Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766

Consensus page vandalism by JC37

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

---

JC37 has reverted the Consensus page to last October and locked the page. This is highly disruptive and unrelated to the rather small discussion ongoing for the last few days on a proposed edit to the page that is about one sentence long. No idea what he is up to, since the last change reflected the discussion on the talk page. Positively bizarre behavior.

[1]

and

[2]

seem to cover it.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema - Your bad faith comments here and elsewhere aren't helping you.

• "Another incompetent admin who has more authority than they can handle. Unbelievable"

Anyway, it's not vandalism, and it's not disruptive. On the other hand, the slow motion revert warring that's been going on over the last 9 months at WP:CON, could very well be considered disruptive.

I understand that you've all been attempting to hash about somewhat about the policy, but constantly doing this back-n-forth especially with the seemingly bullying of each other through edit summaries (of bold or reversion edits) is just inappropriate.

At this point, I think you're all past the Be bold stage, and should go back to the Discuss phase. Maybe collaboratively working up a draft, before going "live" with it.

But the constant back-n-forth isn't good for anyone, Wikipedia in particular, especially on a core policy such as CON.

As I said in the edit summary, you all should know better. You all could be showing by example how to positively and collaboratively and collegiately discuss, so to bring a policy page better in line with what has been long standing policy, and common practice.

You're all arguing these things, but seemingly not practicing them.

Anyway, per WP:PROTECT: "...administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

As there has been editwarring going back months by the same handful of individuals, I tried to pick a spot before it all began.

If another uninvolved admin thinks it is appropriate to undo the reversion, or thinks they see a better place to revert to, they're welcome to do so.

But I suggest that the page stay protected until the constant players in this long term edit warring come up with a plan that has actual consensus at this point, in particular as this is the page that concerns consensus.

I welcome others' thoughts on this of course. - jc37 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe your actions were correct, and I, too, encourage the editors to discuss and gain consensus. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very strange time for JC37 to be expressing all this. Something could have been said at any time in the last ten months, but I believe he or she has been silent. Well, we have to assume it was a good faith silence. In fact, to the point, there is no reason to undo ten months. It is a sign of contempt toward the editors and has no place on Wikipedia. That he or she has the power to do it clearly is no justification. Rather, the abuse of the power shows it was placed in the wrong hands. There was a discussion ongoing, the edits were in response to the discussion, and no one made a complaint. It's really beyond absurd, since the remedy proposed by JoeS is the activity that was underway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess if anyone was looking for more examples, they need only look at User:Ring Cinema's comments directly above, and on my talk page. Not much need for me to add anything, I think. - jc37 20:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding by Justice007

Justice007 started Wikihounding my edits immediately after I posted under the Articles for Deletion/Nandini Sahu, supporting deletion of that article. Also, Justice007 attacked and highly criticized every editor who supported deletion of that article to a point that he was advised by another editor/administrator "If you want the article to be kept you need to find reliable sources, not absurd statements calling other editors views as nonsense, especially when the best source you point to is a user submissions aggregator.—SpacemanSpiff". He did not take that advise and went on WP:Wikihounding me. First, he attacked Seyamak R. Payek ‎that I authored by posting BLP-sources and Notability tags on those articles. I advised him to stop retaliating. He did not take notice of it and immediately went on attacking Mohsen Esmaeili‎ which is another article I authored. This is a clear case of WP:Wikihounding by Justice007.

Justice007 seems to argue and believe an associate professor of English Nandini Sahu (not even a full professor) is notable enough to deserve an article of her own in Wikipedia, but at the same time attacked notability of Seyamak R. Payek and Mohsen Esmaeili‎ who are clearly notable by virtue of being Guardian Councilmen of the Constitution of Iran in the Parliament of Iran in addition to holding senior academic positions. By the way, Guardian Council in Iran functions as that country's guardian of the Constitution of Iran and is comprised of six Councilmen who are the most senior legal academics and distinguished jurists in Iran. The point that I am trying to make is that Justice007 is clearly not being civil nor honorable (to say the least) and is WP:Wikihounding me. I hope he stops Wikihounding other editors who contribute to Wikipedia and focus on improving articles he authors or contributes to.

It is note worthy that since May 2012 this is the second time Justice007 is brought for discussion here. Obviously, Justice007 is not progressing toward civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as you should have done when posting this on the board here. Remember that if youa re bringing an issue to ANI, you need to be sure you notify all the parties involved. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Justice007 and will be notifying SpacemanSpiff, since I named it above. Thanks for reminding me though.--Juristicweb (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He notified him before posting here which is fine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• We should not lose our cool, it has realy not been my intention to any kind of reliatation to edit this, it seems to just happend that he commented his view before my edit, actually I am improving and expanding articles everywhere, where is needed tags, I first tags and then search the reliable sources to cite and remove the tags, that can be access on my user page which I have done many other articles. This privilege I have from be bold. I assume always good faith, regarding Mohsen Esmaeili‎,I just added and fixed wikilink, the tags were already there. He asked Help request on his talk page, I replied his concerns here. My comments and questions are valid, should be answered. Neither I have done any wrong thing nore violated any wiki rule that I am accused. We mush realise that no one own here any thing. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Justice007, the community's response to your choice of words, editing, responses and interactions with other editors has been one of disapproval as it was gently put to you by SpacemanSpiff in Articles for Deletion/Nandini Sahu. I believe once a gentle advice is ignored a more effective response is appropriate. That is why I started the discussion here so that other more experienced editors would be able to render better approaches for resolution than I may be aware of. By the way, if it turns out that what you've been doing as referenced above is fine with Wikipedia rules, then I will respect that. However, your reply clearly admits actions that fall under WP:Wikihounding, but you insist that they are not. More reason for having this discussing. We should not Wikihound and once the rule is intentionally and repeatedly ignored, as was the case here, after being advised of it, there should be a consequence for the editor who violated it, which is you.--Juristicweb (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes at CBS Records

Can someone disentangle all the changes made at CBS Records and CBS Records International and CBS Records (2006). Consensus was established on the talk page on how to handle the various business entities called CBS Records, and one author has come up with a fix on his own that had lost the history for each article by cutting and pasting. The page history and discussion is now at Talk:CBS Records (2006). The problem is that there are 1,300 incoming links to the business entity known as CBS Records which is not the same as CBS Records International, both had their own presidents: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you are both participating in the WP:DRN discussion about this I don't think we need a separate discussion here. Hopefully they can sort this mess out. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on Jimmy Henchman page

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

Please see this diff and note that there is more than a content dispute here. Especially note the edit summary recorded with the diff. Inspection of the article history will then be useful

I had thought previously that this might have been a BLP Noticeboard issue, but it seems to need a wider set of eyes on it and an administrative conclusion reached. I will allow the facts to speak for themselves.

My own interest is as an uninvolved editor who has this article on his watchlist Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note please that there was an attempt by one of the editors to handle this at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which was closed as inappropriate for a number of reasons. There may be other forums where an attempt is also being made, or is about to be made. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• The discussion on my talk page here is relevant to the issue. There is obvious strength of feeling here and a genuine perception of injustice. I am stating it as a genuine perception, but not as my perception. I am remaining wholly neutral. I simply wish to see the issues resolved in order that the article may benefit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see that Scholarlyarticles (talk · contribs) is new and has some misconceptions about Wikipedia. I'm going to dig a bit deeper and see how deep this hole goes. Likely, some mentoring is going to be a good idea to help prevent them from getting into trouble. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that, however new an editor is, it should not have degenerated into a fisticuff. Somehow it needs to be rescued from that status with honour intact. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've added a note on their talk page, offering to help mentor a bit. I have plenty to do but think this would be a better step at this point, to offer a helping hand and get them up to speed on some policies. Often, a lack of understanding of the complex web of policy leads to frustration, which leads to snippy remarks, so I'm confident that this is the best option to deal with the problem at this stage. Hopefully, they will accept the offer and I will help then along the way for a few weeks and they can be contributing in a more compliant way. At this time, my opinion is that this the proper way to deal with the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, SA had an editor go through every one of SA's edits to check them (declared by the editor). Many were reverted / removed for reasons that did not require immediate attention (not copyvios, etc). That would be enough to irritate most editors, I'd imagine, and wasn't likely the best course of action. It's not a good excuse, but it may explain some of what has happened. --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• That would try the patience of a saint. I think it is becoming clear that no-one who has interacted at edit/revert level here is blameless. This diff shows that SA seems to choose not to understand advice, however. I have reinforced the offer from Dennis Brown to mentor SA, both on my talk page and on SA's. I have not looked at all at the merits of SA's position nor at Diannaa's (spelling). That was the secondary reason I brought this topic here. The primary reason was the ad hominen words used in SA's frustration. I am very much hoping that consensus will prevail in the article and in assisting those concerned towards an amicable resolution. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nouniquenames: I'd like to outline the difficulty here as I see it. I hope perhaps you could refer it to the Administrators complaint board. I would also like to take you up on your kind offer for mentorship (as you seem to be aware of what has happened.) . Here is my analysis of the situation.

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page.

I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

That's all for now. I will come back though with more thorough documentations of the Jimmy Henchman references I'm sure ya'll are dying to hear more (joke). Thanks for your time in thinking about this Scholarlyarticles (talk)

One thing that has really made Scholarlyarticles angry was content I removed from Robert Hilburn: "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of Rolling Stone Press books. Hilburn left the Los Angeles Times in 2005, after 36 years." became "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of Rolling Stone Press books. Hilburn left the paper in 2005." The reason I did that is because saying "after 36 years" is redundant; both the starting date and the leaving date are present, and the usual thing is to let the reader do the math. This results in an article that is a little more neutrally worded. Obviously if I had known it would cause so much heartache I would have left that phrase in. I apologise.

The problem started on Sean Combs. I removed an addition of some 300 words to the article about the Tupac incident from the article, firstly because adding 300 words on the incident gives it undue weight. On further examination I discovered that the sourcing is inadequate, in my opinion, to tie Henchman to the crime. The main source Scholarlyarticles used for the allegation is a blog written by reporter Chuck Philips. One of their primary activities on this wiki has been to try to link Henchman to the attack on Tupac, across a whole suite of articles, including Sean Combs, Jimmy Henchman, Tupak Shakur, and The Notorious B.I.G. As I was convinced that the sourcing was inadequate I removed the content from several of these articles, but I did not get finished. I began to go through their other contributions and discovered other BLP violations and copyright violations. Here's some examples of my edits:

• Ozzy Osbourne: removal of copyright violation
• David Mack (police officer): removal of copyright violation
• Eli Broad: removal of defamatory material sourced to a blog

Here's some other examples of copyright violations introduced by this editor:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margo Leavin, art gallerist
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Saylor
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel
• User:Scholarlyarticles/sandbox
• File:Chuck Philips, picture.jpg

Another activity they've been doing is inserting information about reporter Chuck Philips into many articles, not neutrally worded additions, but more like promotional pieces. For example, in their version of the Ticketmaster article, Chuck Philips is mentioned nine times. So I undertook clean-up of some of that stuff too. Note this diff, where Scholarlyarticles threatened to smear my good name on a bunch of articles. The Jimmy Henchman talk page is loaded with personal attacks and bad faith. I stand behind my edits as being what I thought was right for the wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted by Scholarlyarticles

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page. I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

Extended content
Edit history
21:47, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,759)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (Undid revision 508667248 by Scholarlyarticles; material is well-sourcedto the NY 21:46, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-781)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Undid revision 508674024 by Scholarlyarticles; WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case) (top)‬‬‬‬ 20:50, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+360)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ‎ (→‎User-reported: report user:Scholarlyarticles)‬‬ 20:32, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+116)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎You have a new message on Diannaa's talk page: new section)‬‬ 21:47, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,759)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (Undid revision 508667248 by Scholarlyarticles; material is well-sourcedto the NY Times and Washington Post; these are considered very reliable sources indeed) (top)‬‬ 21:46, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-781)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Undid revision 508674024 by Scholarlyarticles; WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case) (top)‬‬ 20:50, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+360)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ‎ (→‎User-reported: report user:Scholarlyarticles)‬‬ 20:32, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+116)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎You have a new message on Diannaa's talk page: new section)‬‬ 20:29, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+5,319)‬‎ . . User talk:Diannaa ‎ (→‎Message from Scholarlyarticles: My reply)‬‬ 19:30, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,504)‬‎ . . Talk:Albert Speer ‎ (→‎Introduction to Albert Speer Article: My 2p)‬‬ 22:57, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-10)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (Silly bot)‬‬ 21:58, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+35)‬‎ . . User:Diannaa ‎ (add different tool) (top)‬‬ 21:00, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-76)‬‎ . . Robert Hilburn ‎ (clean up)‬‬ 20:53, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-803)‬‎ . . Milli Vanilli ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; restore citation from revision 495861358)‬‬ 20:51, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-269)‬‎ . . Girl You Know It's True ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; clean up)‬‬ 20:43, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-624)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Remove WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case)‬‬ 20:41, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,794)‬‎ . . Talk:Jimmy Henchman ‎ (top)‬‬ 20:39, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-3,161)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Restore version 496211151 from June 6; add Isaac confession)‬‬ 20:27, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-455)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (restore lost content; clean up former copyvio and BLP violations, remover over-long quotation)‬‬ 20:08, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-367)‬‎ . . Ozzy Osbourne ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; remove poorly sourced content and copyvio content fromhttp://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/07/entertainment/ca-ozzy7; other edits)‬‬ 19:50, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-569)‬‎ . . Don Simpson ‎ (wikilink; remove unsourced pop culture trivia) (top)‬‬ 19:47, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-313)‬‎ . . Don Simpson ‎ (→‎Death: tidy content; remove unsourced speculation;)‬‬ 19:32, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+60)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) )‬‬ 04:25, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-851)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Criticism: Link is dead and not archived; the other source does not back up this claim.‬)‬‬‬‬ 04:20, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-178)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: remove speculation‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:17, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-276)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: Remove content; WP:COPYVIO‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:15, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+48)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (revert unexplained removal of citation)‬‬ 04:11, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+139)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Eli Broad: forgot something‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:10, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+990)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Eli Broad: new section‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:04, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-832)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (Remove addition: none of this material is in the quoted source.)‬‬ 03:58, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-331)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Arts: Clean up: remove unsourced speculation‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:56, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-313)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: remove WP:COPYVIO from http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-margo-leavin-closing-20120815,0,5070346.story?track=rss&dlvrit=104530‬)‬‬‬‬ 03:47, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+13)‬‎ . . User talk:Penyulap ‎ (→‎‪For the pirate king who helped the girl who leapt through time: A little help for folks who are zoomed in‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:40, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+36)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 ‎ (→‎‪Articles 101 through 120: Remove completed revisions; see article edit summaries for outcomes‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:36, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+570)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Sean Combs: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Sean Combs have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.‬) ‬‬‬‬ ▪ 03:33, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+289)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (→‎‪Recent additions about Tupac incident: I have studied it more closely, and believe it's a BLP violation as well.‬) ‬‬‬‬ ▪ 03:25, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+2,689)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Sean Combs: new section‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:23, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+520)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (→‎‪R‬‬‬‬

• • I see from your talk page that Dennis Brown has offered to mentor you. I think that would be the best way to work out the problems. He's very good at doing this, and very patient. If you accept, we can simply close this for now. It would be an enormously more helpful way to go than continuing here. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • On his talk page SA has indicated that he would value the help form Dennis Brown. Indications are that once accepted this incident may be closed successfully. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask, Scholarlyarticles, are you at all familiar with WP:TLDR? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that I made SA aware, and that it seems a positive choice was taken to rehash the entire set of posts and arguments here. This, too, will be helped by accepting Dennis Brown's extremely generous offer of mentoring. I cannot commend the offer highly enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle Gupta and copyvios

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

---

Twinkle Gupta (talk · contribs) is persistently removing {{copyvio}} templates from articles ([3] [4] [5] [6]). He's been warned each time against doing so (see User talk:Twinkle Gupta), and has been invited to discuss the matters on Wikipedia:Copyright problems ([7]) but continues to remove the templates as "unnecessary".

He's compounded the problem by recreating a deleted article by copy-pasting; the deleted article was itself copy-pasted from another article, so if the article in its current state is to be kept, two different contribution histories need to be merged and acknowledged. (Since one of the sources is a deleted article, only an administrator can get the contribution history for us.)

That said, I find it extremely suspicious that he happened to have the wikitext source of the deleted article lying around so that he could recreate it. Probably he is the banned user who originally created it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks that way to me, and to User:Floquenbeam, who has blocked them and protected some articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vibhas Kashyap. Perhaps it's moot now but at least it will contribute to the record for future reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Twinkle Gupta; I didn't block User:Dellice, who was doing much the same thing, because it looks like they've been around slightly longer, and I suppose there's a small chance they aren't a sock, and they haven't removed a tag again after their final warning. But I already feel like that might have been the wrong move, so another set of eyes on that account would be appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion was closed by administrator DGG (talk · contribs), who wrote:

I'm going to close this as a totally uninvolved editor. Even for someone not familiar with the subject, the situation is clear. Metalvayne is topic banned for one year from making any changes to genres in article space, whether in the text or the infobox. He is permitted to suggest them in article talk space, at a reasonable rate. If his suggestions there do not get support, he must not press them further. After the year, we can give one final chance, but if it continues disruptively, the topic ban is indefinite. I shall support it by reverts and after the first warning, an indefinite block. However, I do not follow these articles, so people who see these will have to notify me on my talk p. If any other admin agrees with me, could they do the formal hatting , etc. Any action taken for sockpuppetry can be in addition to this. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

---

On and off for the last year or so, I, along other editors, have been warning User:Metalvayne for his disruptive editing. Since being blocked for edit warring about a year ago, his main offense has been the unsourced changing of music genre without explanation, and/or if challenged, he continues to change it back, citing his personal, unfounded views on genre, thinking that they come first over the view of reliable sources. His talk page, User talk:Metalvayne, documents the many occurrences of warnings over this.

Up until now, I was content with just cleaning up his messes or arguing with him on discussion pages, as he usually concedes to consensus. However, recently, his genre tinkering has crossed the line into [homophobic vandalism, which he later, after a warning, just laughed off as "a little prank".

It's clear he's not taking any of the warnings on his talk page seriously, so I wanted to come here to see what else could be warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, to understand the mindset of this editor, this was his reaction to being reported here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,guys,I don't know what is Sergecross's actual problem with me but he's up against me since the very beginning in example a few months back I removed a dead link/source from this article & added a source from Nuclearblast's official site but Sergecross reverted it without even properly inspecting.Nuclear Blast is the band's label for further info.Another similar case can be found here,again without even properly observing.And as far as my contributions are concerned in AiC article regarding the inclusion of Sludge metal in the self titled album,well,I do believe they played Sludge metal and Blues fused Stoner rock in the album,not only me,I know a tons of fans who identify the album as a Sludge metal album.Don't believe me,just join Encyclopaedia Metallum and find out yourself/yourselves,well I'm a member there as well.And I'v always wanted to contribute to wiki as much as I can since the beginning,I'v created article on Darkwater (band) & did various minor contributions. Metalvayne (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And,hey Sergecross,Backtable is actually a nice guy,I'v had a brief conversation with him on last.fm a few months back & I'm extremely satisfied with his thoughts,guys like you give wikipedia a bad name.That's why members of Encyclopaedia Metallum get chance to talk crap about wiki all the time. Metalvayne (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted a number of his Metalvayne's edit without checking the sources he removed, because he did not leave edit summaries for why he removed the information to begin with. Typically, I tend to revert 10 bad edits he's made without explanation, and occassionally have 1 that he legitimately removed, but he didn't explain why. Once he explains in his next revert, I no longer challenge it. Crisis averted. He's been informed many times about using edit summaries, and continues to not use them much of the time anyways. As far as the genre stuff, that's not the place to discuss this. (Although, on that topic, see this discussion on genre to see more of his logic that doesn't comply to Wikipedia standards, not to mention he proceeds to insults other editors - his defense being that he was high.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced wikipedian you should notice these stuffs about defunct & invalid sources.It's not like that you can't come across the changes that are being made to a particular article,you can always view the previous version of it,so pay attention to these things instead of complaining about leaving edit summaries.And one more thing,answer honestly,are you a fan of Alice in Chains?Do you even legally own a single record of them? Metalvayne (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a handful of minor errors that ultimately trace back to you not leaving edit summaries, and were quickly resolved. But the topic here is you, not me. (By all means, if you'd like to open up an ANI on me, go for it. And good luck.) But how do you explain all the issues I've brought up above, and reconcile them with Wikipedia policy? That's the thing to discuss here. (Not "fanship status" of bands.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editors' personal opinions are are forbidden, so it does not matter who owns what or who has even heard the artist or not (as Sergecross73 correctly notes about fanship being irrelevant). I urge Metalvayne to strike the patter part of his above comment, as it may also come across as suggesting a fellow editor might be engaging in illegal copying as the alternative. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And as you've brought upon the issue of 'insulting',well,if you call that insulting,I don't really have to say anything but to laugh out loud.But I admit,it was a bit harsh to some extent. Metalvayne (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This goes well beyond this particular user, there are hordes of IPs that engage in genre twaddling all the time. The problem is that a lot of this stuff was PR-invented back in the day. They didn't want their new product to just be say "techno" so it became "darkwave synth". I was a DJ and a music director from about 1991-96 at an indie radio station, the PR guys used to put stickers on the jewel case with what terms and descriptors they wanted us to push. Sludge metal isn't a genre, neither is "blues-infused stoner rock". They are just colorful descriptors of the sound, not the genre. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tarc,If Sludge metal & Stoner rock aren't subgenres then,why are there featured articles on both? Sludge metal Stoner rock Apparently Sludge,Grunge & Stoner are sibling genres,grunge being the mainstream exposure in the early 90's. Metalvayne (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, my particular argument isn't that it doesn't exist, it's that you can't even find any reliable sources that support using them to label the bands you chose to label them with. (Or you just change genre's without source or explanation.) And then you argue about it for, stop for a bit, and then start at it again, like you're checking to see if people are still watching the article pages. (Or, conversely, start at a new band page that no one's watching...)

