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

User:81.149.185.174, 213.120.148.60 and others

I wish to report issues with an individual who posts from a number of IP addresses, including...

• 81.149.185.174: already warned once about civility on User talk:81.149.185.174 on 4 Mar 13.
• 213.120.148.60: warned about a disruptive edit [1] on User talk:213.120.148.60 on 5 Mar 13.
• 217.41.32.3: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:217.41.32.3 on 22 Jan 13.
• 81.133.12.45: warned twice about defamatory content on User talk:81.133.12.45 on 10 and 22 Jan 13.
• 86.181.25.153
• 86.161.219.51
• 130.88.114.111
• 87.112.181.7 (unclear whether this is the same person)

If you look at the revision history for Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, you can see how most of these are clearly the same person. Other revision histories fill in the other addresses.

Said user is focused on UK political articles and the UK Independence Party (UKIP). S/he generally favours more coverage and more positive coverage of UKIP and is often involved in disputed edits and in long discussions over disputed edits. There are possible issues here with respect to WP:BIAS, WP:RS and WP:OR. (One of the shorter examples would be at Mid Ulster by-election, 2013: take a look at edits from 23-5 February 2013 and Talk:Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013#UKIP_Press_Release. Long, long examples are at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013, Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, Talk:Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (archive) and Talk:UK Independence Party.) I and other editors have sought to work through these, and some of this individual's edits are constructive and are kept.

Most concerning are the repeated violations of WP:AGF. Some recent examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

Again, I and other editors have sought to tackle this through dialogue, but it keeps happening again and again. I have also suggested at Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2013#Semi-protection that semi-protection may be appropriate for that article.

Said user has been active here on this noticeboard twice before: most recently at [14] and there was an earlier case that I can't find right now.

Several weeks back, an editor with a similar modus operandi and topic interest was banned for sockpuppetry: see User:Nick Dancer/User:Sheffno1gunner and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive. I am uncertain whether this anonymous editor is connected or not. Bondegezou (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also this from some months back: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Possible_legal_threats_on_Talk:_Rotherham_by-election.2C_2012. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou I have engaged in constructive discussions. I have argued my case to those that don't flatly refuse to engage in dialogue, to your credit you are one of those people. However there are editors who simply choose to edit war and say No No No, instead of giving an explanation as to why, they also will not listen to a well reasoned argument!

I have been an IP editor on Wikipedia that has realised that there is a need to try and redress the balance here! I am not the only one Bondegezou has mentioned others. A number of us have been incredibly concerned at how sources have been used selectively to put across a particular narrative (for whatever reason)! This can be seen in earlier versions of articles such as UK Independence Party, many people agreed that this was not a neutrally written article. Subsequently the entire policy section has had to be removed because neutral and reliable 3rd party sources were not available, this lead to editors putting across a certain narrative. All many of us want is Wikipedia to be neutral and to reflect reality. In many cases it hasn't in the past but it has improved thanks to pressure through constructive discussions from myself and others.

It is no secret that a number of regular editors to the politics section are of a Liberal Democrat persuasion (and that's fine but it does sometimes skew the narrative of articles and judgements of editors). Some examples of this are doktorbuk who admits that they are a "card carrying member" of the Liberal Democrats on their user page, he's even used phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" and "But we need to close the UKIP loophole". Bondegezou admits an interest in "politics, particularly in the UK and issues concerning the Liberal Democrats". Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs by the way is one reason why a number of us don't have logons and want a bit more anonymity). Now I have absolutely no problem what so ever with the personal views of these 3 editors, that's non of my business but they do spend a lot of time editing this section and it does seem that they are in charge of the final outcomes of almost all discussions. It also seems that the Wikipedia politics section is at least a good year behind reflecting reality based on evidence.

It is important to note that when I have raised a discussion and the issue has been properly debated, I have accepted the outcome! For this reason I have created no need for protection of any Wikipedia articles! All I (and others) are trying to do is address the balance here! Until that balance is struck, more editors other than myself will come along. I really don't see what is wrong with my argument on United Kingdom local elections, 2013! Perhaps that's why Bondegezou has pointed readers of this discussion in the direction of shorter conversations where there is less detail discussed!

I want to get on with other editors but many of us feel like there is a constant battle on Wikipedia to try and redress the balance. We are categorically not trying to promote UKIP! We just want a greater reflection of reality, not to have the party talked up or down! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) (and 1 or 2 other IPs - not all of the above)

I have informed doktorbuk and Emeraude of this discussion at their Talk pages.

213.120.148.60, could you clarify which IPs you are and are not. All those listed above appeared to me to be you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see I am being misrepresented again! At various times I have been accused by these IPs (or this one person - who knows) of a wide range of things - bias, beign a card-carrying Lib Dem, selective citing etc etc. Some of these accusations have gone beyond the bounds of regular protocol well into the area of personal attack. Each time I have asked for an indication of where I have been biased, or selective, or whatever, but never receive an answer, because there isn't one quite frankly. Now, out of the blue, we read that "Emeraude lists one of his interests as "Politics - particularly anti-fascism, elections", for some unknown reason Emeraude seems to have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative (This type of victimization and slurs....." Now, I don't have to explain to anyone why I am interested in things (I also list on my user page Aviation, Education and Law) but seeing as it's been raised it stems from having a degree in political science and having done postgrad work on hwo minor parties, particularly of the right, perform in elections. Nothing sinister at all. And I would like to know how this anon IP is able to state that I "have the impression that there are elements of fascism in UKIP, given his narrative"? What narrative? (And, as it happens, BNP members/supporters did attempt to use UKIP in the past, which is precisely why UKIP now specifically bans them from membership.) (S)he then accuses me of "victimization and slurs", but will not say when I have victimised anyone or made any slurs. But what do you expect from people who vandalise my user page to say that I am "engaging in bigotry"?!

The sad fact is that this person or these people have come to Wikipedia with the express purpose of using it as a publicity vehicle for UKIP. I've no objection to UKIP members/supporters editing UKIP related articles on Wikipedia, but their edits must be like everyone else's: relevant, encyclopaedic, verifiable, sourced etc. I've not seen such timewasting behaviour and personal attacks on the integrity of editors since we got shot of Lucy-marie for very similar behaviour. Come to think of it, wasn't she a UKIP supporter too? Emeraude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the case of vandalism to which Emeraude is referring is this: [15] by 81.149.185.174, which is exactly the sort of problem that led me to bring this case here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with UK politics articles and the IP editors attracted to them. Inevitably supporters of political parties want to ramp up coverage of their own party, though as a card-carrying member of a party myself I know better than to try! The current spate of UKIP supporters show little or no attempt to disguise their bias, often changing articles without any regard to building consensus (for example, adding Nigel Farage to a page and THEN going to the talk page to retroactively ask for a discussion). The spate of IP editors from UKIP tend to die down after polling day, as it did last November, so I think semi-locks and temp-bans until June should help reduce the spate of problems we have. doktorb _words^deeds 09:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As it the way, there are several interrelated issues here. Some of them are about content (what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?). Some of them are about election articles that are prone to vandalism/unhelpful editing from multiple sources in the run-up to elections (should United Kingdom local elections, 2013 be semi-protected for a few months?). I'm uncertain where those issues should be discussed (beyond Talk pages), but would dearly welcome some administrator input.

However, my initial reason to bring this to ANI was about conduct. 81.149.185.174/213.120.148.60/217.41.32.3/81.133.12.45 has been warned 6 times about conduct. There are multiple subsequent AGF violations. Several editors have already tried to tackle this with the IP editor. Is some sort of administrator action now appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For quite some time I've encountered various UKIP supporters who have clearly been trying to push an agenda, ever since UKIP's popularity has begun to increase. The most glaring example has been on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Bondegezou has also expressed concern about the UKIP bias there, and I have agreed with him. Between Sheffno1, 08aviee, and others, it's difficult to tell who is doing what in these articles. Indeed, it seems as if there is a serious lack of WP:AGF going on, as there are many accusations of those who do not agree with them being members of the Lib Dems, while at the same time they attempt to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I've tried to start a few discussions on the UK Politics Wikiproject, but there hasn't been much of a consensus drawn to the above question that Bondegezou presented: what is the appropriate way to cover UKIP, a minor party but one with increasing support?. It seems there is now a disagreement between the opinion polling page (which lists UKIP) and the main election page (which doesn't list UKIP). Of course, I realise this isn't the venue to discuss this issue, but I felt that it's apt to bring it up: if there is no consensus about how UKIP should be represented, it is inevitable that different editors with different views will edit war. – Richard BB 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, what I think Richard BB is pointing out is that Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has a set of tables reporting opinion polling that now include columns for the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems and UKIP. Meanwhile, Next United Kingdom general election and United Kingdom local elections, 2013 have infoboxes that include Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems, but not UKIP. However, I don't actually see that as an inconsistency: what should be in a table reporting opinion polls and what should be in an infobox for a forthcoming election are different questions. You see a mismatch like this for many countries, e.g. what parties are listed in the tables at Opinion polling for the next German federal election and what parties are in the infobox at German federal election, 2013. I actually feel the current balance is right.

That said, I agree with Richard BB's broader point of an unresolved question over how to cover UKIP, and that resolving that question is made more difficult by a history of sockpuppets and lack of WP:AGF. Here is the right venue to discuss the latter issue, of editor conduct. Would it be possible to have some administrator action or advice on how to proceed? Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for clarifying — you're right. – Richard BB 12:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably don't want my input given the past but here is is anyhow: My position is as it was before, in that this election is one of a number of tests in that UKIP have not made that electoral breakthrough at Westminster or council level. I still agree with the decision that was made several months ago in that it is not possible to consider adding UKIP to any non-EU election boxes until after this election! Depending on what the result is, we then consider looking at the 2014 local elections info box. That said, the IPs argument is sound (just not sufficient). In my view we ought to consider mentioning UKIP in the article somehow if they do exceed 2,000 candidates or match/exceed the number of Lib Dem candidates! The problem is how etc, in my view the article is best left as it is until we know the results. If you want to semi-protect the article, I guess I have no objections but the restriction should be lifted on election day at 10:00pm i.e. when voting has ended. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the same person or not, but the problems go on: [16]. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted that as blatant trolling. Blackmane (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind trolling - it is an attack on an editor. I've added the IP to the list at the top of this discussion. Emeraude (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Blackmane. While it's useful to revert individual instances, they keep happening with such regularity that some further action (be that blocking certain IP addresses or semi-protection) seems in order to me.

Thanks, Emeraude. I've appended a note given some uncertainty as to whether this is the same individual or not. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While I would definitely support semi-protection of the articles (perhaps not the Opinion polling one, as the troubles there are mostly resolved and we regularly get helpful IPs updating it) I think it's against policy to semi-protect a talk page like this, as good faith IPs who wish to suggest genuine changes to the article wouldn't be able to. – Richard BB 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that admins are very loth to protect or semi protect talk pages, especially if the article page is protected as the talk page will then be the only place that helpful anon editors can contribute. As far as can be done, attacks by the various IPs can only be dealt with a liberal application of WP:RBI reserved for trolls. Blackmane (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that any Talk pages should be semi-protected, just certain articles (and then just for limited times, say until after the May local elections). Blocking of some IP addresses seems entirely appropriate.

We keep saying we're all in agreement with each other. How do we move from here to administrator action? Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

87.112.181.7 has now reverted Blackmane's reversion. I have removed the material again. 87.112.181.7 is also removing LGBT references from Prahran, Victoria and Talk:Prahran, Victoria, with something of an edit war developing subsequently. I'm not convinced that 87.112.181.7 is the same IP editor as in the initial complaint, but certainly these actions demonstrate the problem with a number of anonymous editors on articles pertaining to UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a number of the IPs above, I can say categorically that I am not 87.112.181.7 and 130.88.114.111! I can also say that I only appear as 2 of the above IPs! I am not going to tell you which because you are threatening to block! I hope your not proposing to block all the IPs above without knowing who they are whilst accusing them of being the same person! I am also not sheffno1 for the record! Although I have spoken with this editor on another site before, he uses the same logon on other popular site that has a private messaging service.

