Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Legal threat at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [1]. 'Unless this matter is attended to swiftly by the appropriate "authorities" at Wikipedia, the matter will have to go to court'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked, talk page warning left. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions as to what we do regarding the 'opinion' left on the talk page? Given that we don't know who posted it, I wonder if we should delete it as a possible copyright violation ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Either delete it or hat it. If the latter, make a note that it is merely an opinion of a single barrister. We have ample refs indicating the official position of the HOL, and until they (or the British courts) change their mind, this barrister's opinion is no more valid than mine or yours. Manning (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Far from the first time they've posted this on the talk page and made similar legal threats. They've been directed to where they can direct their complaints before. RBI is probably the best bet as they continue this. Ravensfire (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with the deletion. I don't think hatting is enough. The barrister's position may be online, and perhaps they gave permission for the poster to republish it in some form, there's a fair chance they didn't give them permission to release it under the CC-BY-SA licence though. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, but should we really be indeffing a shared IP address registered to the largest ISP in the UK? Or is there some evidence that this is an open proxy or someone's static IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the same concern at User talk:Tom Morris#Arkell v. Pressdram, eh?. It's a dynamic IP and the user responsible, who has been at it for six years (!), has used various other IPs from the same ISP and others - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mofb. It's certain that he will be back from a different IP as he has previously said explicitly that he will simply return from another IP if he is blocked. Previous IPs from this range have been blocked for 48 hours rather than indefinitely, to reduce the potential collateral damage, and I've suggested that this block should be reduced accordingly. The blocking admin has said this is sensible but so far nobody has acted on it. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Ironholds did reduce the block earlier. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, so the link that Andy gives is now useless; if you're an admin, you can view the content here. I strongly suspect that British court judgements are Crown Copyright. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just trivia, but I think the 2005 ruling on UK Crown Copyright waives all royalites and "requiring a specific licence or approval" to publish anything held under UK Crown Copyright. (This however excludes images, scans of the original publications and certain "withheld" documents.) Manning (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - my original comment regarding copyright concerned the 'opinion' that Monckton seems to have paid his legal representative to hold (or at least claim to hold). We've no way to ascertain that this is copyright-free. Then again, there is no particular reason to assume it is genuine, even in the sense that it was necessarily written by whoever is purported to be the original source. In any case, it is the 'opinion' of someone or other, and of no more validity than anyone else's, unless and until a court says otherwise. The next time I see waffle like this on the talk page, I'll delete it as unverified, and as such of no relevance to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any real doubt it is genuine, to say you're a member of the house of Lords when most sources don't agree is one thing. To make up the words of a lawyer (i.e. someone who for professional reasons as much as anything is liable to sue) is another. I have no comment on who tried to publish it on wikipedia, but the advice has been published elsewhere, under the name of the lawyer (barrister) who it's easy to find is a real person and appears to have been sent to the Lord Speaker and chairperson of the Privileges Committee. It therefore seems fairly implausible it's not really something originating from said lawyer. This doesn't mean the barrister has given permission for it to be republished under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, nor does it mean it has any relevance. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're here, can we discuss what to do about the IP editor? This is not the first time this article has faced legal threats from an IP editor. In fact, there have been a whole series of such threats from IP editors, several identifying as Monckton himself, going all the way back to 2006 when his original account, Mofb (talk · contribs), was blocked for making legal threats. I have recently been tagging them as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mofb to keep them all together. There has been substantial disruption to the article as the IP editors all have common behavioural characteristics: deletion of material that he/they dislike; addition of unreferenced or unreliably sourced material (including false and probably libelous claims about others on at least two occasions); edit-warring; legal threats against Wikipedia and individual editors; no attempt to discuss wholesale changes; possible copyright violations (as in this case). There is no reason to believe that this won't continue, as one of the most recent IP socks said only last month, "If this IP address is blocked, we shall move to another IP address." [2]

Monckton has been advised on several occasions of dispute resolution procedures and Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest, legal threats, reliable sourcing etc. There have been at least two OTRS tickets that I know of, both of which have been worked through, and Jimbo himself has been involved. However, the person behind the IP socks clearly wants to WP:OWN the article without input from others. I think it's fair to say that he appears to have no interest whatsoever in working constructively with the community. Frankly he has been shown an amazing amount of forbearance and IP socks have been allowed to edit (for a time at least) despite the master account being blocked indefinitely. After six years though, you really have to say "enough is enough". I suggest that future IP socks should be blocked on sight - if this individual wants any further contact with Wikipedia he should do it through OTRS. What do the rest of you think? Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I suggest we put a note on the talk page to the effect that we will only communicate with anyone purporting to be Monckton or his legal representatives via WP:OTRS, and that any talk page postings, article edits, or other material posted on Wikipedia through any other means claiming to represent him will be deleted on sight, unread. If he wants to pursue Wikipedia through the courts, he can of course try, but we have no obligation to permit him to post his questionable 'legal opinions', and nor do we have any obligation to assist him in his battles to acquire a seat in the House of Lords. (And as a purely personal opinion, even if I wasn't opposed to this particular house of unearned privilege on principle, Monckton's monumental arrogance would surely be justification enough for wishing to see the back of this relic of past stupidities...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support a community ban on User:Mofb and all socks thereof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth SP'ing the talk page as well? Not generally done, but a quick scan suggests it might be merited here, due to the amount of IP driveby happening. Manning (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally recommend that, but if the aim is to force the litigious IP editor to go through OTRS, that could be worth doing. Prioryman (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike has now semi'd the talk page so unless there's any other business, I think we're done here. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Androzaniamy

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#User:Androzaniamy

Following the above ANI discussion which did not result in anything (but contains many, many diffs of disruption/incompetence), I am re-opening a thread about this user following further disruption and incompetence. While the previous discussion was opened, User:Wikipelli offered to adopt Androzaniamy on her talk page ([3]), to which Androzaniamy declined ([4]) citing her desire to adopt another user instead, among other things. This response (and edit summary) to comments in an AfD discussion also support my above assessment of Androzaniamy's behavior. 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you objecting to, please? That she doesn't want to be adopted? Surely that's not mandatory. Or that she believes in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? I rather hope most of us do, actually. --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous thread contains more information. Overall I see a general lack of competence with this user and the refusal to listen to advice by others. The refusal of adoption further supports that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just that I really wanted to adopt, I never meant to upset anyone. I'm really sorry. If Wikipelli was really upsett about me saying no I will accept his request. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your denial of adoption is not the reason for this thread. The denial just backs up my perception that you refuse to listen to others and become defensive when others tell you you're doing something wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

When? You have not provided any proof! PLEASE stop calling me names. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have proof here and at the previous thread, and I am not in violation of WP:NPA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any here and I would rather not look at the other page due to bad language posted on there. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Then please refrain from asking for evidence when it is clearly here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the other thread with contains the links and diffs of evidence, there is no profanity or bad language there. Heiro 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What is did notice in those diffs though was you refactoring other editors posts every time they pointed you to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Please don't mess with others editors posts, see here Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments.Heiro 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The essay was only pointed out once, actually. Androzaniamy edit-warred to remove "CRAP" from the shortcut (first removal, second removal). Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not. The message to Wikipelli is the only thing I think you mean and I have even apologised if I offended anyone. No other proof is on here. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To anyone reviewing this matter, the above comment is exactly what I am talking about. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW.... so this can be taken off the table.. I couldn't be less offended that my offer was rejected :) Just sayin' Wikipelli ^Talk 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How? Please explain as I am very confused. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There are obvious competence issues here, ranging from the above-referenced censoring of links to this commonly-linked-to Wikiproject piece (I'm not showing the name of the piece because I don't want to poke the ANI subject :) to oddly paranoid reactions to people doing things like dropping a Welcome template on her talkpage or offering to adopt her (both frankly kind actions were greeted with thinly-veiled threats to report the users for vandalism). I can't really comment on much more than this, but this editor's behavior is certainly strange, and in certain cases arguably disruptive. That said, no opinion on whether some kind of admin action is warranted. A shame that the editor at issue took so poorly to an offer of adoption; the editor at issue is plainly interested in improving the encyclopedia and making good faith contributions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to seem cold-hearted here, but given this editor's insistence on changing others' posts to censor, and in doing, break wikilinks, their inability to comprehend rather clear complaints about behavior, and worse of all their intention to adopt another editor (and thus spread this problem) I think this editor may be too dangerous to be allowed to participate at Wikipedia any further. While I believe their intentions are good, the disruption they are causing is not, and I don't see any way that disruption can ever be prevented short of a block. -- Atama頭 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. She could be a poster child for that policy. "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." She has been editing since December 29, 2011, barely a month. She's created several useful articles in that time: Hacker T. Dog, Stacked (TV film), and Hacker Time; if the most disruptive thing she's done is argue to defend her articles and user talk page, that's hardly a net negative to the encyclopedia. Give her a break. --GRuban (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"if the most disruptive thing she's done is defend her articles and user talk page, well, there are worse crimes, aren't there?" Oh, I'd agree. But they aren't. Have you read this thread? Editing other editors' comments for purposes of censorship is not allowed, period. If these were newbie mistakes I'd understand. But they aren't. They come about from obstinance. This behavior has been pointed out multiple times and ignored. Let me ask you then, what are we supposed to do here? Kindness and patience don't work. How do you make someone listen and understand? What tools do we have that will resolve this situation? Keep in mind, I've helped many new people, people with COI issues, I've acted as a mediator a number of times. I'm always in favor of guiding people and talking things out. But this is like trying to have a conversation with a person who can't understand what you're saying... As they're smashing holes in your walls with a hammer (with the best of intentions). If your suggestion is to pretend she's not doing anything wrong, sorry, that's not acceptable. -- Atama頭 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@GRuban: I don't see her running away. In fact, she even once posted that she was leaving, yet came back to write something else. Calabe1992 22:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with GRuban here. I've had interactions with this editor and, to put it mildly, she is, um, challenging, to say the least. But I didn't know the first time an ANI discussion was started and I don't know now what the goal here is? Block? I think the editor is, at times, misguided, obstinant, argumentative, and without a basic understanding of policies and the collaborative nature of the project but I don't see that she's done anything to warrant even a block at this time. Edits have been reverted, discussions (I'm describing them charitably here) are started, but... I'm feeling misguided passion is still passion and should be encouraged and developed. Hence my attempts at adopting the user (one of which I did very poorly, I'm afraid). My suggestion is not to engage in the seemingly endless back and forth with the editor. If she refuses guidance, so be it. When she goes off the reservation she can be reverted and warned. Eventually one of two things will happen: she'll get the message and improve or she'll accrue enough warnings to be blocked. Right now, I think that we're piling on and picking a scab when we should just say, "here's why that's out of policy" and move on. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any action myself. But mark my words, unless she has an epiphany at some point this isn't going to end well. I'm not sure what else can be done when neither warnings nor advice are effective. It's a very bad sign that absolutely nobody has anything to suggest aside from a block. And a shame, too. -- Atama頭 22:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you know, maybe the best solution is to keep it simple. She has engaged in blockable behavior (and yes, repeatedly editing others' comments without justification is blockable behavior). Maybe the best thing is to offer formal warnings, and when those warnings are ignored, issue out blocks as we would to anyone else. I guess when you get down to it, it doesn't really matter if warnings are understood. The behavior is still continuing, and the disruption is the same. -- Atama頭 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with GRuban and Wikipelli. I too have had interactions with the editor in question. She has responded well to my advice, though not always followed it to the letter. This editor's incompetence is, in my opinion, more naivety due to lack of experience than any malevolence. She needs support, advice and guidance. The welcome template is good for experienced readers but still full of Wikispeak. She admitted to not understanding it. Also, on looking round Wikipedia talk pages, which she has obviously been doing, there are some awful examples of rudeness and argumentative behaviour. OK, if there is no change of behaviour a block could be appropriate but can we first try telling this user what is acceptable (in simple plain English) rather than being negative.--Harkey (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Pointless complaining again. Three days after your last time posting a case here [5] you start a new one for the same thing. You insult someone for making new articles you don't believe should exist, but as someone pointed out to you last time, consensus in the AFD so far says many agree they should be kept. This editor felt "crap" was a swear word and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. A simple mistake. Some families do teach their children that is a swear word. That issue should be renamed Other Things Exist instead of the insulting word "crap" being used to refer to other people's articles. And if someone post something on your talk page after you removed it, you have a right to complain. And why would refusing to be "adopted" be a point against her? If a stranger offered to "adopt" me, I'd find it rather creepy myself. Eagle seems to be doing some wrong too such as removing part of an AFD post quoting a well known rule of Wikipedia [6] claiming it was a copyvio, instead of just pointing out she should link to where she got that from. Dream Focus 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• "And if someone post something on your talk page after you removed it, you have a right to complain." Androzaniamy told the user who added a WELCOME template to her talk page that if they added it again, they would be reported to AIV. This is the kind of behavior that is acceptable here? Removing "swear words," even if bad ones (i.e. the F-bomb) after being told not to do so in violation of WP:TPG, is unacceptable. Regarding your comment about adoption, Androzaniamy does not believe the adoption offer was "creepy," as she was trying to adopt another user herself. You want to see rude comments? Here, here, and here. And these comments were made before my supposed "rude" comments toward these user. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was joking about the 'creepy' part. I always felt it rather condescending to tell someone they don't know what they are doing and you want to "adopt" them though. I don't see any of the three things you just linked to as a problem. Did the person remove it again after it was explained to them properly? Seems like just a misunderstanding to me. You can in fact report someone for refusing to stop placing the same thing on your talk page after you already removed it. Dream Focus 00:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the user's behavior, I think education would be preferable to blocking, at least for now. Androzaniamy, if you're listening, I strongly urge you to reconsider adoption; based on your account's age and current circumstances, I don't think it's a good idea for you to adopt anyone right now anyway. It would greatly benefit you, and the alternative is WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. Let's not do that. If you really don't want to be adopted, you should at least spend some quality time with the various policies and guidelines people have linked you to. If you don't understand something, come to the help desk and ask! Don't assume that our policies will cater to your wants/needs: they won't. And ignore all rules isn't carte blanche to do what you want, btw. One other thing: I tried to review the user's talk page history, and none of you people know how to use edit summaries, it seems. --NYKevin @102, i.e. 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something that I think some people are missing: the user says xe doesn't want to be adopted because xe wants to adopt someone else. That is, this user thinks that not only do xe not need help, but that xe is so well-versed in Wikipedia that xe is ready to dispense advice to others. While I agree that blocking is premature, Androzaniamy cannot be allowed to mentor anyone, and Androzniamy needs to start taking into account the concerns of other editors, because Wikipedia is a rule based project, and a collaborative one. WP:IAR does not mean "I get to override any rule I don't like"...it actually says something more like "if an action is obviously agreeable to the entire community, do it even if a rule prevents it." In the case of keeping or deleting articles, the majority of the community tends to believe that deletion discussion mostly get things right, and that WP:GNG does apply in the majority of situations. Please, please, most everyone here really is trying to help you... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left a rather lengthy ramble on their talk page, which will hopefully reassure them that the administrator corps is not out to get them. Perhaps gentle nudges from another, relatively new, editor who is not a highly seasoned veteran may prove to be the support that will guide them in the right direction. Blackmane (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this is not the response you were looking for. "Oh, and the other link still had a swear word in it so I did not read it." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI for those watching this discussion, Androzaniamy posted this message on her talk page (and spammed it across others' talk pages as well) in which she attempts to address the concerns raised here. Unfortunately, there still appears to be a disconnect in regards to what the problems actually are, especially with the line "[I will] [c]ontinue being polite and competent." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Eagles24/7, what do you want to happen as a result of this discussion? I still don't understand. I was a recipient of the message, too. I didn't consider it 'spam' and, no matter whether the editor follows through or not, took it as a good faith message. I'm not going to slam her for that. My response to her message? Ok, let's move on. I thought Blackmane's message was excellent and I think the gist of this discussion is, let's put our efforts into guidance rather than picking at it. It's really time to move forward. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What do I want from this discussion? A block, a mandatory mentorship/adoption, or a change in behavior. I don't see a change in behavior and adoption has been refused. If we continue to promote this behavior in editors, they will see that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim they are acting in good faith. There is no doubt this editor is acting in good faith, but the problems with her behavior will never be corrected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As multiple people have said, she's not blockable right now. Why don't you come back when she's done something seriously bad, if you really think it will come to that? --NYKevin @895, i.e. 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this is her first trip to AN/I let's assume that she'll get the gist of it and stop her behavior. At this point she's been warned and her account has drawn the attention of multiple editors so she'll be on a somewhat tight rope. If she does it again we can block. One thing I am concerned about though is her refusal to read posts that have swear words. Swearing is a huge part of the English fucking language and she's gonna have to get used to it :). The presence of a swear word is not justification not to listen to the concerns of other editors and whether intended or not, that type of response is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - collaboration means that sometimes you work with editors who think and act differently, being okay with this is required to contribute here. N^oformation ^Talk 00:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be part of the language but it isn't compulsory. Using swearing to make a point looks a bit silly. Tigerboy1966  00:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Um.... yeah... I think being afraid to see the word c*ap is oversensitive, but I have to disagree with the contention that swearing is a "huge part of the English f-ing language". I find the F-bomb offensive and, while I'll still read posts that have it, I absolutely don't think it's necessary or appropriate in this forum. Plus, you've pretty much guaranteed that the editor in question will never read this discussion again. While we might condone the use of it, can't we be sensitive to the fact that the involved editor is offended by it? Pushing civility here :( Wikipelli ^Talk 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No I don't think so. She joined our community, not the other way around. We don't accommodate the preferences of every individual editor who arrives here and wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We have a culture, and whether or not it's right swearing is a part of this culture. Offense is a totally subjective concept and things that don't offend you might put others into a rage - the people that rage over things that don't bother others too much are generally not welcome here. N^oformation ^Talk 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not the same thing as GOINGOUTOFTHEWAYTOOFFEND, which is what "huge part of the English fucking language" clearly is in the circumstances. Surely part of living in a community, as we are, involves not trying to cause others in that community distress? I think you stepped over the line there, Noformation, and in the process ensured that the subject of this discussion will feel unable to participate, which is not clearly to the benefit of the community. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize this discussion, and anyone please correct me if they disagree on any of these points.

