. He says he feels my posting to RS/N will lead to escalation, and within hours, Momento joins in with attacking me, suggesting I may be deliberately lying[227]. The RS/N statement is here, and as you can see, Rumiton seems quite upset that I have not explained his position correctly, and again calls my actions "extremely stupid". He further goes on to chastise me for using {{sic}} in my quote of him, calling it "condescending", as well as referring to my RS/N question as "jeering, insulting and deliberately downputting, the opposite of civil, the apotheosis of NOT assuming good faith"[228]. I find that kind of attitude extremely disruptive, beyond the usual silliness that I know this article often has to deal with. I have been working on this article for about 4 years, and I believe this is the first time I have ever sought any kind of administrative action (although I have been party to 1 or 2 arbcom cases in the past, I have never started any).

This all spins around the point that Rumiton wants to add a completely unnecessary phrase to the article, "with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice"[229]. This is only relevant if he is an expert in the field, otherwise the comment has no business in the article on source grounds, and is misleading. Even if he is an expert, it's completely undue weight for the article, as the entire description of Rawat's Peace for Prisoners program only takes up a sentence or two on an-already-too-long article (imho of course).

This seems to have been a continual effort recently on Rumiton's part to push very hard for his POV to add more text into the article (since his previous ban from the article he had been relatively easy to work with, until recently). The entire conversation about this expert is here, as well, you can see in the previous section where Rumiton argues that a youtube video uploaded by a follower of Prem Rawat is a reliable source[230], starting with this diff[231] in that section. This is after he'd had a completely different opinion earlier this year: "Youtube is absolutely unacceptable as a source..." [User:Rumiton Rumiton] ([User_talk:Rumiton talk]) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In previous sections in the last 30 days, you can see various other aggressive behaviours that an editor with so much editing experience should know better than to attempt. Here he agrees with Momento's suggestion to reduce an extremely well sourced, and even more vigourously discussed edit, that was negative towards Prem Rawat. He agrees that it should be reduced from 143 words down to 31 words (a reduction of 79%!), even though we've already spent thousands of words discussing that exact phrase, and had been very careful to source everything extremely well.

Here is a diff where Rumiton says he has material to add (which he had mentioned several times previously, and since), and that we should not waste time saying these are press releases, they are valid, and they show Rawat "clearly was there at these events". When I went to look at them, I found that they are listed on a Prem Rawat fansite, on a page called "Press Releases", and all they show are crowds with an inset picture of Prem Rawat, at no point does it show him in *any* crowd. I'm not suggesting Rawat was or was not there, I'm suggesting that Rumiton's statement seems to be misleading based on the facts. In an effort to avoid some kind of mini-war breaking out on the article talk page, I decided to try and talk to Rumiton on his talk page, out of the spotlight so to speak, in an effort to point out why these articles might be problematic. I think I achieved a limited success at best, entire exchange is here

It's not like I have an thin skin when it comes to this article, I don't run out and find an admin every time I'm called a name, get insulted, or have assumptions of non-AGF cast on me[232][233][234][235], but I feel things have devolved a little too much. I don't appreciate anything I do being called "extremely stupid" and what I consider to be belligerence seems to be growing.

I will stipulate to the fact that in some arguments I probably don't help defuse the situation either, but I think the constant effort of trying to maintain an NPOV article there (or at least keep a non-blatantly obvious POV article) sometimes exceeds my patience level. Thank-you for looking into this. -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've examined the situation, and I really don't see how keeping Rumiton editing the talkpage is going to help things. The discretionary sanctions allow uninvolved admins to ban editors from Prem Rawat and related articles, and unless I hear very strong objections from other admins I'll do just that in the next 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother waiting that long, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest you read the talk page in its entirety before you jump to conclusions. And particularly the comments of Pat W that Maelefique clearly considers acceptable since he hasn't been reported by Maelefique. Rumiton is a saint in comparison.Momento (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what I'm doing here; I'm afraid it's you who has jumped to conclusions. I've reviewed everyone involved, and what I can make of it is that Pat W is frustrated at Rumiton's refusal to listen. It doesn't entirely excuse it, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle it, but I think Rumiton's absence will help prevent similar outbursts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As Maelefique says "I will stipulate to the fact that in some arguments I probably don't help defuse the situation either". But he goes out of his way to protect and excuse PatW who calls editors "clowns" and even goes so far as to delete PatW saying ":Just how dumb are you? I know you can't read so here it is again... Now I suggest you just go and cry to Jossi and give all these poor souls their lives back".[236] in case he gets into trouble but when it comes to Rumiton, he doesn't warn, excuse or delete he comes here. And you want to remove Rumiton to protect PatW??Momento (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe PatW has said anything in the sections of the talk page I referred to (or even anything at all since March 31st, so I don't see how he's directly relevant to this complaint), but in reference to what I consider "clearly acceptable", you seem to have missed where I asked PatW to stop making comments like those, in his talk page, just as I did when I had a problem with what Rumiton was saying. Diff is here. After deleting PatW's outburst that I thought was *also* not "clearly acceptable", I immediately made a note on the talk page saying I had deleted some of his text, and if anyone thought that was wrong, they could, or I would, restore that text immediately. Diff here. It seems a little dificult to make you happy when you get upset because I do *OR* don't do anything about PatW's comments, you've claimed both things above. -- Maelefique^(talk) 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The point about PatW is that you didn't report PatW for referring to an editor with "Just how dumb are you? I know you can't read so here it is again" but you did report Rumiton for saying your actions are "extremely stupid". Why the difference? What is it about Rumiton that makes you seek to block him and what is it about PatW that makes you want to clean up after him? I don't think you should be using this page to selectively try to block or ban an editor you disagree with, it's called "Gaming the system".[237]Momento (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that PatW's comments weren't directed towards me, if you felt he should have been reported for saying those things to you, that's something you should have taken care of, I'm not your mother (despite the fact that I did take the actions already listed above against PatW's behaviour). Rumiton's comments were directed toward me, I addressed them in what I felt was an appropriate manner, gave him an opportunity to remove the comment, instead he stated it again elsewhere (the second time he actually bolded the text even), so I took action. Pretty straightforward I think. I'd add that diff of you accusing me of WP:gaming to those above if I thought there was a point, yet another example of the lack of AGF displayed by some editors on that article towards me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't push your luck; you've had a rather troubled history in the topic area yourself (only coming off a year-long ban, reset once, in February). I'm more than happy to give out more sanctions if I see they're warranted; please read WP:BUTT before proceeding on this path. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a couple of look ins there - they are all conflicted involved and none of them are able to edit from NPOV - this ani report is nothing more than - please get rid of my opponent - wikipedia would benefit from topic banning them all (or none at all, please don't block only one side) and locking the article, its not like it needs constant discussion and updating by involved users - WP:SHAME on that article. Youreallycan 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor has only ever participated on the Prem Rawat talk page in one discussion, during which he swore profusely, and was quite obviously aligned to a Pro-Prem Rawat point of view, I'm not sure why when I look up his contributions they are all stricken, and I cannot access the diff, located here but either that revision, or one shortly after it that I also cannot access (looks to have been deleted) contains the entire exchange between Youreallycan, PatW and Rumiton and Momento (note, I was not at all involved in this discussion). I do recall the excessive use of profanity that was the last thing Youreallycan said in the exchange though, very similar in tone to his comment "And there it is a resume of why the en wikipedia ia a f**ked up place with f***ed up content that is worthless, in fact, worse than worthless and total example of why quality contributors flee in droves. Youreallycan 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)" from here. He has never added anything else in the talk page (or article) before, or since, that I am aware of. I think it's notable that Rumiton hasn't spoken in almost 2 days, after suggesting things will escalate, and yet 2 other editors have a lot to say for him. Especially considering his vigorous defense of his position until I filed this complaint. Up until this point, he has had multiple edits every single day since March 23rd, which is the only day in March he did not have multiple edits (on march 20th there is only 1 actually), since the first of the month. And I'm the one being accused of playing games here? In response to Youreallycan's suggestion that we lock the article, I would politely point him to WP:Protect for reading, despite his opinion that this article is "done". -- Maelefique^(talk) 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict.) One day, Maelefique, not 2. I think you are going a little overboard on this. I have not contacted anybody about this subject, and your statements here are becoming way ad hominem.

(To youreallycan) There is some merit in what you say; we have no neutral editors. If you know one, please send him/her along. But in my defense against Maelefique's comments above...I would not use the word "lying", but I was falsely represented at the RS/N. My suggested edit was not that Dr Gilbert be described as an expert on Restorative Justice, just that it was a strong professional interest of his. I believe I demonstrated that, though the question posted has attracted no opinions as yet. I still feel this aspect of his career is relevant to his comments on Prem Rawat's "Peace Education Program."

Regarding the length of the article, I agree it is too long, but it is stretched out by 35-year-old trivia, such as arrangements he made early-70s with the Los Angeles Fire Brigade and damage incurred to his property in a brush fire. This is not at all "negative towards Prem Rawat" as Maelefique claims; it is just trivial. The claim that it was extensively discussed and is sourced could be applied to every sentence in the article. In comparison, though, we have the bald statement: In 2007 during a two-month tour of India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, Rawat spoke at 36 events, addressing over 800,000 people, and by live satellite broadcasts reached an additional 2.25 million. It seems to me a problem of applying due weight, not of excluding negativity.

I did not intend to describe Maelefique himself as "extremely stupid" but I was taken aback by what I saw as an attempt to get around the discussion taking place by posting a question on RS/N without a discussion as to its wording. And I certainly did find the question slanted towards the outcome Maelefique wanted to obtain, and therefore likely to make the situation on the talk page worse.

Then Maelefique seems to be implying editor collusion or tag-teaming, as Momento jumped in after my comment on likely escalation. Maelefique reacts with apparent horror to most of Momento's posts, even the one made after Maelefique asked for feedback. I guess he meant "positive" feedback.

Regarding YouTube, my understanding is that videos produced by individuals for YouTube are not acceptable, but that when someone reposts a video made by a reputable news outlet, the vehicle (YouTube) becomes irrelevant, and the news outlet is the source. Am I wrong in this?

The Indian news coverage of major events Prem Rawat has conducted in that country over the last few years have proven difficult to verify. I agreed with Maelefique (tacitly, I admit) that the photos I provided are not definite proof of their occurring, but I have had difficulty getting an acceptable translation from Hindi of the text that accompanied them. I explained this several times, and asked for patience. Where are these Hindi sources from? And what are they regarding? -- Maelefique(talk) 06:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) They were sent to me without comment, and are all in Hindi. They appear to be front pages from major Delhi newspapers and show pics of Prem Rawat addressing huge groups of people in Delhi. They are all from 2009, but now that I have some idea how to Google in foreign scripts we should be able to get more. I want to get them translated to make sure they are what they appear to be before I post them anywhere. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC) As I said, getting good translations has proved more difficult than I thought. And while the URL atop the page is "press releases" I think this particular group of articles is not, but I won't know for sure until I find a better translator.

So there it is. Make of it what you will. Rumiton (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

More than 1.5 days, I rounded up and said "almost 2", not "2", but thank you for finally responding anyway.

A few small points, the text I was referring to that was negative that you wanted removed had to do with Prem Rawat being arrested in India, nothing to do with the helicopter pad.

As I've said, if Dr. Gilbert's not an expert, the addition is completely without value (see my sandwich reference on the talk page). Further, my original statement was to ask RSN if he was an expert, and you agreed that was a good idea.

The fact is you did say "extremely stupid" twice, once hours later, after I had asked you to remove it, on another board outside of the talk page.

Please provide a diff instead of an accusation, I don't recall any recent post of Momento's that has caused me horror (also, this conversation isn't about Momento's behaviour, or mine).

As I think you know, the only time a youtube video could be used as a source like that is if the news outlet itself (assuming it's a RS!) uploaded the video, I posted you the link and text showing that it was uploaded by a Prem Rawat follower, so that doesn't wash for me.

Now you're saying you think they're not press releases, but you're not sure. And yet, you were definitively convinced until I questioned it.

Had you removed your comment, instead of re-iterating it on a more "public" noticeboard, I don't think any of this would have been necessary. I am a little torn at suggesting an apology on the talk page and the noticeboard might suffice instead of sanctions, but I don't see any indication here that you feel you did anything wrong. Oh yes, and again, the comment "we have no neutral editors" is another AGF slight against me. -- Maelefique^(talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, whatever the issues you see with the editor who brought this here, I still see merit to his case. I will finish reviewing the conduct of others later today, but pointing at other people won't help your case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you are "reviewing my conduct"? Since when does a specific complaint about one editor entitle you to make an uninvited review about another without informing them?Momento (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the AN/I board was created. There is no rule that says only the initial complaint must be discussed. (And since you were involved in this discussion, a reasonable person would assume you'd be checking up and thus aware of it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It would seem a little bit silly if the "facts" of anyone making claims here weren't checked up on independently by the admins. It makes sense to me that anyone inserting themselves (other than uninvolved admins) into this discussion should have the same standard applied to them as well. Certainly the article prohibitions regarding civility et al do not include anything that says "but only if someone complains about them". I, of course since I brought this action here, have no objection to my conduct being reviewed. -- Maelefique^(talk) 04:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all moot since the instructions for this page are "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page", you did not.Momento (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From the Prem Rawat talk page, "Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty". That's a policy. What you've posted above is a suggestion. Policy doesn't start with "Please". -- Maelefique^(talk) 06:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually that isn't a policy but I'll let "The Blade of the Northern Lights" decide whether they are going to allow you to ignore the request that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". Momento (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To Maelefique: It was the "smuggling" arrest you meant? My comment would be about the same as for the brush fire sentences. In a long and interesting career they are both long ago and trivial, and neither is negative towards Prem Rawat. The Indian Government was the party that had to apologise, so if anyone, I think they are the ones painted in a rather poor light.

I take your point that establishing Dr Gilbert's expertise may be key to judging the relevance of the sentence I wanted (and still want) to add. I don't think you made that point quite so clearly at the time.

Re "extremely stupid" I do regret writing that, and am happy to say so. I put my own head in a noose when I did that. I have known a small number of extremely stupid editors in my 5 years of editing Wikipedia, and you are not among them. For the most part, I have enjoyed our interactions, though I do think you at least slightly over-rate your neutrality. I can also now see that, at least from your side, your question to RS/N may have seemed neutral and fair, rather than contrived and self-serving, as I took it to be. Though I will still hate "managed to find", I can also see that the word sic when you quoted me may have been a useful grammatical device rather than the supercilious aspersion upon my spelling that I took it for.

Re taking issues to noticeboards: There may be a cultural factor. I am an Australian of a certain age and grew up being told that differences should be settled in the schoolyard, rather than running to a teacher. "Nobody likes a snitch." It's an Irish thing as well. The idea (which I still feel has merit) is that if things are not settled between people, then getting authorities involved will probably make them worse.

Yes, you did ask RS/N if Gilbert was an expert, but you also told them I wanted the article to say that, which was not so. C'mon, 'fess up on this one.

The response to Momento I was talking about was your "Ah yes, right on cue!" when you asked for feedback, then didn't like what he said. You seemed to be implying it was something to do with me.

I think you have the videos and the press reports mixed up. I understood that if a news organisation reported on something, then it didn't matter which conduit was used, the report was usable. I have re-asked this question above, but without answer yet. The articles I am unsure about are the clippings from the Indian newspapers. And, yes, I had no reason to think they were press releases until you questioned them. Now I am not sure, and the text translations I have received are not satisfactory. The word "lakh" for example, which I happen to know is 100,000 is translated as "a million." I have asked for clarification from the people who sent them to me, and for a better translation. That is what discussion is about. Rumiton (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To Momento; at AE, where I do a lot of work, everyone's behavior is examined. I've sanctioned people at AE who weren't the subjects of a complaint; given AE is more or less what's being requested here, I'm following the protocols there. To everyone; I think an indefinite topic ban of Rumiton is warranted, with indefinite obviously meaning open-ended, not permanent, and with an opportunity to appeal after 6 months. Should Pat W return to the topic area, further outbursts will lead to the same. Momento, as I said above you have a very troubled history there, and continuation of the behavior that got you banned will lead to another ban as well. And finally, frivolous requests (which this was not) will boomerang and bring sanctions on the reporter. I won't be able to finalize anything until later today, so I welcome input before then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate the altered tone that Rumiton's last post here has taken, he didn't actually apologize, nor has he apologized on either of the pages where he actually made the offence. And while it's possible I might "slightly over-rate my neutrality", I feel it gets dismissed entirely by Rumiton and others when I don't agree with them (which, admittedly, is often, but that doesn't make me *not* neutral), this probably makes it much easier to "get mad" at me, since if I'm not on their team, and I'm not neutral (in their mind), I must be playing against them on the other team. I understand that. Despite the fact that I am definitely not ok with how Rumiton caused or handled this situation, I think 6 months seems like a long ban for this offense (maybe I'm wrong, I don't have much experience in the "enforcement" area). It's clear to me that you (The Blade of the Northern Lights) have much more knowledge in this area than I do , however if it makes any difference, I would be ok with maybe a 2 week or a month ban, and "parole" for the remainder (meaning something like he would be on a "shorter leash" in terms of incivility outbursts?), I don't know if that's possible, or even feasible, but I would be ok with that. I would also agree that the same standards should apply to PatW for similar offenses that are reported in the future. -- Maelefique^(talk) 15:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify "The Blade of the Northern Lights" I don't have a "very troubled history here". What you see is a systematic failure by Admins and ARBCOM to take seriously my warnings about an Admin and his cronies who harassed me and others over a period of years but has now been found out and indefinitely banned. Secondly, AE requires that the party being complained about can defend their position, not sanctioned in absentia by any passing Admin. Thirdly, I will not be banned even if I continue with my with long term behaviour because I should never have been banned in the first place. ARBCOM has learnt a very overdue lesson that some Admins use their powers and influence to harass and sanction people they don't agree with and if my name pops up again they will listen to me very carefully before taking someone else's word for it. And lastly do you think an insult that calls into question someone's sexuality is frivolous? My view is that a sexist insult is far more serious than saying someones actions are "extremely stupid". A 24 hour topic ban is all Rumiton deserves. Momento (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Point 62 comes to mind here; I can't say I disagree with any of the sanctions you were given, and I suspect few others would either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Read on.[238][239]Momento (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How is that pertinent to the matter at hand? Neither of our usernames are mentioned there, nor does it have to do with Prem Rawat. My assertion above stands with regards to your previous sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with this matter, it's a response to your comment about "my troubling history" and your opinion of my sanctions, which also has nothing to do with this matter. But if you think my harassment is all in my imagination, you should read up on it.Momento (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I like point 62, brief, to the point, and has that ring of truthiness to it. Having been there when the events happened, I would definitely have to say I strongly disagree with Momento's description of the events, I am more than a little concerned with his attitude that he thinks he will "not be banned even if I continue with my with long term behaviour" for obvious reasons. However, despite all his flag waving to distract ppl, just a reminder, I didn't bring this complaint here about Momento. -- Maelefique^(talk) 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Darnit, I got curious... ok, I'll bite, who questioned who's sexuality? -- Maelefique^(talk) 02:34, 13 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 and apparent phishing

Resolved

 – IP blocked 1 week, site blacklisted

An IP which was recently blocked has returned, he added a "you have new messages banner" to the top of my talk page[240] which links to "en-wikipedia-org-title-pakistan-curid.tk/" and a link to to the same in a section on my talk page[241]. He is also adding an {{shared IP}} to his talk page, his IP is not a shared IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also according to this [242] it is a confirmed proxy server. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week by Salvio giuliano, and I've added the URL to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I got nosy and poked around a little, the fake login site is now gone and redirects to a site which has malware, is it possible to revdel those links from mine and JCAla's talk page history's in case someone follows them? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Very much appreciated if you'd do it on my talk also. :) Thx. JCAla (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming right up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarksmom

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

 – User blocked for 1 week by Drmies

Clarksmom (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

As can easily be seen from her Talk page, this user has a history of disruptive editing, including many warnings and at least one block. She has already been blocked with respect to the article Crowbar (tool). Yet, even after the block expired, she insists on reinserting the same inappropriate material. Even when editors revert her, she generally reverts right back. She adds material with sources (although improperly formatted) that don't support the material at all ([243]). There, too, she often restores the material even after it's been removed by other editors. One editor attacked me in his edit summary ([244]) for an edit summary I used in reverting Clarksmom ([245]). However, I refuse to accept good faith editors who, in my view, are generally disruptive - they cause unnecessary work for all of us, and they contribute nothing or very little to the project.

