Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772

Jimmy Savile and Talk:Jimmy Savile (Sir Jimmy Savile) ("FORUM" and NPoV issues)

Would an uninvolved administrator, especially a British or a British-Isles-based one, say that there are non-NPoV editing or PoV-pushing going on in the article for Jimmy Savile and in Talk:Jimmy Savile? I would also suggest that at least one (unnamed) over-enthusiastic user might in fact be using the talk page as if it were a forum for the general discussions of some sort, on Jimmy Savile. I thank you. -- KC9TV 17:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to tag it with {{current}}. I'm not an admin but I'll give you my 2p as someone uninvolved - the abuse claims should go to the end of the lead, the picture should be reverted to the one I saw a few days back and the section relating to the abuse allegations, while cited to BBC News and The Telegraph amongst others (so it should stay) doesn't necessary have due weight. I'm reminded of a similar media circus around Pete Townshend some time back, except he was still alive to defend himself. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good idea on the current event tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I am personally somewhat uncomfortable with this particular tag/template, and I did not agree to be the one who actually put it up, as I am not certain that all this actually meet the strict definition of "current events", bearing in mind that the primary events of the allegations were supposed to have taken place at least, if not more than 30 years ago (or at least this is what some might say). I am however otherwise content with this. -- KC9TV 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Are you really "temporarily inactive" as your Talk Page states? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps the {{current event}} template could be tweaked, or a similar template created for this kind of editing issue? The allegations may be about things Savile did years ago, but the media storm is now. This kind of "belated" controversy is a regular occurrence - for instance when a politician's opponents find something dubious the politician did in the past and turn it into a media storm. Or when the police restart a big old investigation. Or when somebody makes controversial revisionist remarks about 20th-century history. And so on. So, I think it may be helpful to have a tag for "Right now there are lots of people talking about something that happened in the past; the article may be subject to change; take your finger off the revert button..." bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Block review: User:Andycjp blocked indefinitely by User:Tznkai

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.

---

• Previous thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#Creationist_vandalism
• tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• andycjp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am requesting a review of my own block of Andycjp. By way of background I closed the above thread by topic banning (after reading a rough consensus to do so) Andycjp from evolution, creation, and the origin of species. I notified Andycjp of the topic ban, and tried to secure him a mentor who shared, or at least understood his religious idiom. In my independent review of Andycjp's edits, I believed he may have been suffering from some combination of language and cultural barriers, and might become a productive editor, even though he had gotten quite confrontational of late. User:Jasonasosa agreed to try to mentor him, but quickly reported back on my talk page (see User_talk:Tznkai#TB) that there were serious problems. I left a message for Andycjp urging him to be cooperative, treat Jasonasosa with respect, and to tell me if he wanted to be an editor. User:Boing! said Zebedee even took down a strongly worded, but quite accurate message to try to help out. In response Andycjp simply said "we are all sinners" and when I asked again if he wanted to be an editor, he asked "Do you wish to get to heaven ?"

At this point, I blocked him. Not because I am offended that he wants to know whether I want to go to heaven (I do, for certain values of heaven), but because I have reached the same conclusion that others have upon talking with Andycjp: he has a mindset incompatible with Wikipedia. He seems to be here, at least now, to wage some sort of cultural or spiritual war, or use Wikipedia as a platform for proselytizing. He is uncooperative and uncommunicative. That all having been said, this is a sensitive issue, and deserves close review.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. He was given the opportunity to show that he was here for the improvement of Wikipedia, and not for other motives. The topic ban discussion should have been a call to him to change his ways. He shows no sign that he has. Though he hasn't actually violated the exact letter of the ban, as far as I can tell, he only narrowly avoided an indef block through the topic ban discussion, and his hostile passive-aggressive behavior you highlight above has convinced me that he's reached the end of his WP:ROPE as far as I can see. No need to suffer this any further. --Jayron32 04:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. I don't see how it could have been solved any other way, per WP:NOTHERE. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, IMO. While I at first agreed that a topic ban in lieu of a indefinite block could work, almost every reply by the editor since has convinced me it will not. This edit to philosophy of science, where Andy linked assumptions, a disamb page whose first sentence states "based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts", seemed an indication that he intended to push the limits of his topic ban as much as he could, and while not centered on evolution or creationism, it was a spurious addition to a science article that seemed like it could be connected to the behavior that got him topic banned. Almost every single remark on his talk page since then has been a religious quote or platitude, seemingly aimed at inflaming other editors and making a "martyr" of Andy in his cause. We really do have enough drama around here without someone using Wikipedia for self immolation. Heiro 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • He's done a few more like that, like overlinking "unique" in non-math contexts, etc. I'm not assuming bad faith, but he's got a clear competence problem. Enough time was wasted cleaning up after him. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block until user agrees to cooperate. I'm a Christian, as displayed on my userpage, and I still agree with the block; Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) isn't the place for pushing your opinion. FWIW, I've always believed it more beneficial to the faith to actually be a good Wikipedian and be cooperative and courteous towards others rather than edit warring and trying to proselytize all over the place. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Unfortunate, but necessary. Tznkai's approach of trying to engage Andycjp was commendable, but it has to go two ways, and Andycjp's complete failure to engage but instead to carry on proselytizing really left no alternative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Necessary block. I don't know if andy was capable of constructive edits, but he seemed to think the spirit of collaboration didn't apply to him. Editors who refuse to honestly discuss issues simply don't belong here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• First, let me start off by saying that I was wholly impressed by Boing's post on his talk page delineating why it is not permitted to alter existing sources for the purposes of pushing his own religious POV. It was very tactful, reasonable, and demonstrated respect for Andy's perspective. I'm also pleased with the efforts of Jason and Tznkai to try and bring him into the mold despite having a conflict of interest. It did not work, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with editors who have demonstrated an inability to separate their views from their editing habits. If we were to allow Andy to continue editing, there is hardly any doubt that he would remain unwilling to acquiesce to community norms and abide by the core policies of which Wikipedia was founded upon. As such, he is fundamentally unsuited for contributing to this website, as our aspirations for Wikipedia are far detached from his own. Tznkai's block was the inevitable conclusion of this schism. Kurtis (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. This user had plenty of chances to change their attitude during the last AN/I, and instead starting quoting the Bible at anyone who tried to help him. Afterwards, he was graciously given a mentor, but remained as stubborn as ever. What it comes down to is simple: this editor does not wish to change and is not here to edit constructively. I endorse this block. – Richard BB 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. There's no reasonable prospect of the user editing within Wikipedia's policies and the user has effectively made it clear he doesn't want to try. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, unfortunately. Appreciate User:Jasonasosa's attempts, but in order to change, the subject has to want to change, and this subject was unwilling to adapt to Wikipedia norms. dangerouspanda 09:41, 11 October 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.

External link in article body

• motherstrust.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Site: www.motherstrust.org

An IP editor (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding an external link centric portion in 1) Ramakrishna 2) Gauri Ma article. Their addition is completely unosurced other than only that external link, which I think is not WP:RS. The worse thing is they are continuously writing in article body "More photos can be seen here [link]., more information can be found here: [link]. This article Ramakrishna is still affected where you'll find the link www.motherstrust.org multiple times in article body! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have posted notice in two of his IP address talk pages– 1) User_talk:75.198.11.140 2) User talk:75.219.181.57 --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are more:

• Atmalokan (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)
• 75.241.110.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.219.181.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.219.127.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.241.83.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 75.198.11.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Added to XLinkBot, will have a further look. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dirk; I'm glad there's smart people around. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Arattupuzha Velayudha Chekavar

Saw this article at AFC, passed the quick sniff-test so published, but noted this apparent (confusingly-phrased) legal threat in the lede:

Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker was an Ezhava warrior who lived in the 19th century in Kerala, south India and fought against caste oppression by the upper castes. His original name was Kalisseril Velayutha chekavar''.The present Chekavar who are rooted to the blood of Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker are grouped here- https://www.facebook.com/groups/144351819022209/. If anybody intend to undo the edits on the latest would violate the copyrights from the family and would be filed a case against the same. Copyright has been registered and is strictly prohibited.--Sumithsomarajan (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to do with this, so leaving it for the moment just as evidence. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a misguided attempt to force the Facebook link into the article. As legal threats go it is remarkably clueless, but a legal threat nevertheless. I'd assume the usual block per WP:LEGAL would be a formality? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Matthew, it is so idiotic that it's hardly credible. The user just came off a block for edit-warring; they seem to have more blood than clue. Then again, not everyone may realize that the threat is idiotic, and what counts here is the perception of a threat, so I will block per LEGAL. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, seemed awfully goofy, but reporting on general principle as it's really not an adult way to deal with edit disputes, and sets bad precedent. Turns out to that the article is a dupe of a 2010 article Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker, so not much lost there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rangams13

I happened to notice somebody report Rangams13 (talk · contribs) to AIV, who is already blocked as a sockpuppet. This user is using his talkpage to keep deleted material in there, which was deleted as a result of this discussion. Can somebody revoke his talk page access? Also there are some IP editors editing the page as well. Klilidiplomus+Talk 16:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I have revoked talk page access for the account and semi-protected the page. I've also watchlisted the user talk pages of the involved socks. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Nuttawat

I happen to have this talk page on my watchlist, and I see that for quite some time this user gets templates informing them on speedy deletion nominations of their articles. I am not an admin, and I have no access to the deleted edits, but my understanding is that the articles get deleted, and then user just recreates them in the same state, without bothering to reply. On one hand, we do not have so many users writing about Laotian footbal clubs, on the other hand recreation of the same articles more than five times in my opinion goes over the top. Could some admin please check the deleted edits, and if the articles were indeed recreated multiple times give the user the final warning, and possibly next time block them from editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

IP self admitting block evasion

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 not at all familiar with the history, but here we have an IP self admitting that they are editing while under a block. [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done the user has been blocked by Reaper Eternal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 11 October 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 and off edit warring at Schmidt Sting Pain Index

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 IP user has waged a slow-moving edit war on this page, claiming that the descriptions are "made up" and did not come from Schmidt. Several users have provided reliable sources on the talk page that indicate that such is not the case (and though this won't count as a reliable source, an entomologist friend of mine who happens to personally know Schmidt confirmed that the descriptions did indeed come from Schmidt). I should not hand out blocks personally as I am involved. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I must be overlooking the sources on the talk page ... can you point me to the right threads on that talk page? Is there a reason they haven't been added to the disputed section of the table? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Immediately preceding the table is an explanation of the origin of the descriptions in which the source is Snopes.com. I'd found a journal article before that mentioned the same thing, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions do not come from any papers published by Schmidt. Only one source is reliable enough to back the claim that these descriptions appear in an article by Schmidt, and that would be an article by Schmidt that contains them. If you can't produce such an article, your "my friend says" or "this journalist says" are totally irrelevant. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Snopes on Schmidt Sting Pain Index or Talk:Schmidt Sting Pain Index, nor do I see a reference to any other article which is claimed to give the source of the descriptions. Could you please reproduce here the bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? In the absence of such a citation, it appears that 190.44.158.38 is correct to remove the information as unreferenced and unverifiable. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not require that we get claims from the horse's mouth. We just have to get them from a reliable source. Just as an example, I'd like to point out Charlemagne - we have well over 100k of content about that dude, but not a single word of it was written by Charlemagne himself. Instead we rely on how scholar A reported the work of scribe B who described the life of king C. As long as scholar A is reliable, we're happy. However, we do need a reliable source - specifically, we need enough detail so that somebody else can look it up and check that it supports the content. bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I was only asking for a citation to the "publication in which the descriptions appear", not to where they originally appeared, though as the article wants to quote the descriptions verbatim, the latter would clearly be preferable. The descriptions in the table which were removed by 190.44.158.38 had no cited source, primary or otherwise. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If Schmidt said what it is claimed that he said, it would be easy - incredibly easy - to find the source. Scientific articles are hardly kept hidden away, are they? Comparisons of contemporary scholars to historical figures who died 1200 years ago are not realistic. Seeing as no-one has yet managed to find the paper in which these "descriptions" allegedly appeared, I think we can safely say it doesn't exist. The question relevant to this discussion is why User:Ohnoitsjamie has been edit warring to keep unsourced and unverifiable claims in the article? Why did he not discuss it on the article talk page? Why did he not discuss it with me? Why did he go straight to AN? 190.44.158.38 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. The American Entomologist link has the text of the descriptions used in the article, and the piece was from "Summer 2003", two full years before the Wikipedia article was created. Seems like pretty solid and straightforward sourcing to me. And to be clear, that article specifically cites Schmidt's work in its references. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlike apparently anyone else, I actually read the Schmidt articles cited by that article, and the descriptions, unless I somehow managed to overlook them, do not appear. This apparent belief that somehow "reliable sources" can change what is actually in an original text is really mystifying. As is "Ohnoitsjamie"'s failure to even attempt a normal discussion before lodging a complaint, and as is the use of this page now as a forum to discuss the article content. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I made this same comment at the talk page and invite you to respond there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That article does reproduce the descriptions, but does not attribute them to Schmidt. In fact, it quite specifically notes that they are not part of Schmidt's index but rather "colourful" media descriptions, leaving their authorship unspecified. So this article could be used as a source for the descriptions, but not to support the claims that they are Schmidt's or are part of the index (which were the very claims the IP editor removed from the article). —Psychonaut (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant The Straight Dope, not Snopes. The writer of TSD interviewed Schmidt; while Schmidt did not publish those descriptions in an academic work, he did provide them to a magazine. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Straight Dope article also doesn't specifically identify any published source for the descriptions. It says the descriptions were provided for a magazine article in 1996, but it doesn't mention whether this article was ever published, nor does it specify a title or issue number, nor does it reproduce all the descriptions themselves, so it can't be used as a reliable source for them. Again, can you provide bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? If not, then I suggest that this ANI thread be closed. The editor was only following policy in removing unsourced (and possibly copyright-infringing, as another poster below theorizes) material. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As Schmidt's list is obviously subjective and represents a creative effort, reproducing the entire list here with or without the very creative descriptions and even with attribution may be a violation of copyright. I think the best way to deal with this is as a general description of the index without reproducing it entirely. Reproducing the "wheedled out" version from Outside magazine is even more problematic in regards to copyright. Please see this essay for a broader and more informed view on the subject of copyright in lists. WTucker (talk) 12:42, 11 October 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

Please see Talk:James Eagan Holmes#READ THIS FIRST regarding possible legal action. WWGB (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

From the talk page:

Lastly, because I was offering you access to privileged firsthand information having to do with this case, if you do reinsert my comments again, I will go to my counties courthouse and file for an injunction against your organization reinserting my commentary due to the fact that my statement was probably filed under seal, and thus is still party to a standing gag order. BWCBENCERVS (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I know from the news that there is a gag order. There is the possibility that someone subject to the gag order might have posted here then removed it and we might have republished it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed legal, but there is no information that establishes that there is an actual problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In any event, wikipedia is not in the business of publishing "first hand" information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a few minutes ago, I blocked the editor who made the legal threat, although for other reasons. I arrived here at AN/I in order to comment and ask about this matter in what I presumed would be a new section: I had no idea that the talk page was already being discussed here.

Holmes allegedly shot and killed a number of people at a cinema. Neither he nor the incident is of particular interest to me: memory tells me that my only involvement until very recently was to "!vote" to delete the article about him. Offhand I don't even know why the article has been on my watchlist. After a couple of weeks of very little activity at WP (and perhaps atrophying of my diplomatic skills), I glanced at the watchlist and noticed an edit to the talk page with an odd summary, and on 8 October posted a message that in retrospect strikes me as too tart (at least if I had the possibility of a future block by myself vaguely in mind).

The particular editor seemed misinformed about Wikipedia policies and unwilling to be informed. After posting increasingly indignant messages he then claimed to have no further interest in WP and to take this as a justification to remove his earlier messages.

Putting aside WP's relevant guidelines for a moment, this doesn't strike me personally as necessarily a bad approach: If a user's earlier comments have not been constructive, why indeed shouldn't he remove them and disappear?

But unsurprisingly the removal was incomplete, and removed other editors' comments too, and in general was unsatisfactory (and not in keeping with WP guidelines). So I reverted it (though I concealed various comments between {{hat}} and {{hab}}). And, after a bit more toing and froing, I blocked the editor for one week.

I invite some other admin to take a second look at the recent history of the talk page. In particular, any admin who thinks the block of one week is too long is welcome to shorten it without first asking me about it.

NB the editor in question has already announced that if his deletions are reverted again he will re-delete them via some new account or IP number. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

PS Any admin wishing to hide, unhide, delete (in any sense of the word) or undelete anything that has been or is on that talk page may of course do so without asking me about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand on the “toing and froing” remark? Because it sounds like you blocked someone over a dispute you were involved in, which is completely against policy, and if repeated, grounds for losing the admin bit. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  02:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Toing and froing" was perhaps not the best phrase. I was thinking of a pendulum rather than a normal discussion. Look at the history of the page during this month to see (simply) a tussle between BWCBENCERVS and a number of editors, including myself, on what should be removed from the talk page. ¶ I'm puzzled by your allegation that this is a dispute that I was involved in. As I've said, the only involvement I can immediately think of is my "!vote" in the AfD, although the fact that the page was on my watchlist does suggest something beyond this. The single archive page of the talk page contains no mention of "Hoary". The current talk page doesn't show any involvement by me in substantive issues. No mention of "Hoary" in the list of the 500 most recent edits to the article itself, either. ¶ I do of course have at least the beginnings opinions on the event (or what I know of it), on the suspect, on gun control (or the lack of it) in the US, etc etc; as I'd guess do very many editors; but I don't remember having expressed these, let alone allowing them to influence either my contributions to the talk page or my block (which another admin is welcome to reconsider) of the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That actually makes even less sense, because apparently then you blocked the editor for a single talk page violation without even a warning. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this editor has been warned already and refuses to understand that we require RS to build articles.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't help it if Hoary did not state his argument against the editor coherently. But looking at the talk page history more closely, it's very obvious that Hoary was engaged in the argument before the deletions, and as an involved editor, should not have taken any admin action. (And holy crap there are a lot of revdels on that page.) —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  03:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You state that it's "very obvious"; perhaps you can provide some evidence other than "looking at the talk page history"?--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

His edit summaries (particularly the one that cites OR) make it pretty damned clear to me, but providing diff links won't work here because it's all been revdeled. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You surprise me. Here's the list of edit summaries. (Apologies if I missed one or two: feel free to point out any mistake.)

• Arbitrary Section Break 2: merge
• Reverted edits by 108.69.252.105 (talk) to last version by Bbb23
• Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: BWCBENCERVS should knock it off.
• Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: Please take "OR" elsewhere.
• reverting a set of deletions (and incidentally removing an addition or two, which I'll readd)
• Background section: readding material I deleted just now
• Background section: on truth, etc
• Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: moving comments where they belong
• Pages for Mr. Holmes' Victims: on tampering with existing comments
• Undid revision 517133551 by 75.71.183.88 (talk)
• The Red Light Camera Ticket: putting under hat/hab
• Motive: putting between hat + hab
• restoring to state preceding the latest removal (by a newly blocked editor) of material
• CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Are they newsworthy?

Engaged in which argument? Or is a request to take "OR" elsewhere an "involvement" not befitting administration, and/or a reason for the admin not to block the particular editor? -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What was needed was to advise the editor removing the defamatory material to contact OTRS for suppression of the defamatory material. Removing it, adding it back, removing it again, adding it back again several times has resulted in suppression of great deal more edits that is optimal. Unsourced defamatory material needs to be removed immediately and stay removed. I have, I hope, suppressed it all, if more is found please contact me by email or use OTRS. For what it is worth, my impression is that Hoary's actions were taken in good faith; it is a rather subtle point that a person known to have engaged in mass killing might be defamed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the inferral of good faith. I didn't pay enough attention to the content of the material. My (insufficient) hunch was that as long as it didn't finger other specific people or do other things that WP:BEANS constrains me from listing here, it would, in the bigger picture, be just so much hot air. (The person is, after all, somebody about plenty of other websites are bubbling over with virulent commentary.) The material could soon be hidden (a task that I started) or deleted (by somebody a lot more knowledgable than myself about what could reasonably be termed defamatory). Yes, I did and do realize that it is possible to defame somebody who has confessed to crimes. I'll take a different approach in future. -- Hoary (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and Talk Page to it

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

---

In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".

In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• The above message has been posted at NPOVN (where I have replied), and at its talk page. The issue (did Shakespeare write the works that standard scholarship attributes to him?) was the subject of an Arbcom case (WP:ARBSAQ). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI readers can look at the thread to which the complainant refers Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford#Complaints_from_the_peanut_gallery. It is difficult to respond to an editor who makes such astounding comments as Zbrnajsem does, and this encourages satirical replies. Good faith and patience has already been supplied in spades. 'Bri[n]cknall', btw, for the uninitiated, is a servant who was stabbed to death by the noble earl. Paul B (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Link fixed.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep - while I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that Tom Reedy could have chosen his words better (as indeed so could I on occasion, before anyone else points it out...), there are limits to how much pomposity an ordinary human being should be expected to bear. It seems to me that Zbrnajsem provoked the comments directed at him by starting a thread with allegations that Tom reedy had a "personal bias" driven by a dislike of de Vere "as a person, a historical person". Given that de Vere has been dead for four-hundred-odd years, this seems an odd suggestion to make, and one hardly conducive to fruitful dialogue. The thread was basically a provocation from the start, as I see it. Regardless of what action (if any) needs to be taken against Tom Reedy, Zbrnajsem needs to be told that goading people into inappropriate responses is itself entirely inappropriate talk-page behaviour, and that issues regarding NPOV are unlikely to be settled by making ridiculous allegations concerning the motivations of editors. I'd also point out that there is no requirement whatsoever that contributors have to like the subjects of biographical articles anyway - were it so, I fear to think what consequences such a requirement would have for say our article on Pol Pot... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I was the one who broke the thread away to separate it from the original section that he had attached his comment to. The ridiculousness was overwhelming the serious editorial section, which I wanted to preserve. So technically he didn't start the thread, just the ridiculous discussion, hence my naming it "Complaints from the peanut gallery" (first definition). Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem: I find it distasteful that you have been ridiculed, and in no way condone what is - in my opinion - Tom and Pauls' stepping over the line from robust debate to personal attacks. However, it also - and again, in my opinion - appears you have brought this unpleasantness upon yourself, by advancing untenable positions. While I think the form of Tom and Pauls' responses was unacceptable, I fully support the substance of what they were trying to explain to you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please show where I made any personal attacks. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the description of Zbrnajsem's contributions as Peanut gallery responses. I make no apology whatsoever for my personal opinion that Fringe theory POV pushers should be treated gently. They have their deeply-set beliefs. Those beliefs should respected, but gently rejected. When push comes to shove, as has occurred here, I still think the general standard of civility should still apply.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to waste a few hours of your life and review his talk page contributions, as well as User:Knitwitted's, with whom he often interacts on talkpages. They both waste time on trivialities while making minimum constibutions to the project, hence the section retitle, based on the first definition from the article: "A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, which was all too willing (in the view of the performer) to heckle the performer." I can't think of any better description, except possibly civil POV pushers, but I was trying to keep the mood light and--to knowledgeable WP editors anyway--entertaining. Both of them have been repeatedly (and gently) directed to WP help pages, policies, and procedures, but evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the problem of the William Shakespeare authorship question. I am ready to point out concrete editings by Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow which manifested, in my opinion, their personal POVs without serious historical background. I need only a short additional time for this evidence. I am sorry, but the whole article on Edward de Vere is problematic, and certain passages have the capacity to ridicule him and to make him almost a villain who he, in my eyes, was not. On the other hand, everybody with serious interest in this matter knows that there is a substantial community of very respectable persons, gathered since 1920, who believe Edward de Vere to be the true author of the Shakespeare canon. It is not appropriate to have an attitude to this dispute which leads to personal dislike of Edward de Vere. And there is no right for anyone to suspect me of deliberate actions to get certain responses from Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. Look at the contribs record. Nina Green made very detailed additions to the page, and virtually rewrote it from top to bottom, accepting as a key source the very work Tom Reedy and several others are using, i.e. the standard academic bio of de Vere. The page has technical and organizational problems, nothing new here. --Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting sillier. I have made no "personal attacks" on anyone at all. My comment about the Earl's "smirk" and "poncy doublet" was an obvious joke, and in any case it cannot be construed as a personal attrack since the guy is long dead. For the record, I have no opinions about his smirk or his doublet, never having seen either of them in real life. Yes, I said that Zbrnajsem was making himself look ridiculous, but that referred to his actions. If Zbrnajsem believes that passages in the article make de Vere seem to be a "villain" he should say which passages they are, and why they are problematic. Many articles on Wikipedia make their subjects look like "villains", that's usually because they record actions that readers will disapprove of. If that's what RS say then that's what we include. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, since Wikipedia is not, last we checked, run in accordance with Christian dogma, I'm unmoved by the so-called "blasphemy," and find the notion that the use of "blasphemy" disqualifies someone from being a Wikipedia editor well to the left of farcical. Quite aside from that such hyperbole is unbecoming a Wikipedia editor in my POV, I'm quite interested in what basis Zbrnajsem has for declaring that anyone has a "personal dislike" of the subject ... other than, apparently, that Messires Reedy and Barlow disagree with his own position. Ravenswing 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked with Jesus this morning and he said he forgives me for it and won't file a WP:BLP violation report, so it's a moot point. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Really very witty, Tom Reedy. Ravenswing, please read the Talk page on Edward de Vere, you will see that my points concerning the "personal dislike of the subject" on the part of Tom Reedy and Paul B. are simply true. This is, of course, a Talk page. Theoretically, they can say there what they want, if they don´t use unproper language, but their attitude towards Edward de Vere is obvious. I am the only one on this Talk page who criticizes such an attitude, but other persons who would probably like to do so are banned from this topic. Why actually, if they would edit only on Edward de Vere and not on the authorship question? I have the full right to do so, and on all Talk pages concerning directly or indirectly Edward de Vere. There is a lot of pages of this quality, and everywhere it is the same: E. de V. is something like a "minor mole in his molehill" and things like this, sometimes worse. Any person with a sense for historical writing should be critical to this kind of attitude to the subject. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think God needs you to defend him, Zbrnajsem, either with half-baked sarcasm or self-righteous indignation. Your confrontation with Tom Reedy, and your absurd ad hominem attack on him, culminating in an attempt to get him banned, carry no weight with the majority of users, except perhaps to make them think poorly of you. Could you, perhaps, rephrase your central concerns about the Earl of Oxford (rather than about Tom Reedy) in such a way that previously uninvolved editors can make something like sense of them, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: Nice work there, adding a huge extra block to your comment after I had replied to it, and doctoring the time-stamp. And yet, despite having presumably seen my reply to you, you haven't answered the question I asked. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a simultaneous editing, AlexTiefling, nothing else. What was then my "absurd ad hominem attack on Tom Reedy, culminating in an attempt to get him banned"?? Where, what? Have I used the words "please ban him"? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In your own words, from the talk page: "And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy, which people probably would call blasphemy. The use of only this one expression, which should not be deleted by anyone because it is a corpus delicti, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia." You repeated the same suggestion at the beginning of this thread. And you've repeatedly accused him of personally disliking the late Earl so strongly as to make him incapable of writing impartially on the subject. I consider this as an ad hominem attack, particularly as he has explicitly denied your claim, and you have gone on repeating it. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Zbrnajsem, you've been told by several people now that you need to let this drop. Please let this drop now, or else we'll have to make you let it drop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a little harsh, I don't see any clear requests in the prior discussion. However, I'd find it helpful if Zbrnajsem could clarify whether this is an issue about POV (which makes it a content dispute, and belongs elsewhere) or a conduct dispute about Tom's post. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here it is primarily a conduct dispute, User Sphilbrick. Thank you for your attempt to clarify. In order to simplify the case, I would then like to limit it on the attacks on my person already recognized by at least one of the participants (different from my person) on this section. On the Talk page to the Edward de Vere article, there were, in my view, personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" by Paul Barlow and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery" by Tom Reedy. I deleted the word "peanut" from the heading of the section "Complaints from peanut gallery", but Tom Reedy reedited it, adding that he would like it better so. I don´t want to reach anything else but an excuse on my address from the two gentlemen. Then we can cooperate on the related "Shakespeare matters" as we did before, I am prepared to do so. The POV matter is then a separate one, and it is being already discussed on WP:NPOV (I do think this is the name). It is, of course, a serious question, but what is not serious in the world of Wikipedia? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem: again, you appear to be either unwilling or unable to see how you have brought this situation upon yourself. Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is what used to be WP:WQA type stuff. Thread needs to closed and Zbrnajsem told that his grievance is a mixture of the trivial (the "peanut gallery incident"), the strange (calling the earl's death "kicking it" is "disrespectful") and the plain wrong (blasphemy disqualifies a user from Wikipedia). DeCausa (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't view being labeled as "peanut galley" as trivial. It won't make the top 100 of the all-time greatest insults, but it is directed at the editor, as opposed to the edit, so I've changed it. Tom has toned down the expression of frustration. (Thank-you Tom), and yes, the notion that an expression of blasphemy disqualifies one as an editor is nonsense. If my count is correct, two marginal complaints have been rectified, and the remaining complaint is not valid, so I hope we are done here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there was a good advice to me by User Sphilbrick, which I have appreciated very much. I have followed the advice. User Tom Reedy may have a look at the Talk page of "Edward de Vere". I don´t state anymore that a certain sentence written by Tom Reedy disqualifies him to be an editor. (But there should be a discussion on sentences like this one on Wikipedia, as everybody knows about religiously motivated fervour in the world and its consequences.) However, there is something, about which I would like to complain now. What is it that gives you the right for your following sentences, User Tom Reedy, as put down by you in this very section today (just part of what you have written), and directed to my person and to User Knitwitted: "...evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)". First, what disruptive strategies, where? In the article itself? This would be simply not correct. My editings there are really rather minor, because of the difficulty to add something to the numerous editings e.g. by Tom Reedy, and then - what is important - they have never been disruptive. On the Talk page? - I beg your pardon, User Tom Reedy, but there can´t be disruptive strategies on a Talk page. You would probably be happy without my contributions to the discussion, but you have no right to deny me an access to the Talk pages and to contribute. Altogether, you have no reason for accusations like the above ones. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask somebody else to explain it to you. I have no intention of spending one more minute on this. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite alright, I'll spend a few minutes. As it happens, Zbrnajsem, I've read the talk page in question. That on the talk page Tom and Paul had a jocular tone only could conflate, IMHO, to a "personal dislike" of the subject only to those with overdeveloped imaginations or personal axes of their own to grind. I am far readier to credit you - with your paean to Shakespeare on your user page, your insistence that people discuss these subjects in reverent tones, and that your relative handful of articlespace edits is dominated by the authorship issue - with an obvious personal agenda than I am them. Indeed, there can be disruptive behavior on a talk page ... where editors haul out spurious side issues, rather than discuss article building, is one example. Ravenswing 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

To my immediate predecessor in this discussion. Would you please explain to me what you mean with my alleged "handful of articlespace edits (being dominated by the authorship issue)"? Have you spent time for adding my edits to a total? It should be obvious that nobody has the right to prescribe me a certain amount of edits in articles on Wikipedia, especially in articles which are so heavily under control as the authorship issue is. You certainly know that a number of editors were banned for a longer time because their editings - as it was believed - supported a so-called fringe theory. And if I say that I also support this theory, and in the same time I perfectly know that any editing in favour of this theory would be reverted and I immediately made responsible for this "misdemeanour" - so what can I do? (I ask: Is such a conduct really fully compatible with the freedom of speech? - I do not think so.) Then I mostly can make only small edits like putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence where there was none. Exactly this has been my last editing in the article on Edward de Vere, you can have a look. And this is perfectly OK, or isn´t it??? However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a supporter of a so-called fringe theory (which has been and still is supported by a number of Assistant Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) is excluded from any Talk Page on this subject. If you don´t know this fact, please ask someone who knows. And besides this, you have certainly no exact information on the amount of my other editings on English-language and other national Wikipedia pages which have nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon. So what is your point, can you explain it to me? I hope you will do so, because otherwise it would be a little bit strange, given the fact that you addressed me. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Generic discussions are unlikely to produce any progress (although repetitively raising an issue with no suggestion for an actionable outcome based on policy can be disruptive, and that can lead to blocks). Please make a proposal, and supply evidence to support it. If the proposal concerns another editor, it should be made here. If the proposal is a concern about whether content in an article satisfies WP:NPOV, it should be at the noticeboard where you have already made a report (NPOVN). There has been no response to my suggestion at NPOVN that a specific problem needs to be identified. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don´t understand what you mean, Johnuniq. I was addressed by User:Ravenswing, so I replied. I explained my view of the matter to this user in a polite way. As to the other case, please have a look at my statement on the noticeboard of WP:NPOV. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:07, 12 October 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.

Post-closing addition to thread (per WP:IAR if necessary): All editors are reminded of the principles and remedies contained in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing again - MatthiasHuehr

User:MatthiasHuehr is removing external links from articles again, without good reason and ignoring my request to discuss them, despite being warned about his disruptive editing and invited to use the talk page to achieve consensus. Instead he is edit-warring after I revert his changes (I have not reverted his latest edits in order not to provoke this further). This is a repeat of his behaviour in July which is reported here. Since then his user contributions show he has continued disruption on a small scale, but not reacted to any reversions until the last couple of days - see Streckelsberg and Vitt. In my own view, the external links are not spam and do provide references or additional useful information to the articles. However, I am quite prepared to accept a consensus that reaches a different view after sensible discussion. My recommendation is that Matthias is given a final warning not to delete external links without first proposing and discussing them on talk pages or face an immediate ban of a length felt by the admin to be appropriate. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be the same problems with him in the German Wikipedia, with [[2]]. I am just supposing it is the same user, and he gives himself an en-3, so should be able to understand what we try to tell him. Ping me if you want me to message him in German. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw you could do this yourself, messaging him in German I mean. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the links, and left a message on his talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I got involved in a previous bout of EL removals, in response to a 3O request - but didn't make much progress as MatthiasHuehr didn't discuss at all. Don't be fooled by the peaceful-looking user talkpage - several other editors have attempted to discuss the issue with MatthiasHuehr but it just gets removed... [3] [4] [5] bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Vitt is a part of Putgarten and the official homepage of Puttgarten is kap-arkona.de! The other links are commercial hotel booking pages or satelite page for them. Wikipedia is not a link farm for commercial use ...--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)PS The deleting of THE OFFICIAL PAGE by you is the only abuse i can see!--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bermicourt. Could you clarify. Are you talking about the removal of one external link and the changing of the other? Or are you talking about the removal of the references? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in each case Matthias has repeatedly deleted several links, which in my view are perfectly acceptable, but won't discuss them in order to reach consensus. I think his point above is that, in reverting his latest round of editing at Vitt, I inadvertently deleted his correction of the link to Vitt's official page. If it is legit, then I am of course entirely happy for such a link to be inserted. Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The official homepapage of Vitt is kap-arkona.de not the page that Bermicourt linked as "official". Take a look at the impressum! As User of Wikipedia I want to go to the official page of Vitt and not to a booking-portal! Why id he do not link the official page? Why do he not refer the official pages? In the german Wikipedia are such pages not allowed as a referenz. Sorry, but this behavior looks like link selling to me.--MatthiasHuehr (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The policies of the German Wikipedia don't apply here. That said I have no idea if the references are valid or not. But it's something that you should have discussed on the talk page of the articles concerned or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard rather than just removing them. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note also that the "External links" section on the English Wikipedia is not automatically a reference section. Instead it is mostly used to provide additional links related to the subject. Any references should got into a separate section "References". De728631 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Brainbug666 -- Post-Finasteride Syndrome

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.

---

Brainbug666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose editor who is devoted to trying to publicizing the side effects of a drug called Finasteride. His behavior, I believe, has become tendentious--basically what WP:NOBLE & WP: GREATWRONGS describe. I got involved in this when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome, an article he created. Creating a non-notable article is not sanctionable, but he's displayed a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality there, as well as Talk:Finasteride and Merck & Co.. He seems very interested in promoting a group called the The Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. After a flood of single purpose accounts on the Afd, an SPI was opened on him, and he retaliated by opening one on another contributor (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse). I'm convinced that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and I suggest a topic ban from Finasteride-related topics, at minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• What would have been nice was the SPI concluding that there was indeed sock puppetry going on. Unfortunately for you and other I suppose, that was not the case. Still, there's enough troubling behavior on Finasteride-related articles to warrant at least such a topic ban, broadly construed to cover the topic and not just the one article, and any next offense (including retaliatory action, etc) should be followed by an indefinite block. And maybe some nice clerk can close that bogus SPI quickly? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here is realy breathtaking, but ok, everbody can read, what is going on here. You can also see what I wrote about this on my talk. --Brainbug666 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, what you wrote on your talk page is precisely the kind of thing that I was referring to with "any next offense" and "personal attacks". Do you understand? (I guess I'm letting this one slide...) Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. I see 10 article edits by this account, 3 or 4 of which (depending on your POV) add technical information that, although I'm in no position to evaluate it, looks plausible and uncontroversial. Yes, there is some attempt to add references to PFS, a couple of which seem to have POV issues, but this hardly warrants an ANI case. And lastly, with no evidence of sockpuppetry, it's inappropriate to keep repeating it. He should be warned for inappropriate use of the “minor” flag, though. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot more article edits to the article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post-Finasteride_Syndrome and then recreated as a redirect. Take a look at the AfD itself for a taste of the editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've now read the AfD, and frankly it did not give me a good impression of any of the major players, including yourself. Way too much ad hominem. The only editor who seems to have actually made a substantiated argument on the “delete” side is Pondle. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Meat was a valid concern for that AfD, but the problem that's appropriate for discussion here is the battleground mentality, prompted by what seems to be a personal interest in having specific issues included in Wikipedia articles. Whether there's a lack of appropriate manners on the other side (and I don't mean Mark Arsten, but Grouse) may well become part of this thread. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• I´m also very confused here and shocked, what is going on on the english wikipedia. I just came here to make an entry, while I normaly work on another wiki and not the english one. When I came here I wasn´t baised, nothing, just made the entry, but less than 2 hours the article was for deletion, how can someone check all sources in less than two hours? Well, ok but what me realy starts to wonder, was the case that someone started a sockpuppetry what is still not removed. I another case where I started to do the same with some arguments for that, some of the admins here were very very quick. This is not the only example, where I and other can see that some strange things are going one here. Some users, are treated in a diff. way than others, entrys are treated in a diff. way than others. I mention this in the delet discussion. Sadly this gives me a very bad picture of the english wiki. Ohter users can do some things other not? Wiki is not a dictature, please treat everbody the same. If you dont do that you harm wikipedia. You can see this here and here.

So can one of the admins here please explain me, why my sockpuppetry case is still running since many days and other are done in only a few hours? --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Re: sock puppetry: your case was obviously bogus, for reasons explained on your talk page, so that's an easy close. The other had some behavioral evidence from the AfD to back it up. Beyond that, I don't know: I don't set the calendar, but I think there was a conclusion of sorts reached at yours, last time I looked. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.
  • Article entries / content edits that follow policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:OR are treated differently that article edits that dont. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• User redpenofdoom, you deleted a link in the article, by claiming they are spam and self promotin. I asked you, whay you did that, there was a source for it and this lil part about that foundation not a medical part, what you called a activist group, the only answer you gave me that it is spam. So, what I dont understand is, why there are links on the merk entry to their side and a non-profit-organisation is called spam, if there were nothing about this Foundation in the media, ok. I would understand that, but in the case that there is a article about it. I thought realy this belongs to the whole entry. As it is done even for company sites. Even calling this a activist group gives the whole thing a very bad taste, cause it is not a acticist group, it a foundation for patients who suffer badly. Would you call this here also a activist group? The lack of compassion and

humanity here is breathtaking. The way some users here are treated and other not also. Everybody, who likes can read everthing, even what I wrote and make his owen picture. I dont have the time and willing to answer all the time, but when I read such things I must give a comment. Who would not? --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• user redpenofdoom, this is exactly, what I mean. You wrote this. Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.

I am talking about the user dangerGrouse. look here please. Sorry I still dont get this argument. He attaked me, so when we both are attacking, why he is still treated differently than me? I exactly talked about this.

Than you say, Article entries / content edits that follow policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:OR are treated differently that article edits that dont. That is true, but since when this is not a valid source, keep in mind the source is not for a medical part. --Brainbug666 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because a startup "organization" exists, does not make it notable. There are millions of existing, useful, and valid organizations that do not meet the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.

A quick glance at User_talk:DangerGrouse shows that you personally do not quite get the purpose of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ... it's quite appalling the number of uncivil accusations you have levelled there - an adult, if "attacked" takes the noble high-road, and does not stoop to attacks of their own.

Consensus, which is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, has said that the article does not belong on Wikipedia, but that a redirect should. That's more than sufficient considering the "coverage". dangerouspanda 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just because a organization exists, does not make it notable. This is totaly true. But this organization was in in a article of the AFR What you are saying totaly misses the point. Sadly I see this here very often. I said and asked, when we both attaked each other, and people who attak other are treated differently, why he is not treated in the same way. Your statement does not answer that and what you are doing is also attaking me personal. User dangerouspanda and dangerGrous. funny coincidences.--Brainbug666 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Brainbug666 has been relentlessly posting on my talk page and slinging allegations which inlude: single purpose account, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, holding a sleeper account, and most recently, allegations that I am a pharmaceutical employee. A WP:SPI was for some reason opened against me, but the editor didn't name any other suspected accounts. I have been extremely patient with this person, and politely asked (as can be seen on the user's talk page) that this stops. I have declared myself as a junior editor and asked for specific, constructive advice from Brainbug666. Apparently this plea did not sit well with this user, because I have only been met with more allegations. This morning, I found a remarkable 10,750 character edit on my talk page from Brainbug666. I consider this, along with the false WP:SPI as being WP:HARASSMENT. As I mentioned, I am a new editor and still learning the ropes. I honestly don't know how else to deal with this person, so if anyone could offer some advice it would be appreciated. DangerGrouse (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting I'm a WP:SOCK of User:DangerGrouse, I would love to encourage you to file an WP:SPI. You might also click to my userpage and find that I am indeed an alternate account of a completely different user. Your call. dangerouspanda 16:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

1) In your repeated attempts to insert the information about the advocacy organization into the deleted article you were simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. 2) even with this third party mention, there is no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it that you kept inserting. 3) the article has been deleted and so quibling about content in a non existant article is not something that I am willing to engage with you any more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I´m suggesting nothing I just said funny coincidences. The only thing I see here all the time, that some users here fully ignore things that other wrote. I wrote something about the treatment of users and you totaly ignore that.

Redpenofdoom, 1) the source for the organization, that I also posted here many times. 2)This is realy crasy, why some users totaly ignore, what others write? I realy dont want to repat myself the whole time, but igonoring things foces me to do that. You gave one again the best example for that. As we can the this whole things turns about me, where is the user DangerGrouse here? I wrote about that he attaked, but no one is talking about him, I asked, why he is treated in a different, ignored again. I ased for a quote, where I attaked I´m personaly? Ignored. Sorry, but do some users here forget that everbody can read this? This gives such a bad picture of wikipedia and it is a shame. I wrote many times my points. Ignored.

1) please, look at he finasteide entry check the sources and add that its also inhibits the 5AR type III. Ignored, Why? Wikipedia should be neutral and at the moment it is not. All those endless discusions are totaly useless, when some useres ignores what other write. I look what the user wrote and try to answer to every point. Short example.... Why did you delet this link....spam and selfpromotion........can you prove this, there is a source (AFR).....simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. .....Source.....no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it. If it does in your oppinion, why haven´t you been constructiv and said, this can be done under public attention? This whould haven been constructiv. Deleting it is destructiv. ITs unbelievable what is going one here. So please, try to be neutral. There are many many other entrys here, who nobody cares about, but about this entry many users pops up and make statements, some users fight against this as their life depending on it and uses everything to downplay everthing other said. sockpuppetry has been used and many more, while they still dont care about other entrys. Even when I haven mention that. They will not change the finasteride entry, they will not work on other entrys. They just fight against one entry. I have to shut up, when someone makes a statement, like this is spam and selfpromotion and the only source is...the owen website, (source AFR) No, but I dont shut up, when people use things like that and if some here believes that I am wrong and just fighting for one simple entry, do what you want. I came on the english wiki, to make only this entry with no baise. But what was showen me here is the worst. This is not wikipedia and it is a shame, what kind of user here can become a admin. This is my statement. --Brainbug666 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

nice methodes you got here now the user Dangergrouse changed the entry, where I showed what he is doing here. --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:TPO, I consider your latest edit a harmful post since it is WP:HARASSMENT. If any other editors feel this action was wrong, please let me know. DangerGrouse (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this is no WP:HARASSMENT Where are here the admins? Do you think, all people are stupid?--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• BLOCKED - Combination of socking as an IP, WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE. I just spent two hours on this before I saw this discussion, so the only thing that has changed was the duration, which is now indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that a block was unfortunately needed here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all, I'm obviously not uninvolved, having raised the original SPI against the editor in question after some very silly meat-puppetry-style SPA contributions. Second, I would have contributed more substantially but the Australian time-zone ruled me out. I, and others, have tried to tread lightly on this one (with, perhaps, occasional frustrated lapses) given the editor's obvious broken English and seemingly limitless passion for this one particular topic. As the topic in question involves suggested pharmaceutical side-effects and ongoing medical concerns, there is an obvious need for editors to understand that those impacted by these issues will be passionate in pushing their opinion. But pushing a legal, medical or commercial opinion by promoting the view of a particular activist group is still WP:PROMO. Refusing to accept decisions made by consensus and responding by editing tendentiously is still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is disruptive. Raising a bogus SPI to "get someone" for opposing your opinion at AFD is still WP:POINTY. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this and actually took steps to close-out my original SPI so that everyone could just drop the WP:STICK and move on. Unfortunately, the editor in question has maintained a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and for all the reasons outlined by others above, this block was (unfortunately) necessary. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 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.