• Androzaniamy has not done anything at this point that warrants a block.
• Wikipedia isn't censored. There will be images and language that could potentially offend an editor, and we don't remove such things simply to avoid offense.
• Androzaniamy is new to Wikipedia and by admission doesn't have a strong grasp on policies and guidelines.
• Androzaniamy has been resistant to instruction in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, due to a desire to not be mentored, but also to avoid language considered offensive.
• Androzaniamy has shown a desire to mentor another editor, but given her lack of policy knowledge she should be discouraged from doing this.
• Androzaniamy has edited others' comments in an attempt to censor words she finds offensive, which is not allowed.

I think that seems to cover things. I've said before that if her behavior continues as it has, and she continues to ignore attempts to help her, we may be forced to block her, but that is my opinion only. For now I think it's fair to give her a chance. -- Atama頭 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Atama has summed up the situation pretty well. Would an admin kindly mark this as resolved with the WP:ROPE caveat Blackmane (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashoka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ashoka the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Emperor Ashoka The Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Avaloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned about recent edits on the topic of the former Indian emperor Ashoka. It involves cut and paste moves and POV page moves. Consequently, some of the relevant article titles have changed but I'll try to explain this as clearly as I can.

To begin with, User:Avaloan copied and pasted material from Ashoka to Ashoka the Great. As it was unexplained and as it was a cut and paste job, I reverted and notified the user. Incidentally, I know we're not supposed to template the regulars but, even though Avaloan's account is older than mine, I figured that as their account has so few edits and considering the nature of the contested edit, a template would't be inappropriate. Nonetheless, the advice and information about cut and paste moves appears to have been dismissed off hand.

Moving on, though, Avaloan has responded by moving Ashoka to Emperor Ashoka The Great. The basis for such a move, as explained in their edit summary, is blatant POV-pushing.

I admit I'm not sure how to proceed here. A revert of some sort seems in order. Discussing it with Avaloan seems sensible but, regardless of the outcome, I doubt Avaloan would know how to fix a non-consensual page move; and I know I don't. Can an admin please look into this.

Thank you. ClaretAsh 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed by myself. Avaloan 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the issue was caused by yourself and is still extant. ClaretAsh 07:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't appear to be 'fixed' - quite the opposite. Avaloan's tendency to label significant edits as minor is also of concern. Colonel Tom 08:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries such as these sure look like POVpushing. Avaloan, revert yourself and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to Ashoka The political title is definitely wrong per WP:Article titles, and the "the Great" is POV, unless the vast majority of reliable sourced refer to him in this way. If Avaloan would like to discuss a merger, the correct next step is to start a discussion at Talk:Ashoka, but I advise Avaloan to read WP:Article titles and WP:NPOV first. I'll watch both articles for future changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Now we just have to decide on whether the title should be Ashoka or Aśoka ;-) ClaretAsh 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Avalaon just moved it again ([7]). I've warned the editor that further moves may result in a block; alternatively, someone else may want to move protect the article. It may well be that Avalaon is correct that the name should be changed, but we need a discussion first on the article talk page with valid reasons backed up by WP:RS, not just xyr feeling that the current name slights the long dead emperor. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, he just moved it again. Since I expressed an opinion above, somebody might argue that I'm WP:INVOLVED. Could someone else please move it back, then move protect the article? Xe's also showed up on my talk page, and is actually refusing to give an argument in favor of xyr preferred name--see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Ashoka. I have no problem w/him discussing the issue and trying to gain consensus--but this is not how we do controversial moves. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

is there no administrator here who can put it back to it's default name which is Ashoka.a pov pusher has changed it again.accusing administrators of bias.Pernoctator (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, page back at Ashoka and protected from non-admin moves for one week, pending discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I blocked User:Avaloan after he tried yet another copy-and-paste move. This [8] is his response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked, arbcom email left for user. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cluestick needed for repeated BLP violation

The was a recent deletion discussion for Jocelyn Wildenstein, an article so poorly sourced that it includes "Five-Star Baby Name Advisor: The Smart New Way to Name Your Baby" as a reference for the subject's fame. This article had been deleted on the grounds that the subject was only known for one thing (namely extensive plastic surgery), but was recently resurrected by User:Stvfetterly. During the second deletion discussion I noticed that Stvfetterly had placed a picture of a Siberian tiger next to the subject's name in a list on their user page of articles created. I removed the image and told them that I had done so because it was a clear violation of WP:BLP. Stvfetterly has replaced the image. Can someone please give Stvfetterly a gentle tap with the cluestick? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there some background we should be aware of? I don't see how that image is a BLP violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Jocelyn Wildenstein has had extensive cosmetic surgery to her face[26] over the years, creating a "very unnatural appearance"[27] intended to elicit a more catlike look.[28] " Bulwersator (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Still not seeing how that's a BLP on Stvfetterly's user page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully someone who actually has a cluestick will see the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you search her name in Google Images before talking --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what she looks like - that doesn't mean that putting an image of a Siberian tiger next to her name is acceptable. You should probably re-read WP:BLP of you think it is. Editors who are not familiar with her appearance can consult this high-quality source (tagline: "CELEBRITY PLASTIC SURGERY, NEWS, GOSSIP") used in our article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Still not seeing how this is a BLP violation. Can you please explain explicitly why this is bad? Keep in mind, I tend to be pretty strict about BLP, but I fail to see how this is either damaging to the subject or offensive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• My desire to not be an overbearing admin policing the minutiae of everyone's userpage is conflicting with my desire to not allow someone to mock another person on his user page. What would have been wonderful is if someone had asked Stvfetterly to remove it himself, but now that his back is up I doubt that's going to happen (still, Stvfetterly, if you're reading this, please remove the image). If he doesn't, I guess I'd lean towards saying it should go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hey all . . . can someone explain why this is a BLP violation? I read the BLP information and don't see anything that applies. From what I can see, this Carbuncle guy seemd to just be angry that he couldn't get the page I was working on deleted and is trying to find some way to retaliate. I'm not trying to mock Ms. Wildenstein. There's no free image of her. Her plastic surgery was done to in an effort to make herself look more like a cat, and she was pleased with the results. She went to considerable trouble, pain, and effort to make herself look that way . . . it doesn't make sense that referring to her as cat-like/using a picture of a cat would be offensive. It should also be noted that when Carbuncle decided to edit my user page without comment, I asked him to discuss it on my talk page (Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein. He chose not to do so, but rather to bring up this ANI. He seems much more interested in beating me with a 'cluestick' than caring about the image.

If you look at other images I have on the page (like the one for Defense Soap when there's no image available I like to grab something that reminds me of the subject (in the case of defense soap I grabbed an image that looked like a white bar of soap). The user page is primarily viewed by me, and having images makes it easier to locate articles that I'm working on.

Regarding the 'poorly sourced' sourced article that was mentioned . . . perhaps someone could introduce Carbuncle to the other 24 sources listed in the Jocelyn Wildenstein article. --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit familiar with this as the admin who closed the AfD. I recommend that all involved stop this tempest in a teapot and go do something useful. Delicious carbuncle, placing a tiger's image next to this person's name is, in my opinion, a silly and tasteless thing to do in these circumstances; nonetheless it does not violate WP:BLP because it makes no false statement of fact about the person nor does it insult or otherwise attack her. This is completely not worthy of an ANI thread. Stvfetterly, if other editors are in good faith offended by something inconsequential you do, the sensible and collegial thing to do on your part would be to stop doing it and move on. I see no need for an admin action here.  Sandstein  21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll get around to contesting your closure when I have more time, but there's no reason for that Tiger image to linger there any longer than necessary. Would it be a violation of WP:BLP if an editor put File:Chimpanzee-Head.jpg on their user page next to a link to Barack Obama? Would it be a violation of WP:NPA if I put File:Chimpanzee-Head.jpg next to a link to User:Stvfetterly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Both would be rude, but not really BLP violations without more explicit motive behind it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a valid comparison though. Aside from the racial overtones of linking a black person to a primate, Barack Obama hasn't spent his life going from plastic surgeon to plastic surgeon in order to make himself look more like a chimpanzee.--Stvfetterly (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the racial overtones. I chose the example quite deliberately to make it clear why actions such as yours are a BLP violation (sometimes people here have trouble extrapolating from specific situations). I suspect that Wildenstein ended up with "cat-like" features by virtue of typically bad plastic surgery, not as the result of any desire of her own, although I'm sure you can offer some source suggesting otherwise. The fact that you believe a living person looks -- or rather, looked, since she appears to have had some new procedures done -- like a cat does not not give you license to make that comparison with images. Labelling my removal of the image as "vandalism" is a bit petty, don't you think? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. There was no botched surgery, she really intended to look like that. The article already had a source saying that it was deliberate, I added two more that quote the husband. Of those two, one has Jocelyn saying that she kept making operations to fix this and that. I haven't seen any sourced statements stating that this was a result of botched surgery. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wildenstein's appearance has been described as catlike, as in the manner of this Siberian Tiger

This is a cat, too...

...as is this. Which one is the "catlike" that she's aspiring to look like? Only an RS knows for sure.

Since BLP applies across all wikispaces, and since based on the above there's no real perception of a BLP problem here, I'm assuming that it'll be OK for me to add the image and caption shown at right to the article Jocelyn Wildenstein. Right? Or am I missing something? Herostratus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, it's not alright, because the choice of an image of a tiger to illustrate "catlike" is actually an interpretation of what that means, and, as such, requires a citation from a reliable source. "Catlike" can mean many things, it does not necessarily mean "like a tiger", it could mean "like a jaguar" or even "like a sphynx". The choice of a tiger to illustrate the expression is analysis or interpretation, and without a citation from an RS, it's OR and not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

However, someone is perfectly fine in choosing to use such an illustration on their own userpage, where OR doesn't apply, and it's not a BLP violation to do as such. Silverseren^C 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I find my self in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Silver Seren.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, because I do think it is a BLP violation. Without knowing, via a reliable sourece, just what it is she is trying to achieve, what she means by "catlike", ascribing one specific vision of what it means to her anywhere on Wikipedia seems to me to be a clear-cut BLP violation, since we are stating as fact what we don't actually know is a fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, someone is ascribing their own opinion on their userpage. And we can be pretty sure it's tiger, RS or not. It wouldn't be that hard to find a source saying tiger. Silverseren^C 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and since when have we allowed potentially derogatory opinions about public people on user pages? That goes far beyond their purpose, it seems to me.

Why are "we" pretty sure it's a tiger? I've looked at her pictures, and I don't see anything particualrly tiger-like about he looks, as opposed to panther-like, or cheetah-like or sphynx-like. (In fact, the sphynx appears to me to be the closest analogy.) And if it's so easy to find a source, why doesn't someone find one and settle this question? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is derogatory. Stv has already explained above that he didn't mean it to be as such and a number of people agree that it is not.

And considering that Tiger Woman is one of her monikers after all. See here, here, and here. Tiger Lady also seems to be a fairly common name for her. Silverseren^C 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's my opinion that it's potentially derogatory. We can't know for certain, so we do not publish stuff like that unless it is solidly supported by citations from rock-solid reliable sources With BLP, we err on the side of caution.

And are you saying that she uses "Tiger Woman" to describe herself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We err on caution in articles. But if someone isn't making an outright derogatory statement on their userpage, but is using an image to represent someone that reflects their nickname, since we don't have an actual image on the subject, it is not a BLP violation.

And you're not going to find a quote for or against from her on the subject, so that question is pointless. Silverseren^C 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies across the entirety Wikipedia. Clearly, we're not going to agree here, so I'll sum up my position and then stand down: with BLP, OR, RS, and user page concerns about this, I see no upside to allowing such "opinions" on userpages, and little downside in disallowing them. There is no guarantee of freedom of expression here, there's nothing of encyclopedic value in connecting her name to a unrelated picture, and very little of project value in allow potentially derogatory personal opinions on user pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to note that we are talking about a mere juxtaposition of a picture and a name here. No text is making any connection between the picture and her looks and even if it were it is doubtful it would be a blp violation. What precedent are we setting here? I have a skull on my userpage and the names of several politicians? Is that a problem? Is it perhaps an veiled threat? I think that we don't need to invent problems to take care of - there are enough actual problems to take care of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, we're going to stand on faux-naivite here? "No, really, I put up a picture and put her name on it but I wasn't making a suggestion that those two totally disparate thing are in any way connected, because I didn't write it down." Please, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread is WP:LAME and should be closed. Pointing out that something obviously looks like something else, especially with no malice aforethought, should not be considered a BLP violation. N^oformation ^Talk 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Something"? Try "someone", and a living someone at that. What's "lame" here is making fun of celebrities for no particular good reason. Until we get a citation that says she calls herself "Tiger Woman" or is attempting to make herself look like a tiger, it's a BLP violation, and shouldn't be anywhere in the encyclopedia. Our user pages aren't blogs, onto which we can throw any old opinion we care to share with the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to insinuate that she is merely a "thing." My vagueness was vague intentionally so as to confer the general concept, not specifically referenced to the subject of the article. As far as making fun of her goes...sorry she kind of brought that on herself, it truly is funny (th ough also sad). Some people do things that are universally ridiculed, it's disengenuous to ignore it for the sake of civility when it's simply a joke (or in this case just an illustration) on a user page. Article space is one thing, but this is something we should all just chuckle over. With that said, I'm now part of a WP:LAME discussion and by the transitive property I am now lame, so I will be backing out before I get any lamer :). N^oformation ^Talk 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, if I came across her story on a blog, I would probably think "How bizarre" and maybe even have a laugh. I might find the tiger image clever and funny. That's not the point, though, we're not a blog, we're supposed to be here to make a serious popular reference work, and even our supporting pages are supposed to maintain a certain standard. We routinely block people who cannot understand that their user pages are not their personal fiefdom, to do with as they will, and we've set up standards to follow. Some of them are only applicable to articles, etc., while others are applicable everywhere. BLP is one that is applicable everywhere, and that means that we are not free to make derogatory remarks or denigrate celebrities on our user pages at will.