I notice that Emeraude and the usual suspects have launched a counter attack by sabotaging UKIP's page by adding the following to UKIPs policy section:

In 2011, the British academics Matthew Goodwin, Robert Ford and David Cutts published a study suggesting that xenophobia and dissatisfaction with mainstream parties are important drivers of support for UKIP, along with Euroscepticism. They concluded that "UKIP is well positioned to recruit a broader and more enduring base of support than the BNP and become a significant vehicle of xenophobia and, more specifically, Islamophobia in modern Britain.

It is blindingly clear that this paragraph has nothing to do with UKIP policy! May I suggest that this kind of behavior is taken into account! As I have already highlighted, Emeraude has a thing for anti-facism and this is an example of Emeraude trying to make UKIP appear as fascist by branding them racist and xenophobic and making inferences about their supporters. In this case he has used a "study". This type of behavior is even more deplorable than anything I or any of these other editors have done. I and others have merely tried to seek increased inclusion and coverage of UKIP to catch up with reality (I now accept that certain tests need to be passed before that can happen - we've had that debate, outcome accepted). Whereas Emeraude and others have actively politicized the narrative of articles by picking and choosing their sources! Above is just one of a number of examples! I and others have not changed any narrative or tried to paint UKIP or any other party as something it's not. But It seems some other people are trying to have things both ways! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• It may have been misplaced. However, your allegations of Emeraude's actions are inappropriate and also incorrect - there's no mention of fascism in there at all. The study seems perfectly valid to me, I can't tell whether it's reliable or not as it's not my area of expertise, but it seems fairly OK. Picking and choosing sources? Probably to only use those that satisfy WP:RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Lukeno94 but the above text is not appropriate for a POLICY section since it neither lists or elaborates upon any of the party's policies. You clearly have not been to Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Policies and are not aware of Emeraude's edit history. You also seem to be unaware that Xenophobia and Islamophobia are topics that would be of particular interest to someone who states "anti-fascism" as an area of interest. In the UK at least they are often mentioned in the same breath, so this point can not be dismissed in this way. There are 2sides to this issue: This is not merely a case of IP editors wanting to (rightly or wrongly) increase UKIP's coverage but there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the party and compromise Wikipedia's neutrality! There is a big difference between changing the amount of coverage a party gets on Wikipedia and politicising the narrative of Wikipedia's articles. To my mind it is clear which is the more serious of the 2! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um... I thought I agreed that it was in the wrong place? Also, aren't you doing the latter of those two "sins" you list? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for missing that your acknowledgment of the info being in the wrong place. Non the less it is not relevant, we do not seek to site studies about voters from other parties do we? I don't see any other articles with studies as to how many Labour voters live in council houses for example, or how many green party voters are vegetarian, how many Lib Dems supported CND, I could go on. The point is that is not the normal sort of thing to put on a political parties page, especially one that is now widely considered a mainstream party! This is just one example of the unbalanced/non-neutral things that have been written on the page. I have not done anything to sway the narrative to a pro-UKIP stance, so no I haven't committed that said "sin"! All I've sought is to examine the way the party is covered and to argue the case of inclusion to the info box. We have since had a debate and I've accepted the outcome. Non the less despite me having accepted that UKIP will not be added to any info boxes until (at the earliest) we know the results of the May elections! That is a fair and reasonable position to take as 2nd May will be UKIPs 1st national test. Non the less Bondegezou will repeatedly talk down the party on the talk page, hence I (and others) will naturally seek to address that balance by pointing out other facts. Bondegezou seems to take this as if I am not accepting the decision which has already been made! I am accepting and not disputing the decision! So lets just be clear about what I am and what I am not saying and doing! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a perfectly appropriate place for a peer-reviewed article. It concerns how UKIP policy is seen by supporters. What these IPs want to dois to completely remove something they see as critical of UKIP, their raison d'être throughout.

However, this is all too sily. This discussion was set up (not by me) to look at the appalling behaviour of these anonymous IPs, though it could all be one person. For some reson that I cannot understand (because they refuse to give reason) they have decided to attack me with innuendo, misinformation and lies. All of their efforts amount to personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. We see more examples in the previous comments. They have even sugested - a blatant misrepresentation - that this discussion was set up to examine my actions (Talk:UK Independence Party#Policies on the UKIP talk page: "This issue has now been added to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents .... as it helps to give a sense a sense of balance to that discussion. It serves as an example of how editors such as Emeraude have deliberately politicised the narrative of articles...") I have asked perhaps a dozen times for examples of where I have been less than correct as a Wikipedia editor - answer comes there none. I no longer expect such (and, indeed, it would be impossible for them to provide one). Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If I could just wade in on this, it does seem to me to be completely the wrong section for something like this (whether its relevant or not). It does not explain or elaborate on party policy, it merely gives insights into who might be voting for the party or who is "likely" or "more likely" to vote for the party! That's not policy, its even a big stretch to call it perception of policy! other editors such as Blue Square Thing have previously proposed a section on "perceptions of the party" or something along those lines. That is the only place that something like this could be appropriately included! I'm not wholeheartedly against it's inclusion but as things stand there is not an appropriate section for this to go in. If Emeraude wants to create one, we can't stop him as it is a peer based review (a somewhat questionable one but wiki policy says its not our place to make those judgements). What we can and must do is prevent the narrative being distorted by having something like this in a policy section, when it has absolutely no place in this section! As for further criticisms about this section, e.g. tax it only seems to state the least attractive elements to someone of a left-wing orientation. It ignores the parts of policy that would appeal to someone who might describe themselves as "left-wing", such as a high tax threshold of £13,000, zero tax(inc NI) on those earning the minimum wage. This is another example of how the narrative has been effected, picking and choosing, being selective about what gets included and what doesn't affects the narrative! That you can not deny! In light of this it seems that the IPs criticisms are justified to at least some degree! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Of ANI is not the place to resolve this additional content dispute. I opened this discussion because of repeated failures of good faith by at least one IP editor. More and more examples have followed. Sheffno, you have only recently returned from a ban because of your own edits. We can better resolve content disputes if we're all following basic Wikipedia policies in the first place, like assume good faith, use reliable sources, do not use original research, avoid bias. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss this outright it does have relevance to the discussion, as it has been said above there are 2 sides to this story. That said, while it should be considered, it should be discussed and resolved on the appropriate talk page, this is what I have sought to do. I believe that the creation of a new section is a sensible compromise considering that it was wholly inappropriately placed as even Lukeno94 agreed along with the other IPs and sheffno1. As for sheffno1's conduct, he has served his ban and should be treated as any other editor! Besides the fact that is not the matter up for discussion here! 130.88.115.61 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Sheffno1gunner for two months for sockpuppetry. The IPs have each been given shorter blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Headstrong4ever

• Headstrong4ever (talk · contribs) Bit of an odd one this. I came across this user originally on the I Knew You Were Trouble article, where they made a change to the music genre - a change that wasn't completely incorrect, but was unnecessary (basically, Popstep, the current genre, is basically the combinations of his genre changes), and although it was sourced, the source was less reliable than the original one. At that point, I assumed he was acting in good faith, as my edit summary shows:[17] I went to his talk page today, just intrigued to see what their contributions were like, and was confronted with a literal wall of warnings about making unsourced genre changes to music articles, dating back to July 2012, and they're now on their second block for this kind of thing. Sure enough, when you look through their contributions, although there are some good edits mixed in there (or ones that are close enough), there are plenty of unsourced things going in (I'm going to present the diffs of the reversions, rather than the additions, just to show how many notifications there are) [18][19][20][21] just as a random sample of the recent ones. Now, I'm not sure what needs to be done - they're constantly making edits against consensus, and they've been warned many, many times (in edit summaries and on their talk page), so usually I'd suggest an admin has a word with them, but they've clearly not replied to any warnings, and, in fact, there's no evidence they've acknowledged them, so I'm wondering if, perhaps, the 36 hour block they're on should be extended? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit patterns may indicate someone who can't communicate in English as opposed to someone obstinately refusing to communicate and ignore warning and coaching messages. I would suggest an indef block with a message stating that an unblock would be considered if he acknowledges he understands why what he is doing is disruptive and gives some indication he will changes the behavior that led to the block in the first place. Absent that, what will likely happen is a continuing series of increasing length blocks as it is unlikely he will change his behavior with respect to his changing genres to match his personal evaluations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to propose an indef right off the bat, but I'm certainly not going to object to it, and it was what I was originally thinking. I'm not interested in their motives, but regardless, at least 75% of their edits are problematic - those 5 diffs were just ones I looked at randomly from the last couple of months. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block per WP:CIR. Short blocks do not help at all in these cases, it just makes a page of warnings which lose any impact because it looks like template spam (which it is), ie [22]. If they'd been indef blocked around August, after a final warning, it'd have saved a lot of wasted time. (And they could possibly have demonstrated understanding and then been unblocked). 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It would also help if an admin blocked (indef), removed all the useless crap from their talk (which clearly isn't helping), and wrote something simple to understand - like, "You've been blocked because of <this>, if you can explain you understand why, I can unblock you". Pro tip: if the first dozen template-warnings didn't help, the second dozen are unlikely to work any better. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, your edit to their talkpage, by hatting things, wasn't exactly appropriate, all of the warnings were valid, and there's no reason to remove them. Not really sure what your point was, after the first bit? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is in reference to [23], undone [24].

Luke, do you really think that those 18 template-warnings are helping the situation, considering that the user has nor responded to any of them? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant whether they're helping the situation or not. Fact is, as I said, you're neither an admin nor that user: it's inappropriate to collapse them off your own bat. That's why I undid the collapsing - if an admin decides to go and collapse, hat, delete or incinerate it, I don't care - but it's not for you or I to do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple question for you, Luke: Which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? If your answer is (A), and you still object, I suggest you (re)read WP:BOLD and remember why we're all here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Better to keep context IMO then just leave a pointer to this discussion. That is part of the WP:CIR test as well. Inability to scroll to the bottom of the page and read the last message. The welcome message is valuable. As a user talk page he does have the right to delete whatever he finds annoying on his page. The fact he hasn't done so does indicate he likely doesn't look at them anyway and I agree they are not really serving their purpose now. An attempt to edit while blocked should focus his attention if it matters to him. Some of the messages are procedural, admins don't seem to like to block unless there is a reasonable progression of warnings particularly, like this case, when it is not vandalism. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm getting very confused by the tangent this ANI is taking (and the fact I got told off for not leaving a notice, when I did, but that's beside the point). WP:BOLD has absolutely nothing to do with a user's talk page, it also says that you shouldn't get upset when a bold edit is undone... Geraldo Perez is right, basically. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Being able to scroll through and comprehend of 18 (now 19) template warnings written in gobbledegook is not the level of competence that is required.

Being able to understand that there is a problem with their edits, and giving them a chance to respond, is a better way forward. Point of order, I did not remove anything at all; I just collapsed it, so it was reasonably clear instead of 10k of wiki-speak obscuring the actual purpose of communication.

BOLD has everything to do with everything. And I'm not upset; I'm just dismayed that you've undone a productive edit just because it wasn't made by an admin. That's the sad state of this project. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting a bit away from the issue of what to do with this editor. The standard warning messages were designed to be understandable and instructive and I do think they serve that purpose, if they are actually read, that is. Adding another attempt at saying the same thing is probably not going to be helpful either in this case. Still waiting for an admin response to all this and should probably hold off doing anything to the user talk page until an admin decides what is the most effective thing to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Headstrong4ever is just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren that edit articles related to the music scene, with the typical Disney emphasis ("Headstrong" is an Ashley Tisdale album). I've been aware of him for a long time. English comprehension tends to be a problem with these editors, and he isn't an exception. It's probably getting to the time to decide that he isn't ever going to make the transition to being a productive editor.