Additionally, now it's moved into vandalism with you homophobic remarks, when you've been around long enough to know better...Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? didn't understand a single word from the statement written above,too much brackets I say? Metalvayne (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't seem to understand, or willing to learn, Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources to prove that certain bands are certain genre. Instead of using reliable sources, you resort to "Well, I think this sounds like so and so" or talk about how many LastFM users called it a genre. It doesn't seem to matter how many warnings you receive, and now it's escalating, with nonsense like your homophobic commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

About the homophobic vandalism,it won't happen again,it was just I was so p***** off by listening to that modern core band's music during a jamming session(as a friend said to listen) I did a silly childish error. Metalvayne (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a terrible excuse for an offensive thing you did on purpose. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well,you don't know me personally,I'm known for being an honest guy,it's not an excuse,believe it or else chuck it. Metalvayne (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't know you personally, all we know is how you come across on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you're "known for being an honest guy" elsewhere - all we know (and all that matters) are your actions here. Also, please indent your comments. I've taken the liberty of indenting above - please do it yourself in the future, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you came across the article for an "emocore/shit band" who "make such horrible music that makes me want to puke" and in your mind this means that they make homosexual music? The problem here is not that you're being honest, the problem is that you use bigoted language to equate a sexual orientation with shit that makes you want to puke. I suggest that you may not have the maturity nor enough respect for your fellow editors to be editing here (and this isn't a matter of a childish mistake; I don't accidentally refer to music I don't like as "nigger music," you know, because it's not part of my vocabulary). This isn't even yet considering the genre warring, on which based on your considerable history of WP:IDHT I would suggest a topic ban at the very least. Sædon^talk 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I have dealt with this editor in the past, my input may be of some use. Metalvayne does have a history of regular genre warring, and I have called him out on it in the past, as corroborated by the fact that I had posted several warnings on his talk page. Metalvayne mentioned here that he had a conversation with me on last.fm; this is true, and it did end up amicable. Ever since then, I had not really encountered him, since he hasn't, for a while, edited pages on my watchlist. Although there was no contact between us since the last.fm conversation, I have recently wondered if he is still up to the genre editing.

Anyways, I guess there was that homophobic edit on Dead by April, which was quite needless. As well, he is still performing genre changes to Alice in Chains and related pages, which is rather distracting. I think it is worth pointing out that back in September 2011, Metalvayne got blocked for 24 hours for his participation in a scuffle relating to the page for Opeth.

For people that honestly edit and maintain music articles, genre warring is a quite bothersome and ignominious practice that distracts from the true goal of Wikipedia: to be a neutral, verifiable, and accurate (et cetera) encyclopedia. People performing genre editing in such large amounts make too much of a scene around themselves, and this type of sideshow ultimately does not benefit Wikipedia. I, personally, hate genre warring and have spent too much time removing it from Wikipedia, when I could instead be adding useful information to this website. On the music articles, there is a surprisingly significant amount of it happening; right now, I am dealing with an genre warrior who might be a sockpuppet, which is unrelated to this case. I won't go into detail about what music is and what it represents, but music is not meant for someone to assign silly genre names to and pigeonhole into a label that they themselves like best; when done to excess or in an otherwise inappropriate manner, this type of practice exploits the targeted music, as well as the people who create said music. When performed on Wikipedia, I would also say that practitioners of this activity exploit Wikipedia too. I'm sick of it, and I am appalled at how much it happens; it is an extremely inappropriate way to show how someone is a fan, or at least interested, in the music.

Metalvayne has a history of questionable editing, as well as acrimonious relations with other Wikipedians, and has in recent history resorted to even lower standards, enough for his behavior to be pointed out on this noticeboard. Obviously he has created some controversy by his methods and practices here, and some of said practices breach civility guidelines. Actions beckon consequences, and giving this person a pile of warnings have proven not to get through to him. I agree with Saedon that a topic ban or a block may be necessary; the genre warring, by itself, is just too much and has gone on for way too long. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey,Backtable since you've drag up the issue of blocking on Opeth,I'd like to remind you that the other user,Gunmetalangel whom I was challenging got blocked for 24 hours as well.Oh and I just found that he's been blocked indefinitely from editing,so think about that,whether I was helping by reverting peculiar edits by a user like him or not.And as far as the homophobic vandalism is concerned I'v said that it was a rash & foolish act of desperation,& I'v apologised for that.Furthermore,I'd like to add that,I'll continue my observations on Alice in Chains & similar cases as I like their music & none of them were vandalised through my contributions,so,I'll keep on contesting if I see something wrong is going on.And one more thing,what does the 'almighty' Sergecross73 do while this kind of absurd editing take place? Metalvayne (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Metalvayne: Oh my, I did not know that Gunmetal Angel was blocked permanently, and that it had been over a month since that happened. Since I was not involved with the situation where Gunmetal Angel got blocked, I will not state here any opinion or further observation of mine on that event and the ensuing judgement. Anyways, I looked at the history of Would?, and you removed the "(And or the greatest song ever written.)" text a little bit over an hour after it was initially posted on the page. Thank you for removing that unencyclopedic text; removing it in such relatively short time was a good thing to do to the page. There are a few reasons why the allegedly almighty Sergecross73 did not get there before you did. 1: It is nearly inpossible for an individual to be on Wikipedia 24 hours per day. At any given time, a regular Wikipedia user may have other concerns or preoccupations possibly having to do with "real life" circumstances. 2: I see that Segecross73 has never edited the Would? page once, so he may not be concerned with that single page nor have it on his/her watchlist. 3: Nobody can be everywhere on Wikipedia, and missing out on activity on some pages a user doesn't usually visit does not make the user at fault for not reverting immediately. They may be elsewhere on Wikipedia, or have other preoccupations a la reason 1. 4: You got there first, and took care of it; good job.

To any interested party: I'll post in this thread if necessary, but I'm content with what I have posted as of now, so I might not need to. Also, I have a night's rest coming up, so I'll be out for the next several hours. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As Backtable has said, I can hardly be blamed for not cleaning up vandalism on a page I've never edited, that was only there for about an hour anyways. And regardless of GunMetal Angel being blocked or banned or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that Metalvayne was rightfully blocked for edit warring in that instance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban?

So, two users now have suggested a topic ban regarding Metalvayne and music genre. I strongly support that as well, so that's three people. I'm familiar with the concept, but have never been part of the process of gathering concensus or enacting it, so I was wondering how do we go about doing this? Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

First the ban proposal needs to be formulated. Exactly what is proposed to be banned? Editing band pages? Just changing genres? Solo performers? If all band page edits, does it also include band talk pages? Is the ban to be widely or narrowly construed? Etc.

Once you have decided exactly what you want to propose (s)he be banned from doing, you propose the ban here on AN/I or on AN. If on AN, it could be a new topic. If here, it could easily enough be a new sub-topic of this current discussion. AN has the benefit of having slower archiving, making it less likely the proposal might archive off without resolution. Here has the advantage of already having the above discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I already have an idea for what it should be, so I'll just start it below in a new subsection for now. Thank you for your guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose that User:Metalvayne be topic-banned from editing/changing genre in any musician or band related articles. I don't care if he still edits band/musician articles in general, as long as he does not touch anything related to genre/musical influences/musical styles etc.

The problem is that he doesn't seem to understand, or be willing to learn, Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources to prove that certain bands are certain genre. Instead of using reliable sources, he resorts to "his subjective, personal observations" or talks about unreliable, unverifiable generalities like "everyone knows this" or "according to people at a given fansite...". Half the time, he offers no rationale at all, removing reliably sourced info without any sort of comment on his edit summary. He frequently makes genre changes that are against prior consensus, as well. It doesn't seem to matter how many warnings he receives, he just starts up the same antics and another article. (See his talk page for the many warning he's received on all of this.)

And now it's only getting, worse, like with the incident that inspired this trip to ANI - This innappropriate homophobic vandalism to a band's genre. At this time, I just don't think he's ready to be editing this sort of content on Wikipedia.

• Support - Per my proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead,I don't care if I get blocked from making certain changes,but I'll keep observing my desired fields and if I see something wrong is going on,for instance like this IP has vandalised Alice in Chains & several other articles as you can see within few days & you didn't pay any attention,& I know you won't pay attention because you're always after me.Furthermore,you haven't warned the user but I did,not only me but many other like TYelliotdid & as a result he has been blocked from editing.So,as I was saying if I see something wrong is going on & you're being idle,I won't hesitate to open up an ANI on you. Metalvayne (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open up an ANI on me, but things like not catching every instance of vandalism related to Alice in Chains is neither against policy, or my responisibility. Thank you though, for demonstrating that you have no defense, and that even you don't object to the topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Based on a long history of WP:IDHT regarding unsourced change. Also recommend a mentor to help with the other issues. Sædon^talk 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to bring upon an issue from Limp Bizkit like in here the involved IP has made a change in the genre without providing source & explanation.Two days have passed but Sergecross73 didn't bother to look up to the matter,but,in case if I was the guy instead of the respective IP then,no doubt till now I would've received tons of warnings on my talk page.Thus,this is as clear as daylight that,he's always after my contributions. Metalvayne (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't on my watchlist, and I don't especially have active interest in the article. I cannot fix, monitor, or be held responsible for all of the project's shortcomings. Meanwhile, as said before, there's no policy against me going around and fixing things you're knowingly doing wrong. (Which again, you don't even try to defend, but rather, you try to wrongfully drag me down with you.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM Sædon^talk 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Considering this user's history with genre warring and needless tampering with the infobox's genre slot, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. Wikipedia really does not need as much genre tampering as it has. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Metalvayne has posted notices on his user page and user talk page that he has reitred. This was effective shortly after 6:00 UTC. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I don't want it to be overkill, but can we continue on with the process here anyways? He's always been the type of editor that edits for a few weeks, then leaves a few weeks, coming and going like that. I'd rather not have it where he un-retires in 2 weeks, starts up again, and then I'd have to dig up all of this again. Seems like there'd be no problem with being both retired and topic-banned. (If that is in fact the consensus we gather here.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon for people to announce retirements to evade scrutiny. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that retirement and topic banning should not have to be mutually exclusive, and that it is better to take care of something now than give the benefit of the doubt just to find out the person ends up still performing the activity he was criticized for. I see that since I posted my support of the idea, that two others have joined in supporting the ban as well, which is good for the consensus. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Genre-fiddling without good reason and time sunk into researching relevant sources (then citing them) is a complete waste of time and causes clean-up work for others. There are countless other ways Metalvayne can contribute without them wading into this area, better a topic ban now than escalating blocks in the future. Someoneanother 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - clearly needed; no need to let the Ten Minute Retirement let him escape scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not convinced that the retirement is real, or that this goes far enough after the homophobic vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this is the first time I've really gone as far as pushing for topic bans and whatnot, so by all means, if you would like to suggest further avenues, I'd be open to that as well. Also, I'm contemplating going to SPI as well. I can't help but notice that User:Tehgayzpart3 and User:PriestOFmehico both came around the time of his "retirement" and have been going around vandalizing this ANI, my User Page, and a number of articles related to band articles I tend to watch over with crude and homophobic comments... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There would appear to be grounds for an SPI there. And for what it's worth I support a topic ban here, user is beyond good faith, even without the vandalism. Яehevkor ✉ 16:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that user PriestOFmehico visited this ANI, and that and the account's other edits did raise my suspicions of possible sockpuppeting. The two accounts in question have been indefinitely blocked, and I'm not against such a block for Metalvayne, either. Because if those two accounts belong to Metalvayne, then he should quite certainly know better than resort to such puerility. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I implied this in the previous post, I would like to blatantly state that a sockpuppet investigation against Metalvayne is totally warranted. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, looking over the edits of those 2 accounts, just about all edits were on articles related to this ANI case, articles I indicate I work on on my User Page, or articles related to band's he's argued to in regards to genre in the past (ie Nickelback and Chad Kroeger. So I've opened up an SPI at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Metalvayne

I'm going to be rather busy in most of the next 36 hours or so, so if anyone notices anything, I'd appreciate it if you presented it here, and/or kept this all from being prematurely archived. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - based on a history of WP:IDLT regarding unsourced changes. Genre-fiddling and needless tampering with the infobox's genre slots are a waste of time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: At around 14:11 UTC, Metalvayne posted a public comment on my last.fm page stating the following:

“ Since you're here,I'd like to clear that,I'm not returning to wikipedia as I'm

pretty much occupied with a lot of things including a demo in the process of our band & I've had enough of that shit & never was quite able to contribute as the way I wanted anyway & tell Segecross that,he can do whatever he wishes with my account.I may create a new account if I intend in near future,but that's quite unlikely,anyway,cheers.

”

[sic]

I won't try to sensationalize this, but I think it's important that I post here about this comment; however, this comment and the other three sent to me several months ago have been deleted from public view, and I guess he blocked me from contacting him via last.fm. That's all I have to say about that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 04:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the throwing-toys-out-of-the-pram retirement and related issues, there seems to be support for the topic ban, could an admin kindly make it official before it idles off the board? Cheers! Яehevkor ✉ 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for keeping the topic from being archived. I would like to see it be official that he be topic banned, but I don't want to finish off the discussion quite yet until the results from the SPI are back. If he was responsible for those two vandalism accounts, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, which would also affect how things would go down if he does in fact create new accounts like he says he says he may in Backtable's message... Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Sergecross. Anyways, there does appear to be a consensus to topic ban Metalvayne, and it has had basically no opposition, not even from Metalvayne himself. Therefore, I would also hope that an administartor can enforce the topic ban before this thread gets archived. As well, I agree that this discussion should be at the surface here until around the time that the sockpuppet investigation closes and is determined. I plan on giving my input toward the sockpuppet investigation sometime in the near future, which will include commentary concerning Metalvayne's last.fm message to me. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts to Admin

• Regarding Topic Ban - The results were 8 to 0 in regards to supporting Metalvayne being banned from editing any band's genre/musical styles/influences etc. (Not even Metalvayne himself objected.)
• Regarding SPI - The report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Metalvayne shows that the two accounts that were indefinitely blocked for vandalism were "Likely and for all extents and purposes, Confirmed" sockpuppets. In fact, it even found up with a third user, who is not currently blocked. And wouldn't you know, that user is off at an article arguing about a band's genre.
• Closing thoughts - At the very least there is clear consensus for a topic ban, though after creating two sockpuppet accounts that were indef blocked due to vandalism, and then starting a third account to do the same things he was brought to ANI for to begin with, he still shows no signs of stopping, and I believe it would be warranted to indefinitely block him. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Update: His third SP was indef blocked, and Metalvayne was blocked for 48 hours, but just on the grounds of his SPI antics, not regarding anything here, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making a separate section for commentary, since the process of gathering a consensus is not really active anymore. Anyways, what Metalvayne has done on Wikipedia, with this genre feuding and the sockpuppeting, is not only an inconvenience, but is also unethical. I was going to supply some commentary to the sockpuppet case, but it got closed before I could; I didn't expect it to be closed that soon, but I'm cool with that. Anyways, it is very convincing that Rippermadness and Metavayne are the same person. Not only did Rippermadness bicker about genres, but also edited the Alice in Chains page, which Metalvayne passionately did. Also, Rippermadness has a quite similar writing style to that of Metalvayne, such as favoring commas over spaces in some areas. Rippermadness definitely equals Metalvayne. Metalvayne has sickeningly exploited Wikipedia. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this as a totally uninvolved editor. Even for someone not familiar with the subject, the situation is clear. Metalvayne is topic banned for one year from making any changes to genres in article space, whether in the text or the infobox. He is permitted to suggest them in article talk space, at a reasonable rate. If his suggestions there do not get support, he must not press them further. After the year, we can give one final chance, but if it continues disruptively, the topic ban is indefinite. I shall support it by reverts and after the first warning, an indefinite block. However, I do not follow these articles, so people who see these will have to notify me on my talk p. If any other admin agrees with me, could they do the formal hatting , etc. Any action taken for sockpuppetry can be in addition to this. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks DGG, that all sounds good to me, and I'll gladly alert you to him breaking the topic ban if/when he does that. Thanks! (Side note, does someone need to officially alert him on his talk page regarding this? Does the admin who makes it official do this?) Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Possible wikihounding

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

---

Moved from WT:AN CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have a rather good reason to believe that for the past several months(!), the user Sjones23 is constantly following me around, even after having repeatedly claimed to "disengage" from me. He's often editing various, even extremely obscure, articles immediately after I did (on the same or next day). Including the articles that he had never edited before. I've repeatedly told him to stop doing that, including recently, which he acknowledged, but apparently didn't stop. My personal opinion is it's being quite obsessive and creepy.

In the link above (while removing my edit), he actually told me to "Kindly stay away from me, please...". Well, that was my line. Simply speaking, I'd like the user Sjones23 to "kindly stay away from me, please" indeed. --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry if I was uncivil in any way. I did not want to follow the user around, but I was only trying to help him understand. I only wanted him to stay off of my talk page when I told him to "Kindly stay away from me, please..." last time. I was only trying to help this user out and I did not intend to cause disruption in doing so or end up on another confrontation in doing so. I was only trying to avoid Niemti, and was trying to help clean up the mess the user makes.

By the way, it looks like the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING to me:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Niemti has indicated that he has a personal grudge against a perceived slight. This is "wiki-hounding". Also, I am a rule-abiding editor and my edits were correcting related problems on multiple articles and fix violations of relevant policies and guidelines, and were not intended for revenge or causing distress towards a user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask for any "blocks and other editing restrictions" for you, I asked you to "kindly stay away from me, please". I hope you see a slight difference (and stop doing that). --Niemti (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Cease fire. The two of you are on the Talk page...not the right place. Trying posting on the correct noticeboard.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. First off, I would like to apologize for closing the discussion on WT:AN unintentionally. My edits were obviously all good faith improvements and were not meant to break protocol in doing so. When using the term "disengaging", I meant that I want to avoid this user. I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with him since discussing his behavior with user Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) and administrators Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In this relevant discussion, Berean told Niemti that he "did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be" and that if he "promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this." He was also advised to using a "greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust." Unfortunately, Niemti did not respond to the discussion and Berean Hunter's advice does not seem to be working lately. It's only stalking if the edit is not made in good faith, and I would like to reinforce it that I always assume good faith and most of my edits to these obscure articles were obvious improvements. Today, I reverted the addition of the Ninja Turtles page to comply with the WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILMS and clean up the mess that the user made in question. I had to revert the removal after it was restored by the user in question in violation of these guidelines, only for it to be reverted again with what appears to be a hostile and confrontational message in the edit summary by the user in question. Niemti has also left another possibly uncivil message in the edit summary. These may count as personal attacks, which I do not tolerate and hold a strict policy advising against all personal attacks, as it applies to everyone. I am a civil, rule-abiding editor who tries to avoid confrontations, and I have been trying to be less abrasive. I've been a regular editor of video game and TMNT articles and have those on my watch list and fix errors on them where necessary. Regardless, I have kept Niemti's talk page off my watchlist.

However, I am seriously concerned that Niemti clearly indicates in comments this thread and on this discussion that he holds a grudge against a perceived slight per my comments above. I do not hold a grudge against any user and have no problem with them editing here, as long as we obey the policies and guidelines. Also per WP:BATTLEGROUND, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." There's no need for me to do any bear poking on Niemti, even if I was trying to help him and give him the fair chance he has been given to return. I fear that he has used up all of his rope and he is attempting to muddy the waters. With that said, I will be able to answer any questions that anyone involved has about this matter. I did not intend to cause disruption, game the system or harass anyone in doing so, but if I did, then I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to upset or hurt anyone and I was only trying to help this user. I fear that nothing else can be done, so I would like to ask for a solution to the matter.