Obviously, this is a rule which is honored more in the breach than otherwise -- I suspect that many nasty things have been said about famous people in talk page discussions, and I'm not advocating a search-and-destroy mission to weed them out, but when an instance comes to light and is reported, there really is no option except to follow through on policy and remove the offending remark, or, in this case, image and caption.

There is a constant tug of war on Wikipedia between being a reference work, and being an online community. Obviously, the community aspects are necessary to support the people who do the work of making an encyclopedia, but when push comes to shove, we're only an online community to that degree, and no more. When the blogging starts to override the serious part, it's got to give. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy is a malignant tumor that grows more disruptive to Wikipedia every month. Going after this userpage image has nothing to do with encyclopedic reliability or any conceivable lawsuit; it's just trashing an editor for recreation. BLP from the beginning has been an insult to every principle of Wikipedia. It may be that Wikipedia, like many people with cancer, can survive only by dying and perhaps sprouting anew from some forgotten seed. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to put your caps lock on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Many people in this discussion appear to be under the mistaken impression that Ms. Wildenstein is the victim of some horrible surgery gone wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. She WANTED the surgery that she got, she LIKES the surgery that she got, and she INTENDED to look like a cat (caps added per Carbuncle's above request). But don't take my word for it . . . let's check a few of the references from the article:

1. [9] - Jocelyn Wildenstein "may hold the world record for undergoing cosmetic surgery, having even persuaded doctors to help her achieve the cat-like look she craved."
2. [10] - Her husband claims that her surgery 'was engineered to make her look "like a cat."'
3. [11] - Her husband claims that 'she wanted to look "like a cat"'
4. [12] - Jocelyn Wildenstien "took her husband's love of cats a little too far when she had her face surgically transformed into a catlike mask in an effort to keep him from leaving her"
5. [13] - "Jocelyn realized that Alec loved his jungle estate, and the cats that inhabited it, more than anything else in life. So, armed with this information, she returned to her plastic surgeon with an unusual request: She wanted to be transformed into one of the giant cats that Alec loved so much. Though surprised at this unorthodox request, the surgeon did his best to comply."
6. [14] - "her eyes were artificially widened to make the outer corners of her eyes curl up to give them a feline aspect"
7. [15] - "Lizard Man, Stalking Cat, and Jocelyn Wildenstein all of whom have,through various surgical, tattooing, and piercing techniques, attempted to look more animal-like."
8. [16] - "Jocelyn Wildenstein, a New York socialite famous for her feline-styled cosmetic surgery"
9. [17] - Jocelyn Wildenstein is "ecstatic with her work. She feels beautiful. She looks in the mirror and she loves what she sees. She got exactly what she wanted."

Now, in light of this . . . how is putting an image of a big cat next to her name on a user page in wikipedia a violation of WP:BLP? It's like putting an image of a car next to Mario Andretti on a talk page. Something he's associated with and proud of. Where is the insult? The only insulted party here is the person who is miffed that he couldn't get the Jocelyn Wildenstein article deleted . . . Delicious Carbuncle. --Stvfetterly (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I'll take any of your three cats over this one. Brrr. I also see that this discussion isn't over yet; I wish it were. I don't have much of an opinion and I am not comfortable yet closing this thread. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The intent of the image is to mock her. As such it violates BLP. It is certainly possible to use an accurate description in a context which is mockery. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, since now I'm being tried on the assumed intent of my actions on my user page. In keeping with the spirit of the Hammurabic Code, I'll remove the image of the tiger from my user page as soon as Delicious Carbuncle removes the image of the 'no sign' from the box on his user page indicating that he is not Pauline Berry. The 'no sign' is clearly as much of an intentional slight against Dr. Pauline Berry [18] who is referenced next to it as the tiger is next to Jocelyn Wildenstein on my user page. For those of you who claim that this is a ridiculous demand . . . I wholeheartedly agree, but when in Rome . . .

What do you say Carbuncle? :P Or would you prefer that I simply edit your user page as you did with mine? --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I couldn't give two craps whether someone wants to illustrate their talk page with a tiger picture, but how the HELL did that close as a "Keep" at AfD? She's known for having been married to X, receiving a divorce settlement, and having had "extensive facial surgeries" — and that's IT?!?!? This doesn't need to be at ANI, it needs to be at Deletion Review or back at AfD. This is a You've Got to Be Fucking Kidding Me™ BLP... Carrite (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Fluttershy appeal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following ban appeal was posted by User:Fluttershy on his talk page. I am forwarding it per request, and I have no opinion in the matter.

Hello.

I'm aware that it's usually preferred in the community for someone to appeal a block or ban after a period of time since the last action made by the user, but you never know since anyone can revoke talk page access at anytime, so I'm taking advantage of that opportunity. I just want to make it clear to everyone that I am Pickbothmanlol. Specifically, I am a person who has constantly disrupted numerous wikis for several years, including the English version of Wikipedia. Since 2010, I have evaded a community-placed ban by using this account, thinking that I could get away from my past without consequence. It took me a long time to realize that, but I know now that nobody can get away and stay away with consequence. I got myself into this whole mess because of my immaturity and intent to disrupt the purpose of this project, but I want to make it clear that it is no longer my intent.

This account was never intended to be a fresh start, but as a dump account to solely create one article. I don't even remember why I bothered doing it, because I knew the account was going to be blocked and the article deleted. That article happened to be deleted, but the account remained unblocked for well over since October of 2010. Ironically, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was just introduced in the same year, but I never really got into the show until the end of the first season. I then started to edit My Little Pony articles for well over the remainder of my time being unblocked. After getting Friendship is Magic to good article status, I felt like I didn't only just contributed to something, but that I saw the benefit in helping to improve a piece of work, rather than ruin it. This inspired me to create the MLP WikiProject for My Little Pony related content. Of course, I never entirely abandoned trolling sites on Wikia, most notably being the True Capitalist Wiki. But something was missing after about two or more attacks on the True Capitalist Wiki. The joy I originally had by trolling wikis just wasn't there anymore.

Now, this might seem like a really weird thing to use as justification, but I want to credit the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for reforming myself. I want to credit an administrator by the name of User:Masem for helping me return the favor for this show by getting it to GA status, and I wouldn't mind having Masem as a mentor if I am ever unbanned. I'm ready to give back to the community of Wikipedia as a reformed editor, and not a troll. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The appeal itself is located at User talk:Fluttershy. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that some background is needed. In late January 2012, which is still very recent, I helped exposed Fluttershy as a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol during a sockpuppetry investigation. Fluttershy is now open about being Pickbothmanlol. It should be noted that Pickbothmanlol is currently community banned: Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Pickbothmanlol, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#Pickbothmanlol_ban_proposal. My goal during the SPI case was to prevent Fluttershy from hiding his past as a vandal from the community and to prevent the issue from being swept under the rug. If the community wishes to lift Pickbothmanlol's community ban and to allow Fluttershy back into the community, I'll be fine with that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that Fluttershy is a member of the "Bill Waggoner Crew", who have a troll history with several online communities, prompting his "raids" on the TCR wiki. I've reverted several cases of his friends' vandalism here already. User:SweetieBelleMLP 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments – On 21 November 2009, PBML was unblocked (block log) and given another chance after being indefinitely blocked for blatant disruption; he was then reblocked 5 days later.

On 5 December 2009, PBML was unblocked and given another chance; he was reblocked 2 days later.

After excessive socking, PBML was banned by community consensus on 26 June 2010. To date, PBML has abused 58 sock puppets and possibly 38 more.

To say the least, there needs to be a community consensus to unban and unblock if one is considered. --MuZemike 22:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol&diff=473656630&oldid=473640059 – I have a few questions for ArbCom: How long did ArbCom know about the Fluttershy-Pickbothmanlol connection? Did they investigate? If ArbCom had an investigation, what were their findings / conclusions? Did ArbCom contact Fluttershy and ask, "Are you Pickbothmanlol"? If that question was posed, did Fluttershy confirm being Pickbothmanlol, or did he deny it? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We received an email regarding a possible connection and acknowledged receipt, but did not investigate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll copy over what I've put on the Arb page. I've gone back through our records. On 10 December 2011 someone sent us a clipping from an IRC log, in which a user with the handle Rainbow-Dash-EN said that they were Pickbothmanlol. The person sending it said they were now using the handle Fluttershy-EN, on a different IP. I will put my hands up and say as far as I was concerned I couldn't do anything but acknowledge it, because I'm not hot on the technical stuff and never use the IRC channel. It should have been punted to the Checkusers to follow up, but it fell through the cracks in the volume of other stuff that we get emailed to us. So a cock up (if you'll excuse the phrase), certainly no one was giving Pickbothmanlol permission to edit, no matter which pony he named himself after. I still recall his last two 'returns'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I strongly oppose lifting this ban. The best I think we should do is to give this person the "standard offer" - do nothing for 6 months -- no socking, no disruption, no editing via IPs, no nothing -- so we have actual proof of being "reformed", and not simply a bald assertion, and the community will then reconsider the ban. Until that happens, definitely not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This user is showing... well... signs of desperation. The talk page messages do not inspire me with a terrible amount of confidence that the user has changed, and while I'm not sure what to make of the last thread (trying to convince us of his/her reformation by donating three dollars to the WMF), it, combined with the rest of the user's postings, leaves me rather nervous. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not see this individual being able to contribute constructively...ever. My respect for BMK's judgement would modify my opinion to the point where I could defer to their position. Tiderolls 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support with editing limited to MLP:FIM and "internet culture" closely construed; and related process; with mentoring; for six months. I've checked Fluttershy's edits, and I believe that their intention with regards to Wikipedia is to produce encyclopaedic content in relation to MLP:FIM and "internet culture" closely construed. If they're mentored we can observe their edits, and if they are problematic (last six months indicates this isn't likely) then we can ban them readily. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, neither the part of me that usually says "unblock, reblocks are cheap", or even the part of me that would usually want to toss some rope, can overcome the sheer amount of disruption caused, and the unconvincing nature of the appeal. Begoon ^talk 00:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Nope. Appeal not credible. "Reformed from a life of trolling by MLP"? Really? The "IRC regular" who Fluttershy is trying to protect is almost certainly Zalgo (talk · contribs), who is currently the subject of heavy sanctions himself and who regularly protects troll/sock accounts of whom he's aware. Identifying to him is not exactly owning up to one's actions, on IRC or elsewhere. Fluttershy claims the editor in question was Δ. If Pickbothmanlol wants to be unbanned, the Standard Offer is open to him in the same way it is to any other banned user. Backdoors, sneaking in to create "just one article", and generally gleefully trolling until caught are not the way to do it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• oppose absolutely no reason to let this person back in.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Kill it. kill it with fire. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fake - This is pure bullshit and you're all being trolled. There's been a bunch of nonsense going on with socks and My Little Pony for at least a couple weeks now, there have been threads at AN/I already. Fluttershy isn't PBMLOL any more than Jimbo is. The ban appeal is trolling. This thread should be closed and Fluttershy ought to be blocked for disruption. Night Ranger (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • He already is User:SweetieBelleMLP 03:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good. Now what's the connection between yourself, User:Roambassador, User:Princess Derpy, and User:Mythpage88? Night Ranger (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (disclosure: I'm the blocking admin). Let the outcome be decided on not words, but actions - in this case, pursuance of the standard offer. I must also add that Night Ranger is mistaken that this isn't PBML. WilliamH (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose User is invited to try "Standard Offer" or BASC. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. See WP:Standard offer. -- œ^™ 03:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pattern of disruption by User:HuskyMoon at Phillipe Kahn

Editor HuskyMoon has repeatedly changed the sourced 1952 birth year to 1962 at Phillipe Kahn without explanation. The following are all since 22 Apr 2011: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

The editor also removed {{POV}} and {{Like resume}} tags: [26] and has been removing other editors comments on the article talk page at Talk:Philippe Kahn: [27] [28] to be fair, the stuff from the beginning of the talk page probably didn't belong there in the first place, but the discussion in the "Checking Neutrality" section was also removed.

Another editor has expressed suspicion that "he is either Kahn himself or someone closely associated with Kahn". Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has caused google to return "Best guess for Philippe Kahn Date of birth is March 16, 1962" when searching on "philippe kahn born". Google is basing that on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and answers.com (which is citing Wikipedia as the source). I just went and changed it at Category:Philippe Kahn on commons, but it looks like the problem has cascaded. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the correct date of birth, I will warn the user not to remove cited material without explanation, to engage in discussion on the talk page and not to abide by talk page guidelines. --RA (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully one of us will eventually get them to understand. Any idea if Google and answers.com will eventually correct themselves if the Wikipedia and Wikimedia dates stays stable? Mojoworker (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is one crappy article. You'd think that the PR people would hire a decent writer. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User Page of User:VodkaChronic

I've been looking for the right policy and noticeboard to address this, but have not had any luck. Please look at the content at User:VodkaChronic and determine if it is appropriate. It seems like it is not but I'm not sure under which policy or guideline it is not. If another venue is more appropriate for this question, please point me in that direction. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:NPA might cover it, given the obviously intended context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another admin deleted the speedy deletion nomination and all the content was restored[29], plus some additional content attempting to discredit another editor. It really does not seem appropriate for these comments about another editor to be allowed on a person's user page. 72Dino (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've informed user:JamesBWatson, the declining admin. Also, I think this is a pretty clear cut NPA case, but speedy having been declined, I'm taking it to MFD. Nah, too soon for MFD I'd like the user to at least read ANI thread first. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, user:VodkaChronic hirself was not notified. I've notified hir. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I regard this page as unhelpful. It represents a paranoid, conspiracy-theory based "if you're not with me then you are my enemy" approach, which is not the way that Wikipedia works. However, I declined the speedy deletion as a personal attack, because as far as I can see it isn't a personal attack. In its present form it doesn't refer to any individual person or persons. An earlier version of the page did mention an individual person, but all it said about that person was that they were "an agent of the Latter-Day-Saints-Mormons", and the page then went on to say that editing about "Latter day Saints" was biased. The editing of the user referred to is indeed largely favourable to the "Latter day Saints", and while the particular way that the user page refers to that fact is, in my opinion, not the most helpful way of doing so, I cannot see it as a personal attack. However, if there is a consensus that it is a personal attack then we can do a revision deletion on the version containing those personal references, leaving the current version, with no reference to any person, intact. I don't like this user page, but "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern earlier was the user page focus on another editor by trying to use someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream, even though the editor does not self-identify as a Latter-day Saint on the user page. User:VodkaChronic has now removed this reference to another editor from the user page so that concern is removed. The remaining content still is not constructive, but does not appear to be a personal attack IMO. 72Dino (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Skier Dude