As for the template issue, I hate them, and don't use them except for block notices. I think they accomplish exactly the opposite of their goal: by being so bright, garish, and overloaded with polite-sounding-but-meaningless text, they make it harder for newcomers to get any understanding of what's going on and what's wrong with their edits.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I agree that the user is probably challenged by English comprehension, and likely won't be a productive editor. My point about my edit (and its reversal) was, that if there is any chance of getting the editor on-track, it's by making things more clear.

I also supported an indef block, until they can (we hope) demonstrate competence.

The 'aside' is, that I believe my edit to their talk was a good one. Per BRD I was bold, it was undone, so we're discussing it. Hopefully. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The standard warning messages, do suffer from being "standard", I applaud anyone who leaves carefully crafted custom messages, and support IP's collapsing of stale messages here (they could reasonably have been archived). I am aware there are long standing issues with "genre" editors, maybe the simple injunction not to mess with genres would cover the case? In any event it might be worth someone leaving a note in his native language or even the template pointing to his native language wiki? Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

The user has made edits like [25] and [26] [27] . Not perfect, but surely not "just another one of the Brazilian schoolchildren" that can't be productive editors? Hey, they used references (even if they were bad ones) - that's 1000% better than most new articles. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I've added this at the IP's request, since ANI is currently semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. We have a lot of Brazilian schoolchildren editing in the pop music area. I recognize them from the sites they tend to use for sources and the release dates they tend to add. Many of them are productive. They do struggle at first, though, and many of them never become productive. My use of the word "just" was not to dismiss the editor, it was to indicate that his difficulties are fairly typical.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad the IP didn't try to edit-war that collapsing back in. I'm still sticking to my point: it's for admins to decide whether the warnings should be collapsed, deleted, nuked, or put in a car compactor, not for an IP or for a non-admin like me (so it should be left uncollapsed). Anyway, back to the actual ANI concern, and I'm still refraining on speculating why their edits are so bad, because I really don't care (unless they were going to explain themselves; this is evidently not gonna happen), so the indef is probably the way to go, until we can decide they're competent/understand rules etc. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, administrators aren't given any more leeway in such matters than any other user. We have to abide by the same policies as everyone else. WP:NOBAN suggests you don't edit other users' talk pages "other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful". I'd suggest that removing notices from another editor's talk page is very unhelpful unless they've asked you to do it. And again, this applies to administrators too, I refrain from removing info (especially notifications) at another editor's talk page unless there's something there that's objectionable (per policy) or if they've asked me to do it. -- Atama頭 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As previously noted, I didn't remove anything; just collapsed old notices. I also said, which of these pages is likely to help the situation more, (A) or (B) ? I think consensus would be (A), so it was a 'good edit' and shouldn't have been reverted. I don't think it breached NOBAN, which is vague - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing..." - lots of scope for interpretation. I claim that the core policy applies - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that {B} is more helpful. If those notices weren't helpful they wouldn't have been issued in the first place, and we wouldn't use them routinely. I'd suggest that if you want to draw more attention to Luke's notice, put it in its own header separate from the ones before it, or add a more natural, explanatory bit of dialog after his notice explaining what the issue is (I do that now and then for editors who may not understand our templates). But if the editor is ignoring prior notices (whether due to negligence, a lack of English skills, or not knowing where or what their user talk page is) they're not going to respond to Luke's notice no matter how you clean up their user talk page. I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's commendable, but I don't think it's the correct thing to do (either here, or on editors' talk pages in general). -- Atama頭 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that collapsing the block notices was a little overdoing it, but as for the rest, I think it was an improvement. We've had WP:DTTR for a while. I'm more a believer in WP:DTA.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• User has come back, and immediately is warned for making poorly sourced BLP changes: [28]. Not quite the music genre issue, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but think that someone who is likely not English-first-language might be struggling here to notice the detailed nuance of the 20th template message. It's a pity, and I imagine it'll lead to a block; I wish we could've tried harder to get 'em on track. Sure, 99% of the time it's a waste of effort, but the 1% is gold. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Resumed doing same today, see edit history. I reported to AIV as resumption of actions that led to last block. I assume escalating block durations that will probably eventually lead to an indef appears to be the default method of handling this. As I suggested earlier, an indef now, to get his attention, with a well crafted message explaining why what he is doing is wrong and that the block will be rescinded if he indicated understanding would likely be more productive. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think he has discovered his talk page and is open to some coaching. See messages on my page here. He is also asking for help on his page here. Looks like a serious attempt to become a better editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about unref'd edits to BLPs. I appreciate they might be trying, but I don't think they're getting it. If it wasn't BLPs, I wouldn't be so bothered. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right but I personally think it is worth it to try for now and cut him a bit of slack. If it doesn't look like he is serious, further action can be taken then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Adventure Time characters edits

321Wikiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently, I've been reverting an edit made to this article concerning the addition of the one-note character Goliad to the "Minor characters" subsections. In order to maintain order on this page and make sure it doesn't spiral into fancruft, I've tried to limit the character additions to individuals who have contributed to the show and/or have appeared in more than just one episode (ie, recurring. No background characters, etc). User:321Wikiman, however, keeps adding this character (who appeared in only one episode) to the recurring characters subsection. Furthermore, the editor includes information concerning the characters "return", when if you read the link cited, it says no such thing at all. I have discussed the edits, kindly, with the editor on their talk page, and myself on the history page, but they seem to either not understand the issues or are trying to disrupt the page (for instance, when I explained myself on the talk page, their rationale for adding the info was: "But Goliad is way better than Princess Bubblegum snd both Goliad and Stormo need to be seen again and Princess Bubblegum needs to die."). This has just recently started up again; originally, the characters were a part of the main page, and the editor did it there too (here and here are just a few examples). To make matters worse, almost all of Wikiman's edits to the AT pages have been reverted, if not by me, then by others (often unrelated to the project at hand). I'm at a loss at what to do. I don't think the editor is trying to be disruptive, but everything I've told them has apparently gone in one ear and out the other.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Goliad makes a cameo in the Princess Cookie episode, mean she appeared in Adventure Time more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 321Wikiman (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• If it's a minor cameo, I don't think it really counts. Personally, I think truly minor characters shouldn't been in the article (or any article), but I know that would meet short shrift with many. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If and when Goliad appears in another episode, in more than a minor role, then will be the time to add her.--Auric talk 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And the disruptive editing continues...--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Z554

I've just responded to this report of Z554 at the EWN from CarolMooreDC. I've blocked Z554 for edit warring, but Carol suggested that this may be a sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis. I'm not so experienced in this area and don't have all the background info; could someone who knows this case a little better investigate please? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my brain is too fried from all the nonsense lately to figure out how to do a proper WP:sock puppet investigation, or check user, besides just tagging User pages or coming here. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence in support of your claim, Carol?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning is that one of the accounts mentioned above #User:Axlerun is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis posted information to Z's talk page. While there is also other commonality between the three accounts, and possibly an SPI would be warranted they look like good faith (albeit partisan) accounts, more likely to be simply socks of each other than of JarlaxleArtemis, if anything. But I am not an expert in Grawpisms, so comment by a regular Grawp hunter would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

(edit conflict) I don't know if this is remotely useful coming from me, and with such a statistically insignificant sample, but Z554's edits to Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism (diff, diff, diff, diff), though mistaken and wrong, nonetheless do not seem to fit the behavior described in the sockmaster dossier there. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My hunch is "not Grawp", but I guess we'd need a checkuser to say for sure. Not sure if that would be merited here though, to be honest. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Given all the abuse I've taken from Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis the last month or so (and months previously) I'm not the best judge myself, even if had energy to figure out the process. Three reversions in less than 24 hours plus rather threatening sounding statements on his talk page just seemed like par for the course so I assumed the worse. I erred another time but the editor was much nicer about it, had rational denials and did not continue the behavior complained about, so it did not end up here. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Should the latest block be logged at ARBPIA? Some of the edits were clearly violations of 1RR per that case. This editor seems to be having a hard time understanding the requirements for editing in the I/P area, and I think a proper record of activities will be useful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Z554's comments from talk page

• 1. Carolmooredc acted in retaliation by leveling an unfounded assertion that I am a sock puppet for some other user. This is misuse of process. She must be sanctioned for this.
• 2. Because Carolmooredc is the other party in the edit war, she too must be blocked from editing for an amount of time equal to my block.
• 3. The administrator who blocked me, ItsZippy, did so without warning and without any due process. This must be investigated.
• 4. Since I actually have a life, I'll let it go and wait for the block to expire.Z554 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

While Z554's response calling for action against everyone involved is rather hasty and unlikely to gain any traction, it does seem that the actual content dispute at the root of this is not a one-sided affair, and at first blush the sock accusation seems unlikely to be correct. I would hope (against experience) that when Z554 returns constructive progress can be made on the disputed pages, by taking things very slowly and calmly. Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

FYI, I only reverted Z554 once in what is a pretty obvious POV edit; two other editors also reverted him once on that same edit. See Mondoweiss March 21-22 history. The last editor wrote "Rv NPOV violation, unsourced attack" on his revert. Z554 labeled our reversions vandalism.

User:z554 ran into me during a week when I have had to deal with probably more than a hundred incidents of reverting of my material or personal attacks in edit summary, talk pages, etc. from Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis and have had to tag maybe a dozen of his sock user pages. (See Special:Contributions/Carolmooredc.) If you look at Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis you will see that one of his modus operandi - as it stuck in my head anyway - was "he has created one or more non-attack sockpuppet accounts". So when I ran into User: z554 doing the same kind of what looked like vandalism on an article that had been protected before because of JarlaxleArtemis vandalism (which vulgarities evidently have been removed by admins), I thought he's back! An easy error to make given the circumstances. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Inadvertent outing

Nothing to see here, move along —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit summary includes a link to a forum thread which outs a number of Wikipedians. The edit summary should therefore be redacted post haste. Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Outing. Heavy traffic board. Perfect. --Onorem♠Dil 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Why wasn't I notified? Wanna reopen this one, RichyRich from IRC? Carrite (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this is going to be archived with my user name attached to an (erroneous) allegation of "inadvertent outing," which will be hidden behind revision deletion, I wish to place into the permanent record the exact text of the deleted post to which my edit summary linked: "Blanking plot summary as copyvio, per Wikipediocracy post: < url >" with the URL a permalink to this specific Wikipediocracy post:

By "Moonage Daydream"

(quote) ". . .Not just image copyright violations. Here is Bill william Compton's plot summary of Love and Mary (T-H-L):

Quote:

Mary Wilson was born and raised in Texas, but by the time she became an adult she'd grown tired of her off-the-wall family and moved Los Angeles to build a career for herself. Mary is an expert chef who has opened an upscale bakeshop, but some bad press and a severe rent increase could put her out of business. Desperate to keep the store afloat, Mary decides to bite the bullet and go back to Texas for a visit; her plan is to bring along her fiancé Brent, introduce him to her folks, and hope their engagement gifts will bring enough cash to pay off her creditors. However, a severe allergic reaction prevents Brent from going; Mary can't afford to postpone the trip, so she brings along Brent's twin brother Jake, an irresponsible jailbird, to impersonate as her fiancé. Jake wins heart of Mary's family, and they both develop feelings for each other. Lucy, Mary's childhood friend tries to seduce Jack, as she knows about the whole reality. But Jake gave up his heart for Marry, in the meantime Brent pick her up back to LA. But soon he also realizes that they both are not made for each other, they cancelled the wedding, at last Marry confesses her love to Jack, and they both get marry.