A block is warranted, if only for her editing of the crowbar article, but, in addition, a stern warning would be productive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And you didn't block them why? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• He doesn't have the mop. [246] Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I know. It was rhetorical. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• They were already blocked for disruptive edits on crowbar, then they went right back to it a few weeks later, several more times, adding a distasteful "joke" (if you can call it that) over and over. They added it 9 times by my count. I don't think adding another template warning them, or another 12 hour block, is going to get the point across. Their talk history also shows a lack of understanding of how to work with others. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 13 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:George_Ho

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.

---

George_Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Meet George Ho. This user has recently been moving pages to their incorrect titles. He's moved normal redirects to Disambiguation Pages, meaning the first page became a double redirect, creating double redirects. He's also spammed up WP:RFPP with possibly as many templates he can think of, mostly due to the fact that they are used in about "4000 pages" or they "pop up" now and then. The user has also been blocked before. I do not know what action may need to be taken. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's all this? Can you give me examples of double redirecting? --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Geller -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you redirected Do You Love Me? correctly to a page, but left the talk page redirecting somewhere else... Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added Do You Love Me? (disambiguation). By the way, Do You Love Me? has no talk page at this time. How is this harmful? Would this get me blocked? --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, see the article link above that Finlay posted. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First EastEnders, now this? I don't get what you mean about "Jack Geller", now that it is fixed. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Had we not notified you of that, it would not have been fixed. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Any other double redirects? If not, can we move on to the "spamming" thing? --George Ho (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Was any attempt made to discuss this on George Ho's talk page? SÆdon^talk 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was notified that this discussion occurs here. It was not discussed in my talk page. I was blocked, and my reputation is somewhat bad (unless I'm wrong). --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, is Rocket Power: The Big Day needed? Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That title is linked from 11 articles, Special:WhatLinksHere/Rocket_Power:_The_Big_Day GB fan 19:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant, is it needed to be a redirect, which he has created. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And mypoint is that people have added links to that page in 11 different articles so it appears to be a needed redirect otherwise those 11 links would be redlinks. GB fan 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the situation you want to imply. But don't delete the redirect just because it looks "useless" and a waste of space. The name change is necessary because the subject is the television movie itself, not the theatrical film. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not stop #1 on the collaboration bus. George seems fully willing to discuss so why not take this issue to his talk page and come back if you can't find a solution? SÆdon^talk 19:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But another issue is addressed: "spamming" in WP:RFPP. Nevertheless, good point. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Could we wait for an Administrator's oppinion first. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For what? George seems fully willing to discuss any issues you have with him so for what would an administrator be needed? ANI is where you go when you need administrative action when other avenues have failed. You don't just jump right in here without trying to discuss first. SÆdon^talk 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Administrator's opinion per request: discuss on George Ho's talk page first, as you've been told, and as the instructions and the top of this page say to do in bold letters "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."--v/r - TP 19:53, 13 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:LeeMcLoughlin1975

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

 – LeeMcLoughlin1975 indef'd as a sock and master account blocked for 1 week for socking

This user is disruptively editing various atheism related entries and refusing to discuss, instead just reverting to his preferred versions of them. For instance at atheism he's insisting on including all people who answered the Eurobarometer question about belief as "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" as atheists. That's flat out wrong. But it isn't a content dispute that brings me here. It's the fact that he refuses to discuss, and just reverts instead, and now it appears that he's created a sockpuppet, User:James Dover 2009 to back him up in one of the disputes - at Template:Atheism Sidebar. I realize that he is a new user but something needs to be done about this.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Best to take the matter of the sockpuppet to WP:SPI if you're fairly sure of it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Is a checkuser really needed? I think it's pretty obvious. The second account is created in the same peculiar fashion of the first ... a name with a date, and then a bolded name only on the user page. I'll take it to SPI if I have to but do I?Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Griswaldo is editing Atheism articles according to his own religious agenda and does not take a neutral stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMcLoughlin1975 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Really and what "religious" agenda is that? I'm not religious. Lee when you alter an article and someone reverts you, you really need to take it to the talk page, where I might add a discussion has already been started - one you have not joined. You also should not create second accounts to make it look like someone else agrees with you. That's a violation of Wikipedia:SOCK.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And here is a third account of yours User:Lee McLoughlin Leicester. Please review the sockpuppetry rules.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked User:Lee McLoughlin Leicester (the oldest account) for a week and the the two others indefinitely. The quacking was too loud to be ignored. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, but I think it should be noted that he came back and socked again with 94.11.152.112 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected the template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 14 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.

Administrative Abuse

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved  – SirKills blocked as a trolling-only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Recently there have been a series of incidents where administrators have shown multiple, severe disregards for Wikipedia:Assume good faith and other policies I'll list as I discuss. It started when User:Imgayrofl was banned by Administrator User:Toddst1 for having a "Vandalism-only account" despite the fact he never vandalized anything as proven through his contributions who simultaneously misjudged his character in falsely accusing him of being a sockpuppet of another user whom he obviously had a previous score with. In fact, it was later revealed he was a sock of User:Red Rover112, who has made hundreds of highly-beneficial edits to the site, and was trying to continue his good work on a sock which, if we Wikipedia:Assume good faith (which we obviously did not), was made for a perfectly good reason. His main account was then banned by Administrator and CheckUser User talk:WilliamH "for using good hand/bad hand accounts to troll." Now since apparently Wikipedia is assuming bad faith as the standard, or ignorant of what a troll is let me enlighten you as per your website. A troll "is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." If User:Imgayrofl was a sock used to troll, where did they ever engage any member of the community in that manner? Here's a hint: nowhere. He was banned for vandalism which never took place. Now as for me, I was banned by Administrator and CheckUser User talk:WilliamH for something he confirmed was done on my IP here, despite the fact that it was acknowledged that I did it here without a ban. This means in the creation of my account, I adhered to the letter of Wikipedia:Clean start I did not violate ban evasion or sock puppetry rules in any way shape or form, yet he obviously confirmed that my ban reason was for actions (which were only possible for him to see due to check user, no violation of clean start on my part) which were previously forgiven. Clearly, this is in violation of clean start and good faith policies. Now either the administrators are hiding their true reasons for banning and violating policy to do so, or down right violating policy. I'd also like to point out that I'll be posting through a proxy (as in friend), but won't have him edit any other sections or violate any rules or procedures unnecessarily. I also understand posting my own IP and revealing it may be a violation of privacy, but it's my privacy and I knew people would see my IP when I posted. I waive any protections granted, as those same protections are being exploited to hide the truth. If it needs to be removed, I feel it can safely be done, as User:WilliamH already confirmed I was banned for what I did on it, and if my IP was banned, I would not have been able to create the account in the first place, thus ignoring clean start policies. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by SirKills (talk o contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I would also like to point out that the above message is not mine but a friends, I am not a sock of Mike, I'm just posting this out of friendship. SirKills (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Completely agree. Upon attempting to consult blocking admin William, he simply put that he could not give a reason as to why he would block Mike. -badmachine 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Even if you're not a sock (which seems unlikely), you should probably tell your 'friend' to post another unblock request instead of posting here. Equazcion (talk) 22:37, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC) I'm not a sock, just because you don't have more than 4 friends doesn't mean others don't. SirKills (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Facepalm Insulting other editors like that is sure to win you lots more friends around here... Doc talk 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry for being a dick. Mike told me to post this: "Tell them they're welcome to open a sock investigation, but that I can't post on my talk page, because the right was stripped from me on my initial block." SirKills (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC) You were given an email address there to contact if you wanted to contest the block further. I'd suggest doing that. Even if this isn't a sock, it was created for the express purpose of contesting the block, so it still looks like block evasion. Coupled with the poor attitude, it's not likely you'll get very far here, and I suspect this account is about to be blocked anyway. Go the proper route if you sincerely want to make any progress. Equazcion (talk) 22:47, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC) If not a sock, then certainly a WP:MEATPUPPET. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Re User:Imgayrofl: 1) The username alone indicates a disruptive attitude (see WP:UN for relevant name policy) 2) Emblazoning the logo of the Gay Nigger Association of America across the userpage all but confirms the trolling intent. As far as I can tell, that account was rightfully blocked. No comment on the others. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC) First of all, Imgayrofl was blocked for vandalism, not trolling. Second of all the use of the word gay in a user name is not against policy, and you're doing nothing but displaying personal homophobia, and third of all, the use of the GNAA logo is protected on userpsace. SirKills (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Re "displaying personal homophobia": I take strong offence to that. "Imgayrofl" just sounds like 13-year-old trolling around on teh internetz. Were the account to be named something like "GayWikipedian" or "Gayandproud", I would have no problem with it at all. As it is, it sounds immature and even mocking of LGBTQ persons. Re "protected": Userspace is not some neutral zone where you can just plaster whatever you want and not expect it to have consequences. If one of the first things you do around here is post the logo of some trolling organisation on your page, that sends up warning flags. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Mike says "If you want, I can contact you on IRC, but the issue here isn't any one block, it was a series of blocks in violation of policy and the point is to be made public so that if it is decided against, it can not happen again. Also I was indefinately prevented from using both my talk page and the email feature on my initial block, so that option is out of he question. If you ar e active on IRC, or know where I can find a more appropriate er... corresponder(?) I'd be happy to." -- Preceding unsigned comment added by SirKills (talk o contribs) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) No one said they violated policy, but since GNAA is an organization that promotes trolling, it doesn't bode well for our confidence that you're here for constructive purposes. This thread alone seems like a good example. And trolling is a type of vandalism. You don't need Wikipedia's email feature to email an address that was posted to your talk page. Just use your email. Equazcion (talk) 23:04, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC) Oh look, user blocked as a "trolling account". Typical Wikipedia behavior. -badmachine 23:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Above you said you had tried to contact the admin and he wasn't able to give you a reason for the block. Why can't I find that in your contribs? Or are you trolling now? You have only had two edits since this ANI started, and both are here in this discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I believe this was the inquiry.[247] Doc talk 23:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I wanted to resarch more about this topic, and went to talk with Mike, he says that his right to appeal to reason, legally debating was denied from the very beggining of his ban. And its unfair to being banned with those few edits, the ban breaks the clean start and good faith policies. Also, he said that he slapped his userpage with the GNAA photo just because for his ego and he wanted to decorae, being from GNAA doesnt makes you an auto-vandal. Also, his username actually describes his sexual orientation, by thus, being bannned for that reason, is discrimination and discrimination is a real life crime.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.104.42 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 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.

Improper move by admin

The move of Nico Hülkenberg → Nico Hulkenberg was discussed at Talk:Nico Hülkenberg#Requested move and was correctly closed. This close followed a discussion of 3 administrators who all agreed that the arguments supported the move and that the discussion is not a vote so despite there being a larger number of editors opposing the move, the better arguments were sufficient to do the move. Note that this section of the talk page expanded significantly after the move. However after the move, UtherSRG moved it back here with no additional discussion. This was done making no effort to contact the administrator who did the move or the other two administrators who agreed that the page should be moved. So the effect at this point is that a single administrator has been allowed to override the opinion of 3 administrators. This seems very wrong. WP:WHEEL appears to prevent those involved with doing anything to correct this, so it needs to be here for resolution.

Since the move a follow on discussion was started raising the issue of how do we really handle contested closings. This discussion also questions why the unilateral reversion of the opinions of 3 administrators by one administrator has been allowed to remain in place.

After the move, a point was raised that Hulkenberg may in fact not be a correct spelling, but that does not need to be resolved here, and can be addressed by the normal WP:RM process.

I'll note that since this mess erupted, there has been a significant drop in closing of WP:RM discussions. I can't say that this was the cause for all of these discussions remaining open. But it has kept some administrators away at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I see there was also an effort to resolve this on his talk page, with no success. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar discussion about diacritics