User:Odinia

Odinia (talk · contribs) made a lengthy edit to Germanic neopaganism which was a copyvio. I reverted it and Odinia responded with an edit containing a (not very serious) legal threat. She repeated the threat in a request for my recall on my admin recall page. I warned her about the NLT policy. She has since made a second edit repeating the threat and making a lot of assertions which probably don't belong on a talk page. Could someone please have a look and see if any admin action is warranted? Will notify her of this discussion momentarily. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My god, I had to read through that incredibly obnoxious diatribe just to get to the "not very serious" legal threat at the end. And just before lunch, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Threat repeated in a further talk page contribution but by this time it's not the legal threats really but the likely disruption that is worrying me. I don't like to see new editors put off by the process here but perhaps this case is an exception. However I am too close to this and will not take any action myself. I won't reply further on her talk page as this does not seem to be helping. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yuk. I've commented there on the legal threat issue. What a rant! I did end up saying that most of us don't share her bigotry, I couldn't just let her tirade go unchallenged. Let's face it, if she continues to edit she's almost certainly going to end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling another editor "a nasty piece of work" is just about as clear a violation of WP:NPA as you're ever likely to see. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure he wasn't commenting on their edits and not on them as a person? Heiro 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite sure, given the idiomatic nature of that phrase; it's invariably used to refer to people, not literally "work". Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kim that the almost certain disruption is a bigger problem than the legal threat, which tallies with Doug's comment that a block is almost inevitable - just a question of when.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

the time will, in my opinion, come at the next similar edit. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's two editors who don't like my comments (one on my talk page). I'm not sure NPA is really meant to protect comments like hers, and it's a bit ironic that Malleus has chimed in on my comment rather than the editor. I'm normally one of the most civil editors around and don't like personal attacks, but her homophobic anti-Semitic rant was too much for me to ignore. I guess I'll invoke WP:IAR and WP:COMMMON - or am I supposed to apologise to her? First they came…Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is the Nazi and who is the victim of Nazism, Dougweller? Passive-aggressive cliches don't help anything.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, do you want an answer here or my talk page where you also posted? Ah, I see you are also replying to me at The Bushranger's talk page, where you've written (besides some criticism of my English and my 'self-understanding', "Why not silence yourself when you have nothing good to say?". I'm not one of the Admins who have blocked you in the past and I didn't comment on your RFCU, so I don't understand why you are on two talk pages and here questioning me. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you answer here, and then strike through your histrionic (and alas cliched) passive-aggressive comparison of yourself to a victim of Nazism, on all the pages they occur. Who are you comparing to Nazis? Why don't you strike through your apparent personal attack on Malleus?

I have no concern with you, apart from your NPAs and passive-aggressive behavior at ANI (and its echoes on other pages).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comparing anyone with Nazis nor of course do I consider myself a victim of Nazism. I don't think Malleus is thin-skinned enough to take 'a bit ironic' as a personal attack and I've already explained my comments about the editor you should really be concerned about. Your interpretaion of Niemöller's quotation is clearly not the same as mine. In this context it simply means that there are times when it's imperative to speak out, and I think this was one of them, however minor in the course of human events (oops, another quote). Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided maybe I should actually read what WP:NPA, which is of course policy, not just a guideline, says. It turns out that the nutshell version reads "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." So I'm right thinking that IRA IAR and commonsense are relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Among German Lutherans, you might consider Luther, to avoid the Nazi comparison implicit in quoting Niemöller. Phil Ochs would serve in some cases.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally something we can agree on. Phil Ochs. But I think Niemöller has a wider application than just Nazis. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Being the Grump that I am, I'd probably have told this contributor to take their Onanism Odinism elsewhere long ago, and while I admire your restraint, I feel that it is unlikely to be productive. (I'd not recommend calling in the IRA just yet though - try WP:IAR first ;) ).AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Strictly a trolling account. Hard to figure why it's not blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll and POV-pusher. Unlikely to offer WP anything but drama. Ban per WP:NLT. --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chesire FM Limited Incident

The IP Address 109.150.141.52 has posted a comment to my talk page threatening Wikipedia for a legal issue regarding the article Cheshire FM. I would like an administrator to step in and review this claim and take in on from here. User_talk:Michaelzeng7#Cheshire_FM_Limited is my talk page. Thank you so much. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left the IP a message about WP:NLT. I'm adding the article to my watch list. There may have been some information which went too far per Wikipedia's privacy guidelines, so there could need to be some oversighting here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have revdel'd the edits that included the personal information. Number 57 23:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the contentious information was originally added by 109.155.199.65 (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Cybercobra & User:Ism schism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Cybercobra & User:Ism schism have been engaging in behavior that seems to be a clear case of wikihounding (as per Wikipedia:Harassment). I have no idea why they seem to have fixated upon me, but they are both following me to all of the various articles I have been on and spearheading attacks on said pages. One of the calls for deletions was quickly and summarily dismissed, but this did not deter them from attacking. They have also taken to erasing relevant exchanges and incriminating information. An example of this is where CyberCobra realized that 2/3rds of his TODO list was focused on me (after I pointed this out to him), so he erased all references to that regards from his TODO list and refilled it with new things... meanwhile erasing our entire exchange for a third time.

Curiously, the timing and tag-team nature of these two users strikes me as odd. They may be sockpuppets of each other, or perhaps they are just friends who both have nothing better to do with their time than target people like myself for harassment.

I really don't have the time or energy to deal with this situation, and it has made my experience of editing here rather unpleasant. [note, that this is part of the definition of wikihounding]. Whether their claims about the articles they have put up for deletion are true or not, the policy is that editors should be careful not to edit or attack multiple postings by the same author to avoid the propriety of stalking or hounding. It seems only fair to me that these two users retract their abusive preoccupation with me and my posts, and leave any problems with these articles to other editors and administrators.

The articles in question include Water Charity, JahSun, Omnientheism, the relevant Talk pages, all relevant User pages etc. Water Charity is an international water aid organization that I co-founded and am CEO of, with projects completed in 70 nations, large sums of money raised, and plenty of media coverage. There are other colleagues of ours in hydro-philanthropy that warrant articles despite being active in less than 1/3rd of the countries we are. The idea that WC is not notable enough for Wikipedia seems impossible to me, but at the moment, I don't have the time to fight with these guys. I have 2 companies to run, and can't hope to emerge victorious in edit wars with two people who seem to have all day to mess around here.

Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated. JahSun (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• TODO list edits in question. I also have another TODO list on my userpage: User:Cybercobra#TODO. Here's my prior conversation with JahSun. He seems a promotional WP:SPA. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just looked at the relevant article/talk pages/AFDs etc., and it seems clear to me that the problem is as Cybercobra describes. JahSun, unless you can comply with the WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, then your edits will not be accepted by any editor. Most importantly, it seems, you have failed to supply reliable sources for the 2 articles at AFD. Without such, their deletion is pretty much inevitable. I see no harassment here - rather I see many attempts to help you by pointing you in the right direction, by both the editors you have named, and attempts to explain the policies and guidelines here. You have, in my opinon, been less than receptive to good help and advice freely offered. I do understand, though, that when you first begin to edit here, there is a lot of information to absorb, which can be confusing. Unfortunately, your choice to edit articles about subjects with which you have a close involvement is an extra factor, and means that you also need to read and take into account everything at WP:COI too. Begoon ^talk 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) [adding that I see you have now provided some additional references - so striking that part - apologies] Begoon ^talk

JahSun, while I appreciate that having all your contributions crawled over can feel like hounding, there is a good reason why this happens. When a fairly new editor starts making edits or begins new articles which arouse disquiet, it's often the case that all their contributions get scrutinised. I'm afraid it does look like yours may be an account with some issues with conflict of interest and not all your articles or edits are well sourced. I don't see anything in the edits you complain of to warrant administrator attention, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The removal of the Afd tag [30] shows that this editor has not given sufficient time and effort to work according to WP policy, much less work with WP:RS and WP:BLP. Also, since the editor is attempting to create an article about himself, inherent conflicts of interest are abundant. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Given that JahSun has recently created articles on himself, a neologism he's created, a company he founded and has unhelpfully edited Userpages, I would say it is he who should be receiving attention from administrators for blatant, unrepentent spam. The editors named in this "incident" are guilty of nothing more than helping maintain Wikipedia's neutrality and freedom from self-promotion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that last part was just JahSun accidentally confusing User and User_talk pages. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice the history of ANI and Sockpuppetry calls

In User:Cybercobra's archive which he so kindly placed here, a history of ANI complaints and charges of sockpuppetry can be found. It seems that I am not only not the first person to be subjected to abuse from this user, but the latest in a very long line. You can read here in this user's archive of at least 2 recent cases where he has been accused of sockpuppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra/Archive_1#Sockpuppetry_case A number of other edits in his talk page are also burying complaints leveled against him, and he prides himself on being a so-called BOLD editor who doesn't care about communication, but just acts first according to his interests, many of which seem like COIs with the subject matter. He is a programmer of some skill it seems, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was able to bury more of these calls where we can't find them. This is merely Archive_1, I wonder how many other archives full of complaints he might have simply erased or is not sharing...

In the end, I don't care if my pages are taken down. The idea that they might need some help and assistance from other users more familiar with Wikipedia protocol than I, is not hard to imagine. However, instead of being constructive, these two have taken it upon themselves to hound and attack without any really constructive criticism. Any advice or criticism they have given has come after they already initiated Deletion precedings, and amounted to a lot of snide tit-for-tat and revisionism. They have operated like a tag team duo, which makes me wonder if they are not sockpuppets or at least friends who find this kind of thing amusing.

The fact that one of their calls for deletion was dismissed outright, I think they might not be the most impartial editors to handle the articles in question. I call that all of their influence on the articles be revoked and to let the natural course run with whatever fresh editors feel the need to pick up the torch... if any. Even in spite of their historical revisionism, it is clear that they have an unhealthy obsession with me and my organization. I may have engaged in some self-promotion (not realizing that it is a crime), but this is because we are an all-volunteer organization who doesn't have an army of people paid to do stuff like this on the sly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs)

JahSun, you keep telling us you are too busy to have to deal with these proposed deletions. Yet somehow you find time to write long, long arguments at the deletion proposal pages as well as people's talk pages, and even to file Administrator Noticeboard complaints. If you would just spend one-tenth of that time finding and posting links to a few reliable sources about this charity and about you, you could make this whole controversy go away. You keep insisting there are hundreds of articles about you and your charity, and you drop the names of major sources (Newsweek etc.) you say have published them. Just take the time to find them, post links in your articles and in the deletion discussion, and presto! All the "delete" votes incuding mine would get changed to "keep" and you could go back to your offline activities. That's all we need - to SEE the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which you claim exists. But note the the definition of reliable sources. They must be independent, fact-checking publications such as newspapers. So far you have not been able to come up with a single one, and that is what will probably cause your articles to be deleted. Telling us how important you are, and how unfairly you think you are being treated, is getting you nowhere. I remain open to keeping these articles, if you can just show us the sources you claim are there. MelanieN (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There are at present about a dozen references to independent sources mentioning or describing our work and speaking to its notability. As I understand the rules here WP:ABOUTSELF, the sources you find unreliable are actually in the category of Questionable which as you can see, are sources that can be used in various circumstances. The rules for WP:NONPROFIT are clear. We must be international. This is proven in spades (70 countries of activity dwarfs many of our colleagues who have pages here). We must have multiple sources verifying our activities (check). It goes on to say that our major achievements can be used to speak to our notability... I would say helping 1 million human beings get access to clean water & sanitation counts. To this end, the hundreds of projects we have up online are valid sources. JahSun (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In your inexperience, you are significantly misinterpreting the contents of my talkpage archive. I am not going to dignify your paranoid implied personal attacks with any further response. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:JahSun

Okay, I've put up with the baseless accusations of socking, tag-teaming, and general-bad-faith, but this crosses the fscking line:

Wikipedia should not be the bastion of unemployed people without anything better to do with their time. It seems wrong to let the formulation of what is true in the modern culture rest upon the shoulders of misanthropic individuals who rarely seem to leave home. I ask that this witch hunt not be rewarded.
—User:JahSun @ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Water_Charity

I request this be redacted. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You have put up with the accusations of sockpuppeting, tag-teaming and what not because you know that you have in fact been investigated for such behavior previously. It would be ridiculous for you to act hurt over me pointing out that you have been the subject of a number ANI complaints over your career here. I stand by the idea that Wikipedia should not be the exclusive domain of people who have nothing better to do. While I didn't specifically call you a misanthrope, you seem to feel that the tag applies. The contents of your contributions list speak volumes about how much time you have to devote here. JahSun (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are people allowed to put penis pictures on their userpage and fake the media wiki interface?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this allowed [31]? How about faking the orange message bar on your userpage [32]? Night Ranger (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. I have just removed both the images and the orange bar; should they appear again, feel free to report them to me and I'll gladly protect those userpages. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the hate- and Osama was awesome-stuff equally offensive. At least it's soapboxy... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Nor should they stuff beans up their nose. NewbyG ( talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree entirely, but for those you have to go to WP:MFD I'm afraid... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FYI Salvio, the orange bar has already been removed in the past and he just put it back later [33]. Night Ranger (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? MFD the entire userpage? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I stupidly assumed those were real userboxes... Right now I'm off to bed, so I can't properly follow up on this. I'll let another passing admin deal with them – or I'll remove them tomorrow myself. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

the top of this page says:

You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

. is there a reason i was not notified? -badmachine 03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they forgot. Any reason you had a few dozen cocks on your user page? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's because "you" weren't the subject. Your userpage was. English 101. Night Ranger (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Night Ranger, sorry, that's nonsense. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

the reason they were there is that i love penises, especially that one, and was unaware that they are not allowed on userpages. i see them in articles, so i didnt think that userpages were any different. i have been linked to the policy now, and have found a suitable replacement. regarding Night Ranger's nasty comment, sounds like hair splitting to me. also, not bothering to notify me of your sockpuppetry accusation smacks of cowardice. -badmachine 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, content guidelines for userspace are far stricter than article space, where we can show almost any kind of sexual or violent content. I think Orestes' modestly is sufficient though, so you're probably ok for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

for now? i dont want any more problems from Night Ranger, is there a definitive policy on this? -badmachine 04:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have to ask for a policy to force you to stop doing something that others are asking you to stop, it means you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you insist, WP:UP states that you may not have "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". --Jayron32 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

but nobody asked me to stop. there were fifty dicks (very hot ones btw) on my page, but someone linked me to the policy, i read it, and replaced it with art. but there are boobies in it so i thought i would ask. i'm giving up... if someone objects to orestes being on my page they can whine about it here and im sure it will be removed. this shit is clogging up my watchlist. -badmachine 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Orestes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks. frankly i dont know how you guys keep up with these pages. my watchlist was literally too damn long for me to use. -badmachine 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In my remark "for now" meant "as long as this revision of your page is up". BTW, good luck bringing Friendship is Magic to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying. i think gettting MLP to FA status would be awesome, while pissing off the person accusing half the bronies on the MLP wikiproject of being sockpuppets. -badmachine 13:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Incognito

Upon reviewing this thread, I see you all have taken the liberty of not only removing the fake talk page message, but his userboxes as well. Last I checked those were perfectly fine, so I've taken the liberty of adding some myself. User:SweetieBelleMLP 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Troll accounts?