Also, please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a long post. I just want you to not follow me around, like I don't follow you. --Niemti (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm clearly frustrated with these accusations, as none of my edits involved bad edits or deliberate confrontations, as I am trying to help fix errors that Niemti edits so we can comply with the relevant policies and guidelines and manuals of style. There is no policy against me going around and fixing things any user would do is wrong. Regarding Niemti's edit summaries in my previous comment, the user in question has seemingly made personal remarks and was aggressive towards me in his edit summaries, which is a possible violation of the edit summary dos and don'ts in our civility policy ([8], [9]). As for Wikihounding, the edits by the user in question appear to clearly fit the description of WP:WIKIHOUNDING due to expression of perceived slights on AN/I, the "errors" "corrected" are not unambiguous, and the hounding is being accompanied by tendentiousness, edit warring, personal attacks ([10], [11], [12], [13]). Also per WP:WIAPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a personal attack, and "serious accusations require serious evidence." No personal attacks also applies to everyone here as well and I cannot tolerate any more attacks. I am not responding to Niemti, but I want to explain what I did and also express concern about it so fresh eyes from other users and administrators will get a clear idea about this. The previous resolution on Berean's talk page might not have worked out and I am also concerned that Niemti has violated #2 of the standard offer, and I seriously think this is preventing me from moving forward. I am going to remain civil, maintain good faith and I would like to kindly ask that more fresh eyes on the matter would be appreciated. I am waiting for a solution and also hope to end WP:BATTLEGROUND and commenting editors instead of discussing the content and if we can bring up a productive result, we should be able to move forward. We should also watch out for the boomerang as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about the origin of this grudge you have. I noticed it in the discussions concerning Niemti's unblock. The only good will you've shown towards him is after the consensus has turned against your proposals to discipline him. So please, enlighten us. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, I am always a fairly civil person and always maintain good faith in my edits when I interact with other users, but some of them can be difficult. I do not intend to wikihound or stalk anyone in doing so. The community has given Niemti a fair chance to edit and I have no objections to his return despite my initial doubts, but I was frustrated with Niemti's apparently poor behavior, and I spoke with Dennis Brown and Ched (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about this, but Niemti followed me to this discussion with a confrontational attitude and Dennis Brown suggested that I should avoid Niemti while waiting for a response to Berean Hunter (see also this discussion). In this resulting discussion, Berean Hunter suggested that we should move forward and said that Niemti "did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be" and that if he "promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this." He was also advised to using a "greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust." I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with him. When I spoke with Ryan Vasey, I took Niemti's talk page off my watchlist and everything seemed fine. However, when I was only trying to help clean up issues more recently and seemed to frustrate me even more as Niemti's edits might have caused controversy. I do not have a grudge against Niemti, but would like to have a more productive resolution. I am clearly frustrated by his behavior that led to what happened today, as Niemti has clearly indicated in this thread and elsewhere that he has a grudge against a perceived slight (this is Wikihounding) and I was only intending to help out, but I am concerned that I do not want to turn this into a battleground. That's why I explained what is going on in the comments above. I fear that he has used too much rope and right now, I feel that these issues are preventing me from moving forward, and want to have more fresh eyes from other administrators and users on the matter here to provide a more proper and productive resolution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite all your links and references to policies, it's just white noise. I've just been seeing soapboxing, even in the diffs you try and use against Niemti: [14] - "Please stop"? You removed more than the disputed edits with that revert and he even told you but you reverted anyway. You just seem to be baiting him so you can gather 'evidence'. There's just so much crap that I couldn't be bothered going through it all. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, I gave out relevant and important information about this situation and I wanted Niemti not to edit war when I reverted him and was on the verge of violating WP:3RR, as his edits to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film series) caused controversy by almost getting into an edit war ([15], [16], [17]). The disputed edits on Ninja Turtles was moved back and forth per WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." That's why I had to reverse them as well. This edit in which Niemti said about the indiscriminate edits was referring to Oknazevad (talk · contribs), not myself, as I was only trying to help him. And no, I am not baiting him to gather evidence. As what Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) pointed out to me on a recent discussion, a fair opportunity must be given for him to demonstrate he can work here since he is unblocked. I am still waiting for a solution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Niemti came here looking for a solution and I want one too. I'm not sure what it could be though. Maybe a "100% disengagement"? Acoma Magic (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also want a solution as well, but I would also like to request that some of the Wikipedia administrators comment on this matter and I will be guided by what they say about the situation. My very best wishes (talk · contribs) has already asked Niemti to seek advice from an administrator prior to posting it. For now, I would like to make a suggestion that per Dennis Brown, we should focus on other article work for a while and per Berean Hunter, we should have Niemti follow #3 in the standard offer, have him use a greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off his back and I also want him to be careful in his words and work to build collegial relationships with other editors especially those working in his areas of interests. If there are problems with Niemti's behavior, I will defer them to Berean Hunter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That statement was bad enough before your rewrite. This is just so annoying lol. I think I'll go now. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The logical solution seems to be (granted I've only spent the last 10 min. or so gather information etc.) that the two users find different interest areas and edit articles on those specific areas. A good faith resolution to the problem would be following that, however if that doesn't work, one editor will likely have to receive a topic ban from where ever the other wants to edit. As of now, I'm thinking Sjones23 should be on the receiving end of the proposed ban from whatever area Niemti wants to edit. This is out of control and frankly somewhat childish, so I recommend heeding my advice or previous advice before an administrator comes in and blocks one or both of you. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I did any type of misbehavior on the article. I think we should find different interests and I want to end the hostility between Niemti and myself. I apologize if I was uncivil in any way. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things: a.) please stop sucking up to whomever tries to resolve the issue, it is unnecessary and frankly makes me understand why Niemti is annoyed, b.) I would strongly recommend what I said below, an arbitration. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps you should seek a arbitration, but the nonsense needs to stop. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Go Phightins, that's a great idea! I agree that this is getting out of control and we want to end this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm brilliant...(sarcasm), please request it and be bound by whatever the committee's decision is. Niemti, is that all right with you? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I already said I don't want any "blocks and other editing restrictions" for him and I seriously don't. Just to stop what it seems to check my edits every day (the following edits were not bad at all, don't get me wrong, but it's very clear how he discovered this article the next day after I edited it). And I'm sure he's got enough self-contol to stop doing that on his own. And, if he wants, he can actually watch my talk page (he claims he doesn't, but I have no problem with this), from which I practically never remove anything (just archiving). --Niemti (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Niemti is very active in the project. He makes good improvements in a number of articles, he is willing to discuss content disagreements [18], and he knows these subjects. Speaking about this ANI request, I do not think it was unreasonable. Looking at the edit histories: [19], [20], it's obvious that both articles were first edited by Niemti; then Sjones23 came to revert his edits. Sjones23 did not act "by the rules" by reverting edits of Niemti without talking. He effectively deletes an article, but there was no discussion to delete or merge. In the past, Sjones23 promised to "disengage" from following Niemti, and I think he should do just that. I made this suggestion, but he apparently did not like it and expressed his intention to continue following edits by Niemti [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. I initially did not wish to interact with Niemti at the time, but now, I've changed my mind and I intend to edit collaboratively with Niemti. As Dennis Brown pointed out to me, sometimes, it's better to simply just walk away and let others deal with the problems, particularly if we have been too "involved". He also said that things don't happen in a vacuum here, if he is doing something wrong, it will likely get noticed by someone else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• I cannot comment on the "wilkihounding" allegation per se, but the reverts by User:Lord Sjones23 in the recent dispute at Ninja Turtles were entirely justified. WP:BRD does not require to you to discuss before reverting, it requires discussion to take place if you feel the revert was unjustified. WP:NFF is very clear about when it is appropriate to create new film articles, and User:Niemti wasn't editing consistently with them. Sjones23 brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Ninja Turtles article, which was the correct course of action, where it was confirmed the film did not meet the criteria for its own article. To give Niemti his due he stopped creating the article once the relevant guideline was pointed out, so it seems to me this dispute was resolved without sanctionable impropriety by either side. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, they were justified. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Betty Logan. As a note of order, BRD is not a policy, it is not about deletion of articles, and it tells about only one revert prior to talking at article talk page. This is not what had happened here [22] [23]. But I am mainly concerned about this response by Sjones23 which does not seem to be encouraging. @Sjones23. Would you agree not to follow edits by Nietmi and not revert them? There are many other people around. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think in regards to this particular dispute, it was resolved in a relative proper manner. There was a bit of spat, but Sjones23 pointed out the relevant guideline and solicited a third opinion at the Film project and Niemti acceded. Personally I don't think there isn't a problem with how the Ninja Turtles disputed was resolved. As for the wider harrassment allegation, I agree it is not productive to rake over someone's contribution history looking for stuff to revert, if indeed that is what is happening. Sjones is a proven competent editor and I am sure it is not is not his intention for Niemti to feel harrassed, so what I suggest is that he refrains from reverting Niemti on articles he himself has never edited, and instead drops a note at the relevant project if he thinks something needs to be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I think this thread could be closed if Sjones promise to refrain from reverting Niemti on articles he himself has never edited. Other than that, both sides must realize that bringing complaints about fellow editors to ANI (or to attention of individual administrators) can only be appropriate in the case of very serious problems. Otherwise, this looks like block shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Refraining from reverting Niemti on articles I have never edited and notifying the project is also a very a good idea for me. It was actually not my intention make Niemti feel harassed by anyone here, as I am a trusted and competent editor. Per the relevant policy at WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I am always careful with these policies and I did not cause anyone distress, nor did I want revenge for a perceived slight in doing so, so I apologize for that. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been uncivil or condescending towards anyone here. My comments were not intended to be offensive or disruptive in any way. For me, I feel like the best solution to the problem is to work this out between myself. Also, I clearly explained in my edit summaries during the dispute at the Ninja Turtles article ([24] [25]) that the article did not comply with the relevant WP:FILM guidelines: WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILMS. Unless there is a reliable source confirming the start date of the principal photography, we should not create a new film article. In maintaining good faith, the best option was to move it into the film series article, but I had no intention of wikihounding in doing so. I had to bring it up at the wikiproject's talk page and the situation was resolved and I did not want to get into an edit war. FWIW, I am willing to apologize to Niemti and edit collaboratively with him if he is willing to do the same, as I do not want to be incivil towards anyone. Dennis Brown also suggested that it might be better to remove myself from noticing for a while. I did not intend to follow Niemti's edits, cause distress or break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. If he has made a major violation of some policy, I should contact Berean Hunter, who is familiar with the situation, and let him make a determination. I will be patient and hold out for more users and administrators to respond. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm here because Sjones23 asked me yesterday to voice my opinion, but I couldn't until now. I have not done any research into the contributions of Niemti or Sjones23. I have read, sometimes skimmed, this topic. The thing that jumps out at me is that Niemti hasn't made their case for wikihounding. In the original post, Niemti has precisely one diff, which despite its odd dissonance, is hardly enough to constitute wikihounding. After that, Niemti posts to this thread only to repeat their request, which is for Sjones23 to stop following Niemti around. I see lots of posts by Sjones23 who seems to be earnestly trying to find a solution, although, honestly, some of his posts are a bit confusing. Although I commend Sjones23 for seeking advice from various admins, I'm not quite sure what he's proposing just above. Being a rule-oriented fellow, I would have recommended closing this because Niemti didn't meet what I believe is their burden to demonstrate a problem, but it seems to have gone beyond that with Sjones23 sort of conceding there is a problem but it's not really wikihounding. I'd still like to see a good set of diffs from Niemti that show wikihounding. Absent that, although Sjones23 is free to voluntarily do whatever he thinks is constructive, I'm loath to endorse any sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This difference posted by Niemti is hardly enough to constitute wikihounding and I am also concerned that Niemti has not made his case for my supposed wikihounding. As a rule-abiding user, I usually seek advice from various administrators to see what they feel about the matter, as I am earnestly trying to find a swift and earnest solution to solve the problem (no soapboxing is intended, of course). However, I am concerned that my posts were confusing at times. I did concede that there is a problem, and it is not really wikihounding. I would also like to have more differences from Niemti to show the alleged wikihounding. Other than that, I also agree with your concerns about your reluctance to endorsing any sanctions, despite my will to freely voluntarily do whatever I know is constructive. Also, I have no intention of block shopping around here, as I don't want to get blocked because of bad issues. Bbb23, your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My two cents, since I come across both of them frequently. This isn't a case of "wikihounding", it's just a matter of two editors that butt heads a lot. They have very different theories and interpretations of policy and guidelines, and both work on a lot of similar articles. (We all work on video game articles a lot.) If anything, I take issue in how Niemti is frequently condescending in his/her comments to others in general, that I don't especially think is always constructive. But even there, it's usually more of a "That was kind of rude" reaction than anything that goes agains WP:INCIVIL or WP:NPA. Neither one has broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of disclipline.

That being said, I do think it would probably be in both of their interests to at least try to avoid each other a little more if possible, so that things don't even escalate to something that actually belongs at WP:ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the concerns by Sergecross73. Although I have some issues with Niemti being frequently condescending in his comments to others in general, I also do not think these are always constructive and is a bit more "that was kind of rude" reaction than any violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This discussion is not really a case of "wikihounding" for me either. Not only have Niemti and I having very different theories and interpretation of policies or guidelines, we have not broken any policy or done anything that warrants any sort of discipline. I believe that this positive solution for Niemti and I to avoid each other a little more if possible, in order to prevent things from escalating into something that actually belongs at ANI, will help my moral support as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts to administrators

I would like to offer my final thoughts to the administrators who are watching this case. After Bbb23 and Sergecross73's responses, I have concluded that Niemti's case of "wikihounding" towards me was unsubstantiated. We have different theories and interpretations of policies and guidelines, and work on a lot of similar articles. I find issues with Niemti being frequently condescending in his comments towards others in general, they are not always constructive and is a bit more of a rude reaction than anything that goes against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Since we have not broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of discipline. As such, per Sergecross73's suggestion, I think we should try to avoid each other a little more if possible. However, I am concerned that if I should avoid him, I won't be able to edit the articles I want to edit if there is a large overlap between my editing areas. As what Betty Logan pointed out to me, just because I watch and edit the same articles at Niemti does not mean that it is wikihounding. If I did anything wrong or did something to upset anyone, them I am sorry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• No one really seems to be pushing anything against you here, (not even Niemti) so I think you'd be safe to let this one sink into the archives.
• As far as working on the same articles: I think it would just be best to informally operate out of a WP:1RR moreso, and be quick to bring it to the talk page to discuss after that. If no one's commenting, bring it to WP:VG's attention like usual. I think it'd be best if you guys stick to one main comment each, rather than responding to each other over and over again. I'm sure you'd think "Well, I can keep it to one comment, but what if Niemti doesn't?" To that, I say, let him, because I honestly I don't think excessive arguing helps him much. His hard-to-follow, condescending responses don't seem to bring him much support. But anyways, I think that if you have the consensus speak for you, he shouldn't have any grounds for being upset with you in particular. (And vice versa.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree, this should be closed without action. It's noteworthy that Niemti did not demand any sanctions at the first place. Possibly for that reason he did not care to provide supporting diffs. But as someone who watched this story, I must tell that some supporting diffs of wikihounding and block shopping could be easily provided. So, I would strongly suggest for both participants to stay away of each other. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To the responders, thank you very much and they were very helpful. There's nothing we can do at ANI for now. I will operate out of a WP:1RR rule and be quick to bring it to the talk page to discuss it after that, but if no one's commenting, I should drop a line at the WikiProject talk page. It would be best to stick to one main comment each. If we have the consensus to speak for me, Niemti should not have any grounds for being upset with me. I understand that Niemti did not demand sanctions in the first place and I should avoid him as much as possible, as it is entirely my decision. Excessive arguing does not help everyone much. As such, there is no action to be taken at ANI and I am going to close this thread. Thank you very much for your time looking into this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

The talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics has begun to descend in to frankly personalising madness. Can a few users please cast an eye over this page and attempt to calm this down as some users are getting highly personal. I also think that some issues of ownership may need to be resolved regarding this article. At the moment very little productive discussion is occurring, it is just basically tit-for-tat with lots of personalising claims and wild unfounded statements about the article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think you are taking this a bit too personal. "Spirited debate" is part of the process as long as it stays away from being personal attacks. And to clarify one point, WP:V is defined at verifiable, not easily verified. Being behind a pay wall or only in a library doesn't reduce the quality of source nor the validity of it, and all those types of sources are acceptable. For many articles, the best sources are usually not found online anyway. You might consider WP:DRN as an option if you can't work it out on the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist

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

---

I've noticed a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist and request the community consider a topic ban or other action as appropriate.

1. User refuses to "get the point"

The user has been urged by three experienced editors—Rschen7754 (dif), Homunq (dif), and myself (dif)—to relinquish his position as reviewer for Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1 since he is a significant contributor to Paul Ryan, ranking #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. Editors are not allowed to review GANs related to articles in which they have been significant contributors, in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the review.

After being notified that according to the significant contributor tool, he has made 275 edits to the Paul Ryan talk page and 52 edits to its main page, he requested, "Please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined" (dif). He was then made aware of the WP:GAN guideline that "You cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." His response: "In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit. That is NOT a significant amount" (dif).

What's more, the user put up a similar fight after his nomination for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 was speedily closed by Hamiltonstone (dif), even accusing the GAR steward of assuming bad faith (dif) on the GAR talk page.

2. User continually rejects or ignores community input

In response to requests for him to step aside as the GAN reviewer as mentioned above, the user defiantly stated, "There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw." (dif). He has since proceeded to prepare for the review. In his introductory review comments, he intimated that things that need to be addressed in Paul Ryan include "obvious [things] like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" (dif), which is troubling since a lengthy discussion already came to consensus on the current lead of the article—a discussion Amadscientist was involved in and with which he was one of the lone dissenting voices with regards to expanding the lead further.

Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress ^talk 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He should recuse himself. He broke the rules by taking on the GAN. Just because there are no dedicated GAN police does not mean he can stand his ground and declare victory. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Which goes to show you believe that he can not be a GA reviewer, but does not show any violation of Wikipedia policy, nor that he is "disruptive" in his edits. Perhaos you can catch more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar -- complaining here is, by the way, considered very sour vinegar. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, refusing to get the point and rejecting or ignoring community input are both violations of WP:DISRUPT. I and others have tried to reason with the editor in other forums to no avail, so coming to ANI seemed prudent. —Eustress ^talk 23:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You may view his conduct as disruptive, I suppose (YMMV} but the specific charge of "disruptive edits" is not bron out by your material presented. The proper place for all this is on the GA talkpages themselves - this is not really the best forum for your dispute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Amadscientist should step down as a reviewer in this nomination, but I think a topic ban (other than excluding him from the GAN discussion) is somewhat overzealous. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support Amadscientist stepping down as review for this nomination. Excluding him from the GAN discussion seems to be reasonable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support removing Amadscientist from the GAN, either voluntarily or by force (CSD G6'ing page if need be). --Rschen7754 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• This all sounds quite drastic, and doesn't sound like an incident as much as a desire to have him not review the article. It would seem that WP:RFC/U would be the proper venue, not ANI. As for topic bans, again quite drastic and this need thoughtful deliberation, not the kneejerk "fireman" routine we are forced to do at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with others that a topic ban is unwarranted. My preference would be for Amadscientist to acknowledge that there is a sufficient number of editors who believe it would be inappropriate for him to do the review and withdraw. That would accomplish two things. One, it would satisfy those who believe he shouldn't review the nomination. Two, it would demonstrate that he is willing to defer to the community's wishes. I also liked Homunq's suggestion, i.e., that if the editor who reviews the nomination wishes to rely on Amadscientist, they can.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Homunq (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with the other editors here it would be improper for Amadscientist to review considering his past contributions. I don't understand the 7 day comment; if someone is a heavy contributor and stops contributing for 7 days it's not like their internal biases disappear. I believe it's always pertinent to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the fact of the matter is if one person drops a task someone else will pick it up. Contrary to popular belief we have more than enough editors to handle this sort of a thing. Additionally, I completely reject that a topic ban is warranted at this point but would be willing to change my mind if more compelling evidence were introduced. Sædon^talk 00:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree per Saedon. As the editor mentioned above in relation to the Mitt Romney review issue, thought i would comment further. I slightly mishandled the close of the Mitt Romney GAR, which I regret and for which I apologised. However, I took another look at actions there. Amadscientist's actions didn't make the best use of the various WP processes. For example, Mitt Romney is obviously a contentious subject at the moment, and being very actively edited. This includes constructive contributions from the original GA nominator, Wasted Time R, working to keep the article at a high standard, and with regular debate with other editors. On 16 August Wasted Time R put the article up for Peer Review. There was active discussion on the article talk page. There was no more edit warring than I would expect on the page of a presidential candidate in an election year. I did not, and still don't, see what was to be gained by starting a GAR page (without going through the individual reassessment stage either) on 21 August. Amadscientist was making constructive suggestions on the article talk page, but when I came along as an uninvolved and closed off the GAR, consistent with the views of other editors, Amadsci (in my view) overreacted and made accusations that didn't square with my actions at all. I just think the editor is making some constructive contributions on substance and talk, but needs to take a closer look at the spirit as well as the letter of GAN/GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've had some conflicts with Amadscientist over content but he never struck me as particularly unreasonable. While he should be excluded from being a GA reviewer when there's a conflict of interest, even discussion of a topic ban seems premature. This may be a teachable moment; let's treat it as one and see if it helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support forced withdrawal from Paul Ryan GAN. 276 edits to the talk page and 54 edits to the article before taking the review makes him ineligible. That he refuses to acknowledge this fact makes a topic ban in the future likely with my support. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Apart from being among the article's 10 most active editors (with 52 non-minor and 2 minor edits), Amadscientist has conducted polls regarding the article's content, expressed strong opinions about it, and has participated in discussions on the talk page more than any other editor. It should be clear that they can not be considered an uninvolved editor and the GAN should be reviewed by someone else. Deliberately trying to interpret "prior to the review" to mean "seven days prior to the review" seems like pure wikilawyering. Despite several people telling him that he should not be reviewing the article, somehow Amadscientist is still arguing that there's no consensus for their withdrawal. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support "forced withdrawal", whatever that might entail. There's unanimous opposition to the GAN in question both here and on the GAN talk page and he's still providing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT exemplars both there and on his talk page. bridies (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• There is no set in stone procedure for forcibly removing a reviewer. I have moved the GA1 subpage to OldGA without redirect, which should trigger the bot to change the status of the review. Hopefully, this resolves the situation. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And now User:Cwobeel, who is also a significant contributor to Paul Ryan (#8 most edits to article, #4 most comments on talk), has inserted himself as reviewer of the GAN (dif). What is going on? —Eustress ^talk 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that forbidden? If so, please let me know on my Talk page and I will remove my comment. Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, folks... I changed my edit to "Comment" which I hope I can still make. Cwobeel (talk)

• The editor appears to be awaiting for this thread to close before officially withdrawing: I suggest closing it now with the decision that the editor not perform the review as the reviewer. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ANI is not a jury. There's pretty obvious consensus above that Amadscientist isn't an appropriate reviewer in this case, but a random admin sticking a purple box around the discussion doesn't make it binding. Just... do whatever it is you'd normally do if a GA reviewer was unsuitable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Concordia University move dispute

Hi, despite long, settled discussion on whether to keep Concordia University (Quebec) at Concordia University, someone decided to move it again. Can you please help resolve this dispute? --The lorax (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• The move may be contested but I don't see any discussion yet that addresses this. Have you tried to talk to EdwinHJ who moved the page? Editing against consensus is not necessarily something we here need to deal with from scratch. See also WP:CCC. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concordia University in Montreal has been determined to be the article to use the primary name via WP:RM discussion in 2005, an WP:RFC in 2006, and another WP:RM discussion in 2010. Consensus has been established three times as of 2010.--The lorax (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a chat with EdwinHJ first of all to see if you can resolve this with him. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also remember that consensus can change - but the way to tell if it's changed it is through WP:RM, not unilateral moving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lorax, could you link to the actual discussions? The only one I can find is the 2006 RFC, which was founded in the notoriety of an incident which may not be all that (in)famous anymore. That said, EdwinHJ has a history with trying to determine the article naming here, and he really should be going through channels here, as BR says. Mangoe (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:FS Italia

This editor keeps reverting additions to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FS_EMUs_and_DMUs&curid=15721842&action=history stating "it doesn't exist". I have repeatedly explain that the article Frecciarossa 1000 does exist, and is clearly verifiable, and tried to explain the purpose of navigation templates Wikipedia:Navigation templates. See also User_talk:FS_Italia#Don.27t_edit_tendentiously. Oranjblud (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put a message on the user's talk page. I hope this helps. In the future, if you could try to steer discussion to the talk page rather than communicating via edit summaries? Even templates have a talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a explanatory note on the talk page to see if that helps.

(Now an IP address is reverting the addition) - will see if a talk page note solves the issue..Oranjblud (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitelist removal for Paralympic table

Can someone put http:// (added spacing to get passed spam notice) media.ticketmaster.com/en-gb/img/sys/tournament/london2012/para-complete.pdf on the Whitelist as ticketmaster seems to be blacklisted and the table of events cites this here, so now every new posting of the table gets blocked. See Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics. The Whitelist page has changed since i last used it and im not sure how to make a single exceptions like there used to be.Lihaas (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth would someone want to use ticketmaster as a WP:RS? dangerouspanda 10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Becaus they have published the entire schedule of all events in a single, easy to understand, document. I see no reason to disparage their reliability in this case - they are after all selling tickets to the events, thus they are an authorotative source for what happens when. The same information is available from london2012.com but in a format that would require dozens of separate cites. Roger (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kennvido - Copying the entire schedule of the Republican Convention 2012 from a copyrighted website.

