Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752

Editor help

I hope this is the correct place to post (if not, please point me in the right direction). User:Baku Shad-do has been removing sourced content from the article Crosses (band) (diff, diff, diff, diff). There has been a discussion about the genre before here (which I pointed out to the editor) that argues for the inclusion. The editor's argument is that the sources on the genre article prove that sources are wrong because of their description/definition of what the genre is. However, he has failed to provide sources that specifically state that Crosses are not witch house. I have assumed the editor was new (editing since May 6) and pointed out the three core policies of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV), in case he wasn't aware, on my talk page. All I received in reply was a warning and the threat of a report to admin. I tried to make myself clear to him, but it looks like I've failed. Could someone weigh in on this small issue? Would appreciate it. HrZ (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I dropped an edit warring warning on their talk page as they're up to 3 reverts already. You're also up to 3 reverts so please stop reverting each other. I also find it ironic that he pointed out your spelling errors when he made an error himself. He may also have a conflict on interest seeing as he's apparently the owner of a label. Beyond the edit warring, this is really a content dispute and would be better taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blackmane, I was not removing sourced content, I removed a music genre label. The criteria of labeling a genre is not the same as using a source in a description. I have adequately sourced the definition in the genre and have provided an article that accurately traces the origins of the genre. The issue is that a certain beat-form is the defining element of all witch house music. The band has no material that fits the paradigm. I can give you access to more articles if you'd like or access to an entire forum where all the artists from the genre converse. In addition, the user known as HrZ seems not to know that the articles he's using were long ago found to be in error, indicating he has no further knowledge of the genre (beyond the articles he's using as sources). I will gladly give you the means to connect with any number of writers who have covered the genre in depth, the issue is not about a personal conflict, it is about showing respect to a genre and not allowing for the corporate misuse and abuse of a term to promote a mainstream artist who has nothing to do with the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

At best? Listen man, there are a bunch of people who have no real or defined knowledge of the genre or the music from it, posting poorly researched articles willy nilly that disrespect the genre and have a negative impact on the public perception of the genre. There's a wikipedia editing group that is actually specifically supposed to oversee problem definitions for genres, but none of you have handled the procedure correctly, by getting them involved. I'll rectify that on Monday. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were removing sourced content. You just don't like the source. Also, you did not add any source to support the genre you replaced it with. I also note that you have not participated in the discussion on the Talk page about the genre, so you have no reasonable basis for unilaterally altering the article. You've also been editing the Witch house (music genre) article, even though, just as with the band article, you have a clear conflict of interest (I've placed tags on both articles). The genre article is a mess, although it looks like it was a mess even before you edited it. I don't have time to review either article in depth at the moment, but, if only based on your conflict, I suggest you back off and stick to discussing the content in these articles on their Talk pages rather than directly editing them. You also have edit-warred on the genre article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism in an encyclopedic context is a legitimate sourced criticism, not intentional defamation of a genre. You can source defamation, but that does not make it legitimate criticism. You need to learn the difference between the two and yes there is a legal definition. I did provide sources, just because you don't like them doesn't mean you have the right to condescend. Although I do have a label that doesn't necessarily make me biased. I'm honest enough to say what my connection is, yes I'm involved in the scene, but odds are both you and the other poster are as well, hence your vehemence that you're right. Your lack of disclosure of your relation to the scene points to the likelihood that you have a biased agenda, whether it be direct or indirect. Let's get an actual administrator involved. Baku Shad-do (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You would like an administrator to weigh in? Sure. You (Baku Shad-do) are edit warring, removing content that is verified by a reliable source. Your only defense for doing so is your own original research that the band simply isn't in that genre, despite the fact that the source says it is. I do see some concern on the article's talk page that this source may not be reliable; if this is the case, then the information should be removed. If, however, the source is reliable, it should be re-added. Wikipedia does not rely upon the personal analysis of its editors for information, including for characterizing the genre of a particular artist. Note that if you had an additional reliable source stating that they are not witch house, then I would recommend taking it out of the infobox and discussing the two competing sides in the text proper; you, however, have not produced such a source.

So, in short, the editors should figure out if that meets WP:RS (try WP:RSN if you're not sure), and, if it does, feel free to re-add it, and it should be removed only if counter-sources are found. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pitchfork's reliability has come into question on occassion, though I am unsure wither this is down to a few articles on the site or the site itself. However, there was a discussion on this genre before and User:Fezmar9 posted two more sources labelling the band witch house: "Actually, the issue is much larger than that since other reliable sources see Crosses as witch house such as The New Zealand Herald and Forbes—the latter of which even acknowledges that the term originated as a joke, but has legitimate applications today." Baku Shad-do has finally taking to the article talk page, my reply was very similar to yours (Qwyrxian), that he should provide sources stating that they are not witch house and any questions of reliability of the sources to be taking to WP:RSN. Also, is there any chance that someone could revert back to the sourced version until discussions are done? Currently, the version has an unsourced genre added by Baku Shad-do. HrZ (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research? Listen, this is no insult to your credibility, but I owned one of the original three labels in the genre, I am one of the people who helped define the term, which doesn't make me biased it makes me a legitimate direct source. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At best, it makes you an expert, and although experts can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, they must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which you fail to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

At best? That's more than a little bit insulting. Listen man, there are a number of people with no real knowledge of the genre, outside of reading a few articles, who are posting poorly researched and factually erroneous articles willy nilly that disrespect the genre and negatively affect the public perception of it (that is not the purpose of Wikipedia). Wikipedia has a proper and specific procedure for problem articles surrounding music genres, which I can plainly see hasn't even been observed by anyone, including the admins here. There is a Wikipedia music genre editing project that is supposed to deal with such specific issues, such as correcting problem edits for all genres. I'll make sure they get involved by Monday. Baku Shad-do (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor has now started yet another conversation about this where they admit to possibly recruiting on an outside forum. [1]. Ridernyc (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely I will, I plan to share all of these conversations with the members of the genre, that way they can see why their genre is being poorly defined and misrepresented. If you'll carefully read at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia has granted the right to share its contents, given that they are properly cited, by their Creative Commons licensing. If the current editors can't do an honest job then Wikipedia needs more editors with knowledge of the genre. Baku Shad-do (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Baku Shad-do, I know that this sounds weird, but relying on your own personal knowledge as one of the preeminent people in the field is exactly what Wikipedia defines as original research. For example, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, cannot go to the article on Wikipedia, and edit it based on something that he remembers happening in the past. Information is included in Wikipedia (when done correctly) only when it can be verified in a reliable source. If you think about it, you can probably see why this is necessary--just because someone is an expert does not mean someone is infallible. In fact, experts regularly disagree, all the time--it's practically the foundation of how academic research works. The whole point of WP:V and WP:OR is that anyone should be able to see, via a citation, where the information on Wikipedia comes from. So, as I said, if you can produce reliable sources that say that this band is not witch house, then you can include those in the article along with the originals that say it is, and then we have the perfectly acceptable situation where we say, "Different sources disagree on this point". I hope this helps explain how Wikipedia works so that this matter can be resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, Baku, recruiting other people to edit in a certain way is meatpuppetry and is against policy, just so that's clear. However Qwy explains things very well. I might suggest you also read, in addition to the verifiability policy, the reliable sources policy and the no original research policy, the verifibility, not truth essay (and its light-hearted but point-making crazy uncle, WP:TRUTH, along with possibly WP:GWARRIOR). Being right is something Wikipedia should absolutely aspire to, but more important than being absolutely right is being reliably verifiable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this "edit" war has been happening since at least December [2] seems this topic is a popular one for various groups hoax and troll over online. Looking over the talk page and edit history I think some sort of page protection might be in order here. Ridernyc (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Junior Achievement

Could someone take a look at this article for me. An editor, with a very clear COI, keeps on inserting text that is, in my opinion overly-promotional. The editor seems to be under several misconceptions about Wikipedia having made statements like "We manage our brand very carefully and would not want our Wikipedia page content created by someone outside Junior Achievement" (see the article talk page for more). There seems to be a clear failure to listen and I think admin action of some sort may now may be appropriate but I'm too involved now. Dpmuk (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is one hot mess. I reverted. Dpmuk, there are three relatively fresh accounts in there: I think maybe you should start an SPI. I've left an "only warning" for the most recent COI editor--they've been aware of this since January yet they persist in guarding their brand, and turning the article into promotion. I agree that a block is in order, but I'd prefer someone else to look at this as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've left a friendly, informative message at User talk:Sbell1964co, so at this point I believe the ball is in their court. They cannot claim ignorance of Wikipedia's policies on this any more. Let us see where this goes before taking any action. Hopefully, the message I left will get the point accross, if it doesn't we can only assume a willful disregard for Wikipedia's standards. I say wait for the next move, however, before deciding to take further action. --Jayron32 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the discussion on the article's talk page where both Moonriddengirl and I mentioned WP:COI and which they must have seen (as they've replied to it) I don't think they were able to claim ignorance before today's events.
  • As for the WP:SPI idea I'm not sure this would serve a useful purpose as we already know they work for the same organisation and any other links between them could also plausibly be explained by this. Dpmuk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but at my place of work individual computers (I think) have individual IPs. That could point at more than just being colleagues. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Could be multiple private IP's sharing a pool of public IP's though. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • I feel the situation might be salvageable. I've offered to help if they agree to cease article-space edits. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lord of mercy. Aside from the infobox, this article is basically in the same state as when it was created eight years ago, and it doesn't seem that there;s been much in the way of non-COI work on it in the interim. Is this even a notable organisation? If not, then the brand presence may be better protected by deleting the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My initial reflex response was that they were probably not notable, but a quick Google News search seems to show plenty of news coverage. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Blocking_deceased_editor_accounts

 – Nobody Ent 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please move this discussion somewhere else, and now

Wikipedia editors who are no longer alive have family and friends who are alive. This thread is discussing what to do with the accounts of deceased Wikipedia editors as if it is just a policy matter, or a tech issue, or an unblock request. WP:AN/I is a high-visibility part of Wikipedia. WP:AN/I, as well being the noticeboard for administrator action, is unfortunately the haunt of trolls and drama-mongers. I think it is quite simply wrong that this matter is being discussed here. I would ask that this discussion be moved to an WP:RFC, or WP:VPP, or anywhere else, and now. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nobody Ent 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing at AFD

User:Pbmaise blatantly canvassaed at http://www.dailykos.com/blog/pbmaise (apologies you have to scroll almost the whole page) to get users to keep an article he created up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident Hot Stop 08:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really glad to know that Wikipedia is being accused of both right-wing and left-wing censorship. If you can't please all sides in politics, the next best thing is to please no one. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's actually meatpuppetry, not canvassing, since it occured off-wiki, although the result is the same in the end. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The specific post on Pbmaise's blog is here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No one notified Pbmaise. I rectified that.Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sven Manguard on The Amazing Race related pages

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.

---

For some time (the past few years at least), I have been working on the articles for the American (turned international) television program The Amazing Race. After the airing of each episode, I search the Commons or Flickr for free images that could be used in the sections/episode summaries of each article, usually depicting locations visited and rarely being similar to tasks performed. On two occasions, I decided I could not find anything free on either website to accurately depict some of the events in the episode and I took a promotional photo that the production team uploads to their website and include that as the only non-free image (excepting the title card in the main infobox) in the article. This has never been an issue until now.

Sometime last week, Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) decided to orphan an image I uploaded to depict an event that took place during The Amazing Race 19 program, claiming "This is no place for a non-free file". I did not discover this until Friday when one of the "Your non-free image has been orphaned" bots notified me on my talk page. I replaced it (another user had put an unrelated free image in its place after discovering the promotional photo had disappeared) and raised the issue on Sven's talk page. He responded, citing WP:NFCC#8, and proceeded to orphan the photo again and then listed the photo on FFD (I unorphaned the photo as it should not have been orphaned mid-FFD as far as I am aware). This was all on Friday.

Today, I discovered that Sven had decided to start FFDs for the other four non-free images being used on Amazing Race pages and orphaned two other promotional photos citing NFCC 8 because there are free images showing locations and simple activities related to the actions in the program on the 20 season pages. This is getting unnecessarily disruptive at this stage as it appears he has decided that this entire range of articles should not be allowed to have non-free images at all, except for the title card. They are seven non-free images (three of which depict the season's winners at the finish line, which arguably are not necessary) amongst around 300 free images throughout the 20 or so pages, and his argument is that some other free image exists to depict an event in the show or represent that particular episode, when there is clearly no free alternative to contestants in the act of performing a unique task that is not reproducable. Again, Sven's actions are extremely disruptive and he is stretching the definition of WP:NFCC#8 to say that these few photos are not allowed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that something's definitely wrong with Sven here, as I also feel that he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Sven has made a good faith deletion nomination on the photo. (Whether it actually meets or fails NFCC is a topic for the FfD discussion) As for whether the photo should be orphaned on nomination, is there any policy or guideline that specifies whether the image should be left in pending deletion discussion on NFCC grounds? Monty₈₄₅ 20:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just one photo. It's a whole series of them that Sven has decided should not be allowed because there are free images to allude to events. Even if the one of the contestant going into the cave is not the best, he said that this more specific one of the task in the cave being performed I suggested as a possible replacement should not be allowed as an alternative either. With his actions today it is clear he thinks no fair use images are to be allowed on these pages, because free ones have been sought out for the other 250 episodes.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How important is that to understanding the topic of the Amazing race really? I mean, would the reader come away from the article with a substantial gap in their understanding of what the race was? I would say not, sure it provides a vivid graphical illustration, but it is not necessary to understand the topic. Monty₈₄₅ 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It provides more understanding than just a photo of a location they happened to have visited in that episode, that's for sure. Using an example from one of the photos he put up for deletion today, we can't say "they drank from thousands of cups of tea" and just have a photo of the building it happened in.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but NFCC requires more then just a better understanding the image qualifies if it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I think that is intended to be a high threshold. Monty₈₄₅ 20:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To some extent, Sven is right. NFCC#1, replacability, does not care if a free image currently exists as long as one most likely can exist, and ergo a non-free image as a substitute is not allowed. Unless said countries have no freedom of panoroma that would prevent free images from being taken, the use of non-frees to depict a leg in the show is improper.

This is not excusing his method (removing a file to claim it orphaned, rather than FFD'ing the image to get consensus before removal) of achieving this. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am astonished to see you support the legend that "removing a file to claim it orphaned" is somehow illegitimate. If you see a non-free file in an article that shouldn't be there, removing it is the obvious first response per WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT, and subsequently tagging it as orphaned is the formally inevitable next step. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At least the nomination I looked at declared he had orphaned it under Criteria 8, so its not like he orphaned it and then acted like he just found it that way. The underlying question though is should the image be orphaned pursuant to NFCC 8 at the time the problem is detected, or remain in the article until the deletion discussion on the underlying image concludes. Is there a specific policy on that? Monty₈₄₅ 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single general answer to that. There are several factors involved: on the one hand, non-free media generally require consensus for inclusion, not consensus for removal, so in a case where there is a serious, reasoned objection to an image it's a reasonable expectation that an image should be left out pending consensus to the contrary. Also, as I said above, removal is always a legitimate WP:BOLD first response to an image perceived as inappropriate. On the other hand, it is sometimes practically advantageous to have the image in the article while an FFD runs, for the simple reason that it makes it easier for observers to judge its usage and the appropriateness of the FUR. Also, I think it is a demand of fair process that if an image gets orphaned immediately prior or during an FFD, its orphaned status should then not be seen as triggering automatic timed-speedy deletion concurrently with the FFD, but the FFD should be allowed to run its course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He orphaned it, it was replaced by a different photo, I un-orphaned it, he orphaned it, again, and then he put it up for FFD while it was orphaned for this second time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless its a straight up obvious violation that can't be fixed by any amount of editing, removal before discussion is not the way to go. You cannot claim that on NFCC#8 violation since that is absolutely subjective and can only be determined by consensus - and one that can be fixed by adding sourced text, or the like. NFCC#1 is a bit more objective, but even then, discussion before removal is better wikipractice. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What has the subjectivity of NFCC#8 got to do with anything? You don't need any more prior discussion and consensus for removing an image than for removing any other piece of content, for whatever reason. WP:BOLD applies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BRD applies, but unfortunately, after Ryulong's revert, Sven did not begin discussion (either via talk page of FFD), but he reverted again, violating BRD. This is inappropriate. Silverseren^C 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe if you're randomly going through articles and you find a NFC you don't think meets the criteria, you can remove it. But if you're getting those removals reverted, re-removing is a violation of WP:BRD and the next proper step is either at the talk page or to FFD. Since Sven is doing this en masse and has been reverted a few times and on related pages, he should very well know his actions are not fully agreed to and should approaching this via talk pages. (I use past actions on people like Beta and the like in maintaining NFC as reasoning here). And yes, NFCC#8 is very subjective. While BOLD says you can remove it, if it can be fixed, there's better and less contentious routes for fixing it if you can't do it yourself. This is comparable to adding tags like cn instead of wiping out sections of text that are otherwise not contentious to an article. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He has not been citing NFCC#1, though. It's been NFCC#8, stating that this one non-free image does not add to the article. While he is arguably right for the three photos of teams at the finish line, and Marcus Pollard on a rope going down into a cave was probably not the best choice I could have made for non-free photos (I could not find any free photos of the cave itself on Flickr, and one can only say "[X] was the Pit Stop for this Leg of the Race" so many times), he's been removing all non-free photos/screencaps from the articles, and only after his orphaning has been challenged is he sending everything to FFD.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is precisely the correct process. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If he then took it to FFD immediately afterward, then yes. But reverting again is definitely wrong. Silverseren^C 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So he made one (1) revert in the process. Shrug. Big deal. Why is this a matter for ANI? What would we do if people routine came here complaining about other editors once they made their first revert on something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He's being disruptive across several articles within one topic area. This is why I brought it here.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As an outsider who is semi-active with FFD, I've noticed this ANI dealings, and I wanted to toss my opinion in for what it is worth. Every image that I have seen that Sven has nominated for FFD from the Amazing race does indeed fail NFCC#8 and therefore it is appropriate that he nominates it for deletion through FFD. Hardly is his doing so disruptive. Also, this whole incident notice is a little unwarranted since he only made one mistake (assuming good faith). Also, for the record, Sven is most likely not targeting anything or anyone as he very often goes through images for cleanup. Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The FFD part is not disruptive. That's actually what should be happening. It's the removal to make it fall as an orphaned image, and then using the usual autodeletion of orphaned images to otherwise bypass discuss is what is the problem. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, just got back in. Both times I removed the original image from the article I left a rationale in the edit summary. When I nominated it for deletion after the second removal, it was because I realized that the image would just get put back in, making the whole excercise pointless, so I listed it at FFD mentioning that I was the one that orphaned it. As for the rest of the images that I listed at FfD, Ryulong and the other TAR people managed to create articles for sixteen seasons without using a single non-free image, so the claim that the photos from the other four articles somehow meet NFCC #8's standards are, to me, laughable. I understand that Ryulong has an attachment to the article, and that may be affecting his judgement on the matter, but the fact that he's found solutions to every other event, and free photos of the other competetors, means that he has no arguement for keeping the photos. As for the last two removals, I intended on replacing them with free images from the season articles when I got back in tonight, but at this point I'm in no great rush to help Ryulong out. If he can't be bothered to edit without violating policy, and then goes on the attack when it's pointed out, then I'm not going to help fix the problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see why it's an issue that two out of 200 images on the season's pages are non-free. And I do not think that replacing the non-free photos on the central article is going to be worth it. They are used to accompany text that defines the general rules of the program. You can't just take a photo being used to represent the event on another article to replace those.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

see WP:VEGAN --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one. But, to keep with that analogy, I'm the one bringing animal products to the vegan potluck. Perhaps I did not need to use non-free images for two of the show's 200 or so episodes when I found free ones for the other 198 (I'd prefer that they be kept because they are still educational), but Sven said he was planning on replacing two non-free images on the main page of the show, which are being used to help define the show's terminology, with free photos as found in what are effectively the episode lists. I assume this would entail replacing the photo of contestants eating large quantities of Argentine beef with a platter of meat and alluding to the events without actually showing the event in question.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really that new. It's been on Angr's user page since 2007 and to his credit, he never closes FFDs on non-free images. The question that comes to mind when I read that essay is "Are we a free (libre) encyclopedia or are we a free (beer) encyclopedia that just happens to use a libre license?" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't orphan an image if you send it to FFD - let the discussion see it in context. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2012040510010002

In order to process an OTRS ticket I need to know the author and any other relevant information as to the source of the following image:

• File:Skip Stewart flies under jumping motorcycles.jpg

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sent an email, let me know if I misunderstood your question.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Since i am not an admin I can not view the information on the file description page. I need to know what source and author is cited on the file description page. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Entire contents of the file description page just before deletion were as follows:

Extended content
{{di-no permission|date=13 April 2012}} ==Summary== {{Information |Description = Skip Stewart flies under jumping motorcycles {{OTRS pending}} |Source = his Facebook profile |Author = Skip Stewart |Permission = '''Evidence:''' Will be provided on request. }} ==Licensing== {{PD-author|Skip Stewart}} {{Category ordered by date|Files licensed by third parties|2012|04|05}}

There had been few changes since upload; it was tagged for lack of permission, {{OTRS pending}} was added, and an admin extended the di-no permission template by a few days to give OTRS a little more time. Nothing else changed from upload to deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

user:IWannaABillionaire

Seeing repeated posts of copyvios, and contesting the speedy deletions thereunto pertaining. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User has not had any copyright warning until today, and has not reposted any deleted article. Speedies contested have been A7s. No action required unless these warnings are ignored. JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. It isn't a "problem" quite yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Eisfbnore

Eisfbnore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requested a sockpuppet investigation of No parking here (talk · contribs) less that three weeks after this user had been cleared in a previous investigation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive). While the sockpuppet investigation was underway Eisfbnore also went ahead and reverted all edits by the suspected user. As this investigation was concluded and No parking here was still not found to be a sockpuppet as charged, I undertook to revert all those articles that had been purged out of order. Now, 3 days following these events Eisfbnore again ventures to mass delete edits made by No parking here with no substantive explanation. I attempted to query Eisfbnore about this but my inquity was curtly deleted with the edit summary "you're not welcome here; stay off this page". I leave it up to the community to suggest what actions, if any, should be the result of this complaint. Suffice it to say, I find the behavior of Eisfbnore quite unacceptable. __meco (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am quite bemused as to why the SPI gave no positive results. Having fought against the seven seas for aprox. one year, I can unhesitatingly say that the edit pattern and modus operandi of No parking here are identical to the other socks. Exactly the same old editing type: addition of criticism sections and other ordure to BLPs, which I as a good Wikipedian cannot let happen. Also note that meco is permanently banned from the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia[4], so that could perhaps explain why he has always been defending the socks and the trolls in their crusade against the integrity of the English Wikipedia. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 14:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. Never mind I was the one who filed the first request for a sockpuppet investigation against same user. But hey, who cares about the details? __meco (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

CU was negative. Period. This revert on Eisbfnore's part was reverted for the right reasons (I haven't checked others), as far as I can tell. meco's position on the Norwegian wiki has no bearing on the matter here, at least not until you come with something more specific than a vague attempt at character assassination. Blanket reverts without proper arguments are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection Backlog

Hello, there is a backlog at WP:RPP, if a couple admins could help, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous

Resolved

 – I blocked the user indefinitely and protected their talk page after they continued the attacks in their unblock requests. Dreadstar ☥ 01:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This user seems to have violated BLP [5]. I warned him on his talk page, but he reverted me calling it "bullshit" [6]. He then re-inserted the information I believe to be a violation [7]. B^e——C_ritical 20:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more vague? Didn't think so. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Also this edit summary [8] needs to be oversighted. B^e——C_ritical 20:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I took care of the edit summary, but will let another admin look at the rest of the post's contents. Had AKA not reverted the worst of the personal attack, I would have blocked him. Dreadstar ☥ 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That kind of massive WP:BLP violation has no place here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not; in fact, I've RD2'd the diffs in which the worst violation appeared. There's no reason and no excuse for comments like that anywhere on Wikipedia, and any repeat performance should result in blocking on sight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree on all counts, Bushranger. Dreadstar ☥ 23:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user for 2 weeks. This is (at least) the second serious WP:BLP violation by this editor (the first resulted in a previous block). Combined with the unrelentingly combative attitude, I'm actually strongly considering blocking the account indefinitely until there's some actual indication of willingness to abide by this site's basic policies. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd concur with an indefinite block, this user is extremely difficult to deal with and shows no remorse or willingness to listen to others. Dreadstar ☥ 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is extremely POV and denying that it has participated in violence

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

---

I am asking for assistance from administrators to investigate the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for POV. The article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist militant paramilitary movement, is denying that the movement's well-known violent political behaviour towards Muslims in India and mostly focuses on its philanthropic efforts towards Hindus, stating in the intro that all statements on its violence are "alleged" - meaning that they are contested. This is not supported by mainstream sources. Efforts in the talk page to address the controversial aspects of the RSS have failed, the discussion descended into angry rebuttals, assumption of bad faith in violation with Wikipedia policy, and character assassination against Wikipedia users. The Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide on page 186 includes evidence compiled by the internationally-respected Human Rights Watch that says that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "A plot to uproot the Muslim population of the state had been underway for some time: the RSS had circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses that were to be targeted by the mobs in advance." [9]. This has not been the first time that the RSS has incited violence against Muslims - it vouched for the demolition of Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 against fierce opposition by Muslims, resulting in the ancient mosque being torn down and eruption of violence between Hindus versus Muslims in which the RSS took part in anti-Muslim violence that resulted in the Indian government banning the RSS. The RSS has claimed that non-Hindus - including Muslims - are not considered by the RSS to be citizens of India and rejects any citizenship rights for non-Hindus, because it claims that the only "true" citizens of India are Hindus.--R-41 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The RSS is a highly controversial movement in India, for instance there are multiple books by scholars on fascism such as Stanley Payne, Walter Laqueur and others who investigated the RSS' connection with fascism - such as the former RSS leader's praising of Hitler's "purification" of Germany into ethnic German-only citizenship that he claimed should be a model for India to become a Hindu-only citizenship, as well as investigations that have uncovered that the RSS was inspired by Italian Fascist youth organizations. It is well-known to have participated in planned violence against India's Muslims, this needs to be stated in the intro, and material outright denying this needs to be removed from the article.--R-41 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• To balance Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, we look to English-language sources as well as foreign-language reliable sources (and the RSS Web home page as it extols its virtues). If reliable sources such as the BBC here: “Analysis: RSS aims for a Hindu nation”, tend to devote XX percent of news articles to controversial and/or unflattering aspects, then that serves as guidance (along with similar most-reliable sources) as to how Wikipedia should filter the balance. Mere wikipedians do not presume to take it upon themselves to decide primary policy in determining this sort of balance; we look to RSs.

  If the proponents who are objecting to the inclusion of the notable, non-flattering aspects don’t go with the flow, there are various remedies (tools) on Wikipedia for addressing this sort of thing; they best be advised to get with the program and compromise. This could easily go the way of Scientology if this proves an intractable problem. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote something so even someone’s mother-in-law is impressed with their membership in RSS. 00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This noticeboard is for resolving conduct issues not content issues, and this doesn't need administrator intervention. Consider going to WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or filing a WP:Request for comment to get more eyes on the situation. AniMate 00:34, 15 May 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.

Blanking on Sebo by Beingcorrect

There appears to be a blanking issue on that article by the mentioned user, however, as I'm not completely familiar with the article, I'm not willing to continue. He already removed content once without an explanation, so I reverted and left him a {{uw-delete1}} template. However, he again blanked it, but with an edit summary this time. - Zhou Yu (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI issue. After 4 warning it it normal to take this to WP:AIV. I stubified the article removing the content that was had a purely promotional tone --Guerillero | My Talk 03:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk page blanking

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 174.126.207.178 has been repeatedly removing my comments from his talk page. There is no reason to remove them, as they are entirely appropriate comments related to the user's action in certain articles. I have informed the user that it is against Wikipedia policy to remove other people's comments, but he has continued to do so. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

With a few minor exceptions not relevant here, editors are free to remove comments from their own talk pages. Monty₈₄₅ 03:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No they aren't: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.".[10] The exceptions outlined there include such things as vandalism etc., which is not the case here. Archiving is a different matter, also not the case here. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From that same page, it explicitly states that "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted". Reyk _YO! 03:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Monty and Reyk are correct. WP:BLANKING goes into more detail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That is related to the archiving of old threads, which is not the case here. In the very beginning it says that the "'The basic rule ... is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". If anyone could freely delete every question and bit of criticism people post on their talk pages, these talk pages would become meaningless. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's pretty clear: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case I think the intro (quoted above) to the guidelines page should be changed, as it is misleading. I remember from another language Wikipedia users getting warnings for removing comments of others from their talk pages. Is the policy supposed to apply to all language versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Policies on en-wikipedia apply to only en-wikipedia --Guerillero | My Talk 03:40, 15 May 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.

on WP:TPO "Personal talk page cleanup" was the last entry on a list of 17 items, I have moved it up the list, second only to "If you have their permission." if someone who feels this is helpful would like to support the idea, (in case of knee jerk reaction) by keeping an eye on WP:TPO, that would be helpful. Penyulap ☏ 08:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Nikolić

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 might as well report myself - In this BLP - Andrew Nikolić - I am trying to present a NPOV addition after a complaint at the BLP noticeboard. I am over 3RR and if users keep removing without good reason I am going to keep replacing this supportive comment to this BLP. Its a cited supportive comment from the President of the Liberal Party - Can the Admin that blocks me please explain the policy reason for the cited content removal. Thanks - Youreallycan 17:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• An admin who blocks you or your counterpart is, as you well know, under no obligation to explain why the other's edit is better than yours. You're both over the line, you should both be blocked. Or you can both start acting like adults. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• As sympathetic as I am with YRC's view on the substance of the dispute, the conduct on the Nikolic Talk page is way out of line (accusations of libel, sock puppetry, etc.), and, not surprisingly, very little real progress is being made on the dispute. The irony of creating section headers called "Back on topic" and then quickly regressing into the sniping is stark.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please do note the statement above: "if users keep removing without good reason I am going to keep replacing this supportive comment to this BLP" -- it couldn't possibly be clearer that this editor intends to continue edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bah, Nomo., you're a provocateur who racks up warnings and blocks like notches on his belt or her purse strap, and the worst example of Jimbo Wales' fear that it was going to be Usenet. Have you ever created anything of value for the project at all? Colton Cosmic (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder who you are, Colton Cosmic. The comments I've seen from you so far at ANI are worse than useless. You seem to get fun out of stirring the shit pot. I have a special little bag of resentment for namechangers who aren't open about their previous account. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No I don't get fun from stirring the pot. Give an hyperlink for it if I do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Drmies, Why are you cursing, this is a family encyclopedia. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in our articles about living people neutral reporting should be a priority. The removal of this supportive comment avoids that, as such its removal is imo a BLP violation if you have a good reason for its removal I will stop attempting to replace it. - Youreallycan 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the statement supported by the reference it precedes? If so, then there needs to be a good reason for removing it. If not, then it's "hijacking" the existing reference in order to make it look referenced, it's an unreferenced statement in a BLP, and either way you're declaring your intent to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, WP:BLP does not require neutral reporting. It requires that reliable sources must be present to verify any and all controversial or potentially defamatory material, neutrality has nothing to do with it. If the only reliable sources on a BLP are negative, then trying to make the article "neutral" is itself a BLP policy violation. Given that everyone who supports you every time you come up at AN/I points out your stellar contributions in the BLP area as an example of your benefit to the project, you should absolutely know this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked both Youreallycan (talk · contribs) and pdfpdf (talk · contribs) for 72 hours, thanks to this edit-war. Moreschi (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No warning to either? Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC knew he violated 3RR (except possibly for his BLP exemption claims), and Pdfpdf brought the report against YRC. Why would warnings be necessary?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Warnings aren't always necessary, but sometimes they are appropriate, or at least in the best long term interest of Wikipedia itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Darn! A contributor who believes admins ought to warn, and isn't scared to say it in their frontyard! I figure odds are about two in seven that he's an admin. I've read virtually nothing of whatever the heck the quarrel was about, but I saw Youreallycan conscientiously report himself and figure he ought to be unblocked on that basis if no other. Colton Cosmic (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Who's administering the admins?

Good thing we have you, a masked fighter of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Drmies [11], I actually like a sarcastic comment like that because it allows me to know you better. I briefly looked at your user page and I didn't see your face either. Colton Cosmic (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Try the user pages of my previous accounts. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Where is this self-destructiveness coming from? I mean, he's threatening to sock at this point. :/ Silverseren^C 19:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It might be advisable to fully-protect his talk page before he talks himself into serious trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit late for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• *facepalms* A bit late, yeah. Silverseren^C 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• He's angry. Saying he's going to do something doesn't mean he will do it. And I sympathize. Anyone who defends the integrity of wikipedia content and rules too vigorously gets smacked down for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Stupid stupid stupid block -- BLPN is a nearly desolate wasteland that YRC often nearly singlehandedly mans. The post here wasn't really about edit-warring -- it was a cry for help, which Bbb23 did the right thing regarding and pitched on the talk page and article. While YRC may have been 3rr applying a block here is stupid letter of the law bureaucracy -- and now the siutation has been escalated instead of deescalated. Please unblock YRC. Nobody Ent 21:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• While Ent and I may have different ways of describing it, we share the same perspective here. I don't agree with some of YRC's methods, but I know that his heart was in the right place, even if his head wasn't. I disagree with blocking him without a warning, considering the circumstances. Technically, he violated 3RR, but so did two others I put warning templates on just today. There was an ongoing conversation on the talk page, heated as it was, and I personally feel that a "shot across the bow" would have been sufficient. I personally believe that heated discussion is better than none, and generally just needs a neutral party to keep it on track (ie:Bbb23). The block may be "technically permissible" and within the letter of policy, but I don't think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I mean no disrespect to Moreschi nor do I question his good faith in blocking the editors, but I would ask he consider a less drastic solution, such as protecting the page and pushing the two long time editors into dispute resolution or simply allow Bbb23 to mediate, as he has previously proven quite capable in this role. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My post is not intended as a criticism of Moreschi -- understanding the full context of the situation requires a historical perspective that an editor just coming upon the situation isn't going to have. Nobody Ent 21:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I surely believe you, and hopefully he will as well. I have notified him on his talk page, and qualified my response because I was asking for specific relief, not because he did anything wrong. Blocking without any warning was only one possible option, but not necessarily the best option in this particular case. I am hopeful he will trust the judgement of myself and others in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh, Ok. Well, I don't see how I or anyone could possibly unblock one without unblocking the other, and this I am not minded to do. It's very clear that they both behaved very badly, edit-warring completely brainlessly while spitting and hissing at each other on the talk page. Such conduct does not exactly maintain a collegial editing atmosphere, and without such an atmosphere this project just does not work. At all.
• Nor do I see that YRC is so obviously right in this dispute that, or the threat of a severe BLP violation so imminent, that he gets off the hook that way. There are certainly circumstances in which I can envisage not blocking people for 3RR if they were consistently reverting clear and obvious (but non-vandalistic) BLP violations. But this is simply not one of those cases. By the end they were largely warring over trivialities, such as whether or not a supporting statement from the article subject's party leader should be included. That is, one way or another, not a serious BLP issue, and is something editors should be perfectly capable of talking over calmly and rationally on the talkpage without going the balloons going up. I don't know if people have counted the reverts, but I got to YRC being at about 6RR before losing track. In 2012 that's not OK. This isn't 2005 any more, when 48 reverts in a day in one page got you no more than 24 hours off...(true story).
• YRC seems to me someone who would be entirely prepared to sacrifice not just part of our system of policies and guidelines, but, if necessary, all of it - in order to preserve the remainder. Even making allowances for his frustration, he seems entirely convinced that he must be right and could in no possible world ever be wrong - completely immune to concepts such as compromise, negotiation, and the middle ground. I have been through at least 3 arbitration cases with people like this, who often contributed a good deal of useful encyclopaedic content but whose complete unwillingness to work in a collegial manner led to them getting banned. In at least two of those cases the problem editor was defended in a manner remarkably similar to that which I'm seeing here: "has the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart, etc, etc". This is all and well and good but is completely worthless if someone cannot compromise and work with their fellow editors. And YRC's vast block log under both his current account and that of Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) suggests he has a serious problem with this.
• Now that both editors have been blocked, the talkpage has calmed down, and the article is being calmly and consensually edited by rational people who have their heads screwed on the right way. This seems like a very good outcome, so why people are advocating that both editors be let off the leash to have at it again I don't know. Why protect the page, which will just stop sensible people from editing while this pair fight it out? It's not as if the article doesn't need improving.
• I'm open to persuasion, but this is where I'm at right now. LMK what you think. Moreschi (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I'm sorry, but saying I "blocked without warning" is just stupid. They obviously knew they were edit-warring, seeing as YRC made this thread here and Pdf created a thread at the 3rr report page. When new/newish editors edit war we warn them before we block to make sure they have actually read the policies on edit-warring and 3RR, so if they keep going they definitely knew they were doing something wrong. That obviously doesn't apply here, these are two experienced contributors who know the rules just fine. Moreschi (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, although some will not be happy with me for saying so, I agree with the block. Things have calmed down considerably on the article Talk page. Both blocked editors were inflaming the situation both on the Talk page and in the article. It had gotten completely out of control. Pdfpdf has not commented on the block, but YRC has not helped his case by his post-block comments. Therefore, the block has already served a preventative purpose in ameliorating the content dispute, and hopefully it will serve yet another preventative purpose by giving YRC a chance to cool off and reflect.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would you (Bbb23) have edited the page if YRC had not initiated this ANI thread? Nobody Ent 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• By "the page" I assume you mean the Nikolic article. I was editing the article before this thread. If I recall correctly, my first clue there was a problem with the article was YRC's post at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• You make a good argument and I reverse my opinion that he should be unblocked. I didn't look at the talk page before, but, doing so now, I see that the issue was both of them and YRC was just as much in the wrong here. Silverseren^C 22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• My goal was simply to bring you here and ask you to reconsider your options and see if there was a better solution that would best serve Wikipedia in dealing with two hard-headed, but long time editors. I do tend to cut some extra slack when 3RR BLP is even a remote possibility, I tend to allow for a greater degree of "heat" in the talk page discussions than others, and my nature is to give credit for someone who brings the issue to ANI themselves. You are not obligated to do the same, obviously. If you decide that blocking is the only, or the best, option, we will just have to disagree, and I won't labor the issue. There are some problems that YRC needs to work on, I am just not convinced that a block is conducive to achieving the end result here. Dennis Brown - 2¢© 23:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think blocking both is certainly the way to achieve the best end result as far as the article is concerned, and I think events would bear me out on this one (as Bbb23 notes). As far as YRC's future editing is concerned - I guess he may take some time out to cool off, but that doesn't seem likely, given his hot-headed threats to sock etc. Like you I doubt blocking is optimal here, but then letting him off the hook is hardly going to help him either when 5 months from now someone gets completely fed up with his unwillingness to negotiate and drags his backside to ArbCom. But I agree he is a concern, as he obviously does valuable work it would be a pity to lose. Maybe once the block is expired we should think about a mentoring agreement? Moreschi (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that some form of mentoring is in order. Perhaps a few weeks of imprisonment vacation at Pesky's Tea House. I am concerned that the block may make him less receptive, rather than more, but it is easy to see that you and I share the same overall opinions on the matter, even if our ideas on the best solutions differ slightly. He is a valuable asset to Wikipedia most of the time, but it is the rest of the time that worries us both. As I stated, the goal was to consider the total solution here, and in the end, I do think he is a valuable enough contributor to warrant this second look, regardless of what decision you make in the end. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Big picture: YRC should be unblocked because, although he went beyond 3rr -- he caught himself and came here, and had already stopped editing the article after initiating this ANI thread. Blocks are supposed to be preventative -- this one is escalatory. Yes, he goes off from time to time, but sometimes good faith is ignoring excessive rhetoric. Is the block good in the sense that's it's supportable by policy yes. Does it make sense in a bureaurcracy free community? No. Nobody Ent 23:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This "escalatory not preventative" argument is somewhat undermined by his later claims to be prepared to keep edit-warring, socking if necessary, to get his way. Though I agree we must make allowances for hyperbole.

Big picture: has the dual-block improved the article and the surrounding editing atmosphere? Unequivocally yes. Aren't admin actions taken to improve encyclopedic content a good thing?