UtherSRG's reversion was in line with policy, especially WP:BLP (accuracy over commonness; erroneous content should be reverted first and discussed later), but also WP:UE (local spellings for non-anglicized names) and WP:NOT#NEWS (the news style is not welcome here). Vegaswikian's closure ignored our policies, the established practice on the issue and the lack of consensus to move in the discussion. Furthermore, this user has move warred on behalf of the topic-banned sockpuppeteer Dolovis (talk · contribs), used his admin tools in a very questionable way and participated in identical RMs. He really should not be doing controversial closures, or pose as an uninvolved and concerned admin at WT:RM. It is worth noting that, after all the drama, neither Vegaswikian nor his two supporters have defended their policy interpretations in any way. There is an ongoing RFC that might interest some; the propagation of known spelling errors on BLPs has found very few supporters. Prolog (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Prolog you have mentioned a source above "accuracy over commonness" Yet the source you have linked to is a Guardian article from 6 November 2010, yet here is a more recent one from the same newspaper dated 16 December 2011. You make an assertion about "accuracy over commonness" yet your argument is not based on policy. The policy is to use reliable English language sources to ascertain what is the spelling used in reliable English language sources. This is in line and compatible with how we decide what is legitimate content for BLP articles. But instead of using such sources you are insisting on "accuracy" without explaining what metric you are using for accuracy. You write "erroneous content should be reverted first and discussed later" yet in doing so you ignore the content of reliable English language sources and simply state what you think is "erroneous content". Part of WP:BLP states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" that is precisely what WP:COMMONNAME dictates, yet you are ignoring that in favour of "I don't like it". Now it may be that the WP:RM was erroneous, but the close was correct given the information provided during the WP:RM, and you comments here tend to show that you have little understanding of how that process works. At its best it is based on all parties bringing evidence to the table to show how best their preferred article title meets the Article titles policy and interpretive guidelines. Your second point is an ad hominem against Vegaswikian, is in no way relevant to the point raised by Vegaswikian that several administrators disagree with UtherSRG action and have requested that it is reverted. -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) WP:BLP and WP:NOT call for us to maintain encyclopedic standards (examples here) and "get the article right", not to play Google News popularity contests. To justify my high standards, I'll give you a look at authoritative sources: AMA Manual of Style: "Accent marks should always be retained in the following instances: Proper names..." APA style: "Special characters are accented letters and other diacriticals, Greek letters, math signs, and symbols. Type all special characters that you can, using the special character functions of your word-processing program." The Chicago Manual of Style: "Foreign words, phrases, or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that appear in the original language. [...] Although umlauted vowels are occasionally represented by omitting the accent and adding an e (ae, Oe, etc.), the availability of umlauted characters in text-editing software makes such a practice unnecessary." Some sources are even more explicit: Journal of Paleontology: "Pay strict attention to diacritical marks in names and words [...] Titles in languages using the Roman alphabet are not translated [...] Common errors of grammar are: [...] not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names." The Elements of Typographic Style: "....there are large-circulation newspapers in North America still unwilling to spell correctly even the names of major cities, composers and statesmen, or the annual list of winners of the Nobel Prize, for fear of letters like ñ and é..." Watching My Language (William Safire): "Most American newspapers and magazines, even The New York Times, follow the disgraceful and slovenly practice of omitting diacritics in foreign names." Prolog (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I was just saying earlier today that this war was continuing apace, and you folks have so graciously obliged with an example! Thank you! If I can be a partisan for a minute though, I can understand the opinions of yourself and William Safire, but still say that you're both wrong (along with the slew of what are obviously intended to be appeals to authority in the list of style guides that you've provided; which, I'd like to point out, have their own reasons for the practices that they follow). When kindergarden clas:ses (or, for you European folks, nursery schools I suppose) and English textbooks (including ESL books) start teaching the meanings and proper uses for all of those wacky squiggly lines and other nonsense, then we'll talk. It's hardly "disgraceful and slovenly" to, you know, actually write in English! (and, incidentally, Safire was a self-aggrandizing, egotistical buffoon, and the above quote is a prefect example of the reasons why I have that opinion of him. I wish that he hadn't died, but still...) — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC) ... but still say that you're both wrong. So one group provides authoritative, reliable sources (or, as you rename them, "appeals to authority") like The Chicago Manual of Style and APA Manual for the -- common-sense, really -- practice of using people's actual names, whilst your opposition rests on that more authoritative source, The International Journal of Because I Said So? Well, you've got me convinced. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC) It's hardly "disgraceful and slovenly" to, you know, actually write in English! That's strange: I checked the article and it appears to be all written in English, so that's a rather odd protest. Perhaps there was some previous version you saw done up in Serbo-Croatian? --Calton | Talk 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Opinions can vary of course, but I'll take the authority of an English text book (Just pick one) over some style guide. Just because he crafted a list doesn't mean that there's absolute support for his position. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I'll take the authority of an English text book (Just pick one) over some style guide. So it's actual, multiple style guides -- specifically crafted for the purpose of guiding publication professionals and professional writers -- over some textbook you imagine exists? Free clue, by the way: textbooks put out by reliable-source publishers use...wait for it...professional and in-house style guides, like, I dunno, [[The Chicago Manual of Style]. Boy, you're really building a strong case there. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) As long as it's provided in a reliable source, we should always use somebody's own name in the way that they use it - not making up a name format to use on Wikipedia just because Wikipedia says so. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I agree. Add to that the fact that we should use English sources, and prefer them over non-English sources where available (if for no other reason than Verifiability), and the obvious conclusion follows... — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC) On the English version of his own website, he uses an umlaut when writing his name (in lower case). [248] Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) So, you're saying that a self-published source disagrees with other published sources, and your point is... what? (Besides, i'd think that it's more likely than not that the main audience is non-English speaking, or English as as second language, anyway). I'm open minded though, so here: can someone tell me what, exactly, "ü" means? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I just read what The Bushranger wrote and gave a reply. Presumably most peaople knows how to spell their own name and how they prefer to see it written in English, so the caveats on "self-published sources" are not really applicable here. Another example of a living person with umlauts is Lars Hörmander. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC) At the risk of getting involved in this inimical diacritics argument, I wanted to answer Ohms law's question of what, exactly "ü" means. The subject of the article at hand is German. In the German alphabet there are 30 letters rather than 26 in the English alphabet. The letters u and ü represent different sounds: u is the close back rounded vowel ([u]); is the close front rounded vowel ([y]). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Right. And, this being the English Wikipedia... I wouldn't go to the German Wikipedia and argue for his article title to be "Nico Hulkenberg", after all. A little less linguistic nationalism over this issue would help immensely (and that's not at all confined to Wikipedia). — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC) The Anglicised form of Hülkenberg would be something like "Mounthulken", similar to Mountbatten. Dropping the umlaut inappropriately does not make something "English" any more than throwing in umlauts inappropriately makes something "German". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC) A fairly large swath of otherwise reasonable and knowledgeable people appear to disagree (at least with the "dropping the umlaut inappropriately" bit). Regardless, "Mountbatten" would most certainly be acceptable, but we can't just be making these things up as we go. I saw someone talking about "stage names" in one of the related, recent requested moves discussions; which seems to be an appropriate viewpoint to take towards these naming situations, to me. I find the generalized moral panic over this issue ("it's their name!!1!1!") to be not only hyperbolic but a bit misplaced, as well. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I think any argument of "This is the English Wikipedia..." therefore we shouldn't use any diacritics is very blinkered. Just because we write in English, why should we pretend that some words, and particularly names, are not written in other languages? I really think readers are capable of understanding that - I don't see people protesting that they can't read a word because it has a diacritic in it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I guess that it's a good thing that I'm not making the argument that we shouldn't use any diacritics then, huh? Anyway, this is all (very) old ground, and we're just rehashing the same old tired arguments over this issue here. This conversation has grown wearisome; sorry. Wasn't this thread ostensibly about one administrator using tools to edit war with another administrator? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Just to clarify that I was speaking generally, and not referring to you, Ohms Law. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC) So to recap, User:Ohms law thinks Wikipedia shouldn't use people's real names, doesn't understand what an umlaut is or how it works in German, and imagines there to be some sort of "moral panic" involving the correct use of people's names. Obviously, we all need to give up and cede authority on this issue to him. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) There is no 'moral panic' it's simply the fact that calling something by a name that is not its name just because Wikipedia has a policy saying we use this name on Wikipedia because Wikipedia says so, and for no other reason, is the very definition of original research, and there ought to be a policy against that...oh wait. There is. - 04:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is a little disingenuous to describe the initial move as "unanimous" in a discussion of 3 admins [249] but the revert as "unilateral." It is true that at the time of the move, about 24 hours after the discussion opened, there were 3 admins who agreed with the move, and none opposed. But less than 24 hours later, at the time of the revert, there were 3 admins who disagreed with move, and no more admin supporters (and more non-admin opposers than supporters). Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin suggestion]. I mainly edit on BDPs (i.e. dead people) so am no expert on BLP policy. However I was asked yesterday what improvement should be made to BLP policy, and it occurs to me that a significant amount of grief (like seeing two very good admins in an unfortunate situation like this) could be saved all across en.wp by making it a simple BLP rule that BLPs should be at the spelling on the BLP's current nationality passport for Latin alphabet names. That would be it. Have a RfC that adopts this as a rule to BLP and the remaining 30-40 Czech ice hockey players and 20-30 tennis players who are out of synch with the 10,000s of other BLPs on en.wp fall into line (painlessly, according to WP:RS already in the egregious less than 100 BLPs footnotes) and this issue effectively disappears with no more damage to admins or en.wp. Finish, end, no more fighting. (or almost none since few fight over BDPs). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

... except that we don't get to see their passport, so we can't verify it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• confused. This thread starts out pointing out that 3 admins discussed the matter. Question 1: Is that to suggest that an admin's views should hold any more weight than a non-admin's posts in a discussion? My understanding was that while admin's may have a couple extra buttons, ALL views should be considered equally. In looking at the original move discussion, I get the impression that roughly 10 people opposed the move, while roughly 3 people supported the move. The discussion was closed in support of the move. Is that correct? (note: I am fully aware that it's !vote, rather than a counting of numbers.) My thought here is that both sides pointed to various policy and guideline links in this case. I was a bit unclear on the how or why the view with 3 supports achieved the decision. While I can fully understand when things are in a 55/44 or even a 60/40 range; 10 opposes (with policy/guideline links) vs. 3 support (with policy/guideline links) seem to be a rather strong view to me. I'm not familiar with the full situation I'm sure, so I'm just looking for clarification rather than trying to find fault with any one editor. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  14:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussions are suppose to be closed based on the consensus in the discussion and not counting opinions. What matters is the strength of the arguments. This is not something that you can convert into a cookbook. So to avoid problems, it is becoming more common to have several administrators provide their opinions on consensus for a difficult close to see if we do have a consensus in the discussion. This would determine how the discussion was closed. It is not that their opinions carry more weight just that you don't rely on one persons analysis to determine if there is consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I collapsed the sidebar discussion about the whole diacritics issue above, since that's actually fairly irrelevant to the topic here (although it does provide background and insight into the motivation(s) causing this dispute, of course). If anyone feels strongly about collapsing that discussion being "wrong", feel free to remove the collapse templates (obviously I've stated my opinion in that section...).
  As for the issue at hand, what I see as being framed up here for discussion is this: Administrator A closes a discussion and uses his tools to enact the result. Administrator B comes along a short time later and uses his tools to revert the action of admin A. In response, Admin A has come here to ask for input.
  The way that I see it, administrator A (who happens to be User:Vegaswikian) did everything right here. I don't think that Administrator B (User:UtherSRG in this case) should be severely sanctioned or anything, but it would be nice if another administrator (hopefully an uninvolved one) would revert UtherSRG and point to this discussion as a rational. The actual Requested move process can easily be redone in this case, by anyone, without involving tools at all. It's the tool use here that is ultimately problematic, from my perspective.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see that anyone did anything wrong. Admin A judged consensus of a contentious move discussion one way and asked for advice on the noticeboard. The first two admins who happened to join the discussion happened to agree, and so Admin A did the move. But the next several admins who joined disagreed that Admin A judged the consensus correctly, and one of them, Admin B, reverted the move. Ideally, Admin B would have discussed with Admin A first, although both were already participating in the discussion about the close on the RM noticeboard, and so a separate discussion would not necessary have added anything. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  From what I see, the "next several admins who joined" part isn't actually true though, as there weren't "several" at all (although I think that's a very marginal point). Here's the thing though: swap "move" with "delete". Hypothetical situation where admin A deletes page, then admin B comes along and summarily undeletes it. If you think that's acceptable behavior then fine, but my take on things is that the community frowns on that sort of behavior, currently. There's no "Deletion review" for move requests, but if this were an incident which involved deleting the page then that's where this section would (or at least should) be being discussed, don't you think?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• [non-admin comment redux, following collapsed end comment] As someone until the last three weeks watching the sports BLPs soap opera from RM sidelines I'm not sure the sidebar discussion is totally irrelevant, since the underlying cause of two very good admins having been needlessly sucked into a minor bicycle crash like this is the underlying (and disruptive?) tension between the sports-sources and encyclopaedic-style editors on BLPs. As far as I can judge the situation both admins were trying very hard to do the right thing and got entangled. For those that are concerned about handing out slaps rather than barnstars to two hard working and little thanked admins, by all means carry on, but looking forward it might be more productive to preemptively and slowly tighten/clarify BLP guidelines (e.g. at WT:BLP) in the days/weeks between now and the next Czech ice hockey stub induced incident. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously all arguing over whether an article title should have an umlaut or not? Do any of you ever go outside, at all? Jesus christ, people, two dots are not worth this much angry text. Jtrainor (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Angry text? Clearly you haven't been around for previous brouhahahas between diacritics. As for me, I take the McManus position: I've never seen a semicolon that could be trusted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really about umlauts though, it's more about admin conduct (in my opinion, at least).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say there's any misconduct. I wouldn't have closed the original RfC as such - but it seems to me to be a very good example of BRD in action. To that point I say "well done" to all involved. Now, as far as the umlaut goes I'll go ahead and voice my thoughts. My personal preference would be to name the article without it (as I am an American w/o such a keystroke); BUT, when looking at things like the language we use when dealing with British topics vs. American topics (that's to say we use the flavor of English in that particular venue dependent upon the location of the article topic) - then I would say the WITH the umlaut is more consistent with our standards. Either way, not something I'd spend much time arguing; perhaps other than to say that a redirect should be in place so that EITHER way it's typed in, it gets you to the article you're looking for. Isn't that the whole idea anyway? So why NOT defer to the subject's own spelling? Just saying. — Ched :  ?  02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "w/o such a keystroke": That's what we have redirects for ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that I didn't actually say "misconduct". As for the rest, there are plenty of places to discuss it, including a collapsed discussion above. I guess that it's impossible for people to separate the two, which is kinda sad. The only thing that I worry about is that we're encouraging edit warring... and if you don't believe that's true then take a look though some of the Wikiproject Poland archives, among other places.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• [non admin comment] Hi Ohm's law, I'm not sure what that reference to WikiProject Poland means? I don't see any edit warring over Lech Wałęsa or Henryk Górecki or any non-sports BLPs, which indicates that the edit-warring such as at "Blazej Koniusz" (sic) is not the problem of mainstream WP Poland editors, any more than mainstream WP Czech / Spain / France / Romania / Germany / Finland / Sweden / Croatia / Argentina etc editors. As far as I have seen in the last 1 month all the edit-warring is generated by sports fans who (i) cut and paste non-notable hockey/tennis cards from sports websites onto Wikipedia as if it was their blog and then (ii) go WP:OWNER when someone connected with the actual country/real Living People comes along and improves accuracy and sourcing. How is that the fault of WikiProject Poland or anyone else contributing to non-sports-stubs articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter required

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

---

An IP has been adding three- four lines of Hindi text to language and india related articles for about two years now. He uses a dynamic IP (minimum /19 range) and adds lines about "importance of mother tongue education" every few days/weeks. This was discussed earlier in ANI a few months back and the opinion of those commented was that an edit filter was required. (couldnt find the link now). Can someone take a look at the diffs and write an edit filter?. Some of his edits have survived for months now - usually cluebot gets some of them, but by sheer persistence he manages to slip a lot of them through.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to write edit filters but just wanted to note you can also take advantage of Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. -- œ^™ 07:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have made a request there.--Sodabottle (talk) 02:25, 14 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.

Eyes to WP:AIV?

Can we have a quick few eyes on AIV, which is building up a queue? I'm currently trying to keep 98.149.130.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who just came off a six-monther with the same bad editing patterns and is line for a year-long sabbatical) from causing more chaos 40 minutes and three ignored warnings later. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 05:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are entries there from over 5 hours ago. The admin corpse corps appears to be asleep at the switch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

#90, anonymous user and pervasive genre changer, part II

Sorry to start a thread about this again, but I truly believe this issue I brought up here needs administrative attention. This person did some more genre warring since I made that report, this time under the IP of 90.218.174.86; through this IP, album pages related to the band Paradise Lost, and the band page for Tiamat were affected. As you can see by the report I previously issued and by the sockpuppet investigation I submitted back in 2010 (this person has been around even longer than that), this individual has used so many IPs to do the petty genre warring, and does not use edit summaries or relevant talk pages at all. The only way this person has communicated their thoughts is through invisible text: either by manipulating an existing message or changing the message altogether. He or she has added sources before, but the sources presented are rarely reliable. I can't emphasize enough how detrimental this person's activity is to Wikipedia. (S)he has been warned a mind-numbing number of times against this, but nothing seems to be working. The genre warring and IP hopping from the range of, approximately, 90.213.xxx.xxx to 90.218.xxx.xxx has gone on since at least January 17, 2009 (see sockpuppet investigation for info about that editing), and to say I'm sick of dealing with the regular edits is an understatement. This person has been genre warring for way too long without discipline and without care for criticism, and is just making it harder for me and others to edit and maintain the area of Wikipedia which (s)he affects. I am thinking about submitting the affected album pages of Faith Divides Us - Death Unites Us, Icon, and In Requiem for semi-protection because of this, but I don't know if there's been enough activity on those pages for semi-protection to apply. I really hope something can be done about this, because this person has caused so much trouble on some of the pages I watch, just to display his or her opinion on what genres some music belongs to. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For more information on the recently used IP, see the following: 90.218.174.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

Just like last time this was brought up, I support a range-block, as the IP's abuse has been long-term, and is not receptive to changing their ways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, is a block of the range of 90.213.xxx.xxx to 90.218.xxx.xxx possible? If so, it would be quite effective in curtailing this genre warrior's activity. Also, after I submitted the post on 00:50 11 April, I realized that #90 responded to two of the messages I had sent him/her; however, these responses were on his/her own talk pages, and so I was not able to realize them until much later. With that said, communication coming from these IPs are quite limited, and I still stand by what I have posted on this noticeboard. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another edit has been performed on the Tiamat (band) page by the #90 user (link). I'm telling you, this is a serious issue. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tiamat (band) page is now semi-protected for three months as a result of the activity; that, at least, is a positive development. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That most recent IP also edited the Atrocity (band) article about ten hours after (s)he edited the Tiamat (band) article the last time. Do you think I should file an abuse report instead of posting here? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Griswaldo - 3 revert rule

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:Griswaldo has acted contrary to the WP:3RR rule in the articles atheism and Agnosticism. 90.200.220.93 (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue. WP:3RRNB is just around the corner. Doc talk 08:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like Griswaldo was reverting sockpuppetry by sock accounts that have now been blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To which you can add that IP. Quack quack block. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 14 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.

possible paid editing for Jill Kenton

Jill Kenton hired an Elance contractor for her Wikipedia article here. The job was awarded to user "Wikipedia Expert." The same day an editor added some citations, made revisions and then removed a prod and COI tag.LawrenceDuncan (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I created an account and the job offer is from elance user jillkenton and the job detail states "I have a wiki page which is not conformed to wiki guidelines and I need it tidied ASAP or it will be deleted. Text is there just needs tidying by wednesday 11april. Need some one with wiki experience to sort out issues .""" Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor in question notified here: [250] JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article in question, for the lazy: Jill Kenton. Now that I look again, her company, Rigby & Peller, seems to have a clearer case for notability than she does. Rather than deletion, perhaps we should consider making an article on it and possibly merging some of her content there? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Any company that makes the Queen's knickers deserves an article. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be an opportunity to identify "WikipediaExpert", and figure whether they are a 10,000 edit user as claimed - because that user has 300 edits, and if their claim is true then they are socking inappropriately. Any friendly checkusers about? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, now, hang on here. How would this be a violation of WP:SOCK? Creating/improving articles for hire is not, in fact, prohibited, either under COI or under SOCK. If this person is misleading outsiders about his or her experience or credentials on Wikipedia, that's a fraud issue outside our purview. If this person is using a sock to avoid his or her principal account from being stigmatized as a hired gun? Whatever our ethical objections, what Wikipedia policies does that actually violate? Ravenswing 06:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

He's not disclosing any COI when editing those articles. And is using a secondary account to avoid scrutiny. I'd have no problems with someone doing this sort of editing, but not as a sock. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's no actual requirement to disclose a WP:COI (although it's strongly encouraged) so your first point isn't actually a violation of anything. However I do agree using an unlinked secondary account can be seen as trying to avoid scrutiny which is forbidden by WP:Sock. One possible issue is that it can be argued an unlinked secondary account may be needed for privacy reasons since the identity of the person who responded to the ad will have to be known at least to the advertiser if not others. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly one explanation. I want a whole lot more to see a block/ban of an editor issued that the assumption that there might be more than one account and that possibly that's the case so a putatively main account will duck scrutiny. There aren't any facts here; simply premises. Ravenswing 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarification I wasn't suggesting that's definitely what actually happened here. I don't think anyone else was either. Nor do I think anyone was suggesting an immediate block. In fact the only suggestion seems to be for a CU, and in their first message ErrantX clearly said 'if their claim is true' (in other words clearly acknowledging we have no idea). However you questioned how it would be a violation of WP:SOCK, and people therefore further explained why there were concerns about a possible violation (and why therefore it may be worth looking in to.) To put it different way, if we go back to ErrantX's first message and we consider the possibility (which is what ErrantX was doing) the editor is indeed the person on the external site claiming to have 10k edits we have two possible scenarios. Either they are lying on the external site (which isn't much of our concern on wikipedia) or they indeed have 10k edits but these edits are mostly under a different account or under IPs. In the later scenario there are immediate concerns about a possible violation of WP:Sock which seemed to be the main thrust of ErrantX's comment. (Remember that while multiple accounts is not banned, I think it's clear from the history of WP:Sock cases that any scenario where an editor uses one account for one set of edits and another unconnected account for another set this causes immediate concerns. If the editor gives a WP:Sock supported reason for needing to do so, we generally accepted that but otherwise, it tends to be seen as problematic whatever the alleged reasons for doing so.) Even if there is insufficient evidence for a CU, it doesn't mean that scenario doesn't exist but your initial post didn't seem to appreciate it. Personally I have no view on whether there's enough evidence for a CU or further scrutiny, I simply wanted to offer clarification to avoid further confusion as I felt I understood ErrantX's concerns from the beginning of the thread but it seemed to me you did not. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This came up recently at BLPN. Dru of Id (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here. I have never been called to the Administration Noticeboard bevfore. I seemed to have stepped into a hornets nest when decided to help on this biography. I think people have me confused with somebody else. I am not a sock puppet, its just me. I simply tried to improve a biography by taking sources that were in the External links section and were being ignored and made them into citations. Plus I searched Google books and found some more sources. The deletion notice said that if the biography was cleaned up and third party sources were found the notice could be removed. So I did all that thinking I was helping. But it turns out I don't seem to be welcome there. I have spent a lot of time studying the Wikipedia rules and have tried to follow them. I've looked at notability and I felt that this bio had the sources to be notable. Some new rules have been mentioned here. I'll look at those too.--LarEvee (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be slightly more to this than meets the eye, as I've discovered another possible link between paid editing anad LarEvee. The same contractor from Elance, "Wikipedia Expert," was hired for a job on Elance on March 25 with a description of "Wikièpedia programmer expert who is will proof read and the right content on the site. This is about a fashion designer best possible context." The next day, LarEvee began editing Porscia Yeganeh, an article about a fashion designer that had not been edited at all for over 4 months. Over the course of several dozen edits, LarEvee improved the article (the diff included shows from LarEvee's first edit to the most recent edit). It seems to be a mighty unlikely coincidence that LarEvee would show up on two different articles that were listed on Elance within 24 hours of the jobs being accepted by "Wikipedia Expert."