What's with all the troll accounts? User:Badmachine, User:Incognito and User:SweetieBelleMLP certainly seem pretty.. similar. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol might be of interest as well. They surely seem to have a lot of fun with this. :) --Conti|✉ 12:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, Wikipedia is not as welcoming of a place as it portrays itself to be. User:SweetieBelleMLP 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) being stalked by daniel brandt is not fun conti. look through my contribs and you will see that i have been constructively contributing here for four fucking years. does WP:AGF does not apply to admins, Conti? i see why casual editors who are not familiar with every single fucking policy here are run off by people like you. -badmachine 12:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There has to be a certain amount of doublethink involved to proclaim on your userpage to support a bunch of trolls while at the same time complaining politely about being called one. :-) --Conti|✉ 12:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

it was Night Ranger's accusation that brought me here. apparently liking My Little Pony is enough to make him think i am a sock. my hope is that the GNAAs presence on my page will make him shit his drawers, you know.. for the lulz. -badmachine 13:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We aren't here for "lulz" - we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. If you lose sight of this fact, you'll find yourself in opposition to those of us who haven't. Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

yes the lack of humor here at wikipedia is evident. i stand falsely accused of sockpuppetry, and happen to believe that trolling is beneficial to the evolution of internet users into a thicker skinned variety of people, and the GNAA logo was added yesterday. i do not wish to find myself in opposition to any of you but to pick apart userpages based upon an affinity for a cartoon or any internet or other group is unfair. also, i do not believe that you were impersonated. i think you are hot and would like to have drinks with you someday. -badmachine 21:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threats by Mt6617

at Talk:Pteromerhanophobia, use of such friendly words as "libel", "slander", "defamation", "must apologize", etc, see talk page linked earlier and the header of this diff. They are not outright threats, but they sure seem like chilling legalese to me. Thoughts? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CharlieEchoTango. My intentions are NOT to initiate any legal action. I am actually very happy that you have put this here. Someone, needs to review this topic. The Fear of Flying is a VERY real subject, and an accurate article needs to be written. Thank you again for bringing this to the forefront.--Mt6617 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I also replied to Mt6617 (talk · contribs) on my talk page about accusations of "slander / libel" ... I did not take them as legal threats at this point (and I'm the one to whom they were directed), but I did post a warning to them on my talk page to be more careful with such misguided accusations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mt6617 posted a phone number on the article talk page. I've redacted it, but can someone please revdel or oversight (whichever is appropriate) the revisions which include the number? It first appears here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He or she was upset, but it's mainly because they're new and aren't familiar with guidelines. They were acting in good faith and I've managed to calm them down and gave some advice. Night Ranger (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how much cognitive dissonance is caused by people coming here answering the siren call that "Anyone can edit", only to find that, because we're now a middle-aged project (by Internet standards) and no longer the blank slate we started out as, there are actually rules, procedures and structures that have evolved which need to be taken into account when editing, and one can't simply pop in and do whatever one wants. I understand that the WMF is worried about continuing to attract new users (when they really should be more concerned about holding on to long-term editors who contribute material of better quality), but perhaps they might think about moderating the air of laissez-faire they project, and give newcomers a more realistic view of what they're going to experience.

Just a thought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any fixing people who equate "anyone can edit" with "you can do whatever you want"? (not referring to this situation, just in general) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(A bit off-topic, so subject removal) I recently advised a user that the slogan/motto "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not suffixed with "constructively" due to our basic assumption of good faith. Why would one come here to intentionally cause harm? If one's naiveté/lack of social awareness/immaturity allows them to act on the premise that Wikipedia is a mêlée, that their burden to bear...not ours. Tiderolls 07:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be enough to say "the encyclpedia anyone can contribute to" or "the encycylopedia anyone can improve." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat on the Village Pump

Hi, someone brought it to my attention that a legal threat is posted on Wikipedia's Village Pump page by PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) against our website Wikipedia Review — Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_Review_-_libel.3F ... I looked up WP:LEGALTHREAT and reporting the comment here, as per what people said it'd unlikely work out very well for anyone trying to take down an internet watchdog, but it does count as a threat per the rules (I'd also comment if the discussion were not closed that the attack claiming we supported SOPA was totally false and the comment was warning the public that it would return, there's a thread bashing on SOPA in Politics that goes on for several pages for crying out loud) ---Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You seriously shouldn't be wanting to go there Selina. Suggest closing this with a trout. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Wikipedia Review is an 'internet watchdog', is it? Yeah right.. Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia Review is an "internet watchdog" or "the worst site on the internet" is irrelevant. The policy forbids making legal threats, period.VolunteerMarek 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who pointed it out on WR. Given that a lot of people who post on WR (including admins, current and former Arbs, etc.) also post on/edit Wikipedia, calling for a libel lawsuit to be launched against WR DOES IN FACT constitute a LEGAL THREAT which is explicitly forbidden by WP:LEGAL. Or hell, if the poster threatened a libel suit against "some completely unrelated website called xyz" that would still be a violation of WP:LEGAL. In those circumstances standard procedure is that the person making the legal threat gets indef banned until they retract the threat.

Now, I totally understand that a lot of Wikipedians don't like WR. But that's irrelevant. The policy doesn't say "it's okay to make legal threats against websites which we don't like, just don't make legal threats against websites we like". It says DON'T MAKE LEGAL THREATS. And that's what an accusation of libel - combined with an explicit call for a lawsuit (!!!!!! - how much clearer can that get????) is.

Of course, I have enough common sense to realize that Paolo in what he wrote above was being just stupid, either out of too much Wikipedia-is-teh-awesome-and-sue-anyone-who-says-otherwise kind of zealotry, or out of some desire to kiss the abstract-collective ass of WMF/Wikipedia, or some combination of both. And so, despite the fact that I've seen people get indeffed for much weaker kinds of legal threats I don't think that AT THIS POINT they should be indeffed blocked (though seriously, if there was any kind of consistency to policy enforcement he would have gotten blocked when the threat first appeared). Just warned, trout slapped and the legal threat should be removed and rev-deleted per standard procedure in such cases.VolunteerMarek 06:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind: one reason that we don't allow legal threats is because it can be legally problematic for wikipedia to have an editor who is suing us be in contact with us in any way but through our lawyers. This is a very common practice in the US, wherein when a party is part of a lawsuit they will only communicate about that lawsuit through their lawyers. Legal threats against WR have nothing to do with Wikipedia and so this policy doesn't apply in that context, though Selina might want to stop communicating with the user for the sake of her site. The second reason we forbid legal threats is due to the chilling effect it can have, but on wikipedia. I haven't read the diffs and background here so I cannot comment as to whether this threat effects WP, but effecting the WR is not our business.

With that said, unless the user is causing a chilling effect, there is not necessarily a cause to block the user whether or not he retracts, though if he continued to push the point it would probably move into WP:TE and WP:CIVIL violations. That's my take on the matter as a TV lawyer. N^oformation ^Talk 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, or at least not exactly. That may be "one reason" but it is not the "only reason". The WP:LEGAL policy states:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages.

and

While you may sue in a court of law, Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes. Making legal threats is uncivil and causes a number of serious problems:

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
• It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.
• We have had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past. By making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia.

And it is simply not true that Legal threats against WR have nothing to do with Wikipedia and so this policy doesn't apply in that context, - that's about as wrong headed reading of the policy as I've seen in my 6 years here. The policy doesn't just prohibit making legal threats AGAINST Wikipedia, but making legal threats ON Wikipedia, against whomever. And yes, making legal threats against non-Wikipedia entities is usually dealt with via an indef block. If Joe threatens to sue Sue for libel on Wikipedia, that's a indef block right there, whether or not Sue edits wikipedia or not.VolunteerMarek 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the WMF have no legal connection to Wikipedia Review, and a legal threat against WR has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia or the Foundation. It certainly doesn't qualify under WP:NLT, unless we're going to expand the penumbra of our policies to anything and everything that's vaguely related to us, in which case, let's include Wikia, and Conservapeida and anywhere else our editors might contribute. Perhaps we should block anyone who makes a legal threat anywhere on the Internet, on the theory that one of our editors might read it and be disinclined to edit afterwards.

No, l et WR deal with it in whatever way they want to, it's got nothing to do with us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Again (how many times does this have to be repeated before it sinks in?) - the policy doesn't say it's okay to make threats against entities who "have no legal connection to WMF", it says NOT TO MAKE LEGAL THREATS, period. *I* have no legal connection to WMF. But if someone were to make a legal threat against me on Wikipedia it would certainly qualify under WP:NLT and the person in question would be indef blocked. Same thing here. Please learn a policy before commenting on it.VolunteerMarek

I think you're right in the literal interpretation but wrong in the interpretation of the spirit. If I threatened to sue say...Coca cola no one would bat an eye because it doesn't have anything to do with WP and it doesn't have a chilling effect on editing. Again, I didn't read the background here so I don't know if this meets those qualifications, if it has a chilling effect then it's certainly a policy violation. N^oformation ^Talk 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be a WP:NLT violation as well, and it could (would) get you blocked (seen it happen). The problem is that these kinds of threats - however empty they may be - can potentially create legal problems for Wikipedia. That's why they're banned outright. One more time: it does not matter whether the person or entity being threatened has anything to do with WP or not. Or think of it this way; pick a politician or an actor, at random. Chances are that politician or actor "doesn't have anything to do with WP". You still cannot make legal threats against them on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just NOT a place to post legal threats. VolunteerMarek 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "legal threats against Wikipedia or Wikipedia's editors or blah blah blah" is definitely implied (and considering that someone went and misinterpreted it so badly, should probably be added explicitly) since only a legal threat of that sort would have the chilling effect that NLT is intended to stop. WP:COMMONSENSE, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of the "blah blah blah" in your comment is more or less an explicit admission that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Please stop contributing negative value added to the discussion.VolunteerMarek 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it means I'm not going to give your nonsensical interpretation any more thought than it deserves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Though I will reiterate that repeated discussion of legal workings can simply be considered disruptive without appeal to NLT since it's not helping the encyclopedia any. N^oformation ^Talk 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He's right, the page doesn't even mention the WMF, it seems to be talking about legal threats to other users (MANY people from Wikipedia also use Wikipedia Review...)? If that's ok, then ok, but it didn't give that impression to me... --

And what is the theory behind how a threat to sue WR would stop Wikipedia editors from making edits here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking any kind of action against Weekly Reader would only boost its visibility and credibility, and reduce Wikipedia's credibility at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya think, Bugs? I dunno about that. How about this scenario instead: WR gets sued and loses, and disappears from the scene, and we no longer have to deal with their b.s.

Incidentally, I'd be more than pleased if WR was truly an "Internet watchdog" which help to keep Wikipedia on the straight-and-narrow, an outside ombudsmen to keep us and the WMF honest, but from what I've seen of it, it's got far too many trolls and malcontents contributing to it, whose only aim seems to be to cause trouble, whether or not it's justified or necessary. It my opinion, it's totally worthless, and an impediment to true oversight. I've certainly never found anything there that justified, to me, it's existence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A good fantasy: Weekly Reader gets sued and disappears forever. Reality: They would just pop up somewhere else, with an even worse attitude - and maybe offshore where we couldn't touch them (thanks, in part, to our opposition to SOPA and PIPA). In fact, every time their very existence is acknowledge on wikipedia (including this, for sure) it feeds that troll child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, one can dream... Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To dream, perchance to sweep (or mop); eye, there's the rub, to shuffle that mote of coal off the internet, or to at least to give them a pause, to refresh ourselves. Alas, poor Weekly Reader; we knew them hornblowers; especially in the Biblical sense. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Why would anyone sue WR? It's comprised of people who were banned from here and mainly exists to provide them a rant forum where they can nurse grudges. If that's what people choose to focus their daily life on then that's kind of sad, but really up to them. In any case, the "legal threat" is not credible. Maybe WR haters should set up a new site "Wikipedia Review Review"? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you could simplify it simply to "Bitchipedia Review" :) Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just for clarification - if someone comes here and vandalises the Skoda article threatening to sue their local car dealership, then that's just tedious, and they would probably end up blocked for disruption (not legal threats). If they threaten to sue the editor who reverts them, that falls under NLT. If they discover that the owner of the car dealership edits here, and threaten to sue him, that falls under NLT too - pursuing an off wiki legal action onwiki. Paolo would have to threaten to sue Miss Selina for it to be a blockable legal threat. Note: I am not recommending anyone do this. If Paulo wants to pursue this, he should contact the WMF, although I don't think he would get anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Elen, unlike in regard to some of the others involved in this discussion, I actually have some respect for you. So let me just say that your interpretation (the Skoda example) is NOT how WP:NLT has been applied/enforced over the years. WP:NLT doesn't specify that only legal threats directed at Wikipedia editors are prohibited, but rather than in general legal threats are prohibited. And with good reason. A policy against legal threats in general actually protects Wikipedia.VolunteerMarek 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Marek, I can't personally think of a single occasion where an editor has been blocked under NLT for threatening to sue an outside organisation, without in some way threatening to involve Wikipedia editors in the lawsuit. Blocked yes, under NLT no. There has to be a threat agains a wikipedia editor or editors - Acme Foocorp sell defective cars, and I will sue anyone who takes this information out of the article; I have started a lawsuit against Foobar Records to prove that Ron Jones played guitar with the Flailing Hairnets. Editing this information will make you a party to the action - these come under NLT. Paolo's actions come under the heading of "Plum Stupid".--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have just Removed numerous personal attacks by administrators user:AndyTheGrump, user:Beyond My Ken, user:Baseball Bugs and user:Russavia directed at me and other users (including other administrators!) who visit Wikipedia Review. This is extremely poor conduct for administrators, who should be acting to a higher standard than users, not acting any way they want because they think they can get away with it or whatever. I'm really disappointed by the lack of professionalism and maturity... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted you for refactoring other's comments. GiantSnowman 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman beat me to it. I'd have undone the refactoring first if I'd been quick enough. There was impoliteness and impatience but no outright attacks. I don't know you personally, Mistress Selina Kyle but I suspect that your editing style here may need you to develop a thicker skin. Bugs and Malleus to name just two would laugh off those "attacks" as fleabites. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to reverted this too, but was beaten to it. If you consider such comments 'personal attacks' then I suggest you raise the matter at the appropriate place - though how anyone defending WR can have the gall to complain about 'personal attacks' is beyond me. And by the way, I'm not an admin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Mistress, either you are saying those editors are Administrators at WR, or you don't know how to tell which editors here are Administrators. Which is it? Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Mistress Selina Kyle is unblocked less than a week, and teh drahmahz ensue. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Drama is the mainstay of AN/I, come on, if it wasn't this, it'd be something else. People like Baseball Bugs need something to do here. And this particular episode was generated by somebody who thought it wise to start making legal threats. Sorry, can't turn this one around on Selina.VolunteerMarek 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

I'm on my way to bed, but I noticed that User:BrigitteGabriel has made this edit to Brigitte Gabriel. I think the edit summary could be construed as a legal threat, but given the nature of the situation I think it should be handled delicately by someone with more time tonight. I have gone ahead and placed a COI tag on the article. --Daniel 06:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

She doesn't get a notification? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps moot in this case. I don't think it's a legal threat as she was referring to the source, not an editor. But I've blocked her anyway "because the username, BrigitteGabriel, matches the name of a well-known, living person." She can email OTRS and prove who she is and get unblocked. I also gave her a COI welcome template. This may become a matter for WP:COIN later on. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Paedophile POV-pushing mass-sockpuppeeteer