Unfortunately, this user made the determination that the complete schedule of the Republican National Convention should be inputted without any form of paraprasing would improve the article. However, I've made the point that we are not a TV guide and that this is definitely a form of plagiarism / copyright violations as I've noted before this. Also I've made this determination based on the Wikipedia:Copy-paste article. I've tried to revert this to prevent this flagrant copyright violation but to no avail.

1. Diff 1: [26]
2. Diff 2: [27]
3. Diff 3: [28]
4. Diff 4: [29]

ViriiK (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the question of whether the schedule is copyrightable. After all, a list of times and events does not require a high level of prose originality (that is not a slam on the Republicans so please don't hit me).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

However the source is from the Washington Post which the editor is attributing it to which is hosted on a copyrighted website. I'm also following Wikipedia:Copy-paste which is not a rule but it does elaborate the issue here. ViriiK (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued disruption by IPWAI

User continues to post bits on Joan Juliet Buck article with poor references. Michael Totten continually cited even though World Affairs quotes are from Totten's personal blog, while deleting out media blogs: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Takes out sourced new information about Buck and tries to dig up dirt on subject.[43] Prone to edit-warring over recent items. Could we block for two weeks?--Aichikawa (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this dispute (I happened to come across it because of some mediocre edits of IPWAI to articles on my watch list) but it looks to me like there are several involved editors who could do with a cooling-off period, including IPWAI and Aichikawa. --JBL (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party movement 1RR violation

Reverts by User:CartoonDiablo Article: Tea Party Movement under 1RR clearly marked on talk page and on editing page

Reported by User:Collect

[44] 18:51 26 August [45] 19:25 26 August

Warning and request to self-revert at [46] 23:28 26 August

Response by CartoonDiablo at [47] 23:39 26 August with content:

that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at WP:EW/N will see that.

I did not think that violating 1RR because one does not like edits from others was a valid excuse, but I suggest that this excuse be weighed as he wishes it to be weighed. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice given of this at [48] 23:48

Report made here per clear instructions at [49] saying Violations can be reported at WP:ANI.

I suggest that when one editor has violated 1RR and been given a polite opportunity to self-revert, that such an editor is seeking to test the rule. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested in this issue, here's what took place, with numbered diffs in sequence:

1. Back in November 2010, User:CartoonDiablo adds three sentences to the article's Media Coverage section which become longstanding content in the article.

2. Today, on August 26, 2012, User:North8000 removes the three sentences originally inserted by CartoonDiablo.

3. Next, User:Ian.thomson reverts North8000's removal of the material, adding the three sentences back to the article.

4. Next, North8000 reverts Ian.thomson's reversion, removing the three sentences a second time.

5. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts North8000's reversion, restoring the three sentences he or she originally put in the article, and asks that its removal be discussed first.

6. Next, User:Collect reverts CartoonDiablo and removes the three sentences again from the article.

7. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts Collect's reversion and adds the three sentences back again a second time.

By my count, in the span of 6+ hours today, that looks like 2RR by North8000 in removing the three sentences, followed by a 2RR by CartoonDiablo in returning them. As Collect points out at Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement#Further_points, the article is on 1RR restriction and point #5 says violations can be reported directly to WP:ANI. Although North8000 and CartoonDiablo have exceeded 1RR, and may deserve to be blocked, I would like to bring up the fact that point #3 of Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement#Further_points says that more leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD. If you look at what was happening, it suggests that North8000 and Collect were not following WP:BRD by repeatedly removing the three sentences after the removal was objected to, whereas Ian.thomson and CartoonDiablo were following WP:BRD and expected that the deletion be discussed first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that only one editor was given proper warning of the 1RR violation with an opportunity to self-revert, and that opportunity was specifically rejected by that editor in the apparent belief that 1RR does not mean 1RR absolutely. Had North been warned and not self-reverted, I would hold him to the same standard, but Wikipedia believes that people should be given a clear chance to self-revert. AFAICT, however, North hit 1RR -- his first removal does not count as a "revert" under customary Wikipedia standards defining "revert." As it is, CartoonDiablo is the one in clear violation of a brightline rule imposed on that article. As for the problem -- the material was specifically under discussion on the talk page, which you appear to elide, and there was no apparent consensus for inclusion (mainly - the material is of exceedingly tangential relationship to the article topic, and was totally unrelated to acts or positions of the TPM, but only related to how the "nedia" covered the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the 1RR rule served its purpose by stopping y'all from edit warring before it could get really nasty. My advice is to withdraw this ANI and go discuss on the talk page. You're all established editors and you know how BRD works, so get to it; getting an editor(s) blocked here will solve nothing. Sædon^talk 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If CD had self-reverted or acknowledged that 1RR is applicable - fine. CD not only did not self-revert, his post to me indicated that he would edit war again in the same situation, and that is what is the problem, in my view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect's analysis. If notice is required and it wasn't given, you can not legitimately block someone. As for CartoonDiablo, if he (I should say all) takes a deep breath and does not repeat this offense, and edits productively, a block should not be given here. PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Approximately 22 minutes after North8000's second edit removing the material, I posted a polite note to him about self-reverting here, as I didn't want him to stumble into a block either. However, North8000 hasn't made any further edits today since that last edit, so in all likelihood he may have left his keyboard after his last edit and had no chance of seeing it, hence no chance to self-revert. Academic as far as I'm concerned, as I had no intention of pursuing a block and only got involved here when I saw Collect's ANI posting. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Saedon just about sums up my opinion of it and yeah in retrospect it wasn't the best idea to violate the IRR even if it was with regards to someone else. Also for future reference to Collect and AzureCitizen, AN/I is generally used for vandalism while 3RR is for edit conflicts like these, it's not a big deal but it's good to keep in mind. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR notice page specifically states to come here. So much for your "interpretation" of process -- when a specific process is called for, that is the process I use. Cheers -- and I still find your refusal to self-revert when given a very polite note to be the problem here. --Collect

Collect, the Template doesn't "specifically state to come here", it just says that you can (but not that you must) - something to consider when we speak of interpretation of process. Looking at the timing of your contribs (your conversation with CartoonDiablo about reporting him if he didn't revert, followed by your ANI post), it's also apparent you didn't spend a lot of time considering whether or not this ANI post was really necessary. Lastly, please consider that you ignored WP:BRD when you joined the fray between North8000, Ian.thomson, and CartoonDiablo. Many editors find that sort of thing discourteous on contentious articles that have 1RR restrictions, thus your polite demand to CartoonDiablo that he self-revert was unlikely to be well received. Maybe it would have been better to just go straight to the Talk Page and start working out the issue instead of trying to have him blocked? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says to use. Yes -- I could have ignored the absolute refusal to self-revert -- heck I could ignore every infraction, I suppose. But when a report is made, it is rational to fgo to eht place the notice says to go to. I did not post here until after CD made clear his position what he would not only not revert, but that he would defend what he had done as the only clear 2RR person on the page (North's first edit is not a "revert" per Wikipedia usage). And I absolutely did use the article talk page so much for that absurd aside. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says you can use; restraint can be a virtue. Also, you absolutely did use the Talk Page, after you reverted, right? Revert diff, Talk diff. You have to keep the sequence of events in mind when considering what WP:BRD means in this context and how you approached the situation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only reverted once. The one note that raised this question made the error of considering an edit to material added 1 3/4 years ago (November 2010) to be a "revert" of that addition. By that standard, ANY removal from any article would mistakenly be called a "revert" which is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR defines a revert as " Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." It says nothing about a time scale and I've never before heard the argument that an edit doesn't count as a revert based on the time differential since the material was added. Sædon^talk 03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that every instance of removal of any material, even the oldest item in Wikipedia is a "revert" for the purposes of 1RR ? ! That's unimaginable. And doubling up on that, we're talking 1RR not 3RR. Frankly, I think that I was being used to obscure the report here which involves someone who did two reverts within hours both on the same hours-old edit by trying to say that my first edit, the first one on 2-year old material was a "revert". How would anybody even know that it came about by some method in ancient history which the current edit would be considered a "revert" of vs. going in some way where it wouldn't? This isn't a report on me but if someone is trying to raise the question about me this would certainly need a broader discussion on this which is only a side-topic on this current one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the policy seems pretty clear and mentions nothing about a time period. If you are going to assert that removing material isn't a revert if it happens after a certain time period you need to be able to point to a policy that says that, otherwise you're just stating your opinion on what the policy should say. Additionally, it appears to me to be in line with WP:STATUSQUO which is an essay that makes a lot of sense. And of course it's in line with WP:BRD which is exactly what should have happened instead of an EW. Sædon^talk 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I'm sympathetic to your rationale, and don't think you should be blocked here either. Since the 3RR rule doesn't make exceptions for time frames, however, it's probably better to err on the side of caution on hotly contested articles. The Tea Party Movement article sees a lot of edit warring and continues to be on 1RR restriction for 1 and 3/4 years now, during which time you've made many edits and comments. We also both know that for the past few weeks, removal of content has been especially contentious. If you make an edit on a 1RR article, and the edit quickly gets reverted, it's more appropriate to follow WP:BRD instead of promptly reverting it back to the way you just changed it, touching off a mini-edit war today with those three sentences flip-flopping back and forth six times. Just something to think about going forward from here. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is not infrequent to see an editor under "0RR" -- the definitin being used by some would mean the poor editor could never emend any articles at all, ever. The customary usage is that it means undoing an edit from the recent past. Any other meaning is indefensible.

A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it

Does not posit that the bold edit is also a revert. In fact it appears to state that the bold edit is not a revert. Period. Collect (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had some significant content disputes with North8000, but even if he's technically in violation, I don't think a block is in order. He acted under the good faith belief that he wasn't violating 1RR, so punishingblocking him for not being a wikilawyer would be punitive. 08:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...punishing him...would be punitive." Huh? 149.135.147.1 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and I'm off to bed! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation promulgated by some (i.e. both claiming it it such for 3RR and then transferring it from 3RR to 1RR and 0RR) is very unusual, and that's putting it mildly. By that standard, 0RR would mean that an article could NEVER be edited, period. There is no exception for discussed or consensus edits because it is clear that it is not intended for the first edit on ancient material to be considered a "revert". Again, I think that this side discussion where it takes a tortuous creative unusual syntheses of policy pieces to come up with this is a diversion on a report which is not on me and which is about a clear 1RR violation. 2 edits within hours, both reverting hours-old edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that that interpretation promulgated by some would mean that just editing four different parts of ANY article in one day would constitute a 3RR violation. That is preposterous. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You are assuming all edits are reverts. They are not. For example, if this page was under 0RR, my edit posting this comment would not be a revert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant 4 edits that involved modifying or removing existing material would be considered a 3RR violaiton under 3RR. That is clearly not what it is about. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It may sound preposterous but I have had that exact interpretation levelled at me before while editing a page. I have also had a wide ranging thread on Wikiquette where basically some users were backing up that position. That discussion can be found here. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing or altering content is a revert. Tiderolls 12:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the wording should be clarified to prevent that mis-interpretation. But the intent is already clear. Simply editing ancient material is not intended to be considered "revert". Again such an interpretation would lead to preposterous situations. Under that interpretation 0RR would forbid ALL edits to existing material, and 3RR would prohibit 4 edits on one day to even ancient existing material. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is my statement a mis-interpretation? That is what the policy states. Tiderolls 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think North8000 missed the "within 24 hours (more or less - don't game the system)" part of the 0/1/3/9001RR rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how 24 hours even comes into play on this. The implausible interpretation (counting the first change to ancient material as a "revert") aside, I only made one revert on it. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether an edit of something which was there a long time counts here as a "revert" - no one asserts that North removed material which had been there a short time. And AFAICT, the "first edit" does not count as a "revert" under normal meanings - ese a person who is on a 0RR restriction is enjoined from ever editing at all <g> which would be absurd. The only person who expressly refused to abide by the 1RR is, alas, CartoonDablo, who would not have been reported had he not made a rather odd post on my UT page saying that he thought he did nothing amiss. The claims that others were "edit warring" is absurd - the extensive discussion on the article talk page belies that excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He wouldn't have been reported had he not said what he said? I thought you told him that if he didn't self-revert, it would be reported. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Tide rolls, I meant contrary to the obvious intent and to the way the Wikipedia works. (in good faith in your case) A clarification in the wording is obviously needed. E.G. 4 edits to ancient material in one day is not a 3RR violation, and 0RR obviously does not mean that existing material is uneditable. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR means exactly that; and 4 edits can very easily be construed as a 3RR violation. I can see where the 4 reverts could be explained, but it had better be a very good explanation. Tiderolls 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? That is completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates. What you just said is the 0RR means that (even ancient) existing material is absolutely uneditable, and that 4 edits to existing ancient material on an article constitutes a 3RR violation which might be given a pass! North8000 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, edit wars are completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates and the edit restrictions are used to divert editors to the talk page. Tiderolls 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject, but on the new topic are saying something I agree with. :-) Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR almost always, and 1RR frequently, define "revert" differently than 3RR. 0RR almost always says that you cannot revert to restore your own edit, and 1RR almost always applies only to reverts of the same material, and frequently applies only if the the first revert is that of a recent change to the article. I haven't checked the specific edits here, and I would be considered "involved" even if I had. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize this argument supports what I think should be in the article. Sorry about that, but the reasoning makes sense to me, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is revert, again?

I see no real progress on defining this in two years or more. The standard definition is that a revert is whatever the (non-)blocking admin decides it is. That's how Wikipedia always worked. Check the archives of 3RR, going at least two years back on this issue. And I admit to sometimes reading this page for the lulz nowadays. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The overall report was on someone who clearly violated 1RR. They did two reverts. I did ONE. The "creative" work regarding myself (going back ~2 years to find and list when the material was originally put in, calling the first edit on ancient material a "revert", an interpretation that would lead to chaos as described in detail above) derailed/diverted the conversation, hopefully unintentionally. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you check the times on the posts and edits North8000, you'll see that my note to you about 2RR was a couple hours before the next 2RR, lest you think this was all some sort of stunt. I gather that by the way things played out, you wish that the conversation here had been solely about a potential block for CartoonDiablo, but when an editor brings an EW complaint to WP:ANI, everyone who is involved comes under scrutiny for their role in facilitating the EW. I hope you can see that, and I hope you have also reflected on your own actions as well. If you remove three sentences from a contested article on 1RR restriction, and someone reverts you, is reverting them again yourself really such a good idea? etc. In any event, I'm glad that nobody was blocked and people went back to discussing it on the Talk Page. Also, I agree with Tijfo098's comment above as well, this is an issue that would be useful to settle. Should a better standardized definition of revert be adopted in the WP:3RR rules? Should there be a time limit specified for 3RR? Should there be separate subsections added to include rules for 1RR and 0RR as well, if there are key differences about timing that should be specified? It makes all our jobs here easier when the lines spelled out in bright line rules are as bright and clear as they can possibly be in every conceivable scenario, and this scenario has obviously come up plenty of times before. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Very busy today, just a quick note. I don't understand your chronology note; I only reverted ONCE on that content. Not once in some time period, just once ever. I didn't have ANY wishes for this report, I didn't even know it existed. And, to be honest, my first guess is that somebody came up with the creative interpretation to try to involve me to cloud the issue on the actual clear-cut 1RR violator. I'm not too happy about that. If it was you, I'll note that my "first guess" is nothing more than that and I'd be happy to forget it and move on with zero hard feelings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Resumed disruptive editing by 178.61.14.156

178.61.14.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked several times in the past for incompetent and disruptive editing. The account has recently resumed the behaviour, including removing content from articles without explanation, removing copyvio tags, and removing maintenance templates. The user has persisted in this behaviour despite recent final warnings. Judging from the behaviour and the articles being edited, it's clearly the same person as before. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked several times. The WHOIS report specifies that it's registered to a specific person, not to a company or educational institution. Electric Catfish 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for 6 months. The last block was for 6 months in February, so it seems unlikely the user intends constructive editing. WP:AIV might have been quicker. Dlohcierekim 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's vandalism. The user appears to have a genuine interest in improving the articles. Unfortunately, his idea of improvement isn't very sound, nor is it executed particularly well. This is lack of competence and an unwillingness to play by the rules, not an intent to disrupt for disruption's sake. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Does User:Shrike have sufficient competence in the English language to be a worthwhile contributor?

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

---

As recently discussed in another AN/I thread, [54] there appear to be serious grounds to doubt whether User:Shrike has sufficient grasp of the English language to be a useful contributor. Shrike has just replaced a statement that "There is consensus among Jewish and Christian scholars that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status", with "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars agree that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status". [55]. Even before the edit, the text was grammatically poor, but this is just plain garbage. Note to that this is in relation to a contentious article, where a clear understanding of what sources say is a prerequisite - it isn't just Shrike's writing that appears to be the problem, but also an inability (evident from discussions on the talk page) to be able to read English at the level required. Can I ask uninvolved contributors to address this matter, not in relation to any content disputes (this is a contentious subject, but that is another issue, and if it is to be discussed, it should be addressed separately), but with regard to whether, per WP:COMPETENCE, it may be in the best interests of Wikipedia to prevent Shrike from editing articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked other editor to help to c/e the article before that I am not the first not the last wiki editor that does grammar mistake.But what is clear that User:AndyTheGrump use it as pretext to remove editor that oppose him in this contentious issue instead fixing the grammar error like other user did [56] he goes to WP:AN/I I think it clearly showsWP:BATTLE behavior.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, you do a lot of good for Wikipedia, but you should be selective with your edits. I speak a good amount of your native language of Hebrew and carry on a conversation, but I can make only the most basic edits to an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia. You should only make edits that you are reasonably sure can be understood by everyone. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit was concerning the words "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars" instead of "A large part of Jewish and Christian scholars." Mistakes happen all the time in regards to grammar, we have plenty of editors here from every country, and I've seen far far worse mistakes, but it's silly to file a report everytime someone writes, "And she told, "we won"" (one example of something I saw). These types of mistakes can be easily fixed, instead of requesting that an editor who can make contributions to Wikipedia get banned for making a silly grammar mistake that can - and was - easily fixed. This is too overblown. --Activism1234 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234, are you suggesting that you think "A large part of Jewish and Christian scholars..." is proper English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we don't all need an 800 on the English SATs to edit Wikipedia, and suggesting that the way it's written makes the sentence perfectly clear and a large number of editors won't even notice any grammar mistake, if there is one, and that certainly doesn't disrupt the page, and anyone who does feel there is a grammar mistake can freely change that mistake. I'm furthermore suggesting that regional dialects do differ from editor to editor based on the region or country, and it would be inappropriate to ban an editor for writing "color" instead of "colour." Similar things would be putting a period before a quotation mark, which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, and which can be easily rectified without getting so upset over it. Lastly, I'm suggesting that an editor like Shrike with over 5000 edits on Wikipedia who has been contributing since 2006 should not be banned due to a grammar mistake that doesn't distort the meaning of the sentence and that can be easily rectified instead of going to ANI over this. --Activism1234 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be the article 2012 Gaziantep bombing. Consider this sentence, "Bombs that were exploded through remote-control system were planted in a low truck near Karşıyaka police station in Şehitkamil district that is one of the most crowded areas of the city." Will we go and ban the Turkish editor that put in that sentence because of a grammar mistake? Of course not. Instead, we'll be a bit more mature and fix that mistake which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence in any way. --Activism1234 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. The topic here is whether Shrike shows sufficient competence in the English language to edit articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I was able to understand what he wrote. It was not very fluid, but it was not "nonsense." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a talk page, not an article, and even there, the only difference is he didn't put a period or perhaps one other word is wrong, but that doesn't change the reader from understanding what he is referring to. It's understandable that certain editors won't use full grammar markup on a talk page, especially if they're in a rush. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't qualify a comment on a talk page as "nonsense." And Shrike seems to be referring to this, which does give the impression of canvassing. On an article, the story is different, but I explained this above. --Activism1234 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I read the initial comment, Andy isnt asking that you (Shrike) be banned from editing, but that you not edit articles directly. This is the English language encyclopedia, and it is expected that our articles be in, you know, English. If you are unable to write at a high level in English, then it is not an unreasonable request that you make suggestions on talk pages and have others correct the language before it makes its way to an article. nableezy - 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one minds the occasional grammar and spelling error, but you consistently write English that isn't comprehensible (for example the first sentence in the above paragraph, or this diff where you took 7 edits to write something that makes no sense at all). It is not fair to other users for them to have to clear up after pretty much all of your writing. Andy is correct - if you're going to write content here, WP:CIR applies. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I rewrote the article I asked other editors to c/e it.I have asked several times how the best to rephrase but didn't recieved any meaningfull answer [57] so I tried to fix it myself anyhow in future I will consult other editors how to best rephrase a source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that is an acceptable solution. You need to demonstrate that you understand the sources in the first place, which seems debatable to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is about a grammar mistake, and I don't feel that a grammar mistake demonstrates a lack of understanding sources. --Activism1234 21:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is not about "a grammar mistake". It is about repeated demonstrations by Shrike that he/she fails to display the competence in the English language required from a useful contributor. 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards to understanding sources written in English, I'm not sure that's a valid rationale for excluding someone from the project. Certainly, many articles on the English Wikipedia cite sources that aren't in English, and we wouldn't say that editors that can't understand non-English sources are incompetent. That being said, I would certainly support Shrike restricting his editing in mainspace to wikification, citation of sources and other tasks not requiring him to formulate prose. Any other changes that he thinks need doing should be requested on talk pages so a user confident in the formulation of English prose can add it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Incompetent" might be slightly strong, but this is still the English wikipedia, in order to edit it it's merely WP:COMMONSENSE that one should be *ahem* resonably competent in English. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• We've tolerated pretty severe abuse of the English language from a number of contributors on here over the past few years. And Shrike is a veritable William Safire compared to most people who write stubs about Pakistani villages. Off the top of my head I can't recall seeing someone sanctioned for poor grammar, although there certainly are some insufferable pedants around here who would wholeheartedly support taking that step. In any case, certain parts of the project call for greater precision than others--when dealing with controversial or disputed information, clarity and precision are very important. Prose and grammar issues are less likely to lead to controversy if found on Water polo articles than on the Israel/Palestinian conflicts. It might be a good idea for Shrike to seek out less controversial topics to edit, or to propose changes on talk pages before adding them to articles to get more feedback on English issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

_{My "insufferable pendant" remark earlier wasn't directed at any specific user, and was meant as a joke since I tend to be fairly pedantic myself. Sorry if anyone was offended. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

No prob. I, for one, may be an insufferable pedant, I'm sure I am, but I actually do have a sense of irony. Well, most of the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• • One does not have to be an "insufferable pendant" to prefer that the English Wikipedia be written in recognizably English sentences that can convey meaning efficiently and cogently to English-language readers. I'm certain that there are many, many people who can contribute valuable information to this encyclopedia, but don't have the ability to do so directly in a way that is useful for our purposes. When that is the case, it hardly seems onerous to ask them to contribute the information on the talk page and allow other editors, more conversant in English, to integrate it into the article. The alternative – bsdly written English – is not one that we should allow, if we are to continue to shape this project into a quality reference work. Let's allow people to help in the best way they can, and to discourage them from attempting to help in ways that are not beneficial, and, by the way, perhaps we might also ask for a little less scapegoating of "insufferable pendants" who would simply like to see this be a quality product and not a linguistic mish-mash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with Beyond My Ken. I work in controversial areas, and am constantly dealing with editors that can't even communicate effectively on a talkpage, let alone comprehend the sources and actually make sensible edits. There has to be a limit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am one of those insufferable pedants who actually have not only advocated such sanctions, but imposed them. And if I remember correctly, I already gave Shrike an official warning to that effect. Shrike lacks the competence to participate adequately in talkpage discussions about subtle points of NPOV and proper treatment of sources; and he lacks the competence (either linguistically or intellectually) to adequately summarize academically demanding sources about the fields he tries to edit in [58]. Moreover, as you rightly say, linguistic competence is the more important the more controversial an area is. The attitude of "I'll try to write something first, and then if there are grammar errors let others correct them" just won't work, when what you're writing is perceived by others as tendentious and wrong on top of being ungrammatical. People don't like to spend time correcting material that they think shouldn't be there in the first place. Which is the reason why his errors very often remain uncorrected for a long time. The only thing they lead to is edit-warring – some people simply remove the whole thing, and others, in a knee-jerk reaction, restore it in full, but they often don't bother to correct the errors either. This passage, which I finally took out of an article after several weeks, is an example. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce what FPaS has written above: mistakes in grammar are not necessarily trivial - I'm sure we've all seen instances where sloppy, unfocused writing has actually said somethinbg very different from what is trying to be conveyed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If he's confined to talk pages he'll lose his daily one revert per article limit, which is largely the point of his presence here. That, and making Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general look as bad as possible. Shrike fits in the topic area like a hand in a glove.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point, attention needs to be drawn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Altetendekrabbe, where shrike makes out that drawing attention to his/her (self evident) POV-pushing is a 'personal attack' and a 'BLP violation' (?). If Shrike is going to engage in such battleground behaviour in non-article space, any restriction confined to article edits is likely to result in further problems. Frankly, I think that Shrike's comprehension problems extend to Wikipedia policy - and if someone can't understand the basics of such policy, they aren't competent to contribute, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I decided to refrain from commenting here. I could detail the mess he made at The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man. He jumps into pages I edit mainly to add his weight to reverters, but his comments, when he does explain what he's doing are often incomprehensible. On that page, I added alleged as per policy. He wanted an allegation to pass as a fact, and denied that the source used 'alleged'. He hadn't read the source, it turned out, despite in obscure waffling implying he had. See here and here.