And why on earth should we unblock YRC and not Pdf, as you seem to be saying? Both of them acted equally badly, as the most cursory review makes clear. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; it can't be known whether the editing atmosphere improved because the editors were blocked or because YRC stopped edit warring of his own accord and came here. With regard to pdf I've got no problem with unblocking both editors. Nobody Ent 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Stopped edit-warring? His edit made just prior to posting here was yet another revert, done 25 minutes before creating this thread. That's after the big chain of 5/6 reverts about 5/6 hours earlier in the morning. Moreschi (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Was edit warring (bad). Wasn't caught or 3rr reported, stopped of his own accord (here), and came here seeking assistance.Nobody Ent 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't true either. Pdf filed a report against YRC at WP:EW/N some 5 hours before YRC created this thread. Moreschi (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether admin actions are a good thing (they are) -- it's what action was the best action to take; I simply don't think that blocking was the best action for the reasons elucidated above. Nobody Ent 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The best action for the article, or the best for YRC? Two different questions. Moreschi (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither is particularly important -- the standard should be what is best for Wikipedia as a whole. The answer, of course, is an active YRC acting in accordance with community standards, which was not happening today. The question is what sequence of actions can we as a community take to most likely achieve that aim. Nobody Ent 01:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Coming here was an attempt to get public opinion on his side, a tactic he's used before. His actions on the article are out of line. The more I read the talk page of the article in question, the more I am appalled at YRC's actions here. For example, the positive quote that this ANI discussion was made in regards to was being removed by the other user because the quote was supporting an action that the subject himself stated he never did in the first place. That's why it was being removed and that's a perfectly good reason to remove it. But instead of discussing it on the talk page, YRC began edit warring it in. And it's not just this, but several other things over the past few days that he's refused to properly discuss on the talk page and just edit warred with it. I mean, his first comment on the talk page back on the 11th was "HI - PLEASE DON'T REPLACE CONTENT DISPUTED AT THE NOTICEBOARD WITHOUT CONSENSUS SUPPORT THERE = THANKS - ALSO PLEASE PRESENT YOUR ASSERTED ADDITIONAL RELIABLE CITATIONS THERE FOR INVESTIGATION - THANKS". That was his first comment. It wasn't after others had ignored him and not presented sources, this was his first contribution to the discussion. Silverseren^C 23:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Threat to evade bans/blocks

Could an administrator act on this threat please? Note, the account is currently blocked due to edit warring.[12] For the block log of the previous account, please see this link. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Better to just let things settle -- haste makes waste (Ents just hate hasty actions, you know). Nobody Ent 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally something amusing in this topic, thanks NE.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the initial block was inappropriate (and I believe I would agree with you, Ent, that it was), this threat to sock, which presumably applies any time he is blocked, is extremely concerning. Silverseren^C 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He's angry. Saying he's going to do something doesn't mean he will do it. He's a vigorous defender of BLP's, and sometimes his defense of the rules clouds his practical judgment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is that his defense of the rules too often falls into what his opinion of the rules is and this leads to disruption. And saying he will sock in order to "defend living people against this project" kinda implies that he's not doing it for the benefit of Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He is simply venting. Reading too much into this is not productive. Even while at the height of rage, his motives are purely about what he thinks is best for Wikipedia, not solely to be disruptive. Allow him the same breathing room you would ask us to give you in the same circumstance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of blocking him if the blocks won't prevent him from edit warring? Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Per what I said right above to Bugs, saying "I will still defend living people against this project" means that he isn't doing what's best for Wikipedia, but what he thinks is best for living people in his own opinion. Silverseren^C 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Which I construe to be what is in the best interest of Wikipedia, as that is the first goal of BLP "Do no harm" here. You just see it differently than I do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always found it amazing that the people who feel it's their mission to protect living people are 1. either omnipotent or capable of mind-reading and 2. can so often treat other Wikipedia users so badly. I've never understood why BLP enforcement has to entail such harsh responses towards the other people who are working to build an encyclopedia. People should be able to have different opinions on what's BLP compliant without having the lowest common denominator screaming "BLP BLP CALL THE WIKICOPS!!!!!!!!" at the top of their lungs every time someone disagrees on one of these matters. My goodness, it's just a fucking website, in the grand scheme of things we probably aren't going to make that huge a difference in a person's life unless they're affiliated with Wikipedia and/or choose to make a huge issue out of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the defeatist attitude that allows BLP-violators and other kinds of POV-pushers to get their way here. Ask Mr. Wales how much BLP matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In general I agree Blade, although BLPs also can pose a financial and legal burden on the Foundation, so I always say to go the most conservative side of content when it comes to BLPs. I am not a fan of YRC's methods, and I know he isn't a fan of mine, yet here I am. His methods do need some refining, but blocking isn't the means to that end. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not like I've never stood up for BLP when it was necessary (see [13], which was a BLP violation but isn't now because the person in question is now dead), but claiming that calling someone "Professor Emeritus" is a BLP violation on the grounds it makes him sound "old and washed up" (I am not making this up, I can get the thread if you like) is absurd, and that seems to be what "BLP enforcement" largely consists of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is probably time for the community to ban Youreallycan for continuing to push his POV that BLP subjects should be treated with respect. With all due respect to Moreschi, this block should have been indef. We don't need people on this project who are more interested in the feelings of people than they are with following the rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The joking reverse psychology is just more insulting than anything else, DC. Silverseren^C 22:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Two edit-warriors get blocked--what's new? They think they were right--what's new? Rob gets blocked for edit-warring in the defense of the BLP policy (in his opinion) and then blows up and starts saying stupid s**t--what's new? Rob won't be banned (the good outweighs the bad) and all this will blow over. Hopefully, in the meantime someone who cares will look at the article and edit it properly. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• How do you know this "someone who cares" editor actually exists? Are you claiming there are no existing Wikipedia articles which violate our BLP policy? Nobody Ent 22:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently this editor does exist and he is Bbb23, among others. I mean, you're involved on the talk page too, albeit with only the single word comment. Silverseren^C 22:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• The best way to avoid edit wars on articles is for articles to be decent in the first place. There are plenty of editors who are, but you said "know" where I said "hopefully"--so I don't know jack. And why would you ask me that second question? I've worked on BLP violations for years, sometimes with Rob--I know very well what poor condition that area on WP is in. Where have I suggested that there are no violations?? I apologize for the double question mark, but I can't figure out where you got that from. I also apologize for twice ending a sentence with a preposition. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a statement reversing sock threat

We really need Youreallycan to explain the sock threats he made. If they were just made while he was angry, fine. But they can't just sit there ignored, they are too blatant and, admittedly, frightening. A removal of those comments on his talk page by him would go a long way toward showing he didn't mean them. Silverseren^C 23:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be too frightened of YRC socking. For starters, he sticks out like sore thumb and would be caught instantly. "Oh, a new editor, very brazen, has a deep knowledge of BLP and is constantly participating there"..... He knows that, don't take it so seriously. We have dozens of socks roaming through the halls every day and we manage just fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• That...does not answer what I said at all. You're saying that we should ignore socks because they exist? Silverseren^C 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Can't you discuss your point without your last sentence? Insulting, unwarranted, and unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x2 Removed, sorry. I just don't understand how one could defend him to the point of practically saying that socks are okay. Silverseren^C 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not defending him, he isn't a friend. I'm pretty sure he doesn't like me. He openly opposed me at my Request for Admin. I'm doing what I think is the right thing here, nothing more. His personal feelings regarding me aren't related to his contributions at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Real socks generally don't announce themselves in advance and we already know how to deal with socks when they pop up. Go check SPI daily. His threat is likely an idle one, and he would be easy to spot if he was foolish enough to sock. How you drew your conclusion is beyond me. How you expressed it was unnecessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the threat should be reverted by him. We often block for threats of socking and if he refuses to say he didn't mean it, then we should do the same here. Silverseren^C 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And he was just blocked a very short time ago. Perhaps we should at least allow his blood pressure to return to normal before putting any further demands on him. Even if you think he is 100% in the wrong, you have to be realistic and understand that people vent when they are blocked. This is typical. Give them a day before you expect them to retract their unfortunate words. It isn't like he is asking for an unblock, and likely is isn't observing your requests at this time anyway. He will eat his words in due time. I'm just saying that you can't take it very seriously at this stage. Had he been indef'ed, I would be more willing to consider the possibility. For now, a little patience is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should let this one go. It's far more likely to be just a ragequit along the lines of "ah, you may have blocked me now, but I'll win in the end!". Not to be taken seriously. Plus, if he does sock, as Dennis Brown says, he'll be easily caught and promptly permabanned. Moreschi (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think the blocks were ill-considered, and YRC's umbrage is pretty understandable in the context of the edits he objected to. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• YRC does stick out like a sore thumb, and has a temper which led to all of this. But he's one of the good guys and cares too much. Plus he knows we know him, and he knows about SPI and all that. Nothing to worry about. Collect, I'm usually with you but not in this case. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I said the other day on one of Jimbo's subpages that before Youreallycan came along, BLPN was a wasteland that had tumbleweeds blowing across it. I do mean that. I would post something there sometimes, and it would be archived without response. Youreallycan is a tower of strength when it comes to lessening the impact of malicious editing on our reputation. I consider him quite as important to Wikipedia's functioning as Moonriddengirl, say, is to copyright matters. BLP policy demands that articles be balanced, and include positive and negative information. Give the man some credit. I very much doubt that he was trying to make the article worse, and I have seen dozens and dozens of hatchet jobs he rescued. The stuff he put in was sourced, [14], and there was nothing supportive of the subject there before. (And Nikolic later admitted he had indeed made the post, and there is a screenshot of it here.) JN466 02:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And please unblock him as soon as he has calmed down sufficiently. JN466 02:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, the whole Facebook paragraph is just WP:ADAM. It's unencyclopedic, recentist, and undue. The whole thing deserves two sentences, if that, not a 200-word paragraph. JN466 02:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• JN466 is correct and YRC should be unblocked after cooling down as he is often Wikipedia's only defense against BLP violations. After a very quick look, I'm not sure that exceeding 3RR on BLP grounds was a good idea in the current case, although YRC's instinct is correct: it is massively UNDUE to put a major section on "Facebook posts" in a politician's BLP—the subject "gained international attention" after posting some very tame and understandable (although misjudged) responses to major trolling, and now he has a Wikipedia article that permanently records the 15 minutes of trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposals for community restrictions I'm completely unsurprised to see this happening again. I strongly suggest that editors read my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem in which I identified five key behaviours that keep getting this editor into trouble: He is often absolutist in his views and appears to consistently see things in black and white. His judgement is often faulty. He personalises disputes to an excessive degree, regarding problems as a personal affront. He has an excessive willingness to escalate, which we've certainly seen on this occasion. He has an insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions, again which we've seen on this occasion. He accepted my feedback (and we conversed by email as well), saying "Hi I will happily take your comments on board as you offered them, in good faith and from a helpful perspective and although I don't expect moving forward to be as regular a contributor as I have been in the past, I will focus on improving the points you have raised. I agree with most although not quite all of them." Regrettably he doesn't seem to have got anywhere in terms of improving his performance. Under his old account, Off2riorob (talk · contribs), he was blocked 12 times between March 2009 and November 2011 - an average of about once every three months. Under his current account, Youreallycan (talk · contribs), he has been blocked five times since this January alone - i.e. once a month. In other words, the problem with his behaviour is getting worse. In total he has been blocked once for battlefield conduct, three times for disruptive editing, four times for personal attacks and eight times for edit warring. I know he does useful work in the BLP area but this level of disruption really isn't acceptable, and if it wasn't for the work he does on BLPs I have no doubt that he would have been indeffed long ago. This needs to be resolved. I'm going to suggest a couple of community-imposed restrictions that will address Youreallycan's conduct while allowing him to continue his work on BLPs. Frankly, the alternative is arbitration, as this has gone on for far too long without an adequate resolution. Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Proposal 1: 1RR restriction At the very least the edit warring has to stop. I therefore propose that the community impose on Youreallycan an editing restriction similar to the one imposed on FellGleaming (talk · contribs) in this discussion, along the lines of: Youreallycan is limited to a maximum of one revert per page in any 24 hour period (excepting removal of obvious vandalism). Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC) No. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Yes -- as Prioryman says, this is a less costly alternative to arbitration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Strong Oppose This user has dedicated himself to tirelessly in ensuring that WP:BLP is adhered to throughout Wikipedia. This policy is often not given a significant amount of attention by other users, and User:Youreallycan does a fine job of communicating to others the importance of this policy. When others choose to edit war, despite violating this policy, reversion may become necessary and adding a 1RR restriction will not help. Thank you for taking the time to read these comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose BLP is of very high importance in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose as it doesn't address the underlying issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose no benefit to project, YRC already subject to 3rr Nobody Ent 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose Non-utile and inflammatory proposal, apparently based in animus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Collect. JN466 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Strong Support. It's past time this editor, with his long history of edit warring under two accounts, be reigned in. We cannot and should not tolerate such behavior because he does good work in BLP. This might help but 1) given YRC's large number of defenders who seem blind to the obvious problems with his conduct, it's not going to pass, and 2) it's possibly premature anyway. We do face a serious problem here, but I think some kind of mentoring/supervision would be the way to go first. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I would be willing to do this and have already offered to off-wiki. Waiting for response. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I would be happy to see YRC mentored and in fact I suggested this in an earlier AN/I discussion; the problem is that nobody followed through. I will say, though, that if neither of these proposals passes and if no mentor is found, I think this is heading for arbitration. Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others on proposal 1 Nonsense. Where is the evidence? It's because YRC is often the only person trying to defend against BLP violations that he occasionally flips. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Non sequitur. Plenty of people are capable of defending BLPs without dragging the community into these endless distractions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I might add that User:Nomoskedasticity has been involved in a disagreement with User:Youreallycan and this should be taken into account when considering User:Nomoskedasticity's comments here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Long past time that the community begins to address YRC's long history of edit warring and other tendentious-to-confrontational editing. I'm disappointed by the number of editors willing to tolerate his behavior because he does good work in one area, as though a choice must be made. How many editors who might do comparable work in a respectful and collaborative way might he have chased away with the (escalating) behavior we've seen during his tenure on Wikipedia? It's time to revoke YRC's license to be an uncivil edit warrior, and hold him accountable for his behavior. --Drmargi (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Proposal 2: civility restriction Similarly I propose that the community impose on Youreallycan a civility restriction similar to the one imposed on Mk5384 (talk · contribs) in this discussion, along the lines of: If Youreallycan makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Youreallycan otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this proposal. Prioryman (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC) No. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Strong Oppose In my interactions with User:Youreallycan, I have found him to be one of the most civil editors whom I have ever encountered on this WikiProject. I even recently awarded him a barnstar for a random act of kindness he showed me. Adding a civility restriction when one is definitely not needed here would be inappropriate. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose BLP is of very high importance in wikipedia. Next to BLP, "Civility" is nothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose as technically any admin can already do that now, so I fail to see the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose no justification for such a restriction; YRC is already subject to existing civility policy and violations are best handled with judgement on a case by case basis. Nobody Ent 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose Animus R Us seems the only basis therefor. Collect (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Colton Cosmic (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Collect, again. --JN466 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Strong support, as above. It's time he is held accountable for all his actions, not just praised for the good ones while a blind eye is turned to the bad. --Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Comments by others on proposal 2 Nonsense. Where is the evidence? It's because YRC is often the only person trying to defend against BLP violations that he occasionally flips. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) WP:CIVIL is a policy. Following it isn't optional, and ORR/YRC has a long history of not doing so. It is very sad that a productive editor comes to something like this, but there's a point for anyone where no level of productive contribution will outweigh disruption to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC) BLP is about a thousand times more important than "civility". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Without civility we don't have a community. Without a community we can't hope to enforce BLP. Allowing people to behave sociopathically so long as they do hard work in a given area ultimately makes things harder for us, not easier. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Without BLP enforcement, we put ourselves at risk of a lawsuit, and then we don't have a wikipedia at all. Oh, and labeling someone a "sociopath" is a pretty severe personal attack in itself; but over time I've observed that you're pretty good at leveling personal attacks. Fix your own civility issues before you criticize the alleged incivility of others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I would just like to comment that making the following proposals and remarks about User:Youreallycan when he is currently blocked and unable to defend himself is not kind. I would encourage the individuals here to allow User:Youreallycan to elaborate on his perspective. Perhaps the reviewing administrator could unblock him and allow him to do so here. I am confident that User:Youreallycan will be friendly and generous when explaining the situation from his point of view. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC) YRC has some civility issues and they can't be overlooked, but I don't think a narrowly defined "silver bullet" is going to address them here. What is needed is a little mentoring on civility. YRC is an excellent contributor that simply doesn't know when to back off, even when he is right. He tends to get too emotionally involved and needs to learn to step back and detach from the issue at hand. None of these solutions address this. He has to choose to be part of the solution in order for it to work. Imposing it from the outside is not likely to be effective with an experienced editor like this. He isn't a child that needs to be scolded, he is a passionate and otherwise productive contributor that needs to address his own shortcomings with the support of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC) "Not a child" cuts both ways. We shouldn't have to hold his hand while he discovers the ability to refrain from pointless drama. NOTTHERAPY and all that. Edit warring *does not work* and is always counterproductive. FWIW we've lost editors who were more often on the right side of a given debate than YRC before (MickMacNee, for instance: behaviour aside, I can't actually remember ever disagreeing with him on any particular point, whereas most of the current anti-civility divas are both hostile towards anyone who disagrees with them, and wrong much of the time) and survived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Labeling the editor a "sociopath" disqualifies you from this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I would disagree in part by simply stating that sometimes we do hold the hand of another editor, if they show a willingness to want to fix the problem. I don't know if this is the case here, but I will extend every opportunity to him until he makes it clear that he doesn't want to fix the issues. That said, he has to demonstrate a willingness to change his behavior for my good faith to be stretched to this limit. Time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Civility restrictions are rarely helpful save in the most flagrant and obvious cases. Moreschi (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Can someone please link me to the RfC/U's for the user? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Off2riorob and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan are still red links as never having been created. I would think that an user who is as well established as this one would at least receive the good faith to have dispute resolution steps lower than the sanctions mentioned here and above. The sanctions proposed would significantly hamper the process of enforcing BLP due to the fact that the IP editors can hop and game around the restriction on the user. Hasteur (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC) As far as I know he hasn't had an RfC/U done yet, but he has had massive amounts of feedback on AN/I and elsewhere, and multiple editors have offered him guidance. It doesn't seem to have had much effect, regrettably. I don't agree that a civility restriction is likely to hamper him - why would he need to be incivil in BLP editing? A 1RR restriction will allow him to revert obvious vandalism. However, he's already shown repeatedly that when he gets into a revert war the red mist descends and he gets blocked. After eight blocks for revert warring, how many more learning opportunities does he need? The obvious answer to that is to require him not to revert more than once. If he sees something that needs to be reverted more than once, he can always ask someone else to do it. I'll do it, if he asks me. But he shouldn't be putting himself into a position where a descent into revert warring becomes a possibility. Prioryman (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) As Arbcom is fond of saying, Administrator's Noticeboard isn't Dispute Resolution. See the RfC/U as an opportunity to lay all the cards on the table at one location so there's absolutely no doubt to YRC what the problems are. I'm sure you would wanted to be presented with the same list of complaints prior to serious discussions about sanctions, right? Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

We call an end to WP:ADAM, get serious about wanting to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid aggregator, and get a few admins to hang out at BLPN rather than here and actually use WP:BLPBAN to warn and block editors who use Wikipedia to take their animus out on various BLP subjects and write coatracks and hatchet jobs.

Flagged revisions wouldn't be bad either, but this would do for a start. --JN466 12:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All good, but it doesn't do anything to address the conduct problems that are resulting in YRC notching up one block a month. What are your suggestions for dealing with that? Prioryman (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC is notching up a block a month because in his work at BLPN, he is typically opposed by several editors whose editing is directly responsible for the article coming up at BLPN, and who are reverting articles back into a non-compliant state. Again, if admins made BLPN patrol a priority, and warned editors who are not editing in compliance with policy, this would relieve a lot of the stress on YRC. --JN466 21:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

YRC promised not to sock or edit-war, in future. It's unblocking time. GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

He has promised many times not to edit-war in future. What has changed? How are we going to avoid another such situation? I'm looking for suggestions here. Prioryman (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you have a large cup of tea. Your proposals seem to engender essentially zilch support from others, so the "situation" does not appear to others to be quite as life-threatening as you appear to see it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Solution

As Youreallycan has clearly indicated they "get it", and is showing a willingness to voluntarily accept sanctions on their talk page, I suggest we wrap up this part of the exercise. He has assured us that he has no intention of socking, as I expected he would. I have offered to assist him in developing better methods for dealing with disputes, and while he hasn't accepted outright, he has shown a willingness to work with me and others to find a long term solution, and I will continue to work with him on an ongoing basis, to the extent that he will allow. As for unblocking or leaving the block in place, I will leave that to the blocking admin to determine, as he is fully capable of reviewing the situation and determining the best course of action using his own judgement without any further input from me on the issue. I am convinced YRC does understand the problem. Where he goes from here is up to him. At this time, it is my opinion that no further action is needed beyond those I have already mentioned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• • He has accepted mentoring, updated to reflect this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis. For those who have followed the discussions on YRC's Talk page, he has indeed calmed down and stated that his sock threats were in the heat of anger and he was venting. In particular, Dennis and YRC have been discussing different community-acceptable possibilities for when YRC can edit again. I think we should drop this and move on. I might also add that none of the proposed restrictions on YRC above has been supported by a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree except this has happened time and time again. YRC gets on a tear about BLP, he insults or edit wars, and then he "gets it". Rinse and repeat. Let the block stick or we'll be back here again. AniMate 15:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In my post above I almost commented on this perspective, which is understandable. How much leeway we give an editor who engages in repetitive disruptive behavior is, of course, a judgment call, but it should take into account, as others have mentioned, how much repetitive constructive behavior the editor also engages in. With YRC, there's a tremendous amount of that. His contributive vigilance is prolific. I haven't paid that much attention to his pace recently, but I used to get tired just watching him. I might also add that my sense is although YRC does still lose it, as here, he appears to be more and more amenable to change. In my view, there has been some real movement by him in a positive direction. I don't think his latest positive comments on his Talk page are insincere. I think he should be given the opportunity to progress. All that said, I would allow the 72-hour block to expire on its own - I wouldn't unblock him. He's using that time productively to reflect and to discuss how to move forward.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On a side note...I wouldn't be too quick to say that YRC has a good handle on BLP. His opinions on BLP are at times idiosyncratic with both the letter and spirit of BLP. The strained logic displayed at Wikipedia:BLPN#Adam_Yauch are a recent example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a blow-by-blow analysis of YRC's application of BLP policy serves any productive purpose, particularly the one you cite, an unsual situation and one where you disagreed with YRC. BLP policy is not the easiest to interpret and apply, and many experienced editors can disagree in any particular case. If we start scrutinizing each article in which YRC was involved, we might as well open up a new noticeboard devoted to YRC.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the specific steps that have been taken are that (1) Dennis Brown has kindly offered to act as YRC's mentor, which YRC has agreed to; and (2) that YRC has agreed to my suggestion that he voluntarily observe a 1RR restriction. In addition, Dennis and I have both offered to counsel YRC if he encounters difficulties in the BLP area in future. This offers a pretty good basis to go forward without further incidents. Given this agreement I've closed my earlier proposal for community sanctions. Prioryman (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

When his block expires, please attempt to counsel him whenever issues relating to Judaism and homosexuality come up. He seems to have some real problems dealing with both, and his intransigence can at times be detrimental to collegial editing. AniMate 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware there've been issues with both matters in the past, though I'm not sure whether these have just been heat of the moment issues or indications of a more serious underlying attutude problem. Regardless, we'll keep an eye on it. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock both proposal

It's been enough time, they get it, we get it. They both need to stop edit warring and use the talk page or other dispute resolution channels. Should edit warring happen again from either of them, normal blocks should follow Regardless of any of this nonsense that YRC should get a free pass because of BLP. Anyways, I propose an unblock of both User:Youreallycan and User:Pdfpdf as time served. I'm not sure if someone has done this already anyways, but it's best to just make it official. Silverseren^C 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the unblock request. There are now measures in place to try to prevent a recurrence of YRC's actions and he is aware of the need to change his approach. I think the block's served its purpose by now. Prioryman (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I still oppose, at least in regards to YRC. You say he "get's it." Well he's supposedly "gotten it" multiple times before, and yet here we are again. I think a loud and clear message needs to be sent to him that he needs to change his behavior. Since he clearly didn't get it from the numerous previous blocks, I think this one should stick. AniMate 21:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he has too many buddies on-wiki to do that. I'm willing to give his edit warring and incivility one last chance, but the next time this happens, I am going to vigorously oppose unblocking. Silverseren^C 21:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. I've told him that this is the last chance saloon for him and the next stop is arbitration. If it comes to that, I'll file a case myself. Claims that his BLP work excuse persistent edit warring will get shot down pretty quickly there, I can assure you. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not like he's blocked indefinitely. It's 72 hours. Wikipedia, YRC's buddies, and the BLPs can survive 3 days without him editing. There have been way too many "next times". This doesn't need to go to arbitration and he needs to stay blocked. AniMate 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest checking with the admin who blocked, at a minimum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Both knowingly edit warred and knew they shouldn't, and they're solid blocks. Besides neither has posted an unblock request or edited for several hours. I don't understand the rush to unblock. AniMate 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I'm indifferent about whether the block is lifted now or left to expire naturally. It doesn't really make much difference either way. I think Silver's point above is simply that the block (at least in YRC's case) doesn't seem to have much of a useful purpose to it now that the issue seems to have been resolved. Or to put it another way, it's now more punitive than preventative. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's where we'll have to disagree. These issues have been resolved before. Promises to change have been made. He's agreed to leave topics and to reform and here we are again. Keeping him blocked is preventative, because each and every time he's been unblocked we end up back here. Blocks lose all meaning if they are lifted because of promises that are made and not kept. If you really think his behavior has been problematic, let him sit out this block because there have been way to many "next time the block will stick." AniMate 22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point it's moot as he's been unblocked based on conditions he's agreed to. I don't think it's a big deal that he's been unblocked. Nor do I think it would have been a big deal if he'd sat out the remainder of the block. However, because AniMate seems to be alone (publicly at least) in his position on this issue, I feel I should say that my views coincide with his. Nonetheless, I sincerely hope we won't be back here in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 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.

Iloveandrea continued personal attacks.

Iloveandrea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Iloveandrea continue to attack other users in his last attack he calls other users racist and accusing them part of some faction or having agenda. Its not the first time that this user a attacking others he was already brought to AN/I.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#User:Iloveandrea
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#User::Iloveandrea
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Need_a_clue

--Shrike (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Exaggeration. His edits are usually good. His talk comments are colorful, but so is a rainbow. Do you hate rainbows? Who, who hates rainbows? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is a policy. Policies are not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I did the last block, and I'm going to try to get the point across in my own colorful way on their talk page. I wouldn't block for this one incident, but would on sight if it happens again soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Iloveandrea has replied to my warning on my talk page [15] and have reassured me that they will avoid Israel-Palestine articles and a few others. At this point, I suggest giving them this last bit of rope and taking them at their word. I don't see any advantage to taking any additional action at this time. If there is any disruption by them in the near future, then blocking for a week or two on site would be warranted as they have been fully warned and are fully aware of the consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just for the record he already promised that [16].--Shrike (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Actually, he said he will not avoid IP articles. Also, it's not just this one incident as a quick look at his contributions from the last few days quite clearly shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• You're right (referring to Dennis's diff). He said he would "knock it off", but that was with respect to his incivility, not with respect to editing I/P articles, where he said: "I would say I'll stay away from Israel-Palestine articles ..., and thereby the unsavoury people that post on them, but then they win."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Which smells of WP:BATTLEGROUND... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My thought exactly when I read it ("then they win").--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Colorful language is a warning sign of edit warring, but contentious AE disputes between parties with equally dubious edit history is best ignored unless something presents a case of true disruption to the project.

Are we going to punish this editor for calling it a fight, thereby making his heresy into prophesy? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rope is just as cheap as a block here. It is pretty clear that the next disruption will earn an instant block without the need for discussion, making it his 4th block. The editor is clearly able to contribute in a worthwhile fashion. Whether he is willing has yet to be determined. No need to get your knickers in a twist, I don't see him getting blocked for this today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I admire you Dennis. That is an incredibly logical view and I believe it is the correct one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollback Rights 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.

---

I'd like to get the rollback privlage so that I can fight spam and vandalism using igloo. Also how come this page does not have a edit notice entry section ? Thanks BO; talk 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done since you're a dev. You could probably just assign it yourself with the 'staff' global usergroup. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Much Obliged - I probably ask the staff, I never crossed my mind since learning wikipida's community processes is also very important to me, it help identify and troubleshoot info/social point of failure in MediaWiki! BO; talk 21:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Developers are not necessarily staff members, and staff members do not necessarily have the global 'staff' group. In any case, using said group to assign a local permission such as rollback on self on enwiki is rather silly, unwise and would send the wrong message. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please help. The John Austin (songwriter) page should not have been deleted.

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

---

The following article should not have been deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

All of the information contained in the article "John Austin (songwriter)" is factual. John Austin meets the notability requirements, having worked with many artists of notability, and having released publicly documented works for over 20 years. Paste Magazine has written feature articles on John Austin, and JA's album "Busted at the Pearly Gates" received an honorable mention in Paste Magazine as one of the most important albums of 2002. Please contact Paste Magazine's editor-in-chief Josh Jackson to verify.

Please restore the Wikipedia article "John Austin (songwriter)". Thank you.

98.117.242.142 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As this was deleted after community discussion, your next step is deletion review. Please ensure that you use appropriate arguments to sustain why the deletion was not as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that it's possible to have an admin copy the article into userspace for you if you'd like time to work on adding references to show notability before it's restored to Wikipedia space. Nobody Ent 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

This article was deleted because the administrators overlooked 3rd party reliable sources that were better actually than the administrator's research seemed to show. Additional online references will be cited to support the notability of songwriter John Austin. Thank you. 98.117.242.142 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please go to deletion review. That is the appropriate place to ask for a review. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 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.

organise

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 think that the use of the word Organise should be changed to Organize, as it is more internationally acceptible. THX, Ax1om77 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, does that harm or help my arguement? thx, Ax1om77 20:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Lothar points out, we have a policy already that addresses variations in spellings such as that between "Organize" and "Organise". Also, this noticeboard isn't here to decide content issues, but to address pressing issues that need administrative attention. If you feel that ENGVAR should be changed, you probably want to open a discussion at the Village pump. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - If your proposal applies to a single article, be sure to read and understand ENGVAR, and then bring it up on the article's talk page. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, i'll take my arguement there :) THX, Ax1om77 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, please don't. That would be unwise. This is the many-versions-of-English Wikipedia, and that particular point has been argued a million times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I won't. THX, Ax1om77 20:33, 15 May 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.

Who would like to do their good deed for the day?

Please see [17] and the chap's talk page. Basically a Syrian good-faith user can't edit due to that bastard government's bastardly internet censorship. I understand that any admin can grant IP block exemption (if I'm incorrect please tell me) so I've brought it here as no one has noticed it where he put it after a few hours. Egg Centric 21:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it looks like I have misread it as he needs it for proxy exemption which may need steward attention. I will keep this thread here in case I'm doubly wrong and an admin can sort this out, and post on the steward's board. Egg Centric 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I will go talk to the user soon after some food, and offer them IPBE per standard practice (after a CU, also standard practice). A global exemption is only needed for a global block. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User: Greg L

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 User:Greg L is, in my opinion, causing unnecessary disruption. He has begun overwriting all the discussion of his behaviour on his talk page diff (sorry I can't work out how to wikify that link) including the record of his recent ban and abusive language. I guess I can live with him reverted a whole lot of work I did in the weekend, apparently because he feels he is the champion of (User:GFHandel here and User:John_Vandenberg here (who didn't revert any of my changes) that have criticised me recently. I've set up a specific space for discussing criteria for inclusion on the List_of_computer-aided_design_editors at [[18]] which User:Greg L is just ignoring and launching against me. I'm on self enforced editing ban for a week so if anyone agrees with me I'd love to see my changes reinserted. I will try to engage him on the talk page but am not very hopeful. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a screed Greg has on his Talk page. I believe User:Bwilkins knows more about this as he blocked Greg on May 14 (which block notice Greg impermissibly removed from his Talk page), and has had discussions with Greg on Bwilkins's Talk page. I didn't look at anything you've done - I stopped after looking at Greg's recent history.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You can remove block notices, but not declined unblock requests while the block is still in place unless something has changed. As for the rest, I'd recommend filing an WP:RfC when you get back from your self-enforced hiatus. I'd also recommend ignoring Wikipedia for the duration of that hiatus and not asking others to edit for you. AniMate 22:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right; my memory of the policy/guideline was faulty. See WP:REMOVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And, Bbb23, I think you can do better than point to my “screed” and point out how I was recently blocked (for telling DuLithgow precisely what I think of him). Now I am obeying all the little-finger-out niceties of using wiki-pleasantries and am quite intent on sticking to the rules of Wikipedia and pure facts. This is purely an issue of editing against consensus; nothing more and nothing less. Notwithstanding that Cobalt is a $3000+ CAD program used by Scaled Composites to design a spacecraft, Lithgow got a wild hair about how it wasn’t sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia. As others have pointed out to him, he is simply wrong and he got reverted over there. Now he is turning Wikipedia into a battlefield and has expanded the battle to the list of CAD programs and has now come here to wikilawyer to get his way notwithstanding that no one is agreeing with his arguments. If you want to write that “Greg L is poopy and no one should believe him because he writes non-politically correct ‘screeds’,” do it on your own talk page please; stick to the issue here. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But my Talk page is so boring, and you're so entertaining, even if you do use words like "poopy" (unlike some of your edit summaries where you more frankly call things "shit").--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And after DuLithgow gets out of my f**king face and I’m not so busy in real life that I blow up over unnecessary crap like he’s done, and after I get through with my pout, I’ll restore my pages. Greg L (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a particularly fine talk page screed, which everyone should read. The illustrations are very telling. -- Dianna (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. This editor is editwarring against consensus and is now wikilawyering. Another editor argued against his overly bold deletions of material here at Talk:List_of_computer-aided_design_editors#Complaints_over_unfair_removal. The editor who objected (User:GFHandel) is clearly correct and I agreed with him. The consensus is against what Lithgow is attempting to do there. Moreover, this activity on the list is all just part of his getting his way over deleting our Cobalt (CAD program) article, which I created. Lithgow has objected for months on the Cobalt article but the community doesn’t see things his way. Last week he started an AFD on that and got soundly shouted down by several other editors even without any of my help. Now he is active on the list deleting Cobalt from the list as well as other articles in an attempt to sweep up Cobalt with also-rans, and clearly doesn’t have a leg to stand on when he alleges that Cobalt is non-notable.

GFHandel edits on a different time schedule. I suggest he be allowed to weigh in again over there. So far, this is 100% an issue of an editor (Lithgow) editing against consensus. If he wants to delete wholesale swaths of material that other editors toiled to create, he can make arguments on talk pages that gain traction with others; pure and simple. So far, his arguments are simply not supported by the facts. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Greg was blocked for his actions regarding Cobalt (CAD program), which is entirely unrelated to any supposed conversations with postgraduate students and his actions at the linked page. This appears to be a content dispute. This doesn't belong here, even given the predictably short duration of his retirement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Postdocs, not “postgraduate students”. I do my homework. That usually entails going to the highest sources I can find to get the real facts. Greg L (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that Greg_L is "causing unnecessary disruption". 150 readers a day visit List of computer-aided design editors, so it is important to discuss the contents and format of the list there before making wholesale changes. Now that the edits by DuLithgow have been reverted, local editors can get back to discussing the content (and yes, this is now a content issue, so apologies for taking up time here). GFHandel ♬  23:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The section of this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk_page_blanking seems to be relevant to the way User:Greg L is removing peoples comments from his talk page. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As admins already know, he's allowed to do so...so why bring it up yet again? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@duncan.lithgow: Please drop the matter. Leave Greg and the related articles alone for a month. If there is a pressing need for stuff to be deleted from List of computer-aided design editors, someone else will take up the challenge. Creating ten sections at Talk:List of computer-aided design editors with proposals to delete stuff and naming Greg is just point scoring and is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 15 May 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.

Mass WP:BOOKSPAM / WP:REFSPAM by BoxingGoMan

First reported here> Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Lineage_Unbroken

Account

BoxingGoMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Appears BoxingGoMan is mass reference spamming a book, and adding it to hundreds of article.

• ""Lineage Unbroken: The Complete Lineal Tracing of World Heavyweight Championship Boxing (Post-Marciano Era) 1956–2003"" http://books.google.com/books/about/Lineage_Unbroken.html?id=MxqatgAACAAJ

Need Some eyes on this one, seems is also claiming discrimination and prejudiced against other users.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The reference used is legitimately in range, as being the source of information added on, even if it is from one single source. No meaningful harm in any way whatsoever has ensued, except for harrassment from a user who was told to "stop", but declined to listen. Further fabrication from that very user is on that user's talk page, as well as not even being a member of WikiProject:Spam. Please check for yourself. Thank you. --BoxingGoMan (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding links to this book and is considered WP:Spam. In particular it is WP:REFSPAM because the additions are just Mass spammed and don't appear to verify articles content. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for promotion in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". It would appear the book is self published, which would make it also fail Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”

You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote "Lineage Unbroken" right? --Hu12 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'll undo all the referenecs then that I added, but not the WikipediaBooks I created, that really is improvement. I appologise for any inconvenience, and ask that the user who disrespects me to leaves me alone and stays away. Otherwise, no problems! --BoxingGoMan (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It does appears you are the Author of Lineage Unbroken: The Complete Lineal Tracing of World Heavyweight Championship Boxing (Post-Marciano Era) 1956-2003. It also appears that you have solicited a couple of wikipedia users to purchase it, by asking them to "check out" your book, and posting your amazon affiliate link on their talk pages (here and Here). you have also breached WP:CIV by accusing another user, who in good faith tried to discuss your edits, of " discriminatory and prejudised biased info that directly attacks me", then continued the attack on the users page here.--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024

E4024 (talk · contribs) is an aggressive Turkish nationalist involved in edit-wars across multiple articles. In Cyprus [19] he is making unencyclopedic edits to the lede of the article [20] and edit warring over them [21] [22]. He has been making tendentious edits to that article for a while now [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] using inflammatory edit-summaries [29]. In Cyprus dispute he has been involved in a particularly nasty slow-edit-war since May 1st [30]. Again, edit-summaries are frequently hostile [31], mocking and attempting to intimidate other users. Talkpage posts are similarly disruptive, sometime purely inflammatory [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. He has already been warned [43] to cease and desist from this kind of behavior, to no avail. It is my distinct impression that this user is not here to help build a neutral encyclopedia. A strongly worded warning from an administrator that this kind of behavior is unacceptable seems to be in order at this point. Athenean (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Arrrrgggghhhh noooooo. Oh, good grief. Moreschi (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Athenean - d'you reckon we can stretch WP:ARBMAC to cover Greek/Turkish fights over Cyprus? Or is there another relevant case? Moreschi (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, that's why I posted here rather than WP:AE. But I don't think anyone would mind if it were stretched, particularly if it benefited the encyclopedia. Athenean (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's probably the case. Alright, I'm off to get some sleep - I'm too tired now to think completely straight and don't want to be doing anything controversial half asleep. My initial reaction is to give notifications/sternly worded warnings to the main two edit warriors at Cyprus dispute, rapidly progressing to blocks/revert paroles/etc should this nonsense continue. I also note that Athenean is entirely correct in analyzing the frequent talkpage soapboxing of E4024, something that also needs to be addressed along with the edit warring. If anyone wants to act on this in the meantime please feel free. Otherwise I'll deal with it when I wake up. Best, Moreschi (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a good sleep Moreschi. May Greek gods protect you...--E4024 (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking over both the main- and the talkpage edits listed above, I don't find them particularly POV or inflammatory. Differentiating between Cyprus (the Island) and the Republic of Cyprus (which claims all of it, but only controls ~60%) seems to be a reasonable and encyclopedic thing to do. We describe the state as it is, not as it should be. The edit warring, on the other hand, is cause for concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan Schulz. I also thank Athenean for bringing the issue here, because as a newcomer I would not know how to do it. Sorry, everyone, for taking your time... --E4024 (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I have been traditionally involved with discussions regarding Cyprus, but not this time (we have got some more complex discussions on Turkish Wikipedia currently :). As an outsider, I can say that E4024 has been involved in some obvious personal attacks, including an example above. However, the case is not that simple, at least in the case of the article of Cyprus dispute. E4024 is not just editing the stable version to push his POV, this is a two-sided dispute, between 23x2 and E4024. The dispute is over the first sentence, and 23x2 replaced the stable version with the current version. His source does not confirm anything about the Cyprus dispute (it does not even have the word "dispute" in it), but E4024's source doesn't either. Then E4024 reverted it and added his own reference, which started a slow-motion edit war between the two. 23x2 has gone as far as accusing one user of being E4024's puppet. I do not have any involvement in the case of the article of Cyprus, and I got involved in the "Cyprus dispute" without any particular intention :) In short, I think presenting the issue in the article of Cyprus dispute as completely consisting of POV-pushing by E4024 is incorrect, and I am not quite sure if Athenean has the right to call him an "aggressive Turkish nationalist". But certainly, he has violated WP:NPA and potentially 3RR (I don't know exactly). --Seksen (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for shedding light on the events. I wonder why you are not quite sure if Athenean has the right to call me "aggressive ... nationalist" while you have no doubts that I have been "involved in some obvious personal attacks". I am only trying to contribute to the articles that concern mainly Turks and Greeks, trying to make these texts less pro-Greek or -in other words- more objective. (BTW I am neither nationalist nor aggressive.)--E4024 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@StephenSchultz: Not particularly POV or inflammatory you say? I forgot to include this [44]. Meanwhile, I note that E4024 is continuing with the trolling both here [45] and elsewhere [46]. This needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to personalise things but I cannot understand the negative attitude against my edits. In the article Cyprus the user Spartiatisspartiatis has made 5 reverts in only 3 hours today. Why does Athenean not complain about Spartiatispartiatis? (The names are just like this, I am not being ironic.) I understand I will have to be less passionate in talk pages, but seeing these kinds of discrimination causes one to rebel. I am sorry about that. I do try to contribute to the articles in an honest, objective manner and will continue to do so. Any neutral party can see that looking into "all" of my edits, not only those hand-picked by one party. BTW, Athenean, the gentleman's name is Stephan Schultz, not StephenSchultz. --E4024 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the universal rule of irony, it's actually "Stephan Schulz" ("a" in the given name, no "t" in the family name). In particular, I have nothing in common with Sergeant Schultz, except maybe girth... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is good to have here people with sense of humour like you, Mister Schulz. I wish we edited the same pages... :-) --E4024 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO it is quite probable that he would quickly lose his sense of humour if you insisted on making the same kind of edits in the articles he frequents as you do in your current ones. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on Cyprus whatsoever, and, as far as I know, I've never edited the relevant pages (save perhaps in some drive-by vandalism patrolling). However, I do have experience with nationalist/ethnocentric edit-warring of my own, and E4024's comments are completely incompatible with our working processes. I've issued E4024 a final warning; while I'm not going to be watching the pages in question (I'm not even certain all of the pages that would require watching), if anyone encounters further bad behavior, they're welcome to report it to me or back to ANI. Continuing disruption would be grounds for a series of escalating blocks, until such time as E4024 agrees to edit civilly and neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_May_1#User:Cla68

Resolved

Could an uninvolved admin close this DRV when they get a chance? Its been open for over two weeks now, and hasn't had any comments in several days. Its been open so long that it isn't even showing up on the recent discussions section. Apologies if this isn't the right place to bring this. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:67.134.35.66 vandalizing Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012

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.