Here is the New York Times capsule review:

Quote:

A woman pulling a minor scam to keep her dream business alive digs herself in deeper when she becomes involved with a goofy ex-con in this independent comedy from first-time director Elizabeth Harrison. Mary Wilson (Lauren German) was born and raised in Texas, but by the time she became an adult she'd grown tired of her off-the-wall family and moved East to build a career for herself. Mary is an expert chef who has opened an upscale bakeshop, but some bad press and a severe rent increase could put her out of business. Desperate to keep the store afloat, Mary decides to bite the bullet and go back to Texas for a visit; her plan is to bring along her fiancé Brent (Gabriel Mann), introduce him to her folks, and hope their engagement gifts will bring enough cash to pay off her creditors. However, a severe allergic reaction prevents Brent from going; Mary can't afford to postpone the trip, so she brings along Brent's twin brother Jake (also played by Mann), an irresponsible jailbird, to impersonate her intended as she pumps her family for money. Love and Mary received its world premiere at the 2007 South by Southwest Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, Rovi (endquote)

I sought to give credit where due for initial identification of the Wikipedia copyviolation by User:Bill william compton, and permalinked to that post only. I will now notify BWC of the existence of this thread, a courtesy which was not extended to me, contrary to policy. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, why are you also apparently seeking to connect here an IRC username with a Wikipedia username, when (as far as I can tell) the Wikipedia editor does not mention that connection on-wiki? Particularly when I really don't see what any of the above has to do with IRC at all. I think you should be a little more careful about such things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll also say that it's pretty obvious the site in question has outing on it, and per the recent events, we just don't link to it at all right now. Screenshot it if you must. Copy it. Do something that doesn't link to the site that definitely has outing on it. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So, if the New York Times outed someone, would that mean we had to remove all our links to that site? I think not. A link to a particular forum thread that does not involve outing (it doesn't, right?) should not be problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

An oversighter has confirmed that it was the page that Carrite linked to that contained private information, not just the site itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for spouting off while only half-informed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't link to a page, I linked to a post. The oversighter is in error, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-look at the link if you have it. That linked to a page, and an inadvertent scrolling would've produced visions of outing. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I do have the link, gwickwire and the oversighter are correct, Carrite is not correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is IRC part of Wikipedia or is it not? Is canvassing for action there under one name and opening up another thread here with another name the abuse of multiple accounts or is it not? Is it an example of forum shopping or is it not? Is attempting to connect one Wikipedia account with another "outing" or is it not? These are big issues, maybe ArbCom should rule on this. Feel free to file a case if this thread does not close to your liking. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You can read more about the relationship of IRC channels with Wikipedia at WP:IRC. I don't see that accounts on Freenode's IRC servers are "Wikipedia accounts" in any meaningful sense, whether they use a WMF-related cloak or not; it certainly does not fall under WP:SOCKPUPPET which is what you appear to be suggesting. If you were attempting to make an accusation of a violation of WP:CANVASS, you have made a right mess of it. (Incidentally, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight specifically says "Anyone, at any time, may report issues potentially needing suppression in whichever ways are fastest and easiest", and then specifically goes on to mention IRC as one of those ways; and that's what happened.)

The suggestion of my opening an arbcom case is very interesting. However interesting such things may be, I feel that your repeatedly treading close to the edge of acceptable behaviour regarding privacy is unwise. Specifically I'm thinking of the concern I raised about the connection you made in this thread, your actions in a related user talk page discussion, and also the edit summary you made that had to be revdel'd for privacy reasons. We might hope the last of these three items was indeed inadvertent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no outing here (or there, or there), inadvertent or otherwise. The edit summary, as far as I can tell, just linked to a post on Wikipediocracy that showed that the alleged (purported? supposed? possible? - no one's sure) winner of the Gibraltarpedia contest had committed COPYVIOs. What we have here is a cheap strategic tactic aimed at diverting attention from the copyright problems to something else. And it was done via canvassing on IRC.Volunteer Marek 18:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How would asking on IRC for someone to revdel an edit summary, "divert attention from the copyright problems"?

On your other assertion, I'm quite happy to take Fred's word for it that the page linked to contained private information. You may not agree, that's up to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We differ, I'm not reposting any links to be a smart ass about it. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How would asking on IRC for someone to revdel an edit summary, "divert attention from the copyright problems"? - that wouldn't, but bringing this stuff up on this board (!) would.Volunteer Marek 19:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Using this board as a place to request revdel or suppression is indeed a silly thing to do. One can understand why the OP ran out of patience, but it's still a silly thing to do. Either way, the appropriate administrative action regarding the link has now been taken, Carrite has been given my advice (which he may or may not choose to heed), so there is nothing else for administrators to do here as far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• @VM. I don't think this is an intentional diversion about the copyright violation issue. The violator may well have figured out the right and wrong of copyright law between the relatively early extremely problematic edits and later editing associated with some contest. That may well be the case, but scrutiny in the matter would not be out of line. This is just another chapter in the attempt to BADSITES away each and every link to The Criticism Site Which Can Not Be Named. In this case, invalidly, in my view. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately Carrite cannot "out" me as RichyRich on IRC since I have said on IRC a number of times that it is me, if Carrite didn't know this they should not have said it anyway. This posting did not mention their name, and made it clear that no blame attached, so their outrage is somewhat misplaced, re-introducing the copyvio^{[above RF]} doubly so. Demiurge1000 is of course correct that using this board is not generally wise, however since the edit had been mentioned on IRC a speedy action was needed, and was in fact achieved, for which thanks. The only unresolved question here is why attempts to get a response from Oversight failed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

As far as I know the copyvio section that I blanked was re-written in a manner which alleviated the Very Close Paraphrase problem that it had. In this matter I shall take the Bart Simpson Defense: "I didn't do it." As for the need for oversight, we differ. As for the permissibility of using IRC as a legitimate channel for an oversighter, I learn something every day and stand corrected. As for you starting this thread without notifying me, that was an obvious error on your part. As a general statement, I think that IRC stinks and that WMF should abolish it, but that's neither here nor there. Over and out. Carrite (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

two user accounts for one editor

Strongly suspect User:Sanoop_robert and User:Rrrobert88 are the same person. Both only edit User:Sanoop_robert which itself is a problem (self-promotion, looks like an article). I left a note on his talk page suggesting he make changes to the user page, but it's such a blatant bit of self-promotion, and the accounts are just used for that purpose, that a speedy delete might be appropriate. – JBarta (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bwilkins deleted the user page, G11. I didn't peek at it, but I trust his judgement. As for the two people the same person, it is kind of hard to do much at this stage, and more of an WP:SPI issue. To be socking, you have to show abuse. They could just be friends or know each other, we really don't know at this point. Since they aren't using the accounts to abuse or manipulate the system, blocking isn't warranted. Yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by bureaucrat/admins, resulting in myself being caught between a rock and a hard place.

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

---

I am bringing this to ANI because an unsatisfactory situation has been reached between myself, a bureaucrat and an admin, and I wish for uninvolved eyes to have a look.
On March 12th I was observing a discussion at Talk:M4 motorway. There were 5 editors involved: User:The Rambling Man, User:Our other kid, User:Martinvl, User:Martinevans123 and User:Gareth Griffith-Jones. There was disagreement regarding the introduction of a new graphic; the first two editors were against the introduction, the last three were in favour. I then noticed that User:Our other kid was a new account which had only been set up that evening, and was only being used to edit that article and talk page, and their very first edit was this. I concluded therefore that this account was not a new user, but a sock of an experienced editor, because only an experienced editor would know of the existence of such a template (or indeed any template). I aired my concern here, in the hope that the sock account would withdraw, however instead User:Our other kid feigned innocence (e.g. here). In response to this continuation of maintaining a deceit, I made a more concrete assertion here, in which I named User:The Rambling Man as the suspected sock owner. I named this user because at the time he was the only logical suspect, as both User:Our other kid and User:The Rambling Man were united against the other 3 editors in their opposition to the new graphic. I point out that at this point I had no idea that such a naming could be a "bannable offense", as I have subsequently been told.
The next time I logged in I discovered User:The Rambling Man had opened a new thread on my talk page and posted 3 messages, all of which - to me - had a slight air of aggression or even menace, and seemed to be simultaneously saying that, on the one hand, I'd better request the checkuser because obviously he's been here so long he must be innocent (see here), but on the other hand also advising against requesting a checkuser because then I'll make matters worse for myself and I will look like "an asshat" (see here). He also alerted me (see here) to the existence of a separate sock investigation which had been opened against User:Our other kid by User:Martinvl (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto/Archive#13 March 2013).
My reaction to these postings was that I couldn't work out if User:The Rambling Man was trying to intimidate me out of requesting a checkuser, whilst at the same time trying to give the appearance that he wanted me to request one. It also struck me as curious that he should be so aware of a separate accusation of puppetry against User:Our other kid. I had a look at this separate SPI investigation, and noted 2 things: first, it added to my belief that User:Our other kid could not be a new editor, because they had found the SPI investigation into them even though they weren't told about it, and second I was struck by the change in the tone of voice from when they were interacting on the M4 motorway page. In particular, they used a tone of address that was reminiscent of phrases used by User:The Rambling Man, for example at the SPI into them User:Our other kid says "The timeline is crap - end of", in comparison to User:The Rambling Man's comment of "This timeline is crap and explains nothing to anyone" on the M4 motorway talk page (see here). User:Our other kid also highlighted text in bold, something User:The Rambling Man is inclined to do.
As a result, on my talk page I replied to User:The Rambling Man and explained that I couldn't be 100% sure of his innocence and therefore would have to proceed with a checkuser. I tried to phrase my suspicion as politely and indeed apologetically as I could, whilst still being honest (see here). Subsequent to this, User:The Rambling Man expressed impatience that the checkuser request should proceed quickly, claiming that he was looking forward to the result as it would result in "the subsequent humiliation of a number of editors" (see here). He also brought in 2 more accounts for consideration, claiming that they too were like User:Our other kid in that they were following User:Martinvl around (see here and here).
In response to this I was becoming very wary and indeed suspicious, particularly because by this time I had become aware that User:The Rambling Man is an admin and bureaucrat. I thought, why is he so keen for the checkuser request to be made, and why does he keep bringing in possible socks who are following User:Martinvl? Indeed, why is he so aware of all these potential socks? Although it is undoubtedly cynical on my part, I wondered if User:The Rambling Man, as the holder of a position of power within Wikipedia, had some kind of prior knowledge of a possible checkuser request. Hence I made this statement, in which I acknowledged various possible outcomes of the affair, none of which appeared to be good ones as far as I was concerned. User:The Rambling Man took this as an outright accusatory statement, even though I was only trying to acknowledge various possibilities. Then a short while later an admin (User:Rschen7754) suddenly appeared on my talk page and stated that a checkuser would be declined and deleted, and that if I didn't shut up I'd be frogmarched to ANI (see here). After that I have not only felt completely caught between a rock and a hard place (because one admin has told me to shut up while a bureaucrat is continuing to express outrage that I'm remaining silent), but I no longer have any trust in the whole business. Why did User:Rschen7754 suddenly appear from nowhere? I very much doubt they were already watching the quiet backwater of my talk page, and can only assume they were responding to this, which was posted by User:The Rambling Man on his userpage just 7 minutes previously. If that's the case, is it really proper for an admin to pre-judge a potential SPI just minutes after having been introduced to the topic by a rather emotional plea from an involved user who just so happens to occupy a higher position within the Wikipedia hierarchy?
This report is already overly long. I suggest that admins read the whole thread on my talk page starting here, as there the whole unfolding can be read sequentially (including the most recent postings occurring after User:The Rambling Man contacted an SPI clerk and the Wikipedia SPI talk page).
The summary of my position is as follows:

• 1) I am convinced some fairly sophisticated socking is being carried out, part of which involves User:Our other kid.
• 2) I never imagined trying to get to the bottom of all this would result in such outrage.
• 3) I do not want to be wrongly accusing anyone of anything, yet neither do I want to be the cause of several editors being "humiliated" by someone who holds a position of power within Wikipedia.
• 4) Because of the actions of both User:The Rambling Man and User:Rschen7754, who are both in positions of power whereas I am not, I no longer trust the impartiality of the SPI process.
• 5) I do not particularly wish to be blocked, but I would rather be blocked than lie. I'm hoping that by bringing this to ANI it can be resolved without either. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! The bottom line is that I've been accused of being a sock puppeteer but nobody has got round to actually filing the SPI. I want the accusation to be retracted or proved. That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought a SPI was opened? Wait it out then demand satisfaction. Otherwise, we the community, expect admins and beuracrats to have thicker skins.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I was never investigated and the SPI has been closed. Please get your facts straight before offering me your pearls of wisdom on allowing editors to post in multiple locations that they suspect me of sock puppetry despite offering no evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The TL;DR version: PCW thought a new user might be a sock of TRM, based upon !vote and language usage. PWC feels intimidated because he is either being goaded into filing a SPI, or feels like he might receive a blowback if he does. It appears that no SPI for this incident has been filed. My apologies to TRM.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My perspective on the matter is:

• In the last two weeks I have requested SPIs against User:Our other kid and User:Cap-Saint-Martin, both of whom I suspected off being sockpupperts of User:DeFacto. DeFacto was banned about a year ago. Since then he has launched many sockpuppet attacks against me. My SPI against User:Cap-Saint-Martin succeeded, but the action against User:Our other kid was dismissed as being inconclusive. In appears therefore that two editors independently of each other identified User:Our other kid as being a possible sockpuppet, but they differed as to the identity of the sockmaster.
• User:The Rambling Man has been an active editor on Wikipedia since 2005, unless he has "lost his marbles" I believe that he is unlikely to launch such sockpuppet attacks.
• There has been tension between User:The Rambling Man and myself in respect of Road Junction Lists - I created a set of templates to satisfy the the design at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#M5 motorway. A row that has been simmering between UK and US editors for a number of years errupted (IMHO the US editors have been pushing the US line rather too hard). User:The Rambling Man, took the "no consensus has been reached" line and undid a number of changes that I had made using those templates and is so doing undermined my opportunity to try and get consensus. In the circumstances I would have expected him to try and broker a consensus rather than take one side so strongly. As it is, I have proposed taking this to DRN.

In short then, I still believe that User:Our other kid is a sockpuppet - at this stage I am not prepared to identify a sockmaster, but I do not believe it to be User:The Rambling Man. On the other hand, I believe that User:The Rambling Man made a number of errors of judgement in his handling of the RJL issues. I trust that these errors of judgement (if indeed they are errors of judgement) will be resolved in the DRN. Martinvl (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed templates you had unilaterally decided to use despite there being no consensus at the project. That's all. But thanks for your assessment of the likelihood (or otherwise) of me being a sock puppet master. Sometimes I do lose my marbles, but it still wouldn't make me suddenly create nefarious accounts just to argue the toss over the use of a timeline or a template on the M4 article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I read most of the wall of text, then got fed up. Being serious, I do understand why you created that sock link, PaleCloudedWhite. That said, DeFacto is a notorious sockpuppeter, and this is well within his standard procedure. Just because the user you accused of socking was aware of a SPI against the suspected sock is not a reason to be suspicious. You've also made several allegations about The Rambling Man, with either non-existent or flimsy evidence. Not that the SPI that was actually raised against Our other kid was much stronger. PaleCloudedWhite, I urge you to drop the stick - you've been very WP:POINTy in your request here (comments about the whole SPI process being flawed due to two users, for example), you've got very little evidence as to anything other than a good-faith mistake, and The Rambling Man has been around for far too long for him to suddenly need to start socking (at least, I'd hope so...) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there an ArbCom candidate just a couple years ago where, during the election, it was discovered had over a dozen socks? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)</small
    • Maybe, I don't know, but what I do know is that I've actually asked for this check to be performed. I've got nothing to hide. I just need the instigator of both this report and the initial accusations to provide the evidence required to lodge an SPI... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

AFC reviews carried out by Ckenn18

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

---

I'm very concerned about the appropriateness of a very large number of reviews carried out recently by user User:Ckenn18. I think this strongly merits a look over, as personally I think they need to be undone en masse.

Examples:

• this article was reviewed in apparently about 20 seconds diff

I'm happy to add more examples if necessary. --_nonsense ferret 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Think you provided the wrong diff there. No way is that 20 seconds... The submission decline date on it is very odd though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was probably being generous with the 20 seconds - he did 4 such reviews in the space of a minute while doing that one - see list of contributions - his goal seems to have been to review and approve an article that he had tried several times unsuccessfully to get kept in mainspace, and that looks to me like a whole lot of collateral damage --_nonsense ferret 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an en masse revert would be appropriate, because some of those are valid declines. I did revert his decline of Chris Dolan, though, because that appeared to properly establish notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A correct decline for the 'wrong reason' is as unhelpful if not more so than an incorrect decision - he has used 'NOT' reason many times, and that will be very discouraging to people who submitted articles and were perhaps only a citation or two away from being accepted. I think you are proposing that someone should manually look through them all and check them - is that realistic? --_nonsense ferret 16:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I see what you mean nonsenseferret about the timeframe - I thought you meant 20 seconds after the AfC was started. That AfC isn't ready for mainspace yet (it's a bit too promotional for my liking), but it's certainly not ready to be declined either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth checking that Arlene Zelina, which Ckenn18 created at AfC and then moved into article space today (without waiting for a review) is substantially different from the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene Zelina. The current version seems largely referenced to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and blogs. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems he just removed the submission template in some of the submissions: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Nimuaq (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw this so have started foing through them all. Not only are a lot of the declines wrong, he's removing the 'submitted' templates instead of declining, and is copying a decline template which is then messing up the template coding (timestamps). - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for doing that - he also failed to notify any of the submitters either --_nonsense ferret 17:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted Arlene Zelina as was a duplicate of a version of the article deleted at AfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Likely using sockpuppets too - see [35] which shows removing warnings from the first user's page and contributing to the original deletion discussion --_nonsense ferret 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to his talkpage and making a (in)formal request he either slow down or ask for help if he doesn't understand. If he doesn't heed that, he needs a topic ban from AfC reviews. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hell, I'd missed the fact that he's the one that created Arlene Zelina in the first place. Looking at his rapid-fire declines for lack of notability, I'd say at best he's trying to make a point, but it looks to me more like payback. He needs a block, not a warning to slow down. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The further i'm getting through these reviews, i'd probably have to agree with you - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

...and looking at the first few he did, it definately looks like revenge - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• If there's any left, I suggest they get mass undone (regardless of whether they were good or not, per WP:DENY), and then indef this user under WP:NOTHERE - which, at the moment, appears to apply very well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My AGF is out the window. We're either being trolled, or being pissed on by someone who wasn't happy with his decline. Block now somebody. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, as long as nobody doesn't want me to, I'm about to just go smashing the rollback button on this guy's declines. They *are* pure vandalism clearly. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Mash away. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I've given this editor an indefinite block. My view on such blocks is that they are what they say they are, indefinite, and that editors with an indefinite block can be unblocked at anytime if an Admin feels confident that the actions the editor was blocked for won't be repeated. I added "indefinite - until editor recognises the reasons he/she was blocked and agrees to refrain from such action in the future and stay away from AFC". I don't know what set this editor off and the rapidity of their actions worries me, but I don't need to be consulted if anyone wants to unblock (if the conditions are met of course). Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks,  Doing... on the mass rollbacks. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
        • All of his declines have been reverted (if they were the most recent contribution), and the removals of tags too. I think this can be marked as resolved now, unless we're going to discuss something else :) gwickwire^talk_editing 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

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

---

This is an article about a prominent Russian businessman who has died unexpectedly. There has been a large number of edits in the past few minutes. In order to prevent further speculation about the causes of death, could I ask that it be semi-protected? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not appropriate since there were constructive IP edits as well; however, since indeed it was BLP vandalism from more than one IP, I configured pending changes for three days. I added the article to my watchlist and will make sure the edits go live as soon as possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

AN/TPS-43

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

---

For about six years, the article AN/TPS-43 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an its talk page Talk:AN/TPS-43 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) have been vandalized by the same person with nonsense "I hate this article, "it is a copyvio" and other stupidity. User:Alexf knows him/her more than me. According to him, if the article and talk page are protected, s/he will move to another page, which is true. All IPs come from Colombia, I don't know if all of them are from Bogotá. Alexf told me he prefers to block them instead of protect the article(s), but blocking them for one year, when they are not static, is not a good move, especially for newbies. I believe that it's enough with this person. Six years doing the same as if this were a play area denotes a more than immature and childish attitude. Is it possible to block the range (I know it is large), or start protecting the articles and talk pages? And officially ban this person from Wikipedia? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any name by which this person is known? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this nut hails from the Medellin area. He has been vandalizing that article adding pictures at random, sometimes nudes or other NSFW for almost 7 years (first vandalism in July 2006). I do not know how a ban would work as he can easily come with other socks or whatever. I now block him on sight. Started at the usual 24/31 hours and so on. He only uses IPs in Colombia, from home (cable modem), then he tried his school IPs, and now he is now using mobile phone IPs when he finds one that is unblocked. When the article was semi-protected, he started doing the same to the article's talk page. I've no idea what his problem is. Whatever the community decides is fine with me. Frankly I'm getting a little tired of having this article in my watchlist seeing nothing constructive in almost 7 years. As for the name, it is not known. Always IPs, same MO. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The first account s/he used, as far as I found, is Macallla (talk · contribs) (edits no visible because the account's name was removed from the page, but s/he has no name, all accounts are in red and without a SPI (as basically unneded): [36], [37] [38] [39]. Perhaps "AN/TPS vandal" is the proper way to refer to him. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Site ban for editor known as Macalla, or "AN/TPS vandal"

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

---

Per the discussion above, this is to determine if the editor in question has earned a full community ban. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - A classic wasp in the park. Macella has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and his vandalism is incredibly destructive. Enough, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Site ban for editor, 1-year semi-protect for page. This maximizes the chances that he will give up in frustration -- some of his IPs won't work anywhere, all of his IPs won't work on his favorite target. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 years of trolling suggests something not quite right with this editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support just to be clear where I stand. Agree with a year of semi protection as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 21:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support More than enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Rich Farmbrough, 05:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
• Support The editor has been performing disruptive editing for a while now. TBrandley 05:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question: How does blocking the original editor resolve this problem? RNealK (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Because their long-term disruptiveness indicates they are not here to improve the encyclopedia, only vandalise and troll, and a community ban allows for the application of revert, block, ignore to their edits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support A year at least, but probably not enough. We'll revisit afterwards. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia is more disruptive than helpful today because of User:JomboWales