Since he's doing the same thing, jumping in to tagteam a revert pattern, on the article I just created, Zion Square assault, I've dropped my distaste for 'dobbing' other editors in. His objection there is not argued, just (inexact or irrelevant ) policy waving that, nota bene, shows a complete estrangement from policy guidelines. He actually believes, to judge from his syntax, that WP:RS prints who is notable (The sociologist in question has a doctorate and is published in RS, if that's what he means), and thus the American Israeli academic sociologist I cited cannot be used because of WP:UNDUE, without linking up the dots for the bewildered reader as to what the connection is between RS and undue. The point seems to be simply to back editors he agrees with who are more familiar with this kind of article.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything I only stated my objection that you used not WP:RS and not WP:UNDUE source in talk as you brought it yourself [59] in ARBPIA area.What exactly wrong with that?.Also what is have to do with my grammar?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Shrike's editing, but I'd like to put in a good word for him based on his generosity at the Resource Exchange. He has made 246 edits to that page since April, and has several times made academic papers available to me that were behind a paywall, which is a really invaluable service. He appears to do this regardless of the subject matter or whether he knows the person requesting help, so I hope that kindness is taken into consideration. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Being "kind" in areas that are irrelevant to one's aggressively pursued agenda is a good way to try to build social capital that will ultimately assist in pursuing that agenda. Who cares? "Kindness" to fellow insiders is far more important than what happens in the actual articles, right?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, kindness is not irrelevant. :) He is making scholarly sources available to people who don't have easy access, and that's helping to improve content right across the board. The editors who help out at the Resource Exchange are a godsend. I'm not arguing that it cancels out all other issues, just that it's worth taking into account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So ban him from articles, where he's a complete detriment to quality and neutrality, and he'll have more time to devote to the "resource exchange." Your argument amounts to "I know he's a terrible musician, but he's a decent cook, so let's keep him in the band." This is a very, very bad argument.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether the band is struggling hand-to-mouth and needs to keep all possible resources in-house, or is successful enough to be able to concentrate primarily on music. I think Wikipedia is successful enough to think mostly about the music, and not about the cooking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Slim has a point. I'd be happy if he just was denied his 1R revert right in the I/P area for a fair stretch. I've seen him revert instinctively, even without reading what he is reverting.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Interjection about that "resource exchange" activity: how is what that board organizes even legal? Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request encourages people who have access to research databases – whose terms of service typically specify material is only for the user's personal use – to take copyrighted material and make unauthorized uploads of it on public web sites. How is that not simply copyright piracy? I am rather amazed I find activities of that sort openly organized on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic specific sanctions regarding I/P might be the way to go then, especially since it seems several editors have already mentioned that the editor have NPOV-issues on that subject.--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone think that I am biased I suggest that they should go to the WP:AE with evidence but the accusers themselves and not exactly neutral or uninvolved--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Shrike—if you have any questions, or you would like me to read source material, especially to see if it seems to support language potentially for inclusion in article space, don't hesitate to post an inquiry to my Talk page. I think this is a way to proceed to gather more information on the questions raised in this thread. I am reluctant to jump to conclusions of a negative nature about an editor in good standing who just doesn't happen to speak English at a level some deem to be minimal. Perhaps after a period of time—one or a few months—it will become clear whether there is a problem or not. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will certainly consult with you -- Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that in spite of Shrike's earlier assurances, he is still editing in article space. I'd also like uninvolved opinions as to whether "WP:DENY" constitutes an adequate edit summary for this edit: [60]. Note that this article is right at the core of the contentious Israeli-Palestinian topic area where Shrike's previous topic ban was instituted, for amongst other things "inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete edit summaries". [WP:DENY]] is a link to Wikipedia:Deny recognition - an essay on the appropriate means to deal with vandalism and trolling. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Shrikes edit was a reversion of either. On this basis, one can only reasonably conclude that either the edit summary was intentionally misleading or offensive, or that Shrike has once again demonstrated a gross lack of comprehension. Either way, it seems to provide further evidence that Shrike should not be editing in Wikipedia article space at all. (Note also that this 'WP:DENY' edit summary has been recently used by Shrike in relation to several other articles [61] - this seems to be a pattern) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Strike's DENY edit since there was no sign of trolling or vandalism to be undone by him. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert. One of the problems in the I-P conflict topic area is dishonesty, which comes in many forms, but in this case, it was in the form of sockpuppetry. The WP:DENY in Shrike's edit summary was referring to a sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/Rusko_skins). Shrike reverted a sockpuppet. A better link in the ES would have been Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement and to name the sockmaster. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will do so in the future, thank you Sean.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Apparenly I have only been looking at the BBC reference which was actually reliable but missed the deleted part. Activism1234 has already reverted me, so we're back at Strike's Shrike's version. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had minimal interaction with Shrike in the article space, but we have interacted at the resource exchange and his language skills are more than adequate for interacting with other editors on technical subjects. I can't pass judgment on Shrike's article work, since I don't have extensive knowledge of it, but I would point out that Wikipedia's general philosophy when it comes to good faith contributions is to consider them as works of progress that the community should improve rather than to reject the editor. If a new editor doesn't understand wikifying and submits a large block of text we tag it, stick it in a backlog and eventually someone comes around and wikifies it. Same with sourcing, categorization, etc. We should consider that the Foundation and the community have larger goals of reversing editor decline and expanding the pool of contributors from outside the English-speaking world and we're not going to succeed at meeting these goals if we turn away editors who have the willingness and skills to contribute but aren't perfect writers. GabrielF (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We have WP:COMPETENCE for a reason - some people, despite the best of intentions, are just not capable of contributing constructively.

That said, this case seems to be tangling up language competence (demonstrated problem, but not sure if it's severe enough to sanction) and topic / issue / editor point-of-view conflicts (which are somewhat of a problem, but haven't seen evidence or investigated enough to see actionable issues per se).

I do agree that eventualism helps deal with many problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some editors just don't have the skills to work on this project - for instance I've seen some users who can't comply with our copyright policies even after many notifications. However, if we want to work towards this goal of greater editor participation we can't set the competence bar too high. The specific instances that have been presented above strike me as things that could be easily fixed - akin to a user who can't quite get his head around our syntax. The net gain from Shrike's contributions seems to be greater than the cost of grammar fixes, which is often done by casual IP users and doesn't require taxing our most experienced editors. Unlike problems with close paraphrasing, which are really tricky to untangle, these language issues don't rise to the level of fundamental problems with the contributions that render them worthless or too time consuming to fix. The POV stuff doesn't seem to be unusual for that topic area. GabrielF (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Gross incivility from two editors

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

---

I have been attempting to remove the unattributed and pov term "terrorist" from the introduction section of the Anders Behring Breivik article. My justification was the Wikipedia guideline here [62]

Rather than arguing against my point, a number of editors who seem to think they own the article have simply resorted to a tirade of incivility on the article's talk page that pushes the extreme end of foul language and personal insults.

Examples include:

From User:AndyTheGrump
"fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Wikipedia." [63]
"I suggest you take your deranged POV somewhere else" [64]

From User:Ian.thomson
"Just leave, sicko, we don't need your trolling here" [65]
"Take your Breivik-excusing and get out of here" [66]
"Go away, nasty person." [67]

Meowy 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see someone who argues that the mass murder of 69 people (mostly teenagers) wasn't an atrocity getting much sympathy round here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Will I add your name to the incivility complaint? Where did I argue that the murder of 69 people wasn't an atrocity? Meowy 20:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did not want the word atrocity used, see [68] and it is pretty clearly one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That reply really does reveal you inadequacy as an editor. Do you think that the Wikipedia guidelines that advise against using pov terminology like "terrorist", or heated wording like "atrocity", are there because lots of terrorist-loving atrocity-supporting editors wrote those guidelines? Meowy 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My inadequacy as an editor? I invite anyone here to check my blog log, and then yours [69]. As can be seen on the talk page for Brevik he has been called a terrorist (and frankly is one) and it was an atrocity. Personal attacks about my "adequacy as an editor" are uncalled for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As multiple editors have pointed out (and you so violently responded to), the terrorist label is considered NPOV in that article, as he has been sentenced for terrorism, is called a terrorist by various RSs (which the guideline you cite says allows us to use the word terrorist).

And you've been trying to argue that Breivik's actions are not an atrocity, and that his bigoted manifesto was not Islamophobic or anti-feminist (based on what? You do know that editor interpretation of the manifesto is original research, since there's a giant banner explaining that whenever one edits the article). You tried to argue that Breiviks attacks be given more of a social context, after having complained about the sourced and accurate labeling of his beliefs as Islamophobic, anti-feminist, and far-right. You called everyone who disagreed with you "self-righteous" while making rather asinine generalizations about everyone there (how the hell are we supposed to have edited the Breivik article before he showed up on the news for his crimes? He wasn't notable before then). You threatened me with a block (not your authority) when I pointed out that Breivik is a murderer, and that there is no positive way to describe his actions. Not once have you even begun to concede that Breivik is a terrible person, which anyone concerned with maintaining NPOV would have done. Your Breivik-excusing is not welcome here, and I'm not the only person who will not tolerate your threats. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The lead is full of pov wording! "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used (and the meanings of "far right" or "far left" vary greatly from country to country). "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov." (my emphasis) at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#The lead (And you can put my name wherever you please, I've not been uncivil to you - I'm just suggesting you might want to reconsider who you think might be likely to be on your side considering your apparent opinions on Anders Breivik). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that puke-brains is still trolling away, trying to make out that Breivik isn't a terrorist: [70]. (P.S. if you are going to report me for incivility, please quote it in full next time. I was rather pleased with my effort...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Puke-brains" is all very well, Andy, but Meowy's own words are much more damning. I just glanced at his/her talkpage, and was struck by this statement: "..I consider Wikipedia to be an intrinsically evil concept and a malevolent entity, a cancer on truth and on legitimate academic studies. Its concept of verifiability is the core of its evil. I am not here because I want to contribute to Wikipedia - I am here because I oppose everything Wikipedia stands for."[71] My bolding. Why is this, uh, contributor, still allowed to edit Wikipedia? WP:NOTHERE is admittedly only an essay, but it's my impression that it enjoys wide approval in the admin corps and is often quoted in indefinite block reasons. HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

• If I hadn't already commented here, taking a side in the content dispute (making me WP:INVOLVED), I would be taking the hint - anyone who does will have my support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it looks like the M.O. for Meowy is:

• make a bold edit. -- Usually ok.
• call everyone who disagrees with him (no matter how many people there are, or how much they try to help him) incompetent, self-righteous, POV-pushing article-owners, and threaten to have them blocked. -- Last I heard, that's not exactly encouraged, or even tolerated around here.

The second part alone is troublesome enough, but in this case, the bold edit was trying to excuse a murderer of dozens of children, who he still has yet to decry.

Seems to me the only reason to keep this open is to find enough WP:ROPE for this WP:BOOMERANG case.