---

Nothing major here, just adding silly garbage to paint Obama as a commie/socialist. See here for an example. Any chance we could get a semi protection for this page, or block this IP?JoelWhy (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I blocked all three of you for WP:3RR. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO - "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected until the day after election day. There has been some vandalism already, and the article is obviously going to attract a whole lot more, even with semi-protection. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 20:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR, and a facile attempt to compare Obama to Lenin, Stalin and Mao on the basis of a single-word slogan clearly comes under BLP. Those reverting this violation of policy should not have been blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This was a really stupid block. Jauerback should be admonished for this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this block was at best poorly thought out. We should not be blocking people for reverting obvious BLP violations. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And JayJasper only made two reverts! Agree that the block of JoelWhy and JayJasper was completely incorrect (careless and stupid, really) and should be reversed immediately. Blocking first and asking questions later is very poor policy.--Loonymonkey (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason this went down the way it did. Words have meaning. The edits were labeled vandalism. The IP was warned for vandalism. It wasn't vandalism. It was POV. It may have been BLP. And it certainly hit 3RR+. If the IP had been correctly warned in the first place there's at least a chance that he could have gotten the point before blocks were needed, and the other two editors would have been standing on firmer ground.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't care how it was labelled while it was being reverted - it was a BLP violation on a very highly watched page. It needed to be reverted, and they were doing the reverting. You can't say that two editors who were working within policy, with clean block records, deserve blocks just because a reversion or warning was labelled wrongly. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they deserved blocks. And the info did need reversion. But they (or at least the OP) did screw up the process. If you tell the IP he's vandalizing, he's going to (righly) say "I am not!" If you say, "that's not neutral, let's talk about it on the talk page", there's at least a chance he'll listen. Doing things right at least gives success a chance before it gets messy.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point about communicating with the IP, but I think blocking them this way is rather worse. It makes it really difficult for editors to deal with BLP violations and the like if they can get blocked for it. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree in general. The suggestion I was typing before I edit conflicted with the blocking admins was a 3rr block for the IP, and a wrist slap + education for the OP. The OP had the good of the encyclopedia as a goal, but I do think that many of these issues get escalated because people are in vandal fighting mode and fail to try to communicate to the real person behind the IP. (To be clear I'm talking about misguided IP's like this and not the true vandal vandals.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked JayJasper, as he only made 2 reverts total. If there's a consensus that JoelWhy's reverts were in line with WP:3RRNO, then I'm happy to unblock him as well. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 20:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is a supposedly "semi-retired" administrator making nine blocks in one day?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comment here [47]. I recommend an unblock. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy should be unblocked as well. Sure, it might have been more accurate to label it a BLP violation right off the bat (rather than the generic "vandalism") but that warrants a note on the talk page, not a block. As someone who takes BLP policy very seriously, I hate to see a good editor punished for following that policy. It's also troubling that Jauerback decided to just block several experienced editors without bothering to look at the edits in question and then immediately went offline. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see JoelWhy unblocked. They were following policy, even if they made a mistake. I think the admin that committed this drive-by blocking needs a bit of a talking to. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked JoelWhy; this block lacked nuance. If editors are really supposed to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page the addition of the phrase "On April 30, 2012 the campaign announced that its slogan would be "Forward", which has been used by Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Vladimir Lenin in similar rallying situations", then we can pretty much give up on writing a serious encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, because that looks like a bit of a shot at me. I'm not talking about discussing the inclusion of such material. I do though think it's very important though to accurately tell the IP what it is he's doing wrong. It can even be through a template. There are many types for a reason. The vandalism one is great if someone's putting "penis" in the article. But the BLP one or NPOV one explain the policies that are actually being broken. It's not about entertaining the nonsense that he's trying to insert, it's about trying to make a legitimate try to stop the edit war before we're 6 deep in reversions.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a shot at you, CL. What you're saying about telling the IP exactly what he's doing wrong makes sense. It was a criticism of a 3RR block on Joel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree that it wasn't technically vandalism, it was POV pushing. However, in either case, the BLP exemptions of 3RR apply. So, was it wrong to label it vandalism? Technically, yes. But is that mistake worth a block? -Scottywong| prattle _ 21:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism is defined as edits that damage the encyclopedia. So it's perfectly reasonable to call ridiculous comparisons to dictators "vandalism". However, it's better to be specific and say "BLP violation". That way there's no doubt about the reason for the revert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight, I agree that protecting the article would have been the best course of action, however I still stand by my actions. Most of the points have already been made above, so there's no sense in rehashing them. Although, I do have to comment on the question about why a "semi-retired" admin that made nine blocks today... Really? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If you stand by your actions that suggests you should have your admin privileges revoked since you'd repeat the injustice in a similar circumstance. It's inconceivable that your wouldn't even apologize to the editors you blocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jauerback, I believe I'm the only person in this thread who could possibly be (mistakenly) viewed as supportive of the block. If you're reading my complaint about JoelWhy's initial handling as siding with the block, please do not. Although I thought mistakes were made, in my opinion the blocks were heavy handed, and failed to recognize the totality of the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The admin was totally in the wrong issuing blocks to the registered users. The IP was making a rapid series of BLP-violating edits, and the registered users were trying to protect wikipedia. The admin's proper course of action would have been to (1) semi the page, to fend off the IP; and (2) revert the Stalin nonsense if necessary. It's to be hoped he's learned something from this situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see others refer to the BLP exception of WP:3RRNO. See this discussion: [48]. I believe BLP applies to this article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies anywhere on Wikipedia - article, talk page, whatever. Or at least, it is supposed to... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Poor edit summaries, too many reversions, slow to ask for help, 2/3 blocks poor, blocks fixed, all better. Perfection is not required (they let me edit, don't they?), only good faith. Let's all move on, shall we? Nobody Ent 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP assaulted the article 6 times in 24 minutes. Maybe time enough to post an RFPP, but that page has been unreliable for quick action (as is this one, frankly), and protecting a BLP is top priority. Much more unsettling is the admin's continued lack of understanding of the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to drag this out, but I'm inclined to agree about the unsettling aspect. I am not assuming bad faith of the blocking admin, nor do I think they should be desysopped, but this entire thread has been filled with people pointing out that the reverting was perfectly in line with WP:3RRNO and the BLP policy - which is an important policy. The fact that the only thing the admin has said is "I stand by my actions" is...just disheartening. A case of WP:IDHT? I dunno. I would feel a lot more comfortable if Jauerback at least recognised that the blocks were inappropriate. But I sense that's not coming, so maybe this should be closed. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 02:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think at the very least it would be reassuring to see the blocking admin acknowledge that the block of JayJasper was unambiguously incorrect. JayJasper had only reverted twice, so WP:3RR clearly doesn't apply, BLP or not. Probably just a simple mistake, but it'd be nice to know that a somewhat inactive admin understands 3RR fully. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the block of JoelWhy, simply because he had reverted more than 3 times. -Scottywong| gab _ 03:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• So, experienced editors who have contribute much to the project over the years work diligently to keep an IP editor's puerile "Obama iz a sekrit Marxist" crap out of an article, and they all get blocked for it? I made one revert myself in this affair before going off for the afternoon, guess I should feel lucky/blessed that I escaped this highly questionable form for collective punishment. This Jauerback does not appear to possess the ability to mediate difficult topic areas, and would serve the project best by staying far away from this one in the future. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tarc, it appears you were lucky indeed. You made one revert, which meant you were only one more revert away from being blocked for violation of 3RR. Or so it would seem. When I saw that "you are blocked for violating 3RR" after having made only two reverts - both of which were explained in the edit summary, the second giving a link to 3RR and urging the IP user to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than keep edit warring - I thought it had to be a joke or at least an honest mistake on the part of Jauerback. I must say it is disheartening to hear Jauerback say he "stands by" the action of blocking an editor clearly acting in good faith for 3RR infraction after only two reverts. And, for that matter, defending his block of JoelWhy, who was also clearly acting in good faith. Yes, he reverted more than 3 times, and perhaps could have used a better term than "vandalism", but it's clear that his intentions were to uphold the BLP policy and defend against blantant POV-pushing. In light of this, and that he is an established editor who has made valuable contributions to the project, shouldn't he (and I) at least have had warning before blocked? With all that said, the blocks were quickly revoked, so it could have been worse. I won't hold a grudge, but I will say to Jauerback, for future reference: could you please not make decisions like these so hastily? (as this seemed to have been), and do established editors - presumably acting in good faith - not deserve a fair warning before being blocked? Your consideration of this might well be of benefit to you and your fellow editors, as attested by the reaction to this incident.--JayJasper (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Multiple errors were committed by multiple people. Unless a repeatable pattern can be established, there isn't really much more we can do here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As this is the second time in less than a month (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive748#What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring.3F) that a very bad block has taken place it would be nice if admins investigating 3RR situations from now on would, at the very least, take the time to fully investigate what is going on before handing out blocks. Treating long time productive editors like dirt as they protect WikiP from IPs and SPA editors can only have a chilling effect on the community. Since making an apology seems so difficult to do it would be a good idea to prevent a situation where they should be issuing them. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If more admins will as you put it "take the time to fully investigate what is going on before handing out blocks" as a result of this and similar incidents, then this entire brouhaha will have served a constructive purpose.--JayJasper (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that this is only liable to get worse, as the American presidential election approaches. In 2008, the candidates' articles (especially Palin) were constantly under siege from BLP-violators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think what's been done now is the right course of action: protect the article until after the election, and unblock the two people who tried to stop non-neutral information from being added pbp 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless the blocked editors receive an apology and/or the administrator in question is admonished, I see no reason to revert BLP violations. I have no desire to deal with being blocked by a trigger happy admin and then have to deal with the autoblock if a sensible admin comes around.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reckless block with no thought of helping the encyclopedia Jauerback is clearly in the wrong, but there is no requirement that mistaken admins be beaten until they confess so this discussion could be closed soon as the blunders have been rectified. Nevertheless, Jauerback's comments suggest that the same blocks would be issued in similar cases in the future, so some more grilling may be warranted. My main objection to this sort of rule-bound response is that admins should be helping the encyclopedia: if you see some editors edit warring (particularly when the editor has requested help on ANI!), you need to have at least a quick look at the issue before blocking. The reverts might be exempt from 3RR, or in questionable cases, some thought is required. In this case, an IP was repeatedly adding unsupportable stupidity to a political article—not covered by WP:VAND. Nevertheless, the reverting editors were obviously trying to help the encyclopedia, although they should have requested help earlier (WP:RFPP). Blocking editors who are doing the right thing wrongly is stupid—it sends the message that articles should not be defended against attacks. Protect the article and leave a helpful message at each editor's talk (they must not do that again, and a link to where they should go for help). If that's too much trouble, do nothing and let someone else handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I resent the self-righteous tone of some posters here, calling for blood like politicians in a scandal. We're above that, guys. That said, I really want some assurance from Jauerback that he wouldn't do the same in the future. Because if he doesn't see that his actions were wrong, then that's a problem. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after going over everything again, which is always so simple after the fact... I'll concede JayJasper did not break 3RR. I already stated that protecting the article would have been a better option, however that doesn't excuse the edit warring over content. That's the part everyone seems to be missing. It wasn't vandalism and it's questionable whether it was a BLP violation. Neither registered user was even consistent in their edit summaries on what they believed they were reverting. At one point both called it "vandalism", at another, both mentioned 3RR and taking it to the talk page or that it was against consensus. To me, that says "content dispute" all over it, not BLP and certainly not vandalism (from their point of view). In regards to BLP: Is it BLP? Are you sure? It's sourced content (whether it's RS is another issue for another board), but everyone keeps saying, "Oh noes! Barack Obama is being compared to Stalin. BLP! BLP!" If that's what happened, then I would agree, but IT DIDN'T. It was a content dispute over the use of a campaign slogan in comparison to Stalin, Mao, and Lenin in an article about Barack Obama's campaign... and it was sourced. If that's BLP, that's a stretch. Now if you want to argue BLP, please take that to the appropriate venue as it really doesn't belong here, but I had to use it to explain my actions. My goal was to stop the disruption, not add to the drama. Oh, for the record (not that it really matters), I initially found out about this issue through AIV. I only noticed it was brought here after that fact. Finally, if JayJasper says to me unequivocally that they would not have reverted further had the content been added again (before any blocks), I will AGF they are telling the truth and apologize. Outside of that, I won't participating further in this discussion as I doubt I will change any minds, anyway.Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• What a deeply disappointing response. If anyone notices Jauerback making any more stupid blocks like this, please ping me, or any other admin with a modicum of judgment, and I'll undo it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Gotta agree with Floquenbeam. Based on the above statement, Jauerback still does not believe he did anything wrong, does not see a contentious edit primary-sourced to an opinion/punditry site is a BLP problem, and has AGF backwards. Not endearing qualities for an admin. And I'm someone who normally supports admin blocks for edit-warring; it simply wasn't called for here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• OK, one more reason to quit this ridiculous bureaucratic cult masquerading as something vaguely useful. Wikipedia has its priorities entirely backwards, and self-serving admins incapable of actually appreciating the efforts of those trying to stop articles on politicians turning into graffiti-covered shithouse walls are one of the more obvious symptoms... AndyTheGrump (talk)
• As Andy says, the priorities are whacked out. If there were some "opinion" website likening Romney to Hitler, or likening the president to a monkey, I wonder if the admin would treat it any differently than he did with this? He either needs to take off his blinders or surrender his adminship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the quick unblock. For the record, had I been a bit more knowledgeable of certain Wiki policies, I likely could have avoided this entire situation. So, I definitely learned something here, which is good. And, I don't need Jaurback to apologize, I'm certainly not angry with him because of the block. That being said, I think he has displayed a real arrogance here that I find disturbing. I mean, the response to the block on JayJasper ("if JayJasper says to me unequivocally that they would not have reverted further had the content been added again (before any blocks), I will AGF they are telling the truth and apologize") is absolutely infuriating. I've long felt that one of the traits which distinguishes adults from children is an ability to admit ones mistakes. This rationalizing followed by the 'screw you guys, I'm going home' attitude demonstrates a real lack of maturity, IMO. And, if this same situation occurs with other editors on a less prominent page, I hate to think that he would be able to repeat this behavior with a fair bit of impunity.JoelWhy (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• But none of the editors involved in the edit-war said anything about BLP. They were calling it vandalism. I suggest that the next time a dispute like this arises, editors should take the issue to WP:BLP/N. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What 'edit war'? The reverts were entirely in line with policy, and with the interests of Wikipedia. Ok, someone used the wrong word to describe an attempt to fill Wikipedia with moronic crap, but so what? Infantile... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, when I mentioned above that I could have avoided the entire situation, I mean that if I had indicated BLP in my reverts I think I could have prevented this entire situation. That is clearly my fault (and, a learning experience for me.) So, I'm not pretending I'm entirely blameless here.JoelWhy (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) AQFK when you defend Jauerback's block with that reasoninng, the more you damage that goal. There's definately a better way it could have been handled by JoelWhy. I've been vocal about that above. But using what could be a learning experience as justification for a poorly decided block is just going to elicit the reaction we see from ATG. The subjects need to be disconnected. How to better prevent edit wars with POV/BLP content is on one side, but totaly separate is button mashing blocks on good faith users without warning.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I actually was warned. After engaging in the edits, User: Morphh was kind enough to inform me of my mistake on my talk page, noting "I'd hate to see you sanctioned for multiple reverts of something you thought was vandalism." I thanked him on his talk page, stopped doing the reverts, but about 15 minutes I was blocked. So, clearly some editors understand how to take a common sense approach to resolve an issue...JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NE gets on the soapbox

(edit conflict × many)Big picture: what we have here are three editors trying to make Wikipedia better: JoelWhy and JayJasper by reverting bogus edits and requesting community help, and Jauerback by blocking edit warring editors. Mistakes were made. We have a "bright-line" 3rr rule that's stated unequivocally -- followed by a list of exceptions. Notably BLP, which states What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

We are resource limited: sometimes sneaky vandalism persists for days or weeks in articles, and we have periodic notices here and at AN about backlogs on admin boards. Yes, the blocks were inappropriate, but it's illogical to simultaneously fret about both admin backlogs and admins not taking enough time before taking action, or previously inactive admins finding time to volunteer. It's illogical to be concerned with a shortage of admins and savage existing admins when they pooch things up. This concept that editors who screw must be badgered into mea culpas is childish. I read once -- when reading The Art of War was in vogue in business circles -- that it talks about always allowing an opponent a graceful exit. We've communicated fairly clearly to Jauerback our disappointment with this particular decision. What's important is not whether they engage in some junior "shaking hands" ritual but how they execute admin responsibilities in the future. Giving an editor time and space to mull things over is frequently more effective than repeated verbal pounding.

A sample size of one is too small to seriously consider resignation demands. If you feel Jauerback's action makes them unworthy of a sysop, file an ArbCom case. Otherwise let's put the sticks down. Nobody Ent 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:EHP touches on this. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that it's human nature. You might appreciate similar understanding the next time you fuck up. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I fuck up all the time, I also know how to say "My bad, I'll try not to do that again."--Cube lurker (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you? That's exceedingly easy to say now when you're not the one under the lamp. He conceded already that other courses of action would've been better. There's no need to continue demanding some specific answer that meets your standards. This is done. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Mistakes happen. But some people will only go so far in acknowledging mistakes. I am assuredly on the side that blocking the 2 registered accounts was a mistake. Perhaps we should have Obama/Romney related pages semi-protected until November 7th. Or maybe it's too soon for that. Let's also remember that Obama pages are under a 1RR(article probation), and technically editors can be blocked after 2 reverts. So if an anon IP makes edits that are clear violations of Wiki policies, one can go to the 3RR board and report it, then ask for page protection(if an editor deems the IP persistent enough to hop to other IPs). Jauerback should have looked more clearly at the situation and made a better call, but it's not worth an ArbCom case or a DeSysOp. I hope William, Bugs and everyone else continue to patrol the pages on their watch lists and revert BLP violations. Along with vandalism. I think this thread shows that if an Admin does make a mistake, the community(along with clear eyed Admins) will rectify it. I move for a close to this thread. Dave Dial (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Me, too, and this trait makes Wikipedia a better place. I also know that expecting others to have the same personality characteristics is another way of fucking up, and expecting that they do doesn't make Wikipedia a better place. Nobody Ent 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I've got nothing more to say after this, but there's a learning experience all admins should heed. Jauerbeck could have ended this thread at 1/3rd it's length with a simple 'sorry'. And he would have lost far less respect than he has now.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:11, 16 May 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.

Building a shrine?

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 indef by Tide Rolls, pages nuked by yours truly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User Plum90 (talk · contribs) has been tagging a large number of IP userpages as socks of a blocked user, with virtually no other edits. It's possible that the user only means to help, but it's probably more possible that Plum90 is connected to the blocked user and is attempting to build a shrine of some sort. I'd appreciate some input or differing points of view, please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt it's a shrine as such, at least not to a real vandal... he just seems to have tagged every IP that edited James Randi, pretty much indiscriminately. Which hardly makes him a good faith editor. I suppose since it doesn't really "matter" that he should be given a chance to explain himself before he gets blocked, but I don't think he's gonna be around for long...Egg Centric 21:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not just James Randi, various religion related articles, on second looks... (but seriously, look at the edit history of the Randi article - every IP at least on the first page has been tagged by this guy) Egg Centric 21:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For example - Christianity - he's gone back to 2010 from when it was not protected, and although he's missed a couple at the very end of IP editing before the protection, pretty much every IP as he goes down the list he's also started tagging. This is most peculiar. Egg Centric 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone consider asking Plum90 what they were up to before bringing it to ANI? Reyk _YO! 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I considered it. I decided against it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't realize what that Caleb Murdock is up to. We have to stop him before he ruins Wikipedia.-Plum90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

Please explain to us what he is up to. You might also explain how he edits from all over the world. MarnetteD | Talk 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The first result on google seems to suggest that he is "up to" growing a considerable, but not remarkable (by wikipedia standards) neckbeard. Why is that a worry? Egg Centric 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironic, since the sixth result on google shows him reviewing an electric razor on Amazon. Now that doesn't add up at all... Dybeck (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Murdock is very clever. He has learned how to log onto Wikipedia from any IP in the world (or almost). He is inserting false informaton from these IPs and doing a great deal of damage to the encyclopedia.-Plum90 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide differences of how these IPs have done any of the things you are accusing them of. For any admins looking into this I made User:BullRangifer, who originated the original sockpuppet case, aware of this thread in hopes that they can shed some light on this. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm sure this is much more interesting than it appears to me, since I've arrived after all the evidence has been destroyed. That's one thing that disturbs me. There is too much blanking of history in many venues. We can't learn what's happened, so we can't learn to recognize the vandals and socks when they reappear. Will someone at least give me some clue about what's been happening? Has he been using many IPs again? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, a fair number of those edits are vandalism, but let's face it, most IP edits probably are, after all it's damn good fun vandalising, due to it increasing your virility and attractiveness to the fairer sex. But what about edits like this? Why is this devious Murdock fellow so interested in adding miscellanea trademarks by some obscure fellow with three valid looking references? Does he also control the entire internet? Egg Centric 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

80% of vandalism is by IPs, but only 20% of the edits by IPs are actually vandalism. The majority are good faith edits. [49] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• What's the magic word for batch deleting all a user's page creations? Twinkle (or some other script I have installed) has d-batch, but that only works on a list of pages in a category or linked on a page, it isn't available on his contributions page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Nuke? - SudoGhost 00:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Thank you, SudoGhost. Pages nuked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Tide Rolls for blocking this editor and I was about to ask if all their tagging should be reverted but Floquenbeam beat me to it so thanks to you as well. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If this was like, a week ago, I'd be all like... awww, floquenbeam, can't we have any more fun with this troll. But given the last 48 hours, I'm all like, thanks for teaching that bugger a lesson flo, and if I was a lady I'd TOTALLY have your babies Egg Centric 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm honored (and slightly alarmed), but have to graciously decline. For now, anyway. It's not you, it's me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious to me that Plum90 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs). JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I just blocked an IP at RFPP who was signing as Caleb Murdock, FWIW, vandalism at User talk:EdJohnston. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:04, 16 May 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:X Nilloc X continued disruptive editing

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:X Nilloc X is continuing the behavior he was blocked for recently right off his block. He is doing this both logged in and out (User:98.185.55.83, which is currently blocked). He continues to add a sum total of casualties from various different sources (WP:SYNTH) at List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan, despite obvious consensus against it on the talk page, on Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can someone please issue another block, as they will not get a clue. Note that the blocking admin stated very clearly that continuing would result in reblocking.--Atlan (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another drive by comment, bollocks. X is currently blocked, so continuing the behavior is obviously bullshit. will coment more when I sober up, but this is balls. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you'd better sober up first, because X is currently NOT blocked. They are currently edit warring the figure back in the article, hence I brought it here. His IP is blocked though, as he was edit warring with that earlier today. Please try again after your hangover.--Atlan (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • He is now blocked again. This should have happened about three hours ago, sorry for the slow action. If he continues edit warring after 1 week I recommend an indef block because he doesn't seem to understand WP:SYNTH. Shii (tock) 01:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • How is it in violation of WP:SYNTH? That would only be if I said that was absolutely how many had been killed. All I said on the page was that was the total reported on the page itself - I didn't cite anything for that, I just added up the total figures cited, if that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.248 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The above IP is a new X Nilloc X sock continuing his edit war.[50] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
          • *coff* - Alison ^❤ 06:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Just to note, the editor in question has been evading the block on his/her account, so I've lengthened the block to 1 month. No prejudice against unblocking early if s/he agrees to stop edit-warring. Parsecboy (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
            • *coff* again. This is just one of a number of  Confirmed sockies. I've extended to indef now - Alison ^❤ 22:36, 15 May 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.

Content vandalism

• User:201.19.98.94 has put false information into the Whatever Works article, (diff) as well as the Vicky Christina Barcelona article. He/she has made a number of edits to other articles (contribs) as well - these articles need checking for similar vandalism. I filed this report at WP:AIV, but that page isnt working properly, and WP:VPM but no response. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• AIV report filed. Nobody Ent 21:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  The vandal has also edited, quite prolifically, as 201.19.149.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 201.19.158.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and possibly other IP addresses. There is a lot to be cleaned up still.  --Lambiam 23:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  It looks like this has been going on for almost a year: 201.19.99.47 · 201.19.99.65 · 201.19.99.82 · 201.19.99.99 · 201.19.141.128. And that may not yet be all.  --Lambiam 00:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  Update: It looks like the vandal has edited from maybe as many as 800 to 900 different IP addresses in the 201.19.*.* range for over a year, making several thousands of edits inserting false information. I've started to compile a list, but have to stop for now. Any suggestions on how to deal with this?  --Lambiam 03:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Good catch, but Oh man.... this looks automated, and dastardly sneaky because all the "content" looks reasonable--the added production companies are real production companies Wikilinked to real articles, the added actors are real with reasonable-sounding names, etc. I am not an admin but I'd bet an IP range block will be in order, and that'll help shut down the damage... until the vandal switches ISPs or moves. Then there's the cleanup. Zad68 03:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. They do all locate to Rio de Janeiro and some of the edits are like those of long time sock master Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Even if it isn't that blocked editor I know that I have come across one or two other examples of this low level vandalism recently (though I can't remember the IP range - apologies) - if it continues a rangeblock would be nice if possible and, perhaps, we should notify the filmproject to be on the lookout for this editing pattern. MarnetteD | Talk 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for chiming in and taking this vandal down. I caught this because I had just seen Whatever Works and checked the article. I found Diane Keaton listed in the cast when I didn't recall her being in the film. It would have seemed natural to have Diane Keaton in a Woody Allen film, wouldn't it? Have fun tracking down all the damage this guy has done. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And now 201.19.84.189, another veloxzone.com.br] Vandalism-only IP, doing "sneaky vandalism". JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV, but no WP:SPI done for this or previous IP. Should one be done, to get a temporary range-block? JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked 201.19.0.0/16 for six months, hopefully he will find a new hobby, what a sad & pathetic individual. Definitely notify the film project, there is a huge amount to check. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note Lambiam has posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and created a working list of all possible vandalism at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Vandalism_by_201.19.*.*. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature forgery

Do we have a standard warning template (or penalty) for signature forgery? An anon editor (216.31.246.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) pretended to be ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) with this edit. He's now accusing me of WP:OWN. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

he did not sign as cluebot, but copied one of their messages...possibly not understanding templates. I have not looked at the own issue yet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The IP was right about the August 2012 release date. Refs have been added to the List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases. Caden ^cool 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw WOSlinker (talk · contribs) do that. The page has a long-term history of anons adding unsourced release dates. They usually either add a ref or simply give up after one revert though - this one didn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com is very good about release dates and that is the source the IP was using before all the edit waring got out of hand. Also when you reported the IP to ANI you didnt let him or her know. It's good practice to let an editor you're reporting know :) Caden ^cool 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it good practice to notify the person, it's required. Nice to see the IP was blocked for edit warring while the admin didn't get so much as a warning for their 3 reverts. --Onorem♠Dil 22:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as you were there, you could have done so. Although xe's currently blocked, I still notified them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bbb23 there was nothing I could do because I'm not an admin and at least 3 editors were edit warring including RedRose and yes an admin was also involved but I couldnt do a single thing to stop it. I also do not understand why the IP was blocked when all of them were doing the same thing. I'm very sure the IP is new and didnt know the rules but the other two involved knew exactly what they were doing. Caden ^cool 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the underlying problem, just the ANI notice. Anyway, no need to apologize, it was Redrose64's responsibility in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the IP has been around long enough to know what "vandalism" is, which is any edit in which another user disagrees with. --MuZemike 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, some proper verb tense could go a long way. You can't say "Released in Region 1 August 2012" when it's not even August 2012, yet. --MuZemike 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is the BBC America Shop cite still in the article? The Amazon cite supports the August 2012 release date, but the BBC America cite doesn't support any particular date. Indeed, it acts like it's already released. Unless I'm missing something. Not that any of this is really relevant to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the BWilkins block of the IP. If you look at the history on the article you will see that RedRose violated 3rr. Why didnt BWilkins handle RedRose in the same way he handled the IP? Caden ^cool 23:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice WP:AGF there. It's because I lost internet connection ... same reason I couldn't put a block notice on the IP's page. I'll assume someone else has taken care of it, because this connection is not any better (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Redrose did not violate 3RR, having reverted only 3x, whereas the IP reverted 4x.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends on which admin you get on which day. I've seen it argued (usually to the benefit of the veteran editor) that the adding of information the first time doesn't count, so the IP only reverted 3 times...unless I counted incorrectly. --Onorem♠Dil 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you counted absolutely right, but, either way, Redrose didn't revert more than 3x, and, technically, Bwilkins (the admin the IP got) was within their rights to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, and have no problem with the block. (and far less problem with the rest since Bwilkins popped in to say he had connection problems right after making it.) I was just pointing out that sometimes the count works differently for some people. --Onorem♠Dil 00:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have seen the difference in counting. I suppose what bothered me slightly was your comment about veteran editors, although you carefully said only "I've seen it argued". What disturbs me about the block is the IP was warned after the last revert (third or fourth, depending on how you count) and then blocked with no more edits to the article. Given the counting issue and the timing of the warning, it would have probably been better not to block. My eyes are hurting a little from looking at all of this, so I hope I've got it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really a discussion for here, but I stand completely behind the 'veteran editor' portion of my comment...but that's not anything to do with this situation. --Onorem♠Dil 00:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

personally, I think we need to have a WP:assume the IP is trying to help page - or at the very least, stick that under WP:AGF. Too many times an IP does an edit, it's assumed to be vandalism. As noted, the IP was perfectly correct and got banned simply for trying to re-add this correct info. WP:assume no clue - the IP may not KNOW how to add a source - they are after all an IP, maybe they're not familiar with this. Go to their talk page, let them know a ref is needed, and explain how to do this. if this had been followed, there probably wouldn't have been an edit war. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Claimsfour

• User:Claimsfour has repeatedly removed content from article Rob Ford even after requests to discuss changes to article on talk page. Has been warned twice. Now, I think requires a temporary suspension of editing privileges. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute, page fully protected. The user in question has been active on the dispute resolution page within the last hour, so blocking him is not the answer. I've also removed rollback from Alaney2k (talk · contribs) due to him using it in an edit war; not the first time he has done that. WilliamH (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, much of what has been removed was unsourced or sloppily-sourced negative BLP material; I agree no block is in order. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Qwertymany ‎

Resolved

 – Righteous Nobody Ent 02:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Qwertymany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a vandalism-only account, but I would like a review, as one of his vandalisms was against my user page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC) ‎

If you want to inform Qwertymany about this thread, go ahead, but I don't think it's required. The thread is about me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Clear vandalism only account. I see no issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to agree. Only two edits, but the intent was pretty clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Vandalizing an admin's user page in no way inoculates the vandal from being blocked by said admin. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, but I would have done exactly what Cube lurker did, come here for review. That was the proper thing to do in case anyone might have questions as to if he was involved. IMHO, this is what every admin should do in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unequivocal blatant vandalism of the phallic variety. It's a clear vandalism-only account. WP:UNINVOLVED is important. But with something as straightforward as this to hunt down another administrator via a noticeboard to deal with it would be at the expense of common sense. I see no issue. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Qwertymany is vandalism-only account all right. His intents were clear. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember the core question — would any reasonable admin do the same thing? We're all willing to block blatant vandals, whether or not they vandalise our own userpages. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist

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:Amadscientist
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#99 Percent Declaration
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupy_Wall_Street&curid=33121168&diff=492944145&oldid=492941064

In the history of the Occupy Wall Street article, Amadscientist has made reference to several of his own rather original rules. I apologize for bringing a content-related issue here, but I feel this is actually more of a behavioral/policy matter and needs to be nipped. Even when content issues are resolved with him (a rare occurrence), they keep cropping back up due to this tendency of his.

Yesterday, User:Becritical added a summary of another article to Occupy Wall Street. Amadscientist reverted, calling this a WP:MERGE, and saying proper attribution wasn't given. I reverted the removal saying this was not a merge but a summary. He reverted again, and on the talk page he eventually referenced a mediation we were involved in, so I let it go. He has since withdrawn from that mediation.

The possible addition of the summary was then brought up again on the talk page. I offered to address Amadscientist's attribution concerns by re-wording the summary, so it would no longer be a "copy/paste" from the other article (the original summary wasn't a copy/paste, though this is what Amadscientist claimed; some passages were the same though). He persisted with the WP:MERGE argument regardless. Since his arguments were not making sense, and he was the lone objector, I then re-inserted my own reworded summary. Amadscientist reverted it again citing WP:MERGE, saying proper attribution wasn't given, and on the talk page he said there are all manner of procedures and templates that need to be used first for a "merge" like this.

I don't know what to do about this, and would appreciate input. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I suspect, something doesn't look right here... Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This really is a WP:DRN issue, although this is not a merge, just an summary from a connected article. Pretty standard stuff here. He does seem to have invented a new rule or two counter to BRD. Consensus before bold edits? I agree this seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. He is at 3RR limit right now, leaving warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We've been to DRN regarding similar issues, and to mediation (which again, he withdrew from). Short of ArbCom, which I'm desperately hoping to avoid, this seemed the only viable option. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add -though much could be added- except just to confirm that this kind of thing is standard business as usual for Amadscientist. B^e——C_ritical 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• The BRD issue convinced me of that. I think you may have to bump it up a notch to get any action. This isn't really an "incident" as much as it seems like a long term pattern of acting like an obstructionist. I'm not thinking there is much to do here, but I do feel your pain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean Arbitration? B^e——C_ritical 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean whatever you want it to mean. RFC/U, Arbitration, you know the events better than I do, I'm sure you know the best step. I just know that ANI isn't it. At least not today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (; B^e——C_ritical 01:22, 17 May 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.

Very Strange Activity Creating New Pages

Over the past hour I have found at least five account all have very generic usernames and all create Korean pages in the sandbox and then move them into main space, 북경 여행, 버킷리스트, 카린 로이트펠드, 伦道夫-梅肯学院. This page is English but it follows the same pattern same username that sounds like a bot, article created in a sandbox Jasmine pearl tea. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted several of them. 14andrewp2 wrote the following at Talk:북경 여행:

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here)

Hi my name is Andrew Park

currently attending at Western Academy of Beijing grade 10 student

We have project called world of Wikipedia, which is about writing an article on Wikipedia

BUT, i have received message called speedy deletion.

I do not know why i have receive this message

Therefore, please don't delete this page please.

Regard

I'll delete the page momentarily (A10, it duplicates an existing article), but I'm going to explain to Andrew what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was some kind of student project.Ridernyc (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've pointed Andrew to ko:wp and zh:wp, and I suggested names of some active users who are fluent in Korean and Chinese and gave directions on leaving talk page notes, in case he wants help here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

북경 여행 was re-created for the third time several hours after your last note him. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Me-123567-Me

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

---

This user has attempted to limit discussions on AfD. Me-123567-Me has repeatedly objected to my nominations of political leaders for deletion. S/he has repeatedly claimed that all political leaders are inherently notable. (For example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Percy (politician),Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Durkee,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack MacDougall)The user made non-admin closures on three articles I nominated, before the discussion could conclude: Jim Hnatiuk, Jim Webb (Canada)‎, and Jean Blaquière. 117Avenue reverted these closures, noting that Me-123567-Me was an involved editor. Me-123567-Me then reverted the user's edits, labeling them as vandalism despite the fact that a valid reason had been given for them. Rather than getting involved in this edit war myself, I'm hoping that an admin can do something about it. West Eddy (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points: Policy regarding Non-admin closes in deletion venues instructs that they should only be re-opened by uninvolved admins, while this is inconsistent with the philosophy accepted everywhere else that the only thing restricted to admins are actions that require the toolset, the guidelines are quite clear about the restriction. Second, it may be a case of accidentally hitting the vandalism revert button in twinkle as opposed to the other revert options, and may not be a claim the edits were vandalism. Third, Me-123567-Me appears to have a good-faith misunderstanding of the concept of being uninvolved, and it should be clarified that you can be involved due to past disputes with the same editor, particularly when the uninvolved action your taking is in regards to a similar subject matter as the past involvement. Monty₈₄₅ 06:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Since there were 10 reverts of 117Avenue's edits that were labeled as vandalism, I would say that it was not accidental hitting of the vandalism button. Me does know where the good faith revert button is on the Twinkle interface. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Accidental was a bad choice of words on my part, what I mean is it may be a case of using the vandal revert button without considering the consequence of it labeling the disputed edits as vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 06:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough comment. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Monty for the clarification. It seems I was mistaken, and for that I apologize to West Eddy. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A fine gesture on your part Me-123567-Me, I know you and West Eddy have had your differences in the past, but have typically been on amicable terms as of late, however I think the person you should be apologizing to is 117Avenue (talk · contribs), as he is the one you were accusing of vandalism. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll leave a note on his talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest avoiding closing any discussion where you have a history with the participants or subject matter, if for no other reason than to remove any doubt about your motivations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, now that we have that all taken care of, I think everyone should grab a drink and get back to work. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me, but thanks. West Eddy (talk) 12:57, 17 May 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.

Incivil edit sum

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.

---

No comment. Please see this incivil edit summary--Penom (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Аs he did comment actually on content I don't see a big problem here but I agree the problem of incivility is real in Wikipedia and not properly enforced.--Shrike (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't see anything particularly uncivil and I've notified the editor as you were required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need admins taking action because someone used the word "rubbish" in an edit summary.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this kind of edit summeries is offensive for the other editor. Rubish is actualy refers to what I said. You should understand that I expect to edit in a civil atmospher. This kind of behavor is not acceptable even in real worldPenom (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also an area of spirited debate, and that also has to be expected. It would be nice is he spoke nicer, but it's far short of the standard where some sort of action needs to be enforced.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 17 May 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.

Anon threatens suicide.

[Actual edit has been suppressed] here. Serious or not I thought I'd bring it here. --OfTheGreen (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is being handled per WP:VIOLENCE. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --OfTheGreen (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have suppressed the original edits as they disclose personal information. The matter is being handled as a Wikiemergency via emergency at wikimedia.org. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this. Good to see it being taken seriously on my first time being involved with such an incident. --OfTheGreen (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This does re-raise the half-hearted instruction at WP:SUICIDE to "block the suicidal". We should really bounce that to WMF to get professional advice on. I share the concerns expressed on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, where's that discussion? Egg Centric 16:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Block_user.2C_lock_pages - I thought there was another mention of the same thing, but I can't find that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Frivolous AfD nominations

Me-123567-Me is making disruptive AfD nominations without a valid rationale. List of University of Toronto people was nominated without a valid rationale, and was speedily kept. I would assume good faith, except the nominator has made similar disruptive nominations in the past with similar results and was warned about making frivolous AfD nomintions. (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni) West Eddy (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears there is an ongoing dispute between User:West Eddy and User:Me-123567-Me. The older AfDs are a year ago, the one being complained of was closed a few days ago, and had a rationale. (It was invalid, in the sense that the AfD speedy kept, but it raised a valid point.) The AfD is not one of many or even several recent AfDs. This posting seems to be an attempt to continue the dispute by other means. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Yeah, that's what it looked like - but the newest AfD was clearly pointy, after Me-123567-Me had those two older ones closed with a very clear explanation that articles don't get deleted just because some of their content is unsourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It can of course be both. I took one entry out of the list, and there are three more redlinks that shouldn't be there without sources - at least two should definitely have articles. It is also a reasonably common that people repeat behaviour simply because that's how they roll. Funnily enough I responded to the last incident, which I had completely forgotten. I don't fault the warning. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

Personal attacks and incivility

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

---

A perfectly civil discussion is being continuously disrupted by the completely unprovoked aggressive behavior of Justice and Arbitration (talk · contribs). The discussion was between me and another user when Justice and Arbitration arrived, and started posting offensive personal comments and requests that I leave the discussion.

• "you are a very diligent user here on Wikipedia, yet for some reason you often play the amnesia game"
• "give it a rest already and focus your energy on writing something more useful", next
• "you're making stuff up",
• "you are dangerously starting to get close to a troll"

After that I requested that the user please discuss properly, and posted a link to WP:TROLL so as to point out to the user that he is being insulting. In his next (and latest) post the user replied

• "you seem more and more like a troll, whether you realize it or not"
• "please, stop embarssing yourself. I suggest we delete this whole topic for your own sake"

I believe I do not deserve this kind of unprovoked abuse. But its not so much the general condescending tone and offensive personal comments. The most worrying thing for me is the user's insistence on his blatant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. To the point that he believes users that point out it is OR should be berated in the above manner ("its so embarrassing for you"). The author simply must be supporting his claim, and those who request direct support are making a fool of themselves. If nothing else, I believe the user should sternly be pointed to WP:NPA, WP:V, and WP:OR. -- Director (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to be a little more thick-skinned. The diffs you've posted above, while somewhat impolite, are really not over-the-line civility violations or personal attacks. Calling someone a troll, while insulting, is not "against the rules" in and of itself a blockworthy offense. I haven't looked into the OR complaints (and probably won't), but if you think J&A is inserting OR, then just clearly explain why it's OR, quoting policy where necessary, and let the rest of the community decide if you're right. If no one else is participating in the conversation, then try WP:3O or WP:DR. This complaint probably belongs at WP:WQA rather than here, as there is no issue which requires administrator attention. J&A should be encouraged to be more polite, but that's about it. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Its the whole attitude of the user. WP:OR has been pointed out to him several times. He either understands the policy and is purposely having me on, or he's simply refusing to look it up and does not care anyway. The very suggestion that the conclusions he drew from his links are not legitimate sources provokes things like "please stop embarssing yourself, I suggest we delete this whole topic for your own sake". Not only is he posting OR, and insisting on said OR, he's condescendingly mocking and insulting others ("troll") when the fact is pointed out to him. Its insufferable, frankly. And these are the Balkans articles - if there's anyone there at all, the "community" usually consists of POV-pushers one way or the other. -- Director (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll most definitely is against the rules

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

It is also true the rules are not enforced consistently

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Nobody Ent 15:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying that anytime anyone uses the word "troll" to describe another editor, I can insta-block them without discussion? -Scottywong| spout _ 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, perhaps I should block you right now for these uncivil edit summaries: 1 2 -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You could, or you could show discretion and give a warning before blocking. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• SW, come on... Now your comments look like trolling... (ie: Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. per WP:TROLL) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly hope you're not calling me a troll. Let's see, where's that block button again... ;) -Scottywong| chat _ 16:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty, there are levels in between "do nothing" and "block them". When I see incivility like this, I leave a strong but polite message on their talk page. Often, they get a little more polite. Occassionally, they get more belligerent, which of course makes blocking justifiable. The reluctance of admins to simply leave hand written guidance on potentially troublesome users escapes me. The tone of these comments isn't block worthy (yet) but it is clearly worth putting the editor, Justice and Arbitration on notice that their behavior is not acceptable and may be cause for action if it were to continue or escalate. I will go and leave a message now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So you egg people on so that they react badly to block them. Got it. Now I understand your comment to another editor about "stepping it up" yesterday.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, you let people know that their actions are unacceptable with the intent of either beginning a dialog or getting them to reevaluate their actions. You give them every chance to comply with civility expectations with the goal of ending the problem with no further action. If they choose to get belligerent, they are responsible for their own actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist, Dennis's response reflects a difference between his style and mine. Although I accept that we have to assume good faith generally, my threshold for assuming good faith is lower than Dennis's. I was preparing to respond to your "egg people on" comment as utter nonsense, but Dennis beat me to it with his more tactful response. Your describing Dennis's attempts to give users another chance as baiting is twisted and unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote DGG - "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• All I'm saying is that there needs to be some kind of threshold for people dealing with their own minor disputes before bringing them to the drama board to tattle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Direktor is wrong to be insulted by J&A's comments, I'm just saying that he could have done more to resolve this situation himself before escalating it here. And I gave some suggestions as to how he could have done that (and still can do that). The more we coddle editors with very minor disputes, the more we encourage minor disputes to be brought to this board. People should be able to be called a "troll" and not have it ruin their day. ANI should not be step 1 in the minor dispute resolution process. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Some people are exceptional authors but terrible at disputes. Me, I'm a mediocre author but reasonably competent at dealing with disputes and dialing back the drama. You, well you write neat gadgets and probably have some other fine qualities ;) It takes all kinds. If someone is upset at being called a troll many times (not just once), I would rather they did come here, as I will be happy to review it and leave a strongly worded message. Or they can leave a request on my talk page for the same. It is an "incident", after all (why this board exists), and I would rather they let someone uninvolved leave that message than to get mad and ramp up the drama on the talk page. SW, the key is to find a solution that lowers the intensity of the situation, not one that ramps it up. Sometimes that means coming here to let someone else do a little heavy lifting for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on some points, but I definitely disagree that bringing an issue to ANI is an effective method of lowering the intensity of a situation. -Scottywong| speak _ 16:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The statement I was responding to was Calling someone a troll, while insulting, is not "against the rules". This is not equivalent to the statement "Minor disputes should be brought to ANI." Existing civility policy encourages editors to first "consider if anything needs to be done." (Emphasis mine). NPA encourages editors not to respond at all. ANI is low on the list of preferred responses. That said, telling an editor a personal attack isn't is not helpful, as it is both incorrect and puts the OP on the defensive. There is value is simply telling an editor the truth: yes, that was a personal attack but it wasn't sufficiently egregious that anyone is going to do anything about it. (The rest of SW's initial post was pretty much spot on). Nobody Ent 16:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made a minor correction to my original response. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see the conversation on the bottom of my talk page, which may clear up some concerns and explain my reasoning a little better. Like I said, sometimes a polite but firm note from an outsider is what is needed to get things pointed in the right direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also left a note on Direktor's page directing him to DRN. Hopefully we are done here. Yes, I do things differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Its shame that WP:NPA is not enforced properly through Wikipedia.Of course there some special circumstances in every case but at least warning should be given when editor does comment on fellow editor.--Shrike (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that it's rarely enforced against administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take an administrator to issue a warning. If you feel that NPA is not being properly enforced because too few warnings are given, then feel free to give the warnings yourself. -Scottywong| gab _ 20:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yоu right but sometimes warning are not enough and blocks are needed.--Shrike (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I did the same thing as a non-admin as I do an admin with the personal noes. The bit didn't change the fact that sometimes people just need a polite wake up call. And yes, you and I agree on your point MF, believe it or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Issuing a warning isn't enforcement Scottywong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If enforcement is inadequate, and warnings don't constitute enforcement, then what you're saying is that admins need to block people more often (and apparently without warning) for civility violations. Should I block J&A for referring to someone as a troll? Please tell me how I can bring the level of civility enforcement to a level that you would be happy with. You might also want to consider that lowering the bar for civility blocks could very likely put yourself directly in the crosshairs. -Scottywong| prattle _ 21:21, 17 May 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.