• Juice Leskinen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JuiceJuhola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paedophile POV-pusher bragging about sockpuppeting... See Talk:Child sexual abuse#POV-check. Possibly related to the Haiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) crew that people previously saw organising on NAMBLA forums who are permanantly banned (background)... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Noformation just made a helpful post saying it is a returning one called Cataconia (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI ^confirmed) and said that Child Sexual Abuse, Pedophilia and Rind et al controversy need to be semiprotected then saw I had already made a post, thought I should add that in case it helps --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked someguy to semi on his talk page but he didn't agree that the effort was concentrated. He suggested WP:RFPP but I'm feeling pretty lazy right now. Awesome catch, btw, what ever your rep might have been in the past stuff like this definitely helps erase it :). N^oformation ^Talk 07:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They are already indefinitely semi-protected, they were before Noformation made his post. No comments on the returning vandal/sock-puppet. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, how did User:JuiceJuhola edit the pages if they are semi'd? Account was created yesterday. N^oformation ^Talk 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He edited talk, not the pages. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I thought that when an article was semi'd the talk page was as well. In the case of pages of such subject matter I don't think it would be a bad idea to semi the talk pages as well. N^oformation ^Talk 07:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting article talk pages is never a good idea. —Dark 07:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) And how would legitimate unconfirmed editors request an edit be made? We should not semi talk pages except for a very small period of time in cases of massive disruption. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can understand how it could be logistically problematic so I won't push for it. N^oformation ^Talk 07:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CET- Where the article talk page is protected, the help/noticeboards would be the default, based on situation; of course, unconfirmed accounts are less likely to find/use them, but you're right about our need to minimize that need. Dru of Id (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes we create a subpage of the talk page for anons to use. There is also Wikipedia:RFED. In either event, I believe the norm is to mention and link to the place to make edits in a notice in the talk page. However I question whether this is of use here. It seems to work at places like Talk:Justin Bieber where the problem is 'fans' and run of the mill trolls/vandals, it may not work here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• If nobody else has done it, I'll run a check to see if there are any more of them out there. Mistress Selina Kyle - thanks for pointing out this bunch of block evading socks, but could I point you at WP:CHILDPROTECT if you have concerns about more subtle POV pushing in that area, as starting a thread here with the words "Paedophile editor" could have unintended consequences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor causing vandalism

Resolved

User:Typhoonwikihelper's talk page says, "My computer is now being attack by a Trojan Horse.please be noted that i am not doing the Vandalism".[34] He has awarded himself a few barnstars, posting a discussion thread beginning "I hate you" on the talk page of The Last Angry Man[35], and removed his barnstars.[36] Could an administrator please block the account until the editor can resolve the problem. TFD (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd pending assurances the editor is ready to make constructive edits. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A trojan horse that makes your computer perform disruptive edits to Wikipedia? Suuuure. Especially given his not-exactly-stellar performance here in the two weeks he's had an account. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the future, I believe AIV would give you a quicker response. —Dark 07:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:KimvdLinde: Canvassing, disruptive editing, false polling, etc.

There is a discussion about WP:Manual of Style wording, at WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. As usual any time this issues comes up, it turned into a huge debate with WP:BIRDS at the center of it because of their insistence on capitalizing the common names of bird species in Wikipedia articles because ornithology journals do so. The debate is actually about tightening the MOS language, to indicate that WP:BIRDS insists on an exception to MOS's general rule (adopted in 2008, after consensus favored the idea at WP:VPP in 2007). KimvdLinde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrived early in the debate and has engaged in a constant pattern of obstructionism and disruption, especially a) "I didn't hear that" refusal to recognize the points actually being raised and always returning to the idea that the wording changes are an attack on her and her project (they're in fact the opposite; they're a concession; I can get into that later if anyone asks); and b) continually couching the debate in terms of violence ("kicking us in the ass", "attacking us", etc.). I warned her against this four times, in the page and in edit summaries. While once or twice is just a verbal tick, doing it every other time you post is a pattern of not-so-subtle suggestion that those who disagree with you are have dark, violent motives, a gross assumption of bad faith; and after four warnings it takes on the shape of a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. I can provide diffs of all this if deemed necessary, but this is background, really, not the main issue, and doing so could take a couple of hours.

As further background: KimvdLinde's issue seems to be that she does not believe, or rather does not want anyone else to believe, that the capitalization of bird names on Wikipedia ("Bald Eagle") is controversial, when it has been one of the most controversial idea here ever, for seven years running. The proposed tweaks to MOS would take MOS's extant recommendation to use lower case for the common names of animal species, not that WP:BIRDS prefers to capitalize them in ornithology articles and that this is controversial, and advise no to do this in other categories of articles. Very simple and 100% accurate. Noting when something within its scope is subject to serious controversy is standard operating procedure. I have been entirely open about the fact that I oppose the birds capitalization as imposition of a strange specialist practice in a generalist encyclopedia (the same main argument others have raised for seven years) but that it is far more important to "firewall" WP:BIRDS and stop the strife, while ensuring MOS makes it clear that people need to quit taking the birds example and going and capitalizing things like "Lion", "Bottlenose Dolphin", "Mountain Dog" and "Przewalski's Horse" (real examples), except where proper names appear in them ("Przewalski"). MOS should arguably not mention birds at all, just the default that it recommends and let WP:BIRDS do what it does under a claim of WP:IAR, but MOS regulars have attempted to compromise. And been rewarded with personal attacks and a canvassing campaign of tendentious, hostile chaos.

The first main issue is blatant canvassing by KimvdLinde, here, leading to this thread, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Caps warriors at it again, a blatant violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. It contains a direct personal attack on me here, by Kim. I was not notified by anyone of these accusation either. The project has long displayed an attitude and belief that they are a sovereign unit who can make up their own rules and that they control the bird articles.

The second main issue is that KimvdLinde has launched this pseudo-poll, where she is deciding who is and isn't in favor of (her intentionally skewed misrepresentation of) the proposal and essentially voting for people, based on her assumptions about their statements and intent (wrong in several cases), and then proceeded to manipulate the pseudo-data to indicate that her opposition was divided. I could go on.

Kim has essentially totally derailed, through a campaign of tendentious histrionics and a drama-mongering, what was once a sane conversation about which version of a mnior tweak to a guideline paragraph to use, after a long and stressful debate finally wound down (coming to no new conclusions about birds, only about how to clean up the MOS wording on animal names). She has made a massive WP:SOAPBOX of the issue, and generated a WP:FILIBUSTER and general chaos by canvassing. She is now questioning clear consensuses, demanding that they be "re-consensused", an obvious form of "asking the other parent" and wikilawyering, and seems to be unaware that consensus does not require unanimity. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we just reached the next step in the "codify-in-the-MoS-that-WP:BIRD-editors-do-it-wrong" war that User:SMcCandlish has been waging for several weeks now. The facts at the page speak for themselves, and I am sorry that I busted his proclaimed consensus for codification that does not exist. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it is obvious to me that the issue is controversial, we just disagree on WHY it is controversial. So, that claim above can be thrown into the trash. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the end of that debate then. It is standard operating procedure for MOS to note that something like this is controversial; it is not the guideline's job to blatantly lie or hide the truth just to make a particular group of editors feel better. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you are deciding for me that this is then the end of the debate. That is actually the problem here, because you are trying to push your point though using heavy handed techniques such as proclaiming consensus when there is not and starting polls based on that with limited choices. Furthermore, there is no controversy in the bird literature about this; the controversy is with the editors who oppose the bird literature. And as such, if anything about the controversy is codified, it should be about those editors. But you keep insisting that the BIRD editors are generating the controversy, which is false. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been arguing all week that there is no controversy. Now you've conceded there's a controversy after all. That automatically means that the debate about that has ended. Basic logic isn't pushing anything through heavy handed whatever. Please stop re-re-re-re-raising your perennial straw man that "there is no controversy in the bird literature, so you must be wrong". Not one party to the debate in seven years has ever, ever, ever suggested that there was a controversy in the bird literature, and you know that full well, and you know full well that is not what the debate is about. Cf. the article Handwave. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is indeed a manufactured controversy that is maintained by some editors at WP:MOS. That does not mean that it should be codified as if the bird editors are the problem. They are not. It would be nice if you get the point. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing manufactured about the controversy; it's raged for 7+ years all over the place. Your pretense that all evidence handed to you doesn't exist, followed by simply re-re-repeating the same arguments you've made before and which have already addressed is is the very definition of tendentiousness. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Another point. Yes, I do not trust SMcCandlish because of his repeated proclamations that he will keep battling about this. He is not in the discussion to solve this in a good way, he is in it to eventually change the practise at WOP:BIRD. So yes, I have good reason not to trust him and to assume good faith. Here are some diffs of the proclamation Your behavior, however, is actually making me want to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it., I want to stop that, and leave the birds issue for later resolution, which could take another 7 years, basically. Another piont why I don't trust him is that he already has drafted a ArbCom request-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you and feeling compelled by you to continue disagreeing with you, and to say so, is not acting in bad faith, and no grounds for personal attacks by you. I have no need to try to change practice at WP:BIRDS; many, many other people are opposed to your inappropriate-in-an-encyclopedia typographical practice. I'm far more concerned about people capitalizing things like Horse and Goldfish. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel compelled to continue disagreeing with me, that is your problem, not mine. I do not appreciate that you try to make me responsible (feeling compelled by you) for your behavior. I would suggest in this context to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as going after a whole wikiproject because you disagree with me is exactly that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting out of context. I was obviously being arch. The passage you're treating as if it were a smoking gun is immediately followed by "But I'm about as tired of this as Sabine. I just want to firewall your project so others stop emulating it, and in way that makes it clear that MOS is not acting as ArbCom ... it's more important to compromise for the good of the 'pedia than for me to get my way." The rest of this I've already addressed. I've never engaged in an actual WP:POINT violation in my entire 6.5+ years here. Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not me who stated: Your behavior, however, is actually making me want to go after the birds capitalization and get rid of it.. Yes, that is a thread to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't think that is silly, I think that is childish and if executed, bannable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To use your "it's not my problem" dismissiveness: It's not my problem if you have no sense of humor and cannot understand when someone is being ironic and exaggeratory to get a point across to you about your behavior. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the issue is whether the MoS should codify when they deem something controversial. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS is just a guideline; it doesn't "codify" anything. MOS routinely notes when something within its scope is controversial (a.k.a. does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus). It is effectively bound by policy to do so, since to not to do would be to assume WP:ARBCOM's role and declaring the debate over and in whose favor. The other alternative is to not mention the issue at all, which is my preference. I would rather that MOS simply stated that we do not capitalize the common names of species, and if WP:BIRDS wants to keep doing it, they can defend the practice against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a WP:IAR basis, since they believe their position to be a strong one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When checking WP:MOS, the claim that WP:MOS regularly codifies that things are controversial is a hoax. Please check yourself. Just another claim that does not hold true. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I said that MOS does not "codify" anything; it's not a policy, much less a law. What are you talking about? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I use codifying a bit wider than just law, like it is explained here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There isn't anything at all bad about "the process of precisely formulating a statement", so I'm not sure why you use it in a pejorative sense. (Not the definition I'm used to, but it's actually applicable here, in a good way.) Anyway, this "hoax" claim of your is another great example of your playing the WP:IDHT game. In the very first paragraphs of the debate, and to you directly, I cited a pile of examples because you demanded proof that MOS regularly does this. Below, in a new outdent, I've given them to you again, and there are many others.

No, when you make a claim, you can provide the evidence. Showing a few examples at SUBPAGES does not make it regular. In all those cases, there is no consensus within the wikiprojects itself and there is a generic statement. In our case, it is a rather specific statement that codifies that it is the WP:BIRD editors that are the problem, while there are far more editors in other projects objecting as well. Furthermore, there is NO dispute about this among bird editors. So yes, you can expect opposition to your specific version of codification of the dispute. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) PS. this comment was disconnected from most of the post it was a reply to because of refactoring after the reply was posted.

Oh, and if notifying the wikiproject that is under discussion for special treatment is canvassing, I will plead guilty. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Issuing a call-to-arms titled "Caps warriors at it again" is not a neutral notice per WP:CANVASS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was not clear to me that you had a problem with the title. Will fix that immediately, although I think the title is factually correct. fixed -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit late for that; the damage already done. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be. I think it is childish to just raise the issue at ANI, while there would have been multiple locations you could have solved the issue just as easy, like my talk page, or per e-mail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and why do we have such a problem with this. In the Bird Literature, names are caped. Here is a just a short list. Just seconds ago, SMcCandlish proclaims that it looks illiterate and childish to the average reader. This kind of labeling of the work of one of the more prolific wikiprojects really does not help, especially considering that Capitalized Bird Names are the norm in all the relevant literature for all these species. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An exemplary case in point of WP:IDHT. Kimvdlinde has been provided with the answer to this question too many times to count. It's because this is a general encyclopedia for a general readership, and capitalization of bird name is a specialist practice by specialist writers for specialist publications read by a specialist audience. I didn't "label the work" of the project, I pointed out what typical perceptions are. I'm hardly the first to note this. Even ornithological papers from thirty years ago criticized the practice on the same basis. But this is not WT:BIRDS. This ANI is about canvassing, intentional disruption, poll falsification and personal attacks, remember? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this ANI is about not asking someone to refractor a header that is perceived as non-neutral, proclaiming you have a consensus when you have not, starting a poll to codify a dispute in the WP:MOS using a false dichotomy of options based on the previous, filing a ANI report on the editor who exposed your false claim for consensus, threatening to disrupt a whole wikiproject because you are fed up with me, using ancient literature you make your point (Even ornithological papers from thirty years ago), ignoring WP:RS, and more. All because you want to have your claim that the Capitalization of Bird Names is controversial included in the MOS. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus}

• Comment: "The project has long displayed an attitude and belief that they are a sovereign unit who can make up their own rules and that they control the bird articles." <- that is the crux of all this nonsense. A false argument that assumes bad faith beforehand from highly active and productive WikiProjects that normally do not get involved in the superficial wikilawyering going on in the rest of Wikipedia at all. It's also the reason why SMcCandlish's proposals have been met with such hostility by not only WP:BIRD participants, but WP:TOL members as well. All the accusations leveled against Kim are exhibited by SMcCandlish, particularly the part about being tendentious. Truth is, everyone but the MOS-people are already extremely tired of this discussion being brought up again and again. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that I haven't brought the issue up in ages, and even when I did last time (at WT:MOS), it was about rampant capitalization all over the place, of things like Lion and Ball Python, not birds specifically. You're barking up the wrong tree. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Deets: The last time I brought the issue up at MOS was here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#Capitalization_of_animal_and_plant_names_now_rampant, five whole months ago, and it wasn't about birds in particular. The last time the WP:BIRDS practice was raised as the major subject of discussion at MOS was at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#Bird_names on 25 January 2011, in a discussion I wasn't party to. I brought up animal caps generally at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_116#Dispute:_Life_form_capitalization_run_rampant way back in May 2010. The two post of mine shown here are what has led to the current proposal; I've shown that that capitalization of animal names, willy-nilly, has become a massive problem. I was not the first to note this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_94#Animal_capitalization, in which I barely participated, dates to December 2007, and seems to be what led to the MOS consensus for a solid default in favor of lower case. The idea that this is some personal campaign of mine is absurd. I was barely present, and made a single passing comment. I did bring the issue up earlier, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_87#Common_names_of_animals in July 2007, but again not about birds in particular. Only a month earlier, the WP:BIRDS practice, however, was the focus of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_81#Capitalization_of_Common_Names_of_birds, in which I didn't participate at all. And so on. Yeah, that's a real damning pile of evidence of tendentious anti-WP:BIRDS behavior on my part. Can we get back to the canvassing, attacks, and false polling issue now? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Kimvdlinde has again WP:IDHT'd, having demanded evidence that MOS routinely annotates disputes that affect its guidance, been given the requested evidence, the conveniently "forgotten" it; above she claims that such cases don't exist. Here they are again, word for word, from my original reply to her. And there are many more:

  ...the MOS has quite frequently contained "it's controversial" or "it doesn't have consensus" statements when they were pertinent, and various guidelines still (and always) do at any given time. E.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece", as just one example. It's quite routine, really. ... Here's more: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related: "Present English usage itself varies on how to spell such French forms and there is currently no consensus among editors on the issue...." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles: "...decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes." And so on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  I found those in a matter of minutes. It's not my job to do your research for you. It's ironic to me that all of the chaos of this canvassing, attacking, I'm-gonna-quit-Wikipedia, poll-manipulating tirade of yours, on the basis that MOS can't say that something is controversial, could have been avoided by five minutes of reading that would have shown you this isn't true.