Oh, and Bishonen found some more. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, while everyone enjoys piling onto the 2-Minute Hate against Meowy here, this user does have a point; we should avoid the "...is a terrorist" verbiage in the lead. We don't even do that for Osama bin Laden. Introduce the person in the lead, describe what he is infamous for, but avoid making declarative "he is a terrorist" statements; that is simplistic/sensationalist tabloid writing. I also find it amusing that some hold me as some sort of paragon of incivil behavior around here, but the antics and words of Andy and Ian Thompson above are well above and beyond any stunt that I have ever pulled on-wiki. Is there a particular reason why they are not blocked yet? As the puerile name-calling shows no signs of abating, I think we'd be clearly in the "preventative, not punitive" territory here. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have now indeffed Meowy because I find his edits at the Behring article to be intentionally provocative and because of the self-confessed opposition to the project. There's also a long history of sockpuppeting and disruptive editing. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That was just about the worst possible decision to make in this matter. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What, you support the continued presence of someone who has openly declared their opposition to Wikipedia and says "I am not here because I want to contribute to Wikipedia - I am here because I oppose everything Wikipedia stands for"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't know Meowy from a hole in the wall and am honestly not terribly interested in their past. What I am looking at here is an editor filing an ANI against Andy the Grump and Ian Thompson over this affair. His opinion on the addition of "terrist" is IMO correct, and his assessment of those two editors opposed to him is also correct. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You're telling us you really don't care about someone's declaring themselves to be an enemy of Wikipedia, and you support their continued presence here? You may well agree with him over "terrorism" and believe that the incivilities require action, but to simply not care about an openly declared troll is appalling, in my opinion - and if you genuinely don't care and have not looked at his trolling or his past, then I'd say you're in no position to oppose his block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
          • What Tarc is saying is that the original subject of the thread is still valid even if the author has his own problems (namely, having engineered the misbehaviour he reported). Sometimes that is enough to consider just dropping the whole thing: sometimes it isn't. In this case, there is merit to pursuing redress on the original parties even after the original poster has been indeffed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tarc said that blocking Meowy was a mistake, responding to a post that said nothing about my behavior or ATG's behavior. The terrorist issue that Tarc was concerned with has been fixed in a way that should comply with Tarc's understanding of the MOS. Beyond that, it was pretty clear that Meowy was trolling, and got the better of me and ATG. As other editors have noted here, that's not usual behavior for me, and having to go through this is enough punishment for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect Chris, I think Tarc can speak for himself. Tarc's response was specifically to Meowy's block, and he appears to be telling us he opposes that block without having bothered to even look at the reason for it - he has not looked at both sides of the dispute. If he actually doesn't oppose the block, or has indeed investigated Meowy's behaviour and does not think it deserves a block, or wasn't meaning to say he opposes the block, then I will withdraw my criticism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • To be fair, I got involved in the content discussion right before blocking Meowy. But my main motivation is not this dispute but Meowy's overall conduct. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tarc that the behavior reported here by Meowy was inexcusable. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to accept Ian Thompson just got carried away, and should be trouted for getting so readily trolled. ATG should be facing a month off for this, though, with the instruction that it's the last time he'll be let off with a time-limited block. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (ec) As to the incivilities by Ian and Andy, this is certainly unwarranted and has hereby been recorded. However, preventative measures don't seem to be necessary to me since their gross name-calling was clearly related to this one user and their questionable edits. Other admins (Thumperward) may however take action in this area. I for one issue a warning to Ian.thompson and Andy the Grump to not repeat this kind of incivility, no matter what caused it. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)The indef block is probably a good idea, Meowy would blatantly rather be writing editorials than an encyclopaedia, and there are other places for that. As for AGT...I don't know if there's any possible reason not to block. His intentions are good and I like his direct style, but this kind of response only ever inflames the argument and makes the whole situation worse (which is exactly what happened here - and now we have an editor indeffed). It has to stop. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tarc, if someone is pushing a POV, especially if that POV is so inhuman, it's perfectly reasonable and within the guidelines to ask them to stay away from the site or at least articles they are have problems with. That's what I did. I also called him sick, but I cannot and will not describe excusing Breivik in any other way. As evidenced by recent edits to the article, attributing and following the MOS is not a problem, it's reshaping the article into a praise piece for a mass murderer that is a problem. Notice that never, even after prompted, did Meowy once begin to agree that Breivik's actions are deplorable. It is an example that polite POV-pushing can be rude elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda your problem, editing a topic in which you obviously feel passionately and personally about. Breivik's deplorableness isn't relevant to the discussion here. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting is "You shouldn't overreact to trolling," instead of "Meowy shouldn've have trolled," which is blaming the victim. Denial of Breivik's deplorableness was Meowy's motivation. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Meowy's motivation was probably getting a rise out of people. Polite POV pushing has long been known to be an extremely effective method of trolling here precisely because it elicits responses like yours. Given that we allow anyone to edit articles on Hitler, the KKK, cold fusion, Jesus's pet brontosaurus and pretty much every other hot subject in modern culture, it is extremely important that editors who wish to work on these topics learn how to deal with it without getting baited into acting improperly. This appears to be an anomaly on your behalf, but it's gotten to the point where ATG seems to be actively pursuing a course of doing the right thing in the worst possible way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I was also going to point out (but edit conflicted) that the attribution issue, when brought up by editors who weren't trying to excuse Breivik's actions, was fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to block me, block me - it seems self-evident that cognitive dissonance will continue to rule Wikipedia, and that rules against 'personal attacks' will be enforced rigidly, even as hate-filled bigotry against all and sundry in the world outside is not only tolerated, but positively encouraged by rules that prevent the obvious being stated. Meowy, like so many bigots before, has exploited Wikipedia's peculiar double standards to his own advantage, spouting garbage about NPOV even while openly declaring his contempt for the concept. I don't know why I bother to try to make a difference here anyway. Clearly a waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it is possible to tell someone to fuck off and die without actually using the phrase "fuck off and die." I'm a local government officer - we do it all the time. And if you're having that much trouble with an editor, call a bloody admin! Meowy has a history going way back - any admin would have nailed them to a coffee table for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Twenty-mule team Oppose any incivility blocks. I'd support a WP:TROUT, however. Recommend closure of this item. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a zero-sum game. It's possible to say that POV trolling is bad and that responding to a troll with the sort of outrageous nastiness that AtG used is also bad. If someone is trolling, it's not only not helpful to call them horrible names, it also makes things worse. You're feeding the troll a never-ending buffet of fun. That purposely escalating a dispute is a bad idea is a concept that Andy doesn't buy into, I know, but it's nevertheless the case. Given how many times Andy has done this, to how many people, and with how little recognition of the fact that his behavior is a problem unto itself, I have no confidence left that he plans to change in any way. Time-limited blocks - multiple ones, and that's only counting the ones placed for personal attacks/harassment - haven't helped. Nothing has helped. I'm ready to throw up my hands and suggest that Andy be blocked until such time as he can control his tendency to attack others. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Fluffernutter 100%. Andy's conduct is unacceptable. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any block of Andy The Grump in this matter. Could everybody please refrain from administrative idiocy today, as I'm feeling a little frail. Also, I have an angle on such civility blocks that you may possibly not have heard before: please have a care of admin retention, because Wikipedia is bleeding admins. If somebody unilaterally blocks ATG for being incivil to Meowy, after what has transpired above, I think you're likely to get some more good, active admins throwing down their tools in despair like LessHeard vanU did, or joining Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians like Heimstern, and (oh noes) MastCell did. I'm not in Heim's or Mast's heads, but I don't think they'd see the step from burnout to self-desysop as a long one, and the continual discouragement of seeing bad blocks (yeah, yeah, maybe well-intentioned bad blocks, but shallowly considered and in their consequences exclusively lousy blocks) is something that drips away at our best and most mature admins, and, well, will sooner or later hollow them out. You know, the Gutta cavat lapidem thing. User:Ched seems about ready to dissassociate himself from such blocking practices by turning in his bit, too, btw. But these users must speak for themselves; I speak of my impression, which is that many of the best admins are hanging by a thread. Please stop snipping away at those threads. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
    • Honestly, that is a ridiculous and flimsy argument against blocking an editor. Notwithstanding any potential boomerang effects on Meowy, ATG's behaviour is completely unacceptable. Or at least it would be if certain people ceased white knighting for him. And THAT is why admins burn out. Because certain people completely frustrate anyone's ability to deal with problem editors like Andy. Count me in the group that thinks an indefinite (not necessarily infinite) block is inevitable. Even if you forestall it now, it will happen eventually. We don't need attitudes like that around here. Resolute 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly sure (or hoping, at least) that there will be no block here without a consensus, so I'm not sure what any of this has to do with admin burnouts. As Resolute says, you might as well make the case for admin burnouts happening due to incivility remaining unpunished around here. --Conti|✉ 00:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, creating an environment where "fuck of and die" is an acceptable phrase to throw around might not be the best thing for editor retention either. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Resolute, I think an indefinite block of Andy is almost certainly inevitable, as well, given his refusal to stop directing profane epithets and directives at others, but this is not the right incident for it to come from. Blocking someone for attacking someone who wants to push a (particularly repulsive) POV and doesn't give a flying feather about Wikipedia policy means those people opposed to Wikipedia get their way on this. Andy's probably going to need a block, but it shouldn't be for attacks on that sort of editor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm uncomfortable with the notion a couple people have expressed here (Heim among them) that it's ok - or at least not sanctionable - to attack certain people, as long as they're sufficiently unlikeable. I don't think anyone is disputing that Meowy's behavior was unacceptable today, which is why he's blocked. But are we really ok with excusing incivility against people whose personality or behavior we find unpleasant? What if the next time I block a POV pusher, I call them names? They've misbehaved, right? Violated our policies? Perhaps they were acting in a particularly disgusting manner, advocating for genocide or racism? So by this logic it would be silly to punish me for hurling abuse at them! The idea that that would be ok for me to do is obvious nonsense to most people, I think, and I'd be rightfully chewed out if I tried such a thing. Why would we treat this circumstance differently? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Fluffernutter, I think you're very much misrepresenting what I'm saying. "Unlikeable"? I have no liking or disliking for Meowy. The point here is complete and willful disregard for content policy. This is actually the most surprisingly clear-cut example I've ever seen, as it was self-admitted. And I'm exceedingly tired of seeing civil POV pushers use our civility policy as a cudgel with which to smack editors who oppose their POV pushing. Oh, and concerning your scenario: If I saw you hurling insults at someone who advocated genocide or racism, no, I would not push for sanctions for you. I'd consider it bad practice, but entirely understandable that people lose their cool when dealing with such abuse of Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry for misunderstanding, Heim. I was interpreting your statement that a block shouldn't come from this incident of incivility as being based on your statement that it would mean "someone who wants to push a (particularly repulsive) POV and doesn't give a flying feather about Wikipedia" got their way. I see them as two separate issues - someone pushed a (possibly repulsive) POV. Someone else came along and attacked that person personally because they disliked the first person's behavior. Both people are wrong, and not acting on the second instance of misbehavior out of a sense of "two wrongs do make a right" or a desire to keep the first person from "winning" (having their way) is a disservice to both the people involved in the dispute (today) and the community (in the long-term, because it sets a precedent that you can get away with directing personal attacks at people who do a certain thing). While having shorter patience with someone pushing a POV is completely understandable, and I doubt anyone would fail to excuse a bit of shortness with such a person, completely losing it and calling them the sort of things Andy did should never be acceptable, whether it's him saying it or the most respected of our arbs, and whether it's attacking a POV pusher or a newbie who just wants to help. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking either editor, sure they may have gotten a little carried away, but they called it as it is. Facts, not fiction (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Fluffernutter as well. Yes, he was responding to a troll (most likely), but that does not excuse his behavior. If you respond so emotionally to a topic, it's probably best to stay away from it for a while. I'm neutral on whether a block should be applied here, but a strong warning should at least be given. --Conti|✉ 00:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I see that Meowy has now been indeffed. Neither Andy nor Ian should be blocked for their reactions toward him. Obviously I would not have used the same words they did, to put it mildly, but there was obvious trolling and provocation, and most importantly, at this point a block would not serve any purpose. Moreover, as there is clearly not going to a consensus for a block, I suggest that the thread be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  NYB, you're aware that our civility policy says that provocation does not excuse bad behavior (see 2a), yes? That Meowy provoked an argument does not excuse Andy not only continuing the argument, but throwing out personal attacks so nasty that most people wouldn't say them to their worst enemy, especially since it's known that this is a habit of Andy's, not a one-time crazy moment. I'd also question your surety that there can never be consensus regarding this issue. Sure, it's possible that this thread will close as no consensus. It's also possible that it will close as consensus to block Andy, or that it will close as consensus to do nothing, or as consensus to start an RfC, or as consensus to all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Both of us have seen enough ANI threads in our time to know that attempts to crystal-ball how a discussion will end two hours after it begins are rarely all that accurate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely aware of the various things the civility policy says; I'm also painfully aware that the community is all over the lot on how and when it should be invoked (see generally, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement); I'm also aware that AndyTheGrump's style of commenting has raised issues quite apart from his expressions of disgust with Meowy, although I don't believe anyone is saying the same of Ian.thomson. But the question presented in this thread is not whether AndyTheGrump's and Ian.thomson's comments to Meowy were an appropriate way of handling the situation (they were not), or whether they were acceptable behavior in principle (they were not), or whether they should be quoted in WP:CIVIL and WP:DFTT as examples of best practice (again, definitely not, except perhaps if Wikipedia ever holds an opposite day). Rather, the practical question posed by this thread at this time is whether to block AndyTheGrump and/or Ian.thomson for overtly blowing up at an editor (who had already served two one-year blocks for misconduct) whose behavior in the recent past on one of the project's most sensitive articles was very deeply troublesome. My suggestion that this thread be closed is based not only on the unlikeliness of its arriving at a consensus—and yes, it's certainly possible that my prediction about that might turn out wrong—but that continuing to focus attention on this situation is unnecessary and unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• @Brad: I'd also like to point out that your comment contains a hidden indictment against the current method of dealing with disruptive editors: Why on earth are we allowing someone to comtinue editing after "two one-year blocks for misconduct"? We are far, far too lenient, and give out many too many "second chances" to people who do not deserve them. We take WP:AGF out to realms it has no business being in. We have an obligation to the project to learn from the past and deal with the reality of people's behavior, and not continue to assume that everyone is reformable, or even interested in this project except for purposes of propaganda, vandalism or trolling. We absolutely have to tighten this up, because once we do, good editors will not be driven to incivility as often as they are now. Contrary to contemporary mythology, there are good guys and bad guys, and, in our context, the bad guys are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x3 Admittedly Ms. Bishonen appears to be quite accurate in her observations; at least as far as my thoughts go. Yes - Indeed, I am all in favor of being civil and polite to people; but, when others (often children) go about deliberately goading and provoking people just to see how far they can push the limits - it's time to put a stop to the cause not the response. Agree with NYB that this looks close-able. I won't trouble the members of this board with my thoughts on block and ban happy admins. at this time. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree that this is beyond the pale and shouldn't be overlooked. We aren't talking about minor incivility, after all. It is unacceptable to talk to anyone here like this, no matter how "wrong" or "bad" the person is. I agree with the block, but it isn't about Meowy, it is about allowing discourse to take place that undermines our goals. At the very least, Andy has exceeded the limits even here in this discussion. As to what is appropriate, I would leave to the community, but ignoring it is not wise policy and will only encourage similar behavior in the future from others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like a number of editors should be removed from working on the article in question. Recentism and all, till then more neutral editors are needed there.--MONGO 01:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support' per Elen, Fluffernutter, and Dennis. "He started it!" is never an excuse for incivility. If somebody gets under your skin, trolling or legit, to the point you start spewing bile - step away from the keyboard, drink a nice cup of tea, take a deep breath, and edit Luna moth until you're calm enough to respond in a civil manner. That said, everybody has their moments, and if this was the first such moment I'd be climbing on board Joe's twenty-mule team. But this isn't AtG's first time round the civility-block issue: this is, at least, the fourth - and that's just going by number of previous blocks, not including those that didn't result in blocks. Regardess of his content and other work, which is stellar, civility is a policy, it is not optional, and we can't decide not to enforce policy just because the 'enforcee' got poked by a troll - at this point, he should know better, and the fact we're having this discussion after all the times we've been round this block before suggests he's simply not getting it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I left a note on his talk page, for what good that will do. I wish I knew what would actually convince him to pull back a bit. He does good work but his comments were not just incivility, they are flatly attacks. Had it been simple incivility, I wouldn't have even noticed it. There is a big difference in "that is fucking asinine" and "fuck off and die". A big difference. I don't have a "solution" that will help Andy stop shooting off like this, he was offered mentoring on his page above and refused, so I just don't know what the answer is. I just know that ignoring it isn't really an option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I can't support anymore blocks on this mattter...not that my opinion matters much these days.--MONGO 01:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am a big fan of Andy. I think his contributions are intelligent and incisive, and his instincts, which sometimes are more important than brains, are outstanding. But we really only have two choices here. We either block him, which, in my view, will eventually lead to an indefinite block if we are consistent (heh); or we accept the fact that he will repeat his vitriol and we will be back here discussing it. Perhaps the best result would be for Andy to act on his acknowledgment of being "burned out" and taking a wikibreak to sort things out for himself. Of course, it would have to be a real break, not like his last block, where he was the most active, blocked editor I've ever seen. I somehow doubt we're going to reach any consensus on actual sanctions now, but I imagine we'll argue about it quite a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I support a block for both. Incivility enforcement is pathetic, especially against editors who've been around long enough for it be excused under "Oh well, that's just what he's like!" While Meowy was blocked, in part, for openly opposing wikipedia's policies, Ian apparently seem to oppose policy too, just without coming right out and saying so. Ian continues to rant that Meowy refuses to see things his way and admit that Breivik is bad, as if that's some sort of justification for any of this. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who hold respectable opinions. 149.135.147.90 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ha, there's Bbb, beating me to it. And Dennis. Hey guys. I have defended Andy a couple of times, but this is really ridiculous. And Ian, you're far off the mark as well. Sheesh. Here we have two people who should know better behaving like children, and the best we can do is not block them since it wouldn't serve any purpose. Worse, I guess I have to agree with that, since a block right now wouldn't serve any purpose, at least not until the next time (with Andy, there usually is). I'm a bit revolted by this. Andy, at some point these sorts of outbursts (were you really proud of "puke brain"? What are you, five?) are going to weigh more heavily than the good work you do. Side note--I've run into Meowy before, and didn't always agree with them. I have no intention of plowing through the talk page of an article on a man I despise, but I would have hoped that a bunch of Wikipedia editors could have a grown-up conversation about working and phrasing without flying off the fucking handle. I am not going to break a lance for them, they were way too confrontational for my taste, but we really shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for how we handled this one. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still not seeing what high crimes and misdemeanors this Meowy person actually committed here. Calling for a little moderation in the language used to describe Anders Behring Breivik in the article shouldn't be treated like a cross between stepping on the 3rd rail and Holocaust Denial. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. Meowy is clearly a troll account. A polite troll to boot, which makes it so much harder to deal with inside the Wikipedia rules. Just review his last 50 contribs, and not just those to the Brevik article. I think an WP:INVOLVED block is excusable in this case, as no other admin would have come up with a different conclusion. Meowy posted an unblock request 6 hours ago, but nobody bothered to respond to it. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not interested in ad hominems against this person. Even a troll can be right about something y'know, and in all of the verbiage expended on this topic so far, I find precious little spent actually discussing the actual complaint. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Consider bare facts. (1) M. came with complaint about incivility to ANI, and his complaint was justified ("fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit"). (2) He discussed wording in article about Breivik. He may be wrong, but he could discuss it. (3) He said on another occasion that he does not like wikipedia. This is not a policy violation. (4) He was indeffed, but his incivil "opponent" received no sanctions. To summarize, M. was indeffed for bringing a reasonable complaint, discussing content disagreement on an article talk page, and telling something that was a matter of his personal opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing would make a good read in this case...civility isn't a key to being right.--MONGO 03:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he conducted this discussion in inappropriate manner, but the "arguments" by another side ("fuck off", etc.) were worse in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Meowy's supposedly "legitimate" concern, his POV-pushing rendered his concern invalid. When Tarc brought the concern up without the POV-pushing, I complied, and the article now says that Breivik is called a terrorist by many persons, including the Norwegian judicial system and his own lawyer. Hiding what Breivik did, which Meowy also pushed for, is not a legitimate concern. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Consider Meowy's long-term edit history with edits such as [72] and [73]. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of statements by Meowy are clearly problematic. I think he is trying to make a point that everything in the project is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Block both. There's no justification for those kinds of comments, no matter how aggravating the other person may be. As the saying goes, the mark of a reasonable man is not in how he treats the best of others, but how he treats the worst of others. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And for one mistake, you say I should be blocked, without considering whatever good I've done for this site or whether my past behavior shows that this was an anomaly? Way to treat the worst of someone, kettle. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should be blocked. For how long remains to be determined, but since it seems to be a first occurrence, something short like 24 hours would be appropriate. Throughout this thread you've tried to excuse your behaviour without, as far as I can see, acknowledging that the way your reacted wasn't appropriate. If anything it appears you've defended your choice of words ('I also called him sick, but I cannot and will not describe excusing Breivik in any other way'). Where have you acknowledged you were in the wrong or indicated that you have learned from the experience and won't be repeating it? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• strongly oppose, as per newyorkbrad. i also agree that this discussion needs to be closed.-- altetendekrabbe  05:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any incivility blocks for this incident. It's an emotional topic, editors are human and emotional, and sometimes react strongly to things they find very offensive. They were also clearly provoked by a long-term disruptive editor with a bock log the length of your arm. Meowy has now been blocked to prevent his ongoing disruption (backed by his self-declared animosity towards Wikipedia), and that fits the "preventative" nature of the block. Blocks for incivility against Ian or Andy would not be preventative, considering this incident has ended, and much of what I'm seeing here is a lot of calls for punitive blocks. Ian's incivility, at the very least, is uncharacteristic and not representative of any real problem that needs prevention. There does appear to be a longer term issue regarding Andy, but let's deal with that separately if necessarily, and not block him as a result of this specific and highly provocative incident (and he's a good guy really - just a bit burnt out at the moment). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support blocking AndyTheGrump ("fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit" is for me absolutely unacceptable), oppose blocking Ian.thomson as responses were not perfect but acceptable in this case Bulwersator (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was once blocked for 5 days for calling other editors "idiots". It would never even occur to me to descend to the depths that Grump did here. Have civility standards really fallen this far? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to opine that "terrorist" is a 100% apt, correct, and precise description of Anders Behring Breivik, who is convicted of having committed mass murder of political opponents to advance a political agenda, posing for photos with a "Marxist Hunter" patch before shooting up a Social Democratic youth camp. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To the people suggesting that I, Ian.thomson, be blocked

Read WP:BLOCK. Blocks are preventative, not punative.

If I should be blocked, it should be to prevent further problems. Anyone calling for a block in reaction to this past problem (and not to prevent future problems), is either uninformed and confused (assuming good faith), or just plain bloodthirsty and failing to assume good faith. At no point did I tell Meowy to fuck off, nor did I call him a little heap of shit, etc, etc, do not confuse me with AndyTheGrump. (Sorry, to throw you under the bus, Andy, but I almost get the impression some people here aren't even trying to see the difference between us).

If anyone really thinks there will be future problems, please show everyone where in my past I have had some sort of pattern of similar slip ups with civility. There's over five years of good edits and reverts there. You'll be able to find the occasional unfounded accusations of incivility on my talk page (accompanying other misunderstandings of how this site works) for warning fringe POV-pushers of various sorts that this site summarizes uses mainstream academic sources and does not accept personal interpretation or research, magic, or pseudoscience, but I'm fairly certain that nothing in my posts will damn me, especially when considered in their original contexts. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect an apology for losing youe cool, and a commitment not to do it again would suffice to defuse things for you. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't confused the two, and agree with ErrantX that simply making it clear that this was an exception to your normal behavior is sufficient. I would also note that the examples given don't show the remarks to be equivalent anyway, and even while Ian was provoked, it doesn't justify the remarks. My gut is that Ian "gets it", although making it clear would be helpful. Ian, the problem is that if stuff like is overlooked, it becomes a justification for others to be incivil when it wasn't provoked, etc. I think everyone understands what Meowy was doing, and the reason no one is discussing it is simply because the problem has been solved and no one disagrees with the solution, to indef him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy solution: Try a short ban

Short-term Bans? - I know I can't ask for consistency in how our admins treat our editors, and reaching for the block button seems all too often to be the primary corrective action that is considered. HOWEVER, one thing I think could be useful in such incivil moments as we see above might simply be a short term ban from the article or topic for all parties who are behaving incivilly. In other words, you lose your temper and shoot off your mouth, you lose the right to participate in that debate for a while. This seems like a very reasonable and easy way to keep Talk page debates on track, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 06:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Consistency" is all very well and good, but if editor #1 is dedicated to pushing a POV, and is blatantly uncivil, while editors #2 and #3 are dedicated to maintaining a neutral point of view in the encyclopedia, but are also just as uncivil as the first editor, proper jurisprudence would call for the first editor to be blocked for being uncivil and for perverting the encyclopedia (a much more serious charge), while the other two editors should be trouted, censured or briefly blocked for being uncivil, but should not be seriously sanctioned, because their primary impulse is to protect the encyclpedia. Incivility is, and should be, a blockable offense when serious, but every admin should take into account the purpose of the uncivil editor.

On the other hand, those who would protect Wikipedia from POV-warriors and others who would pervert the NPOV of the project should heed the warnings that are being put forth here: You undermine your own efforts to protect the encyclopedia when you fly off the handle and lose your cool. All you do then is provide ammunition to be used against you by the bad guys. Don't help the bad guys, keep things on an even keel, and if you can't do that yourself, hand it off to someone else ho can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, perhaps you should fuck off and die because you feel that is an acceptable purpose-driven type of statement to make to another editor, and that we should merely look aside such comments, while we day in and day out block and ban people who are deemed worthy of not fucking off nor of dying. Sometimes the entire point of AN/I seems to figure out innovative ways to pervert policy and stand it on its head. -- Avanu (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Such a response is indicative of your apparent inability to parse the sense of a simple English paragraph, but, then, I have no real idea of why you're here on Wikipedia anyway. It certainly doesn't seem to be to improve the encyclopedia, considering that only 13.5% of your 6000 edits are to articles, and the rest are basically blah blah blah blah on various talk pages. You seem to like the sound of your own opinions, but are reluctant to earn the right to express them through quality contributions to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that some people "earn a right" to tell people to fuck off and die, and you guys arbitrarily decide that. You know what is funny, when I actually do make a productive edit, I have to spend pages of text in Talk pages waiting for consensus to catch up. You imply this is "bad", yet I was under the strong impression that consensus a huge part of the project. Snobby answers like "I'm better and smarter because I have 62,000 edits" are not really that impressive. I have a full time job and a life outside of Wikipedia. I don't have mountains of resource materials to cut and paste my way to 1,000's more edits. I contribute positively where I can, and try and encourage people when I can. You want to lecture me because I think it is wrong to openly permit people to shout "fuck off and die" at one another? Look in the mirror and ask how that is really a good thing. -- Avanu (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I want to lecture you because you're a "free rider" who encumbers us with your poorly-considered opinons while not contributing anything of consequence to the encyclopedia. It obviously doesn't matter much to you, but my dedication is to making a better encycylopedia. Come back and pontificate when you've earned the right to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough with this. We're on a civility thread for goodness sake. Avanu made a very good suggestion in the opening edit, disagree or agree, but let's not waste time and distract from Avanau's opening suggestion and fall to incivility. --Activism1234 07:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu's suggestion is crap. Is that sufficient for a disagreement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So why is it crap? I guess I don't see why people who fly off the handle should be getting a total pass, or the infamous wrist slap known as a trout over and over. Trouts are great if you really are ashamed of the behavior and just need a reminder for formality's sake alone. But what is the harm in saying to an editor, you keep your mouth in check or you drop back for a bit and edit something else? I guess I just am seeing a double standard here. You guys are going all out to protect a buddy, yet you'll hang a newbie or a person you dislike quicker than lickety split. But what do I know... I'm just an impartial observer trying to offer an opinion to help you resolve this in a fair way. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, I feel "x's suggestion is crap" rates DH0, maybe DH1 at a push. As for "Come back and pontificate when you've earned the right to do so", I must have misread the front page - does it say "The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit provided they've got enough street cred with the regulars"? Having said that, I don't support a topic or interaction ban because one of the key players in it is indeffed, which takes away the possibility of conflict between these editors. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that in itself is an excellent point, Ritchie. In a general sense, do you think short term bans would help more, or simply blocking the 'most' offensive party and leaving the others alone with a warning to be nicer? -- Avanu (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the best way is for everybody to calm down, take a deep breath, think calming thoughts, and edit something else for a week or two. Then nobody gets blocked or banned at all. But that's a moot point because somebody's been indeffed, so it doesn't apply in this case. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit here (more or less), but it doesn't mean we have to take their ideas seriously. As far as the community is concerned, people like Avanu, with few contributions to the encyclpedia, have little gravitas when it comes to taking their ideas seriously. Rather, they put the horse before the cart and opinonate before they've earned the right to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that time-limited blocks do not work for long-term civility issues. This proposal is to water down the existing process. BMK is right, if blunt, to point out that ANI is not so short of input that the likes of Avanu (778 edits to all articles in total, 436 edits to ANI) should feel the need to proffer new and novel solutions to every thread that comes up here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How much more aqueous can the existing process get? There seem to be a large contingent of editors who are simply acting like this whole thread is just a personal attack on Andy. They excuse his 'latest rant'TM with the wave of a hand and say he was driven to this life of crime by running around with ne're-do-wells, but really deep down, he's a good kid at heart. So our rebel with a cause goes around and does it again (and again), but he's simply a misunderstood youth, let him be. Maybe my gravitas and my editing chops aren't as well burnished as those who seek to sum me up by a number, but it seems unbelievably short sighted to judge someone solely by a statistic, and it seems really watery to let an opportunity to correct incivility to pass by, just because it isn't as agressive an approach as you might like. Sometimes a gentle answer turns away wrath, I'm not sure AN/I has heard such proverbial wisdom though. -- Avanu (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It would a recipe for success for civil trolls, and a punishment for those protecting Wikipedia against them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What is a good approach then? How do you get people to actually behave like grown-ups? And are you saying this urge to fly off the handle is inevitable and uncontrollable? -- Avanu (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that humanity and emotion are inevitable, even (especially?) in good people, yes it is inevitable, and we need to find a way to handle that fact rather than keep pretending that incivility can be stopped. Fewer demands for incivility blocks, more sympathy with the underlying reasons why good people fly off the handle at times, and a bit more support for people when they are stressed over battling with trolls - I think all those things would help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, Boing, but I see people get blocked all the time here for really minor stuff. And I agree that part of being civil is overlooking incivility and telling a person, 'Hey, we get why you got upset; just try harder, OK?' But aren't you essentially tossing WP:Civil out the window here? -- Avanu (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am - I'm just advocating treating it in context and with sympathetic judgment. WP:Civil, like many ideals, is not something that can work as a hard and fast rule with prescribed "punishments". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that WP:Civil is a fickle mistress to properly honor. I hope other editors will see your perspective on this too. -- Avanu (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My perception is that administrators have had their hats put on straight with regard to blocks for deploying words like "sycophantic" for instance. But there's no way a hate comment like "fuck off and die" can be justified, and Andy simply has to apologise and accept that fact. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Boing has it about right. Malleus Fatuorum 10:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks should never be pro forma and should always take context into consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk)