Guy who got banned for vandalizing Armenian related pages is back

He got banned with the name KunoxTxa and more recently with Vagharshapat. Now he is back and using the name haynationalist. Can you permanently ban this guy? Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done and nuked 2 new articles and the AFD. Feel free to clean up the other edits as needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Community Ban discussions are at WP:AN Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ban isn't needed, I just assumed he meant block, so I did since I was familiar from blocking another sock of the same editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I did mean ban because the guy will probably come back and continue vandalizing. He has done it 3 times already. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • A ban cannot technically prevent anyone from returning to Wikipedia under a new account since it is only a formal decision. Neither can an indefinite block because technical blocks are only able to prevent the user's access to selected accounts. All we can do here is watch out for possible returning sockpuppets. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

wikihounded

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 believe I'm the victim of Wikipedia:Harassment by user Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At Talk:Before Watchmen he appears to have checked my contributions just to follow me somewhere in violation of the WP:WIKIHOUNDING rules so I questioned him about that [6], pointing out his wording seemed like he was carrying a disagreement we had elsewhere over to there. The conversation over to my talk page at User_talk:Dream_Focus#October_2012. He refuses to answer me on how he found his way there, trying to change the subject and stating "Oh, I'm gonna keep ignoring your question, here OR there". He often states his dislike for the Article Rescue Squadron, which I am an active part of, and his desires to get rid of it. After posting on my talk page, he went to the talk page of someone else who seems to equally dislike us, and stated his desire to be rid of the ARS and to "topic-ban the one to three most egregious editors" [7] and I'm sure I'm one of those three. Please read the brief interaction on the Before Watchmen talk page, and then the bit on my talk page, before commenting. I want some opinions on his behavior please. Dream Focus 09:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Off topic for this thread, but there does seem to be an air of resentment against the Article Rescue Squadron, which I noticed when Pizza cheese got AfDed recently. Although I suggested "merge" and argued a lot of sources were inappropriate, I think enough was found eventually to tip the balance in favour of "Keep". However, if the ARS aren't finding quality sources to satisfy a keep !vote, they need help and support in improving their processes, not bashing them over the head as "the enemy". Likewise, I think the "I got Pizza cheese kept" userboxes that Purplebackpack mentioned are a special case of WP:STICK - you won the debate, now move on. The groups need to work together without mutual taunting. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  That merge discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. I saw Milowent giving me a banner that declared me a "Pizza Cheese Freedom Fighter" as a joke, it not saying anything anywhere about "I got Pizza cheese kept". Dream Focus 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also got a notification for the merge, but haven't contributed, because I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, other than maybe a suggestion to merge / redirect the entire conversation to WP:LAME, particularly when Milowent called Purplebackpacker a "pizza cheese jihadist" in the AfD. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• His problems with Milowent's sense of humor had nothing to do with me at all. Dream Focus 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The point I'm trying to make is I think everyone has got a bit carried away and just needs to chill out, and remember that arguments need to be made on policy, and throwing insults either towards the ARS or from them outwards is generally counter-productive towards building an encyclopaedia. It's round about now I give everyone a really, really cute picture of a cat and ask everyone to think soothing, relaxing thoughts. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I was simply mentioning the work I do with the ARS is a possible reason he was after me. Reading the brief dialog exchange on the Before Watchmen talk page and on my talk page, do you believe he was in violation of the wikihounding rule? Dream Focus 11:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm all for more cats. Since I see myself mentioned, I'll quickly chime in that the "pizza cheese freedom fighter" box is obviously a joke. Its no different than the longstanding heavy metal band picture on my userpage with the caption "ARS meetup August 2010, stoked after indiscriminately voting keep on hundreds of non-notable articles." Editors are going to disagree strongly on some issues, but let's not forget we're all still human. Unfortunately a few editors have recently resorted to calling ARS a "hellhole" and such things over one disagreement, and claiming we're simply canvassing every AfD. Such behavior is extremely uncivil, but I'll survive. I've improved too many articles and found common ground with "deletionists" too often to get upset. As for the topic of this ANI thread, its obvious Purplebackpack89 followed Dream's recent contribs to come over there. I'm not going to read all the rules on whether that's proper, but my common sense view is that its not necessarily bad as long as one is constructive when they arrive there and act in true good faith, so just admit how you found it. But when you come over just to be contrary (which is probably the temptation), that's not constructive.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy close as a load of hot air: This appears to be nothing than a thrice-blocked editor trying to get even with someone who disagrees with him. There isn't enough evidence to suggest WikiHounding; if I were so minded I could probably find a diff or two that suggests Dream is WikiHounding me. I don't really understand why I'm commenting on this thread anyway; nothing will come of it and I don't owe him any explanation pbp 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasam Oh look, it's a discussion about one of the most drama inducing wikiprojects in en.WP. DreamFocus, accept that because your activities and viewpoints are going to draw scrutiny of your edits. Scrutiny is not Hounding. If people are using valid reasoning for their viewpoint, you can disagree but that's not a reason to pick apart every single viewpoint that you oppose. I'm not seeing any particular pattern of following you around in PBP's recent history, so please feel free to provide a more defined string of events that shows this. Just as ARS's "notification" list can be used to mobilize for saving an article, it can also be used for mobilizing to delete an article. Perhaps the reason why both of you showed up on the same article is because there was an entry on the same notification list. Please Assume Good Faith on the part of others untill it is demonstrated that there is none. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm amazed at how much aggression there is towards the ARS. Can somebody explain to me, with reference to Wikipedia policies, what the key problems are with it, and what we can do to fix it? I've mentioned one - throwing lots of sources at an AfD without checking their integrity - what else? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron was a RfC from this summer about ARS and it's percieved behavior. Take a grain of salt with it as it's definitely drama filled. Hasteur (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you make Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron a focus of your editing activity, you will constantly run into the others who also do, pro or con. Taunting, which repetition of what might be called content free slogans or "battlecries" such as "passing GNG doesn't preclude merger" might be considered, is inappropriate. Win, lose, or draw, after each epic struggle, all participants must be willing, after a brief celebration, or a short but bitter cry, to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Serious wikihounding where someone is constantly followed, contradicted, denigrated is of a different order of magnitude. If you chose to engage in an activity which will predictably result in minor, or even major, slights from time to time, you should be prepared to carry on bravely ignoring the minor hurts you may suffer from time to time. No action is recommended, other than to find another activity if you are thin-skinned. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 12 October 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.

Removal of content from article

The article for Bishop George Ahr High School has been hit over the past 24 hours with a wave of dozens of edits from new users. As with this recent edit, many of the changes have been to remove material regarding the arrest of a swim coach at the school. That edit by User:Jcullinan had the summary of "Removed objectionable/unlawful material. As the case still has an open file, posting information as if it was concluded is a violation of terms of use and NJ law", while another edit by User:Rhghes2137 claimed that the material was removed "as it is an unauthorized usage of the school's information policy." Even with the page being semi-protected, the problems continue and further reverts don't appear to be likely to end the problem. I have left explanatory messages / warnings at User talk:Rhghes2137 and User talk:Wavesurferx54, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in meaningful communication, as evidenced by this edit by Rhghes2137 who added the text "My username is Alansohn and I am a hypocrite." to my comment on his talk page. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP1E, it probably makes sense to keep the information off until more clarity of how important it is to add becomes necessary, if this is over this the arrest of a coach. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a violation of BLP; the coach has confessed to the crimes. – Richard BB 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Factual issues with respect to the school have been resolved, see http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a1306-10-0.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, no one should have been editing your comment. That is childish and unhelpful.

Regarding the material in question: in addition to my stated objections on comment pages regarding the lawfullness of posting articles related to the sexual activities of minors and local laws regarding cases still going through the appeals process, I feel very strongly that putting the issue on the school's Wikipedia page (especially under its own header) is at its best too weighty for what is supposed to be an unbiased list of facts regarding a school and at its worst a biased attack on the institution. References to these articles would be better served on a "list of accused NJ teachers" or some other Wikipedia page - not the page that is supposed to give unbiased factes about the institution. At the very worst it should be mentioned within the Athletics section, but truly I believe it too weighty and biased to be included on an informational page. Jcullinan (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify that "unbiased" does not mean "non-negative". Negative subjects can and must be presented in from a neutral point of view. The article in question does not have to be a list of facts regarding the school. If the school were to come under intense scrutiny in the press for some action of theirs, the action's inclusion in the article would be perfectly valid, even if the basis of the scrutiny turned out to be non-factual. The scrutiny itself in the media would be an event. So long as neutral point of view were maintained, it would likely be acceptable in the article.
• However, in this case while the teacher and student were both directly involved with the school in question, all events regarding the sexual contact between the two people happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule in the crimes. The event's inclusion on the article is most likely unwarranted unless there is significant reason, as reported in secondary sources, to discuss the school's involvement in the event. I don't see that here, and as such I don't think the material should be included.
• With that, the behavior of certain parties in this dispute are out of line with our conduct policies. If it continues past warnings, blocks should be issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked at the article, the single sentence referring to the incident and the references supporting it, my own view is that inclusion of the bare facts is appropriate. WP:BLP1E does not apply as this is not an article about an individual but about the school. The individual's name is not even mentioned (though it can be found by following the references provided to the news stories). This is not an ongoing case with an uncertain outcome; the coach was tried and convicted and the ongoing appeal is against the sentence, not the verdict. The conviction is well established and the event certainly concerns the school in that the school's coach and one of its pupils was involved; the sources provided clearly link the event to the school. I don't see undue weight being a problem here; one sentence is hardly going overboard, and its presence does not negate the positive image given by the lengthy list of honor clubs and sporting successes achieved. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Promotional edits at Vivek Wadhwa, and possible sockpuppet situation

Over at Vivek Wadhwa, I've been trying to tone down some rather promotional edits. Samisacat (talk · contribs) writes about me "(Restoring Wikipedia page after Nagle made drastic cuts without reason. Reporting Nagle to Wiki editors. Nagle's conduct is maliciously directed, as he destroys completely objective information, including the titles and descriptions of the author's work.)" [8]. I'm not sure where the "Reporting Nagle to Wiki editors" took place, so I'm bringing this here. There's also the comment in talk: "I just looked further into the user Nagle. He uses the pseudonym John Nagle, who was the former INS Commissioner during the exclusionary regime. He keeps removing content, ostensibly out of anti-immigrant biases." [9]. (Actually, "John Nagle" is not a psuedonym, as is clear from my user page.)

The promotional edits involve deleting articles about Wadhwa's self-promotion efforts (there are reliable sources for this) [10] and exaggerating the importance of his startup company (where he was demoted, then fired, resulting in litigation), and replacing them with lists of his many publications. I think I deleted too much in my last revert, though.

There may be a sockpuppet situation. The promotional edits come from

• Samisacat (talk · contribs)
• Shalabug (talk · contribs)
• Signatorius (talk · contribs)

All have made the majority of their substantive edits to Vivek Wadhwa or its talk page, and have no user page.

I'm not quite sure what to do here. The subject of the article is notable, but primarily because of extensive self-promotion efforts. To what extent should those be inflated or deflated on Wikipedia? --John Nagle (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should start an SPI, to get clarity on that issue and possibly separate the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Definite self-promo claptrap, going to flag this at BLP/N, pruned a little, a savvy self-promoter using Wikipedia to push his new book, released the 2nd October 2012, word of advice! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I have just been contacted directly by email (not via Wikipedia) by Mr. Wadhwa. He writes (excerpt): "John, I want to understand why you harbor such ill feelings towards me and why you are battling my former students on Wikipedia. ..." So now we know where the edits are coming from. Usually we get this problem with companies and performers, not businessmen/academics. Now that others are dealing with this, I'll let the article alone for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Wow. Hey, it's disconcerting to get emails like that; don't let it get to you. When we invented the internet we should have thought about it, but we only saw the bright side. Well, we practically have an admission of meating here, don't we. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
        • If stuff like that bothered me, I wouldn't edit under my own name. It's just someone who doesn't realize that Wikipedia isn't PR Newswire. Not a big deal. (Thought for today: Wikipedia is one of the few media outlets left that doesn't publish press releases or "sponsored stories". Which is part of why it's worth working on.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:BeasttoBeast

Alright, I am getting tired of having to deal with this user's edits (as I'm sure many others are too). This user continues to upload images with incorrect or missing sources, massive amounts of white space, replaces articles with older and lesser quality images (this versus this, makes questionable uploads (see their upload and the original upload), has been unwilling to engage in discussion, makes edits that could be considered vandalism, and the list goes on and on. It's obvious BeasttoBeast isn't willing to ask for help or engage in civil discussion (just look at his talk page and contributions), so I'm at a loss of what to do. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 22:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject

User:ShowTimeAgain is a WP:SPA, edit warring to insert attacks and soap boxing against the Wikipedian and BLP subject William M. Connolley User:William M. Connolley : [11], [12] [13][14] (milder but still focussed on Connolley: [15][16]). The editor believes himself to be defending a deceased non-notable climate change denial scientist [17]: "If you'd care to read the reason why this file was uploaded, you'd realize this was the only way to defend the reputation of Professor Leroux against an unjust attack. ". Considering the accounts attacks on Connolley and knowledge of wikipedia, it seems a likely WP:DUCK as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• CU found no links[18], but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes[19], likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is still open). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here [20], as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for WP:DE? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI header states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Not seeing that on User_talk:ShowTimeAgain. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. Nobody Ent 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"he isn't here to build an encyclopedia," if true, is a facial case for an indefinite block. Furthermore, a cursory glance over the edits suggests that Wikipedia is being abused by this editor as a battleground. --Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say Prima facie? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. May have been getting something confused with facial challenge. Somewhere between per se and presumption.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be pointless Bureaucracy. It's self evident that an editor shouldn't go around attacking other editors (which constitutes about half his edits). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur -- we have the {{uw-npa}} series specifically to point this out to users on their talk page.

The thought occurs to me that inviting a new user to ANI for attacking other editors is like putting someone in a prison in the US, at least -- just as likely to learn better ways of attacking other editors as they are to be rehabilitated. Nobody Ent 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If the rule to discuss at a talk page before posting at ANI is "pointless Bureaucracy", let's amend the rule. While it may be "evident" to regulars that one shouldn't attack, but different places have different rules, so I suggest it is not "self evident".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Marcel Leroux is notable, and new citations from paywalled French newspapers have been found to further support his notability. User:IRWolfie- is a participant in this singling out scientists skeptical of some aspect of global warming for non-notability claims, and in the case of Marcel Leroux initiated the attack with either a bad faith or incompetent google scholar search.

Regarding the dismissive "pointy behavior" characterization above, it should be noted that User:ShowTimeAgain has "respected" the prohibition on editing the closed deletion article itself, despite a precipitous closing of the deletion discussion by User:WilyD while work was still being done.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that editing the talk page of a closed discussion is just as pointy as adding to the closed discussion. It is closed. I also agree that you shouldn't have been dragged into an SPA tag, but none of that changes the fact that there is a battleground mentality at work with ShowtimeAgain/Showtimenow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that sticking to the talk page is showing respect, and if anything makes it clear that you should always have a battleground mentality when WMC is involved, it is the fact that he was in a revert war on the talk page.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but after the close is putting it there where no one will see it, which is pointless, or WP:POINTy. Taking it to the talk page of the editor or another venue is the proper response. As to the article or merits of the AFD, I have no clue and not interested. My focus is on behavior. And now I see that a large amount of off-wiki canvassing took place against Connolly, which appears to be ShowTime's "enemy", so to speak. When SPAs take a battlefield mentality, as demonstrated by the totality of edits (and not the validity of any argument), then it becomes a problem for all of us. It is entirely possible to be 100% right on the merits of an argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them that you get blocked. I see it regularly. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see User:StillStanding-247's behavior over the last 2 months to prove this point. Search these archives for one of his 15 or so visits to this board. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was surprised at the precipitous closing of the deletion page, the talk page is the first place I went to look for a discussion of what was going on. Even experienced users like myself, aren't necessarily experienced at page deletions, and a different talk page standards once they are closed. I was far more shocked that someone was reverted on a talk page than that someone was posting on one. I had only seen reverting on talk pages before when vandalism or namecalling vitriol was involved.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, the closing notice even mentions that discussion should take place on the talk page:

"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."

--Africangenesis (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD talk pages are for procedural issues, which is why it is pointless to use them. Like it says, DRV or the article talk page if it had been kept. There is a laundry list of places off-wiki that this AFD was canvassed at, leading to this whole mess and the SPI investigation. Again, my concern is behavioral, in particular, ShowTimeAgain's behavior. I have no idea if they are the one that spammed the canvassing off wiki, but they have maintained a battleground attitude ON wiki, and that needs to stop if they expect to stick around. It is fine to disagree, we all do, but Show's comments indicate he has trouble not being "disagreeable" at times. Several have noted this and brought it to his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving a final note of sort on his talk page. If he continues to act in a disruptive way to make points, he is likely going to be blocked. Hopefully he will be wise and consider this, and find a way to contribute without the drama, soapboxing and grandstanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I just read this and wish to contribute, while I still can: IRWolfie is mistaken. My knowledge of Wikipedia's process is "beginner" and it is obvious: it took me a while to even manage to upload the image of the certificate. I even accidentally duplicated it. Notwithstanding how to include a link in the conversation. So much for knowledge...
• Connolley's reputation as a Wikipedia editor had reached beyond Wikipedia and it is fair knowledge to anyone watching the climate debate. His bursting in the deletion discussion with inflammatory "delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)" accusations were not an aggressive characterization perhaps? No ANI there. I argued that IRW and WMC had little knowledge of Leroux's works and WMC acknowledged having not read Leroux. He should. When in good faith I showed proof of Leroux's title as Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques, its authenticity was immediately rebuked. Is that the attitude of people wishing to see information shared in a free encyclopedia or is it the attitude of people with an agenda?
• As for my interventions: Did I go on modifying pages from those I disagree scientifically with? No. I posted on talk pages as I promptly discovered that the conversations were moved over various multiple pages. Aren't these talk pages for discussion? I had not intervened on Wikipedia for a long time as there was no need for me to. But the reputation of Prof. Leroux had to be defended against what became, especially after WMC's intervention and his endless hunt to delete every bit of Leroux on En.wikipedia, including the Palmes certificate used in other pages, a clear biased process. Notability was an excuse. Opinion was the reason, as adequate Google search results by another poster have demonstrated, the notability of Marcel Leroux is among the 1% of scientists [21].
• I notice in this discussion that IRW is advocating a swift banning process against me. No surprise. To me this confirms that the Leroux deletion was a premeditated action and that these two editors hoped for a quick, eventless deletion of the Leroux page. Tough luck. On a final note, I have made my point so anyone can read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Only two have brought editing complaints to Show's attention on his talk page, and one of those was IRWolfie. I doubt there is any harm in putting the notice on Show's page, he shouldn't sweat it. Show and Lucy are vindicated. I've made an open and shut case for reversing this totally unnecessary deletion at WilyD's talk page. Did IRWolfie, WMC and even WilyD really not know what the real criteria was for academic notability? Why should this deletion and an injustice to this scientist's memory, have been allowed to go through in peace? [22]--Africangenesis (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• As the person who did the investigation, I completely understand why IRWolfie brought it to SPI, it did look very suspicious (with the exception of Africangenesis, not sure why he was in there). I will vouch for that. One new user. One user who hasn't edited in over SIX YEARS, magically show up? Coincidence? Maybe, but the amount of canvassing off wiki combined with those coincidences certainly does qualify for someone at SPI to look at it. And I did. And no one is blocked. And I did find ShowTimeAgain's old account from 2010 (which isn't a problem since they aren't both being used at the same time). Now, I've left Show a message, and the best thing anyone can do is help him understand how things work here a bit better, so his actions don't look as disruptive. He came here and it looks like he did in good faith. I don't want to block him and don't expect to. I was hoping to get his attention, which it seems I did, and hopefully he will tread a little less aggressively in the future so we can avoid ANI and the like. Just back the tone up a little, try to cooperate more, ask questions instead of accusing people, and you will be fine, Show. This is expected from all of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I created this profile in order to defend against the Leroux page deletion attempt in September 2012 as I thought my original handle from 2010 was not working anymore. So much again for my supposed knowledge. Since you investigated, you therefore know that my first ever contribution to wiki in December 2007 had nothing to do with climate. It however involved someone of immense talent that may be lesser known to the masses. Since my 2010 interventions, there have been many improvements to Leroux page which I did not object to. I came here in good faith and informed, about Leroux's work and publications. Africagenesis was even more informed than I was, and more computer literate (easy...). I was also informed about some of those who worked and pushed for this deletion, who seem to enjoy total immunity despite serious incidents[23]. I have no quarrel with you and find your demands reasonable in an environment of good faith, which in this particular case, on this subject was not the case [24]. Again, a properly executed Google search reveals another picture of Leroux's notability [25].

• I will leave the discussion of whether or not he is notable or not up to you and the other editors who are involved. At ANI (here), we just deal with short term issues like behavior, not content. Admins shouldn't decide content, interested editors should. You can take the deletion to WP:DRV if you so choose, but it is something I'm not familiar enough to have an opinion on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I've also closed the SPI with no action, feel free to archive this. I'm thinking we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There was canvassing here, and possibly elsewhere. Which is presumably why it looks like socking, but isn't. WilyD 08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

DRV and canvassing

• It seems Africangenesis intends to go to DRV. Can an uninvolved admin semi-protect it if this occurs to stall some of the canvassing issues of the last deletion discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• You cannot at the same time complain about not finding new water sources and criticize efforts to making other people who could contribute aware of what's going on here and potentially help finding new data. Unless your agenda is definitive suppression.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. Did you notify people about the discussion off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me restate: why would you want to restrict the flow of information if it can improve the page? Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Addendum: That's what I understood from your post. Could you explain further what "admin semi-protect" means and why it may be relevant to this discussion? Others obviously have seen what happened, even suggesting article deletions (see comment section) and not the least because of this [26]ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a tact admission by ShowTimeAgain of off-wiki canvassing of the worst type (canvassing people of a specific viewpoint in order to stack a discussion). In combination with the general battleground mentality and attacks against WMC, I'm inclined to think that this editor is simply not understanding how collaborative editing works and may not be working in the best interests of the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You must mean tacit? What is "the project"? If the project is a permanent deletion of the Marcel Leroux page regardless of information, indeed I do contest this approach and shall work with any wikipedian (?) to revert this decision. If "the project" is to bring a wide range of information pertaining to Marcel Leroux, then I believe to have done my part as demonstrated (certificate, precisions on OMM). Africagenesis has done also a significant amount of work. I have cleared any misunderstanding with Dennis Brown regarding battleground mentality. Now how collaborative is "admin semi-protect"? That is why I requested IRWolfie to clarify what he meant in order not to misinterpret him. As for WMC anyone can read his blog and draw conclusions. BTW I did not recall your contribution to the subject at hand. Did I miss it with so many lines of questions and answers? Thanks.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

ShowTimeAgain, On Wikipedia we expect editors to try to work, however they can, for the advancement of the encylopedia as a whole, colloquially called "the project." Editors who are persistently distracted by personal, petty, or single topic disputes are not welcome here. You appear to be such an editor, and in response to concerns about your behavior to run back to the Marcel Leroux article, which suggests you are not getting it. Most, probably all of us reading this thread have no idea who Leroux is, nor do we care. It helps maintain our objectivity. I am inclined to block you since you are not both willing and able to edit collaboratively for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Please show cause otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what the project is. May I point out you just told me you have no idea who Leroux was. But I do and this is precisely why I edited on his page not someone else's and tried to understand precisely how Wikipedia works. I imagine that knowledgeable editors contribute on the pages they have specific knowledge to share, as the best way to improve the encyclopedia. That is why I refrain to edit where I have nothing to bring.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways you could choose to improve the encyclopedia. If however, your sole contribution is on Leroux, and you have otherwise shownyourself to be misusing wikipedia as a place to wage idealogical or personal war, well, you won't be much of a loss, will you? --Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I modestly did not dare to think these fields could require my help. Thanks for pointing them out. I think I'll get more involved now that you invited me to discover them. One has to learn and start as a beginner in every field.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• What is DRV? Would this semi-protect be the salting thing that WMC was asking for?--Africangenesis (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI WP:DRV ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's deletion review as you have indicated here: User talk:WilyD#Formal request to reverse your decision on Marcel Leroux as recommended before requesting deletion review. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review is exactly where it needs to go, and yes, I would support semi-protection and consider it not preemptive, since we already have a history of off-wiki canvassing to demonstrate it would be necessary to prevent further disruption. I would also remind ShowTimeAgain that my backing off of a block wasn't an agreement of his actions, only allowing you some extra rope since you are new-ish. If your only objective to being here is to maintain/restore that one article, it will likely be a short career. Most of the editors here really don't care about him one way or another, but we do care about disruptive acts, which causes us to stop editing articles and have to deal with the disruption, a non-optimal use of our time. If any admin this it is obvious that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia and instead to protect one article at any cost, you can expect to be blocked. Off-site canvassing alone is enough to get you blocked because it is stacking the deck and a form of bias, which isn't tolerated in a neutrally written encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In case it isn't abundantly clear, I am an administrator, and I am still strongly considering placing the block that Dennis Brown has decided not to.--Tznkai (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a Rennaissance man, I just edited on a painter, is that far enough from climate?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Do your best to comply with Wikipedia policies and norms and you'll go far. My suggestion is spending time getting your feet wet around here before returning to climate-Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I should start with spelling Renaissance perhapsShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Africangenesis is persisting with the battlefield mentality:

• User talk:Africangenesis#ARBCC sanctions and NPA: "I notice that you edit war on the same page, edit other climate pages and are chummy with Schulz, and that is just the first 50 contributions. And you are a quick swooper on the page. Recuse yourself.-"
• Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Oreskes is gone due to mischaracterization and NOR: "OK, I'm calling time on the intellectually honest bone in the body test on this one. The clock is starting on the rest of the crew",
• [27]: "If you are going edit scientific articles, it helps to have some scientific literacy, to be able to read the literature. You apparently aren't willing to perform the due diligence even after your revert has been called into question, that should should have done before your reverted. Now that you know you were wrong, are you failing to reverse your revert, because you think I am wrong, or for tactical reasons?"

IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• • [28]. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are actually making an arbitration enforcement request, you'll want to file at AE. If this is just a standard complaint, let me look into it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth
Marcel Leroux on other Wikipedias:

French Wikipedia:

• Marcel Leroux   (Edit history, What links here)
• Lengthy article (about 2,000 words). Created in 2006; about 115 edits by a range of IPs and users.
• A little controversy on talk page, Discussion:Marcel Leroux   (Edit history,What links here)
• No wiki-dramas sufficient to make it to Wikipedia-space pages like our WP:ANI.
• Unsuccessful deletion attempt in 2009: Discussion:Marcel Leroux/Suppression   (Edit history,What links here)
  • Substantial expansion since the AfD closed (57 edits by 26 users)
• ShowTimeNow, using 3 accounts, has been an uncontroversial editor on fr.wikipedia:
  • ShowtimeNow (talk,edits),  ShowtimeNow2 (talk,  edits), ShowtimeNowAgain (talk,edits)

Spanish Wikipedia:

• Marcel Leroux (Edit history)
• No article talk page. Created this year by a high-volume (100k+ edits) editor in one big edit. Possibly a translation of the English article. Little activity since.

Looking at the French article, I'd say you could make a good case for the restoration and retention of the English-language article.
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• And now more canvassing by User:Lucy Skywalker: see the comment at [29]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm best off posting this at enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken Africangenesis to arbitration enforcement. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ShowTimeAgain is continuing to make remarks about WMC (or at least I assume the reference is to him): [30]. "Wikipedia page in spite of vandalizing attempt by some Edimburgh based user." Can an uninvolved editor/admin warn the editor about discretionary sanctions in this area perhaps? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the recent couple of days, but if an admin thinks that the last fragment of rope I granted Show has already been used up, I am not going to take it personal. I am not the law, just the janitor, so if I missed a spot, feel free to clean it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing a CfD discussion

I notice Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has quite a backlog, and User:Eraserhead1 has helped out be closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights, disclosing that this is a non-admin closure. Now, that link refers to closing deletion discussions, but it says "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." The "better left" bit means that the user did nothing wrong, but this is undoubtedly a close call (I count 8 keep !votes and 8 delete/rename !votes) and undoubtedly controversial (which is perhaps why no-one had got around to closing it). WP:NACD also says Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. However, Wikipedia:Deletion review doesn't seem to include categories, so I thought I'd post it here. Would an uninvolved admin please read over the discussion (and it is a long one, I know) and see if he or she can endorse the closure? StAnselm (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I closed this is as unfortunately given the lack of admins who are willing to close such discussions we are going to need non-admin closures as well to make things happen.

I do respect how you've handled your issue with my closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I counted 7 keeps, 6 deletes, 3 renames, 1 neutral and a great many tangential comments. I appreciate that Eraserhead1 was willing to look at the weight of the arguments to make a decision to bring the CfD to closure. – MrX 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear I didn't count the votes. We are weighing up the arguments - not counting the votes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a good close, no matter who made it. Perhaps the closer would be interested in joining the admins in the usual way? ` DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

DGG, "joining the admins in the usual way" appears to be lately less a "community discussion" and more a Trial by ordeal.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone willing to help out in one of our weakest areas and can do so with a level head, is just fine with me as well. If you are interested, I would be happy to do an admin review. Likely, others would be willing if you asked as well. Or if you would rather not, that is fine, too. Just know your efforts are appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to close the discussion the same way as Eraserhead1, xe just beat me to it. The whole 'discussions need to be closed by an admin' is a red herring thrown about by those who don't like the way the discussion was closed. Being an admin has no bearing on whether you can read a discussion and properly weigh the arguments against policy. The are admins that do that well. There are admins that do it poorly. There are non-admins that do it well and poorly as well. Quite frankly, the reason there are so few people that close these discussions is that no matter what, they are never closed right. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the phrasing of the OP left a lot to be desired too. For example, if in reality we had 8 keep !votes and 6 rename !votes, that's really 14 "keep in some manner" !votes (at which point you have to really weight the strength of the rename arguments) - don't lump delete and rename !votes into the same category! dangerouspanda 11:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the original issue was with the (perceived POV) name of the category. "Keep" and "rename" have a different relationship to each other in category discussions than they do in article discussions. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought that this was a very poor close, which simply dismissed one side of the debate and didn't engage with the arguments. The closer took as axiomatic the contested notion that this sort of categorisation is necessary and possible, which one of they key points of the debate. I hope that the closer will reopen the discussion and leave it for an admin to close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the closing editor made a very sensible closing, given the weight of the arguments and the applicable policies and guidelines. Perhaps you would have preferred that the CfD stay open so it would continue to attract even more off-topic comments? I would also add that few alternative proposals were offered for renaming, and in the usual entropic fashion, the discussion was permitted to go completely off the rails with repetitive side comments about hate groups and gay marriage, and vague, baseless assertions of POV. The discussion should have been closed weeks ago and I'm glad somebody finally stepped up to the plate. – MrX 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion should indeed have been closed weeks ago. However, its closure should have involved an attempt to weigh the arguments rather than ignoring one side of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, there's a backlog of about 1500? In these circumstances second guessing non-admin closure should be a lower priority than clearing the backlog. Nobody Ent 02:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a big backlog, and I would love to see it cleared ... but not at any price.

Unless a discussions are closed by a genuine weighing of the arguments, then the whole exercise has been pointless. That's what happened here: a non-admin made a supervote rather than weighing the arguments. What's the point of participating in a discussion if it is closed so glibly?

If this closure stands, I will take it to DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:POINT. You've repeatedly made the assertion that the editor "ignored one side of the story", without any evidence behind it, and in spite of plenty of sensible editors stating that to the contrary, it was a good close. You don't simply take something to WP:DRV just because you "lost" the outcome of a deletion discussion. Not to mention the forum shopping of it already being determined a good closure here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 07:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with WP:POINT, thank you, and I suggest that you re-read before citing it. It would also help if you read what I wrote before commenting. I do disagree with the outcome, but that's not what I want that close overturned. I could accept that outcome if it the close made a genuine attempt to reflect the balance of the debate.

If I do open a DRV, I will explain the deficiencies at greater length. This is not DRV, so I won't do the detailed analysis -here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I read what you wrote -- maybe you need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Looking at this discussion you are the only person who disagrees with the outcome -- even the OP didn't disagree with the outcome (or if he/she did, that wasn't part of the argument), but rather the non-admin component of the process. But you single-handedly, in a stellar display of bad faith, dismiss the closer's argument, without any evidence or grounds to support your position, despite at least one admin (two including myself, though I haven't stated it yet) saying they would have closed it the same way. Where is the good faith? The closer EXPLICITLY stated that he weighed the arguments. Your response is "Nuh-uh, no you didn't." That's a textbook display of an assumption of bad faith, and taking it to DRV because this discussion didn't go the way you'd like it is a disruption simply to prove a WP:POINT. In this page, you've now accused the closer of not making a genuine attempt to reflect the balance of the debate, of not "genuinely weighing ...the arguments", not "weighing the arguments", closing it "glibly", called it a "poor close", and suggested that the closer's non-admin status somehow compromises his/her judgment. And provided no support whatsoever for these claims, nor have you done anything to refute his claims that he did in fact weigh the arguments, which he has stated several times here. That's light years away from the kind of behavior that I'd expect from a fellow administrator, and frankly I think the closer is owed an apology. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If category discussions are allowed at DRV, then it should definitely be taken there. I wasn't sure, so I posted it here. It certainly is not and was not a case of forum shopping. StAnselm (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The forum shopping comment wasn't directed at you, if that was unclear. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Swatjester, as I said above, the substantive arguments belong at DRV, and I will make them there. I am disappointed that an admin chooses to allege bad faith and forum-shopping to a fellow admin who wants to have a substantive discussion in the proper forum. The only reason that there is any discussion at all here is that the OP mistakenly thought that DRV didn't handle CFDs, and the reason I refrain from making the substantive analysis here is precisely to avoid forum-shopping.

In assessing the close, I could only by what the closer actually wrote, which simply dismissed most of the debate. I assumed in good faith that the closer wrote what zie intended to write, and that if zie had intended something difft they would have written something difft. Your view seems that be that is ABF to regard a close rationale as describing an inadequate review of a discussion. You are entitled to that view, but it is an approach which makes DRV impossible.

I think that the closer's non-admin status is relevant here not as a matter of status, but as a matter of experience. Admins usually develop a lot of experience of closing discussions before tackling the more contentious debates, and their judgement has been vetted by the community at RFA. Non-admins are advised against making such closures, at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate_closures, so my concerns are hardly novel. Anyway, it's time for DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, that argument could be taken as admin arrogance. There are plenty of non-admin that have more experience than the average admin. He has 25k edits, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as experienced, more than many admins, bureaucrats and some Arbs for that matter. I've been encouraging non-admins to close discussions, openly asking them to on their talk pages, and I will continue to do so. The admin bit doesn't make you a better closer, experience does, and he has plenty of experience to be closing. If you want to take it to DRV, then do so, but you are flatly mistaken if you think admin are automatically "better" at closing than someone with that much experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:45abc123 repeatedly creating unsourced articles concerning apparently non-existent events.

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

---

As a quick glance at User talk:45abc123 will show, this 'contributor' has a history of producing entirely unsourced articles regarding 'tours' by bands etc that either don't exist, or aren't actually touring. 45abc123 has just recreated New Beginnings: World Tour which was speedily deleted earlier as a blatant hoax, while Paradise World Tour by a band that nobody has heard of called 'Coldplayers' is under AfD - though how it survived that long is rather beyond me. It has footnotes for future events that use the past tense. Google search turns up no results for this tour - which the article claims has already started. And most ridiculous of all, we are supposed to believe that 'Coldplayers' (who?) played alongside Coldplay at the closing ceremony of the 2012 Olympics and nobody noticed the coincidence in names? Coldplay certainly played at the Olympic closing ceremony - but the 'World Tour' described in the article isn't theirs, as our Mylo Xyloto Tour article makes clear, they are currently touring, but appearing at entirely different venues and times - 'Coldplayers' cannot possibly be a misprint of 'Coldplay'. I left a note on 45abc123's talk page to the effect that unless sources were provided, I would report the matter here - the only response has been the recreation of the deleted hoax.

Note that IP's have also edited these articles - it seems self-evident that this is the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Very likely same editor as 94.171.180.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • • Ah, I nailed it I see. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/45abc123/Archive, so he is a previous sockmaster of, you guessed it: User:Coldplayfan5550. I do see a lot of problematic edits and wonder if this is all hoax to be cleaned up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely and deleted a couple of hoax articles; the account was previously blocked for a short period for the same pattern of creating hoax pages. I have blocked the underlying ip briefly. Some of the edits appear OK, but hard to tell for someone unfamiliar with the field. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Good call, I stepped out to cook dinner, and was reviewing one last time to block when you beat me to it. Making a few worthwhile edits doesn't make him any less a troll in this instance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean I shouldn't post about the Beatles' (excuse me, The Beatles') upcoming tour? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 12 October 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.

Complaint by indefblocked ru:user:Serge-kazak

Nothing to see here. Move along. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. == Smotrov's vandalism == Alex Smotrov's vandalism == − Please stop the vandalism of a US resident Alex Smotrov, the self-proclaimed "administrator of Russian Wikipedia, appointed by Wikipedia Foundation and US Wikipedia administrators to supervise Russian Wikipedia". His already excluded from the Ukraininan Wikipedia for wild vandalism "Circassian Cossacks" ("Circular Ass Cossacks") place vandal articles to Russian Wikipedia to emphasise the need for the secession of the US states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and their union with Southern Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Western Georgia and Siberia in the would-be independent state of "Circassia". All articles relevant to Ukraininan, Russian, Georgian and US history are edited by "Circassian Cossacks" in this way according to the World War II "Circassian" Nazi propaganda. The only neutral view is the view between Rosenberg (Nikuradze) and Himmler, in Smotrov's opinion. All Cossacks, enlisted to the US army, have been declared traitors by Smotrov and his self-proclaimed "Circassian Cossacks", supporting Al-Qaeda and Taleban claims to wage a holy war against the USA, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia to create the "Circassian emirate" after the victory of allied Al-Qaeda, Taleban and "Circassian Cossacks" . This is why the US President Roosevelts, the author of "Cossack history" Gordeev, Pushkin, Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, Grushevsky, Zabelin etc. etc. have been proclaimed traitors as well. They delete even discussions. Alex Smotrov has turned Russian Wikipedia into al-Qaeda's one, pretending to act on behalf of Wikipedia Foundation from the USA and US Wikipedia adminisrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.227.194 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC) We have no power over the Russian Wikipedia here (in fact, the great majority of us can't even read it). You need to pursue whatever vandalism/dispute procedures they use over there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Please remember to notify users when you start a topic about them at AN/I. In this instance, I have done it for you. – Richard BB 07:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC) And what they write is sheer trash anyway, not really worth discussing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC) If Alex Smotrov is falsely claiming to act on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation then that is a rather serious matter and the Foundation should be notified. --62.25.109.204 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC) We've had all sorts of impersonators here at en.Wikipedia, and we just block them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Starting from 178.66.227.194 then following "current blocks" and replacing "en" with "ru" you could easily find the range block for 178.66.0.0/16 and the fact that user Serge-kazak was indefblocked 3 months ago. The only true part in the rant above is that all of his edits are now reverted (by a number of people). The rest is something that happened only in his own mind. P.S. Changed the topic title since this conversation was not supposed to be here in the first place. — AlexSm 18:31, 12 October 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 of range for blocking

Can I have an admin or several admins consider an anon only block for 120.28.255.121/16. Checkuser verifies that there are massive amounts of spambots being made on this range (See User:DeltaQuad/Spamfarm, when I finish creating it), quite a few also which might not even edit, making it impossible for us to truly determine the extent of the farm. There are also a lot of anon. edits from this range, and that's why i'm here asking for a look. If it turns most are promotional or vandalistic, then I recommend at least a month block. (CU can't even go to its full length because of the amount of edits from the range) Thanks in advance. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting block

Resolved

 – blocked 220.239.139.154. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am requesting a block of the user 220.239.139.154. They keep adding the same edits on the Sonny Bill Williams article - even though it is constantly removed for being unsourced. As the edit history shows, they have been quite active over the past few days without any change in bad habit. This here is the example of their vandalism. Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:AIV. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 00:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou very much.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Platinum Star's request

Platinum Star often has problems with IP editors disruptively editing Mexican TV articles; I've often blocked IPs and registered users after investigating Platinum Star's complaints, and I can't remember a situation in which he complained about appropriate behavior. Some hours ago, he left the following comment on my talk page:

This editor has disruptively edited, even when I warned him to stop. I reverted the following edits because they weren't accurate, as shown in this video uploaded yesterday afternoon (the date is written next to the video description). Then, he pretends that none of his edits even happened by correcting his inaccurate info, as shown here. I would've never reverted had he waited for the real info to appear, but that's not the case here. Is that considered "ownership of an article"? Platinum Star (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have houseguests for the next few days, so I can't investigate this, and that's why I've brought it here. Investigate the situation, of course, but I strongly suggest that you trust Platinum Star's allegations, given my comments at the start of this thread. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor deleting posts on article talk pages

Portillo (talk · contribs) has been deleting posts from article talk pages with no explanation. Although he hasn't done this again since I posted to his talk page about this yesterday, he didn't reply and is still editing. Recent deletions include [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Most if not all of the edits he is deleting appear to be religious-related and possibly pov. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your first link is to the talk page not the difference: should be [37] Dream Focus 10:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; this isn't on per the talk page guidelines, and I've reverted a couple. When reverting these edits, make sure to add "rv" or "undid" to the edit summary, to avoid the wrath of SineBot. Addition of "!nosign!" to the edit summary will also do the trick. However some of the removals are OK IMO, like this one. Graham87 10:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And still no response from him. He has however removed my request that he stop doing this. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Protection Needed

Probably going to need to put temporary semi-protection on the Washington Nationals page. Getting alot of bad edits after that embarrasing 9-7 loss a couple minutes ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... will do. Not that the Nationals really deserve to be protected from their fans' wrath or Cardinals gloating, but they can vent/celebrate somewhere else. These are moments when I really appreciate having the greatest of all time on my side (albeit not this year). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious and uninformed editing by User:Farwah_khan

Farwah_khan is an SPA who submitted Nadia Khan Show (a Pakistani talk show) to WP:AFC for review on 5 October. Vexed by the backlog, FK that same day asked the Teahouse[38] how to expedite the AFC process, didn't appear to take the advice from the mentors, and on 7 October went ahead and just pulled the article from AFC and published it solo (see Special:Contributions/Farwah_khan).

The article isn't horrendous, but rather crufty. Subject does appear to be notable, mentioned in a few published academic books on Feminism and also presumably in a lot of Pakistani media. FK, however, has ignored suggestions to improve the sourcing, follow WP:TV guidelines, and has persisted in repeatedly uploading improperly licensed images, getting them taken down, and putting them right back up again. I've communicated with FK over three days (during which time FK has been actively editing), giving detailed suggestions, and just asking FK for some communication with the editors trying to help FK. No avail, article still greatly lacking, and FK is still wasting volunteers' time by repeatedly uploading copyvio images.

Can I suggest some kind of short block, or block whose end is predicated on FK demonstrating active listening and willingness to follow guidelines? MatthewVanitas (talk)

As is typical for me, I started to look at the page, and my editor-hat came out before the admin-hat, and I made whole bunch of edits to the. As such, I'm now WP:INVOLVED. Let's see if Farwah khan tries to revert these or violates policies further. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, Farwah Khan's response to my changes was to just replace most of the same info (non-neutral prose, repetitive details, and links to blogs). I've reverted, left one final message on the user's talk page, but I recommend that another admin (who can actually stay uninvolved, unlike myself) block the editor if s/he makes another edit like this without communicating. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I expected, the reverts continued. As I also expected, the user has just admitted to having a WP:COI--see the edit summary on this edit. I've left a final warning, but another admin is welcome to advise further or even block now, as I don't expect this to get better on its own. Perhaps if the user is blocked we'll get some time to actually talk this out so the person can understand the problems and how to properly proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the user has repeated again, I request a block. Either a short one (a few days), or indefinite (until the user agrees to edit according to policy). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours, which should be enough time to force them to the discussion table. If there's no response and a repeat of the behaviour after the block expires, ping me and I'll take further action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - talk page ban request

I would like to have User:The Rambling Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) banned from making any edits to my talk page. There is apparently precedent for such an action. His edits to my talk page are belligerent and prolific and are not conducive to furthering the project. I have asked him to refrain from editing my talk page but he summarily deleted my request. I have therefore decided to take it up in this forum.

The rationale for my suggestion of a talk page ban is based on these reasons (in no particular order):

• He is an admin and has threatened to remove editing privileges from me on at least two occasions. Threats of this nature should surely not be used?

• I am accused of having a "personal agenda" which I take it as meaning something that is not in keeping with the goals of the community. It should be obvious from my editing to remove vandalism, to clear backlogs, as well as from my talk page headers and from the new articles and WP structure created by me that my "personal agenda" is obvious - to help build and improve WP.

• The requests that he is making of me are frivolous and have no basis in policy or guidelines. I am asked to make my edit summaries unnecessarily comprehensive and to carry out edits to user pages in a manner that is tedious and unnecessary. The edits in question concern the removal of content categories from user namespace pages, especially sandboxes. The Rambling Man seems to think that user sandboxes are somehow sacrosanct and other editors should leave well alone. This is surely the wrong stance to take. A sandbox is essentially a place for temporary notes and it is poor form to have them polluting content categories. Additionally, if they are in a genuine user draft article the categories that I am removing are sometimes completely inappropriate to the topic. Since the category system is, by some editors own admission, poorly understood it may be better to leave a user names space draft that has been moved to article namespace as uncategorised. It can then be categorised correctly by editors who specialise in that task. Having an article in an uncategorised state prior to this occurring is better than being incorrectly categorised.

• He is affecting my ability to edit Wikipedia.

• He is accusing me of "bitey" behaviour and scaring off new editors. This accusation has no rational basis. What he calls bitey behaviour should be seen as neutral, and only the occasional editor questions one of the many hundreds of edits that I make to user namespace pages. The sort of behaviour carried out by The Rambling Man is in fact responsible for long-standing, proficient and productive editors from either leaving Wikipedia and severely curtailing their editing.

• His comments on my talk page have spread to other user talk pages, eg User:Hammersoft, User:postdlf and User:The Rambling Man and are preventing collegial and constructive interaction between editors. Examples at [39], [40], [41]

• Another editor, would also takes issue with the method of my editing, has warned The Rambling Man about his style of commentary. This is an indication that my request for a talk page ban is not a case of sour grapes on my part.

The most recent series of discussions was provoked by an unfortunate incident where I rolled back an edit by The Rambling Man who in turn had undone an edit of mine. Since he did not use an accurate edit summary and in the heat of the moment and due to the new lighter shadings used in the page diff display being less obvious I construed the edit to be vandalism since he appeared to be adding content categories to a user page.

If The Rambling Man is to be blocked from my talk page and he has concerns about any editing that I may do in the future he would be able to take them to any number of other forums in order to have them addressed.

It is rather sad to see the many instances of prolific editors succumbing to emotive behaviour that is to the detriment of the project. I am myself guilty of such behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My advice: if you've asked him not to post there, and he persists in doing so, simply delete his comments without reading them, with the edit summary "Deleted without reading, editor has been asked not to post here". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Eh... I'm not sure what the problem is. You asked him to not post on your talk page and he hasn't since. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are definitely some concerns with Alan Liefting's nonchalant approach to things such as CSD or reverting what he sees as "vandalism", [42][43][44] but I think it would be best for The Rambling Man to disengage from dealing with Alan altogether. His comments, even if they were mild and from a neutral perspective (which, to be 100% honest, does not appear to be the case), will only serve to exacerbate the situation further. He can no longer be considered an uninvolved administrator in this dispute. Kurtis (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) I don't see the problem. Has he posted to your talk page after Carl asked him not to? As for the larger issue of discussing your edits elsewhere, I strongly doubt you'll find consensus for an WP:IBAN here given that other editors have found your editing problematic as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, it looks like he has. The Rambling Man should stop posting to Alan Liefting's talk page. He should start a RfC/U instead, assuming he can find someone to co-certify it. Otherwise he should simply drop the matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am afraid that The Rambling Man is not neutral in reporting Alan Liefting (see e.g. '.. I will block you and remove your "privileges"', my emphasis, since retracted by The Rambling Man), and these remarks/situations are clearly not resulting in a collegial collaboration (continuing to beat the dead horse - note that also User:Hammersoft repeatedly tried to disengage from the discussion, but that The Rambling Man found it necessary to continue the discussion). I would support this interaction ban. The Rambling Man, bring your concerns to other editors, who can evaluate and take the actions they think necessary. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft's intention in the first of these "multiple attempts" was not to disengage. It was to get the last word in, and try to claim a moral high ground when TRM excercised his right of reply against what he sees as "lies". Whether or not you agree with TRM, there is no question that TRM truly believes that some of the comments are lies. I cannot think of a single established Wikipedian who, when accused by another of things they consider to be false, would not make at least one attempt to set the record straight.

Other than to end the discussion, and state for the record that he considers unretracted comments made about him to be untrue (all done between 22:41 and 22:51 last night) TRM has not made any edit related to this matter in five days. As for Alan, he has returned from a week long absence and done nothing other than return to this issue. I'm not saying that he is necessarily doing so in bad faith, as TRM's comments from five days ago will popped up on his talk page when he returned. But the first step in avoiding someone is to make the most of a period of silence, and the second is to try not to re-start the discussion. Alan has not followed these steps, and editing restrictions should only be considered if lightweight measures such as this have been tried and failed. For that reason, and because the implication of a ban is that TRM is harrassing Alan and refuses to cease doing so, I can't take this request seriously. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft there made a reply, and disengaged. The Rambling Man is allowed to comment on that, but should not expect a further answer from Hammersoft, however, he insisted. I agree, TRM truly believes these are lies, but if that is the issue: bring it into dispute resolution.