Troll food. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Per WP:ASUSUAL and WP:WIKIPROJECT:WHY? I have become increasingly aware of several moments when this user tried to the system and erratically attack other users with WP:PERSONALSLURS. I am logging my IP address here in fair compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content, which is why I've posted here. Please advise on proper response to situation. 64.7.84.134 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm unclear as to what you mean by this. There's no user account User:JomboWales, and the two Wikipedia pages you link to above, do not exist, either. Can you explain what you are referring to in more detail, please? -- The Anome (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The proper response to the situation is a Nice Cup of Tea and a Sit Down. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) There looks to be no issue here, just a mumbling of different things: two redlink "policies", "the system" with no explanation, and another redlink policy. Then they try to log their IP in compliance with NFCC? This may be an instance where my WP:AGF meter is not working right, but just saying. gwickwiretalkediting 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, this is a little fishy, to say the least. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Neither of the first two links exist, nor does anything that is even remotely close, nor any user with that name, which would have been blocked on site for username violation to start with. I'm wondering if we are being trolled. Note that this is a corporate static IP from WebPerception, LLC. Peeking around ports did find PCoIP open, which I'm guessing is a VPN thing, ie proxying but maybe closed. And all this is public info, not outing, btw. I will let others draw their own conclusions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Note that the IP address had not be used to edit since July of 2011. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) my conclusion-dennis outed someone, block him now indef w/o talkpage In all seriousness, WP:CIR applies at the least. Someone action this in some way (if only hatting) gwickwiretalkediting 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I left a note on the IP's talk page. I would at least give them a change to clarify before taking further action. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) What a load of old WP:BOLLOCKS. I suspect this is an attempt (and admittedly quite a good one) at trolling.--Launchballer 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Thoughtful response: Let me step in here, if I may, to point out that MOST of the relevant Wikipedia policy pages have already been provided, which I might add is previous to our discussion on WP:DISCUSSION, and I think it seems to have strayed from normal protocol and a focus on content. The editor in questions has presented bad faith contributions directed toward the community as a whole and, in line with holes, we need to take into consideration the fact that "it is just better to shut up and take your lumps than to prove to everyone that you are even more wrong than they already thought." If this editing continues in the personally aggravated nature that it has, we'll have a problem. 64.7.84.134 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, but the editor in question does not exist and neither do some of the policies you have linked. Those minor details are causing a bit of a problem as well. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC) This is a mock-report & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross wiki harrasssment

I removed some ramblings made by Profoundpaul (talk · contribs) as per WP:FORUM and issued a standard warning. This caused the editor in question to visit my talk page on the Danish Wikipedia and make 14 disruptive edits. What is the policy for such cross-wiki harassment? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can do anything here. Technically, what happens on another language Wiki doesn't carry over here unless they are doing the same thing on multiple wikis, and need a globally locking. Even then, only a WP:Steward can do that. I think you need to contact admin on the Danish Wikipedia for action there. There are users who are blocked here on the English Wikipedia, yet contribute on other wikis like Commons, as the policies for each are different. If they do something out of policy here, then we can take action, but we literally have no ability to take action nor authority on the Danish Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree with Dennis. However, we can do something about the editor's behavior here, which has been a problem. Almost all of their edits have been to article talk pages adding personal theses about the subject matter. They have made a handful of article edits, most of which have also been inappropriate and have been reverted. I have left a warning on their talk page about their behavior. Hopefully, they'll stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 added a helpful note on their talk page, and I reminded them of some obvious facts as well. Maybe that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Noting that the editor was blocked for 2 days on dawiki. --Rschen7754 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for sanctions of this editor on the da-wiki, but for their actions here on en-wiki. As can be seen from the contents the disruptive edits on my Danish talk page was very obviously a direct response to my actions here on en-wiki, so this is entirely an en-wiki matter, and I can't see why they should be treated any differently than if the disruptive edits was carried out on my talk page here on en-wiki. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

In Bodu Bala Sena page I added Fascism tag due to this organization using nationalism and religious fervor in attacking minorities. The user 115.67.197.210 [40] accused me of Hate speech. I wanted the admins to clarify this incident.

• [41]
• [42]

Delljvc (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• You need to first take this to the article talk page. I have to admit, I'm stymied as to how an article on Buddhism meets the criteria to have the Fascism template on it, but I'm not editing there. He reverted it out, now it is upon you to leave it out and build a consensus to include it. Adding it back in will likely be seen as edit warring, and open yourself up for sanctions. If you can't build a consensus that Buddhism is Fascism (??), then you leave it out, or take it to WP:DRN if you have a split consensus. This isn't a matter for ANI at this point. As for "hate speech", the IP gave a reasoned argument on your talk page, he didn't go into some hateful rant, so I don't find anything uncivil about it. There is no admin action warranted right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• I forgot to add, you didn't notify the user that you brought them here. The notice at the top of this page gives you the template and tells us that it is mandatory. I'm assuming it was a simple oversight, and as such, I've notified them myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DylanGLC2011

I didn't know if this was an issue for WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN, because its a mix of both, with a bit of long term abuse too. If this is the wrong venue, feel free to let me know.

DylanGLC2011 (talk · contribs) came back under a new account last April after the goodwill for their previous account DylansTVChannel (talk · contribs) had disappeared after several inappropriate articles involving the television network Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) were created by them featuring only promotional content. I had attempted to ask for a block as a sock, but since the original account had never been blocked, was unsuccessful.

Since then, I have spent months upon months trying to guide the user in our policies. The editor owns the site NickUKHub and has attempted to use it as a source in the past for programming on Nick UK/I. After they self-confessed in the past on my talk page after a warning they owned it, I asked them to cease their links to it immediately due to WP:COI. However in this edit to a Nick series finale article, they used a source from their own site again. After none of the issues with using our site as an advertising service for their favorite network or using network sites and PR as actual sources have been fixed despite many warnings in the past, I issued a final warning to them asking the user to adhere to our policies. The warning was blanked, and this afternoon the user sourced the premiere of a network series to the network's website, one that was incorrect and unable to actually be found in the network's listings, along with still being a month in the future; WP:TV guidance in the past has been to source premieres to reliable neutral media and usually only two weeks before.

I have been more than patient with this user, who has continued to insist on adding advertorial content to List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland) despite two successful AfDs (1 & 2) against having that promotional content in our articles in any form. The editor's insistence on not using neutral stories, insisting expirable television listings are acceptable sources, along with promotional 'here's whats on Sky' content on sources, suggest this user is not here at all to build an encyclopedia, but to solely build a resume to work in the promo department of their favorite cable network against our guidelines. I didn't want to raise my voice about this because I thought guiding this user by pointing out our policies would eventually make them a worthwhile editor, but at this point, I cannot see them being reformed, especially with the name jump a year back. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I need help from more experienced editors and admins, regarding article Legendary creature

Here is the issue to the best of my knowledge:

The article Legendary creature has a sentence that is under dispute and there has been serious edit-warring on this issue. Check out all the random IPs that are doing nothing more than just edit-warring back and forth. I've tried to resolve the dispute by providing references and sources for the sentence, and I've already reverted twice (and been reverted far more times than that) and opened up a talk page discussion to try to resolve the issue. Even so, there is still edit-warring going on at this moment. Can some experienced editors and admins help out? Let me know if I've done anything wrong or what more I need to do at this point to help resolve the dispute. Does this article need semi-protection? Where do I go from here? Also, should I notify all the random IPs of this too, or just the actual users (referring to the "{{subst:ANI-notice}}" thing)? Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and notify the users involved, but if I need to notify the IPs too I can do that.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, you probably *should* notify the IPs.. But to the actioning administrator, please for the love of all that is Jimbo do not put PC on this page :) gwickwire^talk_editing 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, going to go ahead and notify them all. Thanks.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the article itself is linked indirectly from here. That's where a lot of these random IPs seem to be coming from.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a request for semi-protection. --JasonMacker (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the problem here is that JM is defending a decidedly tendentious version of the article; it's not surprising that its attracting outside attention. Yes, they shouldn't edit-war, but neither should he. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "defending" anything. I'm trying to contribute to the article by providing sources and references to the article's information. Unfortunately, the article is being repeatedly vandalized by IP users who are ignoring the fact that the text they are removing is indirectly from the sources provided. This has been going on for hours and I've done my best to resolve the conflict via the talk page, bringing up the issue here, trying to get the attention of the mythology wikiproject, request semiprotection, and so on. The objections to the referenced material range from saying that it's offensive to saying that they don't agree with the references provided. Those aren't good enough reasons to remove sourced information from Wikipedia.--JasonMacker (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this belongs here, at least not yet. It's an NPOV issue in that JM and at least one other editor want to include deities (including ones believed in now such as God and Allah as well as older ones such as Zeus), while others don't because they find it offensive. This has led to WP:POINTedits such as removing unicorns from the article. That's not acceptable but I think the issue needs to be resolved at NOVN first. I'll raise it there. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate addition by JM, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is they will be unable to find any citation that passes muster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Except for the part where I give three references for the sentence, one of which directly mentions gods as being mythological. In any case, I'm not here on WP:ANI to discuss content, but rather to get assistance from more experienced editors and admins in dealing with all these random IP editors that are removing sourced content over and over again.--JasonMacker (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started looking at those references, and so far I find that they do not make the point you are trying to have them make. But that's a content dispute and ought not be discussed here. The only behavioral issues are in the edit war between the IP editors and you, and the protection you've invoked to tilt the playing field in your favor. I'm just as happy to work this out without having to deal with a POINT-y battle between IPs, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a battle that tilts in one side's favor. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. The problem with the IPs is that there are over 20 of them, all reverting sourced information without contributing to the discussion on the talk page. How am I supposed to collaborate with nameless IPs that don't give any justification for what they are doing?--JasonMacker (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I quite agree about locking them out. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature

There is a request in at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎, but in the meantime Legendary creature is being hammered on because of this Reddit thread. 108 edits in the last 2 days, 103 in the previous year. Could we have an emergency short-term semi-protection please? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you would have seen it but there is a thread on the same topic about 8 above this one - here. For the record, agree temp-semi would be a good idea. Stalwart111 08:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And there are actually two requests at WP:RFPP related to Legendary creature. Seems plenty of people have noticed the vandalism. Stalwart111 08:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Missed that. Looks like we have a legitimate content dispute among the IP edit warring. Hmmm. Do we try to sort out the IPs that are disruptive and block just them? Or is it OK to require the good IPs to register? They are coming from Reddit, and Reddit makes you register a username (no email confirmation needed) before you can post, so that would be a familiar concept to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes protected (level 1)-'d. I'm still just an admin hatchling, more that happy if this is challenged and/or changed in any way.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call I reckon. Might want to note it at RFPP. Stalwart111 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I don't think we can start requiring that IPs register an account. Pending changes seems to be the best solution, wish I'd thought of that. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good solution.

So, if I look tomorrow and see a bunch of edit warring by IPs, do I report the IPs or do I report the users with reviewer rights who approved the edits? I can well imagine two reviewers who are in a content dispute each approving IP edits that they agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I took it to NPOVN. I guess an RfC is another option. I can't see this being settled on the talk page so full protection just postpones the dispute. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I revised the article lead. "Legends" require stories about a life, and stories about God are not really directed towards a life. Creatures for the most part are nonhuman animals. When "creature" is applied to a human, it often is "used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment,"[43] which is somewhat conflicting with the use of "legendary". I explained the new lead sentence on the article talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom also use that red pen to remove excess material from the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this revdel-worthy?

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

---

I don't know if this[44] bad enough to need a revision deletion, but a case could certainly be made that it is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, not to mention purely disruptive, so I thought I'd bring it here just in case. Apologies if I'm overreacting here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Meets WP:CRD #2, so I revdel'ed it. I don't think it is required, but I think it doesn't benefit us to have it in the history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• And the IP has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Incivility, personal attacks and edit-warring by User:Cavann

Cavann (talk · contribs) has been pushing a primordialist POV in Turkey and engaging in incivil behavior and edit-warring. He has told me to learn to read, called me an idiot, called me a POV-pusher. After I warned him to stop making personal attacks [45], he told me to learn what Neolithic means. He is also edit-warring [46] [47]. Can an admin please warn this individual to to knock it off with the personal attacks and start behaving politely? Any help would be greatly appreciated. It is very difficult to continue discussing faced with such behavior. Athenean (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I have been discouraged and frustrated after the behaviour of Athenean et al. After easily accepting the consensus of Talk:Turkey#RfC which was about mentioning descent of inhabitants of Turkey in the lead, I made another non-descent related change which was quickly reverted, as explained in the 2nd Talk:Turkey#RfC2.