We're not talking about a block, Ken. I was proposing a short ban. In other words, you tell the editors, step back from the article for a day or two if you are losing your cool to this degree, come back and prepare to work with a better attitude. I don't think it is all that bad from a pro-forma standpoint to tell people to refocus on something else and cool off. -- Avanu (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And the troll who hasn't been uncivil gets to continue unopposed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what usually happens? Malleus Fatuorum 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it often is, yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to be assuming good faith? What exactly makes them a troll? I'm all in favor of training for newer editors so that they have a better understanding of Wiki-culture, but unless there is a clear trolling, our policies say we're supposed to wait around for consensus to form. Its slow as hell, but it eventually reaches the same place. -- Avanu (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should indeed be doing the AGF thing, and it can indeed be hard to pin down the definition of a troll - but don't you see examples when you can just see someone is trolling? The consensus route is another ideal, and I support it when it works. But at the same time, I can understand when people see obvious trolls, feel frustrated by the way "proper process" lets them get away with it for ages, and then get the "cut the crap, let's get this sorted" feeling - especially if it's an emotionally-charged subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be regular confusion over what a block and a ban is, which isn't helped by other places using them for different terms. From my understanding of WP:BAN, what we call a "temporary topic ban" is what I'd actually call a "cooling off period" where people get formally asked to take a break from something in the hope that the time away will allow them to approach stuff with a clearer (or sober) head. Kind of the equivalent to locking a topic on a forum - nobody gets booted off, they just can't talk about "x" for a while. Trouble is, people don't seem to equate bans to that at all and think it's got something to do with physically stopping you from editing full stop. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Zero tolerance rule on AndytheGrump

I've had some dealings with AndytheGrump's civility issues previously so I may not be completely neutral on this one. But I'd propose the community impose a zero tolerance rule on AndytheGrump, that any uninvolved admin may block him, long term (around a month or so the first time), for anything they consider to be incivility, or a personal attack, as soon as they see it (extra conditions or provisions welcome). This is will be primarily for the purpose of preventing it happening again, whether in the same discussion or for the time of the block, and then hopefully afterward. I agree that he is a great editor (after having a good look through his contribs after my last incident with him), but I think that he has had enough warnings, chances and editors working with him to try and fix this issue. Perhaps this will encourage him to consider what he says before he hits the save button. I haven't made a comment on the other editors involved as I believe that they don't have the same history of incivility and personal attacks (excluding the blocks already in place). Please excuse is this if it isn't the sort of thing which isn't normally suggested (etc) here or if I've done it wrongly, but I hope that this rule might encouage him to think about what he writes before he hit's the save button. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the standard escalating blocks can just be followed (not in this case as no action is required); nothing else is required. I also think basing anything from this incident is a mistake. It also gives trolls a way to get Andy blocked; deliberately try his patience until he flares up and then get him blocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For me the word "zero tolerance" is always a spin/advertising term for "mindless action" and usually "mindless overreaction". Nothing personal, that is just my feeling in general. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• This is already the situation he's in. There is broad consensus above that his comments were grossly inappropriate. He's fortunate not to have been summarily blocked this time (the nature of the provocation being the sole mitigating factor). He's unlikely to get the benefit of the doubt if it happens again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It depends on who he is going to pick on next. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need any special new conditions, and we shouldn't be taking any action based on this incident due to its highly charged nature and the clear trolling that got Andy wound up in the first place. Andy knows the situation, and the best solution for this issue now is to just let it be. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary complication - normal blocks are sufficient Bulwersator (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember Meowy?

Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But Meowy had an editorial claim with at least some legitimacy, and while it's totally wonderful to see a bunch of editors going back and forth about the merits of "fuck off and die", I am not convinced that A. Meowy is nothing but a troll (a statement made quite easily above a couple of times) and B. that an editor who has been here for quite some time should be indef-blocked on the basis of one single dispute (where he was the only one to keep his cool, for crying out loud) and one other diff. So what if that last diff points out something that I find problematic also in Meowy's editing: it is clear that we have active editors here with fewer contributions to the project and a longer block log than Meowy, and such instant blocks are simply not warranted. For real--look at all the trouble some of us have to go through, collecting diffs and evidence to even make a case at ANI that someone is disruptive, and here is Meowy, who gets called a sack of shit (or whatever it was) and finds hisself blocked without a by-your-leave. This block should be overturned, and I have half a mind of throwing caution to the wind and unblock him myself.

But here is the deal: whoever wants Meowy indef-blocked should come with a convincing case. One-liners need not apply. Better yet, start an RfC/U--it is ridiculous that we would block someone indefinitely over one fight, with a push of the button, while we're spending hours discussing the possible punishment for the other two parties. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Jimbo would appear to agree with the block, judging by this comment. (I'm not putting that forward as an argument either way or suggesting he should have authority, but just presenting it as an opinion that people here might have missed.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, based on that one diff. I am pretty sure he hasn't looked into Meowy's full history here. Boing, I was a bit saddened to see you chiming in with the troll choir in such perfect harmony. I don't think Meowy is exactly our savior, and he may have a manner that some disagree with, but, to put it plain and simple, he is not a troll. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What I suggest we do is leave the matter of Meowy's block to the discussions on his talk page, where it already appears to be taking place - I don't intend to comment there or take any actions myself. (And I'd be very disappointed if I managed to go through life without ever disappointing anyone.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I suggest something else: there is a shit storm over the content of Meowy's character (as if we can gauge that accurately) with a large group of editors simply saying "yeah, troll". If Meowy places another unblock request, and I go to that talk page and grant it, then the shit storm is on me. We are at a stage where any unblock will have to get significant support from the community--not because of anything formal, but because of the drama fest here where too many people have judged too quickly (and where one admin pushed a button too quickly). If I or anyone else unblocks him from a request on his talk page, that's hardly wheel warring, but someone from the peanut gallery will call for that admin's head. An unblock request is one thing, but I am also convinced that the indef-block was wrong to begin with. Meowy's problem is that practically everyone hates him. Hell, I don't even think I like him--but I still recognize he got shafted here. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, fair enough, maybe a discussion/consensus on unblock might indeed be a better way forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Agree with Drmies here. And, for the record, unlike Drmies, I do know that I don't like Meowy, but that is insufficient cause for this level of response. Given Meowy's history, I think there is maybe some cause to think an unblock is unlikely without some form of restrictions. Than being the case, I have started a section below regarding what sort of sanctions, if any, the community might deem advisable before the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I spent a couple of hours looking at the case before declining his unblock request, and addressed his main points and tried to explain my reasoning. That said, the first edit I made as admin was to put the notice up on my user page that any admin may revert my actions without permission. I'm not going to get into a fight with you, Drmies, if you decide to unblock him, even if I disagree with it. You already that, so I suppose that statement was for everyone else. Unanimity is a rare thing here, so I'm not shocked if someone disagrees with my judgement. I've done what I think is the right thing here, but I recognize that I'm not the police or the judge, and just one more janitor. His request had sat for many hours untouched, so I felt I needed to address what others didn't seem to want to touch. Whether or not my opinion in the matter is majority or minority is meaningless, and I maintain my position in the matter regardless. If someone else comes to a different conclusion, it will not persuade me, nor will I labor the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)***
              • Dennis, I don't think anyone was necessarily impugning you in any way, and if Drmies by some remote chance was I want it known I would very definitely take issue with him in that regard. If nothing else, I think being willing to take on the task of being willing to take on such a contentious and heated matter at all says much more about you, as I have no doubt it was a couple of rather unpleasant hours you had to spend in the review. For myself, there is a slight issue about the blocking admin, primarily as a procedural matter. That, and the fact that I am maybe a bit more afraid to "throw the switch" on some editors than is probably good. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Dennis, I think you know me well enough by now to know that I'm not about to castigate you for disagreeing with me. His unblock request could or should have been written differently and it might have had a different result. By now he's taken back that offensive comment; that should change something, I think. And I stand by what I wrote (or maybe suggested) earlier--I would not unblock without some sort of consensus. Your responses on these boards and in these matters are usually cool and collected and tend to take a broader view than do some of the quick and easy comments here and elsewhere, and I have no quarrel with you. But I am with John Carter re:fear of throwing the switch. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
                  • Oh, I didn't take it as impugning at all and have taken no offense by anyone here, especially my friend Drmies. I just wanted to be clear that I don't draw a line in the sand when I make any admin action, and any admin is free to revert it if they find it in error, without fear of pissing me off. That is just how I am. The request had set for so long, a "hot potato" that no one seemingly wanted to address, so I obliged as I'm less inclined to avoid those situations. I'm not saying "no", I just said "not now" and genuinely felt that I had no choice in the review, as there is more that meets the eye here and declining wasn't an option, but rather the logical conclusion based on the evidence I saw. I am not alone in thinking that his overall actions at enwp often have a trollish nature to them. At this stage, I am open minded to his unblock, but unconvinced that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal

The issue itself has been dealt with, Andy knows the situation, and there is unlikely to be any consensus for action against him at this time and over this specific incident. So I propose we do nothing other than just stop fighting over the equine carcass, and go about our business. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we let Andy off this easily "Fuch off and die" is the same sentiment that Breivik had while he was killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choked on irony (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the remaining issue of Meowy's block is now being handled on their talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. The rest of the issues can be dealt with at the appropriate places as is currently happening. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:Fuck off and die should be created to inform editors when it is permissible to use this phrase.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's OK when the person told off in that way is generally disliked. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, nobody has suggested it is OK. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Bullshit. The entire tone and sentiment of last night's initial discussion of all this was to castigate Meowy for wanting to remove "is a terrorist" from the lead of the Breivik article. Scant attention was paid to the words of Andy and Ian, it was also about how dare Meowy be some sort of insensitive clod. Sweet christ, if ANI were real life, that thread would've resembled the end scene of Braveheart. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• support, per nominator.-- altetendekrabbe  15:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• oppose I like Andy, but given his on-going civility issues, this case can't be viewed as an aberration or a problem that isn't on-going. Not sure what the right action is (that's why you admins get the big bucks) but a one-week block isn't out-of-line. I'm neutral wrt Ian, but think a stern warning is at least appropriate there. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is not the venue. See RfC/U. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring and discretionary sanctions on Meowy

Don't know if this has been tried yet. Personally, given Meowy's use of his/her user talk page recently, I have no objections to the editor temporarily remaining under an indefinite ban, as it prevents similar harangues elsewhere, like articles and article talk pages. But I could, in some circumstances, see a possibility of allowing the editor to return to active editing under restrictions. Basically, I guess I am thinking of some combination of mentoring and discretionary sanctions, with the latter potentially including article or topic bans and/or mandatory editor review. Would some proposal of this basic type be acceptable to others? John Carter (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Do you see anything different between his contributions to Talk:Islam4UK#Extremist, over two years ago, and the current spat? Provocation followed by counter-accusations His interpretation of NPOV is so weird that you'd have to topic ban him (or her) from the entire Wikipedia. And he is no paragon of civility either, essentially calling someone scum [74] not so long ago. Apparently he is famous for wiki-lawyering as well, having been "topic" banned from WP:AE for that and not so long ago blocked for ignoring that restriction despite warning. [75]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Why? They have a huge block log, including a 1-year block, which was reset because of sockpuppetry, and, by their own admission, they have no interest in building an encyclopaedia. What does Wikipedia gain from this proposal? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think "why?" is the right question. People who believe in the project disagree all the time on how to improve it, and that's a good thing. Why do we need to keep around someone who disagrees with the very existence of the project? LadyofShalott 16:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I do think that the recent statement about how wikipedia is evil was, as a comment on Meowy's own user talk page, maybe something that could be seen as being "blowing off steam." I would agree it is a intentionally provocative, stupid, biased, irrational, nonsensical, and probably most importantly profoundly embarrassing for any person to make, but I also don't think this is the first time I've seen people make such comments in the heat of the moment. On that basis, I can and do think that, maybe, that comment might be perhaps given more weight than it might deserve. This is not to say that I think it might not be true, or that Meowy's history isn't seriously problematic, but I don't think it is really reasonable to take an inflammatory comment made under duress as inherently telling. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That Meowy wasn't indeffed before this is nothing short of a miracle; I certainly came close to it a couple times at AE threads (the last block prior to this one I literally block-conflicted with the administrator who imposed it; we both had exactly the same duration and rationale). I can't honestly say I care enough about the in-depth analysis of use of the phrase "fuck off and die" to enter the fracas, but given the long history of problems with Meowy I don't see any reason at all why Meowy should be unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:One alternative is a topic ban from articles related to extremism or conflicts broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Reconsidered, he recently was blocked for evading topic bans so it probably wouldn't be effective. IRWolfie- (talk)

• Meowy was not being constructive. Oh yes, he kept his cool alright, but he did so in a passive aggressive manner that infuriated two good editiors. This article was about a man who was convicted of terrorism, by any reasonable definition, he is then a terrorist. Whether or not it is a good idea to include "is a terrorist" sentence is a valid question, indeed my recent edit of the lead paragraph changed it. But calling the use of that term "POV-filled" is an absurd accusation, and removing all the mentions that Breivik committed terrorism or is a terrorist, like Meowy did, results in a clear breach of WP:UNDUE. Accusing people here of being "pumped-up with self-righteous indignation" is not conducive to constructive editing or dispute resolution. Given the lengthy block log of Meowy, I have no problem in viewing the incident here as the straw that broke the camel's back. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• A glance at the block log indicates an indef ban is in order. Keep the boomerang as a free gift. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Jimbo said it best: "realize that telling them to fuck off is not nearly as satisfying as maintaining a good sense of humor while making them fuck off (with a permanent ban). We have better things to do!" Tijfo098 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think I have already made my point in the blocking rationale but I'd like to mention that with Meowy's history of conduct, i.e. sockpuppetry, evasion of topic bans, I don't see any probability for a sudden change. Otherwise I would have opted for a temporal block. De728631 (talk)

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

User:SinghIsKing123

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

---

SinghIsKing123 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly ignoring basic editing guidelines including removal of valid citation tags and re-adding spam. He/she will not enter into discussion on article talk page or user page. Final warning given. Thank you Span (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave him a cease and desist notice. If he actually starts to communicate, hopefully people can give further guidance. If he ignores it again, let me know. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Link spamming user

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

---

Doctor Lionel (talk · contribs) has been warned, but continues to link spam [www.technofix.org] into multiple articles. He has also spammed this book ref into various articles: Huesemann, M.H., and J.A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada. His only activity appears to be link spamming, and he has spamed those links into perhaps 50 articles, even after he has been warned about it twice on his talk page. There has been no acknowledgement or response from him about those warnings. I think a short block is appropriate, in order to stop the disruption and help him understand that this is not appropriate. LK (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked. He can be unblocked when he confirms that he understands the problem and will not repeat the behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

National Association of State Treasurers

I have noticed that the National Association of State Treasurers article has recently been edited by User:NAST Acct. whose UserName appears to imply a connection to the subject of that article. Any assistance you can provide in contacting the user and reviewing the edits in question in order to ensure compliance with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted their addition because it was a direct copy of http://www.nast.net/about.htm GB fan 20:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

IP editing against consensus on baseball articles

207.165.87.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been updating the statistics of baseball closers on their respective pages. The only problem is, s/he is not conforming to a rule that player's stats are only considered valid to the day on which he last played. In each of 207's edits, s/he is not abiding by this rule, instead substituting the day on which s/he edited. For instance, in this edit, the date of edit was August 18 but it should have said that Chapman's stats were accurate as of August 17. This makes the user's edits — every single one of them — technically incorrect.

User:AutomaticStrikeout and myself have warned 207 four times (see talk), but the IP has not left a single reply or even an edit summary. The only choices this leaves other editors are Wikihounding or taking the issue here. It's unfortunate to bring up something so apparently minor, but I think there needs to be a way to maintain consensus when an editor willfully ignores it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was the first to raise this concern on the IP talk page, with no response. It's a shame it went this far, but this could easily have been avoided if the IP had heeded what s/he was told. Stats updates should be dated to the previous day, as the information will not correctly reflect any games played on the current day. AutomaticStrikeout 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What's your end state? Supposing that the user doesn't conform to standards? Go Phightins! (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what your question is, but if you are asking what the desirable outcome is, it is that the IP start changing the date properly. AutomaticStrikeout 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked until they respond to comments. Any admin can unblock as soon as they begin to discuss. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. If it were one article, semi-protection would have been sufficient. With many articles affected, the user has to be dealt with more directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

70.171.186.83 (talk · contribs) might be related. They're both in the Omaha / Council Bluffs area. I don't know if 70 is living within the date guidelines or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They weren't doing the date correctly. However, I left them a note so let's hope they see it. AutomaticStrikeout 00:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This satisfies me for now. Obviously, like AutomaticStrikeout said, we want the IP to edit constructively rather than not edit at all. Hopefully this gets his/her attention that communication is needed. I think it's safe to close this discussion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone restore an article please?

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 19 could someone please undelete every revision except for the copy-vio of Samantha Brick please? You can leave it at the redirect if you like for now, but I wanna start writing using whatever is there, and also thik having the history there would be nice. Egg Centric 23:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I haven't done one before, but either I did it more or less correct, or I screwed it all up, but I think it is close enough, without the copyvio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

User:Annatto posted on my talk page out of the blue about a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me. I checked his contributions and this user hasn't edited since April 2012, and after that, about a whole year without editing. He also seems to have cleared a lot of his userpage as well. I'm not sure if this account is compromised, but it seems like it might be. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting that this account does not have any additional userrights (admin, rollback, etc.). --Rschen7754 19:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me" - it's clearly a (belated) response to this thread. Although I agree resuming the debate after a two-year hiatus is peculiar. Mogism (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And I note that it was only after opening this thread and notifying the user of it [76] that you went back and tried just asking them, posting it above the ANI notice as though it had come first [77] despite the obvious discrepancy on the timestamps. I assume that means you realize maybe you should jave tried that first and we don't really need an ANI thread about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So do you think his account is compromised, or was it just a very late reply assuming that he checked Wikipedia but didn't edit? You can archive this section, but maybe a CheckUser could confirm. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth. Just returned after a lengthy WikiBreak. The first thing I did was check on "old business" to see if their were any dangling conversations. Then I eased back into it. I think it would take time to compare writing styles and edit histories and that unless anything untoward happens welcome the prodigal home. Dlohcierekim 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea it was a dangling convo which confused me a bit. Annatto replied - his account isn't compromised. This can be archived now, thanks. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

78.148.101.209

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

---

78.148.101.209 (talk · contribs) What's up with this IP farm's activity? Looks like he's trying to hide connections to a sockmaster Grace Saunders (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been on this a long time. Grace Saunders is a well known situation that flares up once in a while. This IP edited back in May, so there's nothing to do right now. The Grace Saunders case is a very minor annoyance, pay it no mind. --Jayron32 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, wrong IP. It's 78.148.96.190 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That's today. I'll get on that presently. --Jayron32 20:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest IP, it looks like several other admins have been rolling back the edits (I rolled back some too), so I think this is taken care of. I have also left a friendly note advising them to contact BASC regarding the initial block. As an aside, they may have a point on their real name being used. However, the proper channel is to contact WP:BASC and request that the account be renamed per WP:RTV, not to go on these sprees every few months. This person has, in the past, been advised of this exact thing many times, so I am not sure one more reminder of the proper way to handle this is going to work, but I told them to contact WP:BASC yet again, in the hopes that this time, maybe, just maybe, they will listen. I'm going AFK for a while, so someone may want to keep an eye on this besides me, but as of right now, it looks like this is resolved. --Jayron32 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rasmussen Reports

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

---

Hello, I apologize in advance if I'm posting in the wrong place or using the wrong procedure. I would like to challenge a (non-deletion, non-moving) closure of this Talk page discussion, which I believe was premature and capricious. The Help Desk recommended that I post here.

Following the closure, I asked the closing administrator why he/she closed and my understanding is he/she believed that consensus was reached. In response I explained that I thought there was no consensus because one of the editors who disagreed with me was uncivil from the start, another one never raised any arguments at all, and a third made valid arguments and I thought we were making progress. I also pointed out that the article is relatively quiet and the discussion had only been open for 8 days. The administrator's reaction was disappointing; rather than explaining why consensus was in fact reached he/she questioned my motives. This discussion can be found here.