Travelsaround

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.

---

Spam-only account (all of their contribution is promotion of a travel agency cite). Was already warned previously.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:06, 17 May 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.

Unsure of this IP's edit

Diff: [51]. I don't, obviously, understand what it is they want help with, but I'd rather pass the buck to admins. In case it is a "cry for help." GwenChan 00:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I asked him what he needs help with. But beyond that, there's nothing anyone can do without something more specific than "help me". Even if this were a cry for help, the authorities would likely refuse to do anything over a comment so needlessly vague. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Echigo_mole

Nobody Ent 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism experiment

On the EN wiki mailing list an editor has admitted to running a vandalisn experiment in mainspace involving using IPs to remove 100 random external links. I've requested that they stop and revert any outstanding vandalisms. As this would appear to be a longstanding editor I've brought the matter here. As I'm not 100% certain as to which editor is linked to that mailing list poster I will inform them of this thread by email.ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call. What is the process supposed to be if some enthusiastic tinkerer wants to run an "official" experiment? As we have seen some very large non-reversible "tests" such as the tens of thousands of pages changed in the SharedIPArchiveBot experiment, it would be handy to make the distinction clear. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, strange experiment. Given the huge number of inappropriate external links we have, I really wonder: wouldn't a random removal of a hundred links catch so many bad links objectively worthy of removal that the net effect of the "vandalism" might be more benefit than harm? If the experiment is meant to measure how good the community is at reverting vandalism, I can't see how they can do that without having a measure for these random beneficial hits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fae, The last vandalism experiment that I recall involved a certain banned user who obtained a list of unwatched pages and vandalised some of them. As I remember the community was unimpressed. The ridiculous thing is that we have heaps of vandalism available if anyone wants to study it. All you need do is take a random batch of edits from a year ago, check which were good and which were vandalism then track through to see which have been resolved. Providing you fix any not yet resolved I can't see anyone objecting. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The last one I remember was committed by an admin. Arbcom had no issue with letting them keep the bit. Gotta love consistency.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're referring to this. If so, you'll see that the admin in question no longer has the bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the case I was thinking of, and the admin wasn't the one doing vandalism, he "merely" supplied the list of unwatched articles without getting appropriate reassurances as to what the list would be used for. But I don't know if CubeLurker is thinking of that one. ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was thinking Nabla[52]. Nabla voluntarily gave up the bit for other reasons unrelated, but that's neither here nor there.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to liaise with WMF to get research made "official". I would suggest, though, that the damage from this example, especially if it were reverted after a period, would be fairly negligible (assuming that it actually exists). While I would not advocate allowing "deliberate vandalism to measure the response" experiments, a sense of realism suggests that this is not one we need to get over-excited about. Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

We have a user access level called researcher. It is too narrow in scope to encompass this incident, but it could be defined a little broader. We could, at the risk of making yet another rule, consider requesting than anyone planning to do research, other than what might be viewed as acceptable editing, apply for the user access bit, along with a research plan, filed with the WMF.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The researcher userright gives trusted researchers access to deleted revisions - this is necessary because some research projects don't make sense without that access. But I'd see that as more applicable to someone researching page creation and deletion than someone researching vandalism. Otherwise research projects are supposed to come to us at the Research committee, and I'd resign from that before agreeing to research that deliberately vandalised Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WSC. There is no need of artifical probing to study vandalism--there are quite enough naturally occurring examples & it sjhouldbe possible for us to help researchers less familiar with Wikipedia identify and follow them. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent sock/vandal help

See [53], Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 and WP:DENY. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also [54] JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Bsadowski1. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism experiment

On the EN wiki mailing list an editor has admitted to running a vandalisn experiment in mainspace involving using IPs to remove 100 random external links. I've requested that they stop and revert any outstanding vandalisms. As this would appear to be a longstanding editor I've brought the matter here. As I'm not 100% certain as to which editor is linked to that mailing list poster I will inform them of this thread by email.ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call. What is the process supposed to be if some enthusiastic tinkerer wants to run an "official" experiment? As we have seen some very large non-reversible "tests" such as the tens of thousands of pages changed in the SharedIPArchiveBot experiment, it would be handy to make the distinction clear. --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, strange experiment. Given the huge number of inappropriate external links we have, I really wonder: wouldn't a random removal of a hundred links catch so many bad links objectively worthy of removal that the net effect of the "vandalism" might be more benefit than harm? If the experiment is meant to measure how good the community is at reverting vandalism, I can't see how they can do that without having a measure for these random beneficial hits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fae, The last vandalism experiment that I recall involved a certain banned user who obtained a list of unwatched pages and vandalised some of them. As I remember the community was unimpressed. The ridiculous thing is that we have heaps of vandalism available if anyone wants to study it. All you need do is take a random batch of edits from a year ago, check which were good and which were vandalism then track through to see which have been resolved. Providing you fix any not yet resolved I can't see anyone objecting. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The last one I remember was committed by an admin. Arbcom had no issue with letting them keep the bit. Gotta love consistency.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're referring to this. If so, you'll see that the admin in question no longer has the bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the case I was thinking of, and the admin wasn't the one doing vandalism, he "merely" supplied the list of unwatched articles without getting appropriate reassurances as to what the list would be used for. But I don't know if CubeLurker is thinking of that one. ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was thinking Nabla[55]. Nabla voluntarily gave up the bit for other reasons unrelated, but that's neither here nor there.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to liaise with WMF to get research made "official". I would suggest, though, that the damage from this example, especially if it were reverted after a period, would be fairly negligible (assuming that it actually exists). While I would not advocate allowing "deliberate vandalism to measure the response" experiments, a sense of realism suggests that this is not one we need to get over-excited about. Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

We have a user access level called researcher. It is too narrow in scope to encompass this incident, but it could be defined a little broader. We could, at the risk of making yet another rule, consider requesting than anyone planning to do research, other than what might be viewed as acceptable editing, apply for the user access bit, along with a research plan, filed with the WMF.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The researcher userright gives trusted researchers access to deleted revisions - this is necessary because some research projects don't make sense without that access. But I'd see that as more applicable to someone researching page creation and deletion than someone researching vandalism. Otherwise research projects are supposed to come to us at the Research committee, and I'd resign from that before agreeing to research that deliberately vandalised Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WSC. There is no need of artifical probing to study vandalism--there are quite enough naturally occurring examples & it sjhouldbe possible for us to help researchers less familiar with Wikipedia identify and follow them. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent sock/vandal help

See [56], Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 and WP:DENY. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Also [57] JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Bsadowski1. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor with a habit of personal attacks while editing drunk

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.

---

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) appears to be getting into the habit of editing while intoxicated and making personal attacks, as seen again here on this very board, a few threads above [58]. He did pretty much the same thing just a couple days ago, resulting in multiple unacceptable posts in several venues [59][60][61], and got warnings from at least two admins [62]. Seems at least a brief sobering-up block is in order, but probably also a longer-term one, since his attacks come in the context of a larger pattern of contentious and tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note - I'm inclined to think a block is needed for Darkness's own good, but I want a second opinion by someone who knows Darkness Shines. Personal attacks while admittedly drunk. Others around him have been less than civil at times but that isn't an excuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Already blocked by parsecboy. I suggest blocks of escalating lengths if this sort of behavior continues. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Was about to post the same on both points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks guys. Now's the time for me to get the beer out of the fridge in turn. Don't let me edit for the next few hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't care if he is or isn't drunk, that kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is not therapy. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  Can't he argue diminished capacity? Not that that wouldn't be true of many editors even when sober. Did anyone give him a wikipedia sobriety test? Just the section header of this topic made me laugh before I even read the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  "Your honor, I was too drunk to be able to judge if I was fit to drive, so you should acquit me of this DWI because it isn't my fault." ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  Andy accused him of being a bigot and also used vulgar language. Why wasn't he warned and blocked as well? On the face of it it looks like DS was goaded into an outburst. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Although someone else's incivility never excuses your own, the MF/civility arbcom case did highlight the goading aspect, and as you point out he has been extremely uncivil on his own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(Unconstructive posting by IP editor removed; likely harassment sock. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

There is a plain case for an equally long block of AndyTheGrump here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For such an accusation you at least need to provide difs as evidence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy was in the difs above you fantastic faithful buttercup, now go have a nice day and freshen yourself, you fair speaker. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked for specific difs to be presented on this page so everyone was clear what accusations were being made. But I thank you for your comment, which one agains reminds me why I took the decision to refrain from any further interaction with you long ago. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"You are a liar, and a bigot, and unfit to contribute to Wikipedia."

"This is POV-pushing bigotry, end of story. Shit like this doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and the sooner we get rid of the sort of individuals who think it does, the better." (indirectly accusing Darkness here, as that's who he's referring to)

Those are just two examples. Silverseren^C 22:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• • (Hic)*...whadda you mean we caint can't ebit while having a lil' bit o' sauce. That would take hav the fun out of it. Nex, you be telling us we kan't use recreatt...rekreatshun...wreakre...Mexican agriculture.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Heck, I was just about to post something of the same. I have a hard time imagining why Darkness Shines should be blocked for his offensive comments, but Andy wasn't blocked for his offensive comments. Ravenswing 01:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Andy used very uncivil language, there's no question. I told him on his talk page to knock that off, and he accepted that advice. But Andy only said, in an unsophisticated and improperly blunt way, what a lot of us have been thinking. When an editor who's here mostly to champion Israel and the Jewish ethnicity tries to paint people from a nation that Israel considers an adversary, Pakistan, as paedophiles, he should expect to be called unpleasant names.

Let's be candid about this: If some Pakistani or Iranian had done what AnkhMorpork has done, heavily used one very partisan source and selectively pulled from others in an extremely skewed way, to falsely paint people of Jewish or Israeli extraction as perverts, that person would have been called worse names, and by a much wider swathe of editors. And he would have been topic-banned, almost immediately. We all know this. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please show the diffs were Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) championed "Jewish ethnicity"?.Even if the Andy was 100% right content wise it doesn't matter such language is not accepted as the language of Darkness Shines is not accepted too they should be both blocked and its strange that one only of them was blocked. --Shrike (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty understanding how one can express the concept of saying someone is telling lies without using the word 'lie' or 'liar', nor do I understand how one talks about racial prejudice without using the terms 'bigotry' or 'bigot'. Perhaps some form of euphemism is acceptable, such 'purveyor of terminological inexactitudes' or 'economical with the truth'? Is Wikipedia running under the rules of the House of Commons, whereby one is not allowed to exactitude of expression in favour of a faux-politeness? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, how's that for a bigotted, xenophobic attack on a national institution? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL is pretty clear "Comment on content, not on the contributor".--Shrike (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "lie" includes intent, which is unknowable. Editor has pattern of making false statements is preferred. Likewise, Editor's contributions show a pattern of anti-Muslim POV pushing is also preferred. Civility standards are notability vague and varied and unevenly enforced, so it is best to stay out of gray area behavior. Intemperate language is counterproductive because often shifts focus away questionable behavior being referred to onto the describer of the behavior.Nobody Ent 10:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This comment by Nobody Ent ( that paragon of non-hasty wisdom ) is one of the clearest and most concise arguments in favour of civility I've ever read. Even editors who see civility as disingenuous or cynical can't deny the truth and utility of his final sentence, at least. --OhioStandard (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't improve on Ent's statement so suffice it to say that he is 100% correct. It is counterproductive to ramp up the drama through carelessly throwing around accusations regarding someone's intent and has no place here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Having a pattern of telling untruths--even after correction--could merely be a coincidence and is no indication whatsoever of a person's intent. I look forward to you using this form of logic when a so-called vandalism-only or spamming account is brought to this board: after all, all those bad edits do not show intent--which is always unknowable, don't you know--and can't be used to label an editor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Editors have called members of that Jewish sect who circumcises by biting off the baby's foreskin paedophiles on here without any trouble. Of course it's ridiculous to claim that all Pakistanis are paedophiles but as far as I can see no one has been doing that; what people have been doing is suggesting there is something wrong with a small part of the culture, AFAIK only in Britain, and frankly they would be right. They are only echoing the media in this.

There is a huge difference between racism and criticising culture that happens to be adopted by members of an ethnic group, or indeed a small part of that culture, and frankly if you want my personal opinion we need less of the former but possibly more of the latter. Cultural relatvism is what is stopping us from saying that Saudi Arabia are shits for stopping women driving, Brazil is shits for allowing child sex abuse so long as it's "consensual", Russia are shits for extreme corruption, Nigeria are shits for a likewise reason, and Americans are shits for executing some of their black men and locking up most of the rest at one time or another. You can criticise every culture (yes I used countries here but so 'twas for simplicity) for something and also, I have to say, some cultures are "objectively" worse than others. Of course ultimately how you compare em is gonna be arbitary, but would you like to be a woman in a Wahhabist culture? You must judge an individual as an individual, but you should also judge a group as a group. Egg Centric 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the drunk thing

As someone who's been blocked, rightly, for drunken editing a year or so ago, I wonder how common this is amongst registered users? If it is common then I would be interested in contributing to a proper policy on this. Basically escalating blocks, but also the possibility of being reinstated on condition of getting help...

There is also the possibilty of introducing a userscript that stops people from editing between certain times and a block/ban could be made on that basis. Actually...

Egg Centric 21:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely, given the highly evolved language we should be using, we should be saying that editor in question is editing while 'tired and emotional'? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Drinking whilst editing might make for an interesting question on the annual survey. That would be more accurate than asking people to publicly self identify, as somehow I doubt that many who do so would admit it publicly. Without wanting to stereotype, I'd put money on my fellow Brits being less abstemious than those of you from across the pond. Though I'm sure there are exceptions in both directions. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) is community banned from posting when substantially intoxicated, or appearing by his edits to be so, with the definition of "substantially" to be decided by the community. (Suggestion: roughly approximating to six pints of Guinness) .

• Support as proposer Egg Centric 21:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please find something better to do with your time than making flippant comments on the drama board. Given that you were blocked not a week ago for ill-judged humour, ANI is probably not the best place to have another go at it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a joke. Seems fairly sensible that if a user's problems are caused by alcohol, it's best to cut that out rather than giving up on the user altogether. Having said that, your broader point is taken, toodles! Egg Centric 22:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as essentially unenforceable and unnecessary: if an editor's contributions are sub-standard or disruptive or uncivil, it matters little why that is the case, they should be dealt with because they're sub-standard, disruptive or uncivil. I've known people who can be totally coherent when stewed to the gills, and others who can't manage coherency even when they're cold stone sober. Why, in short, should we care about what's going on behind the screen, when we can act on the actual edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, BMK lays it out pretty clearly. Heiro 04:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose at least until Wikipedia has a USB Alcolizer interface. Blackmane (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. Not enforceable or helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose spectacularly ill-considered proposal - per BMK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:35, 18 May 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:Hospitaller2003

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:Hospitaller2003 is deleting without any explanation text in the article Order of Saint Michael of the Wing (history [63]). He deleted infobox, inter-wiki, references and categories, and rest of the article was left without wlinks, all without any consensus or explanation.

He was welcomed [64], and was four times warned about removal of content without explanation [65], [66], [67] and [68].

Because in only one edit summary he wrote "Removed defamatory information and misinformation intended to obfuscate the true. The legal cases were decided in Dom Duarte's favor in all instances and have been misrepresented in previous edits to say otherwise", I checked the article with references and NPOVed article [69]. But without success, he again removed infobox, iw, cats etc., again without any explanation [70].

His version of the article looks terrible. This account is probably utilised only for one article, please see his edits.

It looks like short block is only way for communication with him.--Yopie (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• The level of reverts is only once or maybe twice a day, although he has been working on that article for some time. Isn't this really a case for WP:DRN? I agree that his revert decision to strip it down makes it look rather plain, which is odd since he seemed fine with the symbol back in 2011, and he ignored the info box for months until early this month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• • He do it again [71], again without explanation. He was informed about this ANI [72], but in response he deleted again infobox, interwiki and categories in the article. What I can do against it? --Yopie (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I pointed you to WP:DRN, dispute resolution noticeboard. His actions are not "vandalism", even if they are unhelpful and somewhat ugly to the eye. ANI is only for "incidents" (The "I" part) that need immediate action, which isn't the case here. Yet. We really can't decide content issues here, it is out of the scope of this board and would be improper in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This is bigger than me

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

---

This is longer than what people want to read

Brendon111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Request Read full, don't leave a word, or if you lack the time or willingness, please don't read at all. I am sorry, I'm running low on patience right now. However, if you read it all and contribute in this discussion with a sensible response, your efforts will be highly appreciated. I was told to let it go. Hence, I am not clinging on to any stick. Having said that, it would not be okay if I didn't bring attention to what's going on. This is a large issue that transcends my own obduracy or deafness. Pardon me if you think I don't hear well, perhaps this time, it's because there is nothing to hear, or what is being proffered to me in the garb of explanation is either actually a sordid attempt to validate contemptible actions or too untenable/unintelligible. I think, this time it was not me who needed to hear more. And, I must try. After all, I had over 30 hours to think about it. All of us know Wikipedia doesn't have concrete rules, so the enforcement of those rules are subjective. Yet most, if not all of us, would agree that blocking is absolutely the last resort when no other approach proves to be working, am I right? That makes for enormous opportunity for sysops to both improve or vitiate the project with their helpfulness or excessive imperiousness respectively. Myself I am, generally speaking, quite a polite but straightforward guy. I like being amiable. I go out of my way to resolve pungent, acrimonious disputes. That's how I'm biologically designed. I don't like politics nor hypocrisy. I detest those words and I think these words are pretty much alike. I don't think behaving like sheep gets us anywhere. Thus, I don't connive at abominable actions, especially if it originates from a person vested with privileges which average people count on. The main picture I was, on an administrator's talk page, discussing an issue about a recent AfD result (I know I was persistent because I didn't understand the exact protocol, but did he clearly indicate that I was harassing him?). Far from getting upset and warning me, that administrator explained his limits and expressed his semi-agreement saying "Brendon, you said that There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that probably should not exist and that was why AfD is still in business and you are right." To me it didn't look like I was "harassing" him or displaying a battle ground mentality there. I thought I was well within my limits as an editor. Firstly, if I weren't, he would tell me so. The absence of "warnings" inherently carries a meaning (that's the reason why they are called "warnings", I don't mean obscure or equivocal statements, by "warnings"). Ask yourselves (I have a fairly good idea of what some might say) Saying "your inane gibberish is not helping" using these words in response to a comment that says others and me were just being "silly" and making "overwrought claims" and that we were only evincing "more silliness", should that response get you blocked (and only you?), that too without any warnings? Yes, my response could - some may say, should - have been avoided, but does that merit no prior warnings? If that doesn't merit even a warning how come it gets a newcomer blocked and eventually his talk-page locked? (Isn't it exactly what biting new-editors means? Forget new or old, it's just flat-out biting) We know that block is preventive, not punitive, so wouldn't that block without any prior warning, be a deplorable insult of WP:AGF? It necessitates presumption that any number of well-explained warnings would prove to be insufficient in preventing one person from doing what he was doing wrong. I was improvidently and contemptuously blocked for 48 hours with no warnings (not even a level 1 warning about harassment or battleground mentality) with allegations that either are exaggerated or arguable at best. Even if these allegations are true (which I don't think they are) the question still stands, why was I not formally cautioned? That gives away his predisposition towards impeding me. Just digging up relatively old and already dropped issues, to fill in the logical inconsistencies and thereafter taking away every means of communication basing on shoddy and poxy pretext, is that how an administrator should do his job? If so, then I don't think he deserves the privileges in the first place. Just imagine, what if the cops in your town started behaving this way? How far would you go? My point is, had I been properly informed of the risks or warned, I would not have been facing a block at all. No amount of sophistry should be adequate to clout your judgement about this. My POV (perhaps an open secret) Bwilkins didn't like my retort to him (now, that was strident but with reason, and I didn't know at the time that it's going to bring me a revengeful or retributive block with no prior warnings). He wanted me to obsequiously accept his domination. Bwilkins came and started ordering me to essentially "get lost" from Ron's talk page or worse. His intrusive and highly domineering comment triggered a harsh reply from me too. I hope one could get what it feels to be talked to that way. The problem gets amplified due to the fact that an administrator can easily provoke or harass an editor without outright violating WP:Civility. I agree, my choice of words might have been avoidably harsh; so was his, don't you think? Administrators should lead by example. And the idea that I was conveying wasn't so unreasonable. It said, Bwilkins, I'm with an administrator so I don't need you to bully me out of here with your ridiculous approach. I don't think anybody believes that one editor should be blocked by an involved administrator for asking to be left alone. But again, where were those warnings? If I was blocked due to my impolite reply to Bwilkins, why did he not warn me first, stating that in my talk-page? He couldn't admit that himself since that would prove his involvement and, in turn, conflict of interest. I sense there is a tacit agreement among most administrators here that no matter how despicably or censoriously or immorally one abuses the privileges that he has been entrusted with, others will just acquiesce. This whole ethos bounces off my head. But I can't parse my observation in any other conclusion. Yes, I'm assuming in bad-faith. I concede I am no saint. But I submit to you, after what I've undergone lately, it's hard for me to conclude differently. I'm just a human being and I can only appeal to humanity and nothing more. Suppose an editor is domineering Firstly, editors can't afford to be domineering, in anyway except for logically. Secondly, although I don't hear anybody complain against my domineering behavior, if an editor like me tries to "domineer over" anybody, (s)he could be taken to WP:WQA warned then after sufficient warnings, blocked. Suppose an administrator behaves domineeringly When an administrator behaves domineeringly or rather despotically, it's others who are blocked, sometimes even without warnings. So it would be better if we — at least for the time being — could focus on something else than my nebulous dominance (for which I have just been blocked for over 30 hrs and lost my talk page access and all this without any warning). An administrator's domineering nature should be dealt with more stringently (since they have the right tools for exhibiting their dominance massively) than dominance of an editor. Because otherwise, how should I defend myself against administrator who are imbued with egoism and whose goal is to just block away the editors he disagrees with or doesn't like (there are quite a few in this wikipedia), as opposed to turning them into productive collaborators? How do we preclude prejudicial treatment to editors who edit controversial/religious articles? So, is Wikipedia telling editors like me that we can be harassed/blocked at anytime if an administrator decides to put us through this by virtue of our disagreement? You administrators have a bigger job (of restraining and guiding each other) than you and I might admit, since Wikipedia project is really at the mercy of administrators' actions. Conclusion Repressive, bullish, pro-block administrators like Bwilkins are a shame, a disgrace to other well-meaning Wikipedia administrators and a liability to Wikipedia itself. If any editor is reading this and thinking well, I am not Brendon. Think again! It could have been any of us. There is no shortage of topsy-turvy excuses. Lastly I don't want to listen to anything, anything Bwilkins has to say, as he is just an abrasive and inconsiderate person whose behavior is obnoxious (Wikimedia essay defines such a person as "dick"). Furthermore, "being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks. If there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are. [....] Respect others, even when you disagree. Sometimes the best weapon is to disarm your opponent by disarming yourself (via civil and constructive behavior), transforming an opponent into a collaborator. [...] Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is generally a dick-move — especially if true. It upsets the other person and reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." But like I said I don't want to have any sort of communication with that fellow named Bwilkins. Thank you (only if you have read it all). Keep a close eye on the actions of administrators like Bwilkins (talk · contribs), those who like to harass people with their undue bossiness and place punitive blocks based on their intolerance of things they disagree with (i.e. to threaten or subdue editors), at times. It's not about Me or Bwilkins, none of us is one of a kind. Don't connive at these events; they are increasing (mine is not an isolated case). These are deleterious to the project as a whole. Again, one may figure out a way to ridicule me or my pov. But is this how we are going to improve wikipedia? By impetuously blocking/denigrating the ones we don't like? I may be blocked in the future for some arbitrary reason, but I would at least leave Wikipedia with my head held high. Best regards,  Brendon ishere 12:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As with the above, your arguments here[73] are lengthy but not very convincing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the big wall of text above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a good executive summary of this case can be found in the declined unblock request. Basically, Brendon went to Ron Ritzman's user talk to question his keep closure of an AfD. At some point, Bwilkins joined in to try to prise Brendon away. Brendon's response was to flame him, and Bwilkins blocked. The rest of this seems to be a textbook case of civil POV pushing: repeatedly dodging straightforward questions of how a brand-new editor had such a good grasp of a barrel-load of convenient policy, not to mention wikicode: hiding behind WP:BITE despite such (the idea behind bite is to insulate new clueless editors, not editors who somehow know policy well from the get-go): claiming harrassment, bullying, hounding et cetera from admin X upon the very first interaction and declaring that this meant the editor was involved, yadda yadda. Were I the sort of editor who throws around accusations of socking lightly, I'd suggest that Brendon should know for his next account that civil POV pushing works best when one keeps it civil, and that there's little more valued in the civil POV pushing community than being able to point at one's clean block log. But of course I am not an editor who throws around accusations of socking lightly, and so I would like to welcome Brendon to our community, note that the behavior he has engaged in is typically described as the "civil POV pushing" pattern, and ask him nicely to consider the advice given him on his talk page as to how to proceed in his future editing on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Making sock accusations lightly is vastly preferable to making sock accusations via innuendo. Claiming not to make accusations of socking while concurrently actually doing so is simply dishonest. Of course WP:SPI would be the best route. The OP has agreed to move on (on their talk page). Nobody Ent 14:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a stick. I dropped it. I would also like to clarify,

I am not actually asking for any retribution against Bwilkins,

I just wanted others' feedback, so that I could learn how to navigate more freely and efficiently in this Wiki-world.

Now as it seems, it won't be possible. Bam...Back to sock puppet argument again.  Brendon ishere 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"civil POV pushing" - I don't understand. Believe me, I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not doing it unknowingly. I would like to refrain from "civil POV pushing". Please tell me how, Please.
New addition (at 15:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC))Does that apply to editors who work within a narrow range of topics (like me) but try their best to adhere to Wikipedia's core policies? Brendon ishere 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If what you're looking for here is feedback, let me share mine: You were upset about an AfD and flew off the handle, attacking people, assuming bad faith and stupidity, and generally refusing to interact in a collegial manner. Could a more explicit warning have been issued? Sure, I guess, though I like to think that Wikipedians are able to understand implication and don't always need to be hit over the head with a giant warning template. Is the real issue here still the fact that you don't seem to understand that your engagement style is not acceptable on Wikipedia? Yeah. So I would encourage you to take some time to read through WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:5P. Familiarize yourself with our conduct standards, and really give some thought to how you could have handled the whole matter, from AfD to talk to block to ANI, more appropriately - because if it happens again, you won't have the fallback of "I wasn't warned" that you have now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter,

you wrote "how you could have handled the whole matter, from AfD to talk to block to ANI, more appropriately" - exactly that's what I'm asking. Please tell me how. I am sincerely confused. I don't if I was "battling" or "harassing" Ron Ritzman. Neither he nor anybody else warned me. I'm sorry, but I don't read minds.

@Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)
If you think I'm a sock then file an WP:SPI.  Brendon ishere 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this was sufficient warning as per Wikipedia's requirements. The "I was not warned" game is very very wearying (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, all that is required to allow this thread to end is for either Bwilkins or Brendon to allow the other to have the last word Nobody Ent 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Response

Now that I have actually been advised of this, here's what I see are his concerns:

• he does not feel he was being aggressive in his pursuit of reversal of his AFD
• he feels he was not warned before being blocked
• he feels that he was blocked for attacking me, making me "involved"
• he feels I'm "pro-block"
• he feels so angry at me, his comments above are loaded with massive personal attacks

I think I'm merely going to address the untruths in the above.

• I have over 1300 pages on my watchlist, including a number of admins. User:Ron Ritzman was approached by Brendon to reverse his close on an AFD. Ron patiently advised that there was no other way of closing it. Brendon continued to pester him, even though Ron had pointed out policy-related reasons to move on. Brendon continued, so I stepped in to provide what was a combination of guidance to go to DRV with his concerns, and a warning not to continue perstering Ron. Indeed, I already had read enough tone in the discussion that I determined that Brendon was escalating his action, phrasing, and aggressiveness.
• Warnings, as we know, do not need to be placed on the user's talkpage - and my stepping in on Ron's talkkpage was very clear and obvious to its intent as a warning. Indeed, Brendon already admits he read it as a "go away" message: it was. Warning was seen, received, and apparently has been read as per its intent.
• Brendon's response to my warning/guidance was extremely aggressive. I am not even aware that his message might have been considered to be an attack on me: he was not blocked for any such reason. I was obviously not WP:INVOLVED - I provided a very short 48hr block to protect the project for actions contrary to the project - the block log and message are very clear as to the reasoning.
• The top of my userpage shows my philosophy of Wikipedia: Everybody has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet. Blocking is clearly not my preferred direction - my role is to mediate/guide and protect the project when necessary. The editor with the most blocks on this project has 36,766 blocks. I have 401, and hope to never reach the top 50 blocking admins. Seeing as most of those are vandals and spammers, that's not block-happy by any stretch of the imagination. Selective linking to a recent such case doesn't show that it's my "pattern". I even advised Ron Ritzman the reason behind the block, and suggested that he would be free to reduce the block length if he wished.
• You're right: like every single other administrator, some people who get blocked become pissed off and go attacking the admin who did it. This is probably the genesis of an essay I've been working on: User:Bwilkins/Essays/Shut_up_and_calm_down. A quick trip to Brendon's talkpage history shows I worked my ass off to get him unblocked - even offerring to do so myself if he simply followed WP:GAB. The two declined unblocks do give a great summary that I was not alone in determining a long pattern over such a short Wikicareer so far.

In short: I want this editor to succeed. I admire the passion. What I will admire more, however, will be what I hope is a true desire to work within community norms. A few specifics:

• When the deleting admin of an AFD says "there's no other way" - then continue following the deletion process and stop Wikihounding them about their judgement.
• When prompted to read a useful piece of policy (such as WP:GAB) then actually read it - and amend your actions accordingly.
• Stop the WP:BATTLE mentality on Wikipedia as a whole - because all-in-all, that's exactly what this ANI (and the continuing discussion on your talkpage) is. The horse is long dead. Claiming otherwise while continuing it is just - well - unbelievable really

Look, all in all, this is truly unfortunate that my first interactions with any editor are to have to warn them, and then block them to protect the project (usually it's a Welcome message - I've done hundreds of those). The sad thing is that every single administrator has had to do the exact same thing dozens (hundreds?) of times. It's unfortunate that the admins who addressed the unblock requests also saw a history of improper behaviour, and agreed that the project needed protection.

Now that you have dozens of admins watching you from this point forward, how you proceed in the future will determine your own success. I have been, and always will be here to assist and guide you, but will also be here to protect the project if needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would read the above response in full but let clarify that I didn't feel I was not warned before being blocked, it's because I wasn't formally warned. As for the perceived "personal attacks" I'm sorry.

But "pester"? What kind of a word is that?

Moving on, Ron Ritzman didn't say I was "badgering him" or "pestering" him or "harassing him". Maybe it would now seem as though I was "pestering" him, it didn't to me. Truly it didn't. And, I don't know how to do telepathy. I may comment as I read further into the comment of Bwilkins.  Brendon ishere 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Everybody has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet. Blocking is clearly not my preferred direction" - well, Bwilkins I am willing to believe you. But actions speak too.

"Stop the WP:BATTLE mentality on Wikipedia as a whole" -  agreed

"When prompted to read a useful piece of policy (such as WP:GAB) then actually read it - and amend your actions accordingly" -  agreed. This is what I should have gotten instead of a "BLOCK". Thank you, Bwilkins.  Brendon ishere 17:03, 17 May 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.

Clear veteran user now trolling for a 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.

---

Brendon is clearly a veteran user who came back to Wikipedia to cause problems on the recent Muhammad images RfC. Now that it is over he is trolling to be blocked. Can we just get it over with already? Why must the community put up with this any longer?Griswaldo (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. If you have evidence, please file spi Nobody Ent 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I knew how to quantify odors I would file an SPI. I give him another month before he has left on his own or gotten himself blocked. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's power in good faith Nobody Ent 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is called provocation. Is this not offensive to repeatedly and consistently (1, 2 and 3) accuse a well-meaning editor of sock-puppetry, based on disagreements? This is really painful to see people who are so imbued with hatred. Really painful as a human.  Brendon ishere 07:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the socking, but looking at this editor's behaviour here in this thread, in connection with his performance at Talk:Islam and domestic violence and his previous activities at the Mohammad images fracas, I do believe his overall pattern of activities here is a mixture of tendentious editing, filibustering and trolling. I'm prepared to block for a longish period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia wants us to be bold, am I wrong? I made changes in good-faith. I am presently in middle of a discussion both in User talk:Amatulic and Talk:Islam and domestic violence (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). I don't see how your accusation fits me.

And, quite frankly, I'm mildly offended by your choice of words. "Filibustering", "trolling" - must you have spoken in these terms? Besides, I don't know if this conversation is made to use up time so that a vote cannot be taken and a law cannot be passed. So filibustering would be yet another breach of Good-faith.

Does nobody see this how I'm getting harassed?  Brendon ishere 08:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I wouldn't say "harassed". More like... "tough love". Doc talk 08:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's suspicious, but I don't have the time for an SPI - can somebody do the honours so that we can sort this, once and for all, either way please? GiantSnowman 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If we have so far not seen any concrete proposal of whose sock he might be, I doubt such proposals and evidence will magically materialize just because somebody lists it at SPI. My suggestion is to leave the socking aspect aside and concentrate on the disruptive conduct of this account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Issuing decrees like this should be a thing to be avoided by most. No one should have to take any editor's "word" for it, having to approach them on their user talkpage before making a change to an article. Doc talk 08:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What "decree"? Decree is an exaggerated description of that. It was simply a request.  Brendon ishere 09:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to consult with you, or any other editor, on anyone's user talk page before making any edit to any article. To request that they do smacks of what we call... meh. The article talk page is there for those sorts of discussions. This is a small lesson for you. There's a few more to learn, of course. Doc talk 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"concentrate on the disruptive conduct of this account." -  let's do it but I request you to do it with a goal to improve the conduct of my account (which I am sure, you will) and not to expunge the account altogether.

"No one needs to consult with you, or any other editor," -  Agreed. I am sorry it seemed so fair to me at that time. I know now, it might not have been appropriate. Nevertheless, wikipedia is, at end of the day, a collaborative process. I don't it's a major crime to request other editors, in good-faith, to discuss with me if they think my additions are inappropriate.

I don't understand why people are not commenting on the censorious accusations (e.g. "filibustering", "trolling") that are being witlessly hurled at me?  Brendon ishere 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "censorious"? You haven't looked into your own history of making "censorious" comments carefully enough to appreciate that this request is laughable. What, do you want reprimands? Doc talk 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever man, Whatever. You people want to provoke me with your gratuitous comments, far from actually trying to help me. You don't judge other editors with same yardstick. You think one crime justifies another. I don't agree. If I'm wrong that doesn't necessitate the repetition of the same wrong thing again and again. User:Griswaldo, User:Doc9871, User:Bwilkins are seemingly more interested in denigrating me and vilifying me instead of guiding me in the right direction. What the hell do you want me to say???? This ridicule is not going to help wikipedia, or is it? You don't seem to be inclined towards turning me into a collaborator at all. The same old derogatory comments repeated ad nauseam, how are they helping me? They are not helping.  Brendon ishere 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on my talk-page (only if anybody is interested) instead of taking up space here. I don't want to seem like a "filibuster".  Brendon ishere 09:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to move it to your talkpage - things I post there get magically removed, no matter how helpful they are.

First, requiring (not "asking") people to advise you if they disagree is ownership. We have a bold, revert, discuss (on the article talkpage) process to help find WP:CONSENSUS.

Second, when people who are uninvolved overall use terms like "filibuster", etc., it might be a good idea to look at your behaviour so far - indeed, the original ANI filing obtained a wide range of comments that could help you move forward - as did the two declined unblock requests. You said you wanted to learn - have you yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You are all being trolled.Griswaldo (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's never a bad idea to reinforce these things. Maybe, just maybe, it will prevent at least one editor from becoming a troll in the first place. Then it's worth it. Or, so they say. Doc talk 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The OP is either a new editor or a previous editor deliberating disrupting Wikipedia. In either case, all that is required is to stop responding, let them have last word, and let the bot archive the discussion.

• If they are a new, continued argument is contrary to WP:BITE and WP:EHP.
• If they are the latter, continued discussion is contary to WP:DNFT.Nobody Ent 11:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@Griswaldo,

"You are all being trolled." - can you prove your statement? I firmly disapprove of your choice of words. If you can't produce concrete proof of what you are claiming (I'm a troll or SOCK or whatever), then I suggest you refrain from using such words.

If you have something to say about me, then I suggest we take this argument off ANI. This is not the right place to continue this argument further.  Brendon ishere 12:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. This looks like trolling. It may be sincere POV pushing. The prescription is the same. But I don't care for summary justice. I'd like to see a case put together, with diffs, before anybody gets blocked. If he's still here when I've got some time, I'll do it and post it here. Please feel free to do it for me if you want to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Pardon me but I think you're baiting me.

Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on in the subtlest of ways, may come at you as a victim, as someone who cares or someone who's hurt. They may mix in inaccurate information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon.

In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request. Sometimes these are after one particular individual and sometimes they're just after anyone who will take the bait.

— WP:BAIT

Is this what's going on? For any further comments kindly visit my talk page. Brendon ishere 14:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Baiting you? For what purpose? It is actually you who's "come at us as a victim, as someone who cares or someone who's hurt". In fact, that was the whole point of this thread you started. --Atlan (talk) 15:20, 18 May 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 death threats

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

---

I am reporting two diffs [74] [75] from user 71.72.151.150 that may constitute death threats. They are directed towards user Berean Hunter, who warned 71.72.151.150 for vandalism about a year ago, which culminated in a block. These diffs are attempts to communicate with other users that Berean Hunter has apparently interacted with. After seeing the second one on RC patrol on 14 May, I reverted both with a UW4 warning (for a serious, 'improperly placed joke'). Minutes later, he told me he had made no such jokes [76], which I interpreted as goading. Since he has now told me this again [77], four days later, I am bringing the issue here. I did not initially see the content of those diffs as dangerously credible in light of the user's apparently friendly reconciliation with Berean Hunter [78], the way they were written, and the user's good faith edits. Please let me know if I should have originally attended to this issue differently. NTox · talk 16:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems to be fairly static (edited same article today as was edited some time ago, for example). As such, the 2 physical threats of violence can be readily attributed to the same person. The fact that they claim the threats are not a joke, they are therefore more credible as threats. I have blocked and e-mailed the emergency@ address (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that I made such an impression. Ah well, can't please everybody. I wonder who this really is? Thank you NTox for catching this and thank you Bwilkins for your help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:24, 18 May 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.

Abuse of Admin Rights

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

---

This editor Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused his admin rights and has attempted to bribe me ([79]) to not post an WP:AN. I will admit at this stage that I did have a rough time at WP:ANI a few months back where the administrator was a bit upset that I kept on including myself into ANI conflicts, but that has largely subsided for now, but this is just unacceptable and to me this looks like wanting to extend the conflict. The fact that I have brang an WP:AN discussion about a ban doesn't give one to act this way. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see abuse of admin rights here, especially for a good admin like Floquenbeam. This does not need desysopping or any admin actions; it is nothing more than Floquenbeam's expression of frustration - nothing more than that. Certainly not something for the drama board.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, I made the required notification.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"attempted to bribe me". Don't be ridiculous. Attempted to use a little irony to persuade you to stop wasting everyone's time, more like. Get a life... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is good to know that at least some wikipedians can't be bought for 5 dollars. Maybe if he upped it to 10 and threw in some S&H Green Stamps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

• There's no way any thinking individual would look at that comment and take it seriously, unless they were looking for propaganda to get those who oppose them in trouble. Non-issue. Flo was just facetiously emphasizing the point that you're too quick to jump to ban proposals, illustrating just how annoying it is and how much he'd like you to stop (as if that should need to be explained). Equazcion ^(talk) 04:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Its best not to let frustration give those your disagreeing with additional ammo, which is the problem with comments like that. That said, the idea that anyone could take that statement to be a serious offer to abuse admin rights strains the limits of AGF, and it is clearly not such an offer. I would suggest a {{trout}} to Khvalamde for bringing it here, but I fear it would not be appreciated for what it is. Monty₈₄₅ 06:29, 18 May 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'm sorry, but I have to say this: It is my experience that some people...a large segment of people, in fact...simply do not "get" sarcasm. I don't know if it's cultural or genetic or what, but it is really just beyond them. And don't try to explain it to these people...it won't do any good...just walk away. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible socking

Could an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kemp (3rd nomination)? There are lots of single purpose accounts !voting "delete" here. I have no idea about the history of the article, so I don't know if any of these are indeed socks — even if most of their !votes have the same wording. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I noted five in a row -- any admin is, or course, free to see WP:False consensus showing dicta of ArbCom. IOW, those !votes may be fully ignored. Collect (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The quacking is gigantic, but having checked them, meatpuppetry is a more likely explanation. WilliamH (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-confessed sock

Resolved

I have to go offline. Please check [80]. I've verified and blocked the listed open proxies, but not the accounts. If a checkuser is around, that might be most efficient. Materialscientist (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done the checkusering needed and blocked all the accounts listed. Courcelles 15:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. Materialscientist (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Luke 19 Verse 27

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.

---

• Can we ban someone for putting his "lulz" above the goal of contributing to the encyclopaedia?
• Or for putting a desire to slur a minority he dislikes above that goal?

Collapsed photos with insulting captions now that user is blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The hijab can be a signal that a young girl is ready for marriage Tire crafts in Nablus  in 'Palestinian handicrafts' sec.

Diffs of addition and reinstatement by Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk · contribs) of these pics and captions, with his accompanying bizarre commentary

(1) 00:49, 18 May 2012 'Luke' gives us the photo/caption on the left, at Palestinian people, saying "useful cultural context". (2) 00:52, 18 May 2012 Next he adds photo/caption at right to the "Palestinian handicrafts" section of same article. Implication appears to be that Palestinians are street thugs who jack tires for fun and profit as a "handicraft"? (3) 00:54, 18 May 2012 Admin Zero reverts girls' photo, saying "Undid revision 493116625 by Luke 19 Verse 27 grossly offensive caption". (4) 00:59, 18 May 2012 'Luke' reinstates, saying, in part, It was offensive and culturally bias of me to imply these were girls." This smart-alek edit summary confirms that Luke wants readers to believe that Palestinians consider little girls to be adult women for the purpose of marriage and sexuality. (5) 01:59, 18 May 2012 He responds to criticism from admin Zero on his talk by incorrectly claiming that only adult women wear a headscarf/hijab, and Luke then continues with this bizarre, flip reply: The shine in this story is a metaphor for love. I am the Sun and you are the Earth. My love makes you warm, doesn't it? If you don't like the caption, my blue-green loveball, then change it. But try to keep the project going with construction, not destruction, and certainly the Earth is great and vast and noble, but it doesn't tell the Sun what to do. Don't throw around geocentric orders. (6) 03:26, 18 May 2012 Admin Malik Shabazz removes both photos.

The first photo and caption were certainly intended by this advocate for Israel to convey the implication that Palestinians confuse little girls and adult women for the purpose of sexuality and marriage: See collapsed section above. And the addition of what Luke called "Tire crafts" to the "Palestinian handicrafts" section of the article was either vandalistic buffoonery, or an attempt to suggest that Palestinians strip cars as a hobby, or both.