Also note that the other user who reverted me [48] followed me to another article to revert the entire article to another page [49] (I am not sure if this is Wikihounding yet), and that User:Athenean seems to have a nationalistic (Hellenistic) POV that seems to override WP:NPOV in various Turkey related articles. For example, in this recent edit [50], he lowered the upper boundary to 75% even though the original information was correct, with the 2nd source (p. 264) [51] indicating 90% (and even supplying the page number in ref text!). I know we are supposed to have good faith, but given this minor change was reverted [52], I am struggling with it. Cavann (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean also seems to be projecting his petty nationalistic POV to me [53], whereas I try to be more accurate [54] Cavann (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The only one pushing an agenda here is you, with your primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time".< That and Your continuing incivility are reasons you should be sanctioned. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have answered that here [55] and here [56]. I am aware you are interested in historical tragic issues [57], but keep me out of this nationalistic BS you seem to be pursuing. Cavann (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention please: User:Athenean is now deleting reliable sources [58] Cavann (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Cavann. My revert was in accordance with the consensus of the TP of Turkey where Athenean and I have agreed to support CMD's wording. Above all, please don't accuse me of "Wikihounding" when the Ancient Anatolians link was provided by yourself on the TP of Turkey. I merely just viewed the article and discredited its self-sufficiency due to lack of sources since 2010. If you want to go ahead and add sources that's fine with me. After all, the article looks better now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable. It is a bunch of Turkish nationalists claiming that Kurds only make up 6.76% of Turkey's ppoulation, which is clearly ridiculous and clashes with every other known estimate for this population (15-25%, per the sources given in Kurdish people). Who is pushing a petty nationalistic agenda now? Athenean (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that source. I just follow WP:Reliable sources. Jeez. This is getting ridiculous. Cavann (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block both editors for repeated personal attacks here at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing with the edit-warring [59] [60]. Can someone please block this guy, he clearly shows no sign of stopping. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks, here or anywhere, unlike Cavann. I have retracted the one statement of mine that could be construed as such. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou spam

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) has taken to spamming XFD debates with pointless "thank you" posts when other editors post comments he agrees with. (e.g. [61], [62]). These comments consist solely of "Reply. Thank you username".

This sort of fluff adds nothing to a debate, and simply clutter the page, so I deleted them. Jax reverted that deletion, so (probably wrongly), I deleted them again, and they were reverted again.

Is this sort of thankyouspam acceptable per WP:TPG? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

At least, they are highly annoying as you think to see a proper reply on one of the - already excessive number of - XFD-discussions. User:The Banner/signature 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is annoying, but I think you need to have a discussion with them on their talk page and try to convince them that this isn't helpful before ANI. Not sure of the exact policy this violates, but common sense says it is at least annoying and potentially disruptive if it were taken to an extreme, thus should be discouraged. Kind of falls under WP:BLUDGEONing, as we don't need to reply to every comment in a delete discussion, good or bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Assistance requested...

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

---

There's a little bit of silly business going on at this talk page. Perhaps someone could have a look. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Very bizarre. I believe that active block notices are not supposed to be removed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:REMOVED, editors should not remove declined unblock requests or sockpuppetry notices, but this editor removed both of them. I have protected the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say, however, that perhaps the IP carried that too far as well when getting assistance would have been better (and if the IP knew about WP:REMOVED, s/he probably also knew about ANI). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to assume what was known, but I agree that the edit-warring was a bad thing. The IP should be warned not to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry notices may not be removed (and that was happening), but as far as block notices, WP:REMOVED prohibits the removal only of current block notices; expired notices, like this one, may be removed freely. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion regarding User:Will Beback

Have started a sort of RfC regarding Arbcom's recent denial to grant Will Beback a return to editing here. I have a number of concerns regarding this decision. One being that it was made without community input and in secrecy and two the evidence to support the original indefinite ban is so weak. Note that I was involved and did see the private evidence in question. It however is interesting to look at the public evidence as quoted by arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're... holding a "sort of RfC" on the user page of one user, with the intention of overturning an arbcom decision about a different user? Certainly unusual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, an Rfc seems like a waste of time. I'm not sure there's anything the community can do at this point--I really don't think that we can overrule Arbcom by a Rfc vote. I certainly would not want to be the admin to undo the Arbcom block! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good to gauge where the community stands. It is something arbcom can take into account, and perhaps influence the internal discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BASC — Ched :  ?  04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the community takes one stance and arbcom takes another yes we will have an interesting situation. Arbcom did overturn User:Jimmy Wales in this case. IMO the community holds the authority. The main thing is that we have a very small group of editors making decisions that affect all of us behind closed doors. For an so called open movement I see this as strange.

The decision they made in this case has had a negative effect on 1) people willingness to be critical of arbcom 2) peoples willingness to speak out about concerns they see regarding COI. It also deals directly with the policy of WP:OUTING. Does sending an email to arbcom and a couple of other admins mentioning concerns of COI count as outing? And who gets to decide if it does or not arbcom or the community? In this case of course that email was counted as outing and an indef ban was handed out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an email to ArbCom can count as outing someone. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, ArbCom rejected the appeal in secret deliberations. We don't know why or what was said, or who thought what. If we find out what the community thinks, maybe ArbCom might just take that on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea of giving the community a way to advise arbcom is a good one, and the RfC format is perfect for that. Having the RfC on some obscure talk page seems like it would result in a biased sample of users, but is some central place better? A practical problem is that those users who get to arbcom tend to be the most tendentious, and I predict that a lot of them would start such RfCs hoping that the community will Rise Up And Smite Those Who Have Been So Very Very Unfair To Them even though they have no case. In the usual case -- a user who is a real problem -- there is a lot to be said for arbcom being the end of the road. On the other hand, in some cases there will be a large number of people who disagree with an arbcom decision, and in those cases there is a lot to be said for arbcom not being the end of the road. It's an interesting and recursive "who watches the watchers" problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

Viriditas made a factually incorrect and uncivil comment about me:

"Memills has been warned about 1) adding reliable sources and 2) attacking other editors literally a hundred times by now. Viriditas" diff

I replied:

"Viriditas, "literally a hundred times" is false. I consider that an uncivil personal attack. Please retract it immediately. Memills" diff

She did not, so I asked her again: " Again, please stop attacking me with falsehoods, and retract your previous statement. If you do not retract it, I will initiate a formal complaint. Memills" diff

Instead of dealing with this issue informally, her response was:

"Please file your formal complaint immediately." diff"

I request that Viriditas be given a warning to engage fellow WP editors to resolve disputes more civilly and to retract patently false statements made about other editors. Memills (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• As much as it might make us cringe at the horrific mangling of the meaning of the word, the use of "literally" when "virtually" (or something similar) is meant isn't a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • OTH, the word "literally" literally means, er... literally. Especially once it is pointed out. It would have been easy for Viriditas to literally back off a bit... even figuratively. The refusal to do so is where the incivility becomes apparent. Memills (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>Note: Men's rights movement is on article probation. Memills (talk · contribs) is aware of that, he was warned multiple times and sanctioned twice for violating the terms of the probation, see the log of sanctions. Despite this Memills continues to call other editors "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" and use the article talk page for unhelpful and unspecific commentary, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Ideological meddling as the most recent example. Viriditas may have been wrong to suggest that it has been "literally a hundred times" but it certainly feels like a lot. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "anti-MRM patrol duty contingent" wasn't meant to be taken literally. Nor is the above relevant to the issue here which is about Viriditas' literalness (or lack thereof). Memills (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Griping about the fanciful use of "literally" is silly. Just give him the old adage, "I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • A google search of the word shows this; "2.Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling." I think this is a tad bit of an over reaction and does not appear to be an uncivil action or act. I am curious why the OP would not think that editors would now want to look into why the statement was made to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I 200% support what Baseball Bugs and Amadscientist said. Memills, you are literally clutching at straws. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking the behaviour of any editors involved will be scrutinised when a dispute comes up, particularly the behavior of those bringing the complaint. If you don't like this don't bring complaints or better yet, don't show behaviour which you don't want to be scrutinised. Definitely, just saying your behaviour isn't relevant is rarely effective, as the large number of boomerangs attest. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

More trouble than worth?

Could anyone please explain to me the edits here? At times they seem just fine, but at other times they contain obvious nonsense ([63]). Is this a case of a shared IP? Toccata quarta (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a shared IP after all. According to this, the IP appears to be from Bratislava, Slovakia. Not to mention he once added this nonsensical edit to the Krzysztof Penderecki article back in February. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Legendary creature

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

---

There is a request in at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎, but in the meantime Legendary creature is being hammered on because of this Reddit thread. 108 edits in the last 2 days, 103 in the previous year. Could we have an emergency short-term semi-protection please? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Merged into the original discussion above.

Not sure you would have seen it but there is a thread on the same topic about 8 above this one - here. For the record, agree temp-semi would be a good idea. Stalwart111 08:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) And there are actually two requests at WP:RFPP related to Legendary creature. Seems plenty of people have noticed the vandalism. Stalwart111 08:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Ah. Missed that. Looks like we have a legitimate content dispute among the IP edit warring. Hmmm. Do we try to sort out the IPs that are disruptive and block just them? Or is it OK to require the good IPs to register? They are coming from Reddit, and Reddit makes you register a username (no email confirmation needed) before you can post, so that would be a familiar concept to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Pending changes protected (level 1)-'d. I'm still just an admin hatchling, more that happy if this is challenged and/or changed in any way.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Good call I reckon. Might want to note it at RFPP. Stalwart111 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Guy, I don't think we can start requiring that IPs register an account. Pending changes seems to be the best solution, wish I'd thought of that. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I agree that it is a good solution. So, if I look tomorrow and see a bunch of edit warring by IPs, do I report the IPs or do I report the users with reviewer rights who approved the edits? I can well imagine two reviewers who are in a content dispute each approving IP edits that they agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Which is why I took it to NPOVN. I guess an RfC is another option. I can't see this being settled on the talk page so full protection just postpones the dispute. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I revised the article lead. "Legends" require stories about a life, and stories about God are not really directed towards a life. Creatures for the most part are nonhuman animals. When "creature" is applied to a human, it often is "used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment,"[64] which is somewhat conflicting with the use of "legendary". I explained the new lead sentence on the article talk page. TheRedPenOfDoom also use that red pen to remove excess material from the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Zhaoweixiong

I have just blocked this user for 24 hours while we try to clean up after him. He is creating dozens of articles on Chinese topics, some of which are promotional, using what appears to be machine-translated text, and has ignored messages on his talk page asking him to take a break. My suspicion is that he is connected in some way with User:Jaguar. I hope no one thinks I've been too precipitate.Deb (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I went and nuked the rest of his contributions as just generally terrible - probably machine translated, barely comprehensible at best, no sources, etc. He has an account and a block log on the Chinese Wikipedia, but I can't read it. Perhaps that will be enlightening. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And then I went and rescued another that you had saved, Deb - sorry about that. I have asked a Chinese speaker, and apparently Zhao was blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia for uploading copyright violations, which makes his contributions here even more suspect. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a case for a permanent block, do we think? Deb (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks by Colleabois on Talk:Germans

• Colleabois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 195.169.209.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first account is a recently registered account of the IP editor. He has linked the IP's user page and user talk page to the registered account. Since registering the account he has started editing Germans by tag bombing it and thratening to remove content unless it was sourced. In tag bombing he left hidden messages in the text which other editors were expected to be able to decipher. He inserted the tags four times and was reverted by three editors. I then reported him for edit warring at WP:AN3 and he received a warning for disruptive editing from user:ItsZippy. He has threatened to blank content that he does not agree with. That is an unnuanced and unconstructive way of editing. This is an article that I watch but have not edited. After the WP:EW report, I took one fairly neutral phrase summarising the history of Germany as an example and asked him to explain what his objections were. Instead of using a history book ot books he referred to an atlas, using WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Eventually I located three sources and produced a short two sentence rewrite, which is now in the article.