I very much appreciate the administrator's contributions to Wikipedia, but in this particular case I feel that my perspective to improve the article was silenced by a very uncivil editor and a capricious administrative decision. I don't understand why an administrator would question my motives (in apparent violation of WP:AGF). I always thought that we all come to Wikipedia with our own motives and as long as we abided by the policies and guidelines our views were all welcome. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You seem to have neglected to inform me you were posting this. On the other hand I have nothing to add beyond what I already said on my talk page. Was there some problem with my advice to seek WP:DR? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an AN/I matter, this is a matter for WP:DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

nuisance fake quote with personal attack

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

---

An IP editor 24.170.192.254 has been adding a fake quote to the Continental Congress article. The post is full of grammar mistakes. It's an important topic about the Founding Fathers but the quote is wholly fake, It appears nowhere in any RS and is not in the fake cites that he provides. What is annoying is he is now making nasty personal attacks on me on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=cur#Why_are_you_not_getting_this_impossibly_simple_task.3F He also says " I've enlisted a few of my friends in continually repairing the information on this page that you've omitted. Feel free to condescend them and mock history. It's nothing personal on my end, therefore I feel it a duty to continue this concerted effort to salvage the dignity that you've cost this historical record." Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Troll blocked for 31 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You forgot to put a block notice on the IP's talk page. Here's your {{trout}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

User:Nasir_Ghobar, is removing information without any reason on Ranjit Singh. No other user has agreed with this user in discussion on Talk:Ranjit Singh. I added information as per the discussion. Still, This user removing work of other users without any valid reasons. difference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranjit_Singh&diff=509681175&oldid=509657554 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman244 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Theman244 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is really not an ANI issue. This need to be taken to WP:DRN for a discussion. We try to not debate content disputes at ANI, which is for "incidents" that require immediate admin intervention, not content discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible compromised account

User:Annatto posted on my talk page out of the blue about a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me. I checked his contributions and this user hasn't edited since April 2012, and after that, about a whole year without editing. He also seems to have cleared a lot of his userpage as well. I'm not sure if this account is compromised, but it seems like it might be. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting that this account does not have any additional userrights (admin, rollback, etc.). --Rschen7754 19:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me" - it's clearly a (belated) response to this thread. Although I agree resuming the debate after a two-year hiatus is peculiar. Mogism (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And I note that it was only after opening this thread and notifying the user of it [78] that you went back and tried just asking them, posting it above the ANI notice as though it had come first [79] despite the obvious discrepancy on the timestamps. I assume that means you realize maybe you should jave tried that first and we don't really need an ANI thread about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So do you think his account is compromised, or was it just a very late reply assuming that he checked Wikipedia but didn't edit? You can archive this section, but maybe a CheckUser could confirm. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth. Just returned after a lengthy WikiBreak. The first thing I did was check on "old business" to see if their were any dangling conversations. Then I eased back into it. I think it would take time to compare writing styles and edit histories and that unless anything untoward happens welcome the prodigal home. Dlohcierekim 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea it was a dangling convo which confused me a bit. Annatto replied - his account isn't compromised. This can be archived now, thanks. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

78.148.101.209

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

---

78.148.101.209 (talk · contribs) What's up with this IP farm's activity? Looks like he's trying to hide connections to a sockmaster Grace Saunders (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been on this a long time. Grace Saunders is a well known situation that flares up once in a while. This IP edited back in May, so there's nothing to do right now. The Grace Saunders case is a very minor annoyance, pay it no mind. --Jayron32 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, wrong IP. It's 78.148.96.190 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That's today. I'll get on that presently. --Jayron32 20:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest IP, it looks like several other admins have been rolling back the edits (I rolled back some too), so I think this is taken care of. I have also left a friendly note advising them to contact BASC regarding the initial block. As an aside, they may have a point on their real name being used. However, the proper channel is to contact WP:BASC and request that the account be renamed per WP:RTV, not to go on these sprees every few months. This person has, in the past, been advised of this exact thing many times, so I am not sure one more reminder of the proper way to handle this is going to work, but I told them to contact WP:BASC yet again, in the hopes that this time, maybe, just maybe, they will listen. I'm going AFK for a while, so someone may want to keep an eye on this besides me, but as of right now, it looks like this is resolved. --Jayron32 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rasmussen Reports

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

---

Hello, I apologize in advance if I'm posting in the wrong place or using the wrong procedure. I would like to challenge a (non-deletion, non-moving) closure of this Talk page discussion, which I believe was premature and capricious. The Help Desk recommended that I post here.

Following the closure, I asked the closing administrator why he/she closed and my understanding is he/she believed that consensus was reached. In response I explained that I thought there was no consensus because one of the editors who disagreed with me was uncivil from the start, another one never raised any arguments at all, and a third made valid arguments and I thought we were making progress. I also pointed out that the article is relatively quiet and the discussion had only been open for 8 days. The administrator's reaction was disappointing; rather than explaining why consensus was in fact reached he/she questioned my motives. This discussion can be found here.

I very much appreciate the administrator's contributions to Wikipedia, but in this particular case I feel that my perspective to improve the article was silenced by a very uncivil editor and a capricious administrative decision. I don't understand why an administrator would question my motives (in apparent violation of WP:AGF). I always thought that we all come to Wikipedia with our own motives and as long as we abided by the policies and guidelines our views were all welcome. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You seem to have neglected to inform me you were posting this. On the other hand I have nothing to add beyond what I already said on my talk page. Was there some problem with my advice to seek WP:DR? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an AN/I matter, this is a matter for WP:DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

nuisance fake quote with personal attack

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

---

An IP editor 24.170.192.254 has been adding a fake quote to the Continental Congress article. The post is full of grammar mistakes. It's an important topic about the Founding Fathers but the quote is wholly fake, It appears nowhere in any RS and is not in the fake cites that he provides. What is annoying is he is now making nasty personal attacks on me on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=cur#Why_are_you_not_getting_this_impossibly_simple_task.3F He also says " I've enlisted a few of my friends in continually repairing the information on this page that you've omitted. Feel free to condescend them and mock history. It's nothing personal on my end, therefore I feel it a duty to continue this concerted effort to salvage the dignity that you've cost this historical record." Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Troll blocked for 31 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You forgot to put a block notice on the IP's talk page. Here's your {{trout}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

User:Nasir_Ghobar, is removing information without any reason on Ranjit Singh. No other user has agreed with this user in discussion on Talk:Ranjit Singh. I added information as per the discussion. Still, This user removing work of other users without any valid reasons. difference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranjit_Singh&diff=509681175&oldid=509657554 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman244 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Theman244 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is really not an ANI issue. This need to be taken to WP:DRN for a discussion. We try to not debate content disputes at ANI, which is for "incidents" that require immediate admin intervention, not content discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Eastern European matters

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

---

I'd like for another admin to look at Momčilo Đujić. I warned the IP for edit-warring before it occurred to me to check for one of the general sanctions--it might fall under Eastern Europe or Macedonia. BTW, I am a [fill in nationality/ethnicity/religious preference] and you can't wrong me on this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the editing dispute, but this article definitely falls within the subject-matters covered by ArbCom-directed discretionary sanctions from the various Balkans and Eastern Europe cases, if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• This would definitely fall under the category of Macedonia's discretionary sanctions; given how the motion amending that case passed in conjunction with those of Eastern Europe, it can be deduced that the former's amendment was introduced so as not to confuse people over whether the Balkan region would fall within EE's article range. A cursory review of the IP's contributions leaves little doubt that this user is a POV pusher (to call a spade a spade). I would recommend a block of no less than 48 hours for continued disruption, and possibly a ban from Serbia-related articles if tendentious editing persists beyond that. Kurtis (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has reverted four times on 27 August at Momčilo Đujić, so he may be eligible for a 3RR block. 48 hours would be reasonable. A warning under WP:ARBMAC appears logical also. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• • As an aside, how much longer before we expand those discretionary sanctions to include "The Earth, broadly construed"...--Jayron32 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • • Not all the Earth, just those parts of it where people are more interested in propagandizing their own views than they are in the neutral propagation of knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, so that leaves Antarctica. Such an optimist you are, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Antarctica is very civil. They always be chillin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Ooof! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I counted 1 edit then 3 reverts (the last was a two parter, but still one revert). I left them a personalized final warning on their talk page. As for 24 hours or not, if they revert again without using the talk page any time soon I would be inclined to block simply for warring. Hopefully my final warning was clear enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, this is why people think Wikipedia is nothing but a totalitarian regime. I am Serb and I know well that Momčilo Đujić NEVER collaborated with the Nazi's. Would you really block me from this? Go ahead. It just proves that you are all crazy over what's true. I'm sick and tired of all this consensus/blocking/admins/etc. who are actually giving Wikipedia a very bad name. Chetniks never sided with Nazi's. Big lie from Tito. It was a lie demonstrated to put Draža under the value of Treason. Once you block me, it will be the last time I will ever edit Wikipedia. Goodbye (If you blocked me, no matter how long!). 142.197.8.220 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you, personally know to be The Truth, Wikipedia can only include what is verifiable through reliable sources. If all reliable sources state that X did Y, Wikipeida's article on X must say they did Y, even if it's "known well" that they actually did Z - Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. | Alright, if that is how you roll, bid yourself good day. Wikipedia will forever, in my book, be a large lie and hypocrisy. You don't have any sources for the Serbian legend bowing down to stupid fascists. 142.197.8.220 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to delete your artwork. I'm not sorry I blocked you, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Where's the edit filter when you need it? WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Second opinion on Shrike's indef block

OhanaUnited just indefed user:Shrike based on this discussion. Could some other admins look into this? There doesn't seem to be anything near a consensus he should be blocked at all, not to mention indef. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just spent some time reviewing this. After looking over the discussion, the prior discussion [80] and the closing admins lengthy rationale, I don't see the consensus for a block in the discussion. It doesn't look like the closing administrator's assessment amounts to a good summation of the viewpoints of the discussion, instead it looks like the admin in question is merely giving his own singular viewpoint. In light of that, it looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a proper summation of the existing consensus. It would have been better, instead of closing the discussion and acting on it, if the OhanaUnited had just presented their perspective and let another admin, who didn't have an opinion one way or the other, close the discussion. The rationale expressed in the closing does not seem to match what the preponderance of editors expressed, and for that reason, and without finding fault or wishing any retribution or sanctions, I would urge OhanaUnited to consider undoing their action and letting a different admin act on the discussion instead. --Jayron32 19:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont see anybody even suggesting an indef block. The only request that seemed reasonable to me was for Shrike to not directly edit articles and instead ask users with a stronger grasp of the language to improve on suggested edits on a talk page. nableezy - 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NMNG's request for additional opinions. OhanaUnited's rationale for an indef block rests largely on Shrike's language competency. Shrike's grammar is somewhat lacking, but I feel able to communicate with him on technical subjects without issue. As an example, here's a brief correspondence where Shrike made a request of me, I asked a clarifying question and he responded in a way that helped me understand what he was looking for. The grammar wasn't perfect but I could understand him perfectly. There are plenty of non-native speakers who struggle with grammatical nuances but are still able to work as professionals. I think that holding editors to a standard where they have to have perfect grammar would make it tremendously difficult for us to achieve our goals of expanding our editor base. GabrielF (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I also dont think we should be demanding flawless grammar from contributors, but some the things that Shrike puts in articles (mostly in highly controversial ones) are incomprehensible. The same goes for some of his talk page arguments. That said, the concern in that thread was the damage that Shrike has done and could potentially continue to do to article space, which by itself is not grounds for a total block. nableezy - 19:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a little thing to clarify, my opinion on OhanaUnited's action is not based on whether or not I think (peronally) Shrike should have been blocked or not; since for this discussion, that is irrelevent. In assessing whether OhanaUnited acted correctly, I only tried to figure out if his rationale for closing the discussion was a reasonabl assessment of that discussion. It wasn't, so it was incorrectly closed. It really has nothing to do with the merits of the argument or what Shrike did. He may or may not have committed actions which merit a block, or maybe not, but the only issue here is whether or not there was a consensus to block. There wasn't, ergo he shouldn't have been. --Jayron32 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the above comments, an indef really seems to be going overboard here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the above thread, Shrike agreed to consult with other editors before adding material to articles despite his edits being of an understandable nature. He acknowledged his shortcomings and sought to remedy it and it is inaccurate to state that he failed to drop the stick when he voluntarily accepted this imposition. And more importantly, there does not appear to have been a consensus to enforce any ban, let alone one of the scope enforced.Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, uz Englesh speekers natev skwew up enuff that we can excuz Shrike if he admits that maybe his command of the language could use improvement. I also think that the discussion didn't seem to indicate a consensus for such an action. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is what what was proposed, and the degree of consensus:

• it may be in the best interests of Wikipedia to prevent Shrike from editing articles.

• Through a block? - (Bali ultimate, possibly AndyTheGrump)
• Through specific topic ban - (Saddhiyama)
• Through recommendation not to edit articles directly? (nableez)
• Through recommendation to edit less controversial articles / be more selective with edits? (Mark Arsten, Jprg1966)
• Denied 1RR right (Nishidani)
• No admin action needed (Georgewilliamherbert, GabrielF, Activism1234, SlimVirgin)
• There were several other editors who expressed that editing in understandable English is an important part of WP:CIR, but did not have a specific recommendation in this case: Peacemaker67, Beyond My Ken, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Black Kite

To me, this doesn't at all represent anything remotely close to a consensus for indefinite block, and will need to be reexamined. The closing admin may believe indef block was the best solution to a problem some editors expressed, but it was not one agreed upon by the majority of participants. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NMMNG that there was no consensus in the discussion for any block. Whatever Shrike's shortcomings regarding article space, he or she is very helpful on talk pages, even on contentious ones (The one I have the most experience with regarding Shrike is Talk:The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam). I don't see grounds for an indefinite block and think that this needs to be reconsidered.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an aside, no one had notified OhanaUnited about this discussion, usually something that is the OPs responsibility. I have since done so. --Jayron32 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)
• Yep, there was nothing remotely close to a consensus for that block - I would urge the blocking admin to revert it, undo the close of that section, and let someone else judge the consensus and do the close. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've fixed worse. I don't even agree to a ban on editing in article space, as long as Shrike knows his limitations when inserting new content. His English might be off, but it's perfectly understandable and can be reworded with little effort by copyeditors. He freely acknowledges that he speaks English as a second language, and he contributes positively overall given his work at WP:RX. This problem seems to stem from his edits to controversial articles, which is only tangentially related to his fluency in English. That was not the complaint filed against him and not the issue discussed by the editors who responded. The indef is unwarranted. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree that there was no consensus for the block, and urge that Shrike be unblocked, per above comments (which seem to all agree). --Activism1234 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• As noted above, I participated in the previous discussion, and, despite opining that writing in understandable English was important for the project, I saw nothing in the overall conversation which could even remotely be seen as consensus for a block. Shrike should be unblocked, and OhanaUnited trouted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also opined that there was an issue with CIR with Shrike's editing, but given Shrike's responses and the general consensus, I also agree that there was no consensus for a block. Shrike should be unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I was somewhat involved in the previous discussion and do not recall talk of indeffing at all. Shrike was not warm and fuzzy in the discussion, but he was on-topic and tried to be responsive. This should be undone. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked him. No disrespect to Onaha, but there was not a consensus that blocking was the appropriate response and there is clearly substantial, actually so far unanimous, objection to indef blocking as the response to this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the close didn't fit the consensus of the discussion. I do wonder whether AN/I was the best place to go in the first place. Would not RFC/U be a better place to discuss each of the issues under separate headings and consider a range of options for any of those issues which lots of people consider a problem?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Beeblebrox have reverted my actions, I'm going to keep this brief. Competence is one but not the only part of the puzzle. For starters, a year ago, Shrike was topic banned 3 months and blocked for a week as part of Arbitration Enforcement.[81] Others, such as User:Volunteer Marek mentioned last time [82], felt that editing in controversial areas compounded the competence problem. Then there was the proposed topic ban that Shrike initiated against an editor which boomeranged[83] (yet no admin was brave enough in those 3 days to enact a boomerang topic ban on Shrike when there was a community consensus to do so). The next part in my consideration is how long have the community given him second/third/fourth/... chances. Concerns about his POV-pushing were raised as early as July 2007 and further confirmed in February 2011's Arbitration Enforcement block. Clearly Shrike didn't get that warning message and continued by shifting to other similar topics, landing himself in hot water as the subject of ANI at least 4 times this year (April, May, July, and this month). Next, how long would you give an editor while he works on his competence? A topic ban is not sufficient enough given Shrike's history, which would simply mean Shrike moved on to other areas and damage those parts of the community. A short term block (a week to a month) hardly produces any measurable result because an individual simply can't grasp competence in that short period of time. While bits and pieces alone are not grounds for long term blocks, when you put everything together then it becomes a problem. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you need to start a ban discussion and lay out your case that a long-term ban is appropriate. It may very well be (or maybe not, I make no judgement one way or the other), but by enacting a long term block as part of closing a discussion where almost no-one wanted it, it looked a bit odd and confused people. If you think the bredth of Shrike's history merits a block, then start such a discussion. You may be able to make such a case (or could have had you not jumped the gun), but the manner in which it was enacted didn't appear to have the consensus of the community. It would have gone better had you sought and received that consensus first. --Jayron32 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And another POV warrior (with poor English skill on top) will march on unabated for years to come... Tijfo098 (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me well knows I am usually the first one in line to advocate removing users with serious competence problems. However, whether Shrike is such a user or not has nothing at all to do with my reversal of Onaha's block. There was a discussion, the community did not agree that blocking was the appropriate response, and a follow-up discussion clearly demonstrated that the block was not supported by consensus. If Onaha had done this on their own independent of a community discussion I doubt I would have reversed it, but this block did not happen in a vacuum. It happened as a response to discussion right here on this page, and there was a clear rapid consensus that indefinite blocking did not accurately reflect the result of that discussion. In no way does that mean that Shrike is a perfect user who is beyond reproach, in fact when informing them they were unblocked I also suggested that they agree to an editing restriction of some sort. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly a procedure or policy wonk, but this episode shows why it is sometimes very important to do things by the book, especially if you want them to stick. My objection (indeed, the objections of many) is not that Shrike did not commit actions that merit a block. I did not consider that one way or another; rather it was merely to assess if the block reflected community consensus or did not. In this case, it did not. If a block of any long-time user is necessary, it is likely to be contentious and for that reason consensus before blocking always works better than after blocking. It is often said that asking forgiveness is easier than asking permission, but in cases like this, the converse is true: it only goes well when the consensus for the block is obtained before enacting it. When the community has not acented to blocking a long-term user (or, as in this case, where the community has openly been opposed to the idea, because of the specific set of events surrounding the block request), it isn't going to end well. --Jayron32 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, coz Wikipedia desperately needs another editor to make hundreds of edits on the topics of dhimmitude and Eurabia, including their chief proponents, especially edits which often enough don't reflect the sources adequately (AGF'd to be caused by the lack of language skills of the editor). Also I fear the WP:AE 1RR game is running short of ARBPIA battlestars. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can drop the stick anytime, Tijfo. I think the matter is settled here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:JimWHall

Troll-B-Gon. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This new user is probably an SPA. His edits speak for themselves. I've no idea how he found my talk page, so I suspect he isn't a new editor. Can an admin please tell him to knock it off.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC) He also left a troll-like at post User:Geraldshields11 talk page  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Harrassing me now at IRC: 23:11 <JimHall> dude do not fuck with me 23:12 <JimHall> you may not be in the channel but I'll let lionel know. 23:16 <JimHall> seriously dude I got orders from lionel you do too do NOT fuck with me   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I'm scared. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) OK, he's been blocked (again). Back to work everybody. Belchfire-TALK 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:JamesTheHallster aka User:JimWHall The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Again, another SPA account by SkepticAnonymous which his recent JimWHall account was blocked. See [84] ViriiK (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, I see that he was blocked prior to my report. Close please. ViriiK (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat

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

---

Here, from an account that only exists to promote his book. If no one else thinks his statement could be read as a legal threat, the other stuff isn't exactly great. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:121.222.50.86 - edit warring and blatant violation of NPOV

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

---

Previous version of the page before the edits - [85]

• 1 - launches a biased tirade against a religion's holy text on the article Talmud. clearly violates NPOV.
• 2 - after it's reverted by an editor, he puts it back in.
• 3 - After I revert it, he puts it back in, claiming we're whitewashing it, and he/she is being neutral!!

Please also note his blatant violation of WP:NPOV by writing in an edit summary that the country called Israel does not actually exist. See this diff.

Please further note his harassment of the talk page of people who revert him and maintain neutrality on the article about a religion's holy text ([86] and [87]

Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy for racism, edit warring, and explicit bias on articles. I don't even know if a 24 hour ban is good enough.

Please also note that the editor was warned here about this, yet persisted in putting the tirade against a holy text in the article.

--Activism1234 06:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply supplying facts is not biased, quoting from the holy text itself is not biased, on the contrary, hiding such facts is not neutral or unbiased; further ...hiding such facts, given the facts, amounts to a complicty in the advocation of pedophilia, murder and deception. Shame on wikipedia for also becoming complicit in such a 'tirade' to advocate child-rape. This is not a light-hearted matter, the people orchestrating this tirade are sick in their need to hide and there-by support such a view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.86 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you simply copied text from probably an online website that fabricated or misquoted it, as is very common, called the holy text itself "racist," edit warred over this despite reverts and warnings by multiple editors, and then subsequently denied the existence of a legitimate country, while pretending that you're not biased... I imagine similar things go over on articles like Qu'ran by similar editors who will try to pull the same garbage. --Activism1234 07:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

121.222., go to the talkpage and discuss the matter, if you keep reverting you'll be blocked for edit-warring. Nothing more to see here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, there's nothing more to see here? This is edit warring to insert racist, unreferenced, fabricated material to attack a religion's holy text by an editor who has denied the existence of a country after being warned and reverted by multiple editors against this behavior... I'm beyond shocked if such behavior wouldn't get sanctioned. --Activism1234 07:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's here to sanction behavior, blocks are not to be punitive, and we're not raising other people's kids. The IP has now been warned and will be blocked if s/he continues. That's it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the only defense for the indefensible writings of the talmud is to claim that true quotes are in-fact "fabrications", however the translator and esteemed theologian Martin Luther found the talmud to be as I quoted and described it as essentially racist and violent. "Blocks/Sanctioning "behaviour" (trying to frame objective analysis as a "behaviour" while somehow justifying child-rape (these people are disgusting, aren't they...) Well that's how censorship works, intellectual insignificants find that the only way they can make their implausible notions heard is to censor plausible and legitimate criticism. It also helps that the status quo, which wikipedia is maintained by, is generally dumb, racist and violent ...as with the "editors" who censored my truthful quotes and descriptions. They are so pathetic that they count it as a win that I have been blocked and censored, rather than being able to win ad rem; that is with plausibe debate and reason. Congratulations are in-order for their miserable stupidity. Congratulations half-wits, you deserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.86 (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk yourself into your hole, why don't you... Resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edit by Kurdo777 and Lysozym

Just a few days ago (23-24 Aug. 2012) I introduced some material to Tarkhan from this source. But there was a problem: copy rights violation. In short: I did some copypast edits from the source given above. After the edit-war with Lysozym I admited that it was not right. I tried to improve it, but it was still not good enough. Now I have shorten the text by ca. 50% and changed the structure of the sentences completely, but now a User called Kurdo777 (not even knowing what he is reverting about) thought up a really absurd revert-reason by accusing me of using unreliable sources and making fringe theories. I want to let you know that this source is in fact a completely reliable source, since nobody had a problem with its reliability until now. After the last edit of Lysosym I clearly can declare him being a falsifier, beause his last edit was deforming the content in a very destructive degree. May somebody can check up my edit and verify it? --Greczia (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, User:Greczia has been misusing and misquoting sources on various pages to push nationalist fringe theories. In one obvious case, he actually falsified a source, as documented here: Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Misqouting_sources_to_inflate_population_numbers. Similarly, he's being trying