It was just days ago, at 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC), that Kim Dent-Brown blocked Luke after seeing this similarly bizarre edit and assuming diminished capacity or a compromised account. Kim explains the problem to Luke here, and in this subsequent section, where she asks him to "stick to the task" and he replies by saying it was good advice, but adds "Hopefully in the future you will enjoy more of my contributions and wit."

When these most recent distractions from the purpose of the project are taken into consideration with previous junk on his talk, like this,

I find myself drawn to fat girls, with big breasts. I think it has to do with gravity, but I'm no physicist. I once wanted to bang a physicist, but I only got one D out of the deal. I feel really happy for your Zionist conquest. Hopefully you put your goy seed in her Greater Israel (between the two legs). Then, when he grows up in a free country, after suckin' Mamma Tel Aviverrific Shag's milk-n-honies, he can teach me what "Mazaltov" means... But about the bitches. I don't know much about Polish girls. Are they fat?

... well, then I don't see that this person is an asset here. What does everyone else think? Does this person's presence support the goal of producing an encyclopaedia, or interfere with it for his own amusement? --OhioStandard (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: Neither Zero or Malik Shabazz could block Luke for this, btw, since they're both involved editors in the topic area. --Ohiostandard

Regarding lulz - obviously if lulz and improving the encyclopedia conflict, then anyone who chooses lulz has to re-evaluate their priorities or go. However, lulz and improving the encyclopedia are usually orthogonal and furthermore if an editor has a choice of making one of two edits, both of which improve the encyclopedia, one marginally less but with more lulz, I won't fault them for choosing that option. This is a hobby and it has to be fun.

Regarding sluring a minority - to be frank it doesn't matter whether it's improving the encyclopedia or not, that just can't be permitted. Assuming, of course, that minority and slur are fairly defined.

There are the answers to your questions. Now what we have here is a user that, to me, looks quite difficult to understand, the above edits can be taken in various ways, and consequently for me at least to decide what is fair I would want them to comment here. Egg Centric 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think OhioStandard (an upstanding editor) is confused about some Muslim marriage customs. Women are betrothed to someone, often times years before the actual marriage. It wouldn't be strange for Muslim to be betrothed throughout her high school, or even middle school years. If a young girl has an intended, or if the girl's mother wants the community to approach her for marriage negotiations, she will often don the hijab and be concidered a woman. If a woman has started wearing hijab by age (14-20 maybe), she will often switch from a colorful one to a more drab hijab when she is betrothed or would like to be.

OhioStandard, I think you have made an excellent presentation, and you are my better in Wikipedia editting. But honestly, this is a cultural misunderstanding. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All anyone needs to evaluate the suggestion of "a cultural misunderstanding" is to look at point #4 in the collapsed presentation, above. -- Ohiostandard 18:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting username choice as well. GiantSnowman 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't need to be a long ANI conversation. I was about to block indef; this is unacceptable. But I see FP@S is kinder than me and just blocked for a week. Easy enough to upgrade to permanent if it ever happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, wikipedia. Almost always depressing in this topic area. Luke is a racist (or so ably pretending to be one for "lulz" that he is indistinguishable from one). His comments about the "meaning" of a hijab on a little girl are nonsense (I'm fairly expert in the Muslim world writ large). He's here to disparage the great, evil Muslim monolith (the faith is in fact quite heterogeneous). He's pretty up front about it (Luke 19.27 says "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.").Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Hopefully this block sends the right message. I don't think this user is here to only screw around, but screwing around in article space is indefensible. --Laser brain (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam (or others): if you feel a longer block or indef is in order, feel free to lengthen; no objection from my side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I almost never second guess like this, and don't do so lightly. But since FP@S graciously invited me to, I'm upping this block to indef. After a review of this user's edit history (I was previously familiar, having seen Kim Dent Brown's block a few days ago), I believe Bali ultimate is spot on (except maybe "bigot" instead of "racist"), and I simply can't imagine this leopard changing his spots in a week. There are lots of websites out there where he would be welcome, this is not one of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• There has been a recent AN/I thread which got nowhere. Since then there has been my block (to my surprise, the first that Luke has received) after which I listed some of the problematic edits on Luke's talkpage. My opinion would be that Luke does make occasional competent and constructive edits, but that these are far outweighed by those which are for teh lulz and seem to me to be calculated to see how far he can go before being blocked. Luke and Iloveandrea seem to be competing to see how much they can get away with - see this edit from Iloveandrea on Luke's talk page. (Subsequently self-reverted at my request, otherwise I'd have blocked him too.) Overall I'd have liked to wait to gather just a little more data on Luke's editing, but seeing as we are here I support the block and the extension to indef. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit you reference, as well as other talk page correspondence and shared interests (albeit declared to be on opposite sides of some issues) lead me to suspect that User:Luke_19_Verse_27 and User:Iloveandrea are WP:SOCKS playing a game. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(can't believe i'm "helping"). I agree with Joe. The Andrea account is more than likely controlled by "Luke" or is a pal of his and they're both trolling for fun.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

After having watched Lukes talk page from a previous encounter I suspect that that may indeed be the case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say so earlier, because the fact that "Luke" was editing via a different access point at his university than previously makes it difficult to prove, but I suppose it's all right now: Sean Hoyland's suggestion that this was another one of the drawer full of Lutrinae socks seems to me to have been spot on, for reasons it's probably best not to disclose publicly. He'll certainly be back; I'd guess he's probably created a new account already. It occurred to me, also, that Iloveandrea and "Luke" were probably good-hand/bad-hand accounts. What gives me pause is that Iloveandrea really has made quite a substantial number of edits that oppoose the current policies of the Israeli government. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The two of them have acknowledged being on the opposite side of this issue whilst chatting on their talk pages. I think it is part of the fun - "bad hand" - "bad hand" accounts, separated by a supposed intractable difference on I/P. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have run a check and the two accounts are technically unrelated. I believe this thread can be closed now... Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Salvio. May I also just ask whether the "Luke" account can be appropriately logged for future reference to our prolific sockmaster friend, Lutrinae? That's the way the "regulars" in the I/P topic area all refer to him, as Lutrinae, and a "fresher" one of his socks would be convenient to maintain the "unbroken thread" back to Lutrinae, so to speak. Per Sean's comments, and other evidence, he seemed to be getting on the net via a Hilo campus access point, however, as opposed to his former access via a router at the main Univ. of Hawaii campus. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Unfortunately, I could not compare Luke to Lutrinae, because the latter (along with all their socks) is stale. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I support indef block but would want a "super-consensus" for it actually to be given, for reasons of natural justice (not really fair to be given a week then find out you're on permanent timeout, although I appreciate this isn't a justice system) so long as it really is indefinite rather than infinite. If user could be clearer about what he's saying, and it turns out he's actually trying to say something different to what he is saying, then it could be removed, but inflammatory statements about "Muslim marriage customs" that clearly only apply to a minority and appear to be directed at the majority, plus many similar offences, are not acceptable. And yeah the username itself is suspiciously trolly and/or religious nutty (nothing wrong with being a religious nut in principle but it does mean one is about as likely to listen to reason as a troll is). Egg Centric 18:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Super consensus? This is clear and blatant trolling, and the user is treating Wikipedia like a dialysis machine, they're taking the piss out of us. The edits do not show a user who wants to contribute to the project, but he here for the "lulz". There are enough sites to go to "for the lulz", this isn't one of them. Sorry to come off harsh, but fairness doesn't apply when you are constantly acting like a troll. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, and that is why there will easily be a "super consensus" in this case. It's the criteria I would always want if a block were being extended without any further "acts". All I'm saying is if consensus was tight to establish, and somehow my !vote were the decider, I wouldn't want the block extended in those circumstances. Does that make sense? Egg Centric 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, and given evidence shown, as well as my comments above, Strong Support for indefinite block. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support checkuser and if Andrea linked to Luke support ban of both accounts. I have notified Andrea about this discussion. For clarity I don't have a view on whether Andrea is linked to Luke one way or the other (except of course defaulting to AGF, etc). Egg Centric 18:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Give another chance!! Wow, indefinite? I mean, surely that is unbelievably harsh. Couldn't there at least be some middle ground? I am not 100% sure what constitutes middle ground, like a week-long ban or something, but to go straight from a 12-hour block up to indefinite for one dodgy caption edit is pretty harsh. I like the guy's sense of humour, but suppose you don't? There is no obligation not to write gibberish on people's talk pages. If they object, and you persist, sure that is an offence, but I've not seen L19V27 do that. Maybe I've missed an occasion, I've not gone systematically through his edit history, but from I've seen he hasn't done that. If one reacts the right way, i.e. one does not adopt po-faced displeasure at his talk-page antics, there's no reason you can't have a laugh with him. Look at how I started my interaction with the guy: he and another 'pro'-Israel editor left a hasbara bomb on my talk page in response to something I have on my user page; I deleted what they wrote, and posted a bomb back. No big deal, we had a bit of back and forth and settled into a calm, relaxed contempt for each other. Disagreement doesn't have to be nasty.

  Another thing: if you are introducing a one-sided tone and imbalance to an I/P article, he'll certainly let you know about it. If I'm more honest than my opposition to L19V27's views on I/P prompts me to be, I've actually benefited from his inexplicit, though admittedly provocative, displeasure about the way certain articles to do with Israel are one-sidedly edited. For example, after having L19V27 challenge some edits I made to Binyamin Netanyahu's article, I actually sat back and thought about the nature of my edits there and consequently decided) to redo a section on Netanyahu.

  The nice thing about Wikipedia is that it doesn't, or at least its stated intent is not to, have its articles establish 'the truth' on contentious topics. I find most people, myself included, are content if their sources find their way into the article, even if the article does not reflect their point of view. If each person's favoured sources are present in the footnotes, anyone who goes to the article can read them and reach their own decision. On polarising topics, the article shouldn't spell out what a reader must conclude, but rather minimally describe the different points of view, attach the sources, and leave a reader to peruse and reach their own conclusion.

  I've actually taken L19V27's message to heart on recent edits to Ilan Pappé's article: rather than worrying about weighting the amount of praise/criticism quoted in the article, I just chopped it all out, listed the names of prominent admirers/critics, and sourced to where the praise/criticism can be read. Nice and simple.

  Summing up, L19V27's talk page edits can be quirky, I admit the caption was naughty (despite the plausible deniability), but I don't find his editing disruptive enough to warrant going from a 12-hour block to an indefinite ban. I respect his editing style enough to ask him to run through my planned rehash of Netanyahu's article—doesn't that say something? There are far worse 'pro'-Israel editors out there and, though it pains me to say it, there are unquestionably hyperactive pro-Palestinian editors like me about too. If you want me to give an example of an editor whom, unlike L19V27, I've actually seen sabotage articles, I'd offer a person I've recently encountered called Soosim. I was generous, for Soosim rightly complained about some of the sourcing, but he also went through deleting even RS material etc. on Ilan Pappé's article with a very definite agenda. It was that sabotage that prompted me to look at the article myself, including making all the cites RS. I'll also note that L19V27 had no problem with the alterations I made to the article.

  I was, and am, so tempted to simply clap my hands with joy that another 'pro'-Israel editor has been perma-banned, but that is not the way. If we have no one who is eagerly 'pro'-Israel, how do we stop dedicated and eager editors like me from the other side from spoiling articles in opposite direction? I'm not saying people shouldn't be perma-banned, I'm close to being so myself, but L19V27 is not an active saboteur, at least on the admittedly very partial view of his editing that I have seen. The number of genuine neutrals who edit on I/P seem to perform a small fraction of the editing on the topic, give the guy another chance. Yes, you can check me against him for socking etc., but I think you'll be able to satisfy yourselves pretty quickly that we are very different people. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 20:17, 18 May 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.

Right-wing socialism

Very recently survived an AfD.

Huge amounts have been repeatedly excised since (amounting to well over 95% of the total verbiage of the article). And including removal of brand-new content from such horrid sources as Cornell University Press and Harvard University Press, etc. (see edit summaries therein).

This post is not about any individual editor or complaint thereon, but a request for uninvolved admin notice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for a week--the wrong version, no doubt. Good luck talking it over. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Total car crash of an article.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI header discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader#Autocollapse regarding whether to collapse the noticeboard nav box at the very top of ANI by default, or leave it showing in full, as it is currently. Please reply there (not here, this is just a notice). Equazcion ^(talk) 23:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Fae

Moved to WP:AN#User:Fae.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Block confirmed socks

Resolved

 – Socks blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please block Lili5488 (talk · contribs) and Daria Feitosa (talk · contribs), because they are confirmed socks in a sockpuppet investigation. Thanks. Francisco (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

British Pakistanis

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

---

The discussion at Talk:British Pakistanis has become more than a little abusive even after I fully protected the article for 7 days. I would appreciate the eyes of my fellow admins in it. I have added a general warning to those involved who are making personal attacks as they seem unacceptable and extreme enough to me. Considering the approach recently taken with AndyTheGrump, who is also involved on this page in inflaming the discussion, I am aware that my views on what counts as abuse that breaches NPA might be more sensitive than that of other admins or the general community who may see this as 'banter'. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. As indicated in a section below, AnkhMorpork has substantially edited comments after they have been responded to, with no indication of the time of the revision. This refusal to adhere to talk page guidelines may make following the time sequence of the thread difficult.AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Given that both User:AnkhMorpork and User:Darkness Shines have been misrepresenting sources, and citing Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources to add material casting an entire ethnic minority in a bad light - specifically, making false claims that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" [81] and that "statistically Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK" [82] (neither of which can be properly sourced), I think incivility, banter, or whatever you wish to call it is the least of our problems with the article. It is utterly offensive that such 'contributors' should misuse Wikipedia to pursue an agenda which can only be motivated by political POV-pushing, Islamophobia, or outright racism. Can anyone indicate another article on Wikipedia that contains a 'Contemporary issues' section on 'Child sex abuse' sourced to cherry-picked material, far-right commentators, and the like? AnkhMorpork and Darkness Shines had, along with User:Shrike, tag-teamed to keep this material in the article, while refusing to explain why such a section is justified in this article alone - or why they consider it of such importance, given their apparent lack of other interest in the British Pakistani minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Others have noted the tag-teaming of shrike and ankhmorpork as well [83]. these two are wrecking havoc on articles about crimes committed by muslims. to quote user:div999, ankhmorpork's "Modus Operandi in such articles is to try to get the most inflammatory, sensationalist quotes and those that highlight the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrators inserted prominently into the articles. It is the kind of approach that I would expect in a right wing tabloid newspaper or a BNP pamphlet, but not suitable for the production of encyclopedic articles. This user already has two open dispute resolution cases over these issues with two entirely separate groups of editors." there are others who have come to even harsher conclusions[84]. ankhmorpork and shrike must be banned for tag-teaming, disruptive editing, and pov-pushing.-- altetendekrabbe  14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

I shall list the sources and allow people to judge for themselves whether this issue is discussed in relation to the British Pakistani community, and if it is based on dubious sourcing:

• The Sunday Guardian
• Rochdale News
• The Telegraph
• The Times(available here)
• The Telegraph
• BBC
• The National
• BBC
• AIM

Both a BBC documentary and a Channel 4 documentary have been made on this topic, and numerous sources of various political persuasions have also addressed this issue.

(subsequent addition)

In my view, these sources:

1. Are reliable
2. Discuss child sex grooming in connection with the ethnicity of the abusers
3. Were not misconstrued

• Andy states above that I have been using "Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources"; this is patently an absurd claim.
• He also states above that I have been "making false claims that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" and cites this diff. In it, I am quoting to him the exact headline of this article after he requested sources; I would like a clarification of how this could possibly amount to a "false claim" or a misrepresentation of the source.

Altetendekrabbe was blocked for personal attacks directed at me. Since then he has continued in exactly the same vein, 1 2 and 3 and I request that his conduct is examined.
Ankh.Morpork 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion is held at Talk:British Pakistanis or Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#British_Pakistanis, there seems no point in repeating it on this noticeboard in a thread raised for the separate issue of evaluating the most appropriate administrator action for participants making blatant personal attacks. --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, I too do not wish to stage a dispute discussion on this page. However, I have repeatedly been called a bigot and a racist for broaching this issue, and I wish to provide the sources used for my contributions.Ankh.Morpork 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you have suddenly taken such an interest in this particular issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as using the Sunday Guardian headline, Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis, goes, note that, if anything, the content of the headlined article contradicts the claim made in the headline and none of the other sources given support it.     ←   ZScarpia   16:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And I think it needs to be made clear that the 'Sunday Guardian' in question is a website apparently sited in India. Why we should consider this an appropriate source for events in Rochdale, I have no idea - and the blatantly-false headline suggests that we probably shouldn't consider it an appropriate source for anything at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think stating the exact headline of this article amounted to a misrepresentation of this source?Ankh.Morpork 16:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that you went halfway round the world to find a source that fitted the POV you were trying to push. Look at the language used in the article "A horrifying trend is spreading like a virus through parts of Britain...", this should be setting alarm bells ringing that this is not the type of source that we should be using to construct encyclopedia articles. Unfortunately in articles relating to Arab/Muslim crimes this is just the type of sensationalist material you have a history of inserting into articles. Dlv999 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This comes from a person that specially collated all Jewish attacks and suggested placing them in a special paragraph named 'Jewish attacks' and changing the existing paragraph structure to emphasise the racial identities. Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that you choose to defend yourself from allegations of misrepresenting sources by misrepresenting evidence. Given the article you cited is an example of inter-communal violence and you had previously inserted into the lead a innacurate claim about the ethnic characteristics of the perpetrators [85], as well as your usual inflammatory rhetoric [86], it seemed pertinent to document the events that clearly showed your insetions to be false. Also note that all my sources were high quality academic publications which cannot be said of your own additions[87], [88]. As you freely admit [89], you have a POV that you want to present in articles, the problem is that the way you go about it is to find sources that fit your POV and insert them into articles irrespective of quality or appropriateness, rather than trying to find the most appropriate sources for an article and then reflecting them in a balanced way. Dlv999 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you make mention of the comment that I wrote to Zero, it is only fair to make note of his response: "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue" - [90]I shall happily address all the points that you mention if asked to, such as the so called inflammatory language which is a verbatim assessment of the Shaw report as was already pointed out to you, and my 'inaccurate claims' were sourced to three different sources including the BBC[91][92] [93] and supported by 4 other editors. However, to do so seems diversionary, and this only reinforces the impression that your contributions in this thread are based on previous I-P disagreements.Ankh.Morpork 18:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero's opinion of you is irrelevant, but as usual you have misrepresented evidence. His opinion of your editing after seeing your actions is quite different (and also note his description of the very sources that you have posted above) : "This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork, who decided that the "Israeli perspective" was not adequately represented. As illustration of AnkhMorpork's methodology, despite her/himself quoting extensively from the report of the official enquiry he/she repeatedly deletes (and continues to delete, even during this case) statements from that report which conflict with her/his preferred (and rather weak) tertiary sources."[94] You accuse me of diversion, as an poor attempt at Ad Hominem, but anyone can look back at the previous edits and see that I was discussing your use of the Sunday Guardian source, and you decided to drag in my edits to the Palestinian 1929 riots page. If it was just me, I would just grit my teeth and get on with it, but what I am seeing is there are three entirely different groups of editors that have all separately reached the same conclusions regarding your edits. Dlv999 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And I note that you have now contested my statement that the contested material "citing Right-wing American supporters of the EDL and similar questionable sources". This is a fact, it did. It cited Erick Stakelbeck, a right-wing US commentator who has not only openly asserted his support for the EDL, but done so in the most inflammatory language. [95]. And then there is the issue of your cherry-picking half-quotations from The Times to support your assertions, where quoting the entire sentence would have shown what was going on: You took this statement on a specific problem in one part of the country: "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white", and cited it for an assertion that "child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending...most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage...". Such gross misrepresentation of sources, whether on talk pages or in articles, is ample grounds to justify a topic ban, if not a block. You clearly have an agenda involving publicising a particular minority in a negative light, and as such are a net liability to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you are happy copying and pasting your objections, I shall do likewise with my refutation.

In response to your request on the talk page for sources commentating on the incidence of British Pakistani child sex grooming offences, I cited this source. It draws a distinction between child sex grooming of which "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage" and other child sex offenses "in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white." The Times refers to research at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, "which notes that victims are typically white girls aged 13 to 16 and that “most central offenders are Pakistani”". You appear to be conflating this distinction in an attempt to depict misconstruction of the source. Your claim that I did not cite on the talk page "other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white" and this was a "blatant misrepresentation", when the topic at hand is appertaining specifically to child sex grooming, is invalid and relies on source misrepresentation of your own.

Moreover, this source was not used in any articles but was presented to you on the talk page in response to your request for evidence of linkage. This source clearly does discuss the issue of child grooming in relation to the British Pakistani community, and it was for that purpose that it was cited. This source was provided to show that the ethnic patterns were discussed, contrary to your protests otherwise.

Can you make your views clear; do you believe that this issue was not discussed in relation to the ethnicity of the abusers? Ankh.Morpork 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Diff: [96]. You cherry-picked the source to make generalised assertions it does not support. As for the Jill Dando Institute research, it again clearly refers to a particular region, and isn't making generalised statements about British Pakistanis. Again though, I'd like you to let us know why you consider this particular issue (and others involving ethnic-minority criminal activity) of such significance? Why do you edit almost exclusively on such topics? [97]. Are you here to contribute to a neutral and informative encyclopaedia, or for some other purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a source that discussed the the child sex grooming in relation to British Pakistani's, I provided you with one and emphasised where this was discussed. You seem to be suggesting that I tried making an article based on those quotations alone, once again I repeat that I was demonstrating to you that this issue had been discussed in the context of ethnic incidence.Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is demonstrably untrue, as the talk page shows. You had earlier quoted the "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" headline from a dubious source, and I asked for a reliable source that supported the claim - instead, you misleadingly cherry-picked half a sentence from The Times which actually said the exact opposite. Further falsifications aren't going to do you any good here - I suggest that you consider a voluntary topic ban from all articles relating to ethnicity, religion, and crime, before one is imposed on you - and judging from the comments above, I'd suggest that this topic ban should also specifically include all issues relating to Israel and Palestine, since you have made clear that you are hear to support one side of the dispute, rather than to contribute in the interests of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source and here is the thread. I can only repeat that I was demonstrating to you that sources did discuss sex grooming in an ethnic context and I will allow people to decide for themselves whether my presentation of the source on the talk page was a falsification.

I will repeat something here that I have stated elsewhere, "I am quite frank in that that I have a POV and wish to accurately present it. However, I extend such honesty to my editing and am more than willing to countenance reasonable objections, as this page will testify." As WP:NPOVT states: "The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view...". I suggest you read the reply to my statement which clearly dispels your allegation of bias.Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see no point in continuing this repetitive nonsense. Please see the new section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AnkhMorpork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Civility

starts breathing in the schadenfreude tangible in the air Seriously, all disputants please refrain from intemperate language. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump's edit here [98], when he calls AnkhMorpork a liar and a bigot, is more than intemperate language. It is (should be...) completely unacceptable. AndyTheGrump should consider a voluntary break from the topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than having another dispute about 'civility', why don't we actually address the real issue here, which is POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and using an article on an ethnic group as a forum for an attack on said group. Since AnkhMorpork has brought up The times as a source, can I suggest that people take a look at this diff [99] where He/she cites the article in question for "child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending...most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage...". What is of course omitted is the material in ellipses. Although the Times is behind a paywall, it appears from a copy I found elsewhere that the last sentence actually reads "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage, unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white". The Times article also apparently states that:

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre said in 2009 that networks of “white British, British Asians, and Kurdish asylum-seekers” had been “prominently identified” as internal sex traffickers of British girls. “Kurds are identified as being dominant in the North East of England, but Anglo-Asian groups appear to be in control in the Midlands. There are . . . suggestions that in London, West Indian (Caribbean) and Bangladeshi networks are similarly exploiting . . . females for sex.” With the exception of one case involving two white men in Blackburn, The Times has been unable to identify any court case in which two or more white British, Kurdish, African-Caribbean or Bangladeshi men have been convicted of child-sex offences linked to on-street grooming.

The source I found is here [100], but obviously this needs checking by someone with access to the original. If it is correct, it seems self-evident that AnkhMorpork has grossly misrepresented the Times article in order to portray a regional problem as national, and restricted to the activities of one particular ethnic group, when it is nothing of the sort. Such misrepresentations are surely grounds for a topic ban, if not a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)  Highlighted the crux point. --Ohiostandard 10:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have no objection to Ohiostandard's highlighting here - this really is the most significant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be a somwhat more reliable version of the source in question, apparently being a pdf of the for-printing version of the original article. It confirms the misrepresentation.--benjamil (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to your request for sources making a link between the paragraph on child sex grooming and the British Pakistani community, I cited this source. It draws a distinction between child sex grooming of which "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage" and other child sex offenses "in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white." The Times refers to research at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, "which notes that victims are typically white girls aged 13 to 16 and that “most central offenders are Pakistani”". You appear to be conflating this distinction in an attempt to depict misconstruction of the source. Your claim that I did not cite on the talk page "other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white" and this was a "blatant misrepresentation", when the topic at hand is appertaining specifically to child sex grooming, is invalid and relies on source misrepresentation of your own.

Moreover, this source was not used in any articles but was presented to you on the talk page in response to your request for evidence of linkage. This source clearly does discuss the issue of child grooming in relation to the British Pakistani community, and it was for that purpose that it was cited. You can use your crayons and colour away at the source; the fact remains that this source was provided to show that the ethnic patterns were discussed, contrary to your protests otherwise.Ankh.Morpork 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling the editor a liar and bigot is a couple of steps past incivility. You can't really expect him to keep working with you, and you can't reasonably use deliberate abuse to drive someone away from the topic. Why not let it sit for a few days and come back to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

er, i suggest you take a look at the mess ankhmorpork created on the british pakistani talk page. it's evident that he is a disruptive editor, as confirmed by other fellow editors.-- altetendekrabbe  16:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)-- altetendekrabbe  16:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are mechanisms to deal with disruption. Verbal abuse isn't one of them. If AndyTheGrump isn't willing to take a voluntary break from the page, or at least agree not to impugn to stop impugning people's motives (especially with something as inflammatory as "bigot") I'd support an enforced break from the topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "bigot" is not problematic if, in fact, the target IS a bigot. Forcing Andy to say the same thing in more words is no solution at all. The issue is not the use of one particular word. It's whether that word is justified in this particular case. Too many here think that being nice and avoiding certain words will make more more serious problems go away. HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Horseshit. Calling another editor a bigot is a blatant personal attack.Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You just ignored half my post. I say again "Forcing Andy to say the same thing in more words is no solution at all." HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He made those edits under duress? If not, then no response would have been better then the uncivil, personal attack.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I have interacted with Andy in the past and know that he truthfully speaks his mind; the insult are as a consequence to the perceived injustice. It is for that reason that I have presented sources, and will continue to so if necessary, that substantiate this linkage and dispel his claims of bigotry. It bothers me more that he thinks I'm a bigot than he actually called me one.Ankh.Morpork 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be acceptable to say that specific edits appear to represent a bigoted point of view, or that a pattern of edits is promoting a biased viewpoint, but jumping around saying other editors are racist will always be inflammatory and be judged a likely personal attack unless the contributor in question explains that this is their personal motivation. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the diffs, I think AndyTheGrump's comments (here) are not acceptable. The best way to resolve this is for him to strike the offensive parts of those comments. We can all then assume good faith and move forward on the larger issues presented here. --regentspark (comment) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is important to address the underlying issue here which in my view is User Ankmorpork's disruptive POV editing across a number of articles related to crimes that happened to be committed by Muslims or Arabs (e.g. Rochdale sex trafficking gang, 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, 1929 Palestine riots). I think it would be a mistake only to sanction editors who have reacted to Ank's behavior without taking in to account that behavior. The result of such action would only be to enable AnkMorpork to carry on behaving as he is behaving which in practice means a total breakdown of normal editing process in these articles and constant administrative and dispute resolution filings. Dlv999 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just to give a little background User:Dlv999 and User:AnkhMorpork don't see eye to eye in I/P conflict so this is main reason for his post only recently User:Dlv999 was blocked for edit warring.--Shrike (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tom harrison if some users feel that there are issues of WP:TE then there a relevant venues to deal with that.Violation of WP:NPA is not acceptable and there are no excuse for that.--Shrike (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, can you give us a list of who else that is involved in this dispute is also involved in disputes regarding I/P? And perhaps explain why those who otherwise seem largely to concentrate on that issue have suddenly taken an interest in sex crimes in Rochdale? As far as I'm aware neither Hamas nor the Israeli state have made any claims to the territory, and as such it would seem a rather off-topic subject to express an interest in unless one felt motivated by concerns other than contributing to a reliable and informative online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel that sex crimes in Rochdale is not encyclopedic topic?I myself didn't made any edits to this article.--Shrike (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See the revision history of the British Pakistanis article [101]. Shrike repeatedly reinserted the controversial material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike I beg you to assume good faith unless you have some evidence that my involvement here is malicious in which case you should present it. As you know my (24h) block for edit warring was because I was unaware that an article pertained to the IP conflict, so I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion or to what I have said about User Ankh. The reason I have commented is because I see a common pattern emerging between an article I am involved with (1929 Palestine riots) two other articles that are currently at dispute resolution (the article discussed here and 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings) and the related Rochdale sex trafficking gang article. AnkhMorpork with your vigorous support is involved in all these articles and in all of them the normal editing process has broken down. Now you can throw mud at me and everyone else, but there are three entirely distinct groups of editors you and Ank are disputing and there comes a point were it becomes unrealistic to blame everyone else for the problems and not look at your own behavior. Dlv999 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nordichammer

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:Nordichammer - This sensitive issue is being inflamed by this vile user. Please see this. Ankh.Morpork 09:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of disruptive user that want to make WP:POINT that should be blocked could someone do a CU?--Shrike (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)Nordichammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for these slurs and racist comments [102] [103] [104]. This is an SPA to disrupt and troll, nothing more. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I subsequently saw this comment and I request a CU, as there are reasonable grounds to suspect that somebody is deliberately aspersing my character.Ankh.Morpork 09:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've indefed Nordichammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for now. Sock or not, his edits are unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of this and this which seek to portray me as a racist by guilt through association, I request a CU on this user.Ankh.Morpork 09:59, 15 May 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.

Take a look here too please

Admins involved in this matter might do well to take a good look at Rochdale sex trafficking gang and its Talk page. Thanks Roger (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And it might be worth asking why the article claims to be citing The Times, while actually citing another source entirely: http://www.sunday-guardian.com, a website specialising in Indian topics and as such hardly the most obvious source, which makes a claim in a headline that "Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis", while providing no evidence to support this (unsurprisingly, because no such evidence exists, since it is untrue). And why the article has to repeatedly refer to the faith and ethnicity of the individuals involved. It seems evident that this has been constructed as an attack piece on an ethnic minority, rather than as an encyclopaedic article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

by the way, here is a racist who is supporting ankhmorpork [105][106]. i wonder why? the discussion on british pakistani page and on the dispute resolution page makes it clear that ankhmorpork is a disruptive editor. he uses dubious sources, adds badges of shame, and is disengenuous about what is written in the sources.-- altetendekrabbe  19:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of continued references 12 to this drive-by racist (who happened to conveniently bundle together all the key words of AnkhMorpork, Paki and BNP) which seek to portray me as a racist by guilt through association , I repeat my request for a CU on this user.Ankh.Morpork 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pity that they didn't carry out a CU on that editor, imho... Keristrasza (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

[107]. user shrike made a fool out of himself. just like you.-- altetendekrabbe  19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"made a fool out of himself. just like you..." I presume that this is some form of insult you are aiming at me? Keristrasza (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ankh It was already made and come out negative but the evidence I think is pretty damning.--Shrike (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He continue to personally attack other users.When it will end?--Shrike (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• User:Altetendekrabbe got blocked by User:Bwilkins for personal attacks, he/she made. I think this must be an example for everyone involved in this issue and both the sides should move to WP:DRN for a peaceful discussion to sort things out. --SMS ^Talk 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Smsarmad: The emotionality is unfortunate, but two editors stand accused of having skewed their selections from the available sources to try to falsely colour an entire ethnic group as having paedophilic tendencies. The Wikipedia community has a compelling interest in determining whether that accusation is true. This belongs right where it is. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Responding to Roger's initial post, I totally agree, Ankh is involved in some serious (bordering on racist IMHO) POV pushing on the aforementione"d article, one of the sources (can't find it for the moment) clearly refutes the "only British Pakistanis groom white girls" by stating that in 95% of cases the people are white, I would support a topic ban and also suggest that the username, cleverly disguised as wackiness, is in fact provocative and inflammatory (more pork!) And, being a grump too, i don't give a shit about calling out out-and-out bigots, sick of seeing WP being abused by so-called "neutral" editors. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If that was his intention with regards to his username, I don't think it worked. If anything, his opponents seem to have delighted in taking "pork" from his username and using it in a derogatory way against him [108]. 92.2.91.151 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The user ID is evidently taken from a place name in the Discworld novels. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork is substantially editing his comments after they have been responded to

With complete disregard to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines AnkhMorpork is now substantially editing his comments after they have been responded to, making the entire thread impossible to understand in its correct order. At this point, I will once again ask that his behaviour be looked into, and that he be instructed to follow proper procedures, or cease editing on such matters entirely. It is impossible to engage in any constructive dialogue with such behaviour going on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You just approved the highlighting of material that I allegedly misconstrued, and now you are griping that I am editing my comments? Unbefuckinglievable. I wish to centralise my complaints, is there a way I can do this without incurring your ire? Ankh.Morpork 15:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are totally Unbefuckinglievable. What do you think Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines are for? Decoration? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself: You were perfectly satisfied to highlight material to emphasise a point you were making after my response, yet you object to when I do the same thing. Oh and the "You are an idiot. Yes I know you are an idiot" routine is quite childish don't you think?Ankh.Morpork 15:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't highlight the material - someone else did, and then added a dated signature to indicate when it was done. I added a note to make clear that I din't object to this - also signed and dated. Your edits have no datestamp, making it impossible without endless looking back and forth through diffs to determine what you wrote when. Now, do you agree that talk page guidelines are applicable to you, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I added additional points to my initial defense and restructured my response to your accusations of misrepresentation. I shall clearly demarcate which point were subsequently added. That cool with you?Ankh.Morpork 16:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be 'cool' would be to add new material in the appropriate place, so people can see what you are now saying. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you previously stated "LOL!" complete with the capitalised letters and the accompanying exclamation mark, I thought you would appreciate this usage of the vernacular. Ankh.Morpork 16:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just following the normal talk page convention would be best. Nobody Ent 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Note. Despite the assurance by AnkhMorpork that he/she would "clearly demarcate which point were subsequently added", nothing whatsoever has done about this. (see for example this addition to a posting originally made at 14:57 15 May, and the diff dated 15:03 16 May [109]). This refusal to follow talk page guidelines makes the entire discussion impossible for those unaware of the insertions to follow. I shall add a note at the beginning of this thread pointing the problem out, to at least draw attention to the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

posting while intoxicated

• Well as Andy still has neither the courage nor the integrity to retract his bollocks that I a ma racist bigot, fuck you andy you are a wanker, you smear a person you do not know because they disagree with you? What a fucking prick. Yes still on the beer, fucking block away, after all, why should one be annoyed over being called a bigot. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Darkness Shines for one week for these attacks (and comments made elsewhere). Alcohol or not, there's no excuse for this kind of behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for AnkhMorpork

Given AnkhMorpork's continuing refusal to acknowledge that sources have been misrepresented, and further questionable sources cited (e.g. a right-wing US commentator who openly supports the activities of the far-right English Defence League, an India-based website which adds lurid and inflametory headlines to articles that don't actually back them up etc, etc...) in order to link an entire ethnic minority with claims of child sexual abuse and paedophilia, with utter disregard to WP:UNDUE, or indeed basic standards of human decency, I would now suggest that it is time to consider a topic ban. Given that AnkhMorpork has largely confined edits to adding negative material regarding muslims, while making an overt pro-Israel stance abundantly clear, and given that AnkhMorpork seems to have no interest in ensuring balanced and appropriate coverage in these contexts, such a topic ban should at minimum include any involvement in (a) articles relating to any ethic group, (b) articles relating to any religious group, (c) crime-related articles, and (d) any articles relating to Israel or Palestine, all broadly construed. Wikipedia doesn't need such blatant POV-pushing in such sensitive areas (or indeed anywhere, but it is particularly egregious here), and such disruptive and frankly obnoxious behaviour needs to be stopped. It may of course be suggested that a topic ban of this scope will effectively rule out all AnkhMorpork's interests, and ammounts to a de-facto block - in which case, it might be simpler to block him/her entirely instead. This would at least avoid the otherwise inevitable disputes about the scope of a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: Considering the shed loads of drama and bad language over the last week, I agree that topic bans may be a reasonable next step, and others involved may want to reflect on if they are complicit in creating heat rather than light in these areas. I would be interested if AnkhMorpork could give a definition of the topics that have been most contentious, and if s/he were prepared to voluntarily suggest a topic scope to take a break from. AndyTheGrump's definition of a,b,c seems rather wide and may need a bit of interpretation to be implementable. --Fæ (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not - this stuff has been a big issue in the UK for the last couple of weeks; even Trevor Phillips has come out to say it's a race issue. To call someone a racist or bigot, which is the not-very-subtle underlying message here, when they seem to just be editing with the current zeitgeist is wrong. And no one should have to justify the articles they choose to edit. No one. Egg Centric 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a diversion, better taken up on the article talk page. However I feel I have a moral obligation to point out here that to be Pakistani is to have a nationality, not a race. Even to say there is a cultural phenomenon at work would be to ignore the diversity of culture in Pakistan. Please take this up on the article talk page if you want to pursue your viewpoint. As for the well respected Trevor Phillips, I would like to hear or read the quote for myself before making any assumptions about what he meant. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well it would more likely be about a specific culture amongst certain pakistani immigrants in north west england, to be perfectly pedantic but I'm not inclined to worry too much about precision language. Anyhoo, see [110] [111] [112] (selection of different biases in sources) and related stories. Egg Centric 11:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Approve The most serious issue here is the misrepresentation of the Times source (above). In addition, during the edit war on British Pakistanis, AnkhMorpork was so concerned with upholding the section on the Rochdale case that he failed to notice and thereby defended the inclusion of very questionable sources, obviously reverting in a knee-jerk fashion.edit history poor source 1 poor source 2 The inclusion of the Rochdale case as a "related topic" in the "Series on British Pakistanis box",[113] in my opinion displays very low insight into WP:BALANCE. In connection with this edit war, he posted a request for sockpuppet investigation against the other edit warring party that was found baseless.AnkhMorpork (Shrike - other case) I've also looked through some of AnkhMorpork's involvement in other edit warring, and in my opinion he frequently resorts to punitive administrative venues in a fairly aggressive manner, in both cases and in the sockpuppet case with support from Shrike.[114] [115] Also, while apparently on a STiki vandalism fighting tour, he found the time to drop by a large revert[116] on an article he had previously never edited, where one of the main parties to the British pakistanis conflict was engaged.[117] To me this seems like highly disruptive behaviour beyond the incivility which has otherwise been prolific in this edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC) --benjamil (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see how AnkhMorpork can justify describing [118] as reverting 'vandalism'. The evidence is mounting up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He apparently already explained that it was by accident. I'm still assessing this entire section/incident, but I don't think one can reasonably expect editors to be entirely accident free. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not - one looks at a pattern of behaviour, rather than a single incident. And the pattern is clear... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

no, it was not an accident. in the first edit ankmorpork used the charge of vandalism [119]. he then posts a bugos warning on my talk page, [120]. the warning is subsequently removed by another user [121] who also warns ankmorpork not to misuse blocking templates [122]. ankmorpork now makes a 2. revert under another pre-text [123]. when i revert him for the last time, shrike comes out of nowhere and continues ankmorpork's edit war [124]. a clear violation of wp:brd, and wp:point. classic example of tag-teaming. another issue: i just got several death threats from ip-warriors on my talk page. it's clear that there are right-wing racists out there who want to silence me. wonder why? could someone please delete those entries from page history, and ban those ip-accounts indefinitely? update: here's another one [125]. note his name...specifically targeting me and muslims.-- altetendekrabbe  06:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not the first time the editor has mislabeled good faith edits as vandalism [126] Dlv999 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Failing ofWP:AGF is not good for Wikipedia editor. He is new user and he explained that it was accidental [127].--Shrike (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, have you ever considered whether acting as an attorney for sockpuppets[128] and disruptive users [129] you happen to share a POV with, and agitating on Admin boards and talk pages [130] for sanctions against editors who react to your proteges is constructive to the project? As for assumptions of good faith at the time I bent over backwards to assume good faith and asked Ankh to explain to the user he had accused of vandalism that it was a mistake [131]. Ankh agreed to do so, but then never bothered, instead he decided to file an AE case against the editor in question - so in this matter I have a very good reason not to AGF. There comes a time when a pattern of edits occurs and it is no longer tenable to assume good faith that each individual edit would require. Dlv999 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with you red herring fallacies.And explain why do you fail to assume WP:AGF.The null edit that contained the explanation was right after the edit you brought[132].--Shrike (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the double standards. Your statement regarding AGF is patently contradicted by your own actions right here. If you genuinely believed that a failure to assume good faith was not good, you would have dealt with your own assumption of bad faith by striking your entirely baseless statement about Dlv999's motives and your disingenuous statement about edit warring made at 17:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC) that resulted in Dlv999 writing "I beg you to assume good faith unless you have some evidence that my involvement here is malicious". Talk is cheap and double standards are unacceptable. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You say my statement wasn't true they do see eye to eye in I/P conflict? I didn't say anything about DLV motives just a bit of information for editors to consider anyhow its red herring.The explanation of mistaken edit summary was followed right after so its very strange that DLV999 didn't see it and didn't mention it.--Shrike (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I asked Ankh to explain to the person he had accused that the accusation of vandalism was a mistake [133], he agreed to do so [134], but then never did, instead he brought an AE case against the editor. Also since the incident Ankh has done the same thing again as others have described. Dlv999 (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He explained this in the edit summary that I brought earlier."See subsequent edit summary where I provide explanation, as initial explanation was accidental".You must have missed.--Shrike (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That diff occurred before mine and Ank's conversation, and it was actually what prompted me to bring up the issue with him, his subsequent reneging on our agreement and seeing other users cite other examples of false accusations of vandalism added to the general pattern of editing is enough in my mind. Also while your statements about me certainly are red herrings as you admit, your own activities are quite central to this discussion and deserve to be discussed. It is clear in my mind that the disruption Ankh has managed to cause in these articles would never have been possible without your support and involvement, so it is perfectly reasonable to question you on these matters. Dlv999 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - user has a clear agenda and is better off sticking with more suitable topics. GiantSnowman 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - counterproductive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Because you're the one who should be topic-banned, if anyone must be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Then explain why in the section below - and it might help if you were to explain which topic it is you want me banned from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As I say in the section below, I oppose a topic ban for you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—it appears that the proposal is based on a "shoot and ask questions later" mentality. Some people seem not to like the topic area that AnkhMorpork chose to edit, and the specific edits he made in that topic area. However, aside from not liking the edits, no has pointed out an actionable problem. As stated above by others, AnkhMorpork doesn't need to justify the articles he chooses to edit, nor does he need to justify his personal opinions, whether they are explicit or implicit. Please focus on the edits and not the editor, and assume good faith. If there is a problem with the edits themselves that is actionable, then I would like to see more evidence. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is untrue. AnkhMorpork has misrepresented sources, and exhibits an editing pattern entirely incompatible with the objectives of Wikipedia. AnkhMorpork misuses anti-vandalism tools in support of his POV, and engages in other battleground behaviour. And AnkhMorpork has consistently refused to acknowledge that far-right commentators and similar inflammatory sources are inappropriate for material concerning an ethnic minority. And yes, I am focussing on the edits here - what else is there to focus on? As for assuming good faith, why should I? WP:AGF isn't a licence for endless bad-faith editing. This is a serious issue, and it cannot be in Wikipedia's interests to allow 'good faith' to ride roughshod over objective and honest content. This attempt to smear an entire ethnic minority on the basis of cherry-picked sources is a disgrace to Wikipeda, and needs to be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. ANI is too often used as an arena where ideological opponents try to get each other banned. The issues here are fairly standard disputes about reliability of sources, undue weight, etc. The rest (an accidental vandalism revert, modifying a comment here) is just hype intended to rile up the crowd. Work out your content issues at the article talk page, or through mediation. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

are you out of your mind? ankmorpork linked an entire ethnic minority with child sexual abuse and paedophilia..."ideological opponents" my foot. i suggest you read through the dispute before making judgments.-- altetendekrabbe  18:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Quite aside from Brewcrewer's sensible and accurate remarks, and quite aside from that topic ban proposals ought to come from far cleaner hands than Andy's, let's get this straight: the grounds for this ban are that AnkhMorpork doesn't use the sources you want him to use, and that he won't "admit" to things to which you demand he admit? Since when are Wikipedia editors required to cite sources based on what end of the political spectrum those sources favor? Since when are they required to submit to pledges as to what (otherwise [[WP:IRS|reliable) sources they are not allowed to refer? This is bullshit, plain and simple. If you think his sources are biased towards one side or another, introduce sources to satisfy WP:UNDUE Ravenswing 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the grounds are, as I tried to state shortly above close to a full match on all the criteria for WP:DIS