Originally part of the Holy Roman Empire, around 300 independent German states emerged during its decline after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ending the Thirty Years War. These states would eventually form into modern Germany in the nineteenth century.

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ozment, Steven (2005), A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People, Harper Collins, pp. 120–121, 161, 212, ISBN 0060934832 Segarra, Eda (1977), A Social History of Germany, 1648-1914, Taylor & Francis, p. 5, 15, 183, ISBN 0416776205 Whaley, Joachim (2011), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199693072

Colleabois has responded that there is "not a grain of truth" in what I wrote and that he will remove it. He has further suggested that I have not looked at the sources. After his warning about edit warring, he is back disputing content that is already in the article in another place in greater detail; it can also be found in numerous other articles on wikipedia. The content is in the sources on the pages mentioned. Even when subsequently pointed to google books to verify the sources, he has said that he cannot and that I must provide the full passages on wikipedia. But obviously I cannot, because it would be a copyvio; and I will not, because his request is time-wasting, disruptive and essentially trolling.

My question is "Why is an editor disputing well-known content and making such absurd suggestions of bad faith?" I have a long record as a content creator in arious subjects and know exactly how to locate and use sources. Why suggest otherwise when the page numbers are given? That is a misuse of wikipedia and a waste of other people's time. His tagging was bad enough (it earned him a warning), but now his discussion of sneutral and well-known facts is being turned into a kind of playground tantrum. I am used to things like that on Europe from editors with a nationalist point of view. I suspect that this editor, with an IP in Nijmegen, might not be approaching this article with a neutral point of view. It is classic tendentious editing.

Even after being given links to the sources, with the actual pages, Coilleabois refuses to look up the sources and is stamping his little foot refusing to accept these commonplace facts about German history available in multiple sources as well as on wikipedia. These facts are uncontroversial and already in the article later on . His performance on the talk page is therefore just childish trolling.

Similarly elsewhere on wikipedia he has claimed that Moules-frites is a national Dutch dish. Like the statements on German history, it is well known (and easily sourced!) that it is a Belgian national dish, originating in Brussels. He has since claimed to be Belgian on Talk:European cuisine and has supported his insertion of "Dutch" before "Belgian" by referring to the Belgian constitution. But his edits are unsourced and unsourceable. Just mindless trolling. He is misleading the reader.

He has also been involved in disputes with other users on Pennsylvania Dutch and elsewhere.

There seems to be far too much tendentious editing, with no attempt to use sources and general trollishness on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

1. I have never threatened to blank the article. This is the third time that Mathsci claims this in what can be considered as nothing else than an attempt to incite against me. What I've said is the following: "Below are the issues found with the current article. One week is given to provide sources for the claims, if they have not been provided after that time I will remove them from the article to which they should only then be placed back until proper sources and references for them have been provided." The issues consist of 10 single phrases.

2. This user stalks my edits (as can be seen here in a clear example of WP:POINT in which he attempts to harass me and has removed sourced statements.

3. This uses repeatedly makes blatant lies about my edits in order to manipulate opinion. For example: in the article on European cuisine I made this edit, in which I state that Moules Frites is ALSO a Dutch dish. After a WP:POINT revert by Mathsci, he then goes on talk to say what he has since repeated here too: It is not a Dutch dish. Dutch cuisine by comparison is less developed (...) It's pointless attempting to claim this dish as a classic dish originating in the Netherlands. In other words, he makes it seem as if I claimed it originated in the Netherlands while also attempting to insult me (by assuming I'm Dutch, I'm Belgian) by insulting Dutch cuisine. When I proceeded to add sourced material to back my claim up; he simple attempted to remove it.

4. This user, continually acts hostile and attempts to incite others against me (principally administrators like yourselves) by reporting me for his imagined conspiracy. He claimed I broke the 3RR, which I did not and in this particular case he claims I have made personal attacks. Which he fails to produce evidence for. All this noise he produces makes my talk page look like that of a vandal, which I am not. It is an unhealty situation when other wikipedians advise you to re-register to have a different name so that Mathsci will stop his harassment.

5. Everyone can visit the talk page of Germans and see for themselves that I am only interested in sourced content. I have never been insulting to anyone. Quite the opposite of Mathsci as one can see here.

In short, it is Mathsci himself who is being disruptive and could do very well with a warning. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (up until now) observer on the sidelines. This is not a simple content dispute and, in my brief encounter with Colleabois, I am inclined to side with Mathsci, as this user displays very tendentious, pointy editing, marching right up to the 3RR line on both of the articles where the deuh-rama is happening,[65] [66] (yes I know, my last revert at European cuisine puts me at 3 changes to the article for the day, collateral damage).

At Germans, three editors had to undo the massive pointy tagging of, apparently, well-established, referenced, stable information. Maybe the editor is well-intentioned but has a very brash, "I'm right so listen to me", martial attitude to their editing and also flings accusations around (per point 4 above), when, in fact, they leave tp messages that say "Do not remove sources from the article, that is vandalism", which, as I point out further down on the page, is a) incorrect, b) the sources are incorrectly presented, formatted, the author's name is wrong, there is no page number for the first ref etc. and c) wrongly accusing others of vandalism to back up one's own interpretation of correct editing can be considered a personal attack. That's all from me. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Colleabois is now arguing on Talk:European cuisine that Wiener Schnitzel is not a national dish of Austria.Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

EllieBywater and serial copyright problems

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

---

• EllieBywater (talk · contribs)
• Cambridge University Museum of Zoology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [67]
• History Workshop Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [68]
• Constantine Walter Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [69]
• William John Swainson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [70]
• Leonard Blomefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [71], [72], [73]
• Alfred Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [74]
• Clive Forster Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [75]
• Robert MacAndrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [76], [77]

I'd first noticed problem edits here [78] and initiated discussion at the user's talk page [79], and followed up at Chiswick Chap's talkpage [80]; he appears to be mentoring Ellie. I subsequently found a history of copyright violations and close paraphrasing at numerous articles. Overall the account appears to have good intentions, and has made substantial contributions, but the history is problematic, weaving scholarship with passages of copy-pasted text, and will entail a lot of mopping up. COI is certainly a motivation, as most of the edits in question derive from Cambridge University's website, where the account works [81]. Rather than list the many diffs, I've provide links to the articles above, accompanied by links to some of the copied text (by no means a complete listing). A Google search of the larger passages added by AllieBywater will reveal the original sources. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to file this at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations. It meets the criteria (at least five clear examples), and the editors there (read:Moonriddengirl) have the right set of skills to take the next steps. I've only glanced at the details, but it doesn't look malicious, so I am hopeful that a bit of mentoring, and a useful editor can be put back on track. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've copied the report there. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

A Turkish user is currently engaged in extensive edit warring on a number of pages, using several different IPs, to further a Turkish POV. At least 78.160.194.131, 78.160.123.145 78.160.83.240 83.66.212.59 78.160.6.86, 78.160.201.182 are obviously all the same user.Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Because they are hopping IPs and that is too large a range to block as a whole, I semi-protected a couple of pages for a month. I suggest WP:RFPP for protection. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is one that is more likely to actually work, since blocking is off the table. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Those IPs are involved on the other articles (same edits, same POV), so please protect them if necessary. List:

• Timurid dynasty, Khilji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, Mamluk Sultanate (Delhi), Kara-Khanid Khanate, Great Seljuq Empire.

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I went and protected most of those. To protect, it needs to show 2 or more times with different IPs making the same edit to war, thus justifying semi-protecting from all IPs for a temporary period. Hopefully, I got that right, Twinkle won't work on protection for some reason, having to do those manually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see their edits, edit summaries, and comments on this template and template talk page: Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Template is full protected until 31 March because of same edit wars, POV-pushing, and fringe edits. Read written comments on the talk page, specially the consensus section (and if you write your comment, it will be helpful). Another instance is Great Seljuq Empire. They are same person who uses dynamic/shared IP addresses. So it's better that admins watch the articles which are edited by those IP hoppers (or users with similar activity/edits like those IPs). Zheek (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subtropics article

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

---

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

Each time I try making an improvement to the article, it is being reverted, with the "article's owner" saying to discuss all changes on the talk page. One look at the article will tell you why this article is in need of improvement. So far, we seem to be talking past each other. So far, I haven't delved into an edit war despite all the reverts. But it is tempting. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User Thegreatdr remove pictures and tables from the article without discussion and consensus, overuse of templates and also, his edits have signs of trolling. Edits by user Thegreatdr is very controversial, I asked him several times to discuss first, before changes. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Subtropical-man believes the changes to be controversial...but so far it's only him since only he has seen it. And when I do try to discuss it, I get told the exact same thing, over and over again. No discussion seems possible. Thegreatdr (talk)

I do not know what you're writing? Barely after one-hours-discussion, you write in ANI. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not stating WHY the changes are controversial, in your viewpoint...just that they are. How were the removed tables and images tied in the article? If they are simply examples, you only need one per type. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Subtropical-man does indeed seem to claim to WP:OWN the article. What is more, the above accusation that Thegreatdr is "trolling" is a breach of WP:NPA. Thegreatdr have close to 40.000 edits, so the accusation is outright ridiculous. What is more, the talk page history shows quite clearly that Thegreatdr has discussed quite extensively, so the claim that Thegreatdr isn't discussing is also false.Jeppiz (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I wrote "signs of trolling", numbers of editions? - it does not matter in this case. Returning to the topic, in such a situation, methods are used: Wikipedia:CYCLE (edit -> revert = discussion). Also, Thegreatdr, please wait for the opinion of others users in the discussion of article. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • In addition to all of the above, I see that Subtropical-man has also been removing templates, another breach of policy. Quite frankly, the PA above, the repeated edit-warring, the false accusations and the removal of templates all raise concerns over Subtropical-man behavior. Perhaps he should take a break from the article.Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • We can not delete templates, even if they are abused? Ok, tommorow introduce dozen templates to four articles :) False accusations? Where? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard about WP:POINT? And the "abuse"-accusation again vergers on breaking WP:NPA, something the trolling accusation definitely did. And claiming that a user with more than ten talk page comments today is editing "without discussion" is a false accusation.Jeppiz (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Subtropical-man, looking at the talk page of the article, it appears that Thegreatdr has tried to engage you on the talk page of the article, but you have just said "it is controversial" and have refused to actually engage. While this is primarily a content dispute, refusing to discuss after you have reverted is considered disruptive and is not a sign of good faith. Throwing around the "troll" label is also incivil. You need to go a bit more out of your way to explain why you reverted (politely), not just stand your ground and make a broad claim of it being controversial. If you can't work it out, then WP:DRN is the place to go, but you need to either engage in genuine discussion, or disengage from reverting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is much too ripe for ANI. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well played. Took me a moment to get it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain what is wrong in edits by Thegreatdr. After analysis, I regret to say: each edition by Thegreatdr in this article is controversial or/and wrong, also his latest edition, Taipei has a subtropical climate according to the most sources and whole Taiwan is only partly as tropical. So, I have a question: how long the article will be changed in this way (controversial or/and wrong)? In this situation, first should be a discussion, later: edits. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Then by all means, continue this content discussion on the actual article talk page so we can close this. We don't want to decide content at ANI, just behavior and methods, keeping in mind that in accordance with WP:BRD, if you have reverted AND someone is asking why, you are obligated to make a good faith attempt to discuss the matter with them on that talk page if you are going to insist on excluding the material. It is a two way street. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

31.87.25.120

The IP in the heading has been repeatedly following User:Dougweller around and reverting him with insulting edit summaries. See the contributions (linked in the heading for what I mean). ^King Jakob _C2 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've temporarily blocked the IP as a sock. If reports need to be logged for archival reasons or the block needs to be altered, let me know. Tiderolls 23:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)