  Actually, it's not ironic, it's just inexplicable, since I already provided all of this to you, word for word, at your request, at the very beginning of the debate. There shouldn't have been a debate (not that kind of debate anyway, but a calm discussion). You generated one. Then left in huff, but came back when things were calm and generated another flamewar. Then when things weren't going your way, you canvassed an entire WikiProject to come to your aid. And then manipulated data about what their actual opinions were, subverting the actual poll. And even editwarred when I tried to undo some of your data manipulation. Please explain.

  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, when you make a claim, you can provide the evidence. Showing a few examples at SUBPAGES does not make it regular. In all those cases, there is no consensus within the wikiprojects itself and there is a generic statement. In our case, it is a rather specific statement that codifies that it is the WP:BIRD editors that are the problem, while there are far more editors in other projects objecting as well. Furthermore, there is NO dispute about this among bird editors. So yes, you can expect opposition to your specific version of codification of the dispute. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? It's pure accident that right this moment all the disputed stuff happens to be on subpages; MOS changes all the time. Subpages of MOS are as much a part of MOS as the main page; MOS just gets split into subtopics when it gets too big, just like WP:SUMMARY style for articles. The proposal specific, because you and other bird editors insisted that it be so (my original wording said "some editors" not "WikiProject Birds".) Yet more WP:IDHT selective memory games. Whether there's a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at some project is irrelevant. That policy was created, after various ArbCom cases, precisely to stop projects from going off and making their own rules and ignoring site-wide ones. You don't understand the policies, nor the guidelines, nor even the proposal language, which protects WP:BIRDS far more than it should. You're thrashing. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this up at WP:DRN if you are; I don't see much of any other way that further discussion between us can be productive. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter that could be better resolved at an appropriate dispute resolution forum, rather than ANI. I do not see any personal attacks leveled against SMc, yet I do believe the canvassing that has occurred is regrettable. I strongly urge Kim to stop using the phrase "cap warriors" as it is unnecessarily provocative. I do not believe any administrative action needs to be taken at the present, although I do urge the parties involved to cool down with the accusations. I believe an RfC will be more helpful than posting this at ANI. —Dark 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: Just for the record, the personal attack was a direct public accusation of bad faith, posted at the WT:BIRDS thread: "There is NO good faith at SMcandlish side" — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. It's just plain bad faith. —Dark 09:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment. This dispute seems closely related to the ongoing arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. So, I doubt it can be solved at ANI or that is even appropriate to bring it here at this late stage. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamieclaymore edits and stubborness

User:JamieClaymore has made alot of edits in the Claymore (manga) related articles. Editing featured list articles into her/his own format he believes is best. These edits got me stressed however kept my cool and reverted most of them and brought up some tips in the talkpage in which ignored and reverted. i asked for justification and wanted me to answer a rather uncivil and irrelevant question in which i did but instead of an answer the editor ignored me per previouus discussions in my talkpage not relating to the topicand continues to revert without any justification. Also warned him/her that this is potentially cheating the system and could be banned. Person claims that it was my intention from the beginning. Imm getting stressed and the articles are being vandalized as we speak for no justification at all. So forgive me if this is not where it suppose to be posted but the editor will not listen anymore.Lucia Black (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't settle content disputes here at ANI because those are for you, the subject experts, to work out between yourselves. However I've left Jamieclaymore a note on their talk page. I think you too need to be reminded that edit warring gets editors blocked (four reverts from you on Claymore (manga) today) and does nothing to help to resolve these disputes. I notice that Jamieclaymore seems to have accepted your advice about using IMDB as a source, so clearly you've been able to help them there and they haven't ignored you. Hopefully you'll find that if you stop reverting each other and calling each other's edits "vandalism" (which they are not), you'll be able to cool the atmosphere down enough that you can come to some sort of compromise. EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What happens when its reverted? Ive seen this before though on here. Dispute is looked against both parties regardless of how the situation is brought up. i havent called it vandalism yet. I have assumed good faith and attempted to fixed it by iscussing. I didnt come here so you can side with me with content dispute, but the issue lead me here because the editor didnt want to discuss. So i brought it here to see if it was potentially cheating the system (avoiding discussions and making his/her own edits regardless of revert)Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

abuse of twinkle tool

Resolved

 – no evidence of any wrongdoing Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the user Andy_Dingley is using the twinkle tool to falsely revert legitimate edits and claim they are vandalism. He has been warned about this before from the administrator Ramaksoud2000 and he has continued this behavior. --208.86.2.205 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you be specific and link to an instance? You also failed to notify him of this discussion, which I have now done. Calabe1992 15:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has a long history of doing this and just by looking at his contributions you can see some examples however a recent example of note is the following edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single-board_microcontroller&action=historysubmit&diff=474865202&oldid=474856736 --208.86.2.205 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And the issue there is what? On its own, the reverted edit could easily be taken to be vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it could. The edit summary of the reverted edit was also a bit confusing as it referred to the removal of the picture but the edit also removed two supporting sources and additional content - so the twinkle usage seems not to have violated anything, and there is nothing to see worthy of admin action. Youreallycan 19:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Block review request: User:SweetieBelleMLP

I've just blocked SweetieBelleMLP for 31 hours for harassment and attempting to impersonate me be using my image on his user page. His edit is an obvious response to my removing a sexually explicit image from his user page per wp:userpage. I'm requesting the review for two reasons:

• I'm personally involved
• I'd like the block extended to indef as the user is obviously here to disrupt rather than contribute to Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reviewed, approved, and extended. I point your attention to PP4L, a somewhat puzzling redirect that can only have been created in reference to this sort of thing. A Google search is insightful. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - That the user has a history of disruption is an aggravating factor for an extended ban.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not the only suspect redirect. I'd like to suggest that an editor review all of this user's contributions for disruption remediation. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty obvious troll account, so yeah, good block. --Conti|✉ 17:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block. As a side note, I have just declined an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; they had no intention of contributing positively here. GiantSnowman 17:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This particular account is part of a larger, more sophisticated problem we could loosely describe as related to the GNAA which also involves various other sock/meat accounts. We would do well to go backwards and look at this account's interactions with and ties to other accounts - especially those accounts which have actively worked to defend them as there is no reason to believe active sock/meat puppets still exist. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol has a list of accounts that are most likely connected in one way or another. --Conti|✉ 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support blocking this account + socks + ban Bulwersator (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Comming out of the retirement to address another issue, I like to add that the user Fluttershy who is one of the sockpuppets of the GNAA attempted to blackmail me through email into providing administrator access on Rainbowdash.net through an account connected to "Ghost" which is part of the GNAA's troll podcast "Capitalist Radio". The reason was that I wanted to edit MLP articles under this account, and keep my main account separate from those edits, which is perfectly within policy as long as I reported myself to ARBCOM (which I have done, + reported the Blackmail) but this user threaten me with checkuser, plus thought I had no idea how policy worked here, and tried to leverage that to get admin access to the site. I have no idea what GNAA's interests are to MLP, but add blackmailing users to that list. Cabal-of-rdn (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of Viriditas by Hearfourmewesique

As can be seen in this diff, I was told the following: "You know very well who WMC is, so I won't play your little game." I would like a clarification and an apology from Viriditas. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WMC is User:William M. Connolley - and frankly unless you edit in his preferred areas, you are quite unlikely to remember his initials. You "intersect" with him at such major topics as 1.Al_Gore, 2.Asperger_syndrome, 3.Jesus, 4.Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute, 5.Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian and 6.The_Soup_Nazi. Noteworthy topics, I am sure, but not ones where I would expect you to remember his initials. I think Viriditas should emend his comments thereon. Collect (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know what WMC stood for and I am well aware of who William M. Connolley is.--v/r - TP 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the full username, as Collect pointed above. My problem is with the way Viriditas communicated, refusing to post further replies, as if he is trying to make a point, which I'm still not getting. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Viriditas has one of the most aggressive styles of editing I have experienced anywhere on the en wikipedia - imo if you are expecting an apology from them you will wait forever. I advise you (and anyone else for that matter) to take his account, and any article you have encountered him on, off your watchlist . Youreallycan 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the exact words of my response to Hearfourmewesique's query on my talk page, explcitly and very politely declining to engage with him: "Heh. I think I have to pass on this. When I go on a Fox News bender, it usually lasts several weeks, and I really need to focus on other things right now. But please keep me in mind."[37] Please point out the "aggression" you see, Youreallycan. The user was asked to go away, refused, and continued to harass me on my talk page. I think the aggression is obvious here, and it's not from me. Hearfourmewesique can't take no for an answer, so he comes here to continue his dispute. Pretty transparent if you ask me. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, you were politely told that I had no wish to discuss anything with you[38] and you were also told where to find the answers you were looking for.[39] After you were informed that I had no wish to discuss anything with you, you deliberately ignored my wishes and continued to try to discuss the topic on my talk page,[40][41][42] and harass me.[43] This thread title should be changed to "Harassment of Viriditas by Hearfourmewesique" and Hearfourmewesique should be informed that when a user politely declines to engage in a discussion with him, he should accept it rather than hounding the user for answers over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how Viriditas here did anything improper. The diffs above seem clear enough. The complainant is urged, simply, to stay away. Case closed. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of personal attacks that I removed against me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed personal attacks made on me by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and Russavia (talk · contribs) here per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks...

• [44]

And was then reverted by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who then made a false comment that "Consensus is that those remarks you RPAed are not to be RPAed" (there was no consensus) and then threatened me against removing them again ... with "Please consider this a final warning."... This is all contrary to what Wikipedia:No personal attacks says, which really needs to be enforced more especially in bringing administrator behaviour up to a higher standard so there is less of a hyperaggressive, trollish, chan-like atmosphere and stop driving away so many female users who don't want to put up with this kind of stuff, I'm the rare one that refuses to be put off by this stuff but this is the main reason so many people don't want to be involved in Wikipedia when they see how so many people act towards each other all the time)...

I think the deliberately insulting/trolling comments against me (Wikipedia Review is my site) below is deplorable, not only if it was from a user but from administrators I think is incredibly unprofessional behaviour and I am surprised this is not only being tolerated - but supported?

• "LOL .. grow up"
• "blah blah blah"
• "Weekly Reader"
• "trolls and malcontents"
• "troll child"
• "Weekly Reader; we knew them hornblowers"
• "It's comprised of people who were banned from here and mainly exists to provide them a rant forum where they can nurse grudges. If that's what people choose to focus their daily life on then that's kind of sad"
• "Bitchipedia Review"

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the play-on-words was a bit too subtle: "Alas, poor Yorick; I knew him, Horatio." The most obvious "Horatio" that came to mind was Horatio Hornblower. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You know the name of the site yet you use a different one, repeatedly, apparently for no reason other than to troll... This kind of stuff being openly engaged in Wikipedia's official pages is why Wikipedia Review had to be created in the first place... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The double standard at work in terms of civility policy IS blinding. "It's okay to act like a group of immature assholes, as long as you're picking on someone we don't like" - is that in the policy somewhere? Selina shouldn't have removed those comments. But someone SHOULD have asked those parties to redact them. Wikipedia:AN/I ain't a frat party and editors shouldn't behave like a bunch of obnoxious frat boys.VolunteerMarek 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as personal attacks go, those are mild in the extreme. I wonder how much Mistress Selina Kyle is actually upset about this or if this is just an attempt at making a WP:POINT. AniMate 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, I am... and the fact that semi-elected Wikipedia officials are then threatening me for removing material attacking me - Wikipedia:WikiBullying#Making_.22no-edit.22_orders_contrary_to_policy - one of the worst things about it, it's like insitutionalised bullying ... I am really disappointed that some administrators seem to think this kind of trolling/harassment is ok on Wikipedia, least of all in the official Wikipedia "government" pages... It's the way then administrators actually defend this behaviour then threaten people that stand up to bullies that is one of the worst things about Wikipedia when it could be so much more if more good people stood up to trolling and made it an environment more people feel comfortable in contributing to rather than "who is going to insult me today" that makes a lot of people just feel "why bother"... my friends in real life think I'm mad for even botherng --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we'd be treating her differently if she weren't Mistress Selina Kyle... N^oformation ^Talk 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To provide context, my comment was (in full) "LOL. Wikipedia Review is an 'internet watchdog', is it? Yeah right.. Grow up". It might be appropriate at this point to ask MSK whether, since she describes WR as her site, she accepts responsability for the personal attacks made on Wikipedia editors posted there? Or are self-proclaimed 'internet watchdogs' immune from criticism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hardly the most calm and courteous way to make the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What administrator action is being called for in respect of this incident? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

All I would like is for the policy on removing personal attacks to be actually kept to and administrators especially should not be actively supporting that kind of behaviour, this seems to on repeatedly in Wikipedia and if no one ever stands up to them then that's how it's going to be forever, most people just don't want to deal with it all the time... People replied accusng me of having "a thin skin" but really, for Wikipedia as a whole, is it good that only people wanting to weather a constant hyperaggressive environment ("A 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey found that only 8.5% of editors are women") should feel welcome in Wikipedia...? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

While certain members of the community seem to strongly dislike their posts being edited to remove personal attacks it seems perfectly legitimate to have removed them. Mild or not, while they might be acceptable down the pub, they wouldn't generally be considered acceptable in a professional environment such as this project.

Its pretty clear the personal attacks made here fall against this principle from the Arbitration committee.