• Tendentious:Y I/P, inflating Jewish death toll tabloidizing antisemitism tabloidizing Rochdale1 undue I/P at Clare Short large, pointy criticism tendentiously limiting scope and again removing sourced quote sensationalising human shields using primary source
• Cannot satisfy [[WP:V], i.e. cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sourcesY misrep1 misrep2 misrep3 unencyc1 and while [135] is not his, but Darkness Shines' he let it remain for his subsequent edits revert1.
• Engages in disruptive site tagging. N
• Does not engage in consensus building. See below.Y Has at least twice been a main protagonist in a dispute resolution process 1 2.
• Rejects or ignores community input. Y It is sad that there was only edit summary communication at first. AnkhMorpork, however, disregarded what input there was, and in stead of discussing, escalated by expanding content that had already been judged unfitting by another editor: First edit on British pakistanis[136], 2nd3rd. As the 2nd and 3rd in themselves are more aggressive than a 3RR, Shrike steps in for the 4th. AnkhMorpork takes the 5th. This is the first point where any other editor opens a talk, and he is quite clear that there is no consensus for this text. AnkhMorpork responds with a snide remark. As the talk goes on (first part here), the edit war goes on. The issue of WP:BALANCE, which AnkhMorpork to date has not responded to was introduced (although not with explicit reference to the policy) in the second response of editor Henrik.Karlstrom at 17:02 May 9. Even before this, at 15:18, AnkhMorpork had filed a sockpuppet investigation for all of his opponents, enlisting the support of Shrike a mere 18 minutes later. A little later, Henrik.karlstrom reiterates and expands on his objections in a very civil manner. Shortly thereafter, the storm of incivility apparently began, as the talkpage history is deleted. For the entire duration of the conversation on the topic he has not, as far as I have seen, commented on the issues relating to WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors. Y Several instances of mislabeling non-vandalous edits as vandalism. 1 2 3 Several instances of instigation or participation in quite aggressive attempts to ban users with whom he disagreed 1 2 3

Now, I may change my mind on this if I see some real arguments, but the easy dismissal in this string of opposes is disheartening. Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you expect no one was actually going to click on your links? Or did you just not proof read at all? I know I said on your talk page that I was going to look at all of them but I've stopped for now because the only edits I've seen that are not a content dispute and could be construed as worrying are tabloidizing Rochdale1 and [137], meanwhile you have so called links as misrep2, I/P, inflating Jewish death toll and unencyc1 (and I'm not even including there the pure content disputes, which would be most other links up to the point I stopped reading). Now, I will admit you have given me some links that make me pause and think a bit, so I will give you another hearing. Instead of chucking as much mud as possible, please come up with the five worst (for want of a better word) diffs and I will take a look. Thanks, Egg Centric 00:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have misunderstood the term tendentious, taking it in its common meaning. I now recognise that the Wikipedia standard is somewhat higher, and have stricken out some of the text accordingly. I apologise for having misunderstood. However, I will not have time to follow up the rest of your request until tonight at the earliest.--benjamil (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what possible sources I should cite to counter a POV-pushing bit of coatracking? The 'paedophilia' issue should never have been included in the article in the first place. This was an attempt to smear an entire ethnic minority, based on the criminal behaviour of a few individuals in a specific part of the country. If Wikipedia is going to tolerate such grossly offensive behaviour, it can do so without me. And a final thought for anyone based in the U.K. involved in such behaviour - there is legislation concerning incitement to ethnic or racial hatred which may be of relevance, and should possibly be taken into consideration before making such 'contributions'. Now, read that as a legal threat rather than an observation if you like, I don't really care. AnkhMorpork and his clique of IP followers are POV-pushing bigots, exploiting the weaknesses of Wikipedia to promote their repulsive agenda, and I have no wish to continue contributing to a project that not only enables this, but attracts the sort of Wikilawyering amateur bureaucrats that seem to dominate this notice board, with their endless facile repetitions of 'AGF' and 'NPA' and all the other excuses to avoid dealing with the real issue, Find yourself another sucker with more time than sense. I'm outta here. Now pat yourselves on the back for improving 'civility' on Wikipedia talk pages by ignoring the utter lack of basic human civility in article space. Moronic ... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I expect what happened is he saw something called The Sunday Guardian and assumed it was the Sunday edition of the Guardian, then used the headline without really checking things through properly. The rest is in people's heads, most hysterically (and hilariously) the claim that his username was bigotted because... "more pork"... NOW having said that, the article probably is attracting some bigots but that doesn't make Ankh one. P.S. You didn't actually need to update your user page, the previous one would have done Egg Centric 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Brewcrewer. He essentially hit the nail on the head; many AN/Is I have participated in are exactly that: attempting to enlist community support or admin support for one ideology over another, WP:GAMING the system using rules on WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. in an attempt to achieve consensus to abrogate those rules in some part of Wikipedia (several interminable, oft-repeating ones pop up here that I'm a regular participant/observer in that fit the description). Standard drama. Move on. Sanction the guy who is cussing other users left and right above. Aside from some intemperate or poorly-worded remarks (and a escalating sort of defense/offense edit war in which no party is innocent), this is not AN/I material. Note, that I did not do full discovery/look at every single thing that's been linked; I made a thoroughly cursory search, and will change my mind on targeted evidence, not throw-what-you-can-and-see-what-sticks. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing actionable here. Seems to be a pretty blatant attempt by one editor to gain advantage over another. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned its AndyTheGrump for wasting everyone's time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. John Chrysostom is right to demand evidence. Here's some: AnkhMorpork and friends appear to have knowingly excluded crucial information to paint British Pakistanis as paedophiles. They knew, for example, that the same researchers politicians used to whip up their summer of the shark for political gain had repudiated the attempt as bogus:

Article: Child sex trafficking study sparks exaggerated racial stereotyping

Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming" ... said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".

The authors ... said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.  Read the source emphasis added

The preceding is from Great Britain's Guardian newspaper, not India's wholly unrelated , new, once-a-week, "we don't like Pakistan" paper that AnkhMorpork and friends used with its spectacular tabloid treatment and its "most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis" headline along with its lurid narrative. He and his friends were aware the researchers had disavowed any such generalisaton of their work. So why would do they still intend to use news articles making that generalisation from this research to portray an entire ethnicity as perverts? --OhioStandard (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Late edit; please note timestamp. I've struck some of the preceding, in response to a question, below. I think this is the first time I've made so blatant an error on-wiki, but I can't support the claim that Ankh et. al. had seen the source I quoted from, above. ( I think they should have taken the time to find this caution not to generalise, given the importance and inflamatory nature of the topic, but that's not the same thing at all, of course. ) Ankh had discussed the research from The UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science previously with Andy, and had faulted Andy for asserting to have found a source from the (British) Guardian that he, Ankh, said he'd actually given to Andy. I conflated the two things in recollection; was quite sure, but I was wrong. Sorry for that Ankh, et. al.

What I'm wondering at this point, though, is whether, now that the they know this, they still intend to push the disavowed generalisation into the British Pakistanis article? --OhioStandard (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony here? You are saying his "friends" were twisting sources to, in effect damn the whole - guilt by association as it were. And yet you're doing exactly the same thing, trying to get Ankh banned because of his "friends" (without providing the slightest bit of credible evidence that they are his "friends" - the chances of a 20 year old London-based student pratchett fan having "friends" like that is essentially nil, btw). This discussion is supposed to be about Ankh. I have no doubt at all that given the media coverage of the last couple of weeks that there are going to be racist POV-pushers around this topic. But where has he done anything approaching such, except for the one misrepresentation of that particular article, which while careless was not completely incomprehensible given the headline? Egg Centric 23:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Easy there, tiger. By "his friends" I specifically meant the editors who had tried to push the slur into our British Pakistanis article. I haven't stepped through the edit history, but used the inclusive term since I know there were at least three editors involved in the attempt. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that "He and his friends were aware the researchers had disavowed any such generalisaton of their work"? Or is that just an assumption? Also, everyone keeps bringing up the Sunday Guardian while ignoring the elephant in the room that is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families [138], the Equality and Human Rights Commission [139], The Ramadhan Foundation [140], Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk [141], Conservative co-chair Sayeeda Warsi [142] etc. And the Guardian report you link to is not only over a year old, but fails to saywho is misinterpreting the data and where they are misreporting it. For what it's worth, I don't believe this subject should be in the British Pakistani article. The data is poorly recorded, inconsistent and incomplete, besides which the actions of a tiny number of an ethnic minority cannot and should not be used to paint broad strokes of the community as a whole. But I also think there are too many people here creating a great sound-and-fury, yelling all kinds of accusations, throwing toys out of the pram, and acting like drama-whores. The stealthy and not-so-stealthy incivility going on here, and the whole atmosphere of witch-hunting, does more harm to the project than some easily reverted POV pushing. Time to close this and take it to the article's talk page or Rfc. GwenChan 23:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwen's suggestion that this is "a witch hunt" is unwarranted. She knows how much evidence, and of what high quality is needed to suggest that even a single person is a paedophile, I'm sure? Well, how very much more should be required to suggest the same thing of an entire ethnic group, and how much more responsibly should that evidence be researched and sifted? In brief, racial slurs are a kind of BLP violation that affects many, many more people, although each one's injury is less immediately emphatic. Btw, the name-calling she's seen here probably isn't going to be improved by calling those who take this more seriously than she does "drama whores". Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You completely ignore my question, ignore the reliable sources, and attempt to ramp up the drama even more with emotional appeals. As I said, I don't believe it belongs in the article, but I also don't see that this requires a topic ban. And yes, I take it seriously, but WP:NCR... Heat =/= light. GwenChan 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, I don't care enough about it to start getting dragged into this miasma. I'm no longer interested in this discussion. GwenChan 08:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC) And lastly, my apologies, I see looking back that you struck the assumptive section. GwenChan 09:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand you didn't mean literal friends, and neither did I. What I meant is it's extremely unlikely that a 20 year old student who reads terry pratchet is a bigot (it's possible they may have immature bell curve like views, I suppose, but that's wandering way off topic). Consequently whatever the other users are up to, there's no reason to tar him with the same brush. If you want to start proposing a topic ban for these other users I am happy enough to look at the evidence; indeed I don't understand why they weren't gone after in the first place. Egg Centric 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Because, as self-righteous as it probably sounds, I'm not willing to be the one to have to look my kid or wife or father in the eyes and know that I stood by and did nothing; that I just watched when I saw people slur an easy-target ethnic group as child molesters with shoddy evidence on one of the most widely accessed informational sites in the world. --OhioStandard (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for AndyTheGrump

After reading this thread and looking at the relevant diffs, I was baffled to see this proposal by AndyTheGrump to topic ban AnkhMorpork. Nothing that happened here supports topic banning him, especially from Israel/Palestine which has nothing to do with this dispute. After some further investigation, it seems clear to me that AndyTheGrump himself suffers from a POV issue and it makes his motivation to try to get Ankh topic banned seem very suspicious. Just one quick look at his block log [143] shows that he isn't exactly the model Wikipedian. He has a history of edit warring, personal attacks, and getting in POV wars. I can't be bothered to bring all the diffs, but if you take a look at his edit history in just the past 7 days you will see numerous personal attacks both on talk pages and in edit summaries (calling editors liars, telling them to fuck off, etc.) Clearly something needs to be done here because this is not the type of collaboration Wikipedia demands. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

agree, being uncivil and reporting others for the same is the cancer killing wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify who you are referring to? I have suggested that AnkhMorpork be topic-banned for POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and other behaviour incompatible with the objectives of an encyclopaedia, seemingly pursued with the objective of painting an entire ethnoreligious group in a negative light. I have said nothing about 'incivility', and it would clearly by hypocritical if I had. My call for a topic ban on AnkhMorpork has nothing to do with how Wikipedia contributors interact with each other - it is instead about how Wikipedia interacts with the readers of its articles, who might expect that articles on ethnic minorities in Britain aren't written by people seemingly only otherwise concerned with events connected with issues in another part of the world entirely, with a clear objective to include as much negative material as possible. AnkhMorpork's contribution history makes this objective entirely clear, and frankly, I see no reason to be particularly 'civil' about this. Yes, I should have moderated my language, and it would undoubtedly made this whole business simpler if I had, but there is a bigger issue at stake here - the credibility of Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on ethnic groups to be skewed by 'racial profiling', cherry-picked negativity, and material sourced to supporters of neo-Fascists, publishers of lurid headlines that aren't supported by the subsequent article, and the like? I could not with any degree of integrity continue to involve myself in a project that engaged in such behaviour. If Wikipedia cannot prevent such overt POV-pushing, we may as well hand it over to the paid 'editors' out to boost their clients, the snake-oil salesmen and magic-teapot promoters, and the shape-shifting-lizard conspiracy theorists as well - indeed, this might actually be the best course of action, in that it would at least make clear the complete lack of integrity of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is somewhat curious that a contributor such as this IP, who seems to focus on the Israel/Palestine issue (where I have had little input), would chose to get involved in what ought to be, by any reasonable standard, an entirely unrelated issue. Or are the questionable goings-on in Rochdale actually of significance to the Israel-Palestine conflict? And if not, what exactly attracted this IP to WP:AN/I? If one is going to discuss 'collaboration', it seems only reasonable to ask who is collaborating with whom, and why? Yes, I have suggested that AnkhMorpork is unfit to edit articles where he/she is clearly incapable of acting in accordance with the stated objectives of Wikipedia. I have to ask why this particular IP chooses to imply that there is anything 'suspicious' about this? I may have made hasty and ill-judged comments - indeed, I'm sure I have - but how does this translate to anything 'suspicious'? If this IP has suspicions, I'd be interested to learn what they are, and what they are based on - and how exactly Wikipedia should be expected to respond to such 'suspicions'. Or is this just a vague mud-slinging exercise, to distract everyone from the obvious misbehaviour of AnkhMorpork? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. On the subject of block logs: [144]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And furthermore, it might be worth asking why the IP wishes to topic-ban me from an area where I have made few edits? This seems a rather peculiar course of action... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, AndyTheGrump raises a good point. A topic ban isn't sufficient to deal with this uncollaborative and uncivil editing behaviour. I think a block of escalating length is appropriate. He has been warned multiple times on his talk page by administrators, blocked several times, and yet he still continues with rude personal attacks. Clearly the message has not been received. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you called for me to be topic banned from a subject I've hardly contributed to? Can you please explain why yet another single-purpose pro-Israli contributor decides that me objecting (albeit in a less-than-civil manner) to attempts to portray an entire British ethnic minority as paedophiles is suddenly of concern. And while you are about it, can you explain why you recently chose to add material about the Turkish authorities having allegedly "turned over a dead European Bee-eater for inspection by the security services on suspicion of being an Israeli spy" to our article on the said species of bird? [145] I note that this is sourced entirely to ynetnews.com - hardly appropriate to an article on a bird species. Are you going to pretend that this ludicrous bit of coatracking is anything more than the facile propaganda it appears to be? Perhaps we should consider a topic-ban or block for you too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you also confirm that you are complying with WP:SCRUTINY ? You are making statements about an editor's editing history. I believe the editor's entire history is available for analysis. Is yours ? For example, if an editor retired an account and continued to edit as an IP, it splits their editing history allowing them to avoid scrutiny. Obviously it would be unethical to make statements about someone's editing history without fully disclosing one's own so please confirm that you are complying with WP:SCRUTINY. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.113.154.168/Archive might be seen as relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not - blatant WP:POINTy nonsense. Egg Centric 21:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - excessive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—silly. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. AndytheGrump has been pretty rude (nothing new [146]), but I don't think the circumstances call for a topic ban. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's a fucking grump, but his user name says as much. This strikes me as "propose sanctions/retaliate". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same reasoning as John. a13ean (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The main problem here seems to be that Andy has said something which needed to said but in an inappropriate way. Once again, one suspects that if he hadn't said something, nothing might have been said. Andy does not have the wiki-rules of civility on his side. But from what he has said above, he certainly seem to have the wiki-principles of fairness and independence on his side. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per User:Martinevans123 above. Andy makes serious editorial grumps in his own fractious style. Personally, I'd rather take his epithets in my stride (and check through what I've just written for signs of codswallop) than be softsoaped to slow death. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• oppose mere retaliation proposal without substance. When you fish for grumpiness that is what you'll get - civil-baiting should reflect on the baiter not the baitee.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While civility is something I support and try to practice, this would be a clear case of shooting the messenger. When an editor provides clear and compelling evidence of another editor deliberately misrepresentating sources in order to violate core content policies, the result should be immediate, vigorous sanction of the other editor, not attacks on the first editor because he didn't "play nice". While Andy should have tempered some of his remarks, he appears to have been acting in the best of faith to defend the wiki from the worst kind of abuse. If, heaven forbid, I ever go rogue and start intentionally inserting misleading content inflammatory to minority groups in article space, I sincerely hope that someone will call me on it—and I hereby give notice that they need not worry about civility when they do. Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My sentiments entirely. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Martinevans123. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for lack of massive evidence: A topic ban requires extensive evidence of disruptive behavior, or WP:TAGTEAM collusion, rather than several editors thinking WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By now there should have been massive evidence, not merely citing that an editor had been blocked for a few times during 2 years. Disagreement is not disruption. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose closing this entire topic

I considered doing it unilaterally but think as a non-admin I would probably be overstepping my "authority". Anyhow this is going nowhere, it's wasting a lot of time, shall we get rid?

• Support as nominator Egg Centric 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - and propose that Egg Centric be told to stay off AN/I, given this sort of time-wasting nonsense: [147]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pot, kettle... Egg Centric 18:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on everything for everyone

• Support as nom, oppose for the drahmaz. GiantSnowman 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But seriously, this is getting out of hand now guys, and it's not doing anyone any good. GiantSnowman 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the future, everyone will be topic-banned for fifteen minutes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as I believe that the editors who agree with me and I are exempt from topic bans, always. Support for everyone else. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Finally, a reasonable proposal. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Dammit, there is way too much editing of articles around here. We should all cluster around the noticeboards instead, throwing insults and accusations at each other and requesting that we be banned from content. We are after all an outlet for our agressions, not here to build an encyclopedia, right? (Unfortunately, it does kinda look like that is what some of the editors here are wanting.) John Carter (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The topic ban only needs to be on all those whose delicate sensitivities are offended by the occasional harsh word used when presenting real home truths. A little more honest emotion from posters and little less middle American, sweet Christian hypocrisy, presented in a terribly nice way, would do Wikipedia a damn lot of good at times. We all feel emotional and have strong feelings on some topics. Perpetually suppressing that in that name of civil niceness is psychologically unhealthy. It means that people don't say what they are actually thinking. How can that be good? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, piss off. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support except for users with precisely two 'e's, two 'g's, and two 'c's in their username Egg Centric 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. Eequazccioggn ^(talk) 06:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support Except for me of course. Trust me, I know what I'm doing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Mirokado. Except me, not him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This appears to be the only proposal gaining any real traction in this discussion, which highlights (1) the sheer ridiculousness of all of the above, and (2) that everyone probably ought to stay away from AN/I for a while because it usually solves little and just ends up angering a lot of people. Therefore, I propose closing this entire thread, with the note that everyone is not allowed to edit topics about anything, broadly construed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Topic Bans for Some, Mineature American Flags for others - It's the win win solution for everyone Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Best answer so far. I actually read that in the Kang voice. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!! KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!!! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• A mighty whack from the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice for all. Ravenswing 06:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support The only sensible solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment proposer appears to have failed to use ANI-notice on all users. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 19 May 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.

Legal threat and block/ban evasion by 78.148.101.209

• 78.148.101.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is quite obviously Grace Saunders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this violates WP:NLT. Requesting a block of this IP (which appears to be dynamic), and a full community ban of Grace Saunders.

Place !votes for the ban below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. - Zhou Yu (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Merely a formality at this point, but clearly this user isn't suited for this or any other online community. AniMate 00:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a matter of procedure. No chance it will ever be unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – I would support unblocking Grace' User:45g account if Grace agrees not to bother or harass User:Snaisybelle onwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Merged a duplicate request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support, 'nuff said. →Bmusician 06:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

edit warring (User:Alexander Pastukh)

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

---

(the format in 3RR is ill-suited for what I am trying to do, sorry)

I suspect that there is an edit war going on in each of these articles:

Battle of Stalingrad
Battle of Kursk
Operation Barbarossa
Siege of Leningrad
Battle of Moscow

In these articles users are reverting each others edits, they seem to follow the 3RR.

User:Alexander Pastukh is one party in these wars, and he has already been warned & told to solve the disputes on talk pages, in the articles listed above he has reverted edits by other users without explaining reason for his actions on talk page(s) (user's contributions.)
Ape89 (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 3RR noticeboard is perfectly setup for this exact report. However, regardless of the lack of diff's, and the previous warnings given, I have blocked for 48 hrs for edit-warring across a range of articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:24, 18 May 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.

Edit warring at World War II

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 seems to be a rather significant edit war at the above article. Thought everyone here should know. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) defying consensus by insisting on inclusion of a fringe view that somehow World Wars I and II were really all just one war; vs. several users who keep telling him to keep it on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be quite what he's saying - he's adding material that WWII started in 1931. Because of your comment, though, I've notified him of this discussion. As an aside, I hate articles that are that bloated - takes forever to do anything with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if you READ Talk:World_War_II#World_War_1_.26_2_were_one_continuous_war_theory. I stated and I quote "While there are a handful of people that say WW2 and WW1 were effectively the same war they are a very small minority and so a name change fails under WP:Weight and WP:fringe." However I also pointed that the claims this theory was OR were wrong as there are sources (both then and now) that state this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Why_We_Fight_series_reliable_source_for_views_of_US_1942-1945.3F was closed by one of the involved editors (who doesn't appear to be an administrator) with only THREE HOURS of discussion. As I noted before the editor in question rearchived is "per WP:DUCK this looks to me like Wikipedia:Gaming the system"

Here are the references to the supposed fringe material:

• "While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." (Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116) which references Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers (the "Publisher of Record in International Social Science")

• "Few are aware of, or fully appreciate, Imperial Japan's even more vast and equally merciless aggression in Asia, which began with the 1931 invasion of Manchuria. This act was very likely the true beginning of World War II and the global upheaval that followed." (...) "The true story of this WWII (1931-1945) theater of war is that Japan invaded Asian countries representing one-third of the human race. This Great Asian-Pacific Crescent of Pain consisted of many hundreds of millions of people from Japan to Korea, China/Manchuria throughout Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and Indian Ocean islands." (http://www.japanww2.com/chapter1.htm Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two "Chapter 1")

• "Some historians have said that World War II began on the windswept plains of Manchuria, in the war between Japan and China." Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope Nova Science Publishers ISBN-13: 978-1604564969

• "You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria." (letter to the editor LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6--backed by Prelude to War which was made by the United states Government

• The United State Holocaust Memorial Museum's World War II: Timeline start with September 18, 1931 though it notes July 7, 1937 as when WWII started in the Pacific.

• "He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific

• "World War II began along a stretch of railroad track near the northeastern Chinese city of Mukden (now Shenyang). There, on Sept. 18, 1931,..." (Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-0394585307)

How can you look at all of this and say it is fringe for the views of 1942-1945? If anything we have an example of editors trying to Wikipedia:Gaming the system to POV the WWII article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to John, I'm not sure why this was brought to ANI, and even if John simply wanted to alert other editors to the problem to have more eyes on the article (something that is done, for example, at WP:BLPN for BLP articles), I don't see why the content dispute needs to be aired here. It can remain on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it was done out of mildly exasperated stupidity on my part. I have the edit warring noticeboard on my watchlist, but when I looked to find it in the template at the top of this page I didn't see where it was listed initially. So, while I knew, somewhere, that the noticeboard existed, I couldn't find it and placed the comment in the one place I could find. I was, unfortunately, a bit rushed this morning, and I see where it is now, in the bottom section, where I didn't see it earlier. I sowwy. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 19 May 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:DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war at WikiProject Yugoslavia

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:DIREKTOR is refusing to take into consideration any of the proposals I have made for addressing possible POV at WikiProject Yugoslavia over the issue of use of the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that bears the communist red star over it. I suggested a plain tricolour, DIREKTOR rejected it claiming it was "royalist" or associated with the Serb-dominated Serbia and Montenegro and thus was "offensive" to Yugoslavs because of the absence of a red star. The I proposed having both the historic plain tricolour of 1918 to 1943 alongside the flag of the SFRY and asked DIREKTOR for sources to show evidence that the plain tricolour was offensive. DIREKTOR's response to this was aggressive and in complete violation of WP:DISRUPT. DIREKTOR clearly declared his intention to edit war on this topic, regardless of what other people like me and others may think, saying: "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour", here is the diff: [148]. DIREKTOR's first sentence in response to my compromise and request for evidence by her/him was to respond in an insulting manner, implying that he/she was rolling on the floor laughing, saying: "Apologies R-41, I'm too busy rolling on the floor to respond in detail." See diff: [149]--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And then as to my request for sources said: "Suffices to say I need no source for what the plain tricolor was used, and as such it is no more acceptable than the red star flag", see diff: [150]. DIREKTOR is refusing to present any evidence to demonstrate her/his claim - particularly for 1918 to 1943, because he/she claims that he/she cannot be questioned about this because it is merely a "fact" - that in her/his view every Yugoslav who flew a plain tricolour flag from 1918 to 1943 was a monarchist or a Serb hegemonist. Furthermore DIREKTOR has a clear POV against Yugoslav people who were royalists - viewing them in a negative manner. DIREKTOR is also in violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for her/his condescending attitude towards historic Yugoslav royalists.--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you have a content dispute (see WP:DR) and you're somehow upset that they're rolling on the floor whilst laughing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is a threat to edit war, and general disruptive behaviour, I am not upset that they are "rolling on the floor" laughing - I am showing that because that was DIREKTOR's response to my request for evidence for her/his claim that the plain Yugoslav tricolour is "offensive". This is disruptive behaviour. The principal problem I am addressing here, is this edit: "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour" [151] - that is a threat of edit-warring. I have proposed compromises to address her/his concerns and he/she refuses to consider them - refusing to have the plain tricolour on the WikiProject title page even if it is included alongside the SFRY tricolour with the red star. I don't think Dispute Resolution will work if a user is committed to revert any inclusion of something that they oppose.--R-41 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bwilkins. Yup, one of the better jokes I've heard on Wikipedia :D. Though Producer was in error regarding the author of his proposed new Yugoslav flag. I heard it was Betsi Rosich, he said it was Tomislav Jefersonovich. -- Director (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@R-41, You want to change a flag on a barnstar because of political connotations, and propose to do this be replacing it with another flag? Director responded that "the plain tricolor unfortunately also carries political connotations", which is pretty much your argument, and then you ask Director to "provide evidence that others find the plain tricolour flag offensive"? How did his "carries political connotations" become "others find the plain tricolour flag offensive", while your "assumption of political affiliation" remain a perfectly good argument? Please provide evidence that the flag with a star is...offensive. Don't actually, a flag is a flag, and all flags have connotations to somebody. CMD (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I must've explained to the man about twenty times that WikiProject Yugslavia is about the historical country, and that it uses the last flag of the country - since it was the last flag, and was used for the longest period. I myself oppose the proposition of using a much older flag, that was less used, simply because R-41 finds the current one personally offensive. Little does he know (actually he does I told him) that the older, pre-WWII version was also a flag of an authoritarian dictatorship, and was also the flag used by Slobodan Milošević during the recent wars. I.e. for much of the Yugoslav population, it was very recently the flag of an enemy state for about half a decade. But I need a source for that, I'm sorry. I can't find my copy of of Offensiveness of Flags: How to Insult Balkans Ethnic Groups Using Just Your Imagination. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at what I compromised on, my second proposal was to have an option of the barnstars, the SFRY barnstar and a plain Yugoslav tricolour barnstar for those who didn't want one with the SFRY flag - that offers a choice for people. I proposed having both the SFRY flag and the plain tricolour flag on the template, the article on Yugoslavia in Polish Wikipedia shows both the plain tricolour and the SFRY tricolour in a template there, it is neutral and represents the entire history of Yugoslavia. Again, I posted this as a request and asked for others opinions. The issue is that DIREKTOR said that he/she has threatened to edit war regardless of what others think, this statement by DIREKTOR is the evidence "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour". DIREKTOR's last statement is again showing her/his POV against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia - DIREKTOR doesn't even account that there may be patriotic Yugoslavs from 1918 to 1943 who may have used the plain tricolour flag without being supporters of "authoritarian dictatorship" or Serb supremacism. And here is her/his aggressive behaviour with "Offensiveness of Flags: How to Insult Balkans Ethnic Groups Using Just Your Imagination" - obviously this doesn't exist and this is an aggressive attack against me - assuming bad faith. And 'here is the use of the plain Yugoslav tricolour flag by the communist Yugoslav Partisans on their badges - so they did not find the plain tricolour "offensive" and this proves that the plain tricolour is not a royalist symbol as DIREKTOR claims - [152]. But again, back to the topic of threats of edit war, DIREKTOR has threatened edit war on this topic, I have presented evidence that shows this.--R-41 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are patriotic Yugoslavs from 1943-1991 who didn't support Serb supremacism or a communist dictatorship. Again, I don't see how your argument isn't one sided. Director is reverting by previous consensus, something in the spirit of WP:BRD. Unless you intend to edit war in your flag, then this whole thing is really a non-issue. CMD (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis. Incredibly enough, I'm not reverting anything :), and I haven't. This is more like a "future edit war" that's being reported here.

@R-41. Your proposals are opposed and you do not have consensus. In fact, you have no support whatsoever. Your allegations of my having "threatened to edit-war" are, in my opinion, plain nonsense. I assure you that I fully intend to revert any non-consensus changes you may attempt to push, but I have no intention to edit-war over it. If your intention is to try and force your changes through, and have envisioned some kind of cataclysmic edit-war, that's your imagination and I can't answer for it. I don't know what else to add. -- Director (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So we're here arguing over the appearance of a barnstar? Even if we accept your reason for being here (threat to edit-war), unless there's a pattern of misconduct, just take care of it if and when it happens, i.e., warn him and report him. No need to be here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I offered the proposal that two options of the barnstar be available for users to request to allow choice for users - thus they will always have the option to choose the SFRY flag barnstar but also a plain tricolour barnstar for those who may not want it. DIREKTOR is threatening an edit war, because I am asking for a review of the existing consensus and am asking for views of multiple users on my proposal. DIREKTOR is refusing to wait to hear what others say and is threatening to revert any inclusion of the plain tricolour flag based on the false allegation that the plain tricolour flag is a symbol royalist authoritarian dictatorship and a Serb supremacist symbol, essentially that it is a taboo symbol. But I have disproved this, by showing its use as a symbol by the Yugoslav Partisans - the very communist organization that formed the SFRY and later adopted the tricolour with the red star, the plain horizontal blue-white red tricolour flag symbol can be seen here on these Partisan badges [153]. The issue is that DIREKTOR is refusing to here opinions of people who do not agree with her/him, and is threatening edit war based on her/his views.--R-41 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And so? Even assuming everything you say is 100% accurate (and I seriously doubt that to be the case), your complaints about content and your speculation about future edit wars have no place at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What?! DIREKTOR has clearly stated intention to edit war "I will revert any additions of the plain tricolour", here is the diff: [154]. This is not "speculation", this is evidence of an openly declared threat to edit war. I thought that Wikipedia users were supposed to be responsible in reporting disruptive behaviour. I would like to hear what another administrator thinks about this, because merely ignoring this threat seems to be to be irresponsible to efforts to avoid disruption of the Wikipedia Project. Please remember that the issue is about an open threat of edit war that I have reported as being in violation of WP:DISRUPT.--R-41 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement is what it is. Your interpretation of it as a threat is just that, your interpretation (I note that Direktor disputes it above). Either way, it hasn't happened. So let it go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that DIREKTOR is already involved in similar revert wars with other users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DIREKTOR_reported_by_User:WhiteWriter_.28Result:_.29 He also have a long history of blocks because of revert warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADIREKTOR In another words, this user is quite capable of fulfilling his revert war threats. PANONIAN 17:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. In the context of a barnstar dispute, you bring up Direktor's history and a recent report that includes 5 diffs, the first three of which are well out of the 24-hour 3RR period? Not to mention that you have your own anti-Direktor opinions in that report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see this as an issue requiring Administrator Intervention. I suggest closing this ANI section and gaining consensus here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yugoslavia#Flag and barnstar issue: a non-SFRY version of the barnstar should be available as well, a plain map of Yugoslavia. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem here is general behavior of user DIREKTOR - this user simply refuse to cooperate with other users and he trying to push his own POV by all possible means, no matter that he usually do not have sources that can support his POV. This diff is a very good example of that kind of behavior - DIREKTOR stated there that he need no source for his claim because he explained this numerous times. That is the main problem with this user - when other user asking him to provide sources for his claims, he trying to "defeat" his opponents rhetorically by numerous repeated "explanations" of why he is right and others are wrong (note that others usually have sources behind them, while DIREKTOR often have no other sources instead his rhetorical "explanation"). Cooperation with this user is simply not possible if somebody wants to follow Wikipedia rules and to edit Wikipedia in accordance with sources. The second problem is that DIREKTOR is very aggressive user and that he will revert anybody with whom he does not agree, no matter of the sources - this user have a single goal: to push his personal POV by all possible means. PANONIAN 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, you were just topic banned under WP:ARBMAC, and pursuing blocks on two noticeboards against the main editor you were in conflict with could, and probably should, be considered a violation of your editing restrictions. AniMate 18:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How so? I am not aware that my topic ban is including discussions in ANI board. I am not discussing topic from which I was banned, but behavioral pattern of other user in other unrelated pages. This is exactly the problem - it is obvious that admins here are unable to understand the problem and that they do not want to take any action against disruptive user about whose behavior several users complained. PANONIAN 18:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In another words, AniMate, you say that I should be sanctioned just because of comments that I posted here, while DIREKTOR is free to revert, insult and intimidate others as much as he wants without any sanctions. PANONIAN 18:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia" (WP:TBAN).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I am banned from topic named "Serbian history 20 years ago", not from topic named "User:DIREKTOR". So, how is this related? PANONIAN 18:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You are banned from any discussions related to your topic. You certainly don't have to have a specific ban for a particular user. That said, I confess I don't understand the qualification of your ban, which actually is "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions on Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago" (leaving off the linked thread).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It seems clear to me that the discussion is about a content dispute regarding the flag, which is "a discussions on Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago per". Per Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision#2012, you should not participate JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

But my point is - I am not discussing topic from which I was banned (and I really do not care about flag dispute that DIREKTOR had with other user). I had many disputes with User:DIREKTOR in many topic areas, which are not related to English-language Wikipedia only. So, I am only discussing behavioral pattern of user DIREKTOR and my personal problem with this user is much larger than the scope of my topic ban. PANONIAN 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept that is your view. As an outside observer, I think you are, regrettably, outside the limits imposed on you. I'd recommend letting others have this discussion, and keep your powder dry (avoid a WP:BLOCK) for future, and surely more meaningful issues. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's a link to PANONIAN being topic banned. Right above he admits he doesn't care about the incident that was reported here. He tries to qualify it, but clearly he is continuing the behavior that lead to the topic ban. Look at the discussion and you'll see part of the problem with PANONIAN was that he was trying to get users editing articles about Serbian history that he disagreed with blocked by any means necessary including DIREKTOR. He may not be editing the articles any more but he is still trying to get the same editors blocked by any means necessary. His edits here are clearly related to the conflicts that got him blocked and it is my view that this is a violation of his topic ban. AniMate 18:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine - let just block me, I am always guilty, right? (not to mention that I neither opened this thread, neither it was opened against me, but I now see that sanctions against me would be the most likely outcome). After this, I lost the last drop of faith in administrators in English Wikipedia. Do what ever you want. PANONIAN 19:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I'd block you if I could, not just to enforce the topic ban but for your absurd and self-serving interpetation of the ban. But despite your invitation, I can't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, such OWNERSHIP: User_talk:JoeSperrazza#What are you doing on the WikiProject Yugoslavia talk page?. I'd suggest not raising content issues at ANI if you don't want outside opinions. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 19 May 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.

Returning sock of a BANNED editor???

• Chaosnamegoofie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Patrolling Admin/Checkuser, please see this edit for further details. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• User(s) blocked. Reaper Eternal tied up all the loose ends. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection on an 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.

---

I noticed a protection on this deletion discussion. While I will not name names, I am very concerned for other anonymous IP contributors to these discussions. The person responsible for protecting the discussion blocked the lastest contributor without any evidence to suggest linking to another account. I am very surprised a trusted user would act this way. The fact that he can't stand IP users is one thing, but to block them without is another thing. I therefore am asking for input on this person's behaviour. UsedBeen20 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Special:Contributions/107.16.78.114 for more info. UsedBeen20 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Truly challenging: admins can't do a thing unless you a) name names, and b) advise the party that you're complaining about. Of course, you also need to show that you have tried to resolve the issue directly with that person first as well. I see none of this - just a drive-by (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the source of this complaint much, much more interesting than the target. CU? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Already filed.[155] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance they're related to the subject of the article, or even the subject himself? Do we know his views on having a BLP on wikipedia? I'm thinking out aloud because I know that could never be answered "yes" here anyway (could be answered no though!) Egg Centric 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that reality TV show contestants are generally not notable. Second, I already was checked, so a CU (IP lookup) won't link me to the suspecious IP address. I only posted because MM's recent behaviour is a bit amateurish for someone who can look up IP addresses. UsedBeen20 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

UsedBeen20 (talk · contribs) HasBeen blocked. -220 of ^Borg 01:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC) struckout my comment.- 220 of ^Borg 01:44, 20 May 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.

Extreme vandalism and poor behavior on an article

Resolved

 – Blocked for several obvious reasons. Doc talk 06:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that some of this is stuff that should be reported on the vandalism board, but it looks like the vandalism and bad behavior is so widespread that I thought it should be mentioned here.

I noticed this via the AfD for RINJ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RINJ), where user CRINJ (talk · contribs) was posting and stating that they would give out personal information of members of RINJ in order to harass the group members. They have also been vandalizing the article for RINJ. This is so not kosher in so many ways. While I have no opinion about the group (just found out about the group five minutes ago, actually), it doesn't matter what they've done or not done. Vandalism and harassment is not condoned here on Wikipedia, nor are we a place to recruit people. I'd just like an admin to keep an eye on the article, if possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified. CRINJ should be blocked on username, and the BLP violations at the AfD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Instantly blockworthy for this piece of garbage. Doc talk 06:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked by Gfoley4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing soapboxing and battleground mentality here in article space. Heiro 06:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Username appears to be promotional as well. -.- AndrewN ^talk 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection on an 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.

---

I noticed a protection on this deletion discussion. While I will not name names, I am very concerned for other anonymous IP contributors to these discussions. The person responsible for protecting the discussion blocked the lastest contributor without any evidence to suggest linking to another account. I am very surprised a trusted user would act this way. The fact that he can't stand IP users is one thing, but to block them without is another thing. I therefore am asking for input on this person's behaviour. UsedBeen20 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Special:Contributions/107.16.78.114 for more info. UsedBeen20 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Truly challenging: admins can't do a thing unless you a) name names, and b) advise the party that you're complaining about. Of course, you also need to show that you have tried to resolve the issue directly with that person first as well. I see none of this - just a drive-by (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I find the source of this complaint much, much more interesting than the target. CU? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Already filed.[156] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance they're related to the subject of the article, or even the subject himself? Do we know his views on having a BLP on wikipedia? I'm thinking out aloud because I know that could never be answered "yes" here anyway (could be answered no though!) Egg Centric 01:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that reality TV show contestants are generally not notable. Second, I already was checked, so a CU (IP lookup) won't link me to the suspecious IP address. I only posted because MM's recent behaviour is a bit amateurish for someone who can look up IP addresses. UsedBeen20 (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

UsedBeen20 (talk · contribs) HasBeen blocked. -220 of ^Borg 01:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC) struckout my comment.- 220 of ^Borg 01:44, 20 May 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.

Extreme vandalism and poor behavior on an article

Resolved

 – Blocked for several obvious reasons. Doc talk 06:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that some of this is stuff that should be reported on the vandalism board, but it looks like the vandalism and bad behavior is so widespread that I thought it should be mentioned here.

I noticed this via the AfD for RINJ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RINJ), where user CRINJ (talk · contribs) was posting and stating that they would give out personal information of members of RINJ in order to harass the group members. They have also been vandalizing the article for RINJ. This is so not kosher in so many ways. While I have no opinion about the group (just found out about the group five minutes ago, actually), it doesn't matter what they've done or not done. Vandalism and harassment is not condoned here on Wikipedia, nor are we a place to recruit people. I'd just like an admin to keep an eye on the article, if possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified. CRINJ should be blocked on username, and the BLP violations at the AfD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Instantly blockworthy for this piece of garbage. Doc talk 06:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked by Gfoley4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing soapboxing and battleground mentality here in article space. Heiro 06:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Username appears to be promotional as well. -.- AndrewN ^talk 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer

I've been reading through a few of the recent Webcomic AfD's including a few in the archives, and just about every single AfD that TenPoundHammer has started (and there are many among the recent ones) claims that there are either no good sources included in the articles, or such sources if they exist are always spurious, trivial, and/or non-notable. Some articles have been nominated for deletion multiple times by TenPoundHammer, and every single one of the current AfD's in discussion has been started by TenPoundHammer. I have to question this user's motives in regards what appears to be both a one-man crusade on (and an incredible assumption of bad faith towards) webcomics and webcomic-related articles. At a minimum, TenPoundHammer should not be allowed to repeatedly nominate webcomic articles for deletion. Veled (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The question to ask is, how many of the AFDs that TPH opens are closed as "keep". If most of them are, there may be a call for a user RFC to ask him to stop nominating these. But if TPH's record generally follow through on his recommendations for deletion, then there's no action. As long as he's not doing in massive bunches that are impossible to work though (I know there's a term that ArbCom used for this on an somewhat related case), there's no issue here. Either way, this is not an ANI matter. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's usually referred to as fait accompli. Regarding a RfC, WP:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer was closed about a week ago. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the term I was looking for. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What Masem said. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What Drmies said. SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what (asketh EEng) said Drmies? EEng (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"What Masem said. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)"

Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I need new glasses. EEng (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

TPH has recently been at RFC/U over just this issue. He denied there was a problem, abused other editors for suggesting that there was, then grudgingly accepted that he would be more careful in the future.