Regarding Alan, yes, he may not have seen the last comment until now - seeing a whole series of posts from The Rambling Man. May I bring to your attention, that The Rambling Man is, after Alan, the second human contributor to Alan's talkpage, posting significantly more often than the third contributor? And I do think that we should take seriously that an administrator who is the second contributor to a user talkpage; I think that the remark 'I will block you and remove your "privileges"' certainly shows that it is time that The Rambling Man is disengaging from Alan. Leave it to independent editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose talk page ban, TRM has not posted to Alan's talk page since Alan requested TRM not to. Nobody Ent 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there's no indication TRM has done that since removing and presumably acknowledging Alan's message on TRM's talk page [45]. So this ANI report appears to be an unwarranted escalation at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose talk page ban as premature per above. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Revell

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.

---

Veiled legal threat by a WP:SPA claiming to be a lawyer: suggestion by AmandaBCook (talk · contribs) that the subject of this AfD has been libeled [46]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's veiled if it is a legal threat. Amanda tried writing an article, and was told the subject wasn't notable. She then tried to appeal to editors emotions, and was rejected. And then she tried to warn them of possible legal consequences. I'm not sure it's blatant enough to block over, but it's obvious she's not here to build an encyclopedia - just to promote the career of Grey Revell. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that she has had much to do with the article's content or history, but she doesn't like the direction of the AFD, as evidenced by the comments Perhaps John from Chapel Hill can answer that question. He seems to have some sort of personal connection to and/or vendetta against Mr. Revell. I don't have time to keep adding reliable sources just to have them taken down by the likes of you. My law practice keeps me too busy to fool around much on Wikipedia. But I do know that calling an artist whose career depends on notoriety "un-notable" might be considered by a court as libel, Mr. 76.248.149.47, which attempt to turn an AFD discussion into a personal match, questioning other editors' motives and implying that not finding the subject notable has legal ramifications. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am very tempted to apply SNOW to that deletion discussion, but I'll give it another couple of days; maybe the ARS can prove all you wicked deletionists wrong and save the world. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a "veiled" legal thread only in the sense that the person who wrote it did so very carefully in order not to violate the letter of WP:NLT. It is nonetheless totally in violation of the spirit of the policy. The editor should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, no Wiki-Lawyering is permitted. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

What BMK said. That it's an implausible legal threat doesn't stop it being a legal threat. (Go Phightins!: Wiki-Lawyering not quite the same.) --Shirt58 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that not following the spirit of the policy WP:NLT is a characteristic of Wiki-Lawyering, which encompasses criterion 2 under the Wiki-Lawyering page, "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". Thus, I characterized it Wiki-Lawyering. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-lawyering would imply a familiarity with Wiki-policy. She's not "Wiki-lawyering", she's just "lawyering" ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it's inappropriate. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Spot on, Go Phightins! No need to wikilawyer about it.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I also support a block of the user per BMK. Perceived plausibility of a legal threat is far less (perhaps not at all) important than the fact that the user believed it was reasonable to engage others that way on Wikipedia. Not to mention that it suppresses constructive discussion, rather than encourages it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I also support a block, for making legal threats. Aside from that, she's a WP:SPA with an evident WP:COI who is here to WP:ADVERT the guy. Strictly speaking, those are not blockable offenses in themselves, unless they lead to disruptive editing. But the fact is that she's had a carload of wiki policy links thrown in her direction, and despite her claims of having a legally trained mind, she hasn't deigned to respond to a single policy concern in any coherent manner. Qworty (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The rapid and copious response is appreciated. Since she sort of blew the 'kiss' in my direction, I'd like to drop in my nickel re: blocking--no hurry. There was a single legal hint dropped, not repeated accusations of libel--enough to merit reporting, but maybe borderline for blocking. Perhaps she's just called it a day, like I should now do. She's dug an obvious hole, there are plenty of eyes on this, and there's no reason not to allow an explanation by the light of the new day. If the drama is further accelerated, or no response is offered after a reasonable length of time, the desirability of a block can assessed. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm no lawyer, but though I share nationality with Trumps and Kardashians, I can't fathom how saying someone is non-notable could possibly be taken as libelous; this [47] constituted libel. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a legal "bluff", and hence it's a legal threat, and the user MUST be blocked until or if they recant and disavow it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. It's not up to the "victim" to decide what's actionable here--the only thing that matters is that WP policy requires a block until the legal threat is rescinded. Qworty (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts to the posse: one, I can not find anything in WP:LEGAL that says a block is required. the guideline's language is measured, and references administrators' discretion. Two, in no way did I suggest that any action is my decision, nor do I see myself as a victim. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the language in the policy is clear [48]. "If these conflicts are in fact resolved (or a consensus is reached to test if they are resolved), then involved editors should be unblocked if there are no other issues that warrant a block." Qworty (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked her. We can move on now :). Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Request topic ban for User: Agadant at Web Sheriff article

I would like to request that User: Agadant be topic banned from the article Web Sheriff. Since March 2010 Agadant has obstructed NPOV changes to the article’s content and all talk page discussion and has driven away many editors including those like myself who were invited to the article via 3rd Opinion, noticeboards etc. [49] because of POV and promotional issues that persist until today. I have no personal issues with Agadant and have not edited the article or talk page for more than a year. Though I have never met Agadant on any other articles, I believe him/her to be a skilled and useful Wikipedia contributor. However, on this Web Sheriff article their presence has been a strong disruptive and obstructive influence over a period of years and now it needs to be addressed.

Items from talk page Archive 1:

• 8/18/10 User: Blokatoh “this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work”
• 3/4/11 User: Luisarfs “Propaganda”
• 5/15/11 User: Nouly “I find this article very biased”
• 3/27/11 User: HelloAnnyong “Clients section being a total mess”
• 6/2/11 User: HelloAnnyong Agadant, your most recent edits aren't really doing much good……Phrasing like that is really just puffery and doesn't belong in the article.
• 6/2/11 User: Luisarfs as an IP: “I think you will find that trying to edit this article without an admin's intervention is quite pointless. Agadant will not allow it.”
• 7/12/11 User: gracefool “This article is still really biased”
• 7/29/11 User: Keithbob “It may be time for you [Agadant] to just walk away and focus on a new project”
• 8/2/11User: aprock “The clients section contains far too much detail that is of no encyclopedic interest”
• 8/3/11 User: Cameron Scott “This article reads like a press release”

Items from the NPOV noticeboard thread where Agadant opposed every editor for 4 weeks despite overwhelming consensus:

• 8/3/11 User: Mathsci “The article is still written as is if it were an WP:ADVERT for Web Sheriff. “
• 8/3/11 User: Alexh19740110 “I agree that it is promotional in tone.”
• 8/3/11 User: Cameron Scott “it could come straight out of a glossy brochure."
• 8/3/11 User: Collect “A "documented" ad is still an ad.”
• 8/3/11 User: gracefool “My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is.”
• 8/10/11 User: Brmull “There are numerous examples of opinion presented as fact,
• 8/26/11 User: Cameron Scott “Editor still has WP:OWNERSHIP issues and seems now to have transformed into a SPA in his attempts to control this article”
• 9/7/11 User: VQuakr “This us/them mentality is a recurring theme I have seen in your [Agadant] approach to editing the article, and combined with significant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is probably why some of the editors attempting to work with you on the article have become frustrated."

The items below are from talk page Archive 2:

• 8/12/11 User: Tarc “Please stop making ever tiny issue with this page into some gargantuan war of epic, hysterical proportions.” [50]
• 8/16/11 User: Collect “The problem is more that the amount of PR material in the article makes it non-utile as an encyclopedia article IMHO”
• 8/17/11 User: Cameron Scott “[Agadant] your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT….”
• 9/4/11 User: Ronz “the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed [by Agadant] to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources.”
• 8/13/11 User: VQuakr “When you [Agadant] fight even the most trivial issues like this, it gives me concern that you are too emotionally invested in this article to work in a collaborative environment."

Agadant’s visits the user talk pages of editors who disagree with him on the Web Sheriff article to argue and express outrage:

• Aug 2011 @Keithbob’s talk page [51]
• 8/30/11 User: Keithbob “Dear Agadant…..A number of editors (including myself) have asserted on that article talk page and various noticeboards that you have been behaving in a disruptive manner, as if you own that article. Your post above which criticizes me, my user page and my editing history, is a response to my participation in content discussions on the Web Sheriff talk page. Your post above, smacks of stalking and personal attack and appears to be an attempt at intimidation. Further, you have approached other Editors on their talk page in response to their edits or comments on the Web Sheriff article in an effort to influence their editing there. I suggest to you, as I have before, that you re-consider your actions, as you may be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. “
• Sept 2011 @ Ronz’ talk page [52]
• 9/5/11 User: Ronz “I think the only solution is for other editors to work on the article, and for others' to let them. …..[Agadant] Take a break from the article.”[53]
• Aug 2011 @ aprock’s talk page [54]
• Aug 2011 @ VQuakr’s talk page [55]

Recent items from talk page Archive 3:

• 9/8/11 User: Tarc “Honestly, [Agadant] your combative and downright nasty attitude regarding this topic is getting to be quite tiring...it may be wise if you either focus on other areas for awhile or work towards less aggression here."
• 1/24/12 User: aprock “seems to be some issues related to WP:OWN and allowing other contributers to clean up the article
• 1/24/12 User: aprock “As far as I can tell, all you seem to be saying here is that you are the only one qualified to evaluate and edit the article. Most of your objections do not conform to policy, and appear to indicate problems with WP:OWN.”
• 1/25/12 User: VQuakr “In my opinion we have seen a long history of examples #1 and #2 from User:Agadant on this article very clearly violating WP:OWN, that has resulted in driving away other editors and stagnating attempts at improving this article.”
• 1/25/12 User: aprock “With respect to your editing behavior [Agadant], there is a clear consensus that you've been exhibiting problematic editing on this article.”
• 2/6/12 User: VQuakr “But this is not relevant, as you know since it was discussed here and in the previous section. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.”
• 4/1/12 User: aprock “Your repeated defense of blogs and sources whose content is entirely based on Web Sheriff PR speaks for itself. That I have no interest in wiki-lawyering with you over the reliability of blogspot sources is more an indication that your argumentum ad nauseam is sufficiently effective."

This week on the current talk page:

• 10/11/12 User: Ronz “I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery.”
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The rules state diffs should be provided for individual edits. They are not. They only point to the archive. The rules state the issue should be discussed on the users talk page. Keithbob did not discuss anything with me, only notified me of this posting. I have not reverted anyone today on the Web Sheriff article, in fact I have not made an edit there since July 2012. I only replied to a posting by Ronz on the Web Sheriff talk page today asking for specifics for his many unspecified accusations of policy violation by my editing on the article.. Does that warrant a topic ban? Keithbob posted this request here with all his quotes pulled out in only 3 hours after I posted a reply to Ronz's accusations on the Web Sheriff talk page today. I don't think the time frame of the request here is credible unless it was already planned for in advance.Agadant (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has been stable for months and I have not edited there. Then an anon IP with only 3 edits in 5 years showed up today with charges of NPOV and then Ronz appeared out of nowhere after a year away and now Keithbob who said a year ago he was done when an admin showed up to help balance the article. Agadant (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was, and remains, a horrid example on Wikipedia. Topic bans for a single article, however, rarely accomplish much. I would suggest, then, that the article be presented at DRN to discuss the amount of detail which is overtly promotional therein, with the goal of persuading Agadant that any further such promotional edits will not be viewed favourably by the community at large. If Agadant is not amenable to substantially reducing the amount of such material, then the issue of a topic ban would be ripe. Collect (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No one gives any valid or specific reasons that would hold up why this article has to be treated so differently than others that are not on so controversial a topic. From the start it's only been about delete material - never improve or help write anything better on the article. Only mostly nonspecific charges with massive deletions. This seems odd. Isn't an encyclopedia about giving information to readers not censoring it of keeping it very short and uninteresting. Agadant (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This has taken a lot of work to find and write up the edits that are listed here against me. Of course, what those editors did is not also listed . This Noticeboard incident didn't happen out of the blue today because of an anonymous and unexpected new charge today by the Anon IP and by Ronz then spotting it, and after a year of not appearing on the article agreeing with the Anon IP. Too coincidental. The same editors who attacked the article before are back and their side has been presented and prepared for this evidence to topic ban me. But since Cameron Scott has already been quoted here, it seems he changed his mind and later wrote this on my talkpage.:

12/03/11 User:Cameron Scott "Sorry, I should have phrased this better - in the end (in regards to that article),I came to the conclusion that you were doing excellent work on that article and I was concerned that if you had slipped that in, it would give ammo to the people trying to get you removed from it - that's why I said it would give the 'appearance' not that I think you are a shill (I'm certain you are not - and yesterday, I got involved with someone shilling for someone quite famous in the UK, so they do exist :-) ). "--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)"

Agadant (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Agadant, please do not change or add to my statements in this ANI thread as you have done here and here. If you wish to refute something, please do so in in your own section and under your own signature per WP:TALK. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought for the sake of honesty, you would want the correct link for Luisarfs to lead to his contributions as a WP:SPA working to get rid of the Web Sheriff article? Wouldn't you want it correctly shown? as here

Agadant has shown a distinct lack of amenability to clear consensus for over a year, and continues to do so... a ban seems appropriate. ··gracefool☺ 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And you too again Gracefool? You were permitted to claim NPOV and bring it to the board without giving any specific claims against the article. No, it isn't Agadant's lack of amenability to clear consensus that is the cause of this. It's that an anti-piracy company's article is not welcome here on Wikipedia . Even doubling up, or bringing me and the article before several boards with false claims that the article is against various policies has not been successful. Because the claims are not based on truthful allegations. The whole gang has to reconvene here over a year later and claim consensus. LOL... Doesn't anyone here feel a little shame and guilt about these acts against one of your own fellow editors who has written over 80 articles and contributing to many more? Is this really what it has come to on Wikipedia? Is this why so many long term editors are leaving? Agadant (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good question at the end there ... how many more editors are you going to drive away from Wikipedia with your fight mentality? Your possible good works can never excuse bad behaviour - nobody is supposed to get a free pass from the 5 pillars dangerouspanda 11:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I"ve driven no editor away with my BATTLE-fight mentality. Editors (all still around as evidenced here) have appeared on the article making unspecific charges and condemnations about my editing and the article. I have just contested and reviewed it and sometimes protested when my editing has been unfairly and unjustifiably (that's the main one) attacked by others. This is something anyone of character would do on Wikipedia or in real life. Does it say anywhere that we are not to contest or protest when hours and hours of our editing is being wiped out by editors who won't give specifics about problems or who gang up to form consensus. After 6 years, I have some idea about whether my editing violates policy and any comments I've made to other editors have been mild compared to what has been said to me. You make generalized and unspecific condemnations of me and give the impression you have had some encounter with me. You haven't Agadant (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• It seems rather unusual to ask for a topic ban on a user who hasn't edited an article for three months. I was involved last year in mediating a discussion on looking for a neutral balance in the article. At that time I was aware that there were differences of opinion on how best to present the material, and feelings were running high. It appeared to me that during discussion the article made progress, and glancing over it again today I don't see significant problems. I don't think it's a great article, but it's not in such a condition that I would wish to topic ban anyone responsible for the way it is. Too much detail, yes. But that's an editing issue. An argument could be put forward that the article at times reads as though it is trying to persuade the reader that Web Sheriff are great guys. But another argument could be constructed that the article is reflecting what reliable sources are saying: that Web Sheriff are doing a difficult job quite well, and their approach is being appreciated. It may well be that the truth lies somewhere between these two arguments. It would be worth an independent editor going through and adjusting the tone in the article so that the facts remain the same, but readers are no longer left in doubt as to if the article is promotional. I have just made a start. Asking a neutral copy-editor to work on it, or even taking the matter to DRN seems more appropriate than discussing bans. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Silk Tork for your comments. The reason I have made this request now is because in the past few days the situation has begun to heat up again and I see the same scenario repeating itself once again. Here is the dynamic of the past couple of days:

• On the Web Sheriff talk page [[56]:
  • 10/11/12 IP User 69.244.155.82: "Reading talk pages like this reminds me why I don't do anything other than minor edits. This article reads like an IP industry puff piece. If this is the best NPOV can get us, NPOV is being mis-interpreted." [57]
  • 10/11/12 User: Ronz “Following up to this comment above: I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery.”
  • 10/11/12 User: Agadant “A red flag goes up! Ronz, you left this article over a year ago, after making vague, unspecific charges and edits here at that time. Now, an anon IP who has made just 3 edits since 2007, appears with charges of NPOV against an article on a company that deals with disgruntled internet downloaders every day because of copyright infringement problems, whose founder has been called "the most hated man on the internet, as a title in an interview. An hour after the anon IP comments here, you once again make your appearance with your charges of many but unspecific problems on the article. Let's look at the promotion charge, for instance. That's unfounded and insulting. Have you or your fellow editors been noticing that I have been working on the article for the latest Van Morrison album? So, you're making it appear that I am promoting Web Sheriff and that there is a connection between my editing on that article and my previous editing on this one. Van Morrison did use Web Sheriff for his previous album to this 2012 one, and before I ever edited Web Sheriff. I have not seen any indication that he has used Web Sheriff to protect the current album. Search the internet and see if you can find one connection. So your charge of promotion is unfounded. I do not work for Web Sheriff or Van Morrison and the two are not connected at all. I edit Van Morrison articles because no one else does and I believe his work is important enough to be represented on Wikipedia. In the same manner I edited on this Web Sheriff article. Thanks, ”
  • 10/11/12 User: Ronz “Wow! Thanks for making the ip's point all the more clear.”
  • 10/11/12 User: Agadant: “Oh yeah, how's that? Your charges and replies are always so short and unexplained. You seem to think you don't have to be specific about anything. Is that typical on WP? Shouldn't you be able to if you really have something of substance to say and if you have valid complaints? “

• On Agadant’s user talk page:[58]
  • 10/11/12 User: Agadant @ Ronz’s talk page: “The IP's comments were not specific and were POV motivated, I'm sure. He should not have been taken seriously by you. I can't answer you more than that, Ronz. Last time around on the Web Sheriff article attack, you were unfairly accusing me of edit warring, etc.. I usually don't remember negatives from one day to the next, but that was rather surprising and not soon forgotten.”

• Oct. 12. 2012 comment from a new, uninvolved editor
  • 10/12/12 User: Drmies “excessive detail, so much of it that this reads as a promotional bit” [59]
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Talk to article talk page, or WP:DR. And Keithbob and Agadant -- please stop the back and forth here on ANI, it's not helpful. Nobody Ent 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As summarized by Keithbob in his original post, I have interacted with Agadant quite a lot in months past regarding the Web Sheriff article, and our interactions have been at times heated. I have ongoing concerns that Agadant's editing style discourages contributions by other editors, and have not missed the incessant claims of victimhood that were raised so many times on the WS talk pages and are being brought up here again. These concerns are not limited to Web Sheriff - similar issues can be found in the talk page archives at Van Morrison, for example. However, I do not see how an article ban can be justified when the Agadant has not edited the article in months. Even if this were being proposed last February or whenever the discussions were at their most heated, I am unconvinced that an article ban would have been the appropriate means of resolution. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here other than observing that - despite many repeated cycles through various dispute resolution processes - Agadant has maintained an iron grip over Web Sheriff for the last 30 months, effectively owning the article through tenacious battleground editing. I don't expect this instance to change anything at all. aprock (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I always asked for and in this case, practically pleaded with VQuakr to give me ideas to write the article better to not attract negative attention. He did not help me or answer this request. He and aprock just continued to massively delete the article and take me before various boards on policy after policy concerning the article.

• • "What worries me the most about your interest in this article and makes me consider that you have a bias is that you never make any constructive suggestions to make it a better article. And yet, you show a considerable interest in the article. (like a personal interest - I don't know) You just want to make charges against me that I exhibit WP:OWN. Well, you can say that all day and night, and the article won't improve. Unless you think by improvement, leaving it tagged and running me off of it would give it a rightful appearance in the WP? I don't know what your intentions are here... since I am the only editor that originates content that actually makes it more interesting and informative, if you can give me some ideas on how you think I should present them, even like Alereon did above - although taking his advice opened me up to aprock saying too many mentions of the Web Sheriff were made. This article definitely receives an unusual amount of negative comments and deletions that no article that I have worked on or created ever have, so I don't take that burden on myself - that it is just my POV style of editing. It is the controversial nature of the company's work and that doesn't seem a fair application of WP policies to me. I notice that you or aprock don't write content on any (or many) articles, (we all have our work preferences, that's fine), so if you want to give me ideas on how I can write this article to please the naysayers (I'm not talking about any more deletions, there's been enough of that) I would greatly appreciate any advice." Agadant (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC) [60] Agadant (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agadant (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agadant's him-against-the-world attitude displayed here and on the article talk page is disruptive to resolving disputes and improving this encyclopedia. I hope this is apparent. What's not apparent is how much his behavior has interfered with the article itself. Certainly, he's not letting anyone with gripes against the company have much impact on the article. However, he's also making it very difficult for editors to make the tone more neutral and to remove/replace poor sources. Given his lack of response to the recent changes to the article, maybe this ANI has been the wake-up call he needed. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ronz, you and the others continuously accuse me of bad behaviour, because I did not hide out and let you delete away my time consuming work without objections. So I guess it should be considered fair game for me to point out that I received a notification on my talk page to participate in an ANI about your unsuitable behavior. I did not because I didn't want any further encounters with you. Your tone towards me has always been disrespectful and demeaning… that should be apparent too! Notification on my talk page - 13 April 2012 Agadant (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Material being constantly added back into MassResistance

With this edit, User:Insomesia has added back into an article a new addition which has not obtained consensus. A new section was added on 6 October, and almost immediately challenged. The discussion about inclusion was closed as no consensus. There was then a discussion about whether the lack of consensus meant the material should be removed. I sought advice at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#What to do when there is no consensus. It seems very clear that, on this point, the article should revert to the last consensus version, and I made the change with this edit. However, this has been reverted by User:Insomesia on the basis that there was "no consensus to remove". This seems to be an impossible situation, and I don't want to edit war, so I thought I'd post it here. Could someone help, please? StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do at ANI, and will leave to other opinions, but this does look like more than a content issue, and more like a POV and a bit of a coatrack issue. That undue tag seems completely appropriate, and that section does seem to be inappropriate. The Mitt Romney section above doesn't look much better, seems more of a political coatrack than an encyclopedia article in many sections. Looks like it needs a major trimming. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Need someone objective to look at that closer, I'm heading out, but I can understand the concern here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I could buy that it's too long, but as it's directly related to the mission of the organization, it's hard to see any justification that it's a coatrack. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't how we decide on material. Arguably, everything you can imagine that violates WP:COATRACK is about the subject in one way or another. That isn't the standard. WP:UNDUE is certainly a consideration. The article seems to focus a great deal on tangent issues, focusing on the negative info itself rather than the actual group itself. That is what COATRACK is all about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We do, however, have to go where the sources lead. If the most notable thing about the group is that they foment hate then that's what the article should cover. Insomesia (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Have you considered engaging in a discussion on the talk page and trying to reach a compromise, or proposing an alternative rewrite of the content in question? It doesn't really seem helpful to constantly revert the entire blocks of content until you run out of legal reverts and then forum shop for an admin to intervene. This is a content issue that a friendly negotiation on the talk page could easily solve. Of course, we have to be careful not to confuse consensus building with stonewalling. – MrX 02:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I was the one who started the discussion at Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls, and I started Talk:MassResistance#Robocalls redux. WP:Stonewalling is a red herring - we had a discussion, and it closed as "no consensus". And please don't accuse me of forum shopping - I have not raised this at any other noticeboard, other than Wikipedia talk:Consensus, as mentioned above. StAnselm (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK,whatever you say. – MrX 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, when we had both agreed the discussion had ended. But what is your second diff all about? That's the very posting I have twice mentioned above. Why would you engage in such silly innuendo? StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just my (silly?) opinion that there may be an over-dependence on process, when simple collegial discussion would solve most of these content disputes. Of course, it requires flexibility from all concerned. – MrX 03:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So, do you care to explain why you wikilinked "whatever you say" above? StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So, first you use edit summaries for discussion instead of the talk page, then you revert on the basis that there is ongoing discussion (which is not supported by policy), then you misapply WP:STATUSQUO and also seem to imply that your opinion in consensus, and then after the RfC fails to reach consensus, you try to edit war the content out under the false premise that no consensus makes that legitimate, then when that fails because you reach 3 reverts, you bring it to WP:ANI. Did I miss anything, other than what your complaint is about? —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

When the section was first added, I removed it, giving a reason. It was then added back in, in considerably expanded form, and I removed it again. I asked MrX to discuss it on the talk page, which is what an editor would normally do, following BRD. But in actual fact, I started the talk page discussion myself, two minutes later. So you are seriously misinterpreting my edits. Let me also get this straight: there has never been a consensus to have a robocalls section in the article. Why did you add the material back in when there was no consensus to include it? StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion because your reason (as stated in the edit summary) is simply not supported by policy. One does not need to get consensus to add well sourced material to Wikipedia. And BTW, the reason the RfC didn't reach consensus is that someone closed it way too early, when only a few people had commented—shockingly, mostly the same people who have been involved in this latest round. The fact that you edit warred against three different editors ought to make it clear that the problem is perhaps you. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I turned down the first request for closure. But closed it as no consensus after a third party requested it. I stand by my statement that it didn't need closure. I felt that the request for closure was simply being used as a tool to further a particular POV and not to request a neutral editor summarize a long or complex discussion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss out on the discussion? Did you have arguments up your sleeve that you didn't get a chance to present? I asked for closure because the material had been added back in with a consensus proclaimed. Yes, I am happy to admit that I have posted here because I was up against three different editors - it was an edit war I was always going to "lose". But it doesn't follow, and nor do I concede, that the problem is me. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RfCs aren't about you and me. They're normally left open so that other uninvolved people have a chance to review the situation—it's a large part of the reason for starting a RfC in the first place. Requesting a premature close prevents that. As for bringing to ANI, fine, now that you've admitted to an inappropriate reason for bringing it here, take it elsewhere (perhaps DRN). —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  04:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. First of all, there was no RfC. Secondly, this posting is not about content, but about process. MrX added back the section here on the basis that "sourced content can remain until and unless a consensus forms to remove it". Now, my issue with this is that the material in question was newly added. Surely "no consensus" in this case means that the material should remain out of the article until a consensus is reached. Thirdly, the "premature close" came about because a couple of editors felt that a consensus had been reached, and put the material back in. Which would have been fine, if a consensus to include had been reached, but the editor closing the discussion said this was not the case. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Insomesia has EW with the same faulty "no consensus to remove argument". Im not surpsied to find that other editors also consider the edit to be POV, as this has gone hand in hand with such edits.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also not the first time that StAnselm has edit warred on the false premise of "no consensus to add". —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So do you agree with what WP:CON says? If new material is added and there is no consensus to add it, then it is removed. If existing material is removed and there is no consensus to remove it, then it is added back in. Do you agree with that? Do you think that I've made ever edit that is contrary to that? I probably have, but I cannot recall any specific situation. Can you jog my memory with a diff? StAnselm (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the latest round of content dispute in which StAnselm and a few others, including an apparent regular on ANI, have deleted content on articles dealing with anti-gay hate groups. Mr X. has shown extreme patience in sourcing and restoring and trying to reason with these editors and unfortunately we've had to resort to a string of RfC's to get material restored again and again. I was about to start two more RfCs when this popped up on my talk page. So I guess we'll again waste the community's time with yet another RfC to hopefully end the edit warring. I suppose this is how every round will go but it does seem tiresome when it amounts to just StAnselm and one or two others tag-teaming to delete this content across multiple articles, which is then upheld by community consensus to keep and restore. Insomesia (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Insomesia reifies above the concept of the existence of groups that "foment hate".  This shows the same disturbed thinking shared by StillStanding-247 (analysis) here.  To review, StillStanding-247 was indef blocked after just ten weeks as a Wikipedia editor, having accrued 18 admin warnings, an edit warring block, and a topic ban; before talk page ideation turned to paid murder as a form of retaliation for being topic banned.  Here, Insomesia wants the "quick" return of this indef-blocked editor, and states, "I always pay attention to what they contribute."

Also above, Insomesia states, "unfortunately, we've had to resort" (emphasis added).  Just because other editors promote the "hate group" labeling does not also mean that they want to reify the concept as existing other than as the opinion of the SPLC.  What is relevant is that Insomesia self-identifies as a member of a clique.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• • You can shelve the tin hat theories, thank you, and I see little need to respond except to state we have an entire list devoted to anti-gay hate groups that is the central subject of this content dispute. Further to my previous comment to you regarding StillStanding, I'm not interested in battlegrounding with you about anything. The only clique I'm a part of is the one of editors who rely on reliable sources to build articles. I hope everyone is in that "clique." Insomesia (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Regarding the subsequent conversation on the blocking admin's page, here are the relevant diffs, [61], [62], [63].  Regarding the claim that Insomesia supports the reliable-sources policies and guidelines, this diff says otherwise.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI and non WP:NPOV editing of Scottish Knights Templar

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.

---

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

This is also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Edit_war_on_Scottish_Knights_Templar . Two users apparently close to the topic have been engaged in WP:COI and WP:NPOV editing and anonymous IPs edit warring with Balantrodach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Scottish Knights Templar [e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=513217700&oldid=513216487]. One of the users Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on his talk page that he is " Acting Chief Communication Officer of OSMTH and Secretary of the St Clair Commandery of Scotland, prior Chancellor of Militi Templi Scotia and International Grand Secretary General Emeritus." This suggests the same user as blocked user GSGOSMTH (talk) He has been commenting in the article on the edits of user Balantrodach [e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=515153976&oldid=515144952] and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=511568947&oldid=511541798]. One administrator Jehochman imposed a Topic Ban on Balantrodach (talk) giving this edit as an [example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Knights_Templar&diff=517270733&oldid=517267300], as well as their general editing history, suggesting that they are engaged in WP:COI editing in a manner that is impermissible. User Betty Logan (talk) has revoked the Topic Ban as it is not appropriate to topic ban someone for simply having a conflict of interest. But there really does seem to be WP:COI and lack of WP:NPOV. Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to warn an editor that their participation at an article is disruptive and that they will be blocked if they make further disruptive edits. I don't know who Betty Logan is, but they haven't revoked anything because they didn't even attempt to talk to me, and I have no idea if they are an administrator or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this other than what I've read at ANEW and here, but Betty is not an admin, so I don't see how she can "revoke" anything, but Amatulic's comment at ANEW seems reasonable - what was the basis for your unilaterally imposing a topic ban? I note that Amatulic supports the ban, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Balantrodach admitted to editing on behalf of the organization. You can find the relevant diff in the message I left on the user's talk page. They are edit warring and editing contrary to a host of Wikipedia policies. This is very mundane enforcement of our basic rules. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic rules for WP:BANs due not include unilateral action. Nobody Ent 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If Balantrodach wants to explain their actions and ask for the editing restriction to be lifted, they may do so. I don't see the benefit to them of starting a community discussion now. There's a risk the final warning I gave them might change into a community imposed topic ban, which would be a lot harder to get rid of. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your motives, I don't see that you have the right to impose a topic ban. Perhaps you should have simply not used the phrase and warned the user about disruptive editing (assuming that's justified), which could lead to a block if they persisted. Anyway, I'll let others chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not just Balantrodach (talk) editing disruptively, see above on Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Quaerere Verum (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just to recap what I said at AN3, I don't have a problem with warning the editor because his POV pushing is detrimental so it needs to be addressed. The problem with a topic ban is that if the editor adjusts his approach and adds something neutral and sourced then he would still be in breach of a ban, which I don't necessarily agree with. Personally I would give him a short-term block to start with, and if he continues after the block has expired then indef him until he clarifies his COI status and agrees to abide by the policies and engage in the discussions. Personally I don't think a topic ban is the solution since they are utilised mostly in cases of editors where the problems are just limited to one area but the editor demonstrates competency in other areas, but this is not the case here. As pointed out I'm not an admin so I have no say in the sanction, I was just a bit concerned at seeing a ban handed out the way it was here. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is being requested here. Does Jehochman want to propose a topic ban? Does anyone want to propose a topic ban? Is anyone requesting a block of Balantrodach? As an aside, this whole thing about Paulmagoo and GSGOSMTH is mightily confusing. The latter was indeffed years ago for having a "role account". Paulmagoo has never been blocked, yet there are comments on various pages about users being a sockpuppet of Paulmagoo. More chaos/suspicion than evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Evidence? In the article "Would the person or persons who keep changing the above please stop, it would be good if you named yourself but being the coward you are you will not this type of attitude is not Templar. Archie if you had looked at the top of the edit page you would have seen it was me, but just to clarify, it was me who made the edits. I have moved my questions to the Talk page, perhaps you may want to answer them there! Paulmagoo (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)" Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• And we haven't even started on the obvious JFK connection... Drmies (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would like all the people who are unfamiliar with the multiyear history of trouble with this article to please familiarize themselves with the facts before commenting further. If I had indef blocked the troublesome editor, there's no issue. If I try to be kind and just give them a topic ban, a bunch of editors shoot from the hip and say "you can't do that." Yes, if I can block an editor, I can certainly tell them, "I'm giving you another chance, just don't touch this article and have no need to block you." If the editor wants that situation changed, all they need to do is speak up. Why is everybody else injecting themselves here in lawyerly fashion? Let the editor speak for themsleves. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody seems to have looked at the article, you are the only one trying to address the problems. Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I noted earlier, the reason everyone is commenting is because you used the phrase "topic ban". I don't necessarily have a problem with what you're trying to accomplish, but the phrase sets off alarm bells. Don't use the term in this kind of situation, even if that seems euphemistic to you; we probably wouldn't be here if you hadn't. This no doubt seems to you like a whole lot of annoying hoopla over nothing, but there it is. I now have to run to catch my connecting flight at JFK.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is a vernacular issue then fair enough; this editor has done nothing to warrant good faith in his actions. My only concern was indeed the issuing of a "topic ban": this implies that he could be blocked on the basis of editing the article at all, even if he added something neutrally and sourced, that's all that concerned me really. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If I drive to the store and stay on the right side of the road, I'm doing the right thing. If I take a vacation to New Zealand and drive down the right side of the road, I'm being a dangerous asshole. It's not that either the left or right is better, it's just that it's a convention, and societies would better when folks follow conventions. If an admin blocks an editor, there are checks and balances -- the user can post an unblock request, and the action is logged, so if an admin develops a history of poor blocks it can be addressed. If admins just go around imposing topic bans, where are the checks and balances? Jehochman should strike out "topic ban" and change it to a standard disruptive editing warning. If the editor makes another bogus edit, he or another admin can block, and if the editor fixes a spelling error we can all ignore it (or be happy Wikipedia has been approved). And we can close this thread, too. Nobody Ent 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any issue here. I think everyone's agreed that Jehochman made a "topic ban" threat that he couldn't have carried out. He could only have blocked if the editor made further disruptive editing. If the editor had made a non-disruptive edit to the article and Jehochman had blocked him for breach of the so-called "topic ban", that would presumably have been overturned immediately and Jehochman would have been rightly trouted. But as Jehochman hasn't actually done that, isn't it best that this is just dropped? DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would even close this, but I'm not sure if Jehochman is waiting for the editor to "speak" here or somewhere else. As far as I'm concerned, Jehochman can close it if he wishes to.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not close without looking at the article and addressing the problem, it is only Jehochman who is doing anything. Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are done here. The article is protected from IP socking, and if the one editor causes further problems there will be no problem to block them. A single purpose account that does nothing but edit war and POV push can be indefinitely blocked without further discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

request user block on mtking

Please can a sysop please block mtking for the troll action of trying to have the page on Amanda Todd deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripatodd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - The above editor was indefinitely blocked by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) as a confirmed sock through a checkuser. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not a confirmed sock, but I have my feelings on who this is, plus they are using a webhost, which I block any user that looks like a sock and is editing from a webhost (essentially a proxy). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Sally Season

Highly suspicious single-purpose account. The username is an obvious reference to "silly season" and has only edited articles related to Republican-affiliated interest groups, mostly to subtly push positions opposed to Republicans. My encounter with this account has been in the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund where Sally keeps reverting attempts to have claims about OPSEC being a Republican swift boat effort attributed to the Obama Campaign, which is supported by the sources. When I noted this on user talk, Sally's response included the claim "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." The account's user page also appears to be getting used to list editors with whom the account has had negative interactions. It smells like trolling, and it could also be a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what the incident is that you are asking about, or what intervention you feel is needed at this time. Could you elaborate please.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See the account's contributions. Basically just making tendentious edits and then edit-warring over them, as well as some other issues. I am not sure what the most appropriate action to take would be, but the conduct speaks for itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not at all. The SPI went nowhere, and so there's a different tack tried now? It may well be that this account/editor is up to no good, but you'll have to do better than say "smells like trolling" without providing any evidence at all. Come up with diffs and an explanation for them, and maybe we'll talk. If you don't, this should be closed pronto. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I only looked at the oldest half, because I got bored at that point, but they appear to me to mostly be legitimate content disputes. And per Drmies, this smells like forum shopping, and should be closed immediately, with the reporter sternly warned for such actions. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Per both Drmies and Kerfuffler - close as possible forum shopping and no legitimate issue raised.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who filed the SPI so how can I be forum-shopping? The actions of this account elsewhere are what drew my attentions, not the SPI. Contributions from this account are minimal and the issue can be clearly understood from looking over the revision history of the OPSEC article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This really does seem to be an effort at stifling an editor whose opinions do not match your own. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, again this was really simple as the conduct essentially dominates the minimal contributions of this account:

• [64] - Removes material noting claims of OPSEC being Republican came from Obama campaign, as the source clearly supports, to simply say it has been "described as" Republican.
• [65] - Reverts RightCow.
• [66] - Reverts Belchfire.
• [67] - Reverts me.
• [68] - Reverts me again.
• [69] - Fifth revert overall.

Three editors oppose this change, but Sally keeps reverting it. Before the last revert I had plainly noted on Sally's talk page that the source explicitly supported what Sally claimed was not supported. The response included the above quote that "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." Plainly obvious that such a distinction has no meaning in this context.

Aside from this incident, the account has been edit-warring in a tendentious manner on various other articles within a very narrow focus:

Koch family

• [70]
• [71]
• [72]

Americans for Prosperity

• [73]
• [74]

David H. Koch

• [75]
• [76]
• [77]
• [78]

Does that suffice? This does not include the conspicuous act of listing editors on the account's user page. Note the following discussion page as well: [79]. BTW, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the issue and everything to do with my opinion on the edits and conduct evident with this account.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion here is also illuminating: [80].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• What Sally Season has done on Americans for Prosperity in no way even approaches edit-warring. I note that AdventurousSquirrel reverted their edits, after which they were restored by a seasoned editor. It always takes two to tango, and from what I can tell, in that particular case Sally Season was not warring and had the sources on her side. I've looked at Koch Family as well, where we had an edit-war brewing and consensus did not seem to be on Sally's side. There was talk page discussion (humorous to read, since no one seemed to understand Sally's joke) and then it was over. So where's the beef in those two? With those two, you've established that Sally and Squirrel got into it and then it was over. Was a report filed at ANEW? What other avenues were pursued? (I may look at a few more--I do thank you for providing these diffs.) Drmies (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just noticed that I messed up on that one. I cited a diff that was immediately after the second revert. Here are the two reverts from that article: [81] [82]. The reverts were perpetuating an edit war over the conservative label for the group.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I've looked at the diffs you gave for Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, and you are correct: Sally Season is edit-warring there with way too many people (and they're absolutely wrong in this edit and others like it. I've given them a warning for edit-warring on that article, and I personally think their edits should be undone--but it should be looked at by someone who is not you or a squirrel, or me. Mind you, I'm sort of wearing two hats here (editor and admin), but that edit-warring took place is clear (admin) and that their version is incorrect is clear to me also (editor).

  So, I'll grant you the charge of edit-warring on that article, but I won't block right now, since I just gave a warning. Your larger issue is, of course, tendentious editing--but that's something that should probably not be handled in this forum, and it will take more evidence. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice I've been mentioned a lot here but I was never notified about this thread. The reason I started the SPI is because Sally had edited a lot of articles that StillStanding-247 had been editing right before he was blocked, and some of the edits Sally made on the pages were the same edits or reverts that Still had been working on, so it looked pretty suspicious. But it looks like based on the IP's that it's unlikely they are the same user. Sally does seem to have a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality but I wasn't about to bring him/her up here at ANI for any reason. We resolved or are resolving our differences on article talk pages. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're not here on any charges. ;) I saw the SPI as it was happening, and I thought also, for a moment, that there was something going on. Now, I won't deny that there is some battlegrounding going on here, but I think it kind of comes with the territory (dumb politics), and I don't think it's gotten out of hand yet. Again, if there is a larger issue it should be dealt with somewhere else; issues like edit-warring should be dealt with at ANEW and I don't see enough (evidence) yet to block. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have is that, all of it put together is rather suspicious. "Sally Season" is obviously a reference to "silly season" and the conduct has been almost purely disruptive. I have a hard time believing that this is just another partisan editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll concur on the edit warring part, but as they say, it takes two (or more) to tango, and this looks like the usual suspects tag teaming again. I completely disagree on the content issue in that dispute, though; saying “accused the group to be Republican” is both ungrammatical and horrendously POV; and saying that the group criticized Obama without any indication of why is seriously light on context. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar aside, the source in question uses the word "accuse".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, bro! The real story: We were discussing changes to an article when your arguments began to fall apart, sources were shown to disagree with you, and questions were asked that you couldn't answer. So you fled the discussion to come here to disparage me with innuendo instead. "Sally Season" is a reference to "silly season"! OMG, really?? Can I play, too? "Devil's Advocate" has "Advocacy" built right into it, which is prohibited on this website, and nothing good ever comes from the deceptive Devil! There, now we both sound stupid. You linked all my edits above, and called them disruptive when they are not, unless by disruptive you mean they side with the sources that go against your perspective. If you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position, then attack the editor as a puppet or partisan or "rather suspicious". This website is just a barrel of fun. Not.Sally Season (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your choice of username would be meaningless to me if your conduct were appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. It's hard to call someone editing high-profile American politics articles a SPAs; there are lots of editors who focus on that. And "Disagrees with me" does not equal WP:DE. If you think this is StillStaning or some other socking editor, file a SPI. I see Drmies has warned Sally not to edit war. That should do it for now. I suggest closing this thread before it turns into the usual bickering surrounding articles on politics. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it's Still. Also, it isn't about "disagreeing with me" as the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, we've firmly established in the Belchfire thread that just got archived that apparently nobody gives a flying fuck about that. —Kerfuffler  thunder
  plunder  16:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently nobody cares if editors lie through their teeth about other editors, either. Take this whopper for instance: "the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil." Does he do this all over the website, or just here?Sally Season (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What I have stated is quite accurate. I would be more than able to prove it, but as you have received a warning about edit-warring I think elaborating further on that point would prove fruitless. Unless someone finds reason to suspect there is more to this situation, the discussion will be archived.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you you were "more than able to prove it", you would have, instead of backpeddling and urging that the complaint you opened be closed. Are you oblivious to the fact that everyone else sees through that ploy? You are trying to apply the same faulty reasoning here that you tried to apply to your assertion that reliable sources say what they do not say. The single warning I received does not support your whopper: "the account's article edits consists of little other than edit-warring and the discourse is mostly uncivil." Further, Drmies issued that warning in error, thinking that I had reverted an edit by you against consensus. A consensus, it turns out after subsequent discussions with him, that didn't exist. So I have been warned for reverting your error, and I will gladly wear that badge. It's not like I have received many such warnings, either. That would be you. Oh yes, I did some digging on your page, hon. It's not like I have been blocked, that would be you, many times. I'm not the one who has been questioned by arbitration admins, that would be you. I'm not the one who has ever been banned, that would be you, multiple times.

You are right that more of your efforts of suspicion, innuendo, lies and mudslinging "would prove fruitless". Maybe another section should be started here with your name in the title instead of mine. My discourse has been just as civil as that of those with whom I have conversed. Show me a normal person who wouldn't get just a little testy after receiving the same treatment.Sally Season (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of providing all that evidence, but decided against it because I can think of nothing it would actually accomplish except maybe getting you some additional warnings and I also considered it possible that you could become a more constructive contributor now that you are aware of the serious concerns regarding your conduct. You can believe what you like of course, but the reason I just gave is the reason I decided against adding more evidence of misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

More lies. There have been no serious concerns expressed about my conduct. Plenty of concerns raised here about your conduct, and even more concerns recorded on your checkered editing log. You haven't given evidence of misconduct by me because you have none. Maybe in the future you will use discussion to resolve disputes, instead of baseless warning boards.Sally Season (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Holly Spence

Practically identical users Hollyspence (talk · contribs) and Iamhollyspence (talk · contribs) created accounts today (Oct. 13). No edits have been made to the article space, but the former has created what seems like the exact same article here, here, and here. I have added the NOINDEX template to them as they seem to be using the space for intended articles. The article's content is promotional and needs cleanup for neutral tone, but quality of their article aside or whether it is appropriate, I am wondering if some warning or note should be made to the user about sock accounts, policy over how userpages should be used, and also about conflcits of interest, as the person making the article appears to be the subject's partner per the sentence "My wife has been anointed by God to deliver His Word to His people." I'm usually pretty comfortable approaching new users, but I'm not sure where to even start here without sounding bitey. Any suggestions? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed by Bbb23. _{And I predict the phrase 'divine retribution' to be used in unblock requests.} Ishdarian 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And all pages (each account had the same threetwo) have been deleted. Now you don't need to worry about being bitey, Jethrobot.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble...that's quite a bite. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Recurring BLP violations by User:Ironman1104

User:Ironman1104 added a link to a YouTube video to the biography of a UK politician Dianne Abbott. The YouTube video is titled "Diane Abbott - A Racist Pig". Ironman1104 has previously edited the article to include coverage of controversial remarks made by Abbott. Their edit-warring on this article is discussed here. Ironman1104 similarly added negative information to the biography of another female Labour politician, Harriet Harman (discussed here). Although I note that it was April Fool's Day, they also made a series of edits to another BLP, Peter Cruddas, which mixed in some unacceptably insulting redirects ([83] & [84]).

I think the YouTube video is enough for a block, but given the apparent history with BLPs of politicians, I think a topic ban may be in order, so I have started a discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is ok with having an offensive YouTube video linked to the biography of a UK politician? I guess it's a good thing I left the link there, then. Someone close this up and I'll give Ironman1104 a barnstar instead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, regardless of the title or content, many YouTube videos are copyright violations, and that one certainly is - see WP:YOUTUBE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't usually like blocking people without warning, I'm very tempted to do so here. I've asked Ironman1104 to comment, otherwise I may still issue that block. He hasn't edited since before the warning, so we can afford to wait a little bit and see. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat on Moodbar Feedback

Per this comment from Akkiiey (talk · contribs), I propose a block per WP:NLT. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly an NLT issue here, but it isn't aimed at a particular user, and this is a brand-new editor (no article-space contributions at all that I can see). He has been warned of the NLT policy, and I think we can leave it at that unless he offends again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left an explanation on what NLT actually means to supplement the simple link that was left. To be honest, I doubt it will matter, because the user probably won't be back. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Todd Fisher

User:Toddjfisher has been making "minor edits" (note that they aren't really minor, he just tags them as such) to this page (see an example here, this is a series of about a dozen edits). The edits seem to constitute original research not to mention the major conflict of interest. My comments on his talk page have gone unreplied, so I wasn't quite sure what the best next course of action would be. Note that in this edit he removed someones objection to an objection of a CSD. This is becoming disruptive and something should probably be done. As mentioned, I've tried to handle this via the talk page route, but to no avail. Thanks in advance--Go Phightins! (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified User:Toddjfisher of this thread. In the future you must do that. GB fan 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I did...but that was right around when my internet crashed. My apologies, I am aware of this and as mentioned thought that I did. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

zOMG!!!111 Go Phightins! broke teh internets, etc, etc --Shirt58 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely for username issues--user's can't have the name of a "famous" person (unless they identify through OTRS they really are that person). If there's an unblock request, we can worry about getting reassurances on the COI issue as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparent competence issue

I’ve encountered an apparent competence problem that in my view has reached the point at which it requires admin attention. The editor, User:Davebrayfb, makes occasional sound edits but most are poorly considered or executed and many require additional attention or outright reversion. Attempts to engage the editor on his Talk page have been completely unavailing.

Here is a well-abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern:

• Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see diff); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated (diff);

• Very infrequent use of edit summaries;

• Creating a category with a typo, here;

• Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted);

• Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, here;

• Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, here;

• Placing articles into non-existent categories here then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, here and here;

• Low-grade apparent vandalism – here;

• Page blanking, diff and diff;

• Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”);

• Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, here (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”);

• Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page.

I estimate that about ¾ of this editor’s edits are reverted by one or another editor. He’s been accumulating Talk page warnings and comments for several weeks; they’re all generally friendly (because the edits rarely seem malicious or completely over the top) but they do not seem to be having the necessary salutary effect, and this editor’s poorly considered edits continue pretty much unabated. I can’t seem to get his attention and thus have concluded that the matter requires consideration here. Thanks for any and all help. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I'm leaving for the night, but looking at the contribs, in particular the new talk: contribs, does lend credibility to the claim of a clue deficiency here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• First edit less than 6 months ago. Check. Less than 200 edits. Check. Indef as incompetent. Check. Or maybe xe's just new and doesn't understand the culture here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• We need to add to the foregoing list, "unilateral restoration of duplicate article in place of redirect, which - again - review of edit summaries and / or relevant Talk pages could have averted". Diff. This fellow requires almost constant monitoring, or (I think) at least an attention-getting block; and I'm growing weary of the former and can't do the latter! JohnInDC (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor's unhelpful edits continue, most recently with an edit to change certain dates in a way to make them inconsistent with another WP article *and* offering up an edit summary that doesn't match the edits. Diff. The fun has gone out of chasing down & correcting his bad edits, and I would appreciate some assistance in this minor, but vexing, run of disruption. A block of a couple of days or a week - whatever seems appropriate - might help. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• He has not responded here although he continues to edit today. I think this is probably a very young user who genuinely believes he is helping the encyclopedia. I don't think template warnings are going to help so I've left a message on his talk page and suggest we wait and see if there is any reaction.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought your message hit just the right tone and I hope he acts on it. If your surmise is right, then I agree templates won't work. (My chattier, personalized messages didn't seem to do the trick either but perhaps coming from another editor he'll pay heed.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:BeasttoBeast

Alright, I am getting tired of having to deal with this user's edits (as I'm sure many others are too). This user continues to upload images with incorrect or missing sources, massive amounts of white space, replaces articles with older and lesser quality images (this versus this, makes questionable uploads (see their upload and the original upload), has been unwilling to engage in discussion, makes edits that could be considered vandalism, and the list goes on and on. It's obvious BeasttoBeast isn't willing to ask for help or engage in civil discussion (just look at his talk page and contributions), so I'm at a loss of what to do. This has to be violating at least a couple policies. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 07:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor's latest contribution is the creation of an article that's seemingly superfluous and that had a total of zero sources. (Another editor later sourced part of it to a blog entry.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be King Triton's Garden, by the way. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

According to BeasttoBeast, it's "King Triton Garden's", greengrocer style. In itself, this doesn't much worry me; but when all these things are added up, I wonder if there's a basic issue of competence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries would be helpful. I've just now asked for their provision. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor Repeatedly inserting copyrighted material

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

---

In the article Bigg Boss 6, the editor Imtitanium is repeatedly inserting copyrighted material. I have posted on the talk page the links from where it is copied. Discussion also at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bigg_Boss_6. Please intervene. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protection? dangerouspanda 15:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I posted it on 10oct. Stop targeting me. People told me to rephrase the content. I couldn't so told him to do it. He's not willing to do it either. I asked another editor to volunteer even. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 15:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot expect some one else to rephrase the material that you copy-paste and still claim that the material should be retained on the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously. You must not insert copyrighted material into articles in this manner under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay i wont. At least let me add the nominations. They are not copyrighted. Cmon-- I'm Titanium  ^chat 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 24 hours to stop the edit warring and so that we can work out what's going on. If this is cleared up before then, though, any admin is welcome to unprotect. I probably won't be able to do it myself as I will be busy for the next few hours. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OH.MY.GOD. What a mess this is? If u cant figure something out you protect the whole thing? WTF? Now nobody can update the page. Ridiculous. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 15:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think, Titanium, that you may not appreciate how seriously Wikipedia takes copyright violations. For instance, I've just removed another instance of it in an article you created, Sambhavana Sheth. JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Not all the copyvio was removed before it was edit protected. I've just made an edit request at Talk:Bigg Boss 6. The entire section The House needs to be removed or blanked with Template:Copyvio. It consists of verbatim pastes from the sources given and others. Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've removed the section. Thanks for investigating this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Note:User's another creation Sapna Bhavnani is also a copy-paste artistry. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Imtitanium, another of your article Rohit Verma has been edited by one user with summary of "suspicious similarity" to a blog. If you do not stop copy-pasting stuff, you might seriously be loosing your pasting abilities here.
And never ever demand other editors to clean your mess. Consider yourself lucky that you haven't been cleaned out by now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've come across this user several times, and while they do have some minor issues they do generally edit in good faith. A little mentoring might help GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I found another copyvio in Sangram Singh, consequently I opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium. MER-C 01:05, 15 October 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.

Some eyes are needed on an RfC discussion

Some ip editors have made some comments on an RfC [85]. I and other editors have reverted them, but the ip users are insistent about their comments remaining. The comments are borderline trollish -- I personally would say they are trolling, but if the ip users are making such a stink about them remaining then perhaps it would be best to get someone uninvolved to moderate the !voting.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a request for comment. You shouldn't be surprised if people comment, even IPs. If some think it's trolling (as some edit summaries state), then simply don't feed it (aka ignore it). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is editors removing comments which is apparently annoying the ip who is restoring them. Rinse, wash, repeat.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything in the talk page guidelines that would explain this diff. Perhaps they were pissed there edit was inappropriately referred to as vandalism. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of removing talk page comments, I've been wanting to ask you if this edit was intentional or an accident?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Cmonzonc

• Cmonzonc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandal is deleting referenced information in article Trujillo, Peru he is the same vandal who tried to delete the article metropolitan areas of Peru (it was shown that in the discussion he told lies to try to remove that article), the problem with this vandal of arequipa (cmonzonc) he can't bear that Trujillo is the second metropolitan area of Peru and that it annoys him and leads him to commit acts of vandalism and his editions tend to hide important information of Trujillo city because he does not like it be said good things about Trujillo; he knows all the history of the city and he seems to be full of bad feelings and hates to Trujillo city. He can not bear that Trujillo is considered the cultural capital of Peru. cmonzonc has been blocked in spanish wikipedia for continous vandalism acts (continuosly he deleted important information that was correctly sourced after he was warned) see here. In spanish wikipedia he has some friends that are administrators that let him to do his vandalism acts (it should be understood "friends" to the users that allow cmonzonc to vandalice the article, that help him to do it and that do not report him); he was reported for vandalism acts (he also deleted information about a law for cities given by the peruvian government correctly sourced ), and they justified him, the article is "cities of Peru" in spanish version and a user added a Peruvian government law on cities very well referenced and cmonzonc removed that information. The user reported the vandalism:" Vándalo elimina información importante referenciada con ley oficial de país :Vandal eliminates important information with references of an official law of a country" and the administrator Ganimedes said "No es vandalismo. Esa información, si bien referenciada, sobra en ese lugar como el usuario bien especifica en el resumen de edición:It is not vandalism. Such information, although referenced, is overrun in that place as the user (Cmonzonc) specifies in the edit summary", see here and see here; that is a law that exist in the country about cities (and the only one added to the article), the article is titled "cities of Peru" and they say that information is not necessary in the article; and these bad administrators have blocked the user that undid the vandalic acts of this camouflaged vandal called cmonzonc, they let cmonzonc to vandalice completely spanish article knowing that he hates the city and they helped him to do it see here and before he had begun many edit warrings in that article caused by his hate for the city. Before He was reported in spanish wikipedia too see here one administrator said: "sí es verdad que sus ediciones son muy tendenciosas. Habría que llamarle la atención. Lourdes, mensajes aquí 18:54 4 may 2012 (UTC):it is true that his editions are very biased. We would have to get his attention.(to give him an amonestation) Lourdes, mensajes aquí 18:54 4 may 2012 (UTC)" and he was blocked before too for edit warring in the same article see here, he has a long history of many edit warrings in article Trujillo in spanish wikipedia with different users since a very long time ago see here ; but the administrator Andreasmperu has realized about it and has blocked him. This administrator before had recovered information deleted by cmonzonc in spanish wikipedia see here and had warned him if he did it again he would be blocked see here (the administrator warned him ..."La próxima vez que retires información referenciada, serás bloqueado. Andreasm háblame 04:41 7 oct 2012 (UTC) : The next time you retire referenced information, you will be blocked. Andreasm 4:41 Oct. 7, 2012 (UTC)" and also told him "Te voy a pedir que te abstenga de editar el artículo en cuestión: ya en el pasado has mostrado incapacidad por mantenerte neutral con él:I'm going to ask you to refrain from editing the article in question, in the past You have shown already inability to stay neutral with him"), but cmonzonc kept go on making vandalism acts with the help of his friends, but today he was blocked by administrator Andreasmperu in spanish wikipedia see here, he was blocked 2 times for editing article Trujillo and the reason of the first time was "Guerras de ediciones continuas en Trujillo (Perú) : Continuous edit wars in Trujillo (Peru)" and second time was "Continuo borrado de referencias aun tras haber sido advertido :Continuous deletion of references even after being warned". The vandal cmonzonc probably copied and paged spanish discussion to say he wants to improve and restructure the article to make it a good or featured article and that he copied the spanish discussion (of him and his friends Wikisilki, Ganimedes, Lourdes and Edmenb) so that it serves as a guide to make this article as in spanish; but deep down he wants to hide or delete information referenced that speak well of Trujillo, at least that's what he has done in article in the Spanish Wikipedia; He will also say that the article is full of plagiarism and the strategy used by him and his friends is this: if a text or phrase is something similar to the reference they argue that is plagiarism and if it is something different they argue that the reference do not support the text, the target they want is to eliminate the text which speaks well for the city; to delete information they also say there's too much text and too many images see here is one district of Trujillo he hates all about Trujillo and he has made the same in article Trujillo and other articles related; in summary he put :"‎Demasiadas imagenes:too many images" and simply delete them). Cmonzonc seems to have something bad in an obsessive way with Trujillo city see here, in wikimedia commons he also deleted information about the city. I don't know if in other web sites he also does the same I'll try to check if I have some time. I checked the spanish discussion that cmonzonc copied and paged and there is another report made for another user of spanish wikipedia see here in that report made by a user called Toño and he said:"el problema con este wikipedista es que mantiene en otros foros de internet una guerra personal contra la ciudad de Trujillo y la gente de esa ciudad, buscando hacerla quedar como una ciudad poco importante en el Perú y especialmente trata de hacerla aparecer como menos importante que la ciudad de Arequipa a la que representa; :The problem with this Wikipedian is that he keeps in other internet forums a personal war against the city of Trujillo and the people of that city, he tries to make it appear like a minor city in Peru and especially tries to make it appear less important than Arequipa he represents;" and he redirects some link to a forum see here where in a text Cmonzonc speaks "Al final siguiendo la logica de Alexis uno podria decir que la provincia de Arequipa tiene mas gente con mejor IDH porque tiene mas gente, habria que ser bien bestia como para fundamentar algo asi:In the end following the logic of Alexis One could say that the province of Arequipa has more people with better HDI because it has more people, there would have to be a beast as well as to support something like that", he seems to insult (with the word beast and some other) to people of Trujillo and in all that text in the forum he seems to make comparisons between Arequipa and Trujillo. Another spanish administrator called RoyFocker also helps him in his vandalic acts and makes the same as cmonzonc in the article that this vandal tried to delete here in Wikipedia in English see here this bad administrator helped him to elimitated referenced information. Thanks for your attention.--Antodeabout (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of article movepage rights of User:Kauffner

I am requesting that Kauffner’s pagemove rights be temporarily suspended for failing to cease moving articles that are controversial. This editor has been heavily involved in the requested moves (there are a number of ongoing requested moves on the subject) and discussions concerning the use of Vietnamese diacritics in article titles.

• On 12 September, during a the requested move discussion at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city, I informed Kauffner and In_ictu_oculi that both needed to cease moving articles for the purpose of inserting and deleting diacritics from Vietnamese articles without discussion, as the issue was controversial.[86]. This seemed neither odd nor unreasonable because requested moves of that subject rarely showed a clear consensus.
• On 21 September Kauffner moved Bắc Kạn city to Bac Kan without employing WP:RM
• On 24 September, after putting that move up for discussion, I reemphasized that actioning moves that either inserted or removed diacritics was controversial and needed to be discussed.[87]. I also made clear that I was checking their logs of every couple of days to ensure that neither was inserting or removing Vietnamese diacritics in/from names without discussion.
• On 5 October, Kauffner moved Thúy Nga to Thuy Nga Production (removing the diacritics) [88], without discussion.

Given I had made two rather clear warnings on this exact subject I don’t believe a temporary rights withdrawal is either unreasonable nor excessive, but nonetheless leave the issue with you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I am always happy to be on ANI. I want to emphasize that I have never received, or even requested, a privileged status with regard to moving articles, or anything else for that matter. It's not true that I moved Thuy Nga without discussion. I wrote a little explanation here. As for Bac Kan, it's a town, not a city. Even if it was a city, there is no reason for it to have a pre-disambiguator. I was reversing a move made in bad faith. If you are interested in diacritics, I give an exhaustive explanation here. Labattblueboy seems to think that Vietnamese diacritics is a hot subject and that this leads to controversy. No! IIO has a grudge against me, follows me around where ever I edit, has a beef with everything, and complains everywhere. Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good Idea, although I don't believe “move” is a right that can be unchecked, so it would be a formal restriction. Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue. cf GoodDay's AC-imposed restriction re diacritics for much the same long term disruption. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: As long as Kauffner is willing to see a controversial move reversed, and as long as there is no evidence that a particular move will be controversial, I don't see any need for restrictions here. Clearly there are two opposing diacritic factions and equally clearly neither of them has a claim on exactitude, so we shouldn't be restricting anyone here unless an editor is move warring or obviously moving against consensus. Moving articles is one way of testing consensus. regentspark (comment) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment No statement one way or the other on restrictions, per se, but two notes on either side of this: 1) WP:BRD still has Bold as a part of it, if a move he makes is contested, you're allowed to revert it, and then he should discuss it. If you want to contest one of the three moves above, revert and start a discussion. I don't see that that has been done yet (I see lots of admonishments to stop, but that does not amount to a discussion). 2) On the other hand, acting in a fait accompli manner isn't productive: that is, through sheer volume of action establishing a convention which isn't strictly decided is usually a bad idea. I don't see this at that level yet (three moves is hardly a "fait accompli" maneuver). Lastly, I am troubled by the statements by Kauffner that dodge the issue being put bluntly before him. Two of his moves changed diacritics and something else, and his responses are defending his moves based on the "something else", without addressing the point of contention. That should be corrected going forward. If someone is raising the issue of moving articles and changing diacritics in the process, that specific point needs to be discussed without distraction of unrelated issues. --Jayron32 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't really have much opinion on the core situation, but just to toss in that at least a small part of this saga played out on a section of my talk page over the last couple of days. This should be added into the mix by anyone examining the recent history of this kerfuffle. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It can seen in this context. Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Interesting. Looks like we do have a diacritic war of sorts in progress. There is also this mass move request on RM. I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to assume a move is controversial so perhaps all parties need to be reminded that WP:BRD is an acceptable process and that, since we don't actually have a diacritics or no-diacritics policy in place, each page move needs to be considered on its own merits. I don't see enough evidence to conclude that Kauffner was disingenuously moving articles to non-diacritic titles but that is also something worth watching out for. regentspark (comment) 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  You make it sound like this is something new and shocking. IIO has been doing dozens and dozens of these mass move requests and also 1000's of non-requests to diacritics across this and every other wikipedia and topic all this year. This is the norm and he and several friends rarely consider each article on it's own merit or whether a rm has recently failed or not. It's not just Vietnamese diacritics, it's all diacritics. I won't get into merits on this one particular incident but it seems silly to talk of the flyswatter and not the fly. I think Kauffner is just reaching a breaking point with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. regentspark (comment) 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this. He's made a great many controversial moves and there was an issue with many IPs being used to mess with talk pages to hide old RM discussions so that new ones could be falsely proposed as uncontroversial (somethin' like that, at least;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's not possible to revert moves wherein the article is first moved then a G6 is employed to salt the route back. The edit history of Thuy Nga Productions shows this was conduced it this case. The better question would be is an action still considered bold if you are aware that the action is controversial bordering on disruptive. BRD itself states "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus". The only consensus appears to be that editors are generally tired of Vietnamese diacritic moves of any kind, the requested moved at Talk:Bac_Kan seems to be the clearest indication of that. Given the entire topic is controversial (you need not look further than the half dozen at WP:RM to see that) is the request that such moved be addressed at a central venue that unreasonable?--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Unreasonable, no. But definitely avoidable unless necessary. If Talk:My_Linh#Requested_move is the tip of the iceberg (and, scanning RM/C I see quite a few others), then we're going to get bogged down by these move discussions. The problem with diacritics is that each article needs to be evaluated in isolation (what do English language sources say), so group moves are generally not possible. It might actually be more practical to just ban both of these guys from making or proposing any move from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title or vice versa and be done with it. It might not be fair but may turn out to be the only way to deal with this without a load of overhead. Just a thought. regentspark (comment) 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, with respect I hope you are agreed that there is a difference between:

(A) 1600x undiscussed moves - 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau RMs, and 1600x BRD-locks on one hand, and

(B) putting in a democratic RM to give the community opportunity apply the majority view of both RfCs on the subject.

There is a difference, yes? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought In ictu oculi. Not something I necessarily support. I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything. regentspark (comment) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, plus he seems to have the habit of adding irrelevant tags in his undiscussed moves to prevent everyone to revert then without a good amount of work, as [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] and [97].Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You know what I like about you? Your sense of humor.[98] Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - but a hefty caveat: I am not neutral here; although I only became aware of this issue in March 2012 I have been creating Polish bios with Polish names for years and do not have much sympathy with en.wp's English-names-for-Poles lobby. I also was in Hanoi in the early 90s, speak Vietnamese, and believe that Vietnamese people deserve the same lexical respect from en.wp as Polish people. But I am able to detach, and when standing back do recognise that even Slavophile editors may not share my view on the second point.

As I see it there are 2 separate issues: (1) User Kauffner, (2) diacritics.

(2) - Let's discuss (2) diacritics first. I wasn't aware of the "diacritics war" on en.wikipedia till March WP TENNISNAMES RfC. During that RfC I also became aware of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS. WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:DIACRITICS share the same characteristic of a minority of editors sincerely convinced that foreigners have "English names" - hence Lech Wałęsa's "English name" is "Lech Walesa" minus crossed-L and nasal-e, or sincerely convinced that en.wp should follow the MOS of USA Today/Daily Express etc and not Britannica/Chicago MOS. In terms of a "diacritics war" there evidently has been one on en.wp, as far as I can judge going back to 2010, centred particularly on WP:HOCKEYNAMES, but civily and democratically resolved in terms of articles Talk:Dominik Halmoši. Though unresolved in terms of edit-warring on WP:DIACRITICS is still at odds with en.wp's 4 million articles (or rather 4 million articles minus 9 hold out foreign tennis players). With one exception; Vietnamese. For some reason Mỹ Linh (Asian, no consensus) is more challenging than Lech Wałęsa (European, where de facto consensus exists on 100,000s of articles). Admin JoyShallot characterizes the "English name" thing against Serbian tennis players as "xenophobic" (technically it is only "xenonymophobic") but I note that the editors who turn out in force for Serbian/Czech/Romanian/Polish/French/Spanish/German names are less sure about for example Talk:Ngô Bảo Châu. This despite the fact that the Vietnamese roman-alphabet is older and more established than the Croatian/Slovenian/Serbian one. But whatever, it is legitimate to note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh.

(1) - Then issue (1), User Kauffner.

This is much wider than whether the accent on Mỹ Linh should be treated as Lech Wałęsa. The issues with Kauffner are largely behavioural, and cover much wider ground than undiscussed diacritics moves.

(a) IP puppet activity

The scope of move interests can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive (this has not previously been at ANI). This is logged out set up of archiving - minutes after the puppeted Misza archive bot clicks in - launching second or third attempts when the archive is invisible. Although the opinion of those who discussed the Saigon IP cluster's activity concluded the tampering with archives prior to launching RMs from User:Kauffner/RM incubator was User Kauffner, User Kauffner did not admit to it in the SPI and a User check was not done to link user to IPs. Kauffner did (not on the investigation page) admit on Good Day's Talk page that the edits were his, and there is a "smoking gun" in the history of the IP's activity on one of the RMs which shows Kauffner, inadvertently logged back in, finishing the IP's archive reset.

(b) Undiscussed move then redirect lock

Up to a point undiscussed moves are reasonable, as regents park says as long as the WP:BRD cycle is not disrupted. (this issue has not been at ANI before). The problem is with Kauffner, as banned-user Dolovis, is redirect edits. If you look at Kauffner's activity in June 2012 you will see 100s of redirect edits, effectively locking the 1600x undiscussed moves made July 2011 to June 2012. This includes 1000x under UserKauffner name, + 600x using G6 involving at least a dozen G6 admins in performing "uncontroversial moves" on Kauffner's behalf. An example of WP:BRD cycle blocking is 15:07, 4 November 2011‎ Kauffner moved Bún chả to Bun cha: Removing diacritics from Vietnamese name for standard English usage) + 30 June 2012‎ Kauffner (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat). After a Dolovis-style redirect edit June 30 2012 the only way to restore a locked move is an RM - and even then a 3-1 support of restoring a title may be overturned by a closing admin.

(c) Deletion of failed RM notifications prior to G6 requests

One of the particularly unpleasant aspects of the G6 moves counter the 2010 2011 2012 Talk:Ca Mau geo article RMs was the deletion (logged in) of notification of failed RMs before proxying G6 admins to move counter RM with a G6 request. (this issue has not been at ANI before). Obviously no G6 admin will move an article if there is a notification of a contrary RM result on the talk page - hence the deletions have to be deliberate intent to deceive admins making (in good faith) article moves as uncontroversial.

(d) IP archiving prior to G6 requests

This is distinct from (a) above. In this case the IP archives the failed RM not before launching a second RM, but before/after bypassing RM with a G6.

(e) Canvassing

Kauffner has been warned about WP:VOTESTACKING on several RMs. Similar is targeted canvassing for example to WikiProject Conservatism (this is just a particularly desperate example of a longstanding pattern).

(f) Deleting Talk page requests to stop

Deleting Talk page requests to stop (these go back to July 2011, long before I was aware, AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, Prolog, Vietnamese editors, who knows how many more), and carrying on regardless.

(g).......or alternatively,

If you agree with User Kauffner's views - on Hauptbahnhof or Vietnamese - then a good cause justifies the methods. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I may stand above as the one who began this discussion but in due fairness to Kauffner, In ictu oculi comments are the pot calling the kettle black. In ictu oculi has an equal sordid history of moving articles when he/she should have known them to be controversial. If I remember correctly, my warning of 12 September at Talk:Buôn Ma Thuột city was initially because In ictu oculi moved approximately 100 articles while a requested moved concerning geographic Vietnamese names was taking place. Further In ictu oculi was entirely unrepentant. The only reason In ictu oculi is not equally mentioned is because he/she as not moved an Vietnamese scope article to insert diacritics since my initial warning of 12 Sept.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Labattblueboy,

Sure, in part fair, but I'm not sure about "entirely unrepentant" because as you say, I did not continue to restore articles which had been among those moved counter Talk:Ca Mau (among the 1600x total moves). What I did explain was that restoring 80x of the 800x was after RMs restoring several of the moves, after RfC majority, and after admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett (and one more whom I forget) had already reverted approx 40 of the 300 of the 800 geo articles which had been done by using G6. If anyone considers reverting those 80x of 800x undiscussed moves (moves counter to RM) "disruptive" then does that apply to the other 40x reverted by the proxied G6 admins admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett as well? However I was asked to stop restoring the articles and did. In practice it was hard work to restore the articles anyway, since finding any among Kauffner's undiscussed moves which have not been given Dolovis-style redirect-edits to prevent BRD is almost impossible. I estimate that I already found most if not all of the 80x of 800x geo stubs he omitted to lock. There is less of a clear mandate to restore the 800x bios. And there has been more locking activity since. (If anyone doesn't believe me, try and find one that isn't locked... then call the pot equally black).

As regards the pot calling the kettle black, I am not perfect but, as above:

(a) I have never used IP activity of any kind.

(b) I have never followed a move with a redirect lock

(c) I have never deleted a failed RM notification prior to a G6 request. (In fact I am reasonably certain I have never used a G6 request template at all)

(d) I have never used Miszabot to hide a previous RM (never even thought of it)

(e) I have never made the sort of WP:VOTESTACKING notifications during an RM or RfC we are seeing here.

Unfortunately if you wade into mud you will get your hands a little dirty. This is a filthy area. But is a filthy area which is being enabled by winking at (a)(b)(c)(d) in particular. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel my previous comment was both accurate and fair. You have not at any point accepted during this or any other discussion, to my knowledge, that your own actions were sometimes inappropriate. Your comments above that it’s necessary to sometimes get “dirty” are in the very least unhelpful. Simply ceasing to move articles in a controversial topic area does not, by any means, equate repentance. Equally, simply because you may not have engaged in actions (a)-(d) does not mean your behaviour has necessarily been appropriate in the topic area. If this post concerned actions over the past year or further, and not simply approx. 12 September onwards, then I would be entirely supportive of PBS’s suggestion below that any remedies apply to both yourself and Kauffner. Please see this as an opportunity to turn a new leaf.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Labattblueboy,

Thanks for your comment. We probably are nearer on this than you think. I already said, before you arrived, two days before your first comment, that I have no intention to restore any more than the 80x of 800x undiscussed moves counter RM that have already been restored.

As to "repent", most editors would not, under normal circumstances, view reverting a move made counter an RM a sin to be "repented" of, at least in a case like this where it was carefully preceded by (a.) 40x restores by admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett, (b). confirmation by RfC, (c.) confirmation by a series of RMs: Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên RM, Talk:Hồ Quý Ly RM, Talk Talk:Ca Mau RM3, Talk:Bánh bò, Talk:Cơm tấm, that these undiscussed moves counter RM were not uncontroversial. But again I had already, before you appeared, said, I have no intention to restore any undiscussed moves made contrary to RM.

I'm really not sure what more you want of me here. (and btw I didn't say it was necessary to get dirty, I only said you will.. this is a filthy area, so that was intended as the opposite, that we should try not to). Are we good now? I'd hope we can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am good with whatever solution sees an increased level of civility in this subject area. Move waring in this family of articles doesn't do anyone any good. I'd frankly be happy with an affirmation by parties involoved that any Vietnamese diacritic article moves be first discussed or handled through WP:RM (likely on a case-by-case basis) until such time that a community solution on the Vietnamese diacritics issue is developed. Like RegentsPark, I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, thanks. I'm 100% fine with everything you say here. I couldn't agree more, since if there's no undiscussed moves, no G6 use, no IP edits, no redirect locks, then there's nothing to revert, no need to put in RMs to restore Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên, Talk:Hồ Quý Ly, Talk:Ca Mau, Talk:Bánh bò, Talk:Cơm tấm, Talk:Mỹ Linh etc. in the first place. We can get back to creating/building articles. Then we're good, very good. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• IIO is claiming to "speak Vietnamese"??? Trời ơi! I'm sorry, I just can't sit still for this one. We've discussed various language issues. IIO can't get even very simple stuff straight. I live in Saigon, so I edit about Vietnam. I read the local English-language press, so I quite familiar with the fact that the professionals don't use Vietnamese diacritics. Nor is Vietnam promoting their use in English, as you can see here. No published encyclopedia or major media organization uses these marks. Local publications that once used them, like VGP and VNN, have dropped them. They make the copy look amateurish. I spend many hours telling Vietnamese not to use Viet-lish. The editors of Lech Walesa's article can worry about his diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, I wouldn't doubt that your familiarity of street Vietnamese is better than mine, now, 20 years later. But we aren't here to discuss this.

(a) Do you now want to give a yes/no answer to the SPI?

(b) How many articles have you followed an undiscussed move with a redirect lock? The records show 1600x from July2011-June2012, with redirect locks continuing even this week. I estimate 1500x redirect locks. Is that about right?

(c) Did you (while logged in) delete failed RM notifications from Talk pages prior to G6 "uncontroversial move" requests?

(d) Did you (while logged out) manipulate Miszabot to hide previous RMs some of them not yet launched from User:Kauffner/RM incubator. yes/no?

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support WP:BRD does not work when articles are locked on purpose. Kauffner has continued to lock articles even after being asked not to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, how is he locking pages down. He's not an administrator, and doesn't have the ability to protect pages. I'm confused to this rationale. I don't care one way or another, but this makes no sense to support sanctioning him for using an administrator tool he has no access to... --Jayron32 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • By double-editing redirects he makes it impossible for rank-and-file editors to revert his moves, requiring admin rights to undo the move. The issue is tricky as redirects have to be categorised but a) he does that even when he could create the redirect and categorisation in one edit and b) in controversial cases like this it is better to leve the categorisation until the matter is settled or to the other side iE I can without causing any controvery lock redirects from diacritics wheras Kauffner could without any controversy lock redirects to diacritics. Maybe some noticeboard could be established just for that issue. c) There is past precedent for even banning of editors involved in exactly that behaviour. Agathoclea (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I believe there is another method of gaming the system to achieve this "lock", which would keep an editor's hands "clean" at first glance; but it's probably not a good idea to go into detail right now. If we were drawing up stricter rules on redirect-mischief I'd be happy to add it to those rules. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Whether or not to use diacritics in titles is the subject of much disagreement between editors, so such moves should go through RM. In the last year, we've made a lot of progress on that front. Still, some people persist in making undiscussed moves to diacritic-free titles and sometimes sneakily edit the redirect to prevent somebody else moving it back; that is gaming the system. A previous combatant in the diacritics wars was banned for it. Kauffner knows this. bobrayner (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support move ban Käuffner has been caught many times on this, and knows better. dangerouspanda 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• I am placing the following bullet points here and my views are based on what I have seen both editors doing over a number of months.
  • Comment Iio wrote "note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh" yet the last requested move was closed with the statement "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 46 days" support/oppose about 10/11. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest that user:Kauffner and user:In ictu oculi are banned from moving any article that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will include initiating WP:RM request that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will not include reverting bold moves (as described in WP:RM) and both can still voice their opinions in requested moves initiated by other editors.
  • I suggest that all the editors who have edits that have been diffed in this section for editing redirects after a move has been made (which prevents an non-administrator moving the article back to the previous name) should take this as a warning that such edits are disruptive and in future any such edits by these editors will result in administrative action. Likewise moving an article through an intermediate page name (so that the bots automatically change the original page name's redirect) will be seen disruptive (the correct process if a mistake has been made is to move the article back to the original name and then move it to the new correct name--so that double redirects are not created). -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PBS,

I'd like to assume good faith, but you see Kauffner making 1600x undiscussed moves, 800x of them counter the Talk:Ca Mau, IP puppeting, G6 and basically NOT using RM, and your solution is........... to ban RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši????

Your personal view (10:30, 11 Apr 2005, 18:57, 23 December 2010, 09:12, 22 April 2012) was characterized as "hysterical"‎ during your 1-8 opposition to É in the Talk:Édouard Deldevez, and also this response from the closer.

Sorry, but no. RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez and Talk:Dominik Halmoši express the consensus of the vast majority, and the reality of where en.wp's 4,000,000 articles are (minus those 9 tennis players). You know this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of this is to force controversial moves to go through RM not to avoid the use of RM. Agathoclea (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi that you would object to a restriction on yourself is not surprising. Iio your argument is disingenuous most articles that go through the RM process that are not at descriptive titles are at their common name as used in reliable sources. Agathoclea in the case of these two editors I think that they can be just as disruptive using the RM process, I think it is better for Wikipedia if both take a back seat over such moves for a time and follow rather than lead in this area. -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

First, can I ask a question. Have you ever restored an undiscussed move to an article made contrary to a RM result?

Second, another question. Have you ever made an undiscussed move and then locked it with a redirect edit?

These are questions I have answered here ("yes" to first, "no" to the second) it's reasonable for me to ask others the same question I think, yes?

As regards taking a quid-pro-quo with Kauffner, that wouldn't be appropriate, as I'm not making new moves, I've only restored some. But I'd be willing to consider a quid-pro-quo with yourself, if you would take a back seat from editing MOS pages and guidelines on diacritics/sourcing for 12 months, avoiding this kind of edit then I'd be quite happy to not submit any more RMs like Talk:Édouard Deldevez for 12 months. Would you consider taking a back seat in this area? I would be (not least since it's getting very difficult to even find mispelled foreigner bios). In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support The community [banned] Dolovis from moving diacritic related titles because of the exact same methods that Kauffner has been using to lock the pages so that regular editors can't revert his moves. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the same restriction that Dolovis was given. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to mention Dolovis as well. This comes down to a very simple issue for me: There is no possible way Kauffner is not aware that moves to or from diacritical versions in this area are controversial. WP:BRD, like WP:AGF is not a poison pill. There comes a point where the bold move simply becomes disruptive. I would !vote the same for any editor on either side of this coin who makes a similar pattern of moves. Resolute 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• With everyone ridding their own hobby horse like this, I obviously can't deal with every concern, so yours may be overlooked. IIO brings up the issue of the page moves I made last year. This was already dealt with here. But while we are on this trip down memory lane, I would like to review a few items. As you may or may not recall, there was an RfC on the issue of diacritics with wide participation in July-August 2011. A proposal was made to increase the use of diacritics, but Vietnamese was specifically excluded. So despite divided opinion concerning other languages, there appeared to be a consensus in this regard. I rewrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese to conform to this understanding of the RfC. So when IIO got involved in this issue in late June 2012, pretty much every Vietnam-related article of any notability was at a non-diacritic title. Thuy Nga isn't the first time IIO has tried to hold an article hostage at a misspelling. He did before with bui doi. IIO and I have a long and complex history. In happier times, we translated Latin and Hebrew titles together. More recently, Vietnam and other countries have been caught in the crossfire. I can only hope that common ground will reemerge when appropriate matters arise. Kauffner (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of that is true, I am actually in favour of English exonyms where they exist (i.e. "John Calvin" for "Jean Calvin", not simply stripping ç to make "FranCois Mitterrand,") and did award Kauffner a barnstar for one of his English names moves. However, that is before any of us were aware of (i) IP puppeting, (ii) G6 proxies, (iii) deletion of the Talk:Ca Mau RM results from talk pages, (iv) the 1600x Dolovis-style move-locks, and none of these items have been at ANI before. As to this latest two-step-G6, move to a self-admitted mispelling and then G6, certainly creative, but that only makes one wonder whether the G6 loophole should be shut down for everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format," per WP:RE/SG. So the act of putting a redirect in a category is not in itself problematic. In Dolovis' case, he was accused of going against the consensus of the hockey project. The technical means he used to do this are a secondary issue. There is certainly a lot of advise to "take it to an RM." As far as RMs go, IIO abuses these to fulminate at length against me, in the same manner that you see above. I don't know how many editors follow these rants, but they do seem to head off reasoned discussion and editor participation.[99] Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Per (b), (e) above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Since the issue of diacritics is undecided, I don't like the idea of a move ban on either editor. My inclination is to warn Kauffner not to lock moves through redirects and to warn iii not to propose multiple page moves in the same move request. Placing bans is not a good way to deal with things for which there is no existing consensus. If bans are the way to go, then we should ban both per PBS, but I don't really like that option. Banning Kauffner alone is a terrible idea. --regentspark (comment) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

RegentsPark, multiple RMs of similar pages have frequently been encouraged, particularly in this area, and are common practice. Please look at the WP:RM archive. If you want to ban anyone posting an RM for multiple page moves you need to propose changes to WP:RM. There is one in there right now at Talk:Comparison of web browser engines by PBS himself. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant only in reference to diacritics. For figuring out whether we should have diacritics in titles, we need to look at common usage in English language sources. That would mean looking at each article separately rather than listing them all together. For example, per WP:COMMONNAME, each listing in your RM multi-move request needs separate verification. Listing them together is equivalent to asking for a stylistic norm to be codified (which is better handled by an RfC). --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well okay, that view is noted but again since use of multiple moves has in the past been encouraged in exactly this diacritics area, if you want to change WP:RM you need to raise a general restriction on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves to remove the community's ability to bunch similar RMs if they involve foreign accents.

And FYI we just had a RfC immediately prior to putting in the RM to restore the undiscussed and edit-locked moves at Talk:Mỹ Linh which had an evident majority in favour of treating Vietnamese people like any other Latin-alphabet nationality. Even after RfC there still has to be an RM even after an RfC....btw WP:COMMONNAME means Pelé (not Edison Arantes do Nascimento), rather than Daily Express "Pele".... but this isn't the place to discuss WP:COMMONNAME. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose RegentsPark's thought process makes good sense here. I don't like the idea of bans either. Those two warnings should be sufficient for now, with a quick revisit should circumstances change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you promising to bring this to ANI at his next offence? Anyway Kauffner was warned repeatedly about the issue for longer than a year now and instead of stopping he continued. What makes you think he will stop now? Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

They've both been brought to ANI in the past year, probably multiple times. To me this argument has these two editors joined at the hip as far as Vietnamese diacritics are concerned but I hate lengthy banning if at all possible. I would do as RegentsPark suggested on the two... a formal warning. If it fails a 30-60 day ban on doing any of the offenses mentioned, and go up from there. It's not like these editors don't do good work also. Admittedly, it's difficult for me to remain unbiased when it comes to IIO, but to say it's all Kauffners fault is really ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that over 90% of diacritic RM are going in favour of the diacritic versions. Attempts to stop that trend by attempting to change guidelines has failed. Attempting to get the WMF involved on so-called accessability issues has failed. Now the only possibilities left are undiscussed moves in the other direction, socking and other gaming of the system. You are suggesting a 60 day ban from such offences. That means after 60 days he is allowed to game the system again. Sounds rather daft to me. The suggestion of this thread is to stop any undiscussed moves in controversial areas. I am sure IIO can be held to the same standard. Agathoclea (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. About time that something is done top bring home some points to Kauffner, who has for much too long been able to talk his way out of sanctions. This recent comment of his is an example of his disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive. It's not like he hasn't been told before, e.g. here. Favonian (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per RegentsPark. Closing admin should issue a strong warning on both editor's talk pages. If either continues to move such articles without going through RM, or continues to "lock out" moves, or continues to bunch several diacritic-related move proposals together in multi-move requests when each should be considered separately, then a ban should be expected. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I obviously agree against undiscussed moves and edit redirect locks. That's why we're here.

But if you want to restrict the community's ability to submit multiple moves you need to propose it at TALK WP:RM. Multiple moves are a core part of the WP:RM mechanism (and useful exactly when dealing with mass undiscussed moves and redirect locks). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with regentspark comment's as well as Born2cycle's remark that both editors (Kauffner & IIO) should be warned for their disruptive and obsessive behavior regarding the diacritics issue. I think it would would be helpful to 'request' both editors to take a step back from their diacritics crusade and allow a cooling down period of at least 6 months or so. --Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that they have to step away from the proper way of resolving controversial moves? If so, it would actually reward Kaufner for gaming the system as the first-mover-advantage. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at it from a broader perspective. Both editors have their own distinctive ways and means but regarding the diacritics issue they are equally obsessive and disruptive so there should be a balanced approach in how this is addressed by the community. This balance however is lacking and this seems at least partly due to the observation that IIO is supported in his/her conduct by a group of editors who appear to be blind in one eye. Hence my proposal for a cooling off period, preferably voluntary, to be observed by both editors.--Wolbo (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Enough's enough. As one of the admins working at RM, Kauffner's actions have been extraordinarily disruptive to that process. He is plainly aware that his moves are controversial, and yet he's continued making them, despite repeated discussions and warnings for over a year. He has absolutely no regard for Wikipedia's consensus building mechanisms in this area. I won't rehash all his disruptive methods already covered by others, but it needs to be said what effect they've had.
  

In the bulk of the dozens (hundreds?) of controversial moves Kauffner has made, or compelled others to make by falsely marking them as "uncontroversial", simply getting the pages back to where they were entails a fresh move discussion. Dozens and dozens of unnecessary discussions, forcing literally weeks of community back-and-forth and many hours of administrator's time (as the moves are almost always reversed, and as his habit of manipulating the redirects requires administrator action to close), further compounding the already dire RM backlog. All just to reverse undiscussed moves. For several months, I don't think I've seen a single day where there weren't several of these discussions in the RM backlogs. Additionally, as I've become involved, I no longer close the many RMs involving one of Kauffner's moves, and I believe other admins have done this too, leaving even fewer people to clean up his mess.

Simply giving Kauffner yet another warning is obviously not going to cut it. I believe he should be banned from the move process entirely, but in the very least he needs to be banned from making moves, from editing redirects after moves, from requesting uncontroversial moves, and from using any undisclosed alternate accounts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. IIO comes here with unclean hands, having wikistalked Kauffner for months and orchestrated disruptive WP:FAITACCOMPLI moves to place or re-place diacritics on titles for which the consensus of editors or sources was to remove them. In many ways, IIO's disruption is even worse than Kauffner's, because Kauffner only deals with Vietnamese articles, and those for which he can make a case based on the reliable sources. Trouts for both of you.

  About the page locking issue: we shouldn't make it easier for users to make controversial changes without going through RM, especially in the midst of a partisan dispute where if the pages were unlocked, Kauffner's rights were restricted, and IIO's rights were left alone, we would see a new flood of tendentious page moves from IIO and other veterans from the Czech/Serbian diacritics wars who are trying to expand their diacritics into an area out of their expertise, Vietnamese. Shrigley (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Shrigley,

(i) UserKauffner's undiscussed-move-and-lock technique does not only affect the 1600x WP:VN articles moved (1000x under own name + 600x as G6 proxy = 1600x, of which 800x geo articles affected by IP puppeting to hide the Talk:Ca Mau RM2 and deletion of failed RM notification). See (right now) RM at Talk:Dukes of Albret to revert a move which was redirect-edit-locked preventing revert. See undiscussed move of Koblenz-Stadtmitte station to Koblenz City Centre Station, redirect-edit-lock, Talk:Koblenz Stadtmitte station RM to restore.

(ii) the reason people watch these contributions are for edits such as:

• 16-17 July 2012 - mass undiscussed move-and-lock of Category:Vietnamese footballers while arguing against several RMs to restore undiscussed move-and-lock of other articles.
• 19 July 2012 - proxying by G6 of admin Y followng VN editor Grenouille Vert trying to restore undiscussed moves of his article creations at Ngô Sĩ Liên.
• 20 July 2012 selective canvassing, aka WP:VOTESTACKING
• 17 August 2012 moving Caritas' Ngô Đình Lệ Quyên the moment the Sockpuppet investigation was closed as "too long didn't read"
• etc.

(iii) As I said 2 weeks ago, I have no intention to restore any more of the 1000x undiscussed moves under his own name - and even if I wanted to I can't because they are redirect-edit-locked. As regards the 600x done by misuse of G6, if the admins proxied want to restore the 600x acheived by G6 that is up to them. Some do, some don't. Though in some cases the G6 admin revert his own G6 twice. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as "Vietnam expertise" - the WP:VN's editors already had the vast body of WP:VN articles at Vietnamese names (same treatments as Czech and Serbian) before Kauffner moved them, otherwise there wouldn't have been opportunity to move 1600x. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think his actions justify such kind of sanction also like Shrirgley noted there are some problems with IIO behaivour.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Shrigley that In ictu oculi's unilateral, fanatical obsessive-compulsive blanket adding of diacritics to article titles across the whole of English Wikipedia, regardless of wide usage of the non-diacritic form in English, is a far greater problem that Kauffner's reverting diacritics in (mainly Vietnam-related) article titles to plain English. In ictu oculi has repeatedly attempted to intimidate administrators and smear anybody who thinks differently, and organize bullying of editors with messages to the effect that, "Wikipedia rules are that all European articles must have diacritics in the article title, and if you persist in using the non-diacritic form you will be banned" when there are no such rules and there have been no successful RfCs on blanket use of diacritics. GoodDay and MakeSense64 are just two of several formerly-productive editors who have been baited and bullied. In ictu oculi seems to think that Wikipedia guidelines can be disregarded if one has a large enough private army. He has previously been cited for his obsessive behavior over diacritics in titles of French articles, and he is not going to stop at all the European articles, it has to be all the Vietnamese ones—without any exception—as well. I agree with PBS that if there is any ban then it should apply to both. Although Kauffner's RFC was ONLY about using diacritics in titles, IIO modified his "Census" after the fact to make it look as if it was about ALL diacritics or NO diacritics. The previous ANI discussion on this ongoing problem was rudely shut down. LittleBen (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

respond on User's Talk page In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So the person cleaning up Kauffner's mess is now at fault? Anyway, since you are quoting your own crusade against diacritics as gospel may I remind you of this reponse you recieved from WMF staff. Agathoclea (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wars over unsettled MOS issues should go to ArbCom per longstanding tradition. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Another comment. The arguments that Kauffner shouldn't be banned because others have also behaved badly are pretty weak, in my opinion. If others are causing problems they should be dealt with, but it certainly doesn't exonerate Kauffner from his own demonstrable and ongoing disruptive actions. And it certainly doesn't make up for the huge amount of wasted time and energy he's caused at RM to clean up his mess. This isn't a matter of different interpretations of the MOS, it's a matter of Kauffner blatantly and repeatedly abusing the move process and wasting many weeks of the community's time in the process.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you realize that I wrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese? What you care about Vietnamese diacritics, anyway? This is payback for the Dark Ages RM, isn't it? Hey, if it means that much to you, go move the thing back. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've only looked at it briefly but the talk page there shows continuous disagreement (as does this thread). That page should probably not be tagged as guideline, but only as a proposal. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Re: Kauffner: No, but that's some pretty amusing projection. Not that it matters, but I don't really care about Vietnamese diacritics at all. What I care about the the severe disruption you continue to cause to the RM process through the actions highlighted above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • You showed up at SPI with the same song and dance, so you've got a white whale of some kind. So you are just a guy really cares about archive bots settings? Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point I suppose that reaction is to be expected from you. Back in reality, as I say, my interest here is as one of the relatively few administrators who's been working regularly on the RM backlog. Can you honestly claim that the myriad undiscussed moves you've made or initiated have not resulted in numerous move discussions, backlog congestion, and increased workload for closing admins? Can you honestly say you have not engaged in surreptitious behavior and sockpuppetry to get your way?--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It was just joke about the archive bot settings. After all, the SPI clerk didn't think issue was important enough to bother doing a checkuser for it. From this reply, it sounds like your beef really is about archive bot settings. I clocked this complaint in at 50KB. I thought it was about something more important than that. The SPI discussion was epic length as well. So I have been at the center of a swirling controversy for some months now. After GoodDay was banned, I was next on somebody's hit list. At one point, I was blocked for an edit I made nine months earlier. I had to look it up to figure out what IIO was yapping about. Eventually, someone will look up my first edit and I'll have to defend that. Kauffner (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098, In your view is there a difference between (A) making undiscussed moves/G6 and locks counter RM results and (B) using the WP:RM process to give the community opportunity to restore undiscussed/G6 and locked moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

IIO has moved hundreds and hundreds of articles to diacritic titles without discussion. Certainly his Vietnamese moves go counter to any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines. Kauffner (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As anyone can check I haven't "moved hundreds and hundreds of articles to diacritic titles" and certainly not "without discussion". Yes on 1 May 2012 before I was aware of the strength of anti-foreign name lobby on en.wp I moved 4 Czech hockey players to Czech names to (a) agree with the article sources, (b) agree with the rest of en.wp's 4,000,000 articles. PBS, who was following me reverted me and we then had 4 duplicate RMs Talk:Ondřej Látal which were unanimously against PBS' view, with PBS himself eventually conceding that the move was justified. Since then I, and a couple of others, have been making use of the RM process to give myself and fellow BLP article-space contributors opportunity to implement by WP:RM the results of the Hockey/Tennisnames RfCs. And the result is at e.g. Talk:Dominik Halmosi, leaving 9 tennis BLPs which were closed the other way, and that's fine. We can leave those 9 as a permanent monument to "English names." on en.wp, it isn't the end of the world. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• IIO, regarding the Czech names that you mention, didn't you brag to Deryck Chan on your talk page on 17 or 18 August 2012 (date depends on one's time zone) that quote: "for any Swedish or Czech article too, full-spelling (with diacritics) will always be in the minority", and then remove the thread (-4,598) when you found out that I had seen it? This is like bragging that you can ignore Wikipedia guidelines because you can bring a bigger private army to mass-move RfMs. LittleBen (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• In response to IIO buddy Br'er Rabbit's comments that, "the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this", and "Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue", it would be instructive to look at this ANI, this ANI, and this talk page. LittleBen (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

To be called "Hitler" to the WMF for proposing RMs for Latin American BLPs to have Spanish names is disturbing. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Back to the record company article at the head of the ANI notice, and similar to the example above where an admin had to revert his own G6 twice, it appears that after the move Labattblueboy has diffed User Kauffner actually moved the record company article a third time in a 5-step process reverting admin Texas Android: (1) 13:39, 5 October 2012‎ first an undiscussed move counter recent RfC majority and series of RM outcomes, (2) 13:44, 5 October 2012‎ redirect edit-lock preventing revert to Thúy Nga, (3) second move via proxy of admin using G6 "uncontroversial move", which was self-reverted by G6 admin Texas Android "Move back. I've been informed that this is far from a uncontroversial move.", (4) 12:41, 9 October 2012‎ third move reverting Texas Android's move, (5) 12:42, 9 October redirect edit-lock preventing revert of third move. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Three Kingdoms (disambiguation)

I had made some edits to "Three Kingdoms (disambiguation)", some of which were repeatedly reverted, unjustifiably and unreasonably in my view. I contented, and I maintain, that in the English language, "the Three Kingdoms" always first of all mean the Kingdoms of England (England and Wales), Scotland and Ireland. What do you, as administrators or simply as lay editors, think? I thank you. -- KC9TV 02:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on the article's talk page? Eeekster (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I do somehow have the misfortune of having a history of "run-ins" with a few odd editors, and the other editor concerned would be it. -- KC9TV 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter for WP:ANI--it's a content dispute you haven't even started disputed yet. Not that it really matters, but being from the young side of the pond, I've never heard "Three Kingdoms" refer to anything other than the period in Chinese history. However, a discussion on the article's talk page could help sort out what is or isn't the primary topic. Run an RfC if necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, this is probably not helped, if my memory serves me correctly, by living right next door to the Koreas and China, and the long-range projectile weaponry belonging thereto. Anyway, this is a most interesting perspective. I did not realis(z)e just how far that the old Thirteen Colonies had since "branched off". Yes, perhaps I shall, but perhaps in some other time. I thank you. -- KC9TV 02:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That disambig page is horribly overlinked - and there should not be any entries that only have redlinks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Vivek Wadhwa, again

Ref: [100], where some promotional material at Vivek Wadhwa was removed by myself and others.

I have just had the following e-mail interchange with Mr. Wadhwa (reformatted for Wikipedia, but the content is unaltered):

From: "Vivek Wadhwa" (E-Mail removed for security purposes)
To: (E-Mail removed for security purposes)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:00:08 -0700
John, I am going to be writing about this for the national media and taking 
the debate outside Wikipedia. I have been shocked at what I have observed. 
Regards,
Vivek

This was in reply to my message:

From: John Nagle 
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Vivek Wadhwa
Subject: Re: Would you like to meet for a cup of coffee?
On 10/12/2012 11:08 AM, Vivek Wadhwa wrote:
> John, I want to understand why you harbor such ill feelings towards me 
> and why you are battling my former students on Wikipedia...
.
It's not all about you.  It's routine maintenance on Wikipedia.
Promotional efforts on Wikipedia are strongly discouraged.  Due to some
recent problems with heavy commercial promotion on Wikipedia, enforcement of
the Wikipedia rules on this are being strictly applied.
Without such efforts, Wikipedia would turn into an outlet for PR Newswire.
I'm no longer involved; the problem was reported and others dealt with it.
John Nagle

So Mr. Wadhwa may be complaining about this in other media. (Probably a bad decision; see Striesand effect). --John Nagle (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you had permission from Vivek Wadhwa to publish these emails, and their email address? Because otherwise there is a rather serious breach of privacy here. If that's not the case, then those emails need to be revdeleted and you need to be trouted. Blackmane (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Email addresses removed. Bovlb (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. Wikipedia:Private correspondence was proposed, but failed. WP:COFF was proposed, but failed. In this case, there's no anonymity issue; quite the opposite, rather. --John Nagle (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What admin action do you expect to follow from this email exchange (being posted here)? Posting private correspondence on Wikipedia may not be forbidden, but neither is promising/threatening to write about one's Wikipedia experiences in the media. It happened quite a few times before. I don't remember anyone ever being sanctioned on Wikipedia for taking their (side of the) story to the media; WP:No media threats? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. It's just a heads-up. No action required at this time. --John Nagle (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the email addresses I meant, that's what I get for typing things late in the night. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dzlinker

Hello,
I would like to report this intervention by Dzlinker (talk · contribs) on my TP. Since it is not the first time that this user uses this kind of language, I ask admins to take some actions against this user.
Thanks in advance.
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You would have to clarify which part of the sentence you're taking issue with. Swearing in and of itself is not blockable or uncivil; it has not been used to attack you...the only possible issue in my reading is the possibly inappropriate "frenchies wiki" to refer to the French Wikipedia (I believe). dangerouspanda 09:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Garry Marshall

Someone please give expedited consideration of the speedy delete nomination of Template:Garry Marshall. (Since it is redirected, you have to edit the template to see the nomination.) Reason: All pages where it is transcluded appear in CAT:CSD. —teb728 t c 01:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why but the transcluded pages no longer appear in CAT:CSD; so please disregard. —teb728 t c 03:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:Job queue. In short, there's a delay between when the speedy template was <noinclude>'d and when the category is updated. T. Canens (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. —teb728 t c 10:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

J3Mrs/Malleus Fatuorum

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.

---

J3Mrs and Malleus Fatuorum are engaged in a tag-team operation on the former's talk page, blatantly abusing Steve1000 contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Haldraper (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

why are you the one complaining? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a collobarative community, any user can report what they consider a personal attack, abuse etc. Haldraper (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum telling Stevo1000 to "fuck off" is not nice, but then neither is Stevo1000 describing him as "Smithers" - all 3 need a good trouting, but unsure why this is at ANI? GiantSnowman 09:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there's lots of personal attacks and POINTyness on both sides. Unless you propose blocking everyone I don't see any use for this thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And Haldraper's accusation on this very page is a personal attack too. "Tag teaming" is a dubious, unprovable concept at the best of times, and apparently the definition of it can be extended ad libitum, as here. Even the dubious essay WP:Tag team states that "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be made [well, yes, sic] to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process." This silly stuff should be speedyclosed. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 15 October 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:BWCBENCERVS again

For recent background, see this in archive 772.

User:BWCBENCERVS is currently blocked, by me. Fred Bauder disagrees with my reason for the block (and more), and I now tend to agree with him. But Fred does agree with the block.

User:BWCBENCERVS is most displeased, as expressed at length on his talk page. If I had not previously been involved, I'd tell him either to appeal his block in the proper way, or to sit it out (and I might add that he should tell the police what is euphemistically termed "OR" here). I'd consider deletion (in one or other of its meanings) as well. However, I'll let somebody else first decide what's best and then go ahead and do it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 has fixed it. Good. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

MGH Group

Tagged for speedy deletion as spam; the deletion tag is being repeatedly removed by multiple new SPAs. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

They appear not to have been successful - it's now deleted (and I've G8 deleted the leftover talk page) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And they recreated it in exactly the same form, so I've deleted it again - if it shows up again, it will be salt time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also welcomed/warned the 2 SPAs for disruptively removing the templates. GiantSnowman 11:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-war at Obama article

Currently, the featured article Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) aka "Obama" (etc.), pageviews: ~57,000/day, is in an edit-war to break the article to exceed the post-expand include-size limit by removing 402 instances Template:Cite_quick and using {cite_news} or {cite_web} to again exceed the template limits and crash the bottom 3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the wp:FA/GA interwiki links to the other-language wikipedias. Obviously, the edit-war is upsetting to users who are guarding the article for improper changes, and also users are not pleased to again see the bottom 14 templates crashing. There have been 2 editors in the edit-war:

• User:Br'er Rabbit, already indef-blocked (wp:SOCK) after blocked 48 hours (diff-518) on 13 October for other edit-warring on Template:Civility, began removing {cite_quick} first from featured article "Barack Obama", with no prior talk-page discussion (edit 11 October 2012‎, edit 06:36, 12 October 2012‎‎).
• User:JohnBlackburne is acting as a one-man campaign to TfD delete Template:Cite_quick (this TfD), and remove {cite_quick} from featured article "Barack Obama" (this edit) to re-crash the bottom 14 templates, and not work to create an alternate version of the article which can reformat the entire page. The article seems too big by over 100 carefully chosen citations (as wp:Featured articles), so the reduction of article size will be difficult, and require talking sensibly with other users. Now, anyone is allowed to submit a TfD, but it is too zealous to also unilaterally remove that template from a high-visibility, featured article where it fixes 14 other templates to avoid a template-size error which crashes the bottom half of the featured article. I think the user is acting as judge, jury, and executioner (to submit TfD and also remove usage when opposed), while offering no help to rewrite the featured article to fit {cite_news} and {cite_web} without crashing the article.

I think someone else needs to talk with those users, and get them to agree to stop the edit-warring. They have shown little interest in fixing the Obama article to reformat the entire page, they detest Template:Cite_quick which reformats cites 9x faster/shorter, and I am not sure the other Obama article editors would welcome their efforts at this point. There is a clause in WP:CITEVAR that allows citation templates to be removed from an article (replaced by hand-coded citation titles/dates) after prior consensus. The scope of the problem seems to span over 100 citations (of 402 cite templates), so it is not a trivial fix in a carefully-written featured article. Therefore, we need to proceed calmly. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:31, revised 12:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Consensus poll: Talk:Barack_Obama#Can fix template-error by hand-coded cites. -Wikid77 12:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless something has changed, User:Br'er Rabbit has been indef-blocked and a ban discussion is ongoing at WP:AN. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On Barack Obama it has been Wikid77 that has been repeatedly inserting his template [101] [102] [103] [104], with edit summaries such as "undid non-census change", though as he's the only editor doing so it's a strange consensus he is referring to. For the many discussions on this I would look at Talk:Barack Obama, my talk page, this Village pump thread, Jimbo's talk page and the TfD.

But perhaps the nexus is the July TfD on {{Fcite}}, {{Cite fast}}, and the August TfD on {{Cite web/smart}}. The outcome of these discussions, was that the templates should only be used for testing purposes, not deployed in mainspace. Creating yet another variant of these templates and deploying it in mainspace is disruptive, and raising the same arguments again and again in repeated forums (multiple TfDs, articles and user talk pages, here) is simply refusing to get the point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Other editors want an agreement for the edit-warring to stop, and then discuss what to change for the Obama article to fit within template limits. -Wikid77 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is, does the inclusion of the new template fix something that is broken in a version of the article without the new template? Tarc (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't give a frog's fat arse who did what and why. All I want to see is an unbroken page where all the templates are working as expected. Although page-load times on Barack Obama have been horrific (for years), at least the page was working. If we need to take drastic measures to reduce the size of the article then that's fine and we'll get the moving, but edit warring over how templates are used is completely unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Reformat time drops from 40 to 7 seconds if all cite templates removed: Generally, I like the idea of cite-templates, to help new users follow the citation formats, but people need to know how articles will display much faster, "Barack Obama" within 7 seconds, if all cite-templates are replaced with hand-coded authors, titles, and dates. A large, top infobox takes about 1 second to format, and large navboxes run about 2 or 3 per second. If all templates were replaced as hand-coded wikitables and wikilinks, the reformat would drop below 2 seconds for a huge article, at any default image-size (~25 images) for the reformat. -Wikid77 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a silly question but can't we just {{subst:}} the citation templates? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cite_news subtemplates are not structured for wp:Subst: I have created a special template for wp:Subst'ing journal cites to simple wikitext, outside of reftags "<ref>" which prevent subst'ing; so something similar might be the way to de-template the Obama article. Step 1: Change all "<ref>" to "<xxref>" and save, Step 2: Subst with a special "Cite_quick/subst" template and save, Step 3: unchange "<xxref>" back to "<ref>" and fix any glitches in the substituted format. The 24 forks of {cite_web} templates do not support subst'ing because they would be almost impossible to read (the subst'ified markup) when updating use in 1.6 million articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• We certainly don't want to get into a situation where we are using different citing systems for different articles. Whatever system we employ going forward needs to be Wikpedia-wide or it will be a "cats and dogs living together" situation. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:CITEVAR. Anyone can use any citing system the please. For example Jackie Hudson uses Harvard citations, while Positive hardcore uses APA citations and Black Thorn (album) uses {{Cite foo}}. I was the primary contributor for all three articles. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, those articles have maybe 32 citations between them. Barack Obama has over 300 (with multiple uses on many references), so switching from one citation method to another would be a huge pain in the arse. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Full protect for 3 1/2 weeks (aka after the election): It's time pbp 19:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's necessary to full protect to keep cite quick in place, I'd say do it. There is no excuse for its disruptive removal. --Nouniquenames 21:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea why it matters either way, but all I know is that I can't load the page when the template is disrupted. I can't even see the edit(s) with the template. Come to some conclusion on the talk page and enforce the "consensus", but theres is no reason to fully protect the page.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hate citation templates. They make articles harder to edit for any new editor or newcomer to an established page, they encourage the inclusion of excessive and frankly undesirable information in the footnotes, and they display footnote content in an idiotic sequence (author name last first, then date?!?!). They have been growing in WP like a slow-spreading cancer. That is all. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A major change in the use of the currently widespread citation templates — including, perhaps, a general pro/con on using citation templates at all — would, of course, affect zillions of articles, and we would absolutely need a clear consensus before anyone were to implement such changes across the board. That discussion needs to take place elsewhere, not here, and no one should be allowed to take the Obama article hostage or use it as a battleground to fight a template war. If it's really necessary to use a new, experimental template on this page because its size is causing the regular templates to break — well, I think it's clear that given the high visibility of this page, it needs to work now — and if that means using an experimental template only on this page for the time being, I'd support that per WP:IAR, even to the point of fully protecting the page for the next few weeks in order to stop the edit wars. I've been "involved" in various Obama-related topics, but I've not been involved so far in this template war, so I would be willing to do a full-protect here if absolutely necessary. — Richwales 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Having full-page protection just because two editors are in a disagreement over what kind of citation system should be used is a case of using a planet-sized sledgehammer to crush an atom-sized nut. Please just give the two editors guidance and let's just get the damn page working. A long load time SUCKS, but it's better than a broken page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Omar-Toons

Hello

When reviewing the contributions of that user I was shocked by the impolite expressions he used many times when talking to some fellow contributors

• Here [105] when qualifying some (editings) (well as it was written) of being stupid…
• Here [106] stating that some comments were stupid…
• Here [107] deleting an old stupidity as he stated…
• Here [108] stating that some edits were stupid…

I would like this user to know how to pay respect to other contributors and how to be polite, Wiki is neither a private blog nor a FB page that we can write what we want…

Thanks

Fort-Henry (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Formally, he's discussing content not contibutors, which is the benchmark of WP:NPA. You're also showing diff's that spread across more than a month. if you find this to be behavioural, WP:RFC/U is thataway (although I note the irony that User:Omar-Toons seems to have taken offence to the word "shit" a few sections above) dangerouspanda 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for information, the listed ("stupid") editings (that I reverted) were made by Bokpasa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a well-known vandal and POV-Pusher. --Omar-toons (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You should pay respect to everyone and avoid using these impolite statement even against a vandal. This is not your own bolg! Arrogance has not its place here! You should regret what you have written and you come after all arguing such rudeness behavior. User bokpassa was a vandal, right, what about DZlinker? is he a vandal too that you allow yourself writing such things Fort-Henry (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the broader point is this: Omar-Toons, even if the content is "stupid", you don't need to say so. If it merits removal, just do it and explain the policy-based reasoning (e.g. NPOV, OR, etc.) Not saying you have to be super happy puppies and cheer nice to everyone on Wikipedia, but it just pre-empts things like this from ever happening. And Fort-Henry -- your point is made, he's not going to be blocked for this, let's move on, shall we? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 18:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course yes. Thanks a lot. Fort-Henry (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

Bit of problem with what appears to be a sock

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

---

User:Torilance added some unsourced criticism to Steam (software) via here [109]; was reverted by two other editors than myself, but the user continued to add the same back in via "undo". I reverted him twice, on the second time giving the user a 3RR warning.

Suddenly, we have brand new user User:Tk4211 undoing that change. [110] I have a feeling we could be playing whack-a-sock if we keep reverting him. I'd rather not protect the page as other contributions from other users are just fine. Any suggestions what to do here? (both users notified) --MASEM (t) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You could report your sock suspicions at WP:SPI. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that will get "them" and "their" IP blocked. Most people don't know how to get around it, and only a few idiotic psychos fail (God I'd love to link that to one page I keep filling) to get the message and give up. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The two accounts are a  Confirmed match; I could find no sleepers. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:32, 15 October 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.

Persistent removal of content by relative of article's subject

User:JimmyDNYC, who describes himself as a relative of the subject of the article for Jehiel R. Elyachar, has removed content from the article that he feels is derogatory on three occasions so far today (here, here and here). In multiple discussions on the user's talk page, I have explained that the material is backed by reliable and verifiable sources, that I verified that no corrections had been listed that would rebut the claims, that a search had found no support to justify removal of the material and that WP:COI would seem to be an issue here. After two reverts on my part, this user has stated that he will persist in removing this content and that he "will continue to do so until only truthful details about his life are listed" (see here). Any thoughts on how to proceed? Alansohn (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the info and the sources and restored the blanked sourced material. I see no immediate glaring concerns with the content, other than it being mildly critical in nature, and the article subject is not covered under BLP. I've left a note for JimmyDNYC requesting that he bring any concerns to the article talk page for discussion as opposed to simply edit warring to blank the content he does not approve of. If there are any neutrality issues with the material it can be ironed out via basic talk page discussion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, normally I'd point out that the article talk page is empty, but discussion with him is going to be difficult to achieve now that you've called him a vandal. Blanking is not the best option, but it does seem like our article speaks of things in Wikipedia's voice, as fact, when it's fairly clear from reading the Times article that the paragraph is based on that it's really just what one of Milstein's sons said. Have you looked at the book mentioned in the Times article to see what this "different version" of the story is? I think the paragraph should probably stay, but trimmed and rewritten more neutrally. If the grandson isn't satisfied with discussion on the talk page, then he should be directed to WP:OTRS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS won't be able to help with basic content issues - if there is a consensus version of the article, and the content is not libelous/defamatory or somehow inappropriate for inclusion, we generally defer to the editing community. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My mistake; I thought for some reason that the article subject was still alive, so I thought BLP applied. I think OTRS can get involved when community consensus exists but is violating BLP, but can see how OTRS would be unlikely to get involved here. If I'm wrong even about OTRS and BLP subjects, that would be useful to know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are BLP issues OTRS could certainly step in to help, or at least work within the appropriate venues (such as BLPN) to have contentious content reviewed on behalf of the subject. In this case though it is more of a content dispute and they would likely have consensus and the importance of talk page discussion explained, which in this case would be full circle to where they are now. _{By the way, you have a knack with new editors and OTRS is always looking for volunteers!} --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe some progress is being made:

• Discussion occurring on editor's talk page.
• A couple of reasonable edits to the article.
• A discussion on the article's talk page (not yet including the editor in question, however).

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable for all editors to refrain from reverting/undoing edits [111] at this article without first discussing on the article talk page.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass-reversion of another user's edits

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

---

I'm not sure if this is technically considered edit-warring or not, but I have noticed that Smartie2thaMaxXx (who has a history of edit-warring) has recently undone a large number of edits by DragonKing22 on different pages. Amp71 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been reverting because DK22 is adding the GKIDS category in articles of movies where GKIDS had nothing to do with the distribution rights, such as Disney•Pixar short films, Yellow Submarine, the like. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Has that been brought up with DK22? Apteva (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to reason with DK22 right now. The user wonders how they respond to me. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 23:45, 15 October 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 war at Zink magazine

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:174.61.37.58 and User:Diogenesdacynic are going through an extreme edit war at Zink magazine. It's pretty much out of control. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It could probably be deleted for lack of notability, in any case. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Meters seems to have taken control of the situation. They removed the speedy delete tag as it went through an AfD discussion in April resulting in a keep, and they warned both editors about edit-warring. I might add that Diogenesdacynic's edits are completely inappropriate and, among other things, violate WP:BLP. I'll watch the page and the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. I didn't see the previous AfD, but, at best, that established a barely, tiny indication of notability; I'm still holding that it's insufficient to meet [{WP:GNG]]. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Diogenesdacynic re-added the material (and more). User:Qwyrxian cleaned it up. I blocked the editor for one week for edit-warring and for BLP violations. Probably not long enough. They're a WP:SPA, and they seem to have only one motive in being here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else please semi-protect the article, too? There's still blanking going on. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the same IP. I've blocked them for a week. If there's more disruption by other IP addresses, I'll semi-protect the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 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.

Newkid344 hoaxes

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:Newkid344 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a strange one - the account in question seems to be wholly dedicated to posting un-sourced hoax material to WP. One of his most recent articles is now at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillten School. He has been warned several times (as far back as January 2011) but the warnings seem to have been ignored.

His edit history and continued want to post hoaxes suggests he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Would appreciate some admin intervention. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hoaxer blocked indef, article and subpages (also containing fake articles) deleted as WP:CSD#G3. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 16 October 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.

Personal Attack

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 some one look into this. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another one --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at them. Have you asked the user, privately, to temper their remarks, before coming here? It is clearly inappropriate, but one-off bits of rudeness like that aren't likely to generate any sort of administrator response (i.e. if that's all there is, he's not gonna be blocked). The best way to handle this is to civilly ask the user in question to modify or retract their insults. --Jayron32 05:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to make a minimal attempt to resolve the situation yourself before bringing it here. The comment in and of itself, while unnecessary and rude, is not a blockable offense. -Scottywong| prattle _ 05:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It bloody should be. These comments are not some edit dispute/unable to agree, they are childish personal attacks. It's ridiculous that you're expected to feed these trolls before something will be done about it. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is not the inappropriateness of the comments. They are unambiguously inappropriate. The question is the proper response to them. At this point, there's no precedence for blocking a person for attacks like that. Politely ask them to stop, politely request that they temper their tone, and see what happens. Being inappropriate does not mandate an instant block, at least not what is published above. There are other ways to handle the problem at this point. Blocking is always a last, and not a first, resort. It's also somewhat ironic that you just personally attacked him back again at about the same level of incivility by calling him a troll. It would be best, when calling out someone for belittling others, that you don't commit the same offense yourself. --Jayron32 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll after they have made multiple personal attacks is not the same. It's a thousand miles away. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I have left a message now at the user's talk page asking them to remove the comment. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there something that could be done about the comment that was left at the AFD, if the user doesn't remove it themselves? --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not an admin, just a passer-by (the above closed topic) - having had a quick look at the edit history of the user in question, I query (generally) whether he is actually here to contribute productively. Beyond his comments about the user above, this comment is entirely unhelpful and uncivil. The user has been editing on and off through 2012 but has made a series of rapid-fire edits today, mostly at AfD and mostly "per-nom" style. His response to Anbu's request on his talk page suggests he is WP:NOTHERE to contribute productively - in fact he basically says as much. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:53, 16 October 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.

Personal attack and edit warring

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.

---

Administrator GiantSnowman has accused Malleus F of paranoia. I removed this personal attack per WP:NPA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Earlier today I added this comment. A few hours later Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) (the comment did not relate to him at all) removed the comment, saying it was a "personal attack." I reverted and posted on KW's talk page. He removed my talk page contrib, and removed the original RFA comment for a 2nd time. The cycle continued - I restored mty comment, posted on his talk page - he removed my talk page post and removed the original RFA comment for a third time. I restored again but am bringing it here for a third (or more) pair of eyes please. GiantSnowman 11:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note - both KW and myself posted at the same time. I've merged the two sections. GiantSnowman 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Giant Snowman. You need to review WP:NPA and WP:EW. You failed to use the RfA talk page to achieve consensus, but announced an intention to pursue ANIhilation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What consensus should be reached about my comment? The RFA talk page is for use to discuss the RFA, not your issues with my comment. I attempted to use your talk page instead; you refused to discuss and reverted straightaway. You also reverted my ANI notification - you didn't even send me one! As for me wanting to "pursue ANIhilation" - you actually posted the issue here first, not me. GiantSnowman 11:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, this is ridiculous. The original comment rises to the level of NPA at a stretch, although it was a silly thing to write either way. Edit warring over it is equally ridiculous. I suggest that Giant Snowman strikes the comment as unhelpful and you both walk away. Plus {{trout}}s and a 3RR warning to both of you, for drama mongering. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no issues at all with removing my own comments when they are ill thought out - however here I a) don't appreciate another editor repeatedly removing my comments without first consulting me and b) the accusations of NPA. If you actually follow the discussion at the RFA, one editor has basically jumped down the throat of another editor's good faith general comment, implying it was written about him, when it was actually nothing of the sort. That's paranoia. GiantSnowman 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Further - Errant, I'll happily accept a trouting; I will not accept your implication that X removing Y's comment 3 times is no worse than Y restoring his comment 3 times. GiantSnowman 12:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this case I think it is. Both of you knew exactly what you were doing; three reverts each then AN/I. Neither of you tried to discuss the matter. Your thought process should have been "actually, that wasn't a helpful comment better just leave it" and KW's thought process should have been "that's not a helpful comment I should to the Giant Snowman about it". The reverts are just Wiki-religion rearing its head, the failures happened before them... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but KW made no effort to discuss the removal at all - either before he did it, or while he was doing it. I'm not going to let another editor remove my comment without decent explanation - that's pretty much vandalism. GiantSnowman 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, GiantSnowman, it isn't vandalism. The intent was clear and it wasn't to harm the encyclopedia - which is required for vandalism. KW may be violating TPO, but he's clearly citing NPA. Both of you should have focussed on discussion or getting review from third parties, not focussed on reverting. Both of you are equally to blame here. I fully concur with ErrantX, and do suggest you strike your comment, which is unhelpful. Worm^TT(talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Worm - I've already struck the comment, and I did attempt discussion at KW's talk page - twice. GiantSnowman 12:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Giant Snowman first announced an intention to seek ANI support. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (link added 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

Oh hell's bells. There is no issue here - Giant thought Malleus' comment didn't have much merit. End of. Given Malleus seems to have a track record for telling editors to fuck off when he disagrees with them, I can't for one second imagine he's going to be bothered by Giant's comment. If he is, it's pretty much a 6 foot wide cauldron comparing an industrial tea-urn to the innards of OJ 287. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)KW should not have removed the remark as it's mild as these things go and WP does not have any sort of clear consensus on what is and what isn't acceptable behavior (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement)). That said GiantSnowman's remark is not particularly helpful so I'd suggest they remove it. MF is entitled to an opinion and I don't see that it requires any reply, especially as Hahc21 indicated they were done with the conversation. Nobody Ent 12:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RFA has more drama than the RSC these days... Errant's suggestion is a sensible one - whilst the comment doesn't really rise to the level of a personal attack in my book, it doesn't add a great deal to the discussion, so strikeout-and-moveon seems the optimum course. That said, it's removal - repeatedly - seems very pointy: if Malleus had complained about the comment then Kiefer's deletion might have some merit, but from what I've seen Malleus has thicker skin than that. No-one's going to be left smelling of rose here; trouts all round, chalk it up to experience and find something more productive to do. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment struck because editors above have suggested it might not have been the most-constructive comment. Kiefer - that's all you had to say to me. GiantSnowman 12:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my lord, the original comments was nowhere near the definition of a personal attack, and the OP surely knows that all they were causing was dramah by filing. Seriously inappropriate filing, and an action seriously below the level of interaction I expect from any Wikipedian, let alone the OP dangerouspanda 12:23, 16 October 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.

Is it reasonable to have my integrity questioned and my edits reverted because I am an ip?

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

---

As [here] 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out. If you do not already have an account, it is easy to make one (although as I said it is surprising that your very first edit on Wikipedia was to the Manual of Style). If you already have a registered account and are editing while logged out, that is tolerated to some extent, but of course it editors may not find it very respectable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Carl. Could you answer my question? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that link that appears to be any sort of question regarding your integrity because you're an IP editor. Perhaps you provided the wrong link or I missed something? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you missed the edit summary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe Carl answered your question in his first word. – Richard BB 13:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe he answered a different question in his first word. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I question the integrity of IP editors and revert their edits frequently. Neither is strictly because the user in question is an IP, but rather than the bulk of IP edits are utter crap, and their reasons for editing as an IP are steeped in bad-faith and deception. Hopefully that answers the question. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you not feel it would be better to revert edits solely on their merits? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It would, but editors are human and make mistakes, which is especially easy when so many IPs do nothing but vandalise and troll. If you only want to edit WP as an IP, you have to accept that sort of discrimination will just happen, and handle it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on that one, Richie. I don't believe that ips should have to accept discrimination from admins or anyone else, and I don't believe it's possible to discriminate by "mistake". 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who appears to be a new user can have their integrity questioned, IP or otherwise, as long as everyone is civil, doesn't bite the (supposed) newbie and follows the correct policy and guidelines. If you happen to be on an IP that gets recycled, then, well sorry but we've got no way of knowing your previous contributions, and you can't easily prove another IP was you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind I would like to keep this discussion open for further input. It has hardly been open 5 minutes. I disagree with the notion that it is reasonable to question the integrity of an editor simply because he is an ip, and I would like to hear further input. My main concern, which nobody has addressed, is that I was reverted twice: as above, and also [here], simply because I'm an ip. Is that reasonable? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I contest the premise, namely, that it was "solely" or "simply" because the edits were from an IP. There appear to be several other factors at play, which Carl captured nicely in his original response. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the matter too deeply, it appears to be an edit-warring issue more than an IP issue? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Noetica's edit summaries seem to be valid enough for the RfC to be closed; a competent and experienced editor closed an RfC that yielded no consensus. You undid it (your first edits were to the MoA article as a whole, which seems suspicious), and Kwamikagami rightfully commented that you may be a logged-out user. So, yes, Carl did answer your question. – Richard BB 14:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that an RfC was [closed] by an uninvolved editor. There was nothing at all wrong with the closure. Noetica reverted the closure, demanding that it be closed by an Admin. Discussion ensued on the talk page, and the overwhelming consensus was that Noetica had no right to demand closure by an Admin. Therefore, the original closure should stand. This morning K [closed] the RfC with a different decision to the original. If that second closure is allowed to stand, then we are opening the floodgates for any involved editor to undo an RfC closure which he dislikes, and demand it be closed by someone else. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you remove the word "anonymous" from the edit summary (and it took me about 30 seconds to find out you're in the UK, and you're a Plusnet broadband customer, so you're perhaps not as anonymous as you might think), the premise for the revert is just as valid. Another editor disagreed with your edit and gave a legitimate reason for reverting it. Take it to the talk page if you disagree. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely aware that as an ip I am not anonymous, whereas those of you who are signed in are. Thanks very much for posting my details to ani. You don't seem to have noticed that the edits we're discussing are on the talk page. 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question is disingenuous, 146.90. You weren't questioned simply because you are editing as an IP. You were questioned because your only contributions on this IP relate to a contentious MOS debate and you show a far greater understanding of Wikipedia than a new editor would - including running straight to ANI. In truth, if you had registered a SPA sock instead of simply editing logged out you would have faced the exact same questions. Resolute 14:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This snarky comment: "(Undid revision 517379871 Undoing a revert founded entirely on ad hominem. Welcome to WP! We can't allow editors to continue reverting a valid RfC closure until they have a result they like.)" seems provocative enough to result in this response: "(Undid revision 517388417 by 146.90.43.8 (talk) why do we have anon. IPs edit warring over this? at least have the integrity to sign in.)" Neither would be acceptable as habitual behavior. I would simply write this off as an unfortunate incident. I realize someone could have been editing here for many years without creating an account, but making substantive comments based on long experience requires using your registered account in order that they may be seen in context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have written "Welcome to WP", but I absolutely stand by the Ad Hominem remark. Noetica has successfully overturned an entirely legitimate RfC based simply on the non-admin status of the closing editor. He is now removing my edits based on my status as an ip. That is not he way WP is supposed to work. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To 146.90, I have no strong feeling over whether or not it was OK to revert you on the grounds of the content of your edit. Your edit summary was unnecessarily snarky and might have invited a knee-jerk reversion just fot that. I do think that the answer to the narrower question of "should my edits be reverted just because I'm an IP" is a definite NO. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not require that anyone creates an account to do so. merely strongly encourages it. However if you make potentially controversial edits with snarky edit summaries, I'm afraid your IP status probably is going to be a factor in another editor's decisoin to revert or not. The deciding factor will be the quality of your edit however, not your status. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Kim, I accept that the remark seems to have come across as snarky, and so I shouldn't have made it. But as I mentioned above I was actually trying to make a point with that remark. An RfC has been overturned based on editor status. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• No it's not reasonable; the edit summary comment is contrary to longstanding policy that registration is not required to edit. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking them not to do that in the future (unfortunately, current software does not allow edit summary comments to be edited).Nobody Ent 17:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeing evidence the reversion was inappropriate. Nobody Ent 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The situation here seems relatively clear that this is an experienced editor using an IP address as a sockpuppet, not a novice IP editor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • A Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#sockpuppet? Not clear to me. Policy says if you suspect a puppet file a WP:SPI, not to declare the editor non grata. Nobody Ent 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • As a longtime editor here, you should know full well that SPI's involving IP's are always rejected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Why? I'm a longterm editor here (AN & ANI), not there (SPI). So if someone suspects an IP editor is returning editor but can't id the regular account, it's simply guilty as suspected? Nobody Ent 01:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Checkusers will never comment on IP's. It's against the rules. However, if the IP here would level with us instead of jerking us around, he could regain the good faith that he's destroyed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Nobody, the reason I feel that the revert was inappropriate is that I asked here that Kwamikagami explain why the initial RfC should not stand. Kwamikagami ignored that request completely, citing as the reason for his revert only my status as an ip. The RfC had already been closed here . If Kwamikagami is not going to allow that initial closure to stand, then I believe it is incumbent upon him to explain why. If he can't explain why, then the initial closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the timeline:

1. Nathan Johnson closes the RfC as consensus in favour.
2. Noetica, who was deeply involved throught the RfC, reverts, claiming that the RfC should be closed by an admin.
3. Discussion ensues on the talk page. The overhwelming consensus is that Noetica had no right to require that the RfC be close by an admin.
4. I make the changes to MoS based on Nathan's closure, and am reverted by editors who !voted against the change.
5. Kwamikagami re-closes the RfC as no-consenus.
6. I revert Kwamikagami asking him to explain why Nathan's closure should not stand.
7. Noetica reverts me because I am an inexperienced ip, and Kwamikagami is an experienced editor.
8. I revert Noetica because my status as an ip is irrelevant.
9. Kwamikagami reverts me because I am an ip.

I would like that Nathan's original closure to stand. It was a perfectly valid closure, reverted by a heavily involved editor. If it doesn't stand, then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Allowing that will result in chaos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No you didn't ask Kwamikagami anything, you made an unenforceable demand in an edit summary. If you wish to ask a Wikipedia something, use their talk page. Nobody Ent 20:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I said "This RfC has already been closed. If you feel the previous closure was invalid, please explain why, and say how your closure rectifies the faults in the last one.". Whether that counts as asking or demanding, is it not a reasonable request? Kwamikagami was overriding the previous closure. Does it not merit a response that is not simply a reference to my status as an ip? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

then we're saying that it's okay for involved editors to revert a valid RfC closure if they're not happy without the result. Isn't that what you did in steps 6 and 8 of your timeline above? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No it absolutely is not. If Kwamikagami had been closing the initial RfC, then I wouldn't have dreamt of reverting him. Seriously. All of my reversions are attempting to back to the initial, valid, closure. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole "because I'm an IP" sounds a bit like "Is it cos I iz black?" As Nobody Ent said, use the talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I'm bothered about the ip thing is that it is being used as a means to avoid accountability. Instead of responding to very valid questions about why he has ignored a perfectly legitimate RfC closure, Kwamikagami has simply told me to go away because I'm an ip. I couldn't care less about the condescending remarks and the impugning of my integrity per se. What I do care about is him using them to push through an against-consensus change into the Mos. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

146, if the RFC was closed and the changes were made by you and you were reverted, it appears there was no consensus. So, closing it as "no consensus" seems appropriate. By reverting those closures, which go against changes you had made to the MoS, your argument seems to float into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Go to the talk page and start another discussion. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. There was whole RfC which ran for several weeks and involved umpteen editors. That's were the consensus was decided. The editors reverting me are a small subset of all of those involved in the RfC. The argument that you're using is the very same one that they are using. Three or four editors who opposed the change have decided that there is not consensus between themselves to accept the result of the RfC, and are reverting the changes that it brought about. If they're allowed to get away with it, then they've just invented a new way for a small group of editors, unhappy with the result of an RfC in which they participated, to sabotage it. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the number of editors who raise the issue, but the validity of the argument. You seem to view that your side "won" and that discussion should be closed marking your victory. I recommend you either request specific administrative action to be carried out by an admin against an offending party, or you return to the talk page and open or continue discussion about this topic. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, listen to the wise IP dangerouspanda 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Nobody is saying that it's the number of editors that count. What I am saying is that after the RfC is over, a small number of those editors who participated in it should not be allowed to prevent the changes brought about by the RfC from being put in to effect. What I want to establish is whether we should allow an involved editor to revert the legitimate closure of RfC an by an uninvolved editor. I say that we shouldn't, and if we do we're undermining the entire RfC process. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

192.76.82.90, would you mind saying whether or not you have participated in the process that we are discussing? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to think that an IP address which has no edits and then suddenly starts editing the Manual of Style during a contentious argument is in fact a registered user who happens to be editing while logged out." That's an unreasonable accusation as well as innacurate. There was an RFC. IPs may participate. They may make edits to the manual of Style based on the closing as any editor may do. If you feel an editor is Sockpuppeting then make the accusation properly and show the diffs and whatever evidence you have. It is no more reasonable to accuse an IP of misbehavior than a registered user without proof.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(od) Since my 'reasonable' close of this discussion was undone.An IP editor whose edits are almost exclusively to MOS should expect to have his/her integrity questioned, without prejudice of course. Do note that no one, not even kwami, is questioning the right of IP editors to edit without registering an account. All that the edit summary was saying was that this one IP editor is likely to be a registered editor hiding behind an IP. --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

He used the edit summary to talk about me, conveniently avoiding using it for its proper purpose, which is to explain his edit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to be clear about your complaint. If you want to know whether his assumption was reasonable, it is fairly clear that the community believes it was reasonable. I note that you're also using this thread as a forum for reverting the RfC close. That's better done on the appropriate talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always feel a little bad when I disagree with you RP as I have agreat deal of respect for your work. However, as I understand it, using the edit summary to make an unfounded accusation such as this is not appropriate and could lead to sanctions. Is it possible that the IP is a registered user, not logged in? Perhaps? But as I understand, there needs to be evidence of the sort and using the edit summary to make a claim as such goes against WP:REVTALK, which states: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Per a recent discussion with Dennis Brown: "Being logged out and editing isn't a violation of socking. Using that as an advantage is. This means voting twice in a poll like RfC or AfD, or using it to bypass 3RR, or in some other way that would make it looks you were two people when you are really one, like in a simple article talk page discussion about content."--Amadscientist (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

146, WP:STICK. WP:POINT. Nothing will come by arguing here. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You might well be right, but I hope not. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you are discussing a content dispute. If your contributions were excluded and you feel this was done in an improper manner the best venue would be DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question... When an editor's very first edit is something like this,[112] it is right and proper to be suspicious of the editor - be it an IP or a redlink or whatever. It practically screams "wikipedia abuser". And griping about it reinforces that suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, exactly what is so suspicious? I am suspicious of a number of editors. So what? It is only when you express suspicions in an innappropriate manner that an issue arises. What in the edit or edit summary was incorrect....or is it that it WASN'T incorrect that gives editors pause? The editor was correct. RFCs do not require an admin closing. If the RFC has become contentious and a request for admin closing was made, then I could understand the problem. Did this have an request for admin closing?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Years of experience indicate that when someone shows up from nowhere, and their first edits are complaints about something on a WP page, that practically screams "Sockpuppet!" However, if the OP reveals some of the other user ID's and/or IP's he's edited under, he could gain some credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd have bothered to read the discussion that you're commenting on, you'd have seen that I self-identified as a different ip address who had commented on the RfC. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? I'm not seeing it, but I might be blind. Post the diff here, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Recap

I'm sorry but I've re-opened this for further input. Nobody closed it with " Opinions vary on questioning the integrity of the IP but there's a clear consensus this is not the place to argue about the RFC close." Well, if you search through the discussion you will see that almost nobody has commented on the RfC closure. There certainly isn't a consensus. Ip 192.76.82.90 had very strong opinions on the matter, but he disappeared when asked whether or not he was an involved party. Sorry for beating the drum, but either we have an RfC procedure or we don't. We shouldn't let an involved editor overturn a valid RfC closure. To re-iterate:

My complaint is that I'm being prevented from implementing the changes that should have come into effect when Nathan closed the RfC here. Instrumental in that is Kwamikagami who has changed the result of the RfC and is refusing to discuss why. What I would like from admins is opinions on whether Nathan's closure should stand and, if it should stand, help in making the change to the article. "Take it to the talk page" is not really an option because the talk page is now inhabited by a small number of editors who took part in the RfC and are unhappy with the outcome. There is a consensus among those editors, a small subset of all those involved in the RfC, that the RfC should not be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The concept of non-admin closes is that non-admins should not close controversial issues, nor those where WP:CONSENSUS is not 100% obvious. The first close by a non-admin on a contentious topic was not valid, and as such, nothing from their close should have been considered as implementable. The valid close - and at first glance from a first reading of the entire RFC - shows that the admin close of no-consensus was correct. So, this has nothing to do with you as an IP, it has to do with someone closing an RFC improperly, and setting inappropriate expectations for other editors such as yourself dangerouspanda 10:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're right about that, then I'll drop the stick, because as you say, the initial closure was invalid. There was a long discussion on the talk page about whether or not it is permissible to demand that an admin close an RfC. The discussion included editors and several admins. The overwhelming consensus was that it is not permissible, any uninvolved editor may close any RfC. Any RfC can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding that the essay in the link you provided refers to closures of deletion debates. It was agreed in the MoS discussion that it is permissible to ask for admin closures in deletion debates, but not in RfCs, as the RfC page makes explicit. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the scope of the non-admin closes essay is Afd so it is not relevant to this discussion. The RFC policy clearly does not require an admin to close: it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. Nobody Ent 13:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. And as it was formally closed here by an uninvolved editor, that closure should stand. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAC is about controversial Afds. Other wording extends NAC restrictions to controversial moves. Neither can be closed by non-admins. Contested RFCs can be closed by non-admins. However, all closures (except for a delete in an Afd or a move of a move-protected page) can be reverted boldly. If the revert is undone, the editor should go to the talk page, per BRD; the IP edit-warred instead. Granted, practically the same thing happened with a non-IP on the first closure, but editors can't use another's behavior to justify their own. I am not sure why this is on ANI; we can't enforce consensus through warnings, censures, locks and blocks, so I am not sure what you are asking an admin to do. Churn and change (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RfCs are started when BRD hasn't worked. To accept BRD on the result of RfCs would make a nonsense of the whole process. Where would it end? RfCs are there to draw a line under the discussion 146.90.43.8 (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I'm looking at this completely incorrectly (and I've read the ANI thread as well as the RFC, but I don't think I am), Nathan Johnson (not an administrator) closed the RFC with one result, and was reverted twice because of their non-adminship status. However, in this edit, Kwamikagami (also not an admin) re-closed it with a different result, but this has been allowed to stand? If the RFC is contentious enough to require administrative closure, then fair enough, but no double standards please. Can someone who is actually an administrator review the RFC and determine the result? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are right that it was closed by an uninvolved non-admin, reverted by one of the most heavily involved editors, then closed with a different result by another non-admin. But I don't agree that an admin should make the final call. The original closure was perfectly fine. Nobody has given any valid reason why it should not stand. The original closure should be reinstated. Doing otherwise would mean that any disgruntled, involved, editor could undo a closure he didn't like, and demand someone else close it. That would undermine the whole system. RfCs by their very nature are contentious. There will always be editors who disagree with the result. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• An admin (Jayron32) has already commented on the closure, to wit: "Goodness gracious. There's a lot of people here who keep insisting that admins have special privileges in closing RFCs. Quite simply, and with all due respect, this idea is total and complete bullshit ..." The RFC policy clearly does not require an admin to close: it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. Nobody Ent 11:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement about whether admins have special magical powers to close discussions. Perhaps there should be an RfC about that. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

IP 192.76.82.90 "disappeared" because I left work and didn't feel like repeating the same spiel over-and-over again. But if you're so suspicious of my participating in this discussion because I'm an IP, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your initial question. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Two editors (I wasn't involved) reverted you. We shouldn't discuss the merits of the edits, content-wise, on this forum. They didn't revert you just because you were an IP. But while the comment you may actually be a registered editor was uncalled for and unpolitic, I agree with its truth. An IP dropped out of the Internet sky, went like an arrow to the talk page of a Wikipedia Project page (WP:MOS), and waded into a long-running, lengthy, arcane dispute, displaying a grasp of the discussion even most of the few who post on that page were unlikely to have. It was reasonable to assume you had participated in the debate as a registered user. And why bring this here? What do you want? Sanctions or warnings against those who reverted you? I would oppose it; being not as polite as people should be isn't grounds for censure, especially of one of Wikipedia's most prolific contributors, on the complaint of an edit-warring IP. If you are asking for the edit itself to be reinstated, I oppose that since there was no consensus (or any support) for your edit war on that page. Churn and change (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are one of a goup of 3 or 4 editors who are not prepared to let the result of the RfC stand. The RfC was widely advertised, lasted for weeks and involved many editors. An uninvolved editor assesed the RfC and decided that there was consensus in favour of change. A heavily involved editor didn't like the result, so reverted. You and two or three others continue to revert in order to prevent the changes agreed in the RfC from being implemented.

What I would like to know is whether there is a consensus on ani that that initial closure was perfectly proper, and should stand. I'm not asking ani to decide whether the assessment of consensus was correct--that's up to the closing editor. I'm simply asking whether the procedure was correct. Was there any valid reason to revert it?

Those of you who are unhappy with the legitimate result of the first RfC can start another, if you like. In the meantime, the result of the first RfC should be implemented. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not so. I never took part in the debate on whether to include the material; nor did I endorse the overturning of Nathan's closure. I never reverted you on that page; check the logs. Nor did I ever edit supporting the overturning of Nathan's closure; I just said others seem to be contesting it. Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding, and cannot be enforced by admin action, so an ANI consensus doesn't really apply. You could discuss this on the MOS talk page, or at dispute resolution, but I notice this has strayed from your first question. Churn and change (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Some other editors opposed the first closure. RFC closures, admin or NAC, aren't binding...". There will always be editors opposed to a closure. I always assumed that RfC closures are binding. If not, what's the point in having them? When participating in an RfC editors of opposing views state their case, and agree to independent assessment. They don't then decide not abide by the independent assessment if they're not happy with it. Don't you agree with that? Don't you agree that it is within the spirit of WP to abide by an RfC in which you have participated, even if you don't like the result, or disagree with the closing editor?

I was reverted twice because I'm an ip. If there is confundsensus here that the first closure was valid, and should be implemented, then I would hope that those reverting me would desist. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, RFC closures aren't binding. I think the idea is to add an uninvolved editor's voice to the debate, summarizing the issue and that way granting some gravitas to specific conclusions. If those conclusions are still not acceptable, I guess the dispute needs to go to other dispute-resolution forums such as DR. You argue the first closure was a valid NAC; I agree. However, there is nothing procedurally wrong with reverting a procedurally valid closure. I have participated only in the meta discussion of whether there is consensus or no consensus and what the two possibilities imply; I don't have a position on the merits of the material, which is fundamentally the spirit of the issue. I do have a problem with appealing to admins to settle the debate; it is ironic you opposed the other editor's appeal for an admin closure, rightly so then. I forget whether it was you or a sysop who pointed out the admin symbol is a mop and a bucket. Churn and change (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is anything "procedurally wrong" with the revert or not. If there isn't then I think we should look at adding something to the RfC page that prohibits involved editors from reverting an RfC they have just participated in. If you feel Noetica's reverts have been within the spirit of WP, then there is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between us. I am very uncomfortable coming here for help, but it seemed clear to me that those editors who are reverting are intent on having their own way, regardless of policy or WP ethos, so I felt I had no choice 146.90.43.8 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding that I am emphatically not appealing to admins to settle the debate. I am asking for admin input on the validity of the first close, and whether or not it is acceptable to revert an editor's edits based on his status as an ip. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for changes to WP:RFC, an essay and neither a policy nor a guideline, but as it stands, it doesn't consider an RFC closure as binding. The page starts with the "informal" nature of an RFC. No, I didn't say the first revert was within the spirit of WP. But you started a separate discussion on that, and again found multiple editors opposing the closure. The "spirit of WP" isn't practically very useful in convincing objectors in any debate. You realize asking for "admin input on the validity of the first close" is essentially endorsing one of the objections, a wrong one, to the first closure—that it was a NAC? I see your argument is getting more admins involved (proposer of original RFC was an admin) would help drive the issue to a consensus. I have a problem with admins taking up the role of guiding others, motivated and propelled by "the spirit of WP." The community vetted and voted for them to use their tools in mop-and-bucket fashion, not to be considered guides on content. I think I am quoting you here, though I might have mixed up the comments with those of a sysop's on that talk page. This is somewhat orthogonal to your issue (whether to include the material), but matters in the larger scheme of things. Churn and change (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting away from adding anything meaningful to this subsection, so perhaps we better take it to talk if you want to continue. I'll make one more reply here. I agree absolutely that admins should not be used for matters relating to content. It was me who mentioned the icon.

I was trying to implement the result of the RfC, which had been legitimately closed. I was tag-team reverted. The reverters made no realistic attempt to justify their actions, instead dismissing my edits because I am an ip. I was in two minds: should I post to the talk pages of everyone who participated in the RfC, explaining what was happening, and inviting further input, or should I come here. Posting to all the talk pages seemed almost equivalent to re-opening the RfC, which really should not have been necessary. It seemed to me that the way I was reverted might well be a policy issue, so I came here. Similarly with the RfC page, it seems to be a grey area. It's not marked as policy and it's certainly not marked as an essay. Regardless of how it is marked, I suggest that most editors respect it in the same way that respect policy.146.90.43.8 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please endorse or overturn the RfC closure?

The dispute above is about an RfC that was held from September 1 to October 4 on WT:MOS. The RfC was about the sentence: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." The dispute is about the words "though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." They were removed last year (I believe without discussion). The question is whether to endorse the removal or to restore those words.

A request for closure was made on AN/RFC, and it was closed on October 4 by User:Nathan Johnson. His closure is here. He decided there was consensus to restore the words. Noetica, who is strongly opposed to those words, reverted Nathan's closure twice, arguing that an admin had to close it, and that the closure was premature. [113] [114]

I therefore requested an admin closure on AN/RFC on October 8. [115] Yesterday, Kwamikagami – who is a supporter of cross-article style consistency, a supporter of Noetica's, and who I believe was desysopped recently for misusing the tools in MoS disputes – arrived to overturn Nathan's closure. [116] He cannot be regarded as uninvolved here.

It would be very much appreciated if an uninvolved admin would examine Nathan's closure and decide whether it is valid or not, and if not, what the next step should be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I looked at the history of the request on AN and the actual close by Nathan Johnson and see nothing wrong with his/her closing it. This is not an endorsement of anything other than the procedural validity of that close. --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And now Noetica has reverted RegentsPark's endorsement on a technicality, because the RFC bot had already removed the tag when Nathan closed the RfC. Now we need to have a 100.000 word discussion to tell Noetica that RfCs don't become magically unclosable when the RfC bot removes the tag after 30 days. This is the sort of bureaucratic stonewalling that keeps disrupting consensus formation at WT:MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(od) For the record. I've reverted Neotarf's revert of Enric Naval's revert of Noetica's revert of my endorsed closure. If that string of reverts doesn't tell us its time to put this behind us, then nothing will. Either way, my work is done. Imo, further reverts can only be construed as disruptive but it probably isn't appropriate for me to do anything about that so I'll leave this to others to deal with. --regentspark (comment) 01:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the top text of the closed area refers to kwami's decision rather than Nathan's. They came to opposite conclusions about whether or not to reinsert the text. For the moment, I'm assuming that this is an oversight, and I've reinserted the contested text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, found it. Churn, not RegentsPark, did the hatting and happened to list Kwami's decision up top rather than Nathan's. It's fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand now it's reverted in what Beeblebrox thinks is at least the opening stages of an edit war. RegentsPark, I hope this doesn't put you off touching the MoS, but HELP! Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As Darkfrog24 notes later, this was a misunderstanding on the editor's part; I never reverted anything. I will be staying out of this discussion, since none of my edits (technical ones which were not reverts and have not been reverted by anyone) have anything to do with this. Churn and change (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

Seriously folks, there's no admin action required anywhere. Just drop it and move on. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point there has been a request for a non-involved admin to reveiw the closings. Whether this discussion belongs here or not I could see there being good points, but lets at least deal with the issue of the request and let an admin decide what to do from here...if they feel so inclined.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea. If every time someone doesn't like a non-admin RFC close they can come to ANI to get it reviewed, what's the point of having NAC in the first place? Given there are backlogs of tasks that require admins, it's not the best use of a limited resource. Nobody Ent 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Closure of this thread with a summary that there is consensus on ani that the original RfC closure was valid, and should not have been overturned for being a NAC, would be my preferred solution. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I agree too. But Noetica has twice reverted the non-admin closure. So in the interests of avoiding further reverting, I'm asking that an admin decide whether to endorse or overturn Nathan's closure. Otherwise we have spent a month holding an RfC with no outcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. So an uninvolved admin should review Noetica's behavior and see if there was any justification for reverting Nathan's closure. Got it. That's reasonable. Nobody Ent 20:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it fine for an admin or a cluster of admins to judge this. That is not part of their role. RFC closures can be reverted. That is continuation, ill-advised perhaps, of a content dispute. WP:Administrators is policy, and it lists their role as arbitrators: they adjudicate discussions such as deletions. Assessing WP:CONSENSUS in closure of RFCs or reversion of closures is not listed there because WP:RFC makes it clear that is an informal process involving editors. I oppose extending convention to lend admins more powers by creating a new tradition. Not because I think admins are not to be trusted, but because it moves farther from the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. I don't have a position on the material itself; so if somebody just puts it in, or undoes the original discussion to some previous stage, I won't revert. Churn and change (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You've made that point several times, Churn, but with nothing to back it up. Yes, RfCs can be overturned if there is something wrong with the closure (e.g. it was closed prematurely or by someone involved). But otherwise closures should generally be respected. If any involved party can overturn an RfC that was open for 33 days, where it was closed by an editor that no one could argue was involved, then there is no point in holding RfCs in the first place.

I've changed Ritchie's header, by the way, because it was provocative and implied that the request for closure is not a reasonable one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to show RFCs are something special and not just a glorified form of a talk-page consensus. They aren't policy; they aren't guidelines; so when you say NAC RFC closures "should generally be respected", isn't that just like saying "the view of multiple editors on a talk page should generally be respected"? How can we ask for admin help to enforce that respect? I realize that is the last thing people who have spent time and effort debating points on an RFC want to hear, especially from somebody who has been debating just the meta aspects of the discussion, but the alternative of asking admins to judge I find troublesome in the longer run. Churn and change (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfC Nobody Ent 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that RFC's should carry a tiny bit more weight than a talk page discussion. Typically have a bit more input, (gauge the level of that for the particular case) and some type of a closing process based on wikepedian principles. And an Admin close should carry a tiny bit more weight than a non-admin close. True, an admin can be just a kid who got the tools by working the system, but on average, they are more vetted than an average editor. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is that its throws its net far and wide. It brings many editors into a discussion who wouldn't ordinarily be involved in that discussion. When an editor participates in an RfC he does so in the expectation that it will be closed in accordance with the accepted procedures. Many of those editors then move on. What has happened here is that a kernel of heavily involved editors have hung around after everyone has left and are refusing to allow the results of the RfC to be implemented. If that becomes standard practice, then RfC, one of the few mechanisms on WP that does usually end in a result which all parties accept, will disappear. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica did not revert this user because he or she is anonymous. Noetica reverted this user because he or she disagreed with him. 146, just register and get a username. Then people will have to find other excuses to revert your actions. The problem is easily fixed. 146, Carl answered your question right away. You've used that issue as an excuse to bring the original RfC to the attention of these editors. It's a bit disingenuous. Find an appropriate forum and ask the question, "Is it okay to revert a closure of an arguably ongoing RfC for the sole reason that the person who closed it is not an admin?" if that's what you really want to know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Objection to serious and continuing irregularities: set the RFC aside as completely irregular

I should have been notified of the discussion above, since all sorts of statements are being made about me. Some are misrepresentations; some are lies. The discussion here was closed (how about that?). It was then re-opened by an IP who is clearly a very adept operator and is evading the consequences of his or her actions, by posting on weighty matters in a partisan fashion but without revealing a Wikipedian identity. I have attempted to revert the irregular closure of the RFC by an admin. Note: I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs; I called for one to sort it out, since the RFC had been set up misleadingly and non-neutrally from the start by admin SlimVirgin. It is extremely difficult to counter such behaviour from a well-connected and politically astute admin who is prepared to twist the truth to restore old wording she had inserted years ago in WP:MOS, and which had been removed in favour of a more consensual and more accurate lead over a year ago (with 4,000 words of discussion).

In good faith I do my bit to protect WP:MOS from arbitrary subversion by powerful operators, some cloaked in anonymity. I make myself extremely vulnerable in doing so. But some of us are indeed ready to stand up and work against such abuses.

My current intention is to request an ArbCom case to sort out the very worrying course of this affair. I request now that the RFC be set aside as hopelessly compromised from the very beginning, as a reasonable interim step in the restoration of stability and good order.

Noetica^Tea? 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, you should not call other people liars and then say, "I never said that an admin was needed for closing controversial RFCs."

Please note the words, "controversial RFCs should be closed by admins" in this change: [117] They might be telling the truth, and they might be lying, but they also might have forgotten or made a mistake, just like you might have forgotten that you said this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I did not call anyone a liar. Read and report with care, please. And when you quote, do not suppress relevant context. My complete edit summary: "(Revert closure of RFC by User:Nathan Johnson; controversial RFCs should be closed by admins; this was premature: actions had been asked for and were pending; failed to distinguish points about consistency 1. where choices were allowed and 2. generally)". There is a difference between a need (as a matter of policy, or established procedure) and an optimal state of affairs (a should, such as some admins in the discussion above have agreed applies in the present case). I reverted Nathan's attempt at closure because it was premature and incompetent (and as I later stressed, the RFC had lapsed according to one of the ways WP:RFC provides for: it was delisted by the bot). Since then, people have lied about what I did and my reasons for doing so. In any case, you endorsed my reversion of Nathan's closure, and called for discussion to continue. When I found the time, I made an extensive summation of the RFC, labelling it as Noetica's RFC summation (now hidden in the RFC's extended content). I invite people here to read that. It was set aside and not considered by Regentspark, though I spent considerable time preparing it when you, I, and others agreed that discussion should continue.

I regret that real life intrudes, and I am now unable to participate fully as any further developments unfold. I'll try to deal with anything that people want me to, when I can justify spending more time on this fiasco. Meanwhile, I again urge people to see how the RFC was tainted and mismanaged from the start (as I am on record as fearing that it would be, before it began).

Noetica^Tea? 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

Noetica, if you say "People are saying things about me. Those things are lies," that counts as calling those people liars.

I did think that the RfC should not have been closed, but not for the same reasons that you gave. I believed it should remain because the discussion was, at that time, ongoing, and it still seemed likely that people would present evidence in favor of their positions. It's been a while now, and that has yet to happen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And this is what he's been doing all along. He's reverting the closure simply because he doesn't like the way it turned out, and burying that simple truth in a mountain of verbiage. He reverted the fist closure because it was made by a non-admin . Another non-admin then closed it the way he wanted, so he reverted to keep that closure in place. An admin has now reinstated the first closure, with the backing of ani, and he's still reverting. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Still distorting the history, from behind a protective veil of secrecy? No, an admin has not now considered the RFC afresh and closed it. An admin has stepped in on your one-sided advice and affirmed an earlier "closure" that took place after the RFC had ended. According to WP:RFC – whose provisions you appeal to but only when it suits your implacable desire to secure a plainly non-consensual result – that is one of the ways an RFC comes to an end.
Regentspark did not consider what I submit here in this discussion. How could he? Although you have to admit that I am a major participant in all this, I was not advised of this discussion till after Regentspark's action. Deliberations continued by common consent at WT:MOS after Nathan's "closure" interrupted it; but perhaps unsettled by the revelations I made of irregularity and confusion (with clear documentation and evidence), you and SlimVirgin preferred to disqualify those further deliberations and cling to the flawed "closure" rather than risk defeat. Yes, defeat. Such is the battleground mentality promoted by covert and dishonest actions.

The bottom line: can anyone keep a straight face and claim that there is consensus for resurrecting SlimVirgin's cherished wording, after it had been superseded consensually a year ago? Has the RFC achieved that? Ridiculous to think so.

Discard the fatally flawed RFC here, or ArbCom is the logical next step.

Distinguish short-term victories for bullying, lying, and subterfuge on the one hand, and robust consensus on the other. My record shows that I work hard to assist development of robust consensus at WP:MOS. But what does your record show, 146.90.43.8? We are entitled to know.

Noetica^Tea? 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There you go again. A mountain of words to disguise the simple fact that you didn't like the closure of the RfC by an uninvolved editor, so you've repeatedly reverted to get your own way. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And you continue to edit war in order to do so. RegentsPark's edit after the discussion here: [118]. Your edit warring: 1 2 3. 146.90.43.8 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, RegentsPark is not obliged to follow a protocol that exists only in your brain to your complete satisfaction for his or her decisions to be valid. Your personal ideas of how things should work are not rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

The policy page in question is under discretionary sanctions (Article titles and capitalisation). Per policy admins are supposed to receive input when applying sanctions. Would there be any objections if I placed Wikipedia:Manual of Style and it's talk page under a one revert per 24 hour period restriction for 3 months? --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what is needed instead is a change to the culture at WP:MOS. The quote, WT:MOS is not for the faint at heart at the best of times (I am quoting from memory) indicates a huge change is needed. That type of lack of incivility it connotes is completely unacceptable, in my opinion. I would like to make sure that discussion remains on the wording of the MOS, not on the application of the MOS. I think that the culture that has grown up is that changing the MOS changes articles. No, changing articles changes the MOS. There was almost infinite discussion over whether Mexican American War was spelled with an endash or an hyphen when a check of any dictionary or book with the term reveals the answer. The article was no help as it had been moved a half a dozen times from 2006 to 2011. The MOS is never the place to decide that answer. The article talk page is. Apteva (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, I doubt that Guerillero was asking for a manifesto. I will not comment here on the content of yours, nor on your conduct at WT:MOS and elsewhere in the last couple of weeks.
I believe the question is focused on the most recent upheavals and instability at WP:MOS and its talkpage. As a major participant in the development of that page, passionately committed to its orderly and consensual development, I have no problem at all with Guerillero's suggestion. Possibly just one month would do? But anyway:
Support.
Noetica^Tea? 07:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guerillero, do you mean each editor would be under 1RR, or the page as a whole (i.e. just one revert per 24 hours from anyone)? The problems at that page are being caused by Noetica. He will revert no matter the consensus against him, and is willing to revert on the talk page too, even inserting "corrections" into other people's comments. I don't often post at the MoS talk page so this is my first real exposure to it, but looking through the archives I see it is a long-term problem.

  The recent RfC was conducted in a perfectly standard fashion (not counting his efforts to disrupt it), left open for 33 days, closed by an uninvolved editor, which he objected to, and then the closure was endorsed by an uninvolved admin. He reverted both closures multiple times, then reverted Darkfrog who tried to implement the RfC's conclusion.

  If the page is under ArbCom sanctions, the most helpful thing would be to place the person who is causing the disruption under a revert restriction, or even to ask him not to post there for a while. I think the latter would be in Noetica's interests too, to be frank. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The restriction would say something to the effect of, "One revert per 24 hour period per person on either WP:MOS or WT:MOS ending three months from the day that the restriction was set in place." If people engage in slow motion edit warring still, they can be blocked or topic banned under WP:EW or WP:DS (depending what the admin who is handing the request thinks is best). I think this would be fairer and has more of a bright line than if I used the active discretionary sanctions to topic ban people based on what I see as bad past behavior. I am going to be optimistic that this could be a reason for all people to talk and acknowledge consensus, which ever way that seems to go. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • How about you use the AE powers (which you have already thanks to ArbCom) to block the edit warrior(s) right now? The sophistry about only "technically" breaking 3RR occurring elsewhere in this thread is really amusing (as if edit warring were an entitlement as long as you don't break 3RR). Tijfo098 (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Noetica has already indulged in enough edit warring and stonewalling to deserve a topic ban or a block. is behaviour is not recent, he was already edit warring and stonewalling during the December 2011 recognizability RfC, which was followed by an interpretation of the RfC. One of the options had overwhelming support but Noetica kept reverting and insisting that RfCs have to be formally closed to have any effect. His editwarring caused the wikibreak of User_talk:Kotniski, who still hasn't returned. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. The problems are being caused by Noetica. His recent 3RR violation over the RfC closure (22:06, 13 October, 01:40, 14 October, 03:05, 14 October, 03:27, 14 October), for example, was ignored. When challenged about it, he called it a "technical violation" and said he was normally careful to avoid 3RR. This is revealing, because it suggests that he is counting his reverts. In addition, while reverting on the talk page, he reverted (03:15, 14 October) Darkfrog's attempt to add the RfC's consensus to the MoS. That's not to mention the personal attacks and the wikilawyering. Just to give one example, he claimed of the recent RfC that it could not be closed by an uninvolved editor, because the bot had already removed the RfC tag. Without the tag, the RfC had no formal existence. With no formal existence, it could not be closed. Therefore, Nathan's closure was invalid. These arguments are repeated many times at great length, sometimes in bold, and they are really impossible to deal with. If you ignore him, he keeps on reverting. If you respond, any uninvolved person looking at the exchange thinks everyone is equally to blame for engaging in a pointless discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to spoil the party, but 0RR would be more appropriate for the MOS.[119] Why are undiscussed changes being introduced? Why are they immediately edit warred? Apteva (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Bad example - wrong article. Apteva (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guerillero, a suggestion. If you're reluctant to take action against Noetica for whatever reason, perhaps you would consider simply asking him to take the page off his watchlist for a while. I'm normally not in favour of topic bans as a first option, when a quiet word from an uninvolved party might be enough. Perhaps you would also consider reminding everyone on the talk page that discretionary sanctions apply, and warn against making personal attacks or reverting too much. I see editors there regularly being called ignorant, uneducated and accused of lying. It all contributes to a very poor atmosphere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would oppose asking Noetica to take the pages (there are 71 of them) off of their watchlist. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Guer--I support your suggestion, at the top of this string, as a way to slow down the fuss as this is sorted out, and thereby temper matters.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• No objections, seems like a reasonable use of the discretionary sanctions. The edit warring makes any sort of real progress impossible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your replies. I will implement the sanctions. Please note that slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. If you engage in it you risk being blocked or topic banned. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Technical breach of WP:3RR

I thank User:Nathan Johnson for pointing out that I was technically in breach of WP:3RR. See details in this section at my talkpage. I am normally extremely careful about 3RR, and had no intention of doing such a thing in what I clearly signalled as perceived errors made by another editor at WT:MOS (as the record clearly shows). In fact, the editor whose editing Darkfrog altered agrees with me: it was a misunderstanding on Darkfrog's part. I am away from my usual facilities, and sometimes editing on handheld devices; so it is hard to keep track of the extraordinary developments at WP:MOS and its talkpage recently. In sum, I submit that my beach was inadvertent, well-motivated, excusable under WP:IAR for the circumstances (fixing an error), and something I have not done before and have an abhorrence of.
I will now paste a link to this explanation at the talkpages of editors who may be considered involved.
Noetica^Tea? 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If I might point out, "fixing an error" is why almost all edit wars take place. In one editors mind it is clearly an error, in another's the error is an error, and instead of discussion to find out which is the most commonly used or the best to use, the edit war ensues. Removing profanity from a BLP that is not a direct quote from a politician (see there are always exceptions) is not 3RR. Fixing an "error" is. Removing profanity from a direct quote from a politician just before the election by the campaign staff is 3RR. From 3RR: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Apteva (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing that I misunderstood was who put the misleading wording in place; it wasn't Churn. So if you're talking about Churn, then no, the editor who's work I corrected does not agree with you. I stand by the change itself. RegentsPark said "I have restored Nathan Johnson's close," so the text at the top of the closed section should repeat Nathan Johnson's decision, not Kwami's. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shut this down now please!

I'm coming into this conversation as an uninvolved observer of this humunguous mess (to put it mildly). I'd like to propose that this discussion and the related one at WT:Manual of Style#RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles be shut down - by force if necessary. The one thing that seems to have been completely lost in the "sturm und drang" of this whole mess is that, above and beyond any other considerations, the integrity and stability of the MOS must be preserved. We simply cannot tolerate that such a destabilisation drags on for so long. (For the record - I am not an admin I'd rather bash myself over the head with a baseball bat three times a day than ever ask for adminship!) Roger (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as another non-admin, non-involved editor, I concur. I can't see a single reason to continue this endless discussion here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It has already been closed twice, but the IP just keeps reverting the close. --Neotarf (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems you missed the part where I said "...by force if necessary". If the entire conversation goes into the cyber-shredder it won't be possible to continue. Roger (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A case can be made that repeatedly reopening a tendentious discussion in the wrong forum is a form of disruptive editing. JohnInDC (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of context, I'd like to point out that Neotarf is one of the editors, along with Noetica, who has been reverting in order to prevent the result of the RfC being implemented. [120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.43.8 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP who may or may not be using an alternate account has reported an incident. The incident is, are IP's respected just as much as Jimmy Wales? The answer is yes. And with that we can see if any sanctions need be placed on any users who have acted inappropriately because of not granting the respect that all of us deserve. Apteva (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats just fucking great! Now the people responsible for the whole shitstorm are using this appeal for sanity as yet another place to continue their bloody fight! SOMEBODY PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!! JUST KILL THIS TOPIC ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!! Roger (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the MoS! It's not for the faint of sanity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions are not shut down by force and policy highly restricts when revision deletion can be used. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This topic and the one on the MOS talk page have long ceased being a "discussion" - AGF and CIVIL both left the building long ago. Roger (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tiresome and going nowhere

I've just discovered this grand waste of time. Agreed: it probably needs to be closed with warnings to all to cool off, be vigilant about 1RR on styleguides, and take the emotion out of this RfC closure thing. <yawn> Tony (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

IP ‎83.42.105.207 - account of indefinitely blocked user

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 believe that the IP account 83.42.105.207 is being used by the indefinitely blocked user Curritocurrito, who is/was a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Sonia Murillo Perales. Their most recent editing has been at Machilus and Mezilaurus. The pattern of editing of this IP is the same as from the blocked accounts, and includes a focus on similar topics, the same editing style, an unwillingness or inability to discuss on talk pages, and the same geolocation as the many IP addresses which were part of the sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonia Murillo Perales/Archive. A detailed description of this user's general behaviour can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive59#Tropical Families and tropical genera, which is also referred to in the sockpuppet investigation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please also see talk:Machilus for a list of other signons. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 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 vandalising Scotland article.

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

---

I wasn't certain what to do with this [121] user or if this is the correct place to go, but they have started off by vandalising the Scotland article. Thanks. Jonty Monty (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well I might include that in User:Ritchie333#My favourite vandalism, but in the meantime, you've done the right thing going to their talk page ... if they keep vandalising, escalate the templates, then ask someone here to block once you've got to {{uw-vandalism4}} --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've warned them. If they continue to vandlise, follow the steps at WP:VANDAL and report to WP:AIV if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks, and I'll follow the advice. Jonty Monty (talk) 15:53, 15 October 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.

92.63.27.251

Per User talk:92.63.27.251#October 2012, this person has an tendentious aversion towards mentioning the Croatian name of the Krško Nuclear Power Plant in that article. I suspect it's a display of nationalism or something of the sort. Now apparently they're still at it, a whole year after I warned them about it. Can someone please apply WP:ARBMAC? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have left them an ARBMAC warning on their talk page. Further removal of the Croation name without prior talk page discussion may result in a block. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is silly. There is no need for having any of these translations at all. "Nuclear power plant" is not a proper name but a simple descriptive phrase. As such, there is no encyclopedic value in having it translated at all, in whichever language. I have removed them both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that would be another neutral solution. I disagree though that the translations are not needed because that is what the plant is referred to locally. It is very well encyclopedic to list such terms and these are proper names since they include the placename. So either we list both the Slovenian and Croatian name or none of them. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An appropriate AfD non-admin closure?

I don't want to cause problems, but I believe that the non-admin closure on this AfD discussion was incredibly premature: [122]. Can you please tell me if I am justified in my concern on this? Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It does look a little premature, but did you try discussing it with the editor that closed it? - SudoGhost 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It was closed last week, a little more than one hour after it began. I only just discovered it about 10 minutes ago. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

...well I failed my perception roll there. I was focused on the times and overlooked the dates. - SudoGhost 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We both mush have rolled a 1 there. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would have relisted the article so more than 3 editors joined the discussion. That being said, I think that it is a fair close. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Probably one I wouldn't NAC myself (though maybe I would if I had one more keep, the keep rationales were pretty strong). You could have suggested this to the closer, perhaps, but most AfDs don't get much more participation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

SNOW closes should never be WP:NAC'd dangerouspanda 12:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I NACed Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, even though I !voted "keep", on the grounds that the original premise for deletion was shown to be factually incorrect, and nobody batted an eyelid. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• He held a named chair at a major university, so this would have ended a Keep 9 times out of 10. I don't like Non-administrative closes at AfD as a general statement of principle and this was a particularly sketchy one, since it had not been shown to be a true Snow Keep and was shut too fast. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't sketchy, the nominator changed his mind [123]. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want sketchy see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Edward Damer. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • • Not sure why you would a) bring that up, or b) consider it sketchy? Pretty inappropriate either way dangerouspanda 17:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Firstly, if you are going to cite one of my AFD closes on a noticeboard you should have notified me. Secondly, NC is perfectly reasonable if an article has been relisted and there is no further comment. Thirdly, which may not be relevant since you context is unclear, but I was an admin at the time of that close so its not relevant to this discussion. Has this close ever been raised with me on my talk page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I apologize if this was interpreted as a criticism of your closure. It wasn't intended that way, which is why I had not notified you of this discussion. Carrite pointed out the ease with which WP:PROF is considered met. My intent was simply to give a more obvious example of those "sketchy" prof. biographies; Damer essentially wrote just one textbook in a field crowded with similar (and more famous) ones, yet the article was kept by "no" consensus (and we have a separate one on his textbook too). I'm not suggesting that Spartaz did anything wrong in the way he closed that AfD. My point was that Larkin's bio is far less sketchy in comparison (to another that was kept by an admin), not just because of the named chair and recognition as a Fellow of RHS, but also because three of his history books were considered leading or authoritative texts for their topics (cf. reviews but also commercial success: reprints, translations, 2nd editions [and not with publishers which spam a new "edition" every year essentially in order to make last year's used textbook unmarketable]). Tijfo098 (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Well, some sort of clarification of policy would be helpful here, because this happens all the time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Coast Church is another good example - just a few hours after nomination and it is already snowing. I am itching to do a NAC, but in light of this discussion I thought I'd better hold back. StAnselm (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tijfo098, with respect to the article in question, perhaps you disagree somewhat with WP:PROF; if so, the place to discuss that is on the relevant talk page (or you might just see it as a borderline case, which I agree it is) But any professor who might meet that criterion of WP:PROf would almost certainly also meet WP:AUTHOR and the book would by itself meet NBOOK also, on the basis of the reviews and best-selling status of the book, so the question is more general than just WP:PROF. (My own view is that NBOOK is too weak, NAUTHOR about right, and PROF a little too demanding; and also that in cases of doubt we would in general as a matter of practice usually do better to write articles about authors than works.). And since you mentioned it, I agree with you about multiple reprints not necessarily implying notability, but I disagree with you about translations, which I think do imply notability : only an exceptional minority of works gets translated. Just find a good place for the discussion, and we can continue. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing more to discuss about Damer that hasn't been said in its AfD. Ergo, any prof more PROF-worthy than him gets a stub if it strikes my fancy. A particular version of the WP:HEY standard if you like. And profs known for (at least) one book who additionally get a staff-written, long obit in a high-circulation newspaper haven't been challenged before Larkin (as far as I know); see Howard Kahane—red-linked from and then created during the Damer AfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Proper use of AfDs

Not really an incident, just more of a question. Is it valid for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) to nominate several articles? WP:BUNDLE seems to call for bulk nominated articles to be extremely close, whereas the articles nominated here are just similar in format and intent. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• It it a lot of vaguely connected articles in this instance, but then, there is a degree of logic to the bundling since they do have the common thread that ties them together. There have been times when I would just close the AFD as a default keep since the reason for the excessive bundling is disruptive, but I don't see this example as being motivated in this way. I think lumping the four DirecTV together, the Dish network together (or maybe all those together) and doing the others stand alone would have been clearer, although not as efficient. In short, it is in the eye of the beholder, and while I wouldn't have made the same decisions this editor did, it is very arguable that they are closely linked in some ways, thus in good faith. You can note your objection and the closing admin can consider it. Keep in mind, the closing admin *might* decide to only delete some and keep some if they think they aren't really linked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input. I do find some merit in the delete side, but that's beside the point. What I don't care for, if you noticed my semi-rant in the thread, "deletionists" will often condemn an article or content they don't like, but when analagous articles are pointed out, will either scream about the invalidity of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or make any excuse for content they like. I also ranted about the lack of notification to similar articles when a "test case" AfD is proposed, or mandatory changes are being imposed on a class of articles. If anyone cares to read it, I placed that rant at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Notification to related articles. Could you please point me to the rules for closing an AfD? I've already been told by a "Delete" editor over at the AfD that I wasn't allowed to waste your time asking questions here - yet I'm at a loss to find anywhere else I can get advice from an admin or experienced editor. Thanks for reading. Later. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You can bundle any articles you want together in an AfD, although bundled AfD's on loosely related articles rarely succeed. -Scottywong| communicate _ 05:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• That bundle really makes a poor case for the rest of the articles. Perhaps shut this one down and re-bundle by service provider (DirecTV, Dish, etc.) Also consider that if you do one providers bundle, you have a stronger consensus to use on future discussions. Granted I see the purpose, but by building precedent and consensus it makes it a less "questionable" deletion. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • First, there's already a precedent AFD to delete any of these via WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels). Bundling by brand doesn't make sense, because we're not arguing the brand isn't the problem, it's the content/format of the articles that fails NOTDIR, which is the same through all these articles. There's 100+ of these; as to reduce complaints about huge multi-AFDs, I'm doing AFD by regional chunk in case any actually should be kept. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As I'm reading it, the primary concern is that you're using a AFD precedent for one list and provider to broadcut the remainder of the articles. Build the consensus up. Start with 1 list, then work on a provider, then work the remainder of the providers. This gives people an opportunity to challange the deletion. Being that there's 'How many?!? section breaks it probably is contentious and could do with possibly mothballing this nomination and trying a smaller packaging. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Strongly disagree here. My intention was to use one list (irregardless of who that provider was) to so that the format of that list is not appropriate per NOTDIR; this was clear in the first AFD and in posting to VPP and WT:TV where there was discussion of it. I could have simply done the 100+ articles in one massive bunch on the same reason, but that would lead to "this is way too big" complaints. The splitting by bunches alleves that but the selection method shouldn't matter, I could have done it alphabetically, but I chose by region. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see impropriety in this AfD's bundling method. There are only 3 providers included in the nomination: DirecTV, Dish Network and Verizon FiOS. From AT&T (which was recently deleted) to these three it's not a huge inductive step. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Minor edit

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

---

This user Becksperson mark all his edit as Minor, a lot of them is not minor e.g.: [124] [125] [126]

Saturday I write on his talkpage exposing my concern but he doesn't answer. Can you do something about it? --Stigni (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but you can. Just ignore the notation of minor edit. in most cases, the only reason it is used is an attempt to conceal the fact that the edit isn't minor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

TRPoD is correct. I find it aggravating as well. Then again, I almost never mark any of my edits as minor, even the minor ones, which other may find annoying. There is a setting here to make all your edits be marked as "minor" by default, which I personally feel is a bit dumb for an option, but that isn't my department. I don't even look to see if edits are minor or not, and just filter by all edits the same. Sometimes it is a failed attempt to "stay under the radar" by socks, others just default to it, others just don't know any better, and others (like me) simply ignore that feature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dennis I (contingently) disagree. The setting exists so that people can, while monitoring their watch lists, "hide" minor edits" and review the rest. If feedback says that no one ever does that, well then we should disable the distinction, but I'll bet some do. I don't often, but do on occasion. We should either make some attempt to make sure it is being used reasonably, or remove it. I strongly disagree with the statement that " in most cases, the only reason it is used is an attempt to conceal the fact that the edit isn't minor". That isn't close to true.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Sphilbrick. The most likely explanation of course, is they're just not aware of their distinction and their account is set to minor by default. Blocking seems harsh but they should have gotten two to three orange you have messages boxes by now. Nobody Ent 23:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems a bit over the top. Being able to mark an edit as a minor edit and add an edit summary are tools. What is important is the content added. A friendly reminder should be sufficient. I do see that they missed one.[127] Apteva (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The preference to mark all edits as minor by default was removed from the English Wikipedia in March 2011. Graham87 06:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize that. Nobody Ent 12:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

He is a big contributor to the Bulgarian and German wikis, and states that he has an advanced level of English. Here, he virtually never uses talk pages, I can find just his one response in Bulgarian on his own talk page. Although he seems to be a constructive editor, we really shouldn't allow editors to ignore such requests and continue to mark their edits as minor. We do need to give him a chance to respond. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But do we block a constructive editor simply because they choose to consider all their edits as minor or use that as the default? I would strongly be against that. If so, then I'm waiting for my block for almost never marking my minor edits as such. To me, the "minor" edit distinction is about personal choice and has zero to do with content. I agree that all editors should respond when someone poses a serious question or concern, but blocking solely for using a default setting that is part of the interface here would be considered way over the top, particularly when the inconvenience it poses to others is minor. Can it be used as evidence at SPI in a socking case? Sure, but that doesn't make it a blockable offense in and of itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong about the default setting as Graham pointed out, it was removed since my days as a sapling. The issue really isn't the minor marking it's being non-responsive to good faith talk page messages. Nobody Ent 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But does someone marking edits and minor and not wanting to talk about it strong enough to block them? Some people just flat out don't want to talk to others. Wikipedia is full of editors that loathe discussing with other people but are otherwise good gnomes and writers. What I haven't seen is anyone complain about his actual edits. To me, if there isn't a problem with the actual content of his edits, then blocking would be very heavy handed. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any policy on the threshold for marking edits as minor, so that part is subjective anyway. If his edits are good, then running him off with a block, simply because of a default setting of "minor edit" isn't in the best interest of Wikipedia. Is it aggravating? Perhaps to some, but I'm strongly against blocking someone over it. If the edits are good quality and good faith and there isn't a behavioral issue, then you tolerate the idiosyncrasies. We are still better with him than without him, if that is the only problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, the situations are not parallel. I don't always mark my minor edits as minor, but if someone is reviewing non-minor edits, it will be only a minor issue, as they will review an edit, and not need to do anything. In contrast, marking all edits as minor means that if you review non-minor edits, you will be missing some major changes. There was an option to make the setting a default, but (IIRC) you had to choose it, and it was intended for editor who always, or for long stretches of time, were only doing minor edits. I think it was removed as a preference, because it was abused. Some editors find it useful to review non-minor edits, we remove that as an option if we allow people to mark major edits as minor. Doing it once or twice is an accident, and not worth mentioning. Doing it repeatedly, after being told that it is a problem, is effectively lying to the community. If we don't have a software way to remove their ability to mark edits as minor, they should be blocked. (An obvious exception if their preference is locked and cannot be changed, in which case a developer should fix it.)

Dennis, I don't believe the editor has a default to mark all edits as minor (unless there is a glitch) as there is no such thing. The editor is affirmatively marking the edits as minor. I don't ask the editor to talk on the talk page, just take the advice and stop misleading.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to marking the edits as minor, there are no edit summaries on those I have checked including the first example above. Habitually making significant changes marked it as minor and without edit summaries is most certainly disruptive. --Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• While I can always be persuaded, I'm still unconvinced. The closest I could find on it was an essay (that wasn't even marked as an essay, so I fixed that). There is a serious difference of opinion here as to how large the offense is of "marking all edits as minor". I find it a minor annoyance, some of you think it is blockworthy, I don't see my opinion changing on this. I'm not going to get a wheel war over it and not here to tell any other admin what to do, but I still think a block is too strong. I see a lot of behavior that is much, much more disruptive that is overlooked regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a minor issue (so to speak) but it is easily rectified. If an editor does not know how to distinguish between minor and non-minor edits, they should simply leave the default, which is to not mark them as minor. This is not a big deal, but it is not an unreasonable request. The only reason I would consider a block, is to get the attention of the editor, who doesn't seem to be paying attention to the talk page. The editor doesn't have email enabled. There is no requirement that an editor enable email or respond to talk pages, but it is very possible the editor is making a mistake, and just doesn't know it. Do you have any other suggestions for getting their attention? Do you really think someone would leave the project if they were temporarily blocked with an explanation that a block was our only way of saying "hello, we really need to discuss something?"--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions? How about this [128] ? I'm always willing to try "annoying" before I try "aggressive" as a solution. Hopefully, creativity will win the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I like it. I notice that there have seen no edits since the ANI started, so we will see.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A non-minor edit [129] -- perhaps time to close this? Nobody Ent 22:57, 16 October 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 users was Open proxy

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

---

Does anyone notice this user 129.33.19.254 is sharing to 71.23.151.145 of Open proxy. -Othdshrm 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• A quick check of the most common ports shows neither is an open proxy. One is in Chigago, a static IP, the other is a disposable IP on the east coast. You haven't provided enough evidence to make what ever you are claiming clear, but open proxy doesn't seem to the be issue. Did you notify the two IPs that you were reporting them here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• I just noticed this is YOUR first edit, ever. If that isn't sock behavior, then I don't know what is. Any CUs around? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:56, 16 October 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.

Does WP:STATUSQUO actually matter?

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

---

An edit war has broken out at Pogrom, after an editor returned from a three month wikibreak and deleted sourced information that he had been discussing on talk at around the time he left. The edit summary suggested that the edit was tidying up and did not refer to these topics of previous discussion. The editor was good faith reverted and asked to split the controversial changes from the uncontroversial.

Sadly he hasn't needed to do that, because due process has been usurped by a number of other editors who are supporting this well known editor without any policy-based rationale. Having seen this tactic used umpteen times before, it has the effect of creating a new WP:STATUSQUO without discussion, so if an attempt to find consensus on talk gets deadlocked then the new version will remain.

I would like to understand whether anyone thinks this matters? If it is so easy to flip WP:STATUSQUO on its head, what is the point of the guideline? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:STATUSQUO isn't a guideline, it is an essay. WP:BRD is the closest thing to guideline on this. And this really isn't an WP:ANI incident. You need to take this to WP:DRN if you can't solve it on the talk page. Admins don't settle content disputes, editors do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. So I understand, since STATUSQUO and BRD are only essays, does that mean they are not enforceable and can be ignored at will? Is there any chance of them ever being upgraded to guidelines? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It means they aren't enforceable. In the case of BRD, it is the most respected of the essays, so it strongly suggested using it as an example. It isn't about ignoring them, it is just saying that they aren't "rules". BRD has been brought up and almost passed to guidelines, but it was split. Still, most people accept it as if it was a guidelines, including me. But DRN is still the best place, we admin just can't decide on the content. I can block, I can protect, I can warn, but I can't tell you which version is best with my admin hat on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:09, 16 October 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.

Robin Hood page locked with vandalism.

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

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

Robin Hood was a heroic outlaw in English folklore, a highly skilled pornstar and homo (NO HOMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.242.225 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It would appear someone fixed it 1 minute after you made this post. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 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.

Hi There

I'm not sure how this goes, but another user Bobbyandbeans has placed two notifications/warnings on my talk page claiming that I have first off engaged in personal attacks against himself, and secondly deleted/edited legitimate comments on Talk:Taken 2. This is not the first time he has made these accusations to myself, and other users. If I have undertaken any PA then I do apologise as they would not of been intentional. But he can't just throw around accusations like that as I believe (correct if me I am wrong) but wrongly accusing someone of PA when they havnt is not appropriate and could be conceived as a PA in itself. If an administrator could take 5 minutes and provide clarification that would be great. MisterShiney (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

A) I do not see any personal attacks; B) You need to tell Bobby that you started this thread; and C) Please don't ever ever ever move someone's talk page comments, ever. Changing the indentation level is sometimes appropriate, but you should never move the comment to a new location. If an editor wants his comment to make utterly no sense in context, that's his choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the personal attacks on my page, but they included the following comments by MisterShiney:

Out of all the editors I have come across I find you the most defensive and quick to jump the gun.

You are incredibly frustrating and argumentative and seem to enjoy baiting and snapping at people. I don't know how long you have been editing for, but I do politely suggest a change in attitude and tone down the "you're breaking policy" rants.

If you see it as such then you clearly need to toughen your skin or report me to the relevant administrator because there worse things to be said.

MisterShiney also made a comment to me on the Talk:Taken2 page that I was "throwing my toys out of the pram." He since removed/edited the comment but it was still made nonetheless. I gave him several reminders on my page about personal attacks but he persisted, hence the warning on his page. P.S. It's not important, but I'm a she, not a he.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks, they are strong opinions. We tolerate strong opinions. If he had called you an asshat, then that would have been different, but we aren't going to censor someone from politely expressing strong opinions. I see zero, nada, nothing wrong with the statements you are quoting, even if they are strongly worded. They are not a violation of policy in any way, and should not warrant a warning in any way. We are NOT here to force our own views of civility on others, only to insure that everyone lives up to a very loose and lax interpretation of civility. These comments pass the test without question. And to be clear, MisterShiney did notify properly and timely: [130] If he does call you an asshat, then by all means, template him the first time or two, then come here afterwards. Otherwise, accept or ignore the comments if they are just polite but strong opinions. Of course, if they are on your own talk page, feel free to remove them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bobbyandbeans was topposting in the thread [131], which isn't standard practice. But it would have been better to ask her why she was posting there or and / or ask them to move them. Both editors escalated the situation in the resulting interchange. So I'd recommend Bobbyandbeans not top post, MisterShirley not refactor other's comments, and both editors move on. Nobody Ent 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct solution was simply to indent it one more level. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. Will take this all under consideration in future conversations. Thanks for your time guys. MisterShiney (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Any CUs around?

I guess it doesn't matter any more since I blocked all recent disruptors for VOA, but does any CU care to have a look at the recent history of Johann Pachelbel? Drmies (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't find any unaccounted accounts. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Just a silly drive-by, I suppose. I appreciate the quick help, Elockid. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Newly released Bengali commercial (masala) films

Articles affected

Films

• Awara (film)
• Challenge (2009 film)
• Challenge 2
• Le Chakka
• Paglu
• Paglu 2
• Poran Jaye Jolia Re
• Khokababu
• Shotru
• Shree Venkatesh Films

BLP

• Dev (actor)

Already informed

• Noticeboard: India Noticeboard
• Admins: 1) Dear Drmies and 2) casual discussion with TParis.
• Vandal fighter: Jim and may be more (I have forgotten)

Issue

(copied from my post from India noticeboard, some addition)
Some users (to clarify this, I have found at least 6–7 registered users and 7–8 IP address (I was thinking to report to SPI too, but still trying to guess who may be whose sock because so many editors involved and all edits are similar)) are continuously adding exceptional box office collection (and some other unsourced content) in some Bengali movies infobox. A regional film is earning more than a national film is an exceptional claim. They might be lovers of those films and want to show their dedication in Wikipedia by adding some "out of the world" information in those articles. The worse thing is they change the amount every day (sometimes after every few hours– always without sources). A Bengali film is earning ₹100 crore (US$13 million) or more is just weird. They are changing information based on their own liking, disliking.

Steps taken

• Reporting and discussing in the topic boards etc mentioned above.
• Trying to talk to those users, specially those users who have registered accounts.
• Reverting
• Warning (many times)
• Finally in 1–2 article where claimed budget is ridiculously high and unsourced, and reverting etc does not work, removing the budget parameter from infobox.
• 1 article semi protection (Dear Drmies).

IPs are helpful too

IPs are helping too, like this IP. And, frankly when a new masala Bengali film is released, these not-autoconfirmed users, new users and IP editors structure the article. But, their additions like this make Wikipedia articles nothing but fairy tales!

Any suggestion?

I want to echo what Jim told me– "Unfortunately, this is all too common. Any suggestions on how to combat this? Advice would be greatly appreciated (before I give up)" – Well me too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you requested page protection on some of the articles, followed WP:DR, and advised all the persons being reported of this ANI filing? dangerouspanda 10:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1) Since a) some IP edits are helpful (details above) and b) there are 9–10 articles, I have not requested page protection. One article is protected by Drmies. 2) The editors' names I have mentioned in my post, I have posted in their talk pages (Drmies and Jim). I have not posted in TParis' talk page (since it was a casual discussion). I'll notify him too after submitting this post. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC) TParis is on a break and asked not to leave message! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

These kinds of situations can be difficult to deal with. :/ I've semi-protected those articles that seem to have ongoing, persistent issues that were not already semi-protected for two weeks. I would recommend handling registered users who engage in the behavior with first a personal note followed by a series of escalating templates, leading to blocking as necessary. It may be helpful as well to put edit notices in the articles where issues return or to place hidden notes in the template like <!--Please do not change this figure without citing a source. Unsourced changes will be reverted.--> I don't have any hard evidence that these kinds of notes work, but I believe they do. Or maybe I just hope they do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Request deletion of misleading edit summary

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

---

Hello, is it possible that a misleading and character hurting edit summary can be deleted please? [132] I don't know how on earth Seb thought that could be from me. Budo (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Neither the edit summary nor the edit itself mentions you and even if it did, simply describing something as vandalism is not sufficiently defaming to require deletion. I think you may have misunderstood the edit: the editor in question was not reverting an edit you had made; rather thay were reverting back to the last good addition - which was yours. It was not your edit but the IPs which was described (quite reasonably) as vandalism. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it might be a case of misreading the edit summary. I've done it before, and I've had other people ask me why I described their edits as vandalism when in fact the edit summary said something different. It's not reverting your edits, it's reverting to your edits. Although I know it's very easy to see your name in the same sentence as "vandalism" and "revert" and to assume the worst! – Richard BB 10:36, 17 October 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.

Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes

Mass killings under Communist regimes is currently under discretionary sanctions preventing any non-minor changes to the article without talk page consensus. My proposal for an edit has not received unanimous consent, but may qualify as "rough consensus". According to the sanctions:

"3.The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof."

I am asking for an uninvolved admin to make a determination of whether or not consensus exists for this proposal. If this is not the proper forum, please direct me where to go. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is more for active disputes, not requests for closure; it's better to go to WP:AN. You're not in trouble, so don't worry. I'll leave a note there asking people to come here. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is hopelessly confused. In particular it states that "There is no net change to the article in terms of adding or removing content already there" rather some content is to be moved to an undefined new "estimates" section. But half of the "supports" insist that a sentence in the lede be removed entirely, and that's the likely (based on the article sanctions) result if the new section is not written up now. All that needs to be done to make the proposal clear is to write up the new section and make clear where it will be placed. Then a consensus might be reached. But you can't get a meaningful consensus based on half of a proposal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, of course supporting a "compromise" proposal does not mean editors must abandon advocating for their prior position. But this is not the place to be repeating your opposition. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's just an ill-formed proposal. You need to state exactly what you want to do, not leave the undefined "estimates" section hanging up in the air. The article sanctions state that "edits" must be approved by consensus, vague generalizations cannot be approved by consensus for inclusion into this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not an ill-formed proposal. If you want to propose a specific amendment to the "estimates" section, go ahead, and it can be discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruption versus personalization

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:Apteva has filed an arbitration enforcement action against me and against User:Neotarf, for our attempts to deal with his disruption on this page: here, in case anyone here cares. Dicklyon (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This was moved here from Wikipedia talk:MOS Apteva (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How is this not WP:FORUMSHOP? If it is at WP:AE why do we need a duplicate discussion/notification here? --Jayron32 13:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to close it immediately. Dicklyon was forum shopping at MOS, if any forum shopping is needed it would not go at the MOS. Apteva (talk) 13:24, 17 October 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.

Pro se legal representation in the United States problem

Can administrators take a look at the recent edits to the article and Talk page. It seems to me that both Betablocker4 and Broncofan12 are the same editor with a single purpose account bent on adding some local trivia to the article, from a non-notable subject. All the while the real goal seems to be to pain the NN subject as victim and the the others as villains. Right now I am a day and a half out of surgery and don't have the inclination to keep up the explanations. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Probably another sock of User:Kay Sieverding. Monty₈₄₅ 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Betablocker3 and Betablocker5. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

At a glance I see at least five SPAs that are probably socks in the recent history. As such I have semi-protected the article for a few months as it seems this is not the first time this has been an issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Upon further examination  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. sockfarm blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kay Sieverding just for the archives. Feel free to load any more in there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

More content deletion / edit warring at Bishop George Ahr High School

User:Jcullinan's recent edit to the article for Bishop George Ahr High School again removed sourced material regarding the school's firing of a swim coach after an incident with a student at the school. Previous removals of this same content a few days ago led to an ANI report, and consensus there and at the article's talk page was that the material was appropriate and properly sourced. The edit summary left this time states that "all events regarding this incident happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule [sic] in the crimes, therefore inclusion in this article is unwarranted." I know of no Wikipedia policy that says that the school must have committed the crimes (and I'm not sure how a swim coach does not fit this standard) or that they must have been committed on school grounds in order to be included. The user's name, descriptions on an article this user created that has been deleted and material on the school's website also make it appear that WP:COI is an issue here, which makes the user's apparent employment at the school and the removal of this content to be an additional issue. A tighter editing restriction on the article along with appropriate warnings / blocks for User:Jcullinan may well be needed to prevent further such incidents of edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why this is at ANI. He or she did participate in a brief edit war but has not done so since being warned. In fact, he or she hasn't edited since yesterday and as far as I can tell you warned him or her today and then came to ANI despite his or her inactivity. Am I misunderstanding the timing of events? ElKevbo (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After edit warring three days before, I saw the same edit warring this morning. While leaving a detailed warning it became clearer that there appear to be WP:COI issues that may well be clouding judgment here and after further consideration action at WP:ANI seemed appropriate. If the appropriate course of action is to restore the material and wait for another revert, I will certainly do so. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the right course, and I see the material has been restored and is if anything even better referenced with three sources naming the school. I've left a note at the editor's talk page making it clear that further disruption is likely to end in blocks; they've now had two such warnings so if the material is removed by them again I think a short, immediate block if it's caught in time is the way forward. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Jcullinan, based on the edits made to the article and his comments on his talk page, and I seem to have come to a consensus on the wording regarding this incident. Now it appears that User:Rhghes2137 has taken a turn deleting this material (see here), stating in the edit summary that "All events regarding this incident happened off of school grounds. The school had no rule in the crimes. The incident's inclusion on this article is unwarranted as there's no significant reason published in secondary sources to discuss school involvement." The fact that the person charged was a coach at the school would appear to show that the school was involved, the location of the sexual assaults would appear to be irrelevant, and the significant number of reliable and verifiable sources covering the incident and its aftermath -- including details of the response by the Diocese of Metuchen and the school in firing the coach -- woud indicate that there is appropriate justification for inclusion. Enhanced article protection and blocks seem to be warranted here to maintain the further integrity of the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've given User:Rhghes2137 a a final warning. I won't block them myself, given that I've expressed an opinion about the editorial content of the article but if the blanking recurs I'll ask here if another uninvolved admin will consider doing so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have blocked both editors because of clear evidence that they are sockpuppet accounts. Based on the identical spelling mistake made in this edit by one and this edit the other I can only conclude that this is one and the same person. I would not have blocked for disruption as that's more a matter of my judgement; however I think the socking is so clear cut as to leave no room for doubt. Any review or comments from others on the appropriateness of this are of course welcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And now a third editor has made an identical removal with an identical mistake in the edit summary. I've blocked them too and fully protected the article for a short period. Jake the peg anyone? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1RR restriction broken

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:Mo ainm has broken 1RR at UK City of Culture page. The user has made 2 edits within 24hrs here [133]. User also made the same edit today [134], shortly before warning me off 1RR rule here [135]. The user is aware of 1RR, yet flaunts it in this case.

User is also applying WP:IMOS to a British related article. 46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This user does not appear to play well with others. Their last 50 edits include 20 reverts.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the authority of the 1RR restriction? I don't see notification on the talk page or in the page notice when editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is assumed that any page relating to the Northern Ireland The Troubles is under 1RR, though id imagine it would be impossible to mark every page with said notification. Despite this Mo ainm was aware of the 1RR restriction, and felt the need to warn me of this yet had broken the restriction 2 days prior.46.7.113.111 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I need an opinion of someone familiar with the Troubles. Most of the articles covered by that are obvious, this one isn't, and I can't assume it is. The 2013 holder of the award is Derry, in Northern Ireland, but the main topic of the article isn't Northern Ireland specific. It is about an award from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well thats what I thought. How can this user apply Ireland Manual of Style to this article? But I think its a block if he can warn me of 1RR having broken 1RR already. It seems like he is trying to game 1RR or wave the 1RR flag to prevent users editing. It doesnt seem right.46.7.113.111 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Meritless complaint. Reverts of IP edits are categorically exempt from the TROUBLES 1RR. And I'm just about to implement an AE block on this IP for quacking per an unrelated AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I kinda had a feeling someone was going to come by with another issue by the amount of noise being generated. Since he is blocked here, I'm guessing we're done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 17 October 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.

Moodbar Feedback legal threat reemphasized.

A few days ago, I posted this based on a legal threat I saw from Akkiiey (talk · contribs). Today, an anonymous IP who is presummably the same person posted these messages on his user page and on Qwyrxian's talk page. Despite that the user has made no mainspace edits, I'm proposing the user and IP be blocked given this behavior. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2 week block for evasion. IP is reportedly static so it could probably be made longer without harm, but I think it's enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your message here crossed with my comment on User talk:Akkiiey. The user-IP connection is very likely but with current checkuser rules we'll never prove it except by applying WP:DUCK. We can certainly block the Akkiiey account and I would support that. Blocking the IP might be more awkward if it is dynamic, and if Akiiey has not already been blocked then it is not evasion. The actual threat, btw, is pissing in the wind: it is an old story and the last significant challenge backfired big time nearly 12 months ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

For some background, see this and this. It was also spewed over ANI, Jimbo's page, WT:INB and various other pages. And the incident last November was not the first time. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the legal issue to be somewhat interesting; as far as I have read, if Wikipedia servers were located in India, this person might actually have a case; similarly, if someone actually uploaded the "disputed" maps from India, they, too, might be in legal danger. In this case, I don't know exactly who he's planning to sue or ask the government to bring charges against. I somehow doubt that, even if Indian law somehow applied to those of us editing outside of India, they could get and enforce an extradition request on this issue. As far as blocking is concerned, I don't know why I have this strange hope, but I feel like there's a way to talk to this person. I'm going to leave another message on the named account; since the user has never actually edited main space, there isn't any particular disruption occurring...but others can block if they feel necessary. However, the block on the IP should not say "Block evasion", since the main account is not blocked. And WP:SOCK doesn't apply to someone who just edits while logged out, since it's clear the user simply doesn't know what s/he is doing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian; basically it sounds as if he's threatening to try a private prosecution of Wikipedia in general. As Qwyrxian notes, it would be rather difficult to extradite Wikipedia for trial, since the English Wikipedia originating from China probably wouldn't be capable of doing anything about these maps. As long as our Indian editors stay away from these maps, I can't imagine any way that there would be a problem here: New Delhi probably won't take the effort to go after foreign nationals in other countries, and surely those nationals' governments would refuse to extradite for something that wasn't against their own laws. Treat it like any other graffiti, I say. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had the impression he intended to have Wikipedia censored in India. The law that prohibits the disputed maps predates the internet, and our most relevant article never mentions a website being censored in India for showing those maps. Regardless, most legal threats on Wikipedia are total bunk, but still deserve a block. I had no qualms about blocking the IP because it's clear this person isn't here to join a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. I think even in the best case scenario, Akkiiey starts to understand and then never edits again. I'm happy, though, to see that not everyone is as big a pessimist as I am. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The user is (probably) back under a new IP, 182.68.111.75 (talk · contribs) and is still making all-caps legal threats per these edits: [136], [137]. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've blocked the IP and I've semi-protected User talk:Akkiiey so he can't edit it logged out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Can't it be unprotected and used as a honeypot? Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  It looks like a fairly large dynamic IP range allocated to Bharti Airtel Limited, so I wouldn't have thought there'd be much point attracting and blocking them - but feel free to unprotect if you think it would be useful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I missed the fact that it's a large range. Still, this person seems rather determined, and enabling him/her to edit a favorite page seems better than forcing him/her to go somewhere else, where we'll not catch the graffiti as easily. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated dumping of Primary Sources and copyvios into Hinduism articles

User:Pilot2020mi has only had an account for three days, but has been dumping multi-thousand byte bits of primary source text from Hindu scriptures, as well as some alleged copyvios, into Women in Hinduism , Criticism of Hinduism, and Varna (Hinduism). At User talk:Pilot2020mi he has been warned for these issues by three different editors, with other editors giving cautions in their Revert edit-summaries. Contributions here: Special:Contributions/Pilot2020mi and note this user has never once posted on a Talk page, responded on his own Talk page to concerns raised, or left a single edit summary, ever. Thanks for any help getting him to take a step back and deep breath. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll issue a formal EW warning, after which WP:3RRNB seems to be appropriate if they continue. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Moodbar Feedback legal threat reemphasized.

A few days ago, I posted this based on a legal threat I saw from Akkiiey (talk · contribs). Today, an anonymous IP who is presummably the same person posted these messages on his user page and on Qwyrxian's talk page. Despite that the user has made no mainspace edits, I'm proposing the user and IP be blocked given this behavior. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

2 week block for evasion. IP is reportedly static so it could probably be made longer without harm, but I think it's enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your message here crossed with my comment on User talk:Akkiiey. The user-IP connection is very likely but with current checkuser rules we'll never prove it except by applying WP:DUCK. We can certainly block the Akkiiey account and I would support that. Blocking the IP might be more awkward if it is dynamic, and if Akiiey has not already been blocked then it is not evasion. The actual threat, btw, is pissing in the wind: it is an old story and the last significant challenge backfired big time nearly 12 months ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

For some background, see this and this. It was also spewed over ANI, Jimbo's page, WT:INB and various other pages. And the incident last November was not the first time. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the legal issue to be somewhat interesting; as far as I have read, if Wikipedia servers were located in India, this person might actually have a case; similarly, if someone actually uploaded the "disputed" maps from India, they, too, might be in legal danger. In this case, I don't know exactly who he's planning to sue or ask the government to bring charges against. I somehow doubt that, even if Indian law somehow applied to those of us editing outside of India, they could get and enforce an extradition request on this issue. As far as blocking is concerned, I don't know why I have this strange hope, but I feel like there's a way to talk to this person. I'm going to leave another message on the named account; since the user has never actually edited main space, there isn't any particular disruption occurring...but others can block if they feel necessary. However, the block on the IP should not say "Block evasion", since the main account is not blocked. And WP:SOCK doesn't apply to someone who just edits while logged out, since it's clear the user simply doesn't know what s/he is doing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian; basically it sounds as if he's threatening to try a private prosecution of Wikipedia in general. As Qwyrxian notes, it would be rather difficult to extradite Wikipedia for trial, since the English Wikipedia originating from China probably wouldn't be capable of doing anything about these maps. As long as our Indian editors stay away from these maps, I can't imagine any way that there would be a problem here: New Delhi probably won't take the effort to go after foreign nationals in other countries, and surely those nationals' governments would refuse to extradite for something that wasn't against their own laws. Treat it like any other graffiti, I say. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I had the impression he intended to have Wikipedia censored in India. The law that prohibits the disputed maps predates the internet, and our most relevant article never mentions a website being censored in India for showing those maps. Regardless, most legal threats on Wikipedia are total bunk, but still deserve a block. I had no qualms about blocking the IP because it's clear this person isn't here to join a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. I think even in the best case scenario, Akkiiey starts to understand and then never edits again. I'm happy, though, to see that not everyone is as big a pessimist as I am. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The user is (probably) back under a new IP, 182.68.111.75 (talk · contribs) and is still making all-caps legal threats per these edits: [138], [139]. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've blocked the IP and I've semi-protected User talk:Akkiiey so he can't edit it logged out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Can't it be unprotected and used as a honeypot? Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  It looks like a fairly large dynamic IP range allocated to Bharti Airtel Limited, so I wouldn't have thought there'd be much point attracting and blocking them - but feel free to unprotect if you think it would be useful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I missed the fact that it's a large range. Still, this person seems rather determined, and enabling him/her to edit a favorite page seems better than forcing him/her to go somewhere else, where we'll not catch the graffiti as easily. Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated dumping of Primary Sources and copyvios into Hinduism articles

User:Pilot2020mi has only had an account for three days, but has been dumping multi-thousand byte bits of primary source text from Hindu scriptures, as well as some alleged copyvios, into Women in Hinduism , Criticism of Hinduism, and Varna (Hinduism). At User talk:Pilot2020mi he has been warned for these issues by three different editors, with other editors giving cautions in their Revert edit-summaries. Contributions here: Special:Contributions/Pilot2020mi and note this user has never once posted on a Talk page, responded on his own Talk page to concerns raised, or left a single edit summary, ever. Thanks for any help getting him to take a step back and deep breath. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll issue a formal EW warning, after which WP:3RRNB seems to be appropriate if they continue. - Sitush (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

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.

---

{{hat|This is still not going anywhere. WP:RFC/U is what you seek. Horologium (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}} {{archivetop|this isn't going anywhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)}}

Re-opening, as an inappropriate close by an editor who had weighed in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 has had an account since late 2006[140]. He has a clean block log[141], but I believe a few months ago he was topic banned on a topic unrelated to this WP:AN/I[142]. In August I raised a WQA raising his intimidatory behaviour towards other editors, in particular User:Skyring, and more generally, his inappropriate use of profanity. Things seemed to calm down a bit after the WQA, but recently I noticed that he - again - has been swearing at User:Skyring and calling him names, as follows:

• "Pete/Skyring is being a stubborn prick again" (section title), "I know he hates my guts, but this is just stubbornly idiotic", "I've brought it here rather than continue Edit warring with the clown any more"[143]
• "No fucking way. It's YOU who wants to delete well established, properly sourced content, so it's YOU who needs to present the fucking case. It's called logic. If you don't hate me, maybe it's a love of the Liberal Party that's your problem. There's certainly something wrong with your thinking process. It seems to be totally driven by emotion rather than truth. See if you can find a rational thought in your brain when it comes to politics and stop acting on dogma"[144]
• "Yes, we have a fucking communication problem. And I see no fucking way that it can fucking improve, unless you change dramatically. You don't read what I write. You always respond as if I had said something else. I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions. You cannot think rationally in that area. It's ALL emotion driven. While you retain polite language, you talk utter bullshit. It's fucking editors like fucking you that create far more fucking problems for Wikipedia than anyone who uses the occasional fucking obscenity. I have a personal rule that I am breaking right now in even trying to respond to you, because in the past it has ALWAYS led to further problems, because you actually don't want to hear (or read) what I have to say. And than your responses make no sense. I can assume good faith, but I cannot assume rational thought, sanity and competence."[145]
• "That you think it's irrelevant is your problem, and fucking insulting. Thank you for the confession, <big>but stop fucking ignoring what I write!</big> "[146]
• "No. Swearing at Pete works. Polite language makes no impact at all." (edit summary)[147]

He eventually calmed down and offered this conciliatory post[148], but despite that I would appreciate an administrator reviewing his contributions because I believe further action is required. --Surturz (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm an admin, but I think I'm a bit too involved here. I have had less than satisfactory interactions with this user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement, where the user was a bit more snarky than necessary. --Rschen7754 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I congratulate Skyring, for his calmness in the face of such profanity :) GoodDay (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

During my time in uniform, as a night cabbie and a parent, I grew accustomed to this sort of language. What is of more concern is the attitude rather than the expletives. This was about a paragraph I removed because the source did not support it. A polite discussion on the talk page would have sufficed. HiLo and I seem to have communication difficulties and I've opened a conversation on his talk page, trying to sort things out. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You refused to have any sort of a discussion on the Talk page! I had to start one. YOU just kept removing the material WITHOUT discussion. And now your political mate Surturz is complaining about the way I started it. But it worked, didn't it? It got you to do what you just claimed would have sufficed all along, but didn't do! HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

[I wrote the following before an Edit conflict with Pete's last post. It's still completely relevant.] And that post from GoodDay precisely identifies the huge problem, both here and on the civility front, for Wikipedia. Pete ALWAYS uses polite language, but talks absolute crap. He cannot communicate effectively. His posts are frequently clearly driven by his political leanings. He ignores masses of what I post, claiming it to be irrelevant. Yes, I have verbally attacked him. It actually worked to get his attention on an issue today where he was deleting long established, well sourced material from an important article, WITHOUT discussion. He seemed to think that Edit summaries were enough, despite requests from me that he discuss the matter. That is the background to one of the posts Surturz is complaining about above. It actually helped to improve Wikipedia, by getting Pete to the Talk page, where attempts at polite discussion had failed. The other posts come from my own Talk page, where I was responding to what I see as an idiotic request from Pete to make up. In asking for that, he ignored ALL that had gone before. No judgement here can be fairly made without someone looking in detail at Pete's previous incompetence and POV pushing, over probably the past six months. I saw him coming to my Talk page as provocative nonsense. I have tried on uncountable occasions to have intelligent logical discussions with him. It has never worked. I've actually asked to to stop bothering me, because he annoys the crap out of me, and no Wikipedia policy seems to exist to stop polite bullshit artists, but he persists. That he even bothered asking showed his complete lack of understanding and perspective. We cannot allow polite incompetence and POV pushing to continue. Swearing at him today stopped him in his usual inappropriate tracks. No-one here can tell me it doesn't work, where politeness didn't. And if I can't tell an unwanted visitor to my Talk page, making an unwanted request, to fuck off on my own Talk page, we have become too precious. (BTW, I have on several occasions reverted politically biased nonsense posted by Surturz, the complainer here. I believe he would to love get rid of me from Wikipedia, not for the civility reasons he raises here, but because I have successfully called him out for inappropriate posts in the past. A silencing tactic, no less.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I reject this conjecture. I've said it many times: a diversity of opinion is what makes Wikipedia rich and strong. The beauty of the thing is that policies have evolved to keep us all working productively. I do not want HiLo (or any other productive editor) to leave the project. What I want is for HiLo to work with other editors, politely, respectfully and productively. There have been many occasions where HiLo has been brought here or to WQA or other places, and the behaviour continues. WP:CIVIL is an important part of the project and HiLo does not seem to grasp this, judging by his behaviour here and elsewhere. I am dismayed that he sees incivility as the only way to get people to respond to him. This is not behaviour we should encourage. --Pete (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's cut to the chase and stop wasting time here. There were two areas where the Naughty Words Police didn't like my work today. One was at the Talk page of Malcolm Turnbull. My approach worked. It got Pete to the Talk page, somewhere he now seems to admit he should have gone in the first place. Polite requests hadn't worked. If the Naughty Words Police can solve that problem, I won't do it again. The other stuff was on my Talk page. Yes, Pete annoys me in many ways. I've now repeated there a request I've made to him before, to not post there again. No posts from Pete will lead to no annoyance from me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@OP: "I believe further action is required" — what action would that be? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to stop the intimidation and profanity. --Surturz (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything will come out of this ANI, but if the result is not satisfactory, feel free to start a user conduct RFC. --Rschen7754 08:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. In the meantime, one step would be to stop the harassment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or is there a burgeoning of WQA-style complaints here since WP:WQA got closed down? Although "I think you have serious psychological issues surrounding certain aspects of politics and trade unions." is not good, I don't think this is what AN/I is for. This probably could be closed with a suggestion for the OP of opening if an RfC if he wants to. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the fact this whole incident began with Pete/Skyring repeatedly refusing to discuss his deletion of long established, well sourced content? He is now hypocritically saying that discussion is a good idea. Why wouldn't he discuss it in the first place? Was it because it was me, someone whose approach he doesn't like, doing the asking? Such behaviour is obviously unacceptable, but he does it with no rude words. Then he posted on my Talk page, after I've explicitly asked him not to, but again with no rude words. Does that absence of naughty words completely excuse all this behaviour? Those who say yes don't want a great encyclopaedia, they just want a terribly nice one. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No action should be taken against HiLo48, IMHO. He hasn't vandalized any articles, nor committed sock puppetry. I would recommend a 'interaction ban' between himself & Skyring, though. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest an WP:RFC/U. It's generally a lengthy and ineffective process... but overall it's probably the best idea here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity in this area will set the precedence that no one should be banned or blocked at all for using profanity to interact with other users. Personally, I'm okay with that, but I want to see the result of this before I change my methods of communication.--WaltCip (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had past dealings with these two, and I want to look at a comment that Pete/Skyring makes above. He said, "a diversity of opinion is what makes Wikipedia rich and strong. The beauty of the thing is that policies have evolved to keep us all working productively." This is exactly where Pete goes wrong. He seems to think that this is some sort of adversarial system, like a court, where the best approach is for editors of multiple, in some cases, extremely polarized, viewpoints each editing according to their own POV, and that, in the end, it will all balance out in an NPOV way. This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what we're supposed to do. Each individual editor is required to edit neutrally; if they feel they cannot do so on any given topic, they shouldn't edit that topic. They could, possibly be involved in talk page discussions, but not direct editing. Since this does seem to be a general problem for Pete, it may well be that an RfC/U is warranted. And while, yes, RfCU's are long, irritating processes that don't usually result in any major improvement themselves, 1) occassionally, sometimes, they do, if an editor sees large scale condemnation of their behavior; and 2) it's a necessary preliminary step towards actual sanctions. While we can't easily hash through all of the problems here on ANI, an RfC/U can, and then those results can be shown (along with whatever Pete's response is) in future formal proceedings. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Q, but no, you've got the wrong end of the horse there. What I mean is that every editor brings a different approach, a different set of eyes, and together we cover the whole elephant. We do it coöperatively, with respect and consideration for our peers, to provide the complete picture. If we just have one side telling the story, we don't tell the whole story. And if we have several sides throwing rocks at each other, we're playing a different game to what we should be. Which is to work together to build a great encyclopaedia. So far I think we're doing a good job, but we need to work on a few things and one of them is respect for the opinions of others. I appreciate your thoughts on what drives me, but you are not a mind reader, you are wrong, and I welcome the opportunity to shed some light. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• RFC/U would be the best approach here. And don't get hung up on profanity per se please. Shadowjams (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly; the profanity doesn't help, but even if you removed all of it from the quotes above, it's still very insulting. --Rschen7754 02:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the fact this whole incident began with Pete/Skyring repeatedly refusing to discuss his deletion of long established, well sourced content? He is now hypocritically saying that discussion is a good idea. Why wouldn't he discuss it in the first place? Was it because it was me, someone whose approach he doesn't like, doing the asking? Such behaviour is obviously unacceptable, but he does it with no rude words, so that's fine by the naughty words police here. Then he posted on my Talk page, after I've explicitly asked him not to, but again with no rude words. Does that absence of naughty words completely excuse all this behaviour? Those who say yes don't want a great encyclopaedia, they just want a terribly nice one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We can - and will - have both. No need to repeat yourself. GiantSnowman 08:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is. My earlier post was completely ignored. That's what Pete does. He ignores key parts of my posts, and tells me they are irrelevant. His behaviour in these two incidents was completely unacceptable, BEFORE I used any of the naughty words that so offend some of you, but all you care about is the naughty words. They will pass. Bad editing as Pete was doing may damage the encyclopaedia forever. But you don't care about that. Just my naughty words. Without his bad behaviour, none of the bad words would have appeared. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many, many eyes on this page/thread - perhaps nobody felt the need to respond. I'd also advise you to start providing some diffs of the other editor's supposed-bad behaviour. GiantSnowman 08:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly cannot be bothered. Don't you believe me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered, then what makes you think editors who are un-involved will be? GiantSnowman 09:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It may of value for some of the naughty word police here to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Many editors there have made the point that civil misbehaviour is often the cause of naughty words. It's time some of you stopped the vigilantism against me and my naughty words, and paid more attention to what I and others with broader perspective have actually said. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reopening. If there is baiting going on here, it should be nipped in the bud right now before someone ends up getting blocked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even the most saintly may be goaded into foul language. I'm easily impassioned myself with the combination of dark night, bare toes, unexpected furniture. The latest issue turns on a paragraph in the Malcolm Turnbull article, where we stated that a facility he approved as Environment Minister would put out 2% of Australia's greenhouse emissions, 10 billion tonnes in a year. The only source given was a web page of press release headlines operated by the Wilderness Society, and there was nothing on that page that mentioned Turnbull or greenhouse emissions. I deleted the paragraph from our article as not supporting the claims. HiLo is upset that I didn't seek consensus on the talk page for this removal. I suggested he read the source and see whether it supported the claims. The discussion is here.

HiLo is claiming that he swore and carried on in order to force me to discuss the issue. I am unsure as to whether he ever actually read the source, as he keeps referring to the paragraph as "well-sourced". I thought the thing was self-evident: the article makes specific claims, the source cited does not. QED.

Looking at HiLo's robust statements on the talk page, it seemed clear to me that we had a problem between us, and I sought to resolve this in direct communication here. The dialogue speaks for itself. Now, maybe HILo views me in the same light as I view (or fail to view) a piece of solid furniture in a surprise encounter with my big toe. But I don't deliberately set out to bait or attack or antagonise him, instead preferring to employ a "soft answer turneth away wrath" approach, but I'm really at a loss as to where to go now. If HiLo doesn't see within his own heart what is wrong with incivility - and it's not the language I object to so much as the attitude - then muzzling him is only going to breed unhappiness. Maybe a RFC/U is the way to go, and we can get this wrangle off of ANI. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend that you both avoid each other. Less drama, is best. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well here we are discussing the problem. HiLo and I have an overlap of interests and we'll encounter each other in normal editing work. There are other editors who find communication difficulties with HiLo in other areas, and I note a recent topic ban. The crux of the matter is that WP:CIVIL is a core policy and if diverse editors are to work effectively within the project, they must accept others as human beings equally worthy of respect as themselves and communicate in a civil fashion. People may have wildly differing beliefs and still coöperate amicably. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I could make an extensive response to that, but just as GoodDay has suggested, I would rather avoid Pete. I've tried to on my Talk page, but he keeps coming there. What recourse do I have? (Not interested in a response to that question from Pete.) And should I have reported him for his repeated removal without discussion of long established, well sourced article content, despite requests to discuss? (That's where this all started.) Or what other approach would have been appropriate? HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Pete, I think the "crux of the matter" is WP:NPOV. Or, rather, that both WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL are important. So, Pete, if you want to establish that Hilo48 has engaged in long-term violations of our civility policy, open an RFC/U. Similarly, Hilo48, if you want to establish that Pete has engaged in long-term violations of our neutrality policy, open an RFC/U. The issue is too complex to be handled with a simple ANI report. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect, Q, but NPOV don't enter into it here. It's a simple matter of WP:SOURCE. Please see the discussion here, look at the old version of the article, note the specific claims being made and check the source to see if it supports the claims we make. The links are provided in discussion. Where is the NPOV issue? The WP:CIVIL problem is readily apparent. Would you (or anybody else) volunteer to help set up an RFC/U? I think that's the way to go now, but I want to be as fair as possible to HiLo (and to myself and other parties) and get all our ducks lined up nicely before we proceed. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for an RFC/U here to establish a pattern of incivility on HiLo48's part: it was why he was topic banned from ITN. What is expected re: civility was patiently explained to him at that time. What I'm looking for here is evidence of baiting, i.e. that Skyring was in some way deliberately provoking HiLo48's all-too-common outbursts in an attempt to hasten this. If No evidence is presented, then GoodDay's "both sides are at fault, just avoid each other and move on" summation can be rejected, and we can try to figure out how to get HiLo48 to participate in mundane content disputes without flagrant hostility and incivility to those he disagrees with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting here that Hilo48 became so uncivil during a recent DR/N that he was warned by two seperate volunteers that he was acting in an inappropriate manner. After leaving on his own accord and the DR/N was completed he felt the need to come back to the DR/N talkpage to leave this message: "I have to disagree with that. I was involved in discussions very early on, way back on the article's Talk page, long before the dispute came here, but I gave up due to the closed minds of some of the antagonists. When I tried to contribute to the conversation here, some didn't like my involvement and I was effectively told to piss off. The conversation here became so convoluted that only a marathoner would be bothered participating. My simple point is that not all voices were heard. This is inevitable when discussions become endurance events.--HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)" The user has an issue with conflict and antagonism and feels implelled to use these tactics to be a disruption. He then has issues with all those involved and either attempts to escalate situations or overstate them, placing himself as victim or the underdog, where everyone else is in the wrong. A topic ban would be a mild discouragement for this user, but it is a start.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, such a dishonest post. In my very next post in that thread I apologised for displaying my frustration and impatience in that way. In YOUR impatience to attack me here, you failed to mention that. I did not say that everyone else was in the wrong. As my words said, my concern was about the time it was taking. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you call this an apology: "Why should I calm down? This is a classic case of one editor (me) being growled at for upsetting the precious sensibilities of some, while incompetence and POV pushing, without naughty words, runs rampant. Being nice while being incompetent is a bad look. This process isn't going anywhere. It's being driven by a very small number of mostly far too inexperienced, narrow focus editors. Why? Because they want to keep whinging and whining after their country got beaten in some event at the Olympic Games. This is Wikipedia at its worst. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)" I support a 48 hour block for disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, HilO48 hasn't vandalized articles or created & used any socks. Therefore this report should be closed & (again) Skyring & HilO48 avoid each. GoodDay (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So admin are just for vandalsim and sock puppets? Great. They'll love hearing that. I guess this and all the other admin boards need not exist then? No, I think there has been more than enough demonstration by editors that Hilo48 has serious enough civility issues that he began to disrupt DR/N as well as other discussions in a manner designed to for disruption. Admin should take action and intervene here with an appropriate block. 48 hrs seems reasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment GoodDay. I'll certainly aim to not engage with Pete/Skyring. A look at my Talk page will show a repeat of the request I've made to him before to not post there. The other (smaller) part of this problem was me reverting his deletion of long established, well sourced material in an article, and asking him to take it to the Talk page. It's an approach I use frequently on Wikipedia when I see such behaviour from anybody, and will continue to use. Unfortunately, his approach was to simple remove the content again, and again, eventually breaching WP:3RR in the process. No attempt to open discussion on the Talk page. (Nor any attempt here to condemn Pete's behaviour either.) I eventually opened a discussion. I guess I'll just have to ignore such vandalism from him in future and hope someone else picks it up. I would expect it to happen. It's his style. He has done it before. And I will see it, because we're both active on Australian political articles. Wish me luck. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Here above we now see the user, make an accusation of another user of vandalism. Unless he provides clear evidence that the edit was an actual act of vandalism of the article he should not be making such claims. I believe that if Hilo48 is allowed to get away with this behavior they will show up AN/I again. This is an editor that feels it necessary to "prove a point" and disrupting discussions is but one of these points they attempt to prove. This all reminds me of another recent user who felt that making a point was more important than a welcome atmosphere for editors to work in.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I support a 48 hr block of user Hilo48 to discourage disruptive behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is what this user does. They edit war as a challenge to others. On August 19th Hilo violated 3RR [149] on the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics article. The history shows that nearly all his contributions seem to be reverts that generally involve the limit of 3 reverts, but may still be considered edit warring. Perhaps, if admin is not willing to block they will impose a 1RR on Hilo48, the minimum that I believe should be done to discourage the editor from disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No. HiLo's pissed off a lot of people in his time here (me included), but no, we don't just issue "48 hour blocks" because of that to send a message (well, some admins have a bad habit of doing that... but that's not in policy or a good idea). Of all the complaints brought to ANI about HiLo this one's not well put together, and the least objectionable. Honestly, this feels way too arbitrary, high on rhetoric and low on content. I suggest this gets closed. I suggested the RFC above because it's the way for dealing with this sort of issue (not an ideal way)... but no, there's 0 consensus for a block here, and I don't see any indication of any other remedy that warrants the ink being spilled right here at ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We issue blocks as a discouragement to disruptive users. They are not punative. We don't need to gain a consenus before admin intervenes. RFCs are NOT the only way to deal with these users and this is as important as sock puppeting. Administration can choose to block or to apply a 1RR sanction on their own. This user has a history that, if not dealt with now will simply return as they have outright admitted on this thread they have no intention of changing anything. I support admin applying either or both a 1RR sanction and/or a 48 houir block for disruption. This is not unreasonable.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, they have already disrupted DR/N to a point that two volunteers had to warn them, and it is in the history as well as his rant afterwards. He will probably get no further warnings at DR/N from myself. Next Disruption will probably see his comments closed. His activity on the Olympic Controversies article has been disruptive and not at all a collaboration effort. We can either support civil discussion and discourage disruption, or we give clear direction to behave in the exact same manner. So, again. I recommend admin sanctions for this user.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 18 October 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.

Any consequence for an editor posting a single edit that subsequently causes significant problems outside Wikipedia?

This 22 September 2012 "Sand Monkeys" post by 122.60.13.99 lead to Asian soccer body blames Wikipedia for slur of UAE team (October 15, 2012). Sand Monkeys is a well known "racial discriminatory slang term used to describe a Middle Eastern individual",[150] and I've already made a request to ClueBot (who missed it) to address it.[151]
From that IPs posts,[152] 122.60.13.99 appears to be a troubled account and needs admin action. Beyond that, does Wikipedia have a way to respond to single posts by editors where that post causes significant problems outside Wikipedia? or do we merely treat a single edit causing significant problems outside Wikipedia the same as any other single edit? In other words, should there be a different consequence within Wikipedia for posting "Sand Monkeys" to the United Arab Emirates national football team article since caused significant problems outside Wikipedia[153] or should the consequence within Wikipedia be determined without considering outside real world problems caused by the single post? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What consequence are you looking for? It's an IP that's unlikely to edit again, and if it does, is unlikely to be the same person editing. WilyD 13:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO your blame is misplaced. This is the sort of thing one has to live with in an open-source Wikipedia that "anyone can edit", for allowing a racial slur to sit unchecked for three full weeks. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides, noting racism and blaming their confederation and FIFA for the actions is practically the national sport of low-ranking international soccer teams. This has far more to do with the UAEFA looking to blame someone that anything Wikipedia did. In fact, the real problem is that the Asian Football Confederation cited Wikipedia than anything Wikipedia did. That's why the UAEFA is upset at the AFC, not at us. Achowat (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Anyone reusing Wikipedia content should be aware that it is unreliable and should cross-check the facts before publishing them elsewhere. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disgraceful and inappropriate edit. I agree it's futile to block the IP since it's probably since been reassigned to someone else. I am embarrassed but not surprised that edit lingered there as long as it did.

I have deleted the edit from the article's edit history. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reusing Wikipedia content should be aware that it is unreliable Remind me what is the point of wikipedia? John lilburne (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

we know enough about Wikipedia that we dont consider it a reliable source. Why should we then make any attempt to promise something to others that we dont believe ourselves? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you take the starbucks test. Walk into any outlet and ask the customers whether they can trust what is written in wikipedia. The percentage of those that say yes will be how ineffective you've been in imparting that singular fact. John lilburne (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As a bit of brainstorming, would it make any sort of sense to have a bot that can determine when potential racial slurs have been inserted into articles, and provide such reporting somewhere for people to review and check? We wouldn't want such a bot to automatically remove such slurs, since they be appropriate in the use of a contextually-significant quote, or in discussion of the origin of the term, so a human review is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reusing Wikipedia content should be aware that it is unreliable. You should put this as a big yellow warning banner on the top of the articles, just to be sure. What say you?Dan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We would hope that most people already know this. Wikipedia will never the be definitive authority on any topic, it can't be because it will never be complete and anyone can edit it. It will continue to be an excellent source of links on topics, and in most cases, provide some useful answers to basic questions. Even a "real" encyclopedia doesn't provide as much information as an expert in a given field, or as much as real research in that field will provide. It has been, and will be, more reliable than most other websites, more informative and better vetted. But fully reliable? Never. That isn't even the goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there already exists at the bottom of every Wikipedia page (even this one) is a link for "Disclaimers", which takes anyone who clicks it to Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which says in big type at the top "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never the be definitive authority on any topic The point isn't whether WP is the most reliable source, but rather is whether someone reading a WP will be miss informed as to basic facts as a result of reading it. John lilburne (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That would cut the donations by (at least) half. So NNNOOOOOOOOOOO, the WMF will never agree to that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just think...flagged revisions/pending changes could have fixed all of this from the beginning. I still don't get why we allow IP addresses to edit anyways. We're still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit if we make people make an account. It would at least one step deter some of the vandals. Silverseren^C 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. Same goes for the Gideon Levy story last week. (Levy's dad was falsely accused in Wikipedia of having been a Nazi collaborator. The Rotter news website picked it up, and claimed the deletion of the unsourced info meant that the Wikipedia article had been "censored". The result was a legal letter to Rotter and another black eye for Wikipedia) [154] AndreasKolbe JN466 01:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Just curious, who sent the legal letter to Rotter? Wikipedia or Levy? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Tali Lieblich, Haaretz's lawyer. Just to be clear, it was the Hebrew Wikipedia version of Levy's BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani POV eds deleting my userpage

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

---

Two Pakistani POV eds are ganging up on me and have deleted my userpage. They claim there is some kind of breach of rule but I see no breach. They do not explain what rule has been broken and are trying to make it appear that I had put up a draft on my userpage. I have explained that it was not a draft but a copy of an existing article. They have taken offence because it happens to be a copy of list of terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. My userpage should be restored and action should be taken against the concerned users. My discussion with them can be found on my very short talk page. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your userpage was deleted as it was a redirect to User:OrangesRyellow/Sandbox, which isn't really a sandbox at all - it's a collection of quasi-Islamophobic links intended to portray British-Pakistanis in a negative light, followed by a list of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. GiantSnowman 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

PS I've notified RegentsPark (talk · contribs), the deleting admin - this should have been done by OP. GiantSnowman 14:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the sandbox should be Mfd'd too.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I was the editor who first raised this issue at the OP's talk page. After a few days of nothing much happening, I mentioned it to RegentsPark because I didn't want to be seen as a pseudo-admin (got enough problems right now, without that). Neither myself nor RegentsPark referred to any particular POV, be it Pakistani, Indian, Martian or whatever. I did wonder about WP:POLEMIC but thought it easier to deal with the issue without getting into a scrap. Obviously, I was wrong. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The page was merely moved to the user's sandbox and this was explained to him/her. Also explained that the only reason I moved it rather than deleted it was to give some time to use stuff from there in the article. Seems more than fair to me. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 16 October 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.

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

---

What are you guys afraid of? That some Pakistani Mulla or taliban will take offence and issue a fatwa against Wikipedia? Wikipedia articles are meant to be copied and redistributed freely. The article on my userpage was not a draft but a copy of an existing article. This article Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. Now go and delete that too, lest some Pakistani sees it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

An unattributed copy of material which you did not write, where you do not give credit to the actual authors. What is the purpose of the page? Why do you need it in your userspace? Unless there's some specific reason to keep it, you won't mind if we delete it, right? After all, you can just read the article instead... Franamax (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I was keeping it there to try my editing skills on wikicoding and also to remind me that that articles needs work. (I have made some edits there. I generally used it to try my editing skills by changing it is some way or other and by looking at the effects by pushing the preview button. Then I would ignore saving the changes because saving the changes would be unnecessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Most of us ANI regulars are not here to censor Wikipedia in favor of some government, but simply know a lot more than you about Wikipedia's policies and purpose. See WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:SOAP, which are relevant to this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... And why can't you do that in a sandbox? Perhaps use a sticky note thingy if your memory is poor? You seem now to be suggesting that myself and RegentsPark are "Pakistani tricksters"] - a comment that is unlikely to help your case here. This thread was closed for a reason and re-opening it as you have could quite likely boomerang. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, what can I say, he seems to see Pakistani evil doers all around [155] ... There are some technical terms in the real world for that, but let's just say that at some point he is going to run out of WP:ROPE with that kind of attitude. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, according to him I'm naive and have never interacted with Pakistanis, nor have I spent much time on Word Perfect (I don't know what Word Perfect has to do with Wikipedia, but whatever...that is what WP is short for :-) ) dangerouspanda 11:59, 17 October 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:Metalvayne - disruptive editing, sock puppetry, and breaking topic bans.

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 back history:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne - This link shows the last time User:Metalvayne was brought to ANI. It was over continual tinkering with music genre without source or edit summary despite many requests to stop. Additionally, homophobic vandalism was an issue raised. It was decided unanimously that he be topic banned from editing music genre for a year.
2. Also over the course of that discussion, Metalvayne "retires", only to have three socks blocked indefinitely due to vandalism directly after. (Also in the initial link.) He is blocked for 24 hours due to sockpuppetry.
3. Fast Forward to October. At this SPI case: [[156]] it is found that Metalvayne was using a sockpuppet to get around his topic ban, as virtually all he did was further arguing and tinkering with music genre. The sock is indefed, and he is blocked for a week. (Until October 16).
4. October 17 - Right after his block expires, he uses his own account to break his topic ban, as seen in this edit. When I warned him about this, and some other unconstructive edits, here, his only response was essentially take it to ANI, and so I have.

In short, he's broken his topic ban twice already, and shows no sign of changing, or adhering to restrictions placed on him. His responses are with attitude, he's not taking it seriously. As shown in the dif that shows my warning, he is also now going about on talk pages calling me names and telling people to "stay away from me"; things that while, don't really bother me, but it sure goes to show his intent to be unconstructive. Something needs to be done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Metalvayne appears to have not the slightest interest in observing his one-year topic ban from music genres. My suggestion is to to block him for the duration of the ban, i.e. until August 28, 2013. If he manages to get through the year without any further socking he can return to normal editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That should be worth a try, but personally I'm sceptical if he's going to stop socking. I am inclined to indef him as soon as any socks appear again. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that Metalvayne has any intention of cooperating with any restrictions or that a one-year block will do any good. Indef him and be done.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of babysitting him like this, so I'd fully support an indef block as well. However, I would support the "1 year block, leading to an indef block if any socks are found", plan as well. (He makes no real effort to hide or mask his socks, so I'm sure he'd be caught if he were doing that. Four have been found already. He can't seem to help but to make the same sort of edits every time, regardless of account.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "polite sock" persona. It's like dealing with Grundle's grungier twin. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for a prolonged discussion for a case this obvious, I have indef blocked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for hearing me out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Having previously tried other measures to deal with it, none of which proved successful, I agree with the indef block. I imagine at some point he will plead that he has reformed, and will make excellent-sounding promises, but so far he has broken every such promise he has made here. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he had it coming to him. This individual has proven to be a disrespectful saboteur of Wikipedia and did not have any interest in helping the cause once his recent block was alleviated, in favor of helping his own cause. He did a poor job of accepting legitimate criticism (as seen by how he removed many of his talk page postings), and exploited many pages and aspects of Wikipedia, while mustering the gall to play victim, too.

He posted this derogatory, pathetic message about me and Sergecross73 on my user talk page, which was a message addressed to another user, yet on my talk page. In that comment, he depicted Wikipedia as a monarchy, unfoundedly so. Also, this post of his butted in on some conversation that had been resolved and dead for almost a month, and would not have likely been otherwise revisited. I don't usually remove material from my user talk page except for archiving purposes, but due to its rather loathsome nature, I felt that it was appropriate. Such comments don't attract trouble as much as they gratuitously seek trouble and end up receiving trouble out of obligation.

Here is another comment where he revisited discussion that was dead and resolved for a long time, this time for over six months. Although it was addressed to me, it was on his user talk page, so I didn't receive it immediately. I decided not to respond, in order to be consistent with comments I had said earlier, and I believe I know why he asked the question. He probably (note the use of "probably" instead of something like "certainly") still thinks he can prove that I performed this edit, even though proving I did that would be like squeezing pineapple juice out of a rock, especially since I did not do that, and that this person's editing style and locations are much different from mine.

The indefinite block, I feel, is legitimately reasonable and justified. Now the Metalvayne account will not be used again by this individual for any noteworthy editing activity. If trouble from this camp keeps up, though, then a shout-out to the long-term abuse page might be necessary. Sorry for the verbose nature of this post, but I sincerely hope these are the final words I have to say about this person in public. I really want to be done dealing with him, and I know others have a similar desire. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:23, 18 October 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.

File permission issues

Resolved

Thank you Dennis

I need help with an issue of permission for file use. I tagged some files which are listed in my CSD log. The uploader left this message on my talk and I now fear the editor has an extensive upload log that needs scrutiny. ( User has no other uploads ) I hope I am correct in this matter and not bringing undue attention on this editors contributions. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• The owner either needs to be the uploader, or they need to give permission via the WP:OTRS system, who can keep a letter on file. I see at least one of your blue links already has OTRS links on the permissions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I looked up the OTRS page, but I couldn't find out what to do in this case. Who does what to whom? I do not follow what you mean by the '...blue links already has OTRS links on the permissions.' If this was done, it was in error. Can you please point me to the blue link you mention. Could it be that this file inadvertently meets the necessary criteria, which can simply be added to the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurnard (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Gurnard, please see my talk page for more information. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User Joefromrandb

User:Joefromrandb is using a RfC on Template talk:Civility to get revenge on me for "goading one of Wikipedia's finest editors into a site-ban" [157]. The person I supposedly goaded into a site ban is Jack Merridew. At the same RfC, he has promised to edit war and says he has meatpuppets who will also edit war with me if I reinsert an essay into the Civility Essays template [158] "if you're foolish enough to start inserting it again after the protection is over you'll be reverted quickly by multiple editors. Enjoy your puerile trolling elsewhere". This AN/I post has nothing to do with the template itself, as there is an ongoing RfC that will determine consensus and I'm happy to let that fall where it may. What I'm not happy about is this guy first making an Oppose !vote that basically consists of repeating Merridew's claims and attacks, then following it up with claims I'm "delusional" or "a troll", refusing to explain his oppose vote, and ending his screeds with threats of revert warring and meatpuppetry. When someone else asked him to stop on his talk page, he also attacked that other editor. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Joefromrandb could tone it down a lot (having had negative interactions with him myself), but I would stop replying to him, as that's just fueling the fire. --Rschen7754 18:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That was after you full-protected an article and then punatively blocked a user 45 minutes later, and as I recall, I was far from the only one who had "negative interactions" with you. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were also considerably unpleasant as compared to those other users, but that's neither here nor there. --Rschen7754 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will not respond to him directly anymore. Hopefully this thread will help resolve that particular issue and the RFC can continue without further disruption. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

COI spam links by SPA Nphar

• neilixandria.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

Nphar is a single purpose account adding links to neilixandria.com on various pages. When reverted, his explanation was "Link added at request of university. Easy to read printable format" at first. Upon further discussion, he says that his students asked him to add the links to those texts so they could find them and because he didn't want to email the links to them.

Much of that site duplicates material from places like Wikisource and Internet Sacred Text Archive, though often without full attribution (I found no attribution in the Dead Sea Scrolls section). He says that he's taken care to avoid adding duplicate books, though he adds a link to E.A.W. Budge's translation of Kebra Nagast right above the Internet Sacred Text Archive's copy of the same translation.

I noticed that the curator of the site is Neil P Harvey, and that if you donate enough money to the site you'll get a copy of Harvey's book "Beyond the Bible", a self-published book by someone who does not appear to work for a university which promises that its readers will "Learn the truth about Atlantis, YHWH, Zoroaster and the unification of Egypt." Assuming Nphar is university professor and a Neil Patrick Harris fan (because who isn't?), we need to make it clear to that he's accidentally helping Mr. Harvey use Wikipedia as an advertising platform for his pseudohistory book, and help him find an alternative means of providing students with the texts they need (easy enough, as most of the material is available on Sacred-texts.com and Wikisource, usually linked to in our articles on such texts). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've warned this editor not to add any more external links. Please ping me if they continue. --John (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Prioryman

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.

---

Has been accused of outing another editor, he has restored this editors name after it was removed[159][160] and has now posted a link to an external site with said users name on his talk page.[161] This is obvious harrasment and needs to be sorted quickly. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Purely to avoid escalation, I have blocked Prioryman and suppressed the relevant revisions (I hope). Disclosure - Volunteer Marek pinged me to request the oversight. He did not ask for any action against Prioryman --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• I was going to suggest that in the future, Darkness contact oversight instead of coming to ANI. Too many wandering eyes here and we usually want to solve these kinds of problems quickly and quietly. I've had very good luck emailing for Oversight in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is something Marek has publicly stated. The account that Prioryman mentioned redirects to VM's account. Ankh.Morpork 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) I was going to ask: Since when is it outing to use the old name of an account when addressing an editor in the now? (but AnkhMorpork beat me to it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Adapted (feel free to delete the intermediate revisions if so inclined). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the old user name redirects to Volunteer Marek now, how is the world is this outing? AniMate 20:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has now posted an unblock. I'll let the community/other admins decide the outcome of the appeal. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• From WP:OUTING It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia Hence outing. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

On that basis, I've also blocked Dirk Beetstra, because that was a really stupid thing to do, given that Prioryman has just been blocked for doing it. If Prioryman gets unblocked, someone can unblock him as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• This argument for WP:OUTING seems to have skipped the first sentence of the quoted paragraph: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." As the diff provided by AnkhMorpork demonstrates, the information in question had already been posted by the person who changed usernames. Is there any evidence that the posting was not done voluntarily? --Allen3 ^talk 20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Beestra on the basis of his and Ellen's comments. Could all users be very careful about referring to other users by anything other than their user name or an accepted version thereof? Better safe than sorry. --John (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good advice all round. Apologies for the flap - it's been a rather abrupt education in the fine print of WP:OUTING. Prioryman (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to agree with Allen3 in this regard - we have a standing redirect from old account to new, one that shows up on the new account's "What Links Here" list, yes? That would seem to complicate the case for OUTING, wouldn't it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict^3) Ok, look, this is ridiculous. That diff posted by AnkhMorpork is, and let me emphasize this me asking the ArbCom to RE-FUCKING-MOVE that very information. Unfortunately there's no way I can ask for certain information to be removed without actually stating what that information is, now can I? Or am I suppose to play some kind of a game with the Arbitrators. Say, go up to Newyorkbrad and say "I want you to remove some information, but I can't let you know what it is, can you guess it on your own?". So this is a completely disingenuous line of argument - "VM asked for certain information to be removed, and in doing so he had to specify what this information is, so now it is okay for us to run around Wikipedia posting it everywhere". Stop and think for a moment for chrisssake.

Anyway, it's been dealt with, it's been oversighted, it's done. I was trying to be discrete here which is why I only reverted the edit, rather than going to ANI myself. So let's drop this now. Volunteer Marek  20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Prioryman for two reasons: VM has already posted that name. While the posting of the diff might still be problematic, I tend to think Prioryman really gets it and wasn't trying to actually out him. Again, this is why Oversight is a better place to report potentially outing issues. The Beetstra issue is completely different, reposting information that you know is improper and just got someone blocked. I will leave that to another admin since I'm a bit busy, but I would lean to unblock due to a misunderstanding, although that was incredibly poor judgement on his part. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked as I noted above. --John (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is unusual to side with Prioryman, but on this issue I think Volunteer Marek is being a wee bit hysterical and hypocritical. The "name" that he wants redacted here was in use on the currently-suspended Wikipedia Review, and his first post to the Wikipediocracy was to say "that old account is now this account". Conversely, everyone knows whhat Prioryman's previous account name was, it isn't a state secret any more than Fae's prior account is now known to the world. I think people who engage in regular pissing matches, as Priory and Marek often do, need to stop looking for these little nitpicky "gotcha!" moments to score points on each other. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Could someone clarify how mentioning the name of an older account that was moved to a new account name is "outing"? I don't see how this interpretation is supported. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Marek repeated this connection as recent as two months ago, in addition to his previous public acknowledgement of the link. Ankh.Morpork 20:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• VM has the right to decide how he wishes to be addressed. --John (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For civility purposes perhaps but WP:OUTING is quite clear: If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. Ankh.Morpork 20:52, 18 October 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.

Blatant sock

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

---

Can I have User:Dubs boy blocked as an obvious sock of 46.7.113.111, who was blocked last night (see above and AE thread). I'd do it myself but I'm involved.

While we are at it, could someone close Talk:Derry#Requested_move, which is up for closure today anyway? It was started by 46.7.113.111, was identified early as disruption, has been closed twice already, and is a magnet for this user. --RA (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The user in question has actually self-identified as 46.7.113.111 [162] so there should be no issue with blocking. I also second the request for closure of the requested move. As the initiator of the AE request and a major participant in the RM discussion it would be difficult for me to be more involved. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My internet was running slow, so I turned off/on my router and found I was unblocked. I thought I had been unblocked as I have been given no reason for my blocking. I set up an account so that my vote would count in discussion. I had dabbled with wiki back in February but it is only now that I have commented at Derry talk page that I have been blocked. I have not made any controversial edits, only commented at a talk page. Is that a crime? And I have present a great argument at Derry talk page for a proposed change, which seems like the most likely reason for users to try and block me?Dubs boy (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you are the sock indicated but I would point out that editors are supposed to be here to improve the articles rather than exercise their debating skills and mess up discussions with misdirections and misstatements to push an agenda. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally uninvolved having actually read through that morass of a RM, I can only conclude that you, Dubs boy, have been unable to effect a change in consensus and are continually arguing the same point over and over again. Even in the face of info digging by a couple of the editors there which showed that the statistics is against your proposal, you nonetheless continued to flog the same carcass. Raising a discussion on the talk page is laudable but after your proposal failed to gain any traction, the sensible thing to do would have been to call it a day. Others want you blocked because your continuing the same argument does nothing to help the article and is disruptive. Anonymous editors can get their "vote" counted as much as anyone elses so you need not have worried on that account, provided they make reasoned policy based arguments for it. There's no need for a sock block. Either way, it's best that you realise you've failed to gain consensus for a change and call it quits. If in time something changes drastically then it can always be revisited. There's no point doing a General Custer. Blackmane (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

just to add, that I will put my point forward so long as the discussion is open. I would say also Blackmane, that as an involved editor you are probably not aware of the POV that plagues this page. Note the comments by AjaxSmack, also involved.

I understand. I thought I had made a reasoned argument at the talk page in keeping with WP:COMMON NAME. I know its the same argument, but its a valid one, and the argument of the opposed hasnt changed much either. I had presented facts that have simply been ignored, so you can understand why I am still trying to flog the so called dead horse. Also if you look at the talk page you will see that 24 users have voiced concerns at the bias of the article talk page against 19 pro keeping the page as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please block as a sock block. The user's IP address was blocked, so they turned on and off their router to get an new IP address, then created an account, and is straight back to the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. --HighKing (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Note HighKing is a suspected sock. see here [163]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I received no reason why I was blocked in the first place, so I couldnt possibly know what that behaviour would be. I had been given a 3 month block for no obvious reason. Raising an RM and contributing to that RM is not disruptive and certainly not deserving of a block. If anything I have been subject to harrassment from a number of users who essentially ganged up on me, and a few of them have come here to hammer in the final nail in the coffin. Dubs boy (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were blocked per this decision on the Arbitration requests for enforcement. I've notified Timotheus Canens of this thread. --RA (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 4 months for block evasion, extending the previous 3 month block by the original admin. Very likely someone else as well. If another admin feels I've been entirely too generous by extending this only one month, no offense will be taken if you modify the block, just ping me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering if they are a sock of User:Scandal Bird, who filed that SPI after creating the account and sleeping a great while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [164] ... I was going to say I thought a month's extension was more than was needed. Indef it and mark it with {{Uw-deoablock}}. --RA (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone had any doubt left -- yes, I'm that stupid: I've just closed the RM discussion. Nobody Ent 14:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock request. GiantSnowman 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't suppose anyone would care to summarise this in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Derry/Londonderry? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY would say we shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Me a sock of 46.7.. lol! What have I got in common with him? The sock spotters here need to get their act togther. HighKing is 100% a sock. I wish I could bet £1m on it. I'd win for sure, and yet, SPI declined on HighKing. It really is laughable. Scandal Bird (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Crap, crap crap. WP:TROUT me now. I misread the "tone" of the preceding comment, and thought that the "Me a sock of 46.7.." bit was an admission. I missed the whole tone point of the comment and sock-blocked him. I've now undone the block, but he might still get caught in the IP auto-block. I'll just slink back to my gnome-hole and hope that I did not inflame an already drama-filled situation too much. :( - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the autoblock at Special:BlockList, but I have to admit that I'm using more of a giver than take-a-wayer when it comes to blocks. Their statements above didn't remove my concerns. Oh, and I think this is yours-> <((()))>< Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:41, 18 October 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:The Banner

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:The Banner is stalking me, disrupting addition of content to historic geographic entities of Sweden. Geographic entities get their own article all over the world, but Swedish parishes not? Compare all the parishes linked from Saint George Parish with WP:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Parish. See also WP:NTEMP - only because the entities are not used by the government does not mean the articles have to be deleted. He has been pointed to WP:ILIKE several times. Additionally The Banner is violating WP:CIVIL"shut up". My interaction with The Banner started at the article Sollentuna. He deleted valid entries. Later he started to ask for deletion of content I created soon after the interaction with him there (stalking!). See WP:Articles for deletion/Sollentuna Hundred, WP:Articles for deletion/Bromma Parish. Please stop him from further disruption. ChemTerm (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-involved observations: User was not stalking ChemTerm, but was nominating pages for deletion that, in his opinion, do not meet Notability. See the AfD's above for information on that. Also, ChemTerm has been canvassing on pages that likely will have people on his side for the AfD's (WP Geography, WP Sweeden). I brought this up at the AfD for Sollentuna Parish already, and warned user accordingly. In the link to the diff ChemTerm posted in relation to WP:CIVIL, ChemTerm also used language such as "fighting a war". The user in question was only reccomending to ChemTerm that he not throw unwarrented personal attacks, using the words "shut up before throwing PA" to say that. The user in question deleted said entries because they were not ready to be linked to the Sollentuna article (and still aren't). Editor in question should never have been pointed to WP:ILIKE as he is providing valid reasons for his requests for deletion, and never saying "I don't like them". I would like to remind ChemTerm that when reporting this user to AN/I his own edits became subject to increased scrutiny as well. If other editors would like me to become involved in this, I will, but for now, just take this as uninvolved comments. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• ChemTerm has been canvassing on pages that likely will have people on his side for the AfD's (WP Geography, WP Sweeden) - On my side? If so, then I happened to have the side of Geography and Sweden editors. What is wrong with that? The articles belong to WikiProject Sweden and WikiProject Geography. Where are the valid reason for deleting Swedish parishes, whilst many other parishes have their articles in Wikipedia? I am not from Sweden. I have a neutral point of view. Tack. ChemTerm (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You only posted your notice on those pages. Your notice said "attacks" and "warring" if I remember correctly. That meets the definition of canvassing. AN/I is not the place to discuss the deletion. You reported someone to AN/I and now you are yourself being scrutinized. Don't be mad. It's in the rules of AN/I gwickwire | Leave a message 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it forbidden to use the words "attack" and "warring"? There are even policies that use these words: WP:EW, WP:PA. ChemTerm (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a single diff for any of the accusations being made. Not even from gwickwire, who should know better than make a blanket statement to intimidate a filing editor at AN/I. Should we also look at your behavior? ChemTerm, WP:HOUND has a threshhold you need to demonstrate when asking for Administrative intervention. As it states: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Please provide diffs to show where you are being followed and how the user has violated the policy. Gwick, you also need to provide diffs and your behavior can be scrutinized as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My accusations are supported at the AfD page, I made this clear in my first post. The only accusation I made was that of Canvassing, and if I must, here are the diffs: [165] and [166]. There are the only two postings of his canvassing messages. And my only edits in relation to this are to the AfD page for Sollentuna Parish and here. If I am to be scrutinized, so be it. I've backed up my accusations multiple times now. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You have accused an editor of canvassing for leaving two messages at related noticeboards. Are you kidding me with this? Two noticeboard posts are not canvassing and you need to be far more accurate when stating what is on these posts. While these may not be the most neutrally worded, I see this as a perception. They do not ask for an outcome.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay. Here's what I read. "There's some users nominating these for deletion. Come tell them not to." And it was posted on WP Sweeden and Geography. Okay, that may not be total canvassing because of where, but the wording means that he really is encouraging them to go !vote keep on the AfD ("There are some users hunting Swedish historic geography articles." and "deletion attacks"). If that's not canvassing then there's no definition of canvassing at all. He clearly is trying to attract others with his viewpoint to the article. If not, he would have posted them on other noticeboards too, such as the Catholic noticeboard (if this is completely a religious parish). This is canvassing. I don't see how it's not. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The two posts are the same and niether say what you postsed. In fact, as I stated there is no request for an outcome.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice, this saves me filing the complaint first. I like to use the boomerang now...

1. PAs/uncivil behaviour: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174]
2. Vandalism/nonsense warnings: [175] (ChemTerm is not a regular, but a newbie active since August 2012), [176] (template for no personal analysis for an AfD), [177] (idem), [178] (complaint about non-existing PA),
3. Canvassing to protect articles: [179], [180]

I guess this will be enough to show the behaviour of mr. ChemTerm. The Banner _talk 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. ChemTerm clearly has a problem with shut up, in such a way that he forgets to give the full quote: When you don't have arguments, you better shut up then starting to throw PAs. ([181])

The complaint from mr. ChemTerm about stalking and following around is quite remarkable. Especially in the light of this nomination. The Banner _talk 02:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no and that boomerang may not hit the target you wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How bout we wait for an admin to come resolve this? gwickwire | Leave a message 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps one might like to look into your overly aggresive warning manner about a policy you misinterpreted. Then perhaps they can look at The Banners complaint and warn the user to get a thicker skin. I see two boarderline comments from ChemTerm. Something about a clown. Not sure if this is name calling or not, but a warning seems appropriate and should be told to that if no diffs are provided there is nothing to look at. Diffs must be provided at AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Overly aggressive? The first warning was for this, the second warning was for calling someone a clown The Banner _talk 02:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about gwick's warning and then attempt to call into question a reduction of text as if it were attempting to avoid something. That and the fact that per Canvassing, use of Wikiprojects (these noticeboards are project related) is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation," and "canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate " and "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" and "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." and "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". All quoted from the WP:Canvassing page. The things he posted meet all of these. The page never says that all posts on WikiProjects are acceptable. Only if they are neutral, etc. which these aren't. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the posts could have been more nuetral, but was posted to the proper venues. Per Cavassing: "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion."--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way. Once you warn a user, if they even decide to delete the warning, that is acceptable. Deletion of a warning is considered to be acknowledgement that the post has been read. It was really not necessary to posts on the user's talkpage that a reduction in the text was an attempt to avoid something.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The canvassing page says that WikiProjects are only proper venues when the messages do not violate anything else on the page. They violate everything I put above. You keep taking quotes out of context. I will admit I did as well, but the context of mine was not as important. The page also goes on to talk about the times (some of which I copied above) during which it is inappropriate to post messages. No matter where. WikiProject, User Talk, Anywhere. Regardless of where they must pass those rules to not be canvassing. They fail those rules. They are therefore canvassing. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I will say also that my post about making it smaller was a little inappropriate in that situation. However, he was a new user, and I felt neccesary to make sure he realized that editors can still see anything he removes/makes smaller/etc. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you get it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Request topic ban of User:Novaseminary for persistent disruptive editing at Douglas Tait (stuntman)

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:Novaseminary has tried unsuccessfully to get the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP deleted twice before. Here, and here. But having failed at deletion twice, for two years now, Novaseminary has also failed at WP:LETITGO. He persistently challenges the BLP's notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt. He also regularly violates WP:DE. He edit wars and disruptively edits almost on a daily basis, pushes POV, attacks other articles because they are mentioned in the BLP, creates suspect disambig stubs, insists on irrelevant or dated edits, violates OR, uses citation tags to edit war, like here, here, here and here, removes sourced quotes and attacks and fights to include and spreads unflattering and irrelevant material about the BLP's subject over several editor's objections.

But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules. So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue & defend his indefensible actions, even as he ignores all the WP rules & policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it's more than a content issue. It's a persistent, long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. So per WP:DDE, ANI "may be the best first step." 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Fact is, unless admins enforce it, don't count on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to come here. I've suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article. He refused. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this at WP:RFPP and have spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking through it all. 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive, but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary's bizarre obsession with this person. I'm going to give Novaseminary time to respond, but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users. – Steel 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• You know what? I'll accept that. If Novaseminary is topic banned, I'll voluntarily self-ban. My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored/reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party/parties to insure no Novaseminary POV. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've never violated a single guideline or policy at this article. The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP, but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited. This article was one of several resume-like PR/POV articles i've come across over the years. I, and others, tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist. Almost everything i've done i've discussed at talk. I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB. Novaseminary (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would also point out, I only nominated this article for deletion once, with no consensus. I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made, not by me, but another editor. The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person, but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of, but that I think comply with policy. (At one point the article cited several non-RS articles written by a single publicist, for instance.) Novaseminary (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Our IP user has agreed to a self-ban from this article providing you do the same. From your comments above that the IP's edits are the only reason you've even been editing the page recently, this should be an acceptable resolution for you too. Right? – Steel 15:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Novaseminary? I do agree that you have an all-too strong interest in that article. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that I haven't touched the article since Drmies came along and restored some sanity to it. Even though we still disagree on an issue, and even after the temp-protect was denied. But even as a dynamic IP, I've respected all these dispute resolution processes. I should also point out the same can't be said for Novaseminary. Just today: 1, 2 and 3. Drmies has already attacked my intentions and falsely accused me of COI - after working on the article for just a few weeks. By the way, I found nothing that supports Novaseminary's "single publicist" theory. But what I did find, is that Novaseminary has been at this article for almost 2 years, much of it for months at a time as it's as the sole editor! Just look at the period from March to May of this year, folks. And please let's not forget Novaseminary's "Douglas Tait obsession" goes well beyond just the article. The creation of his weird disambiguation. The fact that he slapped up a Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub that was so non-notable, that months later, it's still just a stub. He also slaps up citation tags on any article even mentioned in the BLP, as I noted originally. And just today, his obsession with 1 article on Tait about him getting kicked off his HS basketball team was revealed again! (Which by the way, a subsequent article that he never includes noted was a 1 day suspension!) But for your convenience, and possibly entertainment, I pulled just how many times and places I could find where he (or his meatpuppet who did it twice), have fought to include that one article - over the objection of far more editors than just me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and just TODAY - you guessed it: 32!

• But that tally also excludes these, found on the article on Tait's high school, Bishop Alemany High School : 33, 34, 35, and 36!

• By the way, he has also attacked that article, presumably because the school and/or team dared to admit Tait: 1, and 2.

• So it should be clear by now folks, that the problem isn't me. But is exactly as Steel said: Novaseminary has some "bizarre obsession with this person." Geez, Novaseminary can't even stay off an article when he's being ANI'd over it! Now I know, to Drmies, I'm just some lowly SPA with a dynamic IP and some as alleged, yet unexplained, COI. But I just happened upon this deal a few weeks ago, and you've got a real problem on your hands that's been persistent long before me. So you can either do something about it, or you can continue to let Novaseminary's wackadoodle freak flag fly. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think that is true that the IP has left the article alone since Drmies restored sanity to it. IP seems to have edit warred with the Dr since the Dr made his edits. That is why the Dr asked for the article to be partially protected. In fact, the Dr reverted IP most recently. And I just restored to the version IP said he agreed with (and others did, too) on talk, but then s/he changed. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I have edited the page at all since this iteration was created is because it was recreated after deletion at AfD and, at that time, was quite promotional. To be clear, I do not think this individual satisfies N (the only indepth coverage were several articles since disclaimed by the newspaper and removed from the article and one more article that striked me as a non-RS). But if there is to be an article, it should not be a promo piece, or even a non-promotional piece that neglects widely covered aspects of this individual because somebody doesn't want that covered. And it is not just the current variable IPv6. Various other IPs at other times have inserted unsourced or promotional material. So has at least one regular editor who was blocked, X4n6 (whose arguments and edit history seem to me quite similar to our IPv6 editor). I have always tried to achieve consensus at talk and adide by it, and except for disagreements from IP or other editors who have actually broken WP guidelines and policies and been blocked for it (X4n6 and one of the recent IPv6 identities blocked here), I and the other editors have succeeded in reaching consensus (including the current version of this article). We did so despite being up against at least one individual who, in my opinion, did not have WP's best interests at heart or even any stated or apparent interest in WP for WP's sake at all. I think it would be strange and detrimental to WP to topic ban an editor who has never been blocked, has followed all guielines and policies on the article in question, seeks and abides by consensus at the article in question, and has only had run-ins at the article with tenacious editors who have been blocked for their violations of various guidelines and policies (including the IP requesting this action who certainly has before and does even in the post above with the "wackadoodle freak flag fly" comment and unsupported claim I have a meatpuppet). I hope we don't allow editors whose edits indicate that they are more interested in positive coverage of a particular subject have veto power of a good faith editor who edits to keep WP from being misused for the sake of WP. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that 2602.304 is a disruptive presence on the page. But it takes two, and the edit history for September and October is just crazy. There is more than one person here who thinks that both of you should just chill and give it a rest for a little while. The Wiki is bigger than this one article, and if it's true that you've only been editing the article because of 2602.304, then this will have zero effect on your editing. There are still other users who can look after the page. So unless any other uninvolved users want to chime in, I think we can consider the dual article ban done. – Steel 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, instead of an article ban let's make it a topic ban on anything related to Tait, that way Bishop Alemany High School, and any other page that this might spill over to, is included as well. – Steel 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's been a very long time since I've read such a steaming pile of desperate, self-serving, "everybody did bad but me, daddy!" fiction that it was actually embarrassing to read. Novaseminary's "defense?" Everyone ganged up on poor him, while all he did was wear angel wings - while he alone protected the very existence of WP from the mortal threat posed by this one minor article with limited traffic. Ridiculous, and not a string of truth anywhere!

1) Here, his edit-warring with Drmies: Here and here and of course, his all-time favorite, here.

2) To Novaseminary's claim that the restored article was the same as the deleted one, was originally made back on March 3. Here's the response. But that wasn't good enough for him. Obviously. So much for collaborative editing. Equally obvious, Novaseminary's 2nd AfD also failed. In fact, while he says there was no consensus, there originally was consensus - to keep. Once again, Novaseminary fought it and an admin changed it, despite an !vote itself of 4 to 2 to Keep, to no consensus.

3) To his claim that the article was promotional? Here's the first entry. Remarkable how it contains much of the same material and sources, even after Novaseminary had months of editing it, several alone, to supposedly scrub it of anything "promotional."

4) Novaseminary also routinely challenges the notability of anything remotely related to Tait's N. Like here, here and here. The apparent offense of these festivals? They screened Tait's film. But this isn't the first time he's been called out for going after sources simply because they establish Tait's notability.

5) Novaseminary also attempted to make hay over the fact that an editor who challenged his edits, (pretty vocally too), was blocked. Well here's a portion of Novaseminary's own record. He misrepresented his own history on Noticeboards. Seems this isn't his first rodeo. There may have been more incidents in his history, but this was so well-detailed, I didn't see the need to look for any more.

6) Just as he misrepresented the current version of the article. Which I have now restored to reflect the actual consensus.

7) By the way, this is meatpuppetry: 1, 2, 3, 4. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I resent the claims of the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) that my actions have been meatpuppetry (and consequently that I am a meatpuppet). The IP should have brought this section to my attention, and neglected to do so. I have warned the IP for making a personal attack in this edit. The IP has never answered my question "What are your goals in editing this talk page?" about Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman) in this edit. The IP has consistently refused to login or to create an account, to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using" (asked in the same edit), and to "Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct"[182], and has instead deflected such queries as "inappropriate".[183] Given WP:BOOMERANG, I wish to discuss the IP's conduct here.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• The complete extent of Jeff G. ツ's contributions here, here, here, and here, was: "Yes per Novaseminary.", "I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue." and to twice repost a link that Novaseminary reposted over 35 times on a least 2 articles. A link that has been rejected by more than a dozen other editors. So he's free to resent the meatpuppetry conclusion. The log is the log. Although there was also his repeated attacks aimed at me while complaining of my attack on Novaseminary. As he himself, illustrated, 3 times I had to ask him to focus on the RfC topic instead of me. Three times he was unable to do so.

• Regarding his other issues, not surprisingly - again all focused on me and not the topic: a) I'm not required to create an acct, nor do I choose to do so. "Wikipedia is for everyone". b) Nor do I need to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using", mein Herr. c) My dynamic IP meant that I never saw his IP talk page post, but I called his attack on me "inappropriate" in an RfC forum, because I actually took a line from Novaseminary, who had said earlier: "Okay, but this is not the place to discuss blocking me or to dicsuss me at all." Interesting that he only found it troublesome when I said it, but not when Novaseminary did. Ironic, huh? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not to speak for him, but you never had discussed at talk why you continued to remove the Los Angeles Times article about Tait when he reverted you. You only discussed after I requested page protection. And what more than dozen editors is IP talkign about? IP removing without discussion over a dozen times, against the only discussion at talk, is not the same as over a dozen editors removing it. IP has seen fit to document and complain of my 35 edits here at ANI (miscontrueing and including among them POV edits such as (31 above, as of this edit, and the very offensive 13 above). Where are the more than dozen editors that have removed anything I have added at that article? And if this is not the place to discuss IP, it is also not the place to discuss me. Novaseminary (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• There was no reason to rehash his question, since I had already thoroughly discussed it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Douglas Tait (stuntman) - 2nd Review Request where he had participated. By the way, the full extent of his utility there was this to you: "That's a great compromise, thanks!" Obviously, I also should have included that as well. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But his emotional appeal was also instructive for what it didn't defend or explain. Like:

• a) His bizarre disambiguation.

• b) His abandoned and non-notable Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub.

• c) His wikistalking & original research of Talk's personal cell number.

• d) His attacks on other articles mentioned in Tait's article: 1, and 2.

• e) His attacks-by-citation tags on other articles because they were mentioned in Tait's article. Like here, here and here.

• f) His recent redlinking of the article, which he only withdrew when I showed him the notes against excessive redlinking, esp. if he never planned on writing those articles.

• g) His obsession with 1 article about Tait's high school basketball suspension. He posted it over 35 times, on two articles! I've also removed it from here - where it's also not only irrelevant, but inconsistent with all the other notable alumns. NONE of whom need citations - and many of whom also have their own BLPs.

• h) His insistence in renaming the article "Douglas Tait (stuntman). Tait's infobox mentions actor twice, stuntman and filmmaker. If it weren't for his orphaned stub of [Douglas Tait (illustrator)], which should probably be deleted for N, Tait wouldn't need to be listed as a "stuntman", since that ignores the entire body of his acting credits and other work as a filmmaker.

• i) And finally why, if Novaseminary's only interest in the article was to keep it from becoming promotional, couldn't/didn't he accomplish that in the 2 months when only he was regularly editing the article, from March to May of this year. Either that was not his intention at all, as he's claimed. Or he's just a really incompetent (CIR) editor. Something else is going on with his obsession over Tait. That much is obvious.

Finally, in response to his admittedly well-crafted rhetorical appeal - which he always seems to display whenever he needs it on Noticeboards - but is rarely in evidence in his contentious edits and stubborn failure to edit collaboratively. I say, save the rhetoric. His duplicitous and conniving edit pattern, contrived speechifying and transparent agenda, speak for him. A review of his edit log clearly shows he forfeited any AGF a long time ago. It also makes a strong argument that he has damaged the very WP, and regularly violating the very WP rules & guidelines, that he now claims he protected. His last disciplinary action, just a few months ago, proves the Tait article isn't just a lone exception in the way he operates here. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Steel, I'd like it noted, that I must have posted my last response at the same time that you did. And while we disagree that I have been disruptive - esp. given the time it obviously takes to research and craft responses that I hope have been useful, I understand your need to be Solomonic here and split the baby to protect your own. Fine. But yes, the topic ban was my original request, so enormous thanks for that. I also see you've protected the page as well. Again, no problem. I'll keep my part of the bargain. But, and I really hope this won't be misconstrued as "disruptive", but I'll look it over in a day or so and leave any final thoughts/comments/requests on your talk page. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not agree to a topic ban. The IP continues to insure his/her POV remains with edits, of course, right before the lock. This is a content dispute with a disruptive IP, nothing more. This is not the appropriate DR location for this discussion anyway. On the other hand, if the article is reverted to the pre-IP state, I would happily stand down. Or even if the non-RSs (and corresponding facts) were removed and the discussion of his basketball career that notes he didn't play much in the season before he was supposedly casted as a basketball player because of his play. Either way, if others (other than disruptive IP) want to discuss that version and change it, I bet there would be little to no disagreement in the future. A partial protection would probably take care of everthing. Novaseminary (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• • That Novaseminary disagrees with the topic ban shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should his argument that only his POV should remain there. It's also all everyone needs to read before they argue that any voluntary ban would ever work. It wouldn't. He could never be trusted to follow it. He still points blame at everyone else, but himself. Especially the "disruptive IP". He has never once accepted any responsibility for his own actions or ever even acknowledged that he did anything wrong. So if we're being honest, call that what it is: textbook psychopathy. Cavarrone nailed it below: "I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject." So let's all stop the "blame the disruptive IP game" once and for all, and see Novaseminary's transparent playing of the "Help me, it's us members of the community vs. the disruptive IP" card, for what it is. Novaseminary - and Novaseminary alone - brought all of this on himself. By himself. The End. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:71D1:9226:27E0:22AA (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• OMG, I've never seen such.....er...passion regarding such a non-noteworthy individual before. I remember when this page was first created and there was a lot of disagreemen over whether he was even notable (I was not one that thought he was). I do NOT think that there should be a topic ban for either, as then we'd have no one even editing this page. LOL. In all seriousness, I think a temporary topic ban would be acceptable. For instance, just keep the page fully protected for say 1 or 2 weeks and let everyone cool down. There is nothing on the page that is negative or requires immediate removal at the moment and the time away from the topic could do everyone good. I think there are a lot of egos on both sides being tested here and time apart is appropriate, IMO. I am NOT for any permanent bans or blocks. I think this has to do with editors that want the best but are going at it from 2 different sides of the equation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable on this particular situation, but I have had an IMMENSE amount of interaction with Novaseminary which started with this: [184] and thankfully 98% ended with this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior I certain that I'm the Wikipedian that knows them best. They do launch into obsessive battling behavior against individuals, including following them around and even creepier privacy related stuff that I don't care to get into. And they have "skated" by being expert at mis-using and mis-quoting policies and guidelines and clever wording that disguises such warfare as not being such. If you really want to do something really huge for Wikipedia, take a close look at what has happened at this article with this framework in mind, and 1 or preferably more folks should warn them to reduce the type of behavior exhibited. I believe that they would be very influence-able by that type of input, and with that course correction would be a good editor, as they also do much good work, aside from the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think Novaseminary's response - and reaction - finally exposed the real him. This is about policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --[[User:Ritchie333|out what's best for the Tait article, or even what's best for WP. It's about Novaseminary getting his way and getting the last word. It was amusing that he can't even let the current version stand for a second because it doesn't have his edits on it. Edits that, by consensus, had to go. And again it's also telling that he didn't even try to refute my report card on his record. Because he can't. So instead, he's called in the cavalry and asked other editors to help. Which is his right. But he's also cherry-picked editors who have worked on the article before and whom he believes he can reliably trust to agree with him. Where are all the requests for comment from editors who have worked on it and like me, also complained about his edits? He sure didn't send them "Hail Mary" invites. So I think contributions from NON-INVOLVED editors with no history on the BLP should be weighted more. I especially appreciate the comments of North, who has zero axe to grind on this article having never touched it, but who's own experience with Novaseminary makes him uniquely positioned to comment on this user's disruptive and yes, disturbing behavior. At this point it should be clear to everyone that nothing "temporary" regarding Novaseminary will/would ever work. Unless he is stopped, he won't stop. He'll say what he must say on Noticeboards to escape censure and restrictions, and then just wait until the heat dies. And then he'll resume as if nothing happened. And he'll be free to do it on the Tait article because it's not well-traveled, so it'll go on for months again until some "horrible IP" like me happens along and risks being called "disruptive", just by showing the WP community what it failed to catch or monitor itself: That he has an absolutely clear pattern and agenda, at least on the Tait article and probably on his other SPA edits elsewhere. Someone should review and request feedback from editors there to see. Because it would be incredibly foolish to let him escape responsibility again, just months after North's Noticeboard complaint. As he's demonstrated, it would also be foolish to expect/assume any voluntary, unmonitored change. People are who they are and they consistently do what they do. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9577:E52E:CA24:3B6D (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just clarifying one point, it's my guess that they would be influenced by well-written on-target warnings. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's best if Novaseminary simply stays away from the article. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't respond to IP's "report card" because it is not worthy of a response. My only concern at this article is that WP not be used for promotional purposes or be exploited to only show the good about a particular subject leaving out articles in national newspapers covering the subject in a less flattering way. That is my true color. You might disagree with how I have tried to do that, but seeing as I would prefer the article not exist (not that it highlight unflattering material about Tait, and certainly not that it be a resume, linked, as it was, from his facebook page), what else would have caused my alleged POV? If we allow an IP to inhibit strict reliance on RS and V and NPOV, especially in a BLP, the project will be worse off. I would love to tone it down. IP does not seem to have the same interest. And going straight to a ban, even though no other blocks have been made (against, me, of course; the requestor has been blocked before), and no earlier steps in editor-related DR has been undertaken, seems to violate WP:BAN. I would also note and agree with JeffG's interspersed edit above (under IP's #7 above). No meatpuppetry. This also weighs against a topic ban (for me) at least. I tried to use DR and talk. Novaseminary (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• You didn't respond, because after having your own disruptive edit log laid bare in front of you, even you have no response. Frankly, your responses only remind people why no temporary or voluntary solution requiring your compliance would ever work. I'm not entirely convinced that you shouldn't be banned altogether for abusing this project and distorting it to make it your own personal plaything. But that's for others to eventually decide. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I support the topic ban for both the editors, and, as the IP appears to accept this solution, I would be glad to see Novaseminary voluntarily accepting it. I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject. At any rate, this endless war is of no use to the project. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• A topic ban for both editors might be a good idea, I feel that the amount of time both editors have wasted on what seems like an insignificant article is becoming excessive, not to mention RFCs and BLP/N discussions that didn't really go anywhere. At this point, both editors seem to be too involved to be dispassionate and balanced in their actions on article. Also, given some of the personal attacks that have gone down on Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman), I think an interaction ban between the two might be helpful as well, though I don't know how that would work with a variable IP editor like 2602.304. Jonathanfu (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree to some extent with a topic ban for NovaSeminary. I don't know that it would matter to the IP since I don't think WikiPedia can effectively ban an entire internet provider, but if something can be done, maybe. I'm not sure being "too involved" is grounds for a ban, else much of WP would be banned. I might be more inclined to agree if the IP seemed to be editing in good faith and not breaking the rules. I think all of this is foolishness, though. As I (non)voted at the original AfD the second AfD after the deleted article was recreated (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Tait), this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. I don't see many/any editors disagreeing with that here, and in one productive thing NovaSeminary did by noting a few of the in-depth sources are disavowed, the article is less notable than it appeared during the AfD. Why not delete the article and be done with the dispute? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mmmmm I don't think your personal view about the subject's notability is so much related with the problem we are discussing. I'm pretty sure that NovaSeminary is convinced, in absolute good faith, that the subject is unnotable, but this could not be a justification to engage in an endless war with other users who wish to improve the article after that the deletion request NovaSeminary promoted has not been approved. Side Note: NovaSeminary shows some research skills, it's a shame that they are wasted, for months, in a similar article and in a few others related to this subject. Cavarrone (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• The only editor I have more than passingly disagreed with since the spring on this article was the IPv6 who unabashedly violated 3RR repeatedly. I never violated 3RR, in letter or spirit. I repeatedly engaged at Talk (and RfC and elsehwere) and tried to incorporate elements of what the IP seemed to want to do so far as policies and guidelines allowed (even if I thought it was not good, a la the overwrought discussion of Tait's scoring). I tried to arrive at consensus, and did several times with editors who did not put their view of this particular article above the goals of the project as a whole. I compromised many times. It is a fair point that this unnotable article was not worth those efforts on its own, but I do think that the principle that WP not devolve into a series of promotional articles, especially on minor articles that don't get much traffic, is worth considerable effort. There are still facts in the article sourced only to non-RSs and which don't seem to be supported by any RS. Regardless, I was not the only editor who repeatedly reverted the IP. The IP was the only editor who was battling for the positions s/he took, by and large. But Hoppingalong and Cavarrone are correct. I certainly do not think this subject meets N and that the article should be deleted. Hoppingalong makes a good point: There would be no reason to consider topic banning me or the IP if the article is deleted (though the IP's repeated violations of 3RR and other policies might justify a another block, but the first and only had no effect, so it wouldn't be worth the trouble with no evidence this IP is editing elsewhere). Novaseminary (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Lol, it was already clear that the deletion of the article would be a greatly appreciated outcome for you, but again this is not the point. For what I can see from edit history, you didn't accepted the outcome of the AfD and from then you focused your activity on WP in this article and in a few others related to it, and considering your skills this is a waste (of time, of abilities, of everything). Part of your actions on this article was useful, but (sadly) a great part of them was just vain fuss. And both you and the ip you have developed an idea of ​​property of this article, and this is always a damage to the project. Please accept a wikibreak on this article, there are thousands of other less-involved editors that could patrol it, especially now that the problem was rised at ANI, and they could make your own work, probably from a more neutral point of view. And spend more time on other articles, so that your skills are used in a more useful way. Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cavarrone: Novaseminary always forgets there is an edit history. That history doesn't lie and it doesn't engage in self-serving puffery. This is how unnotable Tait is to Novaseminary: From March 3, his first contribution to "improving" the article - which was a speedy tag -, to his last effort before the block, an October 13 nitpick about Tait's high school basketball years: the Tait article is so unnotable to Novaseminary, that he logged over two hundred and fifty edits there. Tait is so unnotable to Novaseminary that he also logged over one hundred posts on the article's talk page: where he also felt it was important to share with editors what he had found about: "The phone listed on Tait's resume", or asking "Is it worth mentioning Tait's CINE Award?", or "I removed the "Fan following section.", or where he fought to include the number he had counted of the stuntmen who shared Tait's SAG Award nomination for Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture claiming that without including his actual count of the number of stuntmen: "One would not know Tait was part of an ensemble.". Because presumably, the word "Ensemble" in the title of the award isn't clear enough. Just this week, Novaseminary complained on the talk page about: "one sentence ("He played the role of "Jason" in the final scene of Freddy vs. Jason.") was left in the "Creature character roles" section with a reference to this website. In light of the the source and fact having been removed elsewhere (along with other non-RSs), was this left in inadvertently? I don't think this website is an RS and that the fact and source should be removed."' Of course, had he read the source, he would have discovered it was actually an indie film production company's official website. This company had hired Tait for a role in their film and were so pleased they announced: "Vigilance Films signs Douglas Tait to play 'Simon' in The Season. Mr. Tait, a working stuntman and actor, got his break playing “Jason” in the ending scenes of Freddy Vs. Jason. Since then, he has worked a lot behind prosthetic fx makeup and creature suits.". But yet to Novaseminary, an official announcement from an employer, who acknowledges an important point on an actor's resume isn't a RS. The list goes on and on. If Tait appears so unnotable, perhaps it's just because Novaseminary has worked so hard to try to make the article appear so. Those totals of Novaseminary's edit contributions also don't include his long list of edits on abandoned disambiguations, WP forums and related links that I've already covered, that Novaseminary has easily spent hundreds if not thousands of man-hours populating. All for such an unnotable. Then what does that say about Novaseminary and the time he's spend cyber-obsessing over Tait.

• Tait - an "unnotable": whose bio appears in the New York Times; has been mentioned as being pivotal to the work of an Academy Award winner's award-winning work - also published in no less a RS as the Los Angeles Times, been nominated for a major industry award, produced a film that won major film festival awards, and is one of the performers who played an iconic role in an iconic film series and has the fan-base, cult following and professional credits to prove it.[185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191]. No doubt if Novaseminary were so unnotable, he'd have a BLP too.

• While Novaseminary claims he's only edit warred with me - or correction: "The only editor I have more than passingly disagreed with since the spring on this article was the IPv6 who unabashedly violated 3RR repeatedly. I never violated 3RR, in letter or spirit." Again, the edit logs tell a different story. Just some of the editors who have complained about or had run-ins with Novaseminary on this article: Trekkieman, who had to tell him: "You have been trying to delete this page for some time sir, and now you are trying whittle it down to nothing. You have already added the (stuntman) next to his name to further discredit the "ACTOR". Now you are adding negative articles to his page, and pass them off as needed articles to prove he went to Alemany. C'mon, back off." or x4n6' who had to post: "A pattern of unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on this BLP has emerged in blatant violation of WP:TE. If the disruptive editing continues, the editor will be reported. Suggest: if you will not/cannot contribute constructively to this BLP, see WP:JDI and WP:LETITGO. Otherwise, pursuing this course will result in action." Novaseminary edit warred with that person for months. Then there was Kuru, who after denying Novaseminary's speedy, saying: "decline CSD; does not appear to be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" - has been improved and expanded)" was met with Novaseminary's response: "(tag for notability - unclear anything has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait)". There was also MichaelQSchmidt, who had to remove several of Novaseminary's RS tags by saying "Dread Central and Cinefantastique and Fangoria are considered reliable sources for film related articles)". There were IP users, probably Tait fans more than WP fans, because many had never contributed to WP before. I should also probably point out that this Tait article was created on April 5, 2011. And before Novaseminary's March 3, 2012 first contribution - which was that speedy tag, without one word of editing, the article enjoyed contributions from 9 editors. None of whom found it unnotable, or tagged it for speedy. In fact as the edit history makes very clear, there were exactly zero problems with the newly rewritten BLP - until Novaseminary created the problems.

• Lastly, this obviously isn't about Tait's clear N which the links prove he easily meets on all three levels of WP:NACTOR, but it's about Novaseminary's unashamed attempt to dominate: see WP:OWN, the content of the article, and to do so in a decidedly negative, NPOV way. His latest claim that another AfD would solve the problem is just more proof that he doesn't have this project's best interests in mind, just his own. And remember, as North8000 has repeatedly tried to remind everyone, this ain't Novaseminary's first rodeo here, but it is consistent with how he operates. And Hoppingalong's delete comments would have carried more weight if s/he weren't the user who reverted the Keep decision on the last failed AfD. He should have revealed that here. Having not, his own bias is also self-evident. But finally, it's interesting that in all Novaseminary's concern about Douglas Tait (stuntman)'s notability, he doesn't question Douglas Tait (illustrator)'s notability, which he clearly supports. The Douglas Tait (illustrator) that he created. Then abandoned. Seems that if he were really interested in deleting unnotable BLPs, that would be an excellent place to start. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of wasting time... Suffice it to say, I ever so repectfully disagree with IP's analysis, or whatever somebody would call this last post. Novaseminary (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Of course. We've come to expect no less. But notwithstanding the waste of time in simply collecting and reporting it, just imagine the amount of wasted time it took for him to generate - heck, amass it. Over all those many, many months. And yet, he's still fighting for more. Hmmm... Suffice to say indeed. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Folks may not be understanding a major component of this, and how something significantly good may come out of this. You might want to re-read my post above. I think that a little advice to Novaseminary would go a long way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 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 was going through afd's and noticed that Novaseminasy subsequently re-AFD'd it. As noted before, I think that general advice to this editor regarding obsessive aggressive editing is needed and would be useful towards a more positive situation with respect to this editor. [192] North8000 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

AFD page deleted (rather than speedily kept, since no one commented on deletion), and I've confirmed the topic ban is in place on Novaseminary's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)