While you could argue that removing the content was only going to create WP:DRAMA rising to it and restoring the comments is certainly no better in that regard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As Risker notes below, attacks made against a person are one thing. Opinion and commentary, critical as it may be, against WR is another. Wikipedia Review is not a person and NPA does not grant authority to remove such commentary. Playing the gender card isn't going to sway that opinion either. Resolute 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True, and re-reading the diff it seems most/all of the comments removed were aimed at the website rather than any specific users. However while that probably means that removing the comments wasn't appropriate, its still not exactly ideal behaviour. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• While comments directed at a specific user may be personal attacks, comments that discuss what is essentially an inanimate object (e.g., a website) cannot be considered personal attacks regardless of their content. MSK, please do not conflate the two. Risker (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

They knew it was my site because I have it on my userpage though ... passiveaggressively making insults shouln't be encourage as a way to bypass the rules? The rules are deliberately not solid to stop people attempting to skip around them by doing this kind of thing like carefully not mentioning names... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a legitimate comparison. While the comments are clearly uncivil and unprofessional, they aren't making personal attacks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You may well be the person who pays the bills that keep Wikipedia Review online (nobody's put you to strict proof on that yet), but you are not personally Wikipedia Review; it is not an extension of your personal being. Negative commentary about the website is not negative commentary about you. Risker (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And I vaguely recall that MSK was disclaiming personal responsibility for the contents of that site during her recent unblock discussion. She can't have it both ways. Also, it was suggested to her to avoid engaging in exactly the kind of heated an unproductive discussion that is the meat of this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• The poster does provide some useful input, though, in demonstrating that while (Personal attack removed) "can dish it out, they can't take it." If the poster is concerned about personal attacks, they should schlepp through the muck at WR and remove all the personal attacks there. Maybe then they can come back here and criticize us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When have I ever personally attacked you, anywhere? I didn't even know who you were until this... If you have an issue with what other people say, why not take it up with them instead of attacking anyone related? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never personally attacked you. In fact, I never even heard of you until 15 minutes ago or so. Meanwhile, if WR actually is your site, go lecture your constituents there about their rampant and childish personal attacks, before you come here griping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors making the the contentious comments have been treated very unkindly by your members, Selina, and I fully sympathize with their instincts. But behaving like a bunch of resentful children is hardly going to improve their reputations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

MSK, you state that WR is your website, and that any comment it is therefore referring to you. Can I then take it that you also take responsibility for the personal attacks posted there? Personally, I think that being called a "useless, nasty festering turd monkey" [45] is a little more harsh than "LOL... Grow up" - still, that's just an opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the connection to "Weekly Reader" because the commentary there (to use that term extremely generously) reminds me of the way kindergartners talk. Although that quote you cite, I don't think any but the brattiest grade schooler would come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, I don't think that there is any value in enshrining links on this page to what could be considered pesonal attacks posted at Wikipedia Review, even if the person posting them is the subject. If you have a complaint about the website MSK says she owns, I suggest you take it to her talk page. This isn't the place to discuss Wikipedia Review. Risker (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The OP's entire premise is bogus, and you should box up this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, thanks for informing me about this discussion - real kind of you. GiantSnowman 20:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you value my peny's worth in any way shape or form, here it is:

With the subjective viewpoint of an outsider, what would I choose to do? Side with the Wikipedia Administrators and help them out with their endeavours or side with those who choose to monitor them and ensure that Wikipedia remains a fair and unbiased place where a neutral pov is presented? Frankly, the way things stand I'd vote for the latter. I don't care what personal attacks have been made elsewhere, this is about Wikipedia being on trial for the way it conducts itself. It should be taking the moral high ground, but instead its Administrators are resorting to petty childish insults and group ganging up. How am I, an outsider, supposed to trust the accuracy of this site and its content if I am unable to have 100% faith and confidence in those who moderate it. My advice to all: stop this petty dicussion, block the WR troll, give the childish Admins a firm talking to, and try to uphold a sense of professionalism here so that the outside world can have faith in this project.
Yours,
Bob
--94.2.240.103 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but is any administrator action being called for here? Any block, page protection, move, etc etc...? If no specific request for administrator action is made, I intend to close this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Close it. The OP is probably looking to get blocked for disruption. Don't block, just close. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To me that looks like one of the people that were trolling before sockpuppetting, but I guess assume good faith and all that... I am really disappointed how people just carry on making personal attacks whilst not caring about the rules whatsoever apparently...

Kim I think the people that make personal attacks on official pages should be warned and people that carry on after being told it's against the rules should be blocked... admin or not, if no one can follow the rules they are worthless... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The offences were insufficient to warrant a block, IMO. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment by User:Lihaas

Resolved

 – interaction ban in place Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lihaas is harassing me at my talk page and spreading information about me to another user I have been in dispute with to try to get me in trouble. I told this user to cease posting on my talk page, I do not want a discussion with this user because I fundamentally do not want to converse with someone who is a self-described fascist and a self-described National Socialist (aka Nazi) on his user page, I know Holocaust survivors and I do not want to be faced with conversation with a neo-Nazi. I told the user to stop posting on my talk page, he has persisted with threats to get me in trouble over a statement in which I informed users on an issue involving discussion of the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict in Kosovo that he is promoting a POV because he represents an extreme perspective on the issue - he staunchly supports Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo as stated in a userbox on his user page as well as other controversial taking-sides on multiple nationalist conflicts, and mentioned that he is a self-described Nazi. I left that discussion a month ago, the issue is over. I do not want Lihaas commenting on my page, out of respect to the Holocaust survivors I have met and respect - I have heard from an elderly Polish Jewish man I knew who survived Treblinka as a 12-13 year old boy who worked there as a slave labourer and saw his friend of the same age have is face and body smashed to a bloody pulp dead by Nazi guards because he was a few minutes late for a routine in the camp. I demand the right to not be harassed on my talk page after I have told the user in question to cease, by a person who fundamentally stands against every moral value I hold dear and out of the respect of Holocaust survivors and their relatives that I have met who survived horrific brutality by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas' infoboxes, whilst ill-advised, are clearly meaningless. He has many contradictory infoboxes, including being from India and Pakistan, being supportive of Palestinian independence and a single state solution, and being in favour of self-determination for all and the resurrection of the British Empire, being for Scottish independence and a federal UK. Despite this you have repeatedly accused him of being a Nazi in this discussion. He also has one claiming that "Lihaas totally supports world peace and loves everyone!" I don't see why he should be forbidden from your talk page, but I think he needs to sort his infoboxes out as this has caused other editors to make similar attacks before. Number 57 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

57, Lihaas's user boxes are not the problem here (though I grant you that it's an electron-consuming 223,181 bytes-long mess). Please don't muddy the waters. A user has a right to ask another user to stay away, and that should be respected. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think this is exactly the problem. Based on the infobox, R-41 has repeatedly called Lihaas a Nazi. Lihaas then issues a warning not to make personal attacks, leading to this spurious claim of harassment. If it wasn't for the stupid infobox, none of this would have happened. Number 57 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Which infobox? There's a million there. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The one that says "This user is a National Socialist". Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're shitting: there actually is one like that? I'll have to use Ctrl+f to find it. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, 57. I've asked Lihaas on their talk page to remove that. I have no objection to anyone being righteously offended enough to take it down. Honestly, I didn't think there were people stupid enough to have shit like that out in the open somewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] [Also, all the Nazi-calling confused me: I reworded my comments.] Let's please focus on the issue. One should not derive Naziness from user boxes, unless on has a "I'm a Nazi" user box. But even that is beside the point. The issue is this: please point to a precise diff where you told Lihaas to not post at your talk page again (preferably you told them on your talk page). Also, I don't see harassment in their posts to you yet. I have the feeling this is going to end with "please both steer clear of each other" or a more formal interaction ban. Please show us that diff, quickly, so we can move on and see what possible violations of that request may have taken place. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He is a self-described fascist and a self-described "National Socialist", look at the userboxes - yes there are many, but they are there. I am asking for the right for me not to be harassed by a user - I told the user to cease posting on my talk page and he has refused to accept this. I have deem moral sympathy to the Holocaust survivor for his suffering by the Nazis, and I do not want to be forced to accept harassment by a self-described fascist and national socialist. I want him to NOT be able to post on my talk page because he has violated by request to cease this.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is not harassing you. On the other hand, you seem to be creating a lot of drama recently. Number 57 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True, 57. Enough already, R-41. Bringing Holocaust survivors into this is totally unsavory. You have not been able to provide a diff in which you clearly ask them not to post on your talk page again, and this stuff about what their user boxes are supposed to say is a. neither here nor there and b. irritating (even more so than the million user boxes). Here's what I propose: You place a note on your own talk page and on theirs asking them not to post on your talk page again. You don't even have to ask nicely. From then on, Lihaas will not post on your talk page again. Simple. Lihaas, if you're reading this, please do not post on R-41's talk page again. Let's close this thread. Oh, R-41, one more thing: stop calling people Nazis (unless you can prove that they, or God, say that they're one) or be blocked for a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whaddayaknow--here's the notification. If I understand it correctly, you said in the post before that that you never wanted to post on their talk page again, and then you posted on their talk page that you didn't want them to post on your talk page again or have any other conversation with them anymore. And then you called them a neo-Nazi and a fascist (and maybe some other things, but who the hell is counting). R-41, you have given yourself a complete interaction ban with them (voluntarily!), which may be enforced by any admin who sees you interacting with Lihaas. Wonderful: this thread can be closed. Just to make sure, I'll post on Lihaas's talk page, ahem, that R-41 et cetera. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Lihaas has a collection of infoboxes which in toto are obviously self-contradictory/sarcastic/amusing, but in isolation can be read the wrong way. Nothing surprising here. WP:SARCASM and other subtle hints may backfire on the internets. R-41 brings drama to the main drama board. Again, not terribly surprising. As you were! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aahwooo! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are calling me a "drama queen" and say that this is "not terribly surprising". The user is a self-described National Socialist harassing me. If I was a Jew would you laugh off a National Socialist posting repeatedly on my talk page after telling them to stop. Go ahead and laugh, go and try to laugh off National Socialism as not significant here, even though many people are more than offended tha it killed millions of people because of their ethnic background, if you think it is a joke of the sufferings upon this Jewish man I mentioned - who used to be a neighbour of mine - are insignificant to my moral objections - then I wonder if you take anything seriously. Bottom line, I learned my education about the Holocaust by that elderly Jewish man who survived Treblinka before I learned it in school, and I do not want to talk with a person who in their userboxes says they are a fascist and a National Socialist.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, Lihaas has objected to anachronistic and European-centric understandings of the phrase "national socialism". Americans who remember President George H. W. Bush leading crowds in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should recall witnessing a nationalist socialist revival.

  There were discussions of Lihaas's contradictory user-boxes and his objections to mono-semantic understanding of nationalism & socialism before at ANI, my RfC, and even (in a particularly dull moment for WP administrators) in my block record.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? He insults me on his presumptious whim and im harrassing? I was simply bringing (in polite forms) to his attention that there was hypocrisy to his ACTIONS in that HE harrassed said user with restating a section on the ta;lk page simply because he wanted to see it...not that it was his right.Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself

The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a divisive username and putting a userbox proclaiming your political orientation, controversial or not, on one's own userpage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The use of the National Socialist userbox is highly problematic, divisive and should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nearly any userbox which exists should allowed be placed on userpages. If you think the userbox violates those policies, you should propose the template itself for MFD. If the userbox is hard-coded, then it should just be removed. NW (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hard-coded in this instance. I can't imagine a userbox template like that to survive for long. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is now a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lihaas. Probably not much else for admins to do here now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire user-page was disruptive

A 220kb user page, consisting mainly of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) is disruptive in and of itself, and I have blanked it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The userboxes were not the problem - the massive wall of text, on the other hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the blanking. I checked out the userboxes and found that they tended to contradict each other, making their use almost meaningless. 220kb userbox pages? That's absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm there are numerous user pages and subpages that go on and on and on. If you dont like dont read it, its not an articleLihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly are not getting the point, Lihaas. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ivalo2

Please can someone take a look at new user Ivalo2 (talk · contribs), which I am sure is a troll account. The very first three edits by the user were unconstructive reverts of edits of mine on three separate articles (two of the articles are in a similar topic area, one is completely different: [46], [47], [48]), and the user has continued in this pattern, clearly revealing their agenda in their edit summaries: [49], [50].Rangoon11 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think trolling is putting it a bit strong here. Unproductive, certainly. Vandalism, not yet, IMO. Edit warring, yes--and they will be blocked for that if they persist. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I use the word 'troll' purely to convey that they are clearly singling out a specific editor for their unproductive behaviour - i.e. myself - the account's first three edits have no other explanation within the realms of probabilty. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seemed to be the case, yes. Problem is, it takes a couple more edits, IMO, to make that case convincingly. Any editors you've had trouble with recently? Drmies (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A question or two

This is in regard to Kyle's talk page:[51]

I just have a couple of questions that maybe an admin can answer:

1. By what right does an editor who falsely accused me of a personal attack, somehow get license to issue personal attacks themselves?
2. By what authority does another editor get to issue a profane attack while apparently assuming ownership of that talk page?

Danke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, stay off that page, and drop the subject entirely. Risker (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stunned. You're an admin. Are you saying that I do not have the right to defend myself against false charges? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm telling you, when someone with whom you have just tangled at ANI tells you to stay off their page, stay off their page. Risker (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I AM REQUIRED to notify someone when I am taking them to ANI. And it was ANOTHER USER who told me to "stay off" that page. Unless Tarc = Kyle, it is not his place to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bringing MSK to ANI? It seems it is because she told you to stay off her page, and when you refused to do that, someone else told you, more forcefully, to stay off her page. So...stay off her page. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kyle never told me to stay off the page. Tarc did that. Kyle called me "a troll". That's a personal attack. Why is Kyle being allowed to get away with personal attacks like that, as well as falsely accusing me of making personal attacks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bugs, this one wasn't necessary. She read your first one, and removed it--you know what that means: it means she read it. So she calls you a troll--big deal. You've been called worse, and what's more, I will say you're not a troll. Look, the Superbowl is over, but there's still college b-ball to watch; we don't need more ANI drama. Oh, as for your question (the first one): by the license of "we can't just block everyone". Tempers have flared; let's let them cool down. Please ask Mrs. Bugs (on my behalf) to make you a nice dessert. As for the mistress, well... Drmies (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought it was necessary, as the comment suggested they didn't realize that I am required to notify someone. However, it's becoming clear that there is no possibility of reasoning with this Kyle. The question below begs an answer: Why was the user unblocked?

Harassment on talk page by user:Baseball Bugs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi after the previous discussion was closed (RE [52][53]) Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now started attacking me on my talkpage comparing me to a children's book[54][55] then attacking me for saying he's trolling[56][57] (after his many insults to me before mentioned previously) - he is now continuing to revert war on my talk page after I made it clear I don't want him leaving me "fan mail" there...

Apparently he has was previously blocked for "Attempting to harass other users: repeated personal attacks directed towards other Wikipedians; incessant verbal attacks, despite warnings; incivility; disruptive editing habits" then only in October last year for making sexist jokes and similar harassment against a female user ... and banned indefinitely in December due to "disruption" but allowed to return on some condition it doesn't mention --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have NEVER EVER personally attacked the editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious WP:Boomerang here.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the admins here have given this Kyle a free pass to issue all manner of falsehoods without reproach. I never insulted Kyle, and I never compared Kyle to Weekly Reader. I merely provided a link to it, as I suspected Kyle did not understand why I called WR by that name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Miss Kyle, he wasn't comparing you to a children's book, he was letting you know that what you linked to in a diff in the previous ANI referred to a children's book. I've never interacted with you nor Bugs (although we may have bantered somewhat here) and thus I'm definitely a neutral party. Please do not look for offense where none was intended and escalate this unnecessarily. Also, do not see this as a sign that I'm supporting Bugs in any way, but merely as a comment from a bystander--Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC

Kyle argues that any criticism of WR somehow equates to a personal attack on Kyle. Apparently, WR is supposed to be allowed to rag wikipedia mercilessly, while WR is not supposed to be criticised. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read the previous ANI it was about a legal threat someone else made against me/my site Wikipedia Review, that is why he was posting the "Weekly Reader" insults here then moving onto my talk page[58][59] when admins apparently gave him the all clear that what he was doing[60][61] was ok --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This user ( User:Mistress Selina Kyle ) was unblocked - Why? - diff to who or why did that please - Youreallycan 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: "Youreallycan" was actually in that discussion... This seems more attempts at trolling to try get me to say something that will break the rules... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The user was actually indef'd 6 years ago,[62] but somehow the block didn't "take" or something. So the user was re-blocked and immediately griped about it and got unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Miss Kyle, I'd really, really recommend you just avoid ANI. Forever. It's not healthy. Either there is no cabal, everyone disagrees with you, and you should stick to editing articles; or there is a cabal, it's out to get you, so you should just go back to editing articles. You can choose whichever reality makes you feel better, but nothing good is going to come from you hanging out on this board and trying to police incivility. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Stop it: stop this thread. This is getting ridiculous. Mistress, if you wish to complain, do it in one of the already existing sections. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.