Evidently an empty promise. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Evidently" implies evidence. Do you have evidence that TPH didn't conduct due diligence before these AfDs? The RfC was a predictable pile-on whose partipants could have been divined well in advance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not attack other editors at that RFC by, like TPH, assuming their motives and with your "could have been divined well in advance" comment implying that their comments were literally prejudicial in being pre-judged before any consideration of the evidence presented at that RFC.

At the RFC AfDs, we had the list of Viz characters, where these 50+ articles were listed for deletion at more than one a minute. As that is generally agreed to be faster than humanly possible with any sort of research or consideration of the article issues, these were either AfDs based on no research, or they were based on the assumption that "there are no notable Viz characters" and then working through the entire category on that basis.

With these Webcomics AfDs, we see a nomination for each one that is a variant of "It has been at AfD before, I didn't like it then and I don't see any changes". The corollary to that is of course that is has passed AfD once and if nothing has changed, one might expect it to pass again. I see nothing on any of these AfDs that TPH has followed his grudging promise to look harder in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it axiomatic yet that any time an editor's actions are referred to as a "crusade" that the action is at very worst borderline and in actual fact a very useful bit of hard work in most cases? Doubly so where said crusade involves AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, not an ANI issue. I have to confess that I like Hammer, even if he is a bit quicker to go to AFD than I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he suffers from Premature Evaluation? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some good advice on this at WP:TOOSOON. EEng (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Had a read through the AFDs in that link and TPH does make sense that the webcomics fail GNG. I see no bad faith in nominating those articles. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the case here specifically, we really should start a discussion in Village Pump Policy to see getting it added to Afd rules that users are not allowed to nominate articles for AfD twice in a row. There's too much possibility for gaming the system this way to try and get an article deleted on the off-chance of getting a bad turnout at a subsequent AfD. Silverseren^C 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So as long as I use meat/sockpuppets the first time, I never have to worry about you nominating my article twice? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would strongly oppose such bureaucratic wankery. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Imposing such a restriction would be very unhelpful. Just because some editors may be considered to be re-nominating inappropriately does not mean that we should prevent anyone from doing so. Also, Wikipedia emphatically does not need yet more rules. The gradual instruction creep over the years has made Wikipedia more confusing and intimidating for new users, but has not improved the encyclopaedia significantly, if at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As with others, I do not see a problem this proposed red tape is intended to solve. Resolute 14:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think I would need to see a list of what new AFD's have come out since the RFC was completed - that way, I could see if indeed the behaviour that led to the RFC had changed. I'm not going digging myself - that's the job of whoever submits this report. Even still will it be blockable? (no) Would the community impose restrictions? (possibly) The OP really didn't ask for nor give specifics (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Although thinking about this a little more...I would be amenable to the idea of requiring a repeat nomination to specifically address something tangible that has changed since the last nomination that could potentially result in a consensus change. If such a thing were ever adopted though, it should apply equally to repeat DRV filings. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just because I was curious, I added a quick option to my AfD vote counting tool which allows you to only look at AfD's that a particular user nominated. In TPH's case, for the last 250 AfD's that he nominated, 28 haven't closed yet (or were unparseable by the tool), so that leaves us with a total of 222 AfD's. Here's how those 222 ended up:
  • 78 were deleted or redirected (35%)
  • 98 were kept (44%), 21 of which were speedy keeps
  • 19 were merged/transwiki'd/userfied (9%)
  • 27 had no consensus (12%)
  • The 250 AfD's span over a period of 291 days, which averages out to about 0.86 AfD's per day.
  • TPH has nominated a total of 2,369 pages, and has edited a total of 10,907 unique AfD pages.

In my opinion, a 1 in 3 success rate is quite low for someone who is nominating articles so frequently, and has been nominating articles for so long. You'd think that by now he'd have a better sense of what will end up being deleted and what won't. Whether or not this is actionable, I have no idea, but my hope is that TPH sees these stats and considers being more careful with future nominations. -Scottywong| prattle _ 17:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide statistics for Afds since the RFC close? Nobody Ent 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the RfC closed 8 days ago? In that case, very few (if any) of the AfD's he's nominated since then will have closed yet. -Scottywong| spout _ 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

.86 AfD's per day is not disruptive. It's not like he's nominating unquestionable keeps. AfD is for "discussion," so discuss. Are you worried that he is trying to slip one by you, or that he might change people's minds about the articles he nominates? Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

One would presume that the speedy keeps are "unquestionable keeps". I mean, that's a rather high number of speedy keeps, which should otherwise be extremely rare, unless one is a new user nominating random things. And I should also note that most of the Keep decisions, as I was involved in a number of those AfDs, were also "unquestionable", just not speedyable. Silverseren^C 19:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

SW, I'm genuinely curious, and not arguing with your concerns or logic, but what would qualify as a "good enough ratio" for votes or noms in AFDs? I can see where his looks low, but where is the line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think, at the very least, the number of Deletes/Redirects should be higher than the Keeps. If the keeps are higher out of 250 AfDs, you're doing something really wrong. Silverseren^C 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that's a +50% success rate when you count no consensus and the merge/redirect/userification stats. The only number of concern is the number of speedy keeps which is 10% of his noms in that survey, but without knowing why speedy keeps were called , its hard to question if that's a problem. And as noted, the rate is far from faite accompli levels. Since the RFC seemed to close with no real consensus on TPH's actions outside of people wishing BEFORE was more enforcable, I see nothing that still requires admin action. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I could draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable, but for a user that has nominated thousands of articles, I don't think it's unreasonable to question him when 2 out of 3 nominations are not ending up as deletes (especially when you consider that 2 out of 3 of all AfD's close as delete or redirect). As a comparison, while I haven't nominated anywhere near as many articles for deletion as TPH, 60% of my nominations have ended up being deleted or redirected, and that includes my nominations from 3+ years ago, when I had no idea what the hell I was doing. TPH's stats above are only from recent AfD's, and his success rate is half of mine. I'm not saying that any action needs to be taken because of it, but I think he could take these stats to heart and maybe put an extra minute or two into considering whether the AfD he's about to start actually has a shot. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 17:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight but after seeing it I was a bit curious. I glanced at a few of the ones that were kept and quite a few were kept on the grounds of lack of conesnsus to delete. Conversely, several of the ones that were deleted had no votes at all and appeared to be deleted merely on the grounds the AFD wasn't contested. That might be worthy of some review IMO. Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So you'd be ok with his nominations if he tossed in a thousand easy deletes by watching new-pages and not CSDing anything? Why is nominating difficult articles for discussion a problem, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, many of them aren't "difficult", they're just plainly obvious keeps that an experienced editor should be able to recognize, like 1 2 3 4. Try actually doing some research before posting kneejerk reactions. -Scottywong| speak _ 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That answered my question in part, that 2/3 of all noms are deleted, and that is a worth while minimum goal for anyone. Again, I wasn't doubting your logic, I just was looking at stats with nothing to measure them against. I know that last time I checked my long term states on votes, I was in the 80% range with the outcomes, and not sure if the overall ratio was that high or higher, but I guess not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is not that some of his deletions result in a keep; some of mine result in a keep also, and so will those of anyone who nominates other than sure things. The problem is that some of them are utterly unreasonable. It's not the frequency of mistakes alone, but the nature of some of the mistakes. When you nominate as he does, it's almost like nominating all articles that appear to be without many sources--some will surely be deleted, and perhaps even most, but some nominations will be patently absurd. To the extent anyone nominates articles that need serious debate but are then kept, that's commendable work in calling difficult problems to attention; to the extent anyone nominates articles that get Snow or Speedy kept, it's an error. In a novice, excusable error; in an experienced editor at AfD, carelessness; in one of the most experienced editors at AfD who has made many such errors and told about them in no uncertain terms, recklessness and disregard for the community. There's lots of junk that has to go, and they will go the more effectively if the nominator does some thinking. Things are erratic enough at AfD without deliberately adding to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I admit that while I've made a bunch of AfD nominations in my day, I'm a good long ways over 50%, and that's because I try to get a sense of whether a nomination will likely pass. I've certainly gritted my teeth and let a bunch of obvious clunkers go past, simply because of my certitude that the fanboy POV-pushers would flock in droves to tender WELIKEIT/ITSUSEFUL votes. There's no need to clog process with doomed AfDs. Ravenswing 18:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is premature evaluation; it's inappropriate to collect stats from before the RFC. This thread should be tabled and an interval of say at least 30 days or 300 Afds after the RFC allowed to pass before evaluating TPH post RFC contributions. Nobody Ent 18:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if we go by the end of the RfC (May 8), most of those haven't closed yet, but of those, HALF of them are webcomics articles under discussion (as per my complaint). However, since the start of the RfC (March 7), when TPH was theoretically put on notice, we still have a heap of keeps, including a bunch of speedy keeps all at once. Veled (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to express my discomfort with the casual use of the term "success" above. To my way of thinking, if TPH (or I, or DGG, or anybody else) proposes an article as an Article for Discussion, and as a result the article is improved and the discussion is properly closed as "Keep", that is a success for Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that an AFD that otherwise improves an article because of newly-discovered sources is a "success", but I think we're taking the more statistics-based approach of a success in trying to identify if TPH's AFD noms are false positives or the like, and in no way should be taken to mean "Hey,great, we got rid of an article, let's celebrate!" success. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This is where wp:before is so important. If an editor makes a goodfath attempt to source an article and draws a blank, then an AFD that results in the article being sourced is good result. When an AFD closes as keep after sources were easily found, then there can be a feeling that the nominator has wasted a lot of other people's time, probably annoyed the editors of that article and that it would have been much better if they'd sourced the article instead of AFDing it. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TenPoundHammer about renominations

I just want to say, 99% of time time, if I renominate something for AFD that I've nominated before, it's because the last AFD a.) was closed as "no consensus", or b.) kept due entirely to invalid arguments such as WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Then I'm certain you're waiting a long time (such as months) before re-nominating, and re-verifying any new information that has come to light since before doing so. Otherwise, WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the decision is not a valid reasoning, OR hoping that you'll get a different esult a week later is also not a valid reasoning. Closes of No Consensus means go away for awhile. Both of the reasonings you provide above mean you're second-guessing the Admin who closed them - don't. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, not respective of TPH, I always find it annoying when someone resubmits on AFD on the heels of it being closed as no consesnsus. I wouldn't even oppose adding something to a policy somewhere that an X month wait is suggested before renominating.

    @Nobody Ent, the problem is the RFC directly relates to this discussion and activity. I personally have never had a problem with TPH and I think we have a good report but I think that this discussion has some merit. I'm not saying that TPH is a vandal, a bad guy or even in the wrong in anyway. What I do suggest is that they slow down on the AFD's a wee bit and perhaps give them a little more scrutiny before submitting them. Its not going to hurt the pedia if we have a non notable cartoon article for a little while. Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Like I said, I like Hammer, but will be the first to admit his WP:BEFORE efforts could use some work. I've said on a couple of occasions over the years that he needs to slow down a bit with AFDs, but again, that isn't an issue for ANI and was already covered at the RfC. I'm thinking we really don't have anything better to do at ANI today, so we are just dragging this out. Like a slow news day. Not sure what more use can come of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)That suggestion would be appropriate on the users's talk page -- I'm not seeing any post RFC discussion there discussing TPHs contributions since then. Nobody Ent 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I've been distracted and didn't notice he had an RFC. I'm fairly sure that I have left that on his talk page and elsewhere a very long time ago, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Bwilikins, you could have checked. (It's ironic that we're discussing effort put into checking things by TenPoundHammer.)
    • Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (AfD discussion) — renominated by TenPoundHammer after a two and a half year gap (with someone else nominating in the meantime)
    • The Whiteboard (AfD discussion) — renominated by TenPoundHammer after a three year gap (first AFD nomination was by someone else, a further two and a half years before the second)
    • 1/0 (AfD discussion) — renominated by TenPoundHammer after a one year gap (and a rapid second nomination that TenPoundHammer xyrself closed after 2 hours)
  • Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Dominic Deegan I renominated since the first two both closed as "no consensus", and as pointed out above, the last AFD was quite a ways back — there's been plenty of time for more sources to come, but none have. Whiteboard also had both a no-consensus close and a significant enough gap. With 1/0, the first AFD was "no consensus", and I probably forgot about the first AFD by the time I made the second one. Still, that second nomination was a mistake from years ago, and I can't think of any time in recent memory that I've accidentally renominated something so soon. Either way, in all of the AFDs listed above, I've shown my work in regards to finding sources. And I find it absurd that someone has proposed a separate notability guideline for webcomics, since some "fly under the radar" and never get mainstream attention. Tell me why anything should get exemption from WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure TPH but as I read it I think Uncle G is speaking in support of your AFD's.Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• My own take on the OP's complaint, by the bye (as opposed to TPH at AfD generally)? There does seem to be an all-too-common sequence of reasoning at work:

  ::* Editor happens across a non-notable article in a subject field, and files an AfD.

  ::* Editor pokes around a bit, and finds a bunch of debris in said field. After the "Holy crap!", editor grimly buckles down to AfD work.

  ::* Fans - who aren't often experienced editors themselves - leap up and down in protest, with "OMG vendetta!" "OMG bad faith!" or similar lines leaping from the pen.

  (I note, for what it's worth, that the OP has exactly twenty articlespace edits over the last five years.) Ravenswing 19:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • • I concur; I've seen it happen to editors earnestly trying to cleanse the Augean stables - but by the same token, the same pattern appears when somebody decides that a topic is not "worthy" of Wikipedia, and goes on a crusade/jihad to purify us of said unworthy topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The nominator is also the author of the Last Res0rt article and is clearly out to get me just because I dared to AFD his precious article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't sweat it their motivations, it's meaningless. We all have areas we need improvement (CSD was pointed out as mine, if you remember). I still send articles to you as I respect your opinions. Yes, slowing down a little and working on WP:BEFORE would help you avoid all this discussion and that alone makes it worthwhile. Your nom/delete ratio isn't up to the standards that you are fully capable of. Again, you already know this. Boing! is helping me with CSD. I'm helping YRC with communications. Asking someone with a better ratio for assistance isn't about a weakness, it is about strength of character. If I can be given the admin bit while at the same time they suggest and I accept mentoring, maybe you could consider someone strong at AFD to help you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that part if the problem is that TPH has a different view of deletion to others. For example his belief that "ItsNotable" is an invalid argument in deletion debates, as well as his use of AFD to get articles on notable subjects cleaned up by others. I had a discussion with him recently where he took the view that someone being a "renowned sculptor" wasn't a credible assertion of importance. Perhaps the best solution here would be to topic ban TPH from the deletion process, with of course exemptions for G7 and U1. ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be an overreaction. And "it's notable" sans evidence is indeed no argument at all, as evidenced by its inclusion at ATA. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What Chris said ... and beyond that, calling someone a "renowned sculptor" isn't a credible assertion of importance. It is merely an assertion of importance. "Credible" would require evidence in the form of reliable sources quoting, well, credible authorities. Ravenswing 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • On that logic lack of a reliable source would be a speedy deletion criteria. That would be a big policy change, I'm not necessarily against such a change provided we change the article creation process to promote it in a minimally bitey way. But it isn't current policy and I doubt if it will become so. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ditto Chris. Way too extreme. And "renowned sculptor" might get you out of CSD but not AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's rather my point. If TPH had Googled the chap and either referenced the article or taken it to AFD then I'd have no concern. But that isn't his modus operandi, he tried to get it speedied A7 despite it having a credible, albeit unsourced, assertion of importance. I rather suspect that TPH is trying to broaden CSD to include "Would probably be deleted at AFD", and the reason why that isn't a CSD criteria is the inevitable disruption from the times when such articles turn out to be on notable subjects. ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I said it might get you out of CSD, I didn't say it was a shoe in, by the way. But banning Hammer from the deletion process? I don't see that getting much support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Somebody needs to close this thing. We all have our opinions where the delete/keep line should be drawn. Mr. Hammer draws it more stringently than many, which is why he doesn't have a higher success rate at AfD on his nominations than what he does. But he is not disruptive. He would certainly be advised to take a simple google search a bit more seriously — tagging articles for sources when he runs into big web footprints rather than being quite so fired up to drag things to AfD. That said, most of his challenges may be plausibly argued — he's not coming at things from a completely wacky perspective, in other words. There was just an RFC on Mr. Hammer, which resulted in no action (correctly), and now he's being dragged through the mud again here. Shut it down already... Nothing to see here. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

disgusting

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.

---

Is it acceptable for users to broadcast another users ip details and place of work? Privacy should be respected but here users Bjmullan and Murry1975 have gone too far [157]. This is absolutely disgusting. Also suspicious that Bjmullan went on a 2 year sabbatical between their 1st and 2nd edits and their 3rd edit was to create a new Wikipedia page.a very ambitious edit, unless they had been editing under another account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I love IP editors, and support their right to edit whilst not logged in or without creating an account. However, I do not see a discussion of IPs used to edit (including WHOIS information) to be per se WP:OUTING, let alone actionable by administrator intervention. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding, it is common practice to add such templates as SharedIP and the somewhat friendlier ISP test to IP's talk pages, and that is not WP:OUTING. To say nothing of the fact that such information if available by easy to use links on the bottom of IP talk pages. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Which blocked editor are you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

He's Factocop and there is an outstanding SPI waiting on him. As for outing, the only person who did that was Factocop himself here. Bjmullan (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to understand that Bjmullan seems to link every IP involved with NI related pages to be factocop. I do believe a user's privacy should be respected and that they should not be threatened by the prospect of getting into trouble at work by another user. That to me is completely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No - then whomever using the IP address(es) should use a registered account.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

no point. I have seen users with accounts also accused by Bjmullan as being factocop. It's pretty obvious that Bjmullan has held another account. Where did he go for 2 years? Creating a completely new page with their 3rd edit is super ambitious even if there is a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe creating a new article might be difficult for you but most of us find it easy. If you want to accuse me of something I suggest you take it to the appropriate page. For the record here, I have never edited under any other name or using an open IP. Bjmullan (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be difficult for any user, especially a novice. Where did you disappear to for 2 years? Did you edit under an IP? I think it also uncivil to tell me to "fu€k 0ff" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.199.195 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, evading a valid block and wasting the Wikipedia community's time sure is (as per the section heading) "disgusting". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

re: disgusting

Please can a competent admin re-open the above topic as there appears to be a misjustice. There is no proof of socking so why close the issue? User:Bjmullan has failed to declare a previous account, has abused Wikipedia.policy and abusive.language. aswell as outing a user and their IP address details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not outing if the information is available at the bottom of the page with one click. You don't want your IP or who its registered to known, register an account. And calling the closing admin incompetent is a WP:NPA violation and bound to bring WP:BOOMERANGs if you keep it up. Heiro 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - if you use an IP, then you can be tracked via it. GiantSnowman 23:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Failing to declare a previous account isn't a breach of policy. If it was wp:CLEANSTART would be totally out of order. You've alleged that Bjmullan is a returning editor, and he has denied that. I'd suggest that you either come up with something with evidence of misbehaviour, or you stop making those allegations. ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

so a returning sock can simply open a new account and make a clean start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.250 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If one is not blocked or banned. If so, one is socking to avoid a block and will be most likely blocked for that as well. A cleanstart is just that, not a means to evade sanctions. Heiro 09:01, 20 May 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.

Krod Mandoon

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.

---

• Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

This account appears to be yet another sockpuppet of the "de facto" banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. That user has previously disrupted the same arbcom page this year with the sockpuppets William Hickey, The Wozbongulator and Reginald Fortune. Since their editing has now become even more disruptive and the response at the SPI page has been slow, please can an administrator block this account? It was created in 2009: their second and subsequent edits have only been trolling on arbitration pages since yesterday. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid we cannot do much, given that the community doesn't want him banned; perhaps it's better that you perhaps talk to the user and see what happens. --MuZemike 07:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Who said the community doesn't want him banned? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Courcelles blocked him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No community ban has ever been suggested. Courcelles has just indefinitely blocked him as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole: many thanks, Courcelles. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a ban discussion right now on AN, but some of us have been saying it's unnecessary because the de facto ban already is a valid ban anyway. Don't listen to MuZemike, he's just WP:POINT-trolling. Don't know why he does that, but he's been doing it on a couple of sock/ban issues during the last months. MuZemike, cut it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll stop once the community collectively gets serious about their bans and whether or not they want to enforce them. --MuZemike 07:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm with you on the need to enforce bans, but your WP:POINT violations are disruptive. Please stop it, or the next time you disrupt a discussion in this way I'll have to block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there goes my effort to nominate WP:BATTLE for deletion, since that is all Wikipedia is. And if you don't believe me, look at a lot of the stuff that I have to read through every day. --MuZemike 08:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no beef with either of you. You're both volunteer administrators and do your job perfectly well. The irritation comes from the puppetmasters who waste everbody's time. Echigo mole is a prime example. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have to ask: where the hell are the clerks? The requests for amendment page seems to be completely unclerked at the moment; we have obvious sockpuppets repeatedly posting and topic-banned editors repeatedly posting. I've already asked the clerks to intervene but I've not had any response, nor any action from the clerks. Are they all on holiday or something? Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 20 May 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.

Leslie Daigle

I'm sick of this. Bunch of editors who don't have a clue are screwing around with a BLP of a politician, and admin intervention is required. If I weren't invoooooolved, I'd block one of them, warn another, revert the article to Bbb23's version, and lock it. But that's just me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a third time. There is broad agreement from some seasoned editors that the "fair" version from the "unbiased editors" is a BLP violation. Those "unbiased editors", you won't be surprised to hear, are SPAs with more fire than knowledge of our guidelines. In the meantime the article has been nominated at AfD. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've full protected for 10 days because of the ongoing edit warring and likely BLP issues. If another administrator or two would like to sort out whether there are clear BLP violations by one or more editors, they should feel free to do so, and then lift protection at any point when there seems to be some progress on keeping this article on the "good" side of the BLP policy. If a CU is needed for any possible socks, feel free to ping me. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• That may not be necessary as the article could very well be deleted by then. pbp 13:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) The guy who AfDed it

• You're not a guy, you're a backpack, for crying out loud! Drmies (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Nirzhorshovon

• Nirzhorshovon (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Just wanted to put this new user on others' radar. They seem to be confused about editing. - jc37 10:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently got an issue with this user causing vandalism on Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors--Mjs1991 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to call it vandalism, as it simply appears to be not understanding Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting ban on user User:Sandy94kumar

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

---

The user User:Sandy94kumar has made several commits to such pages as Yamuna Nagar, List of people from Haryana that don't comply to wiki's guidelines. The user has continuously tried to advertise a local business operation through a series of edits on these pages. In fact, the user has been warned of this couple of times in consecutive months on user's talk page, though the behavior still continues. So, i request a ban on the user so prevent further vandalism. Mittgaurav (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to his occasional editing pattern and clear WP:SPAM, I've given a 1-month block - hopefully they will talk (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BWilkins. Mittgaurav (talk) 12:02, 20 May 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.

Anil99seo

• Anil99seo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zylog Systems Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have warned Anil99seo at least twice about the clear conflict of interests they have regarding Zylog Systems Limited, a company in which they are employed (per their own user page). The editor is a WP:SPA and the edits made are very much to glorify the company, against WP:NPOV. In addition, external links which I keep removing (mostly per WP:ELNO #19) are re-introduced with no discussion or explanation. The editor will not discuss their edits or conflict. Some intervention is required to make the editor at least discuss the matter. --Muhandes (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked until this person can show a basic understanding of WP:EL; I've got to say, having SEO at the end of your name is a very good way to get you blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Snakehands

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 someone take a look at the edits of Snakehands (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and determine what action is needed for this editor? Apart from approximately four edits this year, every single other one has been to edit war over changing a section title on Diane Abbott to non-neutral and quite probably BLP violating ones. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked by Dennis Brown for 24 hours for violation of WP:BLP. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked Edits like this [158] and [159] make me think they don't understand what "neutral" means, and they seem to have a clear agenda that is inconsistent with the goals of building an encyclopedia. The fact that they have added the term "racist remarks" as a header multiple times tells me they don't understand our policies. This is clearly a BLP violation, and flagrant enough that I have blocked them for 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:45, 20 May 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.

can somebody please remove a unfair template from the 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.

---

there is a template about reverting everything at user "c h a o s n a m e" user page (the one with a information symbol) it is unfair to the user as no other banned user page has that, so am asking can somebody please remove it 66.225.195.47 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other banned user pages that have it too: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:BannedMeansBanned --92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Denied Template is consistent with our methods and goals. Why this matters to you, I have no clue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:12, 20 May 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:Starkiller88

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.

---

Starkiller88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-confessed vandal who has been involved in a long-term campaign of adding deliberate misinformation to a number of articles associated with Fobos-Grunt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Alexander V. Zakharov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anonymous (group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I also believe that he has been using IP sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny, is engaging in serious disruption to make a point, has made several potentially libellous edits; accusing scientists and engineers on the Fobos-Grunt project of treason, particularly Zakharov, who he also claimed would die in 2015, or "be disappeared".

Between late January and early April, a large number of IP users began adding unreferenced OR, speculative and POV statements to Fobos-Grunt.[160][161] In April the page was semi-protected after the issue was raised at AN3 by BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs). At around that time, Starkiller turned up, and started making similar edits to those the IPs had been. Given that his account was blocked repeatedly a few years ago for persistent OR and disruptive editing, I believe that before semi-protection Starkiller was logging out to add OR so that it couldn't be linked back to his main account so easily. 119.40.118.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), one of the more active IP users, has the same editing pattern; editing articles related to Fobos-Grunt and Anonymous, and also changing the word "planet" to "exoplanet" in articles relating to several fictional worlds (edits by Starkiller and the IP). Most of the other IP addresses involved were in the 115.133.*.* range. I did a whois check on a few of them, and all the 115-block addresses I checked were registered to Telekom Malaysia, with 119.40.118.34 being a Malaysian university, so there does seem to be geographic correlation between them. On several occasions he has forgotten to log back in when replying to messages, such as here, proving that he has been editing from 115.135.144.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which also tracks back to Telekom Malaysia.

Initially, he seems to have been insistent on adding claims that the Fobos-Grunt mission would not be repeated, and that it's project team had been disbanded, based on speculation that Russia was about to join the European ExoMars programme.[162][163] After a while, this effectively came to pass, so he started taking the opposite position; that the mission would be repeated, based on the opinion of a single scientist.[164] His claims were repeatedly removed by a number of editors, however he kept adding them, and attempts to discuss the issue at Talk:Fobos-Grunt proved fruitless. Eventually, BatteryIncluded made a series of posts on Starkiller's talk page in an effort to get him to stop claiming that the repeat mission was planned, however this simply caused Starkiller to start claiming at every possible opportunity and with as much emphasis as possible, that there would never be another mission to Phobos, at any point in the future.[165][166][167].

In addition to the claims about the scientists behind the mission being wanted for treason, he started adding claims about a planned Anonymous operation, entitled "Phobos-Gone" aimed at taking down the Fobos-Grunt website, and conducting vigilante acts to "bring those responsible for the failure to justice". He added the claim, accompanied by one or two references which linked to user-generated content on Pastebin, to Fobos-Grunt[168][169], Alexander V. Zakharov, Lavochkin, Timeline of events associated with Anonymous, Anonymous Operation and Anonymous (group)[170][171][172][173]. He also created four redirects relating to the alleged campaign, before admitting during the resulting RfD discussion that he made the whole thing up in retaliation for a mildly incivil post that BatteryIncluded made on his talk page after he had repeatedly stonewalled more polite requests to stop being disruptive. Making this point also appears to have been the cause of his insistence that there would never be another mission to Phobos. I am particularly concerned with the way he has since been pursuing this matter off-wiki, creating accounts on Blogspot, Twitter and Youtube with which he appears to be inciting criminal and vigilante activities against third parties in order to make the claims he is adding to these articles genuine.

He has been repeatedly asked to stop, but he just apologises, waits a day or two, and then starts editing again. I have sent him final warnings for both disruptive editing and long-term vandalism, which he has ignored, so I believe this now needs to be dealt with by an administrator. --W. D. Graham 15:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be imbedded somewhere up in Graham's detailed post above, but people should really view this video added by Starkiller (and later correctly removed). Although I understand the serious disruption to the project caused by Starkiller, the video is at the same time a hoot. As for the merits of Graham's request for "dealing" with Starkiller, sanctions are, I hate to use the word obviously, warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Digging just a little makes it pretty obvious that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. I would lean toward doing an indef and just be done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, blocking indef now. I'm not interested in having a drawn-out conversation over whether he's been "warned enough", the intent here is very clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Once you've used this [174] as a reliable source, you've shown you don't belong here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:12, 20 May 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.

Administrator John repeatedly forcing preferred versions

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.

---

John (talk · contribs), an administrator, has been in a slow edit war at Adam Yauch for some time now regarding a category. John repeatedly asserts that the category Category: American Jews cannot be used because according to BLPCAT the person has to self identify. The problem is that he complained to the BLP Noticeboard and was basically told that BLPCAT doesn't apply for various reasons (mainly because none of Yauch's living relatives are adversely affected by us putting him in that category). John continues to stick his fingers in his ears over this issue, and has been in a slow edit war at this and a couple other pages regarding this category. He also claimed in his most recent summary that my addition of the category was unsourced, however multiple sources have been provided on the talk page over and over again. Whenever one of his arguments is satisfied by sources or by him being told BLPCAT does not apply, he keeps engaging in circular logic by once again going back to the other claim (either BLPCAT or referencing) to gridlock the discussion. He is also implying that people who want to include this category are anti-semites/racists as he keeps inappropriately referencing yellow badge and single drop rule. John is engaging in policy wonkery and continually using his discredited arguments to force his preferred versions. I believe this behavior, from an administrator no less, should be reviewed and dealt with. Night Ranger (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this be better served at WP:BLPN? It isn't an "incident" (ie: ANI) as much as a content dispute with BLP implications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

John already posted there some time ago. He was told BLPCAT did not apply and the discussion there died out. He is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continues to invoke BLPCAT. The content dispute is not at issue, the issue is his behavior, which is unbecoming an administrator. Night Ranger (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some diffs of both the edit warring and the usage of inappropriate terms on his part? A link to the BLPN discussion would be nice too. Silverseren^C 05:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Yauch was a practicing Buddhist. Calling him an American Buddhist might be acceptable. Labeling him a Jew sounds like an agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

However, some sources say otherwise, such as this Jewish Week article. Not to mention Forbes. Mayhaps he is ethnically Jewish, but religiously Buddhist? Silverseren^C 05:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice here is not to label someone's ethnic group unless he's notable for being in that ethnic group. Woody Allen qualifies, for example. Yauch? Doesn't look like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the Beastie Boys were known for being Jewish kids. Hot Stop 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a number of sources discussing how the Beastie Boys as a whole were known for being Jewish and it was one of the early reasons why they became noticed by the public. Silverseren^C 05:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources would be good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Like this Jewish Chronicle article? Good enough? I mean, "The Beastie Boys paved the way for today’s Jewish hip hoppers who don’t have to come from the ghetto to be ‘for real’" and "they put Jews at the forefront of the genre in its early days" is clear enough. Silverseren^C 06:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Or this Forbes one "They were three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn"? There are more in Yauch's article too. Hot Stop 06:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Then John had best explain his actions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is curious, though, that the Rolling Stone obit didn't say a word about it.[175] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times says something about it in passing, well into the article,[176] so it doesn't sound as if their being considered Jewish was any big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion would seem to belong at the RFC or elsewhere in the article talk page not here. But as I understand it, as with nearly every single dispute of this sort I've seen in recent times, the dispute is whether to label him 'X (American) Jews' or 'X (American) people of Jewish descent', so it's more complicated then simply whether there are sourced that label him Jewish in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see from the talk page and the BLPN discussion. More specifically, it seems to be about what Category:American Jews encompasses, since the American Jews article includes both religion and ethnicity and Yauch is clearly ethnically Jewish, but not religiously Jewish (he's Buddhist). Therein lies the confusion. Of course, if said category applies to both, then the Jewish descent cat is pretty redundant in its use here (though there are certainly people of Jewish descent who would not be categorized as religiously or ethnically Jewish), so it gets even more complicated there. Judaism discussions always end up being a mess. *sighs* Silverseren^C 09:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As with Silver seren, I would say some diffs would be helpful. There seems to be an ongoing RFC on the content dispute and I only see two edits to the article from John, nearly 2 weeks apart so I'm not seeing anything needing administrative attention. Even if there was some poor behaviour on the part of John (I'm not commenting one way or the other), the level would suggest at most a RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The relevant archived BLPN discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive152#Adam_Yauch. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing where he may have abused the admin tools. I see complaints against him as an editor but unless tool abuse may be shown there is no need to review his actions here on this board. This looks like a content dispute.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:57, 20 May 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.

Thinly-veiled personal attacks / accusations of antisemitism

He's still blabbering about BLPCAT when he was told at BLPN that it didn't apply, and he's still accusing me of antisemitism by invoking things like yellow badge. This has nothing to do with content disputes but with BEHAVIOR. See here [177]. So is this completely fine? Should I just assume that since he's an administrator it's fine to keep attacking me and claiming that my position is one of racism and anti-semitism? Night Ranger (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsure how to deal with a grossly uncivil IP user

IP user 71.164.252.201 (talk) made this grossly uncivil comment on Cobi's talk page: [178] after ClueBot NG warned him for vandalism: [179] How should I deal with it: user warning template, request for immediate block, request for RevDel, what? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked 48 hours and deleted, I think (I'm still new to revdel, so check me). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Checked - it's fine. -- Dianna (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. I wasn't sure how to respond, and I thought the people on AN/I would be able to help. What should I do the next time I encounter a personal attack or other incivility? ChromaNebula (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is at this extreme level, here is fine. If it is more minor, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Long-time user blocked with no discussion

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

---

My main accounts, User:Chutznik and User:Shalom Yechiel, were blocked with no discussion whatsoever for reciting the real name of a user whose real name was already well known. This indefinite block for a user who has more than 30,000 productive edits to Wikipedia, and created about 400 new articles, was completely inappropriate and should be reversed. Throwaway777 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it an indefinite block, it's also a ban. Therefore, this account is getting blocked, and your only choice is to appeal to the arbitration committee.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of respecting this illegitimate ban. First of all, bans are to be imposed by the community, not unilaterally. I demand a full discussion appropriate for a uuser with my extensive tenure. Second, if the ban stands, I will evade it with my existing sleeper sock which has more than 100 edits. Throwaway777 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but I will implement the technical aspect of the aforementioned blocks. Regardless of whether or not the block was "legitimate", those accounts are blocked, and therefore this one will be blocked. And so now it is. Do not evade blocks. If you want to appeal them, then do so, probably most appropriately with WP:BASC if the normal unblock methods are not working for you. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo. Utterly brilliant move by Throwaway777. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody explain where this "ban" comes from? I see no ban discussion and nothing, not even a block message. The indef block may well be legitimate, but I really don't see how a ban could be created in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not listed at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users either. Something fishy is going on here. Monty₈₄₅ 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I feel we're missing something here. GiantSnowman 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I make no comment on the ban (or even if it exists). My thought process was simple: Blocked, blocked, not blocked. Make them all blocked. Done. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've filed this user's first and probably not last SPI. Would like a CheckUser to investigate.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, but can find neither a community "ban" discussion nor an arbcom decision "banning" these accounts, notwithstanding that they've been described as such on the user pages by Raulxx (can't remember the numbers).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)Even if there is no ban, we can create one right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• User:Raul654 notified of this discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that I think of it, this is not good admin conduct.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, they were unilaterally banned by User:Raul654 a few days ago [180]. The main account hadn't made any edits for some weeks. Apparently, an undisclosed sock of "Chutznick" had referred to a longtime admin former editor (no edits on the main account at least since 2010) by his real name (a real name disclosed by the admin editor in signing his correspondence on a variety of wikipedia-related mailing lists) in an obscure AFD. That's about the whole of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How did you find that out? I couldn't figure out even this much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The alleged sock is User:Throwaway666.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Unilaterally banning people is not something that administrators should be doing. This behaviour is unacceptable on the part of Raul654. Wikipedia:Ban#Decision to ban lays down the ban parameters, and unilateral banning by an admin is not permitted. -- Dianna (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've just been notified of this discussion, so I guess I should note that my block on the user was merely a necessary and purely technical tweak of Raul654's block, and it should not be construed as endorsing or commenting in any way on the original block. That said, no administrators can impose bans outside of arbitration enforcement, and unless there's a specific provision of some Arbitration decision supporting this (and there might very well be, I haven't been following ARBCOM stuff much over the years), then the ban is void. However I would suggest waiting for Raul's comments to determine whether there was a specific Arbitration Enforcement provision he was referring to in banning the user. In any case, outing is clearly unacceptable and the community should probably formally ban the user anyway. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is a ban the typical response to a first offense of outing, where the editor being outed has publicly identified themselves before? (Its still a sort of outing, but seems a less egregious type) Monty₈₄₅ 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, so much drama while I was out. A few days ago, Shalom/Yetchel/Chutznik/whatever-he's-calling-himself-these days used a sockpuppet to post the RL name of a former editor (someone who had not edited in two years) to Wikipedia, and then bragged about that action in a well-known off-wiki forum. He's already admitted that earlier in this thread, but defended his actions by claiming that it was OK because that former editor had previously disclosed it on some of his emails. Wikipedia:Outing contradicts his defense.

When I saw his bragging, I blocked him, and all of his sockpuppets that I could find (namely: user:Placeholder account, user:Crystal whacker, user:Chutznik, user:Shalom Yechiel, and user:Shalom) and tagged them as banned. In retrospect, I probably should have tagged them as indefblocked. It didn't really occur to me that people would get so upset about such a triviality. A little while later, Snowolf removed my original block comment (because it linked to the URL of the outing) but left it unchanged in every other respect. Raul654 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it now. Endorse indef block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In light of the above explanation it appears the block was reasonable, and while I personally think an indef length is a bit excessive, its certainly within the reasonable discretion of the blocking admin, and not something that needs to be overturned. Monty₈₄₅ 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Endorse block. Indeed, I merely changed the settings because the current design doesn't allow for suppressed/revdeleted block reasons for blocks currently in place (well, it does but it leaks them all over the place). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd endorse the block just for his threat above to evade using a "sleeper" account. But yeah, sounds like a good block otherwise too. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Formalize ban for Chutznik

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.

---

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

Since I see no discussion saying he's banned for real, let's rectify this. !vote below.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - firstly why did you say he was banned, and secondly what has he done to now merit a ban? GiantSnowman 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I believed the {{banned}}, until I realized it was placed there with no link. Doing sleeper sockpuppetry and outing is definitely ban-worthy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is a link, but it ia to the incomplete list of banned users, and it didn't have those accounts listed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is ridiculous... It says hes banned on his user page so lets formally enact a ban here? Its beyond words... Monty₈₄₅ 17:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Indeed. I have no idea what the guy has supposedly done to deserve a ban. Something about outing, according to the second block message? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Monty, this is not the right time. I didn't see the ban either, but he undermined his whole case by threatening to sock, making me less than sympathetic to his cause now. That doesn't mean a ban discussion is proper in the heat of the moment. Needs review to see how the tag got there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Good luck. I just spent a chunk of time trying to research whether there was a ban discussion at AN or ANI, or whether there was an arbcom ban, all of this because we don't computerize bans properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Usually block/ban requests are accompanied by evidence of wrong doing. None was presented. I would push to have the account unblocked immediately.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:01, 20 May 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.

Review

Before we get all excited and go off half cocked, it would be nice to simply try to review the situation. I support the block because he threatened to sock, and he was already an admitted sock, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I now agree that we should wait for a ban. Perhaps this user will calm down and stop the socking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What a cluster mess of ECs. Yes, that would be a good idea. I wonder why Raul put the tag on there to begin with? It seems to have started this whole drama-fest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both administrators notified--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The socking threat is definitely inappropriate, but it should be considered in light of the fact that it appears the editor was banned out of process, and that was what the socking threat was in response to, which should certainly mitigate the threat, even if it doesn't excuse it. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't excuse it, and that's somewhat important. I can think of cases where administrators were desysopped after being blocked because they unblocked themselves after being blocked out of process. The one that performed the block? Still an admin. I don't want to resurface that argument, I just want to point out that you don't go around doing your own thing just because you were blocked unjustly. There are procedures all the way up to arbcom on how to fix the problem. That being said, blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the wiki. So if the block reason is unnecessary, and we can be guaranteed that the user won't go around socking (which, to me, requires that this user tell us who this sleeper account is, immediately), then I wouldn't be opposed to an unblock. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, he was using a sock, while threatening a sock. That is recursive socks. I was already reviewing, and would have removed the tag, politely told him, and still would have blocked the sock he used to complain, as a matter of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any evidence why a block was needed in the first place. Creating alternate accounts is only inappropriate if evading a block or creating mischief. There are occasions where alternate accounts are justified, but unless the accounts were being used abusively, I don't see why an initial block was initiated.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have been blocked unjustly and you sock to prove it, you should be blocked. Instead, you email ArbCom. There is a system in place to deal with this. Bypassing the system, even if you are right, will and should get you blocked. If the initial block was wrong, ArbCom needs to review it, not everyone at ANI. I'm tempted to think that someone needs to simply close this entire dramah fest, as nothing can be done at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the users' posts on "the other site" they're hardly bothered about the block, instead they're just out to taunt checkusers, so I agree with you - why waste time caring? If they were actually upset by this then it would be a different matter. Egg Centric 19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still at a lose as to why the account was initially blocked. No evidence has been presented to justify that block.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(Self-admitted violation of Wikipedia:OUTING) if you simply check the block log. The actual offense would be redacted as to not be in public view. He wasn't arguing the block, only the ban anyway. Again, someone needs to close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Desysop or RfC/U

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

---

I'd like to see how close Raul is to being desysopped, or the possibility of an RFCU.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's yet another hasty move, after your equally hasty move of proposing the formal ban against the other guy. Relax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lets slow down a bit. While it appears on the face of it that Raul at least made an erroneous ban notification, I think it would be prudent to wait for an explanation from Raul before we start talking about RfC/U or desysops. Monty₈₄₅ 18:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He probably should not be desysopped, but what I see is a user forced to sock because he was "banned" by an admin w/o consensus. I actually looked at the original account's contribs and they are constructive. Geez, LQT would definitely help the EC's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:24, 20 May 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.

• An indefblock on all those accounts was definitely in order, whether Raul called it blan or indef block is trivial and has no relevance. Its a mere matter of semantics and a goodfaith inquiry could have made him changed the wording in the blocknotices. Nothing to see here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:39, 20 May 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 sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey

There has been an insanely high influx of ip editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shardul Pandey. While it is possible that the editors are just so interested in the article that they feel the need to argue for its inclusion, I believe it is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. All of the ip's are from Karnataka, Bangalore (found using Geolocate). In addition, there was a rapid spike in page views when the article was listed for deletion. I considered waiting for the closing administrator to review it and make his own decision on the status of the ip's, I also considered starting an SPI. Instead, I came here because an ip has accused me of being canvassed into the discussion [181]. I was never contacted about the discussion, I found it through WP:AFD and I was the first editor to take part. What is the appropriate action to take here? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to semi protect it right now to make sense of it. Although the IP geolocate says it's static, these aren't. But I think a rangeblock will have collateral damage. —SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, FPaS beat me to that. —SpacemanSpiff 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and remove the baseless claim that I was canvassed in? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, but I've commented there on its unlikelihood. Dru of Id (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

something spanish

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.