I have no problem with paid editing, even undisclosed paid editing, but I do have an issue with the potential of socking so that an editor does not have to associate paid editing with their primary account. My findings re:Porscia Yeganeh are slightly more circumstantial because the Elance job listing doesn't explicitly state the target article to be improved. However, when what I found ("Wikipedia Expert" and Porscia Yeganeh combined with LarEvee's contrib history) is combined with what LawrenceDuncan found ("Wikipedia Expert" and Jill Kenton combined with LarEvee's contrib history), it begins to strain the probability of this being a coincidence. Chillllls (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)edited Chillllls (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have no problem with paid editing that conforms to all guidelines, in fact I think it's a fantastic way to build quality content by taking advantage of experienced writers. I do have a problem with lying about something that's obvious. LarEvee, please come clean now, otherwise it's very likely you will be blocked and a sockpuppet investigation begun. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, is it possible that an individual calling themselves a "Wikipedia expert" outside of the walls of Wiki does not mean it in the "10k+ edits" meaning, but more in the "I consider myself an expert, and therefore I'm an expert" sense? I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean there's a Sock at work, right? Or, did I miss something here? Did he specifically say "I've made 10K+ edits"?JoelWhy (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What someone says on a freelance board doesn't mean much. People pump up their qualifications all the time to get work, think of it as "polishing" your resume. It doesn't mean this person is using accounts in a way that constitutes abusive sockpuppetry. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time making good contributions to this encyclopedia. I have improved the sentences and organized paragraphs. I have added new information and taken a lot of time to create citations just the way Wikipedia likes them. As far as I can see no one has any complaints about my editing just a lot of speculation about who I might be and what I might be doing. Not a very good welcome. LarEvee (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My final word on this is that it's pretty clear from the evidence that I've seen that LarEvee and "Wikipedia Expert" on Elance are the same person. The problem is not that LarEvee's contributions are bad; in fact, just the opposite is true. The problem is that "Wikipedia Expert" on Elance claims to have years of experience on Wikipedia and tens of thousands of edits. LarEvee has been here for 11 months and has 407. That suggests two possibilities to me: either Wikipedia Expert/LarEvee is significantly "polishing" their Elance description or Wikipedia Expert/LarEvee has (an)other account(s) that they use for more paid editing or regular unpaid editing. That's something that, in my estimation, is a violation of WP:SOCK, specifically WP:SCRUTINY. Does the community think that editors who are participating in paid editing should be allowed to have several unlinked accounts so that they can divide their contrib history?

My gut feeling here is that no Checkuser will be willing to step in here because all of the evidence that could possibly suggest the abuse of multiple accounts is circumstantial. LarEvee, if you don't have any other accounts on Wikipedia, I'm very sorry about this. Most of your edits have improved the encyclopedia. I think there are still deep fundamental issues yet to be resolved in how en.wikipedia.org handles the concept of paid editing. Chillllls (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have yourself to blame for that, LarEvee. We're not stupid and don't like it when people treat us as such. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No kidding. If you want to improve Wikipedia for your own financial benefit go ahead, you don't have to lie about it. -- œ^™ 07:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the term "sock puppet" might be misused here-- this appears more like abuse of an "alternate account" or "single purpose account" . There's a legitimate concern that LarEvee is a secondary account to "avoid detection," exclusively making use of this one for paid content creation. It's clear from edit history, LarEvee is creating/editing unrelated biographies that have only one thing in common: they are for lesser-known individuals who might like to have their name on Wikipedia. For example: Allegra Versace, Julie Ann Amos, Jeffrey_Brotman and this article. The idea of editing-for-pay isn't what is at issue, but that there are multiple, unconnected accounts being used by a single individual. Incidentally, "Wikipedia Expert" is not the username on eLance for the individual in question. The actual one is "Mister Reliable" (AKA "William"). See: [251]. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mm, but I believe that people are misapplying the "avoid detection/scrutiny" clause. This isn't a matter of someone using a sock account to avoid risking his main account for something illegal. It is - at level worst - someone using a sock account to avoid tagging the main account with a reputation as a hired gun ... which is not illegal. If you want to ban paid editing, ban paid editing by prohibiting COI editing. If you decline to do that, then you are talking about banning/blocking someone for behavior you merely find distasteful. That is, IMHO, a BS reason to do so. Ravenswing 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Identifying oneself as a "hired gun" is called: "being open about it". Using socks to avoid scrutiny to do anything around here is usually frowned upon. Usually. Why not just be honest and open, if the edits are truly legitimate and encyclopedic? Hmm... Doc talk 04:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing, if you think that a user engaged in paid editing (that attempts to lie about it and tries to shame editors for not exercising AGF when they are blatantly being disingenuous) should be encouraged to have as many accounts as possible, then I am deeply troubled by your understanding of the purpose of this encyclopedia and am glad that you're not a checkuser or an admin. Chillllls (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The primary concern, IMHO, with paid editing, is that by nature, it's a form of promotion/advocacy -- and inherently aimed to bias an article towards a positive view of whomever is footing the bill. When editors engage in (effectively) pay-to-play, all their edits become suspect of potential non-neutrality. Hence, there's an obvious incentive to employ separate "role accounts" that aren't clearly associated with a main/well-used/respected account, splitting the work history. This is clearly a concern (as it is in this case)-- an editor who takes payment to start or "clean up" articles on behalf of another party is always going to be viewed with a modicum of suspicion and have their edits closely scrutinised. --HidariMigi (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

user:Kelco83, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Cordray, and I think a lawyer?

So with the above notes, it would seem that this user's attorney is likely in on the fray, and talking about sending C&D letters. Has me concerned about WP:LEGAL. Could somebody take a look at this and make sure I'm not just overreacting on this? Thanks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In addendum to this, it appears the counsel - if this is the case - is editing anonymously. Reference [[252]]. Last tag is at the bottom of the page. I am commenting no further in this AFD and will be notifying the interested parties. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

...never mind. Given the nature of this I'm having second thoughts about notifying them. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats are against the rules, and there are at least 3 IP's making such threats on that page and must be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

One IP was already blocked, one got a warning (I'm not 100% sure "[Jimbo] would be loathe to see the actionable position" rises to blockability, but if I'm wrong, block away), and a third blocked - for two weeks, as (a) these appear to be dynamic IPs and, thus, indeffing is pointless and (b) that's what the already-blocked-for-NLT-violation IP had got. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

meh.. it's all posturing anyway. Someone should really open a WP:SPI case, I'd think. It would be rather hilarious to receive a cease and desist letter, though!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's one. Not just one letter, but several words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The two now-blocked IP's are from Houston, which, by an amazing coincidence, is where this Corduroy guy comes from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked! to find out that piece of information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This one though, not so much. Doc talk 07:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That one says that the owner is a Wireless service provider and also shows that it is from Verizon Wireless (look at the host name, vzw). If I geolocate the IP address from my smartphone, it comes up very similar and says I am located in Wichita Kansas also. I am not in Wichita Kansas. So it could be the same person just posting from the their phone. GB fan 15:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Breach of WP:OUTING, blanking of articles, persistent abuse and vandalism by IP evading long-term block

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 first request an immediate block on the IP address 86.155.74.151 (talk · contribs) which is currently being used for purposes of abuse, including a blatant though wildly inaccurate attempt at WP:OUTING, and article disruption by the subject of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. The same person has recently been active using the IP addresses 81.153.177.145 (talk · contribs), located in the London area; and the twin addresses 109.144.244.183 (talk · contribs) and 109.144.227.230 (talk · contribs) which centre on a hotel in North Yorkshire. His current IP centres on Oswestry in Shropshire and that would appear to be the usual location for IP addresses in the Richard Daft log.

You will see from the 86.155.74.151 contribs page that, yesterday, he vandalised Wars of the Roses by wilfully blanking it and conducted a series of personal attacks against myself and his usual target, User:BlackJack. He has resorted to lashing out by contacting other users and the WP:CRIC project with his wild accusations.

I fear that I must admit some responsibility for this escalation of events as I should have investigated site guidelines about trolling before entering into correspondence with this person, although I stand by my work on 1940 to 1944 English cricket seasons which had been reduced to a nonsensical standard by "Daft". I am now aware of relevant guidelines on trolling and I have to agree that they make compete sense and should always be followed. Unfortunately, as I am not an administrator, I cannot implement WP:RBI in terms of prevention but I should have complied with its other facets. I apologise to the administrators and other site users involved for the inconvenience I have caused by "feeding the troll".

As for the "I am Spartacus" syndrome that the troll is now peddling to all and sundry, his Daft log indicates that he has denounced other users in the past as "sockpuppets" of BlackJack. I saw a similar accusation via the log made re User:AssociateAffiliate several weeks ago. He has a grudge against BlackJack and tries to discredit him whenever possible, though it is clear from past edits on the CRIC talk page (see the Daft log) that the cricket editors completely reject the troll's arguments.

I do not wish to be identified by my real name (Jim Hardie is a pseudonym) but I think a couple of e-mails would, if absolutely necessary, suffice to prove that my real name is not the one "Daft" insists. I will only do this as a last resort by communication with a bona fide administrator and I would point out the WP:OUTING terms in that context.

Given that I have made rather a mess of things by communicating with this troll, I think I should offer to resign from the site. I am in any case due to commence a major study project and do not anticipate much time for leisure use of the internet in coming months.

Please let me know if you need more detailed evidence but I would again ask you in this case to apply a block on the current IP immediately. --Jim Hardie (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope no one minds, but I have linked the IPs properly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Thank you very much. --Jim Hardie (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You will, if you study the various Blackjack postings and trolls - JamesJJames is the best but BartMaverick also, that the language used is very similar - tone especially. This is a troll of BlackJack - he responds like Blackjack, uses similar language, patrol similar areas to the earlier trolls. Note also the phoney post to blackjack. Also why has BJ who has edited furiously, suddenly gone silently - well he's leaving it to his troll. I have an issue with the user yes - he is destructive, a multiple troll, demands ownership of his edits and narrows the field of the undertaking. Jim Hardie is BlackJack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk • contribs)

I have a mail on my talk page from User:Jhall1 to inform me that User:BlackJack is absent from the site and likely to remain so for some time. This was written after my "phoney post to blackjack" (sic). In my experience, any two people who are "well-written" will use similar phraseology, metaphors, etc. about a common area of interest. I daresay that similarities of style and "tone" can be seen between myself and Jhall1, for example, when we discussed cricket history. You will note that the troll (Daft) has a singular style of writing and makes the mistake of assuming that other people are equally singular when, in fact, a well-written style leads to compliance with a recognised standard that creates a certain similarity. I might add that I have not "edited furiously" (less than a hundred edits this year, I would guess) so, although I am not actually "silent", I am nowhere near as prolific as BlackJack evidently was. "Patrolling similar areas" is an interesting one. Yes, I have a secondary interest in cricket history as do several people in the WP:CRIC project but my main area of interest on this site of late has been English medieval history and, as far as I am aware, BlackJack has never "patrolled" that area.

I would prefer this matter to be left to the administrators now and will ignore anything else from "Daft". I will answer any questions raised by an administrator, of course. --Jim Hardie (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no point blocking any of the IPs now because, as you've noticed from the fact that the editor appears to be in London, Yorkshire and Shropshire at the same time, they're all dynamic addresses with British Telecom (which also means a rangeblock is impossible). Geolocation with BT addresses is pretty much impossible - I am with BT myself and my current IP geolocates to Cambridge, which is about 150 miles from where I actually am. Also, the addresses themselves change rapidly - for example, 86.155.74.151 no longer geolocates to Oswestry, but to Aberystwyth. Obviously if a particular IP is vandalising now then a short preventative block is required. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right about the vagaries of geolocation. May I instead, therefore, request protection for my user page and talk page which have both been vandalised several times in recent days by this known troll? I am not using the site often and, as I will shortly be extremely busy elsewhere, I will not be around to protect the pages personally. It appears that my "crimes" were to communicate with the troll's "enemy" about a cricket history question (note that I was actually critical of BlackJack's last edits) and then to defend said "enemy" in the light of overwhelming evidence recorded and archived on the site (see the Daft SPI archive via the link above). Thank you. --Jim Hardie (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't get any joy here, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. IME they're generally sympathetic to user page protection and talk page semi-protection if you can provide evidence that it's necessary to prevent harassment. --GenericBob (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob. I did post a request there and protection has been implemented. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 12:58, 14 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:A Quest For Knowledge and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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.

---

There has been a rather convoluted discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs in the course of which A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) and myself had a sprited discussion about a point of interpretation of WP:SPS. Unfortunately he chose to frame his response in terms of my personal conduct -- I made it plain [253], [254] that I would regard similar personal attacks as harassment. He has now returned to the attack at the same board, with this [255] in which he blames me personally for any confusion in the discussion. This is unwarranted (I am not to blame for the confusion), a clear personal attack (he describes me as "the culprit" as well as accusing me of mistake and blunders), and harassment (in the face of my clear warning to cease from commenting on my conduct). Could someone please persuade him not to harass me in this way? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Low level demeaning comments , although when used to demean an editor they are in a content dispute/discussion with, when they are repeated and over a period of time are a form of bullying - if, as appears in your diffs presented, discussion with the user has had no benefit then Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance - is your next location to report. Youreallycan 16:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Youreallycan. I've breezed through the discussion and didn't see anything particularly offensive. It is rude, but conversations get heated at times. The best thing to do is not try to "one up" the other, and hopefully things will settle down. Otherwise, at this level of comment, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is the solution if it continues. Unfortunately, we all have to tolerate a degree of rudeness in complicated discussions sometimes. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:50, 14 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.

"we all have to tolerate a degree of rudeness in complicated discussions sometimes". No, we don't have to tolerate rudeness, and we certainly don't have to tolerate harassment. [256] Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has happened. Rudeness and especially harassment which is usually deliberate aren't acceptable, and every time we look the other way we give permission for someone somewhere to experience more of the same.(olive (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

Agreed and agreed, but the place to go for this is WP:WQA, not WP:AN/I. AN/I should be contacted in cases like this only if and when an attempt at WQA has failed (or, of course, in particulary egrerious cases where PA, not WQ, is the operative thing). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review for Slade Douglas

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.

---

Adm...Malik Shabaz delete an article for a reason that was not valid as he/she stated, "it was due to prior discussion". This was a new article and had reliable source as the old one he/she referenced did not and as a result was rejected. As you noticed in their reply they refused to acknowledge the reliable source and attempted to perform a side show by reference something they could have simple removed from the article. It's amazing that certain users act in such bad faith and do not state the facts whereas based on wikipedia guidelines first attempt should be to assist the article and not delete it. A reply was made to Malik Shabaz in reference to the article "I will be sure to do that Malik Shabazz as clearly under notability guideline it states, "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". It strange that you reference the old and new article but not the reliable source on the new article as with the old article it reference ESPN but did not have a reliable source thus causing it to be deleted however as one can see the new article includes reliable source, (Feldman, Bruce "Blitz Package" May, 1, 2000) and for some reason you selected chose not to reference it as a source but Sandra Rose blog, this is clearly unreasonable considering all you had to do was remove the "He is currently a Los Angeles-based celebrity personal trainer". If you felt that way however the other information does meet the guideline according to WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's relevant notability guideline. Also your reason for deleting it was not accurate neither. I will take it to the WP:Deletion review since you have decided not to act in good faith in terms of your actions for deleting the article in the first place". Please read complete dialect below and clearly we both can agree that Malik Shabazz actions were not in good faith as he/she deliberately tried to conceal information that made the article meet the notability guideline. "Gained national media attention as an individual"..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy 98 98 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

pasted discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A recent article was deleted about subject Slade Douglas, the reason for the deletion according to you was due to a prior discussion. However, the article was a completely different article as suppose to your reason for deletion. The article that you had reference was from 2010 as this article was indexed on/about Nov. 2011 about former American football running back. This is clearly an error and this is a respectful request for you to reconsider your stance. Per index: 03:54, 11 April 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Slade Douglas (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH)) 01:23, 5 June 2010 JForget (talk | contribs) deleted page Slade Douglas (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slade Douglas) 07:14, 29 May 2010 Wrinkle8 (talk | contribs) moved page Slade Douglas to Slade Douglas (Personal Trainer) 07:08, 29 May 2010 Wrinkle8 (talk | contribs) moved page Slade Douglas to SladeDouglas However the article that you removed had nothing to do with the one you referenced as (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH)) The article you deleted was by User:WikiWriterWikiWriter/Slade Douglas which was indexed 1 November 2011 at 20:45 Please view below en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slade_Douglas Slade Douglas (born in Rockingham, NC) is a former American football running back and track and field sprinter for the Florida State Seminoles and a veteran of the US Armed Forces. He is currently a Los Angeles-based celebrity personal trainer. In Douglas's junior year at Florida State, he had a stand-out performance in the Seminoles' spring football game (three carries for 45 yards), prompting ESPN the Magazine to declare, "the defending national champions have a new weapon." The article also included reliable sources and was never put up for deletion as reference by you for your reason of deletion. Thanks for your assistance as we look forward to your reconsideration. As any and all assistance would be greatly appreciated. 74.126.231.189 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.126.231.189 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC) I reviewed both articles carefully before I deleted the new version. The problem with the old article was that Slade Douglas didn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's relevant notability guideline. That problem wasn't fixed in the new version. The wording was slightly different, but both articles referred to ESPN the Magazine and its appraisal of Mr. Douglas. As far as reliable sources are concerned, Sandra Rose's blog isn't a reliable source. As I wrote, both articles referred to ESPN the Magazine. If you feel I've made a mistake here, please bring the matter to WP:Deletion review. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC) I will be sure to do that Malik Shabazz as clearly under notability guideline it states, "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". It strange that you reference the old and new article but not the reliable source on the new article as with the old article it reference ESPN but did not have a reliable source as the source was indeed cited, (Feldman, Bruce "Blitz Package" May, 1, 2000) and for some reason you selected chose not to reference it as a source but Sandra Rose blog, this is clearly unreasonable considering all you had to do was remove the "He is currently a Los Angeles-based celebrity personal trainer". If you felt that way however the other information does meet the guideline according to WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's relevant notability guideline. Also your reason for deleting it was not accurate neither. I will take it to the WP:Deletion review since you have decided not to act in good faith in terms of your actions for deleting the article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandy 98 98 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't deletion review. You should see the instructions at WP:DRV. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:02, 14 Apr 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.

Inappropriate signing/impersonation by IP user

User:221.244.40.2 has been adding added incoherent comments to article talk pages and signing them using an unrelated user's (User:Circeus) signature (here and here, and even re-adding the faked signature here). User:Circeus confirms that the IP user is maliciously using his user name (User talk:Circeus#Japanese IP editor adding your name to Talk page comments), and this is a long-term problem, and a slightly different Japanese IP User:221.244.40.2 User:219.23.5.48 was blocked for exactly the same long-term pattern of disruptive behaviour. --DAJF (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a reason to give a short block to me based on the diffs and previous issues. I noticed the second IP was the same as the first, and no blocks previously for them, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the second IP should have been User:219.23.5.48; see User talk:219.23.5.48#Final warning about inappropriate signing/impersonation. This is a repeat offender.  --Lambiam 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Should've this gone to AIV? Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 22:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • If it was vandalism, always, but I can see why he went to ANI since it was impersonation. I was thinking the same thing, but figured this case could go either way. I'm still not sure why an admin hasn't blocked him yet, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given him three days off. I don't know how quickly the IP rotates, you'll have to tell me if he comes back. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome user in an RfC

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

---

Hi. I don't really have time to go into the entire background of this, but basically we have a problem with a socking user (currently editing as User:LHirsig) on the Major depressive disorder talk page. The user in question initiated an RfC, which is fine, but his conduct towards myself has become increasingly aggressive as the debate turns against him. I've ignored it up to this point, but I'm now bored of the disruption and feel he's quite severely in breach of WP:NPA and possibly WP:OUTING. Can an administrator look at the RfC on that page and take appropriate action, please? Many thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem. He has one misunderstanding with one other editor, he struck his comment after seeing how it could be taken wrong, the other editor was happy with the result. If anything, I found your comments from the beginning to be quite condescending, like you were talking down to everyone. Feel free to provide a diff if I've missed anything, but you seem to be the most "snippy" person in that conversation. No action needed for any editor, imo. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if my tone came across as condescending. I have little time for socks, but I will take your comment on board. In terms of diffs, I would consider parts of the first paragraph of this comment to be a personal attack (particularly the part implying that I should identify myself so that those seeking healthcare in the region in which I work can avoid me), to quote one example. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I second User:Basalisk's concerns. While providing third-party input in this RfC thread I tried to reason with LHirsig on the subject of civility. LHirsig was civil towards me, but imo repeatedly uncivil in a pointedly personal way towards User:Basalisk. I felt the need to remind LHirsig about WP:NPA, and I too have some concerns about WP:OUTING in particular, as well as WP:THREAT (however implausible the latter may be). LHirsig obviously feels very strongly about a certain cause, but somehow lets that overflow into some rather ambiguous behaviour, to say the least, which imo is also disruptive. I would suggest a topic ban regarding articles relating to Vincent van Gogh and Medicine. (On a personal note, my experiences on this matter this morning, partially due to my difficulties in spotting a reference to "bitches" -- not LHirsig's fault -- prompted me to leave off editing for today at least.) —MistyMorn (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict):I've just reread the part of the thread I was involved in. This morning I got concerned about a possible threat, which turned out to be completely innocent. What had raised my hackles in this way was LHirsig's tendency to question Basalisk's competence as part of the "real" medical community. Since I feel that questioning someone's professional standing is tantamount to a personal attack I have tried to persuade LHirsig to be more careful when wording her comments, as they seemed to me ambiguous. Since I am unable to say what the intentions were behind the comments, I must assume good faith. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• You already have an SPI case open [257] (you should have linked that), and I have no idea if he is a sock or not. Regardless, that is beyond the scope of ANI, excepting cases more obvious than this. Assuming that he isn't a sock, then nothing at the discussion page warrants blocking or topic banning. If he is a sock, then it will be dealt with at SPI. Trying to get a user blocked in multiple venues is problematic, at best, as you created twice the administrative work for one problem editor, and you create confusion. You also create the impression that you are shaking the Magic 8 Ball until you get an answer you like. SPI is still your best solution, although the case is 4 days old there. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:50, 14 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.

Changez121

User:Changez121. This new account user (regular IP editor, I suspect) is making large scale additions to Indian soap opera pages of highly detailed storyline updates (36 000 bytes) in a blog/texting style, removing valid page tags, pasting copyrighted lyrics and generally all ignoring guidelines. He/she has had multiple warnings. Please intervene. Thanks. Span (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an extremely new account and he now has a good number of warnings. Does someone want to post on his talkpage offering to give him a hand with his editing - I think this is just cluelessness, not anything worse. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Spangle, you are correct about the copyright violations. I have removed three -- so far -- and added a warning about this issue. I didn't see any previous warning about this. And, as EotR says, unfortunately, copyvios are not unusual for an account only a few days old. Let's wait and see what happens. However, if there is any repetition of copyvios, the user will need to be blocked. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My sense is that this is an experienced editor previously worked as an IP working on soap operas, possibly now blocked. They know what they're doing. I think they're ignoring guidelines and warnings and treating WP like a personal blog. Span (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Span (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on things - if the copyvios continue, that will need some prompt action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked as a sock. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This new account suddenly appeared re-adding Changez's edits. Seems like a sock. Span (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sign the talk page and/or give the exact URL in your ANI Notice here. A newbie (if he a newbie) may face trouble to understand and find the admin discussion). User_talk:CIDss#ANI --Tito Dutta (Message) 13:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing when looking at WP:RFP/C. They both made similar requests there. WP:RFP/C#User:Changez121 and WP:RFP/C#User:CIDss. Looks like a duck from that standpoint. GB fan 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,I'm not a sock puppets of any user and please don't block me my contributions are good and i've created an article Deepika Singh which is also liked and I Luv editing Wikipedia and i promise that i won't disturb any page and will be a better encylopedia and a better editor Thanx...— Preceding unsigned comment added by CIDss (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

An obvious duck. Given the obvious similarities in language between CIDss first edit [258] (a request for permission) and User:Changez121 first edit [259] (a request for permission) as well as the similar pattern of copyvio contributions, I have blocked CIDss as a sock. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent semi needed for Modern Apizza

Resolved

 – Protected for a month. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Long-term spammer using various distant IPs and spamming the same link, blocking is not enough. Requesting an indefinite semi-protection because this of this. RPP is wayyy too slow - it's too backlogged right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The admins again appear to be out for the weekend. I posted an RFPP a day ago and no action of any kind has been taken on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisting of link

I request that the YouTube link be blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I've already blacklisted it on MediaWiki.org, for reference.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hardie

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.

---

reference Jim Hardie BlackJack JamesJJames I ran the Turmitin anti plagiarism software through a range of edits by this sockpuppet and it showed either a 'good' or 'strong' correlation between these three editors. There are one and the same person. Recall JamesJJames is an admitted sockpuppet of BlackJack. I wonder what more evidence you want.

WP:SPI is that-a-way ... Pesky (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Same IP tried it on at Talk:SPI yesterday and was advised to file a SPI then. They seem to be pushing this everywhere except the right venue. --GenericBob (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Making the most vast assumption of good faith of which I am currently capable, they may be having trouble with the process of actually filing a case. Having never done so myself, I have no idea how muddly it might be. Pesky (talk) 10:39, 15 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.

Deletion of old versions of my userpage

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

---

Hello, could someone please delete the old versions of my user page up to (and including) this one [260], for anonymity. Thanks. --Pevos (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I've actually deleted all versions up to and including 3 January 2012. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 15 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.

Ed Schultz‎

Nearly 24 hours ago I asked for temp. semi-protection of this article, due to continual BLP-questionable postings by IP's who continue to refuse to discuss their edit-warring. Someone, please take some action on this request. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I don't see what's wrong with the info that the IP is trying to add. Could you explain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that a claim that Schultz had a conflict of interest in money he'd received, sourced only to a blog, was definitely worth removing. Not sure about the stuff that's sourced to Huffington. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The attempts to add various negative stuff were initiated on the grounds that the article is "biased", which is POV-pushers' code for "it's not negative enough". And the IPs' argument "What's there to discuss?" in the edit summary is a promise to continue edit-warring. Semi-protect the page for awhile, and they'll be compelled to take it to the talk page. Or they'll move on to the next thing they feel like edit-warring about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I semi'd it for one day to sort it out. RxS (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Harrasment via English Wikipedia e-mail system

User:Velimir Ivanovic sent me today an e-mail via English Wikipedia mailing system, insulting me. He is already banned from Serbian Wikipedia bacause of insulting other users and disruptive bahavior. We all really tried to make him understand that his ways are not welcome, but he wouldn't listen, and in the end, admins had to ban him for good from Serbian Wikipedia. Now he is using his global account to continue with his disruptive behavior in other language Wikipedias. I would like to ask some admin action that would prevent him from doing this, please. Thanks. --Maduixa (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely without email access. Besides the customary block template, I copied text from sr:Template:искључивани корисник, so he would be able to know what's going on in Српски. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I do appreciate. --Maduixa (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are they any relation to this guy? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No clue; Velimir appears to be a common first name, and Ivanović (How do I type that extended character?) or Ivanovich is a common Slavic surname. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. According to the conclusions we could draw from his behavior, he is just a primary school kid. Hope he grows up a little very soon. BTW, his sockpuppet Oliver Nedeljkovic has just been blocked at Serbian Wikipedia, so I suggest to keep an eye on User:Oliver Nedeljkovic. (BTW, to type letter Ć, you should change the keybord to Serbian Latin which you must preivouslu add to your keyboards in your Control Panel ;)).--Maduixa (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate says that the sr:block of Oliver was due to checkuser findings. Because of that, and because of log results, I believe that it's impossible for en:Oliver to be different from en:Velimir, so I've blocked . Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's right. This account on sr wiki was blocked on the basis of checkuser findings. Sorry, I forgotten to mention this detail. :)--Maduixa (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

as the meta stewards don't have the ability to globally block users (and why not, what kind of interface doesn't include that feature) I guess you're stuck requesting a block wherever he turns up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. He has a dynamic IP, so any preventive block will be in vain. If he wants, he will reappear again. This was only to show him that he cannot game the system and that he must follow the rules as anyone else, or he will be simply reduced, and then removed from the project (he was also blocked, as I see, on Croatian Wikipedia, because of vandalism). If he learns something from this, as far as I am concerned, he can open a new account and start contributing as everyone else, as long as he behaves as he is expected to. I just hope he did learn something from this today, and that he will change his behavior. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last naughty boy with too much free time and a computer in his hands who learned the lesson. At sr wikipedia we have more than one "prodigy sons" who thought a little bit after being punished, and after some time, they reappeared with a new account (or even achieved to be given another chance) and became very helpful and productive users. I just hope Velimir can be one of them. Thank you all for being so helpful and quick in response to my request. --Maduixa (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with user Cyber17

Cyber17 (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)

User:Kajicat‎

Resolved

 – Kajicat blocked 48hrs, return to AN/I if further action is warranted

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

I'm requesting administrator intervention. User:Kajicat is a single-purpose account who has repeatedly tried to add accusations of homophobia to The Video Game Critic article. No reliable sources make such claims: Kajicat simply links to VGC reviews she finds homophobic and adds these as references to make her case.

I filed a request for uninvolved editors to comment at a BLP noticeboard discussion last year when she first began edit-warring to insert this unsourced accusation of homophobia: as you might expect, the participants there agreed it did not belong in the article. Nonetheless, she has repeatedly edit-warred to re-insert it.

Yesterday I asked her again to stop edit-warring to re-insert this obvious BLP violation into the article, and her response was to change my header ("The Video Game Critic, for the third time") to "28bytes Warring With Me Over Video Game Critic, Once More..." (note: I have made exactly one revert in 2012).

Today User:Theornamentalist tried to explain to Kajicat yet again why this was an inappropriate addition, and Kajicat changed his header ("More...") with the edit summary "Theornamentalist and 28bytes Condone Unnecessary homophobic Journalism in Video Games".

Kajicat's entire contribution history since registering last year has been to try to insert this accusation into the article. In addition to the edit-warring, WP:IDHT, and WP:BLP violations, she is now accusing other editors (Theornamentalist and me) of condoning homophobia, which I very much take as a personal attack.

I've repeatedly warned her that if she continues this disruption she will face a block, but I obviously can't block her myself, so I'm requesting assistance from an uninvolved admin. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Any subsequent such edit should be grounds for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, Drmies. 28bytes (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with user Cyber17

Cyber17 (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)

User:Kajicat‎

Resolved

 – Kajicat blocked 48hrs, return to AN/I if further action is warranted

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

I'm requesting administrator intervention. User:Kajicat is a single-purpose account who has repeatedly tried to add accusations of homophobia to The Video Game Critic article. No reliable sources make such claims: Kajicat simply links to VGC reviews she finds homophobic and adds these as references to make her case.

I filed a request for uninvolved editors to comment at a BLP noticeboard discussion last year when she first began edit-warring to insert this unsourced accusation of homophobia: as you might expect, the participants there agreed it did not belong in the article. Nonetheless, she has repeatedly edit-warred to re-insert it.

Yesterday I asked her again to stop edit-warring to re-insert this obvious BLP violation into the article, and her response was to change my header ("The Video Game Critic, for the third time") to "28bytes Warring With Me Over Video Game Critic, Once More..." (note: I have made exactly one revert in 2012).

Today User:Theornamentalist tried to explain to Kajicat yet again why this was an inappropriate addition, and Kajicat changed his header ("More...") with the edit summary "Theornamentalist and 28bytes Condone Unnecessary homophobic Journalism in Video Games".

Kajicat's entire contribution history since registering last year has been to try to insert this accusation into the article. In addition to the edit-warring, WP:IDHT, and WP:BLP violations, she is now accusing other editors (Theornamentalist and me) of condoning homophobia, which I very much take as a personal attack.

I've repeatedly warned her that if she continues this disruption she will face a block, but I obviously can't block her myself, so I'm requesting assistance from an uninvolved admin. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Any subsequent such edit should be grounds for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, Drmies. 28bytes (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with user Cyber17

Cyber17 (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)

User:Kajicat‎

Resolved

 – Kajicat blocked 48hrs, return to AN/I if further action is warranted

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

I'm requesting administrator intervention. User:Kajicat is a single-purpose account who has repeatedly tried to add accusations of homophobia to The Video Game Critic article. No reliable sources make such claims: Kajicat simply links to VGC reviews she finds homophobic and adds these as references to make her case.

I filed a request for uninvolved editors to comment at a BLP noticeboard discussion last year when she first began edit-warring to insert this unsourced accusation of homophobia: as you might expect, the participants there agreed it did not belong in the article. Nonetheless, she has repeatedly edit-warred to re-insert it.

Yesterday I asked her again to stop edit-warring to re-insert this obvious BLP violation into the article, and her response was to change my header ("The Video Game Critic, for the third time") to "28bytes Warring With Me Over Video Game Critic, Once More..." (note: I have made exactly one revert in 2012).

Today User:Theornamentalist tried to explain to Kajicat yet again why this was an inappropriate addition, and Kajicat changed his header ("More...") with the edit summary "Theornamentalist and 28bytes Condone Unnecessary homophobic Journalism in Video Games".

Kajicat's entire contribution history since registering last year has been to try to insert this accusation into the article. In addition to the edit-warring, WP:IDHT, and WP:BLP violations, she is now accusing other editors (Theornamentalist and me) of condoning homophobia, which I very much take as a personal attack.

I've repeatedly warned her that if she continues this disruption she will face a block, but I obviously can't block her myself, so I'm requesting assistance from an uninvolved admin. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Any subsequent such edit should be grounds for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, Drmies. 28bytes (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist spam

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.

---

There is currently a watchlist notice that reads something like,

The annual Wakefield Show invites you to share your knowledge of Acorn Computers and RISC OS with Wikipedia (entrance fee £5)

except that the external link is formatted as oan internal one. I think this should be removed as advertising but it does not appear at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Anyone know where the source is located? For information, I have also started a VP thread proposing that there should be a guideline for watchilst notices. SpinningSpark 11:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...It doesn't appear on my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's a UK-only notice. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:57, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'm in the US. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a geonotice. I've removed it now, let's see if anyone complains. SpinningSpark 12:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I found this thread enlightening . The admin in question approved the request based on discussion here. As a courtesy, I've left him a notice of this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the suggestion at VP of a little guidance will fix this. There's no villainy here. It's not like it's advertising Mousecorp - it's the type of show put on by a local club at a Town Hall, with the suggestion that a bunch of editors meet up there. It's just phrased badly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 15 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.

ClaudioSantos

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

As a result of this discussion at ANI, ClaudioSantos was topic banned for "a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects." This topic ban expired on April 12, 2012. On that very day, ClaudioSantos immediately returned to the subject area at Eugenics in the United States. In this edit he re-added a section to the article that had just been removed and for which a discussion was in progress on the article talk page. Note that this re-addition was before he joined that discussion a few minutes later. Still, the edit added information and sources, so not too terrible. Discussion proceeded on the talk page for a few hours, but no consensus was reached (leaving non-inclusion of the info as the default, since that was the state of the article prior to the start of the proto-edit war). While CS continued the discussion, rather than seeking dispute resolution when there was no sudden consensus for his version, about 1 day later he re-inserted the section (in this edit).

If this were most other editors, this would be trivial--CS didn't even violate 1RR. But the fact that his very first series of edits into the topic consisted of reverting against consensus and essentially asserting his opinion in spite of solid rationale against it on talk (see Talk:Eugenics in the United States#Tuskegee syphilis experiment). I simply don't see how this can possibly lead to anything good. This editor has been blocked numerous times before in this general topic area in addition to the six month topic ban. To me, the immediate battleground return just indicates that this editor still does not get it.

Actually, I just spotted one more thing: this discussion about possibly including this material actually began on March 17. That very same day, ClaudioSantos made edits to his user sandbox User:ClaudioSantos/Archives/Euthanazia. These edits added the references that he would later add to the Eugenics in the United States article. In other words, during his topic ban, he was still waiting and watching at least some of the articles he was banned from, and thus why the very moment the topic ban expired, he was able to jump in with a fully formed set of edits.

I don't see any sense in counseling, warning, waiting to see how he proceeds. This user clearly has a problem in this topic area. I believe that either a permanent topic ban or an indefinite block are in order. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. There's a discussion going on at the talkpage, after Night of the Big Wind removed an earlier inclusion of this information in discussion with the editor who added it. And, ignoring that, Claudio Santos goes straight in and adds his version, then re-adds it after Binksternet reverts him, claiming he has consensus for the addition on the talkpage. Which he doesn't, as far as I can see from reading the talkpage. He's the only one supporting his view. If it wasn't that he hasn't added it again, after the second revert on the 13th, I'd indefblock him now. As it is, let's see what the community opinion is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not me but User:Trilobitealive was the one who firstly included the material and brought the sources, and he always and he still supports the inclusion of the content[261]. He has always argued for the inclusion of the contents. He did not reinserted those contents because he said he could have a COI[262] so he prefered that the other users do so. I have been very cautious to not engage in any personalized discussion, I have documented each of my comments in the talk page with reliable sources (see for example [263]), and basicaly I was solely providing reliable sources to support Trilobitealive's version or edits and the own sources he brougth firstly. After the first revert by Binksternet, I have quoted the sources to explain why the contents brought by Trilobitealive should still be included and I have waited more than 24 hours but nobody refused[264], so I reinserted the material, but as I was reverted by NightOfTheBigWind, then I have keep the thing in the discussion page until now. So first notice that I am not the only one arguing for the inclusion and also notice that Trilobitealive and me, those who support the inclusion of the contents, we are the only users who have suported each one of our arguments with solid sources, while the other users who are against the inclusion, they have not provided any source to support their position and moreover one of them just keep referring to me with a sort of PA for he was blocked[265][266] and comments focused on my past ban, thus off topics comments about me, that I have not responded. Instead of responding PAs or personalized comments, I have kept in the talk page arguing to support and endorse Trilobitealive position and providing more reliable sources for that (please check the thread). I guess my previous ban, that I have respected, was for 6 months and not forever and was mainly because of reproaches about a sort of warrior approach and personalized discussion with some users for example NightOfTheBigWind here involved, I thought I was now doing the correct thing not responding his comments about my person. And let my clear it up: I have never inserted the material claiming that there was a consensus in the talk page, but if you read the thread: Binksternet who was against the inclusion nevertheless he has a doubt about what the sources really say so he asked someone to quote them[267], so I thought there was not consensus but doubts and questions, so I did verified and cited the sources brought by Trilobitealive and I have provided and quoted two new sources which supported the inclusion of the material brought by Trilobitealive and expanded the material, so I thought it could be included again, so I did (and may be I was bold). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't read every detail, but if User:ClaudioSantos was subject to a topic ban (just expired)[268], and he is still causing issue in the topic area, perhaps the real problem is that the ban wasn't long enough. Considering the editor's long history of being blocked [269] for warring and 3RR, the likelihood of future disruption is high enough that topic indef may be in order. Noting that the editor has managed to keep notes [270] regarding the topic makes me think there is an obsession with the topic that makes objectivity difficult, at best. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But you are assuming that I am causing problems without reading the thread (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) nor my explanations here!!! To be topic banned does not mean that I must also not read that topic nor investigate and check the sources brought by other users. Please read the thread I have been very cautious to not engage in any personalized discussion and I have solely supported and endorsed a position and the inclusion of a material which was brougth by another user, not by me. Why this material which was brought by another user is "causing an issue"? solely because I had a topic ban before and now I am the one who endorse another users edits by quoting his sources and providing other reliable sources that support his edits? And let me notice: Binksternet who is involved in the discussion and is against the inclusion of the material brought by Trilobitealive and Trilobitealive who is of course in favor of the inclusion like me, none of them who are the other two users involved in the talk discussion, none of them have mentioned in that dicsussion page nor they have commented in my talk page, nor they have opened at the ANI any reproach indicating that I am causing an "issue in the topic". Please read the thread. -- 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• It may be difficult to work with ClaudioSantos because maybe his views aren't popular, but is sounds like he's been obedient in abiding by the topic ban. He sounds upset above (which shouldn't be surprising, really), but he also seems to be communicative. If there's a content issue, can't it be worked out on the talkpage? Pre-emptive blocks or bans seem... less than optimal, to me. @ClaudioSantos, I'd (highly) recommend a self imposed 0RR (aside from vandalism, obviously), simply based on your history.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can deal with that and effort myself to keep an 0RR. Actually I was assuming a 1RR and as you can see most of my edits are in the talk page. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• A quick glance seems to end in this conclusion - CS is able to abide by a topic ban, but without a topic ban becomes somewhat problemnatic. Therefore would it not be logical to extend an indefinite topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I being problematic? I myself asked[271] the admin Qwyrxian (who opened this ANI thread) to check and keep an eye on the thread at Talk:Eugenics in the United States#Tuskegee syphilis experiment because I was not dispossed at all to engage in any personal discussions with any user as far as I was concerned due there was an user in that discussion basically referring to my past topic ban or referring to me, instead of he keeps discussing the topic and instead of he keeps sticked to the content dispute resolution. There was other users involved. None of these users involved in the discussion reproached any concern indicating that I was being problematic. So, I am surprised that my efforts to keeep discussing and sticked to the topic and my efforts to keep a self-impossed 1RR and my call for an admin-scrutiny of the discussion in order to avoid wars and personal discussions, ironically those efforts turns immediately into this ANI asking for a indefinite ban against me precisely asked for the admin who I called up to keep an eye in the discussion[272]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, it's the adding it twice that's the problem. Plus the adding it the first time despite there being a request to discuss at the talk page, which you added it before joining. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Elen hits the point: had you (ClaudioSantos) just added it once, I would not have brought this here--it would have been a bold move for someone just off a topic ban, but not a real problem. It's the fact that you re-added it again as soon as you could do so under 1RR, and did so when there was obviously no consensus for your version, that was a problem--it indicates (to me) that you will use the full extent of whatever means you do have available to make the articles appear the way you want. That being said, I would be willing to consider 0RR. But you understand what that means, CS? It means you can never revert anyone on any article in the topic area (except for vandalism). Not once per day, not once per week, but never. Any time you ever want to undo the work of another person, you have to go to the talk page and get consensus. So, 0RR is probably sufficient, but any violation would mean you would immediately be indefinitely topic banned without a discussion. Furthermore, if your talk page editing became tendentious or disruptive, a future topic ban could still be sought. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

0RR wouldn't be my choice of restrictions. If someone adds some info that CS wants deleted, CS can just wait until someone else makes an unrelated edit, then go in and delete that info in the next edit, so it isn't *technically* a revert (yes, yes, WP:BEANS, but it is pretty obvious). Or, if you feel deletion a few edits later is a revert and shouldn't be allowed, then *technically* CS would never be allowed to delete ANY information, only add it, because any deletion can *technically* be considered a revert. I've never been a fan of 0RR because of this conundrum, which can lead to any edit causing yet another ANI and (potentially pedantic) debate over what is and isn't a *technical* revert. If there has ever been a successful 0RR restriction with the editor still editing the article without incident, please point me to it, I would seriously love to see what one of those looks like. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to clear it up: I did wait 35 hours to revert teh second time, certainly firstly to keep my self-impossed 1RR although I do undertsand this article is not under 1RR, but secondly due I was waiting for a response to my announcement (see belove). I did not restore the version for example 25 hours as soon to be under 1RR, but I have waited some hours more, and perhaps it was not enough, but let notice that: once I was reverted the first time I have immediately responded to Binksternet and I have quoted the sources illustrating that sources do not supported Binksternet arguments used to revert me, so I have explicitly announced that I will restore the version[273], and after 35 hours there was not any response, so I assumed there was not any complaint to my explicitly announced intention to restore Trilobitealive version, so I did, then NightOfTheBigWind reverted me so I did not restore it again never again but I went into the talk page to discuss. At any rate, if certainly there were 2 editors opposed to the addition, also there were 2 who do not, and until now there was a discussion running in the talk page, that is the natural first step to resolve any content dispute, and there not emerged a complaint about me being disruptive nor tendentious from the users involved nor emerged any complaint that the discussion was being useless or problematic at any rate. Said this, I do not think I deserve any further restrictions nor a threat to be indefinite topic banned without any discussion, but in a sign of good willing I can practice a self-assumed 0RR in this topic (not to restore never an edit if it was reverted once) exactly as I was practicing a self-assumed 1RR. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you are an evil person (although your excessive use of bolding and underlining is borderline evil), but there are some legitimate questions about your self-restraint, which has been hit or miss. What concerns me is a history of edit warring and a seeming obsession with the topic that could easily lead to gaming the system. As to self-imposed 0RR, it is no different than 0RR imposed by the community, it has the same shortcomings of being difficult to interpret and enforce. That is just my opinion, which when combined with $2, will buy you a cup of coffee. I would like to hear what others think about 0RR, regardless of whether it is self or community imposed. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  I hope that this comes across as a bit of informal mentoring, because that's the way I intend it. To Claudio: the bit about bold text (and I'd include underlines and italics in that as well) is important. It's not really a policy type of thing, but more of a social... bit of advice. I mean, we all need to work with each other here, and trying to read rambling screeds (which can be said due to the length and the formatting of your posts, since bold, italic, or underlined text is often seen as a type of yelling) is tough to deal with, regardless of the issues and whether or not others may agree with your positions.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The bolds are meant as a key to read the message: you could read those parts in bold to get the main idea and a guide for the "rambling screed", take the rest as a mandatory documentation. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but it just doesn't come across that way.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Then surely I will try another approach to clear up the reading due I alway hope to be relieved of inventing reading aids to help people read and listen meticulously before taking any decision. thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• At the advice of others, I'm learning how to be concise in my statements, which reduces the need for bolding and underlining. People are more likely to read your entire statement when it is pithy. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind

On a related note, because of comments made in the article talk page discussion mentioned above, I blocked Night of the Big Wind for 72 hours for personal attacks and a continuation of his long running harassment of ClaudioSantos. He's asking for his block to be reviewed; it would help if an admin familiar with the situation (especially the backstory) take a look at the request. If I've overreacted, feel free to unblock without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be a personal attack; calling oneself or another person the "black sheep of the family", especially in the context of responding to someone saying they'd stepped into the middle of a domestic dispute, is vaguely clever -- certainly not in itself nasty enough to warrant blocking, nor even enough to be a last straw in a sequence of unpleasantries. Is the problem the word "black" in the context of eugenics? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If I indeed could not find inocuous the black sheep comment eventhough I can laugh about it, at any rate the comment certainly has a wide context and a long history. So let you read Qwryxian comment: [274] -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So the editor should be blocked for the right reason; this is a case of something being used as an excuse for a block rather than dealing with the larger issue. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is not the case, but I am sorry due I will not answer with a larger response due I really do not want to engage deeper in this. Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I disagree with this decision, but... well, Jpgordon has a point.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have declined NotBW's unblock request and I find no fault in the logic of the blocking admin, nor do I find any violation of WP:INVOLVED as was alleged. I did not read the black sheep comment in a racist tone at all. Rather, I considered that NotBW was blocked recently (4 months ago) for NPA and should be fully aware of what might qualify as NPA. Clearly not all admin would have blocked in this case, for this length of time, or for this exact reason. Given NotBW's reply on the page after I declined I think it was still the right choice, but if NotBW chooses to apply for unblock again for different reasons the reviewing admin can feel free to decide on their own (certainly no need to consult me).  7  06:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think jpgordon is correct in that it would have been better if I had been more clear in my original blocking message. I hope that I've clarified through my subsequent messages on NotBW's talk page. I think that perhaps the most accurate way to say it is that NotBW's comments on the article's talk page were open to interpretation--they could be seen as vague disagreement with ClaudioSantos's positions, or they could be seen as a deliberate attack. For me, the context (seen in numerous talk pages, and especially at ANI conversations in the past), NotBW has shown that he has a strong, aggressive dislike of CS, and has gone out of his way to be mean and unpleasant. It's kind of the reverse of the usual problem we have, where someone says "fuck off", and then says that, in context, it's not an insult or PA. Here, we have the black sheep family, which is fairly mild as far as insults go, but in the greater context, it's a pretty clear (to me) attack. But I think that had I said that this was more of a harassment block, for ongoing incivility towards CS, that would have left a clearer message. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kkm010

• Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a number of concerns about the above editor.

1. If their edits are reverted, they invariably simply make exactly the same change again in an attempt to impose the change. They have made their "Go * yourself" attitude quite clear on their Talk page: User talk:Kkm010#Very tedious behavior.

2. Despite having been warned about this in the past, they continue to not use edit summaries, to mark non-minor edits as minor, and to use misleading summaries e.g. [275] and User talk:Kkm010#I object to several of your "minor" edits.

3. Copying another user's signature, agreeing to change it, and then failing to do so: User talk:Kkm010#Your signature.

4. Admiting to deliberately unconstructive behaviour: User talk:Kkm010#?

Please can someone kindly ask this editor to respect the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, to use edit summaries properly, and to generally get their act together.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can block both of you for a WP:LAME edit war if you like. And I don't believe the guy is forging BWilkins signature - it very clearly said his name, and linked to his userspace. His "crime" was lacking the courtesy to credit where he got it from, as BWilkins also told you [276].Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice. The issue of the user signature was to evidence competence issues, which this user clearly has, not an effort by the user at deception. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit of a lame argument you two are having. I agree he's not the world's most competent editor, but reporting a list of fairly trivial problems rarely goes down well here, especially when the filing party is edit warring with the listed party over whether a company that makes computer hardware can be described as being in the computer hardware business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

My timing in coming here was I agree not the brightest from a tactical perspective. However it was not motivated purely or even mainly by the immediate difference of opinion which I have with this editor regarding the ASUS article - which comes down to a subjective issue as to whether the correct industry label is 'computer hardware' or 'information technology' (and I do have good reasons for my view) - but as much by a rising level of frustration borne of my very frequently having to spend time reverting pointless, low-quality and incorrect edits made by them. Their then resorting to edit warring to impose changes (and flat out telling me that they weren't interested in discussing the change) is merely the icing on the cake. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just passing through, totally agree with Elen's comment and the other editor's classifying of ASUS as a computer hardware company, IT is way too overarching, ASUS make computer hardware, so where's the problem? Watch out for that flying piece of wood. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The company also makes mobile phones, smartphones and networking equipment. Take a read of their annual report: [277]. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm sure it represents a tiny part of their activity. They are primarily known as a computer hardware manufacturer. Open a request for comment on the talk page if you're that bothered. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So no idea or understanding of the topic, not even willing to read a source, never made a single edit to the article, but still very happy to wade in with strident and uncivil comments. And I forgot to mention that ASUS now also offer cloud services: [278]. You know I actually can't be bothered with either this discussion or the ASUS article anymore, both are a waste of my time. And increasingly I am coming to the conclusion that WP is too. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Strident and uncivil, really, where? No idea or understanding of the topic? Really you should AGF, my last job was in an IT company, and I probably built (as a hobby) at least 6 or 7 PCs using the Asus A7V8X-X. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, your stubborn attitude is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please don't impose certain edits which you think is always correct, while other are wrong or idiots. The same stuff you did in Tata Global Beverages as well. The reason why I was so confident about the ASUS edit, because I myself been in the IT industry for 3 to 4 years.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1. You are the one repeatedly trying to impose changes to longstanding stable text, whilst refusing to engage in Talk page discussions. 2. Your edits are very frequently wrong. I don't doubt your good faith - and your enthusiasm for company articles is admirable - but I do strongly question your competence and am increasingly losing interest in being the one clearing up after your edits (and then getting dragged in edit wars as a result). This would be less of an issue if you were more willing to be corrected. Just now you have added to the lead of Ford Motor Company that the Ford family owns a majority stake in the company [279]. Infact they own a 2% stake, but have control through ownership of 40% of the voting power through a special class of stock. The source you have added even states this. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SSI

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.

---

What's going on at Suspected Sockpuppets? Things have been stalled there for weeks, which, given IPs time out, is really, really bad. 86.** IP (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Response time on any number of admin issues has been seemingly stuck in the tar pits recently. Hard to figure what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think part of it is a lack of checkuser clerk activity; there are several cases that have been closed and just not archived. I know I took care of the one case needing blocks a couple days ago. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we need more active admins. Just saying, I'd never seen RFA so empty before I left. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Submitting oneself for RfA is tantamount to nominating oneself for a character assassination. The standards are so high, it's little wonder that the number of nominations is falling IMHO. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the standards are high, it's that there are no standards about who gets to attack the nominees. The one time I ran for admin (and I wouldn't take the job now at any price), a large percentage of the non-admins (and even some of the admins) who said "No, no f-ing way" have since been booted from wikipedia. Until the folks that run this joint are willing to change the process, there will be a shortage of admins - i.e. a shortage of editors who have the authority to fix problems here, i.e. to put the brakes on vandalism and edit warring. Currently, only an admin can do those things, and that's why adminship is, in fact, "a big deal." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked through some of the RfAs that happened during my absence and was kind of shocked. I don't think I'd pass RfA now, to be honest! It's a little weird. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with Basalisk Some of the comments at RFA seem to be soo harsh that even if the person might be eligible sometimes later he would think twice about the experience again.(Non-administrator comment) by the way-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The harshness there is one of the reasons I've avoided RfA. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is adminship now a big deal? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely, judging by what I've seen at RFA. I'm thankful that I was nominated five years ago; if it had been then the way it is now, I seriously doubt that I would have passed — I've never written an FA, and the first of my three GAs was long after RFA. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• You would have to ask the admins participating, but it would appear that some think it is. The complete and utter lack of people willing to run that gauntlet speaks for itself. Many of the admins there seem obsessed with "edit counts", which isn't a good indication of quality by itself. That is a common theme. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a bit of an aside on the "Response time on any number of admin issues has been seemingly stuck in the tar pits recently." comment, I'd like to point out something which may not be immediately obvious to some: It's nearly the end of the spring semester. Semester long projects, tests, and finals are coming up.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And people have obviously been unavailable over Easter - in the UK, most companies holiday period runs April to April, so folks in employment may have been clearing leave to avoid losing it. People need to take leave, see families, prepare for exams etc. I have felt a bit like I was the only checkuser these last few days though. And I would recommend Dennis Brown run for admin, unless he's like an axe murderer or something. If they let me it, they should let anyone in :) :) :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe now would be the time to go RfA, with no admins around to abuse the candidate. An no, that conviction was overturned on appeal, so I think I'm ok in the murder department. ;) Thanks for the vote of confidence. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I do wonder myself where the regulars are. I'm waiting for some class to be made in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes. I hope Tnxman, HelloAnnyong, and the other SPI cats are alright. Have they been red recently? Drmies (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe RFA could be reformed into a selection process where adminiship is granted unless there are really good reasons that it shouldn't be? If you're generally a good editor, have a good history of warnings, good history of tagging files for deletion, etc you'd be granted adminship unless someone can prove you'd be untrustworthy due to bad behavior? That surely would increase the number of successful adminships. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Given how hard it is to get a bad admin desysopped, I think it's no wonder people are a bit stingy about giving out the bit. If it were easier to have adminship granted AND removed, perhaps it would be "no big deal". Kcowolf (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Adminship Tiderolls 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think we should make it much, much easier to get the tools and much much easier to lose them - even something like a zero tolerance approach. Being an admin isn't supposed to be a big deal (the whole admin-editor equality principle) but in practice it is a big deal. If someone has 4-5k edits under their belt and a clean block log I say give them the chance to show they can use the tools responsibly. If they screw up, desysop and ban from RFA for 6 months and then give another shot. Personally, I love repetitive tasks and would probably thrive in an environment like WP:AIV or WP:RFPP but I haven't bothered applying for the tools because of the environment at RFA and the likelihood that I would have to spend hours explaining and defending myself. With that said, I don't think anything will change anytime soon. SÆdon^talk 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't followed every RfA the last couple of months, but I didn't think it was so easy. I can remember one from a few years back that should have been an easy promotion, but for the rest, I don't know of any major injustices. Examples? Drmies (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend not to spend too much time at RFA at all, but my impression is that the issue with the opposes at RFA is in volume (as in loudness) rather than volume (as in number). I have followed a few RFAs in the past year of people I have (or would have) supported, and most of them who have failed have merely dropped out of the process before the final decision has been made. I find this unfortunate, since I think they all would have passed had they toughed it out, its just that the opposes get nasty and unreasonable, and people would rather just not deal with the stress. For every ten people who support with a "Sure, why not, give them the tools" it only takes one asshole with an axe to grind to derail a good nomination. I have seriously seen people with 90% or better support rate drop out because of the depth and bredth of the harassment they receive from those 10% opposes. It probably feels to such candidates as though the world is against them, because the supports are fairly tame and nondescript, even if there is a lot of them, while the opposes end up being hurtful and petty. That's why (IMHO) most people who would be qualified for adminship don't bother applying and why many qualified people who do apply end up not passing or dropping out. They just can't put up with the vehemence of the minority opposition to wait it out and get their tools. --Jayron32 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I really believe that the main problem has to do with the difficulty in getting the sysop privileged removed, as was said above, too. There seems to be too much invested in the current system to change that, but it sure would be nice.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • RfA is often a sad popularity contest. Don't piss too many people off anytime in your "wiki-career" with your opinions, even if you're right, or you're dead meat on the chopping block. That's the standard by which all higher positions are handed out. Not. Removing admin privs? Shockingly easy in comparison. Doc talk 04:06, 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.

Sock on an IP

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

---

Any chance a a short term block on this ip range?[280] It is user:Nangparbat and he is getting on my nerves. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• No. Far too large and busy a range to rangeblock. I have blocked that IP for 31h and semi-protected Talk:Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I've thought of it. You've directed enough Nangparbat socks my way. Unfortunately, the way BT organises its IPs, you'd end up blocking half of England. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just protect any pages he touches. That is the ONLY way of dealing with him. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How about contacting BT to report a problem user? Is that one possible? I have a vague feeling that in exceptional circumstances a forced-static IP may be able to be assigned ... which would then be easy to block. I could, of course, be entirely misremembering this. Pesky (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, BT could care less about the abusers here. There's been quite a few BT abusers of which the abuse hasn't been taken care of by the ISP. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And he's just annoying. He's not trafficking children or anything that might just about make BT take notice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 15 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.

Misuse of Administrator power

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

---

Admin reverts to his favorite version before locking up the article. The POV removal of images of civilian casualties in the war of Afghanistan is outrages. An article about an war with ten's of thousands of civilian casualties without a single image of these casualties is unexceptionable. It is a joke. Locking up the article for an Administrator might be a good idea sometimes but reverting back to his personal favorite version is not ok. That leaves us now with an ridiculous biased article without a single image of casualties. Some might have even risk their live to take these images and have given them under a free license. These images and information should be immediately re-added to the article and the POV editors should be kicked. In addition this administrator removed the notable incident were US soldier allegedly urinate on Taliban fighter. Whatever country you come from - this deletion and the censorship of all images of casualties from this article is an assault on humanity and a disgrace for Wikipedia who claims to be neutral. Instead this article is controlled by a small group of system gaming POV editors. 186.49.34.123 (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This IP is likely a sock of [281] user:41.202.239.98 which was a sock of user:Afghan1974 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock of anybody. 186.49.34.123 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely a discussion of whether an article should have disturbing images of injured people can happen without the accusation of 'censorship,' and without including such images? IP, your first step is to assume that other users are also interested in creating a good article, and discuss with them, on the talk page, how that can best happen. It doesn't look like you have made any attempt to discuss the question with anyone, and this is a question that will need to be discussed and reach a good consensus before changes are made. If, as you say, this is your only ip, then you have made only three edits, none of them a discussion, all of them accusing others of 'pov editing.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor who have removed this notable content without proper reason should have done so. I am not a sock so please do not block this IP here so i do have the possibility. I brought an issue here that i have observed so why don't you read again what i said and address the issue with the administrator? I also re-add the image. This is injured victim and there is nothing wrong to show about what we are talking. Nothing shocking at all. 46.118.3.207 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"I am not a sock..." - irony at its finest. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"these are not the socks you are looking for.." Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 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.

Bad script

• User:Keymanweb/keymanweb.js
• [282] - Documentation page pre-blanking

This old script was listed at the user scripts list. It appears to attempt to write in code posted at an outside website, and seems to have been created by a single-purpose account to promote a company. I tested it before checking the code, and it blanked all pages to prevent viewing and editing. I had to disable Javascript to get rid of it. I doubt it was intended as malicious, but perhaps the script should be deleted regardless. It seems to be advertised outside of Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:23, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The script has not changed since October 30, 2009‎ (the day of its creation). User:Enawga installed it on May 14, 2011‎ in his/her monobook.js and has edited productively since – although not much.  --Lambiam 21:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The problems could just be in Vector, where I tested. Still... Equazcion ^(talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason it blanks the page is probably that mentioned in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 97#document.write is not longer working. Anomie⚔ 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that would just mean the script wouldn't work, not blank the page. Regardless, I'd think importing code from an outside website == bad, since they can change it at any point, to whatever they want, without any indication showing on the wiki. That and the single-purpose account. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:51, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I think that thing ought to be deleted, since it lets the vendor take control of the user's editing, through their control off the offsite script. It's therefore similar to a user sharing their password, which is not allowed. Even if the company doesn't do something malicious like that, it still lets them track all of the user's activity through their http logs, which may be the actual main purpose. The onscreen keyboard functionality does look sort of useful and maybe something like it can be added to existing wiki scripts like AWB if enough people want it. (I think the WMF has also been working on an in-browser wysiwyg wiki editor that might eventually subsume the usefulness of such a script though). (expanded twice) 67.117.147.20 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There could possibly be some good-faith intention behind the script, but it is fishy enough to be deleted. I've left a note for User:Enawga, though he edits so seldom we probably won't get a response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Per canvassing guidelines, I contacted User:Cresix on their talk page about what appeared to be innapropriate canvassing, namely "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." They denied any wrongdoing. This alleged behavior took place soon after another apparent violation of guidelines which I also contacted them about on their Commons talk page, in that case posting a conclusion and innuendo without proof on my talk page. Whether or not this kind of following and posting is a form of hounding, I'm not sure, but it strikes me as disruptive and totally against AGF. Some overview would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The canvassing isn't immediately apparent from a look at Cresix's contribs, so could you post diffs showing it? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:40, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

ugh... this looks like it's about the NFCC (which I'm not at all neutral about, personally). If that's what it is, and it were up to me, I'd tell "Cresix" where to shove it. To be more reasonable about this though: uh... what Equazcion said. Diffs covering specifics would help.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

diff from Beatles talk page.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That probably wasn't an appropriate place to post such a notice. I'd be concerned about use of invitations to that investigation in discussions with Wikiwatcher1 to undermine his side. Although Wikiwatcher1 might also consider avoiding NFCC issues until the investigation completes. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:56, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Added note: It seems the investigation was started 4 months ago. How long do these things usually last? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:59, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why I'll never upload anything here, unless it's from NASA or another US government agency. The NFCC is a hunting license for a select group of editors, now. And again... what Equazcion said. (and from what I've seen, I don't think that CCI's ever close)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty retarded. So once it's started, the user has this hanging over his head forever? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:12, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Gotta defend the Wiki, don't ya know? Anyway, this stuff is the third rail of Wikipedia. I've already said more than I'm comfortable with here (even if there's nothing that I could be hooked on, I have absolutely no desire to enter the cross-hairs of the NFCC enforcement gang, not least of all because one of them works for the WMF now...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying things people are uncomfortable with is my specialty. When an accusation == a punishment, we have a problem. I may start a VPR discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:38, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I mind this "hanging over my head." Since this investigation issue began 4 months ago, only a handful of images were removed as copyright defects. Part of that was actually because the U.S. Copyright Search website turned out to have missing information. Most of the earlier deletions last year were due to a blitz-tagging editor, which I tried complaining about. If it's really that hard to get valuable bio images uploaded and accepted, as you imply, I can't complain. There are too many embarrassingly poor lead images in bios. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with WP:NFCC, which is about the usage of media that is definitely non-free. This is about dubious claims that copyrighted media are not non-free - i.e. WP:COPYVIO. Black Kite (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I think this did qualify as canvassing -- and if such investigations truly never conclude, we should hammer home the point, in some guideline, that they shouldn't be linked during disputes in order to imply invalidity of the target user's argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:32, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

If canvassing is the correct issue, I would hope that User:Cresix will remove his post as I requested. But since he deleted my request from his talk page, I doubt they will, so maybe someone else can do it. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

i am thewolfchild

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) has been grinding an axe against Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) over a minor tiff in December. TWC has since jumped into a dispute at hunting, where Rwenonah (talk · contribs) had been blocked for edit-warring (again) and agenda-pushing, in a matter in which I and BH were involved. I warned TWC that their intervention on Rwenonah's talkpage [283] was inappropriate and unlikely to help out Rwenonah. TWC has since escalated into obvious personal attacks and harassment [284] against Berean Hunter and baiting, who isn't entirely blameless (BH claims socking and has unwisely reverted TWC's comments on Rwenonah's talkpage), but to a much lesser degree. TWC has a habit of cross-posting that makes sorting out diffs rather confusing. I've issued a warning to TWC [285]. Based on their response [286] I doubt any actions on my part would resolve the matter cleanly (we passed the Godwin's Law point a while back), so I bring it here. Most of the issue can be discerned on my talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

("Are you finished? Well then allow me to retort"...)

- Yes, Acro, I read it and I must say I am somewhat disappointed with you. Your account of the 'incident' is not entirely accurate now, is it? You are missing a few facts and you have 'bent' a few others. You have shown that you cannot be neutral. You have repeatedly demonstrated a clear bias in favour BH and against Rwen and myself. It is my opinion that you have a conflict here and that you should step aside and request another party review this matter, in it's entirety.

I would suggest a panel of 3 admins. They should have absolutely no history or involvement with with you, BH, Rwen, myself, or any of the admins that were involved in previous blocks on Rwen. They should also have no prior involvement with Hunting, Zodiac, or any of our talk pages.

They should review the incidents where you claim Rwen has made repeated edit violations, as well as any administrative and/or punitive action that has been taken in response to these claims.

They should review the "minor tiff" that BH and I had in December, as well as all of BH's subsequent comments, edits and deletions. They should also review any other issues BH may have had with other users, including edit wars and personal conflicts.

There should then be a thorough review of the incidents surrounding the Hunting page, including the edit war between BH and Rwen, the subsequent actions (and inaction) on your part as well as any other admins that were involved.

Following that, they could review any comments I made as well as any and all comments made by yourself and BH.

Then, perhaps a more clear picture of what has transpired here will be revealed, and some pressing questions can be answered;

- Have you, Acroterion, conducted yourself appropriately in your position as an admin?

- Was Rwen treated failrly and with respect?

- Were his queries regarding his disposition as an editor handled promptly and properly?

- Were his previous "infractions" adjudicated fairly?

- Was/is the Hunting page up to Wikipedia standards? Or is it in need of revision? (by a neutral source)

- Were Rwen's (initial) edits in complete violation of Wikipedia policy?

- Was there a better way you could have handled Rwen's concern's about the content of the Hunting page?

- Was BH justified in arbitrarily removing Rwen's edits?

- Was BH justified in subsequently engaging in an edit war?

- Was BH's conduct and attitude towards other users in keeping with Wikipedia policy? (in both the Zodiac page incident and the Hunting page incident)

- Was BH justified in removing content from someone else's talk page? (ie: Rwen)

- Was BH justified in posting comments that contain unfounded accusations, falsehoods and personal insults?

OF course, IF this proposed review were to take place, it would have to be conducted by 3 honest, intelligent and unbiased admins.

Following that, I would hope that the Hunting page could be revised as a better document. I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor.

I would expect that the incident that occurred last December, between BH and I on the Zodiac page would be seen for exactly what it was; BH a little too quick to jump in, criticize and correct people and equally as quick to initiate reverts and warnings. That's perhaps why her attitude towards other users can be stand-offish and even condescending at times. That these actions on her part are from a lack of patience, which also leads to a quick temper, resulting in edit wars, complaints, personal attacks and insults, like "You're a troll!", "You're a sock puppet!", "You crawled out from under a rock!", "You're ignorant!", etc, etc. I would further expect that BH's actions during the Hunting page incident and subsequent dialogues on talk pages would also show a need for her conduct to be addressed. I believe that BH can be a positive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and that only a minimal amount of correction and/or guidance would be required to set her on the right path. I'm certainly willing to let 'by-gones be by-gones'.

I would expect that it would likely be determined that you Acro, could have administered the situation better. Beginning with your treatment of Rwen, you're handling of the Hunter page edit war incident, your unwillingness to address any of the misconduct on the part of BH and fianlly, the continued back-and-forth you have in engaged in with myself, where you have continually manipulated the dialogue to purposefully create discord. There was no "baiting" or "disruption" on my part, just simply my response to your response to my response, and so on and so on. I did not call Wikipedia a "regime" - I said I hope it doesn't become one. I did not insult any admins, including yourself - I simply said that I hoped that admins here, in general, can refrain from certain kinds of actions that would be deterimental to this site. AND, I certainly did not call anyone here a "Nazi", nor did I refer to anyone here as "Hitler". The place the 'Godwin Line' was crossed, was in your imagination. This is an accusation that you should really consider taking back. Nothing I said was deserving of such a comment.

In fact, if my conduct were to be reviewed, I believe it would be 'on the margins' sometimes, but still 'on-side'. I freely admit that I use rhetorical sarcasm as part of my debates. Any comments I make are usually gauged in response to the comments made towards me. I believe it would be shown that the December incident went down just as I said it did. Following that, I noted that another user was having similar difficulties with BH that I had. I found this on BH's talk page and decided to post a simple comment, based on my experience with BH, to let Rwen know that this was not a unique situation. BH removed that - and that's her right, but when I re-posted my comments on Rwen's talk page (for the benefit of Rwen), BH went in and removed them - That was wrong. Following that, BH and I have a a couple of exchanges that at least I can admit were not in keeping with the best of ideals. Unfortunately, hostility sometimes breeds hostility. I have since disengaged from BH. However, that is where I had looked to you, Acro, to try and direct the whole affair towards somekind of resolution. But you failed. Ultimately, I believe that any review would determine that you are a good admin, and should continue as such. You may still have a little to learn, but I believe you have alot to offer.

In closing, I'm glad that you have brought this to ANI. Whether or not the review I proposed is conducted, I believe that this entire affair bears some kind of looking into. Questions do need to be answered. Policies do need to be reviewed. Changes do need to be made. This can only benefit Wikipedia and all it's users.

If the are any questions I need to answer, or anything I need to answer for, you all know where to find me. This will all but conclude my involvement with this. I don't see any reason for any of our paths to cross again, so I will wish all of you the best, in your endeavours.

Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC) - (Love those Big Kahuna Burgers...)

My initial concern was that Thewolfchild was using Rwenonah's block for edit-warring to continue a vendetta of Thewolfchild's against Berean Hunter. Nothing above changes my mind. TWC was warned for direct personal attacks against Berean Hunter: they haven't repeated that since my warning. It does (not very concisely) illustrate TWC's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to WP, and is using Rwenonah's problems at hunting as a proxy to serve TWC's own ends. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Godwin's Law was passed with "admins who would treat it like a regime, with their self-serving, egotistical, condescending, fascist attitudes" [287]. Apparently I'm not one of those, which ought to be true in this case, since I've taken no administrative actions where Rwenonah and Thewolfchild are concerned. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Acro... you just keep going on and on about this. Your latest comments are, to put it politely, disingenuous, and only serve reinforce the need for you to step aside, as I had previously suggested.

- You claim that I have a "continuing vendetta" against Berean Hunter (BH). I would suggest that to reacquaint yourself with the definition of vendetta. In December of last year, there was a minor incident involving some edits and reverts to one article. I believe that BH had acted inappropriately and I told her as such. Following that, I dismissed the matter, and that was the extent of it. By BH's own admission, I have been "inactive" since that time (hardly qualifies as "continuing").

- Recently, I noted that BH had become involved in an edit war with Rwenonah (Rwen). I also noted that you took it upon yourself, as an admin to, to intercede in the matter. However, the actions you took seem to be prejudicially against Rwen (as by your own admission, you have a bias) and in favour of BH. Rwen has not only been blocked, but continually ignored. Compounding the issue further was that at the same time, BH's actions/violations were not being addressed. I then posted a comment to let Rwen know that his confusions and concerns with BH were justified as BH does have a history of conflict. BH responded to this, and I replied, and so on. My subsequent comments to BH were no more violative that hers. Again, there were only a few posting and then I dropped the matter with her.

- However, you once again decided to involve yourself and, once again you came in heavily in support of BH. It is not clear exactly just what the nature of the relationship is between you two, but you seem to give BH an exceptional degree of latitude when it comes to policy, to the point where you are effectively turning a blind eye and giving her a free pass for any of her transgressions.

- Now, just to be clear... you posted comments to me first, sir, not the other way around. I am fully within my right to respond, which I did, but unfortunately, you have a habit of manipulating comments, taking them out of context and then presenting them in a fashion that not at all reflects the original message that was being conveyed. You seem to do this to depict the other person as someone who is acting in a manner in need of re-dress, and of course, since you are an admin, you take it upon yourself to apply remedies. Each time you respond to me, I have every right to reply back. Especially when there is a need to clarify any items that you have deliberately distorted. Yet, following this, you accuse me of "baiting", "trolling", "disrupting", etc, once again, characterizing me as "the disease" and you as "the cure". Under a veil of authority and feigned principled superiority, you have "warned" me, threatened me and now created an ANI entry which is at best misleading, but in my opinion, largely apocryphal.

- There is a standard which admins at a minimum should be held to, but should also aspire to exceed. I'm sure you have done some good work here in the past, but your actions here in this matter have fallen short of that standard. I have been repeatedly critical of you, and justly so, but I have also been respectful. As an admin, you should be well aware that criticism comes with the territory. Perhaps you need to develop a 'thicker skin', if you are going to continue on as a admin.

- There are also some concepts you need to grasp, such as subtlety, sarcasm, hypocrisy, irony, neutrality and superfluous generalizations. You also need to learn the difference between fact and fiction.

- Fact: if an admin were to use his or her privileges to serve their own ends, they are, in fact "self-serving". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "self-serving".

- Fact: if an admin were to consistently and unreasonably hold the position that they are always right and everybody else is always wrong, they would, in fact, be considered "egotistical". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "egotistical".

- Fact: if any person were to consider that being a admin gives them some sort of moral high-ground that elevates them above their peers, and therefore look down upon other users and treat them as lessers, they would, in fact, be considered "condescending". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "condescending".

- It was my position (and still is) that any admin here should avoid any behaviour of these types if they are going to be an effective admin. Any admin acting in such a manner as prescribed above would be detrimental to Wikipedia. This statement is somewhat obvious (isn't it?) and was made as a generality. You need to recognize it as such and not take it as some kind of attack.

- You also need to learn what "fascism" means, in general, then compare and contrast the way in which I have used it, specifically, here in my comments. You also need to reconcile my use of the word fascism with the other comments I made regarding Wikipedia (ie: 'meritocracy', 'neutral', 'transparent'). These ideals are in keeping with democracy, fair treatment and free speech. All of these principles are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so remarkable. Therefore, I believe it would be fair to say, in general, that if any admin were to act in a manner that was in conflict with these principles and ideals, it would only serve to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of Wikipedia. If an admin were to impose his or her own will in a manner that puts their interests above those of other users and Wikipedia, if they were to misuse, or even abuse, their privileges in the process, if they were to do so despite a lack of consensus from the Wikipedia community, and if they were to try and enforce their own personal agendas without any personal responsibility, they would then be acting in an authoritarian manner and without accountability, they would be acting in a totalitarian manner. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are two of the basic precepts of fascism. Any entity administered in such a manner would be tantamount to a regime. In these instances however, 'fascism' and 'regime' have simply been used as basic descriptors to illustrate a point and not as direct comparatives. To say that having Wikipedia run as a 'fascist regime' would be of great harm is simply a general observation that is stating the obvious and in no way proffers the opinion that Wikipedia is a fascist regime. For you to claim that I have depicted Wikipedia as a regime or any of it's admins as fascists is deceitful. This seems to be a stratagem on your part to reinforce your position while at the same time distracting from the of the concerns that have been raised about you.

- Lastly, for someone who is so enamoured with Godwin's Law, you really do seem to have a poor understanding of it. The basic theory is that is if an argument were to go on long enough, that at some point one of the belligerents would accuse the other of acting like a Nazi, or compare them with Adolf Hitler. I fail see how Godwin's Law applies to my comment. I used the term 'fascist' in the most basic and general sense, as part of an opinion, in which I stated that it was something to be avoided. You and I were not engaged in an argument and I did not call you a fascist. You seem to hold that the term fascism applies to the theory becasue Nazi Germany was a fascist state, and while that application is debatable, I certainly did not, at any time, accuse you of acting like a Nazi, nor did I compare you with Hitler. You have incorrectly, cavalierly and grossly applied this theory to our discussion. In doing so, you yourself have breached the principle behind the law. That is, you have taken a simple disagreement, on an relatively minor issue, and in trying to apply a theory (that doesn't even apply), you have attempted to draw a comparison between this and one of the darkest elements of human history. You have demeaned and trivialized the horrific, to serve your own needs with your reckless and unapologetic behaviour.

Did you have anything else to add, or are we done now?

- thewolfchild 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion handled this very well indeed, especially considering some of the weird accusations you've made. But leaving that aside -- TWC, you say, within your giant wall of text -- "I have since disengaged from BH" -- do that. I reviewed the situation and it is clear you are wikistalking BH, so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Antandrus: "Acroterion handled this very well..." - Really? Glad you think so...

Antandrus: "...the weird accusations you've made." - Like what?

Antandrus: "...giant wall of a text." - Sorry, I'll try to use more pictures and less big words next time.

Antandrus: "(you)have since disengaged from BH -- do that." - Are you saying that I should do something... that I have already done? (or did you want me to go tell her off again, and then disengage again?)

Antandrus: "...it is clear you are wikistalking..." - Really? It's "clear", huh? Then it should be easy for you to provide some proof to support this claim. Or, did you go to the Acroterion school of I'm-just-gonna-throw-out-any-baseless-accusation-I-please-without-backing-it-up?

Antandrus: "...so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem." - >yawn< ...ok, thanks for stopping by.

- thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos? Sheesh. Calm down. And you say that Acro "just keep[s] going on and on about this". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lothar von Richthofen: "Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos?" - Yeah, I course I am. Just see the my 3 previous posts above...

Lothar von Richthofen: "Calm down." - Um... do I seem angry or excited? Am I using any harsh, derogatory language? Have I made any threats? AM I USING ALOT OF CAPS? Am I using multiple exclamation marks!!!!!? Sheesh.

Lothar von Richthofen: "...you say that Acro keeps going on and on..." - Yes, I did say that... because he does. He keeps repeating the same bogus complaints and baseless accusations. Quite frankly, I wish he had written more, to at least back-up some of his nonsense. But as it is, I'm left to refute what he claims happened and clarify what actually happened. All the while, asking some pretty simple, yet important questions that continue to go unanswered. Don't mistake thoroughness with ranting and raving.

It's unfortunate that this discussion has left you so irritated. I hope your day gets better.

- thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What we appear to have here is an argument-only account. It's plain that anyone who attempts to engage TWC for any reason gets treated to an ever-expanding Great Wall of Text on their own and Wikipedia's iniquity with digressions into an analyses of fascism and its role in the management of Wikipedia. My original post stands: a returning edit-warrior was reported by me to AN3, was blocked, and TWC, beginning with personal attacks against Berean Hunter, is using this as a pretext for verbose denunciations of all who come into contact with TWC. However, since they appear to have agreed to leave BH alone, this may be closed. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sooo... that's it? How... anti-climatic. You created this oh-so-ominous ANI, only to let it die on the vine? Just what was your intention in bringing this up, anyway? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of review, discourse, accounting and hopefully resolution? You opened with your little paragraph of artifice and pulled off the neat trick of keeping it short while at the same time touching upon multiple issues, multiple users, multiple pages, and levying multiple accusations. To think that I actually took you seriously, was willing to take part in this kangaroo court, and going to the trouble of dissecting all your obfuscation so that I could provide some factual clarity. Quite simply, Newton's Third Law is at work here. I'm sorry if my responses were too overwhelming for you and you 'friends' to digest, but regardless of their length, there are necessary and reasonable. Aside from playing janitor with your comments, I also raised some issues of concern and posed some questions that needed to be asked as much as they need to be answered. I went even further and proposed the need for a (real) review of all issues and parties involved. I was ready to take part. I stand by everything I've done and I have nothing to hide. Funny how some other people here don't want the light shining on them. It seems you got punch-drunk early, and instead of presenting further, simply hung on to the ropes. Then a couple of your 'friends' came along and took a whopping 30 seconds out of their days to dump in some random, useless detritus, and then disappeared. Bean-Hunter is nowhere to be seen, leaving you without your cheearleading squad. Then you managed to regurgitate a little more, leaving me to craft another respose to these ongoing fables of yours.

So, I can see where these ANI's can be useful tools in addressing some of the conflicts and violations that occur here on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your ANI sucked. I have shown that you were wrong, on multiple counts, both in your actions and your accusations. What did you accompish?

Now are we done...?

- thewolfchild 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC) - (I'm glad you didn't charge admission for this)

No, I'm around...just busy. There is little anyone needs to say...you're doing a fine job at what you're doing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe too fine a job, eh? - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proxy

"Just for the record, I looked at the ANI complaint( I'm commenting here only because I am still blocked and cannot edit the noticeboard) and do not consider myself an uninvolved party, having been blocked for edit warring while User:Berean Hunter has not ( especially as my questions about User:Berean Hunter's questionable actions and nonexistent response went unanswered except by User:thewolfchild) . I completely agree with User:thewolfchild about the complaint on the noticeboard. (PS-My questions still haven't been answered-I sense bias)."(--Rwenonah (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

The preceding was posted by Rwenonah on his own talk page. I have re-posted it here, for obvious reasons. - thewolfchild 04:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I remain concerned that TWC is egging on Rwenonah to further edit-warring on release of his block through comments like this: [288]. TWC's comments on BH and myself are in character, and he has elaborated on our alleged sins at length, but his interaction with Rwenonah remains an issue, as TWC seems to be engaged in validating Rwenonah's actions. This was the basis of my initial interaction with TWC, from which the mass above has sprung. A word with Rwenonah would be beneficial, not least to him, to try to keep him out of further difficulty. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion: "I remain concerned that TWC is egging on Rwenonah to further edit-warring..."

Acroterion: "I have, however noted at ANI my concerns that [Rwen is] being encouraged to continue edit-warring..." [289]

- This is now beyond comical. Acro, these fabrications of yours are out of control. I challenge you, here and now, to quote one, just one, comment of mine that shows I have encouraged Rwen to engage in any edit-warring. Quit playing straw-man and, for once, produce some actual facts to support at least one of your ridiculous accusations.

- My "interaction with Rwenonah remains an issue"? Are you kidding? I can communicate with any user I wish, and as long as it is within WP policy, then it's none of your business. I don't know Rwen, and I know nothing of the circumstances regarding his previous blocks. I did, however, have an issue with the 'Hunting page incident' - where all this seemingly started. I did not encourage or support Rwen's edits. I, in fact, provided my own solution to that issue which I see that, as of today, remains in place. A solution that neither Rwen, BH or YOU seemed capable of. I have an issue with the fact that both Rwen and BH were edit-warring, but only Rwen was punished. Since then, he has repeatedly asked for feedback and clarification on the matter, but has been continually ignored. And, since he's blocked, he can't even address the issue beyond his own talk page. I have encouraged him to pursue his own ANI on the matter. I have very right to encourage this and he has every right to so. Or course, he can't create an ANI to question the actions of an admin since the admin has blocked him from doing so. (Like I said, this whole thing is a farce.) I'm not surprised that you are "concerned" however, heaven forbid there is yet another ANI questioning your misconduct.

- As for quotes, you will note that in this very ANI, I have said "I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor." Hardly an inducement to edit-warring.

- If all your "sins are alleged", then refute them. Seriously, try answering just one freakin' question. Directly. With facts. (If you can...)

Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

TWC and Civility

After seeing this section on ANI, I took a peek at TWC's talk page, with these three edits in particular. Acroterion warned him and TWC's response was a simple "Whatever...". TWC needs to understand that civility is not optional. We just had an Arbcom case on this, didn't we? People make snide remarks from time to time, but these types of personal attacks are certainly beyond the pale. Ishdarian 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a bit sympathetic to TWC's plight here. He sounds frustrated and angry, and this being at AN/I can't be helping anything. Just because there was an Arbcom case which involved Civility doesn't give license to run around looking for editors who we can thwack over the head with the civility policy.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohm, as your response appears unbiased and somewhat reasonable, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no insult with your "frustrated and angry" comment. (You will note that I have already addressed that issue) I can tell you that I am neither "angry", nor "frustrated". I'm just not emotionally invested enough here for that. I haven't experienced anything other than mild annoyance and amusement. There are people here that seem to live and breath Wikipedia twenty-four hours a day but, when I log off, I don't give this site a second thought. I read some articles, correct the odd mistake and enjoy a litte rhetoric. Other than that, I simply don't care. Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not calling for him to be blocked, but a nice reminder from somebody outside of the current discussion could surely to no harm. Ishdarian 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear, Ishdarian. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to offer your insight to this issue. Wikipedia just wouldn't be what it is without the selfless efforts of people like yourself. One can only hope that you will be able to find a remedy for your selective tunnel-vision. Good Luck, All the best and Take Care. (see? I can be nice...) - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (btw - my wife "reminds" me to be civil every gawd-damn day)

I'm not calling for TWC to be blocked: I after all could have blocked TWC myself. I'm concerned about the hair-trigger rhetoric and his use of Wikipedia as a battleground in which to pursue grudges, dragging in otherwise uninvolved parties such as Rwenonah. At the time of my original posting he was using Rwenonah's troubles to further TWC's own ends against BH, which was what caught my attention in the first place. At the original time of posting I wasn't sure where this was headed, and I wasn't going to be active on WP. TWC has avoided further incident since then. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Lather, Rinse, Repeat" - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO - of all of the wp:boomerang and wp:duck results seen here, this one escapes? Have any of the admins actually looked at the contributions from start to finish? There are some absolutely ridiculous thoughts in this thread. C'mon, I was mistaken for a sock on my first appearance here, why would anyone allow TWC to survive AN/I without scrutiny? - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

UError - Not surprised you're laughing, I've been laughing myself since the beginning of this farce. I asked for scrutiny too, but... (sigh) oh well. Anyways, there's already enough players here in this dog's breakfast, we really don't need you dragging in your sock baggage. It's old news, move on. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to something specific? I just looked though every single diff in TWC's history, and I don't see anything that is immediately obvious which even approaches being disruptive. I didn't look at any of his talk page comments, but his content contributions seem fine (and that's what's important, after all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohm - you won't find anything in my history (I have better things to do than edit war and vandalize). My talk page... well, that's a different story, but (if I may quote FDR), "They started it!".

But, seriously, I've already stated that's I've made some sarcastic comments that were more colourful that needed. BUT, I've also had some insults hurled at me, have been accused of all kinds of nonsense, have been deliberately misquoted and mischaracterized - all done with seeming impunity, and at the same time have have many questions go unanswered. My understanding was that the (mis)conduct of any party of an ANI could be examined. But, instead of any scrutiny, there's just repetition of same baseless drivel. Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)