---

86.176.93.37 (talk · contribs) no idea what, but looking at the contributions possibly someone with a clue about what is what can tell me what I'm asking ? (notified) Penyulap ☏ 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like a vandalism-only account--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably guess I should be blocked 86.176.93.37 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A British Telecom IP in the 86 range with a hard-on for Darkness Shines screams of a Nangparbat sock.Ankh.Morpork 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"Probably guess I should be blocked " sounds like Penyulap (talk · contribs) logic to me Penyulap ☏ 19:26, 20 May 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:Prophet of Hell

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

 – Sent back where he came from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

From the very first interaction, extreme hostility and incivility ([182]). He's been warned and blocked for this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality just a few weeks ago ([183]), but apparently didn't learn anyhting. Constantine ✍ 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And he continues, this time in German ([184]). Constantine ✍ 07:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I would have looked past the edit-warring and the personal attacks, and the fact that he did all that immediately after coming back from the last block should not be held against him, but getting all the "ß" and "ss" and the commas wrong when writing German is really unforgivable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard "Vollidiot" in almost thirty years, since I quit watching dubbed movies on German television. Ah Fut.Perf., you Communist misbirth, how time flies. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 May 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.

Wikhounding and inappropriate article tagging by User:Neutralhomer

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.

---

Despite having been warned to twice "drop it" by admin JamesBWatson (first warning, second warning), Neutralhomer is Wikihounding me by edit-warring and inappropriately tagging the article on my home town, Taos, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article which he had not edited until he disagreed with me templating another editor. Pertinent discussions (and forum shopping) can be found:

• User_talk:JamesBWatson#User:Yworo
• User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:Yworo
• User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#User:Neutralhomer
• User_talk:JamesBWatson#Taos.2C_New_Mexico

Someone please at least have a further word with him about this activity. Yworo (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the one sided story. I invite anyone to look at the history of my talk page at Yworo's posts and you will see this isn't just me. My favorite is where he tells me to "take my Aspergers induced lack of social skills elsewhere and stop harassing me". He later apologizes for the comment while insulting me. Insults do not an apology make.

The Taos article has many problems which I addressed with the templates (since editing the article isn't going to happen). The article has problems with original research, lack of references, references which are unreliable, cleanup problems, non-notable information, tone and peacock words and other problems. It needs a through cleanup and as someone who has done a fair amount of editing in the town/city area of Wikipedia, I know what I am looking for. I have asked WP:CITIES to come in and help, again since editing the article isn't going to happen. There isn't any problems from me, but WP:OWNing from Yworo on the article. As for everything else, see his talk page history and mine (and our contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The accuracy or lack thereof of your tagging is not the issue. It's your behavior of intentionally using the tagging in an attempt to escalate a conflict rather than drop it as has been recommended to you by two different admins which is the problem here. It's clearly intended to intimidate and harass me, rather than for the purposes of Wikipedia, which is the definition of Wikihounding. Yworo (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are taking it that way, sure, but I wasn't doing that. I was tagging the article, had posted to WP:CITIES and was moving on. If I was escalating things, I would have reverted you when you put the radio stations list back (with unreliable sources). I finally just said "f*ck it" and let WP:CITIES handle it. They handle all the town and city articles, so they know what they are doing and if they remove it (and you edit war), it makes you look bad. I was done. You escalated the situation by posting to my talk page (after we had agreed not to post to each others talk pages) and going to ANI. Neither of us are doing a very good job today, are we? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You've just admitted in the first paragraph of your first response your motivation and grudge. I was going to point out that anyone who looks at the situation would be able to see clear through you, but you've made that unnecessary. I won't be bothering to watch or respond to this any further since you've just shot yourself in your own foot. Have fun! Yworo (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from some experience: Beware of editing subjects that are too close to your heart. That's where you have to be extra careful to be sure things are well-sourced, notable, encyclopedic, etc. Even safer, never edit subjects that you're close to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Why, because you insulted my Aspergers? Come on! If I hounded all the people who insult my Aspergers on a daily basis, I would be a really tired person. That isn't my motivation for anything and you have to do alot more to me to get me to hold a grudge. All that does is piss me off for a few. My motivation is the Taos article is a freakin' mess and you are OWNing the thing to the point no one can edit. I'm not the one with the grudge, it looks like you are. But have fun not defending yourself.

Bugs has a point, when I edited my hometown article, I had to be VERY careful and I had multiple people working with me to make sure I didn't include everything (and I tried a couple times). That article went to FA and then TFA. So, I think I know what I am doing when I edit a city/town article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you look at the edit history, you will find I've made no major contributions to the article. I've primarily removed promotional language, rewritten for clarity, tagged the article myself when there have been problems, added sources, and monitored the article. Little or none of the content is my writing. Your tags and claims are completely inaccurate. There are not "many problems, lack of supporting references, tone of the article, lots of original research, and needs a ton of cleanup", anyone who takes the time to read the article will be able to verify that for themselves. They certainly shouldn't take your word for it, due to you transparent ulterior motives. Yworo (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question for all: Yworo "intend to remove the tags unless the OP explains in detail precisely where the problems are in this article." I would be that original poster and the article in question being the Taos, New Mexico article. So, my question, since editing the page probably isn't a good idea, how do I respond? Here on ANI or not at all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is a remarkably petty dispute. Yworo, your list of diffs in your initial post don't even support your complaint. I go along with what James said in one of your diffs: "I urge you to both to drop your quarrel. Both of you have some valid points, but both of you are being very unconstructive." Move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Works for me, as that was my plan to begin with (after I handed off to WP:CITIES). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gigantic trouting to Yworo for opening this, a bigger one for editing his hometown's article so unobjectively, and no chips to go with either cut of fish (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• After disconnecting myself from the ANI thread, his talk page and the Taos article, Yworo has saw it fit to edit the Stephens City, Virginia article (one I am currently editing) as some sort of weird one-up-manship or something. He is obviously escalating things and I am just trying to do some work. Also, this would be the second time his has insulted my Aspergers saying "implementing Wikipedia wide consensus, FAC does not override the technical issues experienced by the disabled". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• From the previous edit history, it doesn't look like he's referring to you, but to the visually disabled. Perhaps more to the point, this is not the way to get this topic closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I have blocked Yworo for this egregious edit summary. It's a mere 12hrs, so it's not punishment - it's allowing them to rethink their phrasing towards other disabilities now and in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the edit summary - it seems he wants to accomodate people with sight issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said above. @Bwilkins, do you think that Yworo was attacking Neutral, or is there something about the "phrasing" that bothers you? Frankly, I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is he now going after Stephens City, Virginia? To me, it seems like Yworo is not getting his away, so now he is going after that article in retaliation. --MuZemike 00:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked, as that was a clear misreading of the edit summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with unblock. He might deserve blocking for other reasons, and it might be POINTy behavior, but as an uninvolved party, I see nothing even vaguely like an "attack on a disability". People should be blocked for the right reasons. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I just have to say, in my opinion, that a number of admin who responded above are simply too lazy to actually look into a situation and responded without any investigation. Neutralhomer spent a day and a half, starting at this edit at 09:07, 19 May, devoting nearly 50 edits to making false reports against me with two or three admins, starting to edit Taos, New Mexico simply to annoy me, removing 5 radio stations from the list of stations serving Taos, New Mexico for flimsy reasons, coming just short of violating 3RR reverting the deletion of those stations, then to avoid breaking 3RR, instead inappropriately tags the article, and that is all just fine and dandy with you. But I make 3 or 4 legitimate edits to an article he is interested in and I get blocked. Please, step through his edits starting with the one above. He made very few edits to other articles or talk pages except those involving me for a day and a half, instead obsessing with reporting me to multiple admins and repeatedly telling me that I am not following the "rules". But he's not hounding? Give me a break. I suggest every admin who made a comment above but did not step through his edits do so now. And then consider whether you should voluntarily submit to a recall. Yworo (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the complete list of his edits during that period. Every single one except the struck ones have to do with reporting, intimidating, harassing, or attempting to browbeat me into interpreting the "rules" his way:

Yworo's long list

09:07, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+2,112)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ 09:11, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+528)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ 09:17, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-572)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (→‎Radio: updated reference with all encompassing reference from Radio-Locator. Previous one was unreliable *and in violation of WP:RS and WP:OR.) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . WAMM ‎ (top) [rollback] 09:57, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-372)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (→‎Radio: removing stations NOT licensed to Toas) 10:00, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+41)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (→‎Radio) 10:14, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+815)‎ . . User talk:Drmies ‎ (→‎Question to AfD or not to AfD) 10:33, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-671)‎ . . User talk:75.80.125.4 ‎ (retracting vandalism warning. Not vandalism, just misspelling.) (top) [rollback] 10:36, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+533)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ (→‎About Taos) 10:55, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-12,453)‎ . . CFNY-FM ‎ (removing clear violations of WP:NOT#DIR. Please do not readd without third party reliable sources.) 11:00, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+2,013)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ 11:01, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 11:03, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+289)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes ‎ (top) [rollback] 11:12, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+339)‎ . . User talk:Mlaffs ‎ (→‎Taos, New Mexico) 11:24, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+2,035)‎ . . User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise ‎ 12:01, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,145)‎ . . User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 12:02, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . m User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 12:03, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+354)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo: responding to one, reading the post from James and will respond to that posthaste.) 12:07, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+442)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo: now responding to James.) 12:08, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+471)‎ . . User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 12:10, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-968)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ (→‎About Taos: removing two sections of this post as pure goofs on my part. Apologizes to Yworo.) 12:14, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+735)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ (→‎About Taos) 12:16, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+613)‎ . . User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise ‎ 12:17, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+371)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 23:58, 19 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+467)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ 00:00, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+477)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 00:05, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-1,462)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (any radio stations licensed outside Taos are NOT notable on this article.) 00:13, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-1,462)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Yworo (talk): How about waiting until someone can pull the FCC references out. (TW)) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-926)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (→‎Radio: stations licensed to Taos with FCC references.) 00:18, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-1,025)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ 00:19, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+364)‎ . . m User talk:Yworo ‎ (Talkback (User talk:Neutralhomer#Bold, revert, discuss cycle) (TW)) 00:20, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+380)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 00:21, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+267)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ (→‎Bold, revert, discuss cycle) 00:25, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+501)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 03:10, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+560)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ (→‎Bold, revert, discuss cycle) 03:12, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Taos, New Mexico ‎ (→‎Radio) 03:15, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+488)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 05:21, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-4,749)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ (Go away kid, ya bother me.) 05:32, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,416)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ 05:35, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+426)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 06:14, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+541)‎ . . User talk:Yworo ‎ 06:34, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-167)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ (Undid revision 493451131 by Yworo (talk)) 06:35, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-703)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ (archiving) 06:35, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+703)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive11 ‎ (top) [rollback] 08:16, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+321)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ (→‎User:Yworo) 08:29, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Game Show Network ‎ (switched websites, the previous was for GSN as a whole, this is for just the television network.) (top) [rollback] 09:55, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+19)‎ . . WVEW-LP ‎ (→‎External links) 09:55, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . WVEW-LP ‎ (→‎External links) (top) [rollback] 20:53, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ (→‎Radio: the whole section is based on an unreliable source that does not meet the WP:RS rule.) 20:59, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+99)‎ . . Taos, New Mexico ‎ 21:01, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+487)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities ‎ 21:05, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+1,009)‎ . . User talk:Neutralhomer ‎ (→‎Taos, New Mexico) 21:06, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+353)‎ . . m User talk:Yworo ‎ (Talkback (User talk:Neutralhomer#Taos, New Mexico) (TW)) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+917)‎ . . User talk:JamesBWatson ‎ Yworo (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the stations not licensed to, but only received in a place, seems reasonable. He was also right about reverting your vandalism warning to the IP for this: [185], as there was no reason to assume it was intentional disruption.

This removal: [186] seems a bit a like overkill; it had problems but I think it could've been cut down rather than removed entirely. This complaint: [187] seems mostly unfounded, since it was about inappropriate use of rollback, and I only see one of his quoted diffs as actually being a rollback edit (or at least a revert lacking an edit summary): [188], and that was inappropriate rollback use.

Basically, I think you both jumped the gun on each other, and I'll have to agree with the other recommendations here that you both just drop it. There's nothing all that troubling in either of your complaints against each other, except perhaps the fact that they were made. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the radio stations, the stations listed were either in suburbs of a very small town (5,000 people, still less than 10,000 including the suburbs) or have rebroadcasters located in the town to serve it. Also, there is a clear consensus on the talk page to include these stations. The articles on the suburbs are stubs, nobody is going to look there for the left out radio stations. Nor did he move the stations into those stub articles. It's vandalism, pure and simple. Yworo (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As for the Albert Ostman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) vandalism warning, did you look at the article history? There had been a series of IP edits of that nature, that was simply the last of several. No, you didn't do any investigation either, did you? Someone coming here with an issue shouldn't have to justify every fucking edit they make with diffs, and admins who don't bother to investigate simply make the false complaints seem legimate to other admins, who then also don't investigate. If you were an admin, I'd call for your recall. But you are instead just intentionally muddying the waters with insufficiently researched opinions. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't about a content dispute. You're here because you wanted to make a hounding complaint, and it looks like everyone thinks that's not at issue here. As far as ANI goes, this is resolved. I'd recommend bringing the radio station issue back up on the talk page, or starting a WP:DRN. I'd probably wait a bit though, you should both take a break from each other for a little while. Just friendly advice. Re: the vandalism warning, Albert Ostman only had two other IP edits, and I'm not seeing either of them as vandalism either. As far as "intentionally muddying the waters", I'm not sure what reason I would have to do that, but alright. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't look very hard, same IP, same vandalism [189]. Inserting "SUPPOSEDLY" in all caps. The quickest way to get this to stop is to tell the IP that's it's not appropriate, and the warning was customized to point to WP:SAY, where the explanation of why we don't use such words can be found. Yworo (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to any posts here as I have been working on updating an article. Just for the record, I did apologize for the accusation of misusing his Rollback, but not before removing the accusation from a post I made on his talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at my next edit after [190], that you statewas inappropriate rollback use? You would have seen a null edit with an edit comment explaining I made a mistake, I hit rollback instead of undo by mistake, they are very close together in my browser and I sometimes make mistakes. Then a do a null edit to explain it. But no, you didn't look for that either, just repeating the unjustified accusation. Yworo (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The first insertion was all-caps, the second was a lowercase misspelling. There's no reason to assume these were anything but mistakes, barring something further. No one said you shouldn't tell the IP that it's not appropriate. That actually would've been fine. Use of a vandalism template, though, is generally reserved for cases where there's no doubt the damage was intentional, so the revert of your placement of it was warranted. No, I didn't bother to check your next edit after the inappropriate rollback use, but you shouldn't rely on people here to catch everything (and then insult them for it? especially when you're trying to get help). Thanks for pointing it out now, and yes I see the rollback was a mistake that you corrected. Well done. It appears neutralhomer neglected to see your correction too though, and it's unfortunate that it added to the escalation of this conflict, but it still doesn't denote hounding. It's time to chill, because it appears nothing else will come of this. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My point here, in case you missed it, is that unless you have bothered to look at the article history, you misinterpret things and don't see the context. And multiple admins have been doing just that, not bothering to look at the context before jumping to conclusions. And looking at the context is really part of their job, and if they are not doing it, they are doing a disservice to everyone who reports a problem here, regardless of the outcome of the report, or who is really right or who is really wrong. They have been simply repeating inaccurate accusations without investigation. And wrt Ostman, inserting non-neutral words that cast doubt on a report is vandalism, regardless of the fringe nature of the subject, and I will continue to treat it as such, regardless of your opinion. Yworo (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the hounding allegation appears moot now that neutralhomer has agreed to focus elsewhere, I'll just point out that WP:VANDAL outlines exactly when that term is to be used, and your definition doesn't fit. If you continually misapply it, you'll find yourself on the receiving end of these ANI reports in the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, I am working on other articles and I have handed the Taos article off to WP:CITIES, so I no longer have a horse in that race. The page is also off my watchlist, along with Yworo's talk page. I have moved on from this mess. I may not be watching this thread (since I will be working on other pages), so if anyone has a question for me, please alert me to it via my talk page and I will be sure to respond. Outside that, I have moved on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 21 May 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.

Attack account

• Anderson Cooper Exposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already reported to AIV. The only reason I brought it here is that it also smells a lot like someone's sock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and locked, but I don't have local CU. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually non-SUL, but thanks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's also oversighted, so no log entries. I've been told that this is User:Mr. Kruzkin.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for JIM ME BOY

• JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anderson Cooper Exposer is a sock of this guy. I'm surprised there's no community ban yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah Egg Centric 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If he has created 30+ sockpuppets, and has still been socking 'till today, he deserves nothing other than a community ban. →Bmusician 12:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Illegal fake message bar

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:Lugnuts has an orange bar on his user page resembling the "You have new messages" bar. Bars such as these have been deemed illegal on user pages in this RFC, as well as WP:SMI, a Wikipedia guideline. Lugnuts has repeatedly reverted removals of the bar, as shown.[191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198] He has also ignored attempts to notify him of why the message bar is illegal on his talk page, as shown.[199][200][201][202][203][204] Can it be deleted and he not be allowed to put it back? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But it is funny, and we have a policy of WP:IAR. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but to me it seems silly to ignore a rule when a long RFC took place regarding this exact type of case. IAR generally only applies when there is a broad rule with a specific application that seems to detract from Wikipedia, but in this case the guideline and RFC are aimed exclusively at this specific case. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Aye, WP:IAR speaks to improving or maintaining the project, and the consensus was apparently to specifically disallow those entirely because they did the opposite. -— Isarra ༆ 00:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an appalling state of affairs, I expect that you notified Lugnuts long before anyone had the chance to paste fake block templates on his/her talkpage. Damn! Spoilsport

There is the old you don't have new messages trick. and iar is for the plus side of the scales.Penyulap ☏ 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the user, and removed the false bar. I'll block if he restores it: consensus is clear that this is a form of disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 21 May 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.

Concerned by an editor

hi

i have seen this edit summary in 'recent changes' where an editor says 'f--- off and die' which i think is not very civil and i don't know if wikipedia administrators need to be told of an editor saying such things to another editor. the other editor says smething about a pretend new messages sign and the editor deletes the message with 'f--- off and die'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lugnuts&curid=4868225&diff=493620426&oldid=493595952

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.102.100 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just someone venting, presumably because others have removed a fake message bar from their user page (see above). I support the removal of fake message bars, and I support CIVIL, but this matter does not need any further attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Global warming denialism as fringe science?

Is there a consensus on Wikipedia about labeling global warming denialsm as a fringe science/pseudoscience?JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there an incident you are reporting? To your question, the subject of global warming has not really been discussed much on Wikipedia </sarcasm> but you might try [205] and work your way backward. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No incident (yet). I patrolled a new page on An Inconsistent Truth, which is some "documentary" trying to cast dispersions on the science (and on Al Gore, in particular, because, as we all know, Al Gore is a famous scientist, and all of our conclusions on global warming are based on his findings...) Anyhow, I cleaned up all the NPOV issues in the article and I noted in the Talk section that if he wants to summarize the movie, that's fine, but that he can't try to make any factual claims based on the movie that aren't in line with the science. Having dealt with my share of denialsists, I don't think he'll be satisfied with this (but, who knows...)

Anyhow, I'm really more interested in this as a general issue. I noticed that we don't use the word "fringe" on the Global warming page or the Global warming controversy page, which I found a bit peculiar. So, I wanted to see where things stood on the issue.JoelWhy (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so that didn't take long. I don't necessarily need an admin to intervene at this point, but my spider senses are tingling -- if anyone wants to review the An Inconsistent Truth page/history, I'm pretty sure it's going to need some assistance from a higher power in the very near future.JoelWhy (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a look in the meantime, and I think (non admin opinion) that the cruxt of it is that the article should be about the documentary, not the science, which is part of what you said on the talk page. But I'd also caution labeling the views of climate change denialists/skeptics as "fringe". Doing so serves no purpose other than getting feathers ruffles, and it is a rather convoluted issue on both sides. I think this can probably be closed. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks Quinn.JoelWhy (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in on this discussion since I am in contact with the people who made this movie. All they're trying to do is put up a summary of the plot and JoelWhy keeps deleting it. The plot is all about debunking Gore's contention that global warming is manmade. We have cited references for each point but the points are central in the plot, otherwise there is no plot summary other than "This is a movie that argues the other side." What is disturbing is that obviously JoelWhy has an agenda. He calls any opinion contrary to his "fringe." Some of THE most respected scientists in the world question Gore's position on this including Dr. John Christy, who is interviewed for the film. In our plot summary we list some of the major points of contention in the film and list newspaper articles and studies as references. To my knowledge, that's exactly what the Wiki community asks. For JoelWhy to continually delete this section is nothing less than censorship and I would hope the "consensus" here would be that no one person should be able to do that.

Take a look at the An Inconsistent Truth article and see if it doesn't match up nicely with Gore's movie's article. All we're asking is for the same consideration. The Authenticator

First of all, read WP:COI. You shouldn't be acting on behalf of the movie's creators. What you're adding is slanted presentation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, with reference to your contact with the people who made the movie, please see WP:CONFLICT. (Given the history of articles you've worked on, I suspect there you've failed to disclose your COI on most of the articles you've worked on in Wikipedia.) Secondly, are you seriously accusing me of having an agenda after using the article to refer to Al Gore as "the prophet of the global warming movement", and stating, as a matter of fact, "Gore's claim of a scientific consensus is far from the truth." Thirdly, you've attempted to cite to articles that don't mention the movie at all, and are simply being used to try to discredit the science of global warming (again, see WP:COATRACK). I could go on, but I think the discussion on the Talk page discredits most of the assertions you have made here.JoelWhy (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is COI there, there probably is COI at Phil Valentine, a really bad BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth, as this film does not appear to meet (or even approach) the relevant notability criteria. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

recognizable logo used in Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry and Portal:Furry

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.

---

File:Furry blue paw logo.png is "derived from the paw in WikiFur's logo", yet it is used as the furry WikiProject template emblem, and the emblem for the furry portal portal. as such, this logo is widely seen on wikipedia, and its use as an emblem for the furry wikiproject template and portal seems inappropriate, since we have other free images, like this one, for example, that are not identifiable with any website. these emblems are widely seen, and imo, they should not be identifiable with any site. i looked for an answer at WP:SPAM, but was unable to find one there, and WP:Help desk had no answer, so i guess i will ask about this here.

• 
  "wikiproject furry" and "furry portal" logo
• 
  the WikiFur logo
• 
  neutral image unconnected with any site

-badmachine 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikifur logo is in the public domain. It is completely alright to use and/or modify the photo. In the future, it would be better to take questions like this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

it isnt a copyright question. the logo is recognizable, and therefore promotes a website. -badmachine 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet, if the reader didn't already know it was the logo of the site, they would have no idea it was promoting anything. I really don't see the problem. Its fair to discuss which logo is a better choice, but that is not a question for AN/I. Monty₈₄₅ 16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Help desk thread was active for under 24 hours, it seems a bit uncharitable to claim they "had no answer". I will post there to note that the matter was brought here. Doniago (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• thank you for that. i wasnt sure what to do, and im still not sure this is the right venue, but i dont know which one is. it is worth mentioning that the owner of WikiFur is the most active participant in the project. -badmachine 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The community might want to consider a logo change, as we might want to keep Wikipedia's logos unique and not associate with other sites. But, unless it's a copyvio (which as stated above, it appears to not be), I don't really see this as a policy problem, especially not something for ANI. Maybe begin a discussion at the project or portal talk page instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:58, 21 May 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:BruceGrubb's disruption of WP:RS/N

Could an administrator please take action against User:BruceGrubb for disruption of the WP:RS/N process? In particular, IDHT over clear snow, leading to escalating personal attacks. We normally don't need admin supervision as it is a low intensity space, but BruceGrubb has issues with WP:IDHT (the initing cause of the RS/N thread [206] [207] [208]), WP:NPA ([209], "Because you are all basically the Smithsonian is not reliable and that is TOTALLY MAD AS A HATTER INSANE." ), WP:BATTLEGROUND ([210] [211])—these amount to disruption of the collegial atmosphere of WP:RS/N. They appear to be an enthusiastic editor, who has some issues getting in the way of a vast and positive contribution to the encyclopaedia. While the user's civility issues need to be dealt with elsewhere; the disruption of WP:RS/N needs to be restrained, and immediately so. (User notified) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that in case you are not aware of it, Bruce Grubb was topic banned on WP:AN (need to look at his talk page history to see the link I guess) partly due to the use of "less than reliable sources", self-published items, etc. and WP:Walls of text was mentioned there. So it is ironic to have a RSN dispute now.... History2007 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fifelfoo is IMHO trying to cover up what IMHO are obvious attempt of WP:GAME the results. He archive the thread after only three short hours and now tries to revert to that version and I call WP:VANDAL. @History2007 the sources Fifelfoo is disputing with his behavior are Niemi's Robert History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 Saburo, Ienaga The Pacific War 1931-1945 [http://pantheon.knopfdoubleday.com/ Pantheon) ISBN 978-0394734965 Peterson, Barbara Bennett (2006) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, preserver of spirit and hope Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116 Dick, Bernard F. (1996) in The star-spangled screen: the American World War II film University Press of Kentucky -- It (Prelude To War) claims to provide "factual information of events leading up to World War II" — a valid enough aim." Rollins Peter C.; John E. O'Connor's Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky - "It's (Prelude to war's) aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" Alpers, Benjamin Leontief (2003) Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture by University of North Carolina Press pg 178-179 - "Capra defend the film's style, maintaining that it was simply the most effective way to package fact." Thomas Patrick Doherty's (1999) Projections of war: Hollywood, American culture, and World War II Columbia University Press Page 72 Gordon Martel's The World War Two Reader (reprinting much of Benjamin Leontief Alpers work) Psychology Press (ie Routledge) pg 167-168 Let's see four modern University Press book and a modern work published "publisher of quality academic books, journals & online reference" in my favor. How this relates to the matrer History2007 talks about I would love to see him explain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I've checked only Rollings/Peters, and you read a very small snippet out of context. The source emphatically does not support your claim. Just a few lines down, the approach is called "plainly interpretative", and half a page down, it describes Dick's account (which you take as gospel) as "naive" and claims that "the central tenet of the genre was [...] promoting the state". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC) That would be a matter to discuss on RSN WHICH IS MY POINT. By archiving it after only three hours and continuing to fiddle with it (see [[212]] for that nonsense) Fifelfoo is preventing any meaningful discussion on the matter ie WP:VANDAL. I should mention Rollings/Peters is talking about "Dick's personal account" and shifts back and forth in the text between that account and his own views on the matter. Rollings/Peters do NOT say that Dick or the film itself stated that "it's aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war" but rather throws that sentence in the middle about talking about Dick's personal account. So is that Dick's view or Rollings/Peters? Again a matter to be thrashed out in RSN--if we are given enough blasted time to do so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I would comment that I have not looked at any of the sources discussed here, but only noted the WP:AN issue with Bruce Grubb above because it included a number of RS and source misrepresentation discussions before. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC) If you haven't looked at ANY of the material (which would by definition include Prelude to war itself) in THIS case why are you wasting our time getting involed? IMHO it comes off as WP:HOUNDING--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No, I had seen that RSN discussion but did not want to be involved given that I did not know the topic. Yet given that "issues with sources" had been mentioned on AN before, it might have been appropriate to mention it here. That's all. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) History2007, your lack of knowledge regarding this specific case is making your position ridiculous. As I stated in the RNS Prelude to War was produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government making it an official US document and therefor an official view of the United States Government for 1942-1945. Kindly explain how THAT position relates to the case you keep bringing up. WHERE is misrepresentation in THAT statement regarding Prelude to War itself you claim I am making? SHOW US or stop wasting our time and don't divert the issue either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I would suggest calming down, your aggression does not help your case. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I don't think History2007 is the person who looks ridiculous here. The fact is that you are repeating exactly the pattern of behaviour that got you topic banned from Christianity articles. It appears increasingly evident that your wilful adoption of contrarian views and attempts to force them into articles by twisting sources is a general behavioural problem. You can't do it one area any more, so you do it somewhere else. On the topic in question, you may or may not be aware that is claim that WWII somehow began in 1931 has been made before; there was a dispute about the lede approximately a year ago (I haven't time to look up the diffs). Of course even your own source is called Prelude to war. No one doubts that the the Eastern theatre of war emerged as an extension of the long-standing Sino-Japanese conflict, but that does not mean that the World War began when the Sino-Japanese war did. The illogicality of that claim is obvious. A local war is not a world war. Rather the Sino-Japanese conflict became absorbed into the World War that began in 1939. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• BruceGrubb's disruption of RS/N continues. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is also noted that BruceGrubb has also acted wildly inappropriately in this discussion as well, with egregious violations of WP:CIVILITY. I believe that, as Paul B has noted above, there is increasing evidence that BruceGrubb has little if any ability to either act in accord with behavior guidelines or recognize the applicability of WP:FRINGE to any number of sources which meet basic RS standards. I believe the evidence is becoming increasingly obvious that some sort of general sanction or restriction may be in order. I personally believe that the time has come to consider civility restrictions, based on the grossly unacceptable "Mad hatter insane" comment and others, and possibly probation from some policy and guideline pages. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• As a regular editor on RSN, I agree with Fifelfoo's opinion, that BruceGrubb's attitude is not appropriate for RSN. He has referred to me, in his most recent all caps outburst, as "mad as a hatter insane" as well. He seems to be annoyed that the other editors at RSN don't agree with him, and is often the case in these situations, instead of taking a disinterested 3rd party opinion, has decided to argue the point at length. Which would not be a problem if he restrained himself to the issues, but he has not. His behaviour on the page seems clearly disruptive to the board's function. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 15:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Two things here. @Paul B: Prelude to war clearly states and I quote again "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." A letter to the editor of LIFE Sep 21, 1942 Page 6 states "You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria. "He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific Even the obscure The China monthly review: Volume 98 1941:SEP-NOV pg 353 states "Although we didn't realize it at the time, World War II started on the night of Sept. 18,' 1931, when a small clique of Japanese officers secretly issued orders for Japanese troops to move from their barracks in Manchuria and Korea,..." @Despayre: I meant the position of holding of what editors saying what I believed to be reference to the Smithsonian program titled "Titanic's Final Mystery" to be unreliable to be mad hatter insane NOT the editors themselves. Key difference. Besides in the Prelude to War I set the perimeters under which I was looking for reliability which you, Binksternet, Fifelfoo promptly ignored: "reliable source for the US views of 1942-1945" WP:IRS clearly states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I did NOT ask regarding "current historiography of WWII" (Fifelfoo), I expressly stated "All Documentaries have some propaganda elements to them" which Binksternet ignored with his comment. I stated that "Although during the war itself Prelude to War stated 18 September 1931 was the date the world war started," was what I wanted to add which you also ignored. I said nothing nor in anyway implied Prelude to War itself was scholarly. None of you three addressed the reliability of Prelude to War within the perimeters I originally set so of course give I have ADHD I was going to get peeved about ignoring the context reliability which was clearly spelled out up front and doubly so when it appeared the Smithsonian program titled "Titanic's Final Mystery" was getting the same unreliable song and dance--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Bruce, this is ANI, not the talk page of the WWII article. It's not the place to go into detail arguing the toss about what the documentary actually said, or interpretations of it, nor is it the place to discuss its reliability as a source. Thatr would be back on RSN. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Paul B, you made a comment about Prelude to War that made no sense given what the film itself and contemporary sources said. I note that Colonel Warden also has commented here on the flaws in content with regards to the WWII article and you have made no comments on that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No, I went straight over and corrected the error, which was just an easily made slip. And I replied to your points on the talk page. Neither I nor Colonel Warden filled ANI with walls of text arguing the toss and distracting from the issue. Paul B (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC) What's interesting here is that, while these various editors have been fighting over the start date, some blatant misinformation has been slipped into that part of the article and been left there for over two weeks now. This is the statement that "the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany, and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire". In fact, so far as Italy is concerned, it was Italy that declared war on France and the British Empire and that didn't happen until 10 June 1940. The error was introduced by another editor who has a good quote from Bertrand Russell on his user page, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves...". Warden (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) One of the sources above effectively states that while Sept 1, 1939 is a commonly referenced date when WWII begun is more a where you were situation. In Asia is 1931 or 1937, for Europe 1939 is the most comment date I have seen and for US December 7, 1941.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed civility restrictions on BruceGrubb

Proposed - I suggested these in my comment above, so I guess it is sorta incumbent on me to formally propose them. Some of Bruce's comments indicated above have been so appalling that I think the name WP:CIVILITY is inadequate to appropriately describe them. Nor is this the first time that Bruce has displayed problems in this area. His recent ban from Christianity related content was at least in part brought on by similar behavior there. I believe that this editor has a significant, long-term problem with civility and reasonable behavior, as demonstrated here and elsewhere on this and similar wikipedia space pages. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed probation on BruceGrubb

Proposed - As I am the one who suggested them above. Basically, Bruce, if you can't behave on noticeboards and the like, I really don't think that we are obligated to allow you to continue to post there. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am familiar with BruceGrubb from the editing of Weston Price and its talk page. A while back he militated against Ronz in the same unacceptable tone that he is using here with Hrafn. Perhaps in this case his edits have been even more unreasonable. His two targets could not be more different: Hrafn vociferous, stating his views openly; Ronz very much the opposite. However, the edits of BruceGrubb have been similar for both. Mathsci (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Militated against Ronz?" Please. Ronz is one of the most infuriating editors to deal with on this entire project. That someone got frustrated with Ronz isn't a black mark, it's normal. I was also involved at Weston Price and I can tell you that Ronz was heading towards trouble in that situation, not BruceGrubb. I have no comments on anything else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I spend a lot of time at RSN as you can see. I have no axe to grind, never met this editor before, and have never edited that article. The fact that I disagreed with him, and then he goes on to make personal comments about me in other RSN question/sections (I've never seen him active on the page before, certainly not recently), works like a deterrent to me helping on WP, I don't like being insulted any more than anyone else. His behaviour needs adjusting if he wants to continue to use/contribute to that board, imo. (if this section is for admin comments only, please remove this text without asking me). -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh there is no Hrafn involved here in this thread. I should mention that as I pointed out in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive747#User:Ronz_behaviour it was frustration at nothing being done about an editor that seemingly everyone that had actually encountered had some form of problem with and the "oh this isn't our problem" and apparent "I not hearing you because you used the wrong form. La La La" attitude in the board up to then. Ronz had been so bad that even Jimbo Wales himself had to warn him about his actions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be with your edits, not anybody else's. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As Griswaldo said as far the Weston Price article was concerned that was not true.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin closure requested

Resolved

 – Topic ban enacted. AniMate 03:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin or group of admins is requested to please review WP:AN#Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike and effect a closure. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack review

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

---

Just wondering if anyone sees anything actionable with regard to this comment, particularly in light of the recent arbcom admonishment. -Scottywong| converse _ 19:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

...meh Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an escalation from the personal criticism that you started, to be honest - there was no need to attack Hipocrite at that RfA, no matter what you thought of his opinion on voluntary recall. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the "attack"? -Scottywong| converse _ 19:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but look: either we really do mean it when we say that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA mandates that you do not respond in kind to personal attacks, ever, in any way shape or form, or we don't. One would think that someone admonished by ArbCom for incivility would take especial care, oh, I don't know, not to be uncivil. Either Malleus doesn't get it, or he doesn't give a damn; the distinction doesn't matter a bit. Ravenswing 20:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing Mealleus does is actionable. He's been blocked so many times that whatever he does is understandable since he's been so wronged in the past. You should know that. Besides, that's nothing. Malleus has called me a pretentious asshole and pretentious twat. At least yours didn't involve a body part. Of course we could say civility is violated in these instances, and it's an ongoing problem, but we would of course be wrong, for some reason. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scottywong, if you cannot see that your comment about Hipocrite was a condescending put-down, then I have to question your judgment. I think you need to walk away, cool down, and come back tomorrow and rethink it - and not escalate things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Boing on this. — Ched :  ?  20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What comment are we talking about? Someone post a diff, for those of us not privy, please. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this one — Ched :  ?  20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll admit there was some attitude given (purposely) in my comments at the RfA. However, I fail to see how this is justification for being called a "pretentious prig" without consequence. Just thought I'd test the waters here, feel free to hat this thread if it's clear that nothing will come of it. -Scottywong| yak _ 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, now, hang on, this is awesome. As long as I can claim that someone had it coming to him by way of a comment I can claim was "condescending" or contained "attitude," I can say what I want about him, and there can't be any comeback to me over it? That's good to know! Ravenswing 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to remember that new rule for the future as well. It seems to only apply to certain editors though, and ironically it's usually the least civil ones. -Scottywong| babble _ 20:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Scottywong is begging for the boomerang here - there is nothing to see here apart from his disruptive unnecessary escalation - we can focus on that and his recent poor personal admin actions fully protecting his user pages from discussion whilst under usual investigative discussion.Youreallycan 20:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm is disruptive, but insulting someone explicitly isn't? Ravenswing 20:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you ENT - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreallycan 20:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive unnecessary escalation you say? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• (I'm not going to war to unclose this, but I would argue that SW asked for it to be closed iff it's clear that nothing will come of it, and adequate time has hardly been given for comment by anyone who didn't find it immediately) Answering what one perceives to be rudeness or condescension with overt nastiness and name-calling is pretty clearly not adhering to our civility policy, which quite clearly states that everyone is responsible for their own behavior, and that claiming to have been provoked does not excuse you from attacking someone. It's exceptionally clear at this point that Malleus has been warned, in every possible way, about his incivility and knows better than this. It is also, unfortunately, very clear to me that the community is for whatever reason - I suspect institutional inertia - unlikely to deal with this issue adequately, and that this thread will probably result in name-calling and insults among people who weren't even party to the dispute in the first place. We all know very well that any attempt to admonish or block Malleus will cause an uproar, on both sides of the "civility divide". Though those above who say that Scottywong needs to cool off, and probably apologize to Hipocrite, are right, that doesn't excuse Malleus's behavior here. As unpleasant as the prospect is, I'd say that the only route open for dealing with further (accusations of) incivility by Malleus is to go back to Arbcom and request either Arbitration Enforcement or a review of the Civility Enforcement case (which of the two it is is beyond me - is AE used for cases where there aren't specific restrictions, but rather admonishments?); the community is emphatically incapable of handling the issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need an apology, as I assumed one when the comment was edited. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This closure is a restriction of discussion in regards to an unresolved issue - I am following a One revert edit pattern but I have let the closer User:Nobody Ent know on his talk page that I consider this unresolved and that I object to his edit warring closure - Youreallycan 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What can be tried is to replay the entire exchange on a sandbox page, and see if you are all capable of communicating without anyone feeling insulted. Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 21 May 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.

Something of note

Does this look suspicious to anyone? When this is used, I am beginning to think that they are socks, with information being deleted very slowly. I would SPI this, but since I don't know the sockpuppeteer, I am going here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which added a user from two years ago who did exactly the same thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• The behavior suggests there is an experienced sock master behind them, given the effort taken to avoid red-linked user page and user talk links. The socks themselves haven't really done anything that bad, removing content from an article months/years apart when none of them have been blocked isn't exactly serious sock puppetry. Monty₈₄₅ 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. Jack is back as User:Br'er Rabbit, with the blessing of Arbcom, apparently. Prioryman (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

CU results being posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Casadesus. --MuZemike 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an odd one. The edits don't seem bad in themselves, and the socks haven't been disruptive. The parent account asadesus has been around since April 2008 but has a clean block log. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to evade scrutiny as there aren't any sanctions against the account. I'm mystified as to why he seems to have created no fewer than twelve socks, none of which is older than 23 March this year. Ordinarily I'd suggest blocking the guy but I suggest given these rather bizarre circumstances that he should be invited to explain his reasons. There may be a legitimate explanation (e.g. other people using his computer). I've notified him on his talk page, though as he's not edited since 2 April we may be in for a wait. Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stürmburg, as it is possible that that I may have hit a false positive there (I have not blocked the user, yet), and that user has not edited that article. --MuZemike 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Stürmburg is the sockmaster. The first sock in the sequence that you found, namely Sobamlo (talk · contribs), dates back to 23 March while Stürmburg was created on 14 May. None of them seem to have been used for very long or for many edits. Some haven't been used at all. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any simultaneous socking - accounts seem to have been created and then discarded one after the other, being used consecutively rather than simultaneously. It's an unusual pattern, to say the least. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree here, as I think that Casa and the others share a similar characteristic, as they all remove text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do not understand why the edits were reverted. The article was considerably improved by those edits - better sourcing, improved sentence structure, better grammar. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to revert to the "other" version, I will be going back to the most recent one. Risker (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they also removed information, which was useful. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It also removed a lot of biased information and interpretation of sources, and corrected errors and contradictions. This process is called editing. Just because someone's stuck information into an article doesn't mean that it is good information or valuable information or does anything to increase the understanding of the subject. Risker (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

True. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted back to the article's condition after the work done by the "serial accounts". I have no objection to knowledgeable editors discussing whether or not the edits made by those accounts improve the article or remove too much; however, the discussion would be more appropriate on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Over-zealous speedy deletion tagging

Editor A:-)Brunuś has been abusively tagging pages for speedy deletion: please see Special:Contributions/A:-)Brunuś and the editor's talk page, particularly at User_talk:A:-)Brunuś#Your_speedy_deletion_tagging. Repeated warnings from several editors have elicited no response there, but he has just posted to my talk page after I posted that I was about to report him to the admins.. He appears to be tagging the pages in good faith, but is quite misguided about speedy deletion and is WP:BITEing many new editors. Can some admins please step in and cool his/her jets a bit? Thanks, Scopecreep (talk)

I'd say that his twinkle access could be temporarily removed, until he can demonstrate proper knowledge of CSD.--Slon02 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard it was no longer possible to revoke twinkle access, has that changed? Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to re-consider my WP:AGF, having seen this WP:POINTy addition. Scopecreep (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about the "WIKIPEDIA-SUX" notice on A:-)Brunuś' userpage. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them look fine, I just sent one of his CSD turn downs to AFD. It wasn't a speedy, but it needs deleting. That said, if the user is abusing Twinkle, a sanction can be voted on it. It is easy to tell if someone is using Twinkle, even if it can't be physically ripped from someone's hand. He has 705 edits on the en.wiki [213] since 2008. Not sure we are at that point yet, so I say give him some WP:ROPE and see what happens in the next 24 hours, he may be imploding anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A brief lashout that doesn't harm anybody is IMO fine. I just wish this editor started communicating instead of carrying on and showing his frustrations by pointy articles like that. Despite other good CSD work I see in this users history, without him providing more feedback, I cant but agree with revoking twinkle for a few weeks. Lacking the technical means, this can be construed the same way topic-bans are. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you guys are reaching for the wrong tool. One can easily nominate things for speedy deletion without any automated tools. A temporary topic ban on CSD tagging is what we should be discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair point. I could support that too. Say two weeks, and specifically allowing PROD. I would like to stress that the problem is far too many bad taggings amongs a large majority of good taggings. Anyone in favor, against? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • I'm getting a bit less open minded now. I was going to suggest he read Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters and summarize it a bit, but he has refused to come and address the concerns here at any level, while continuing to tag, and tag rather sloppily. He needs to come here. I will leave a note to that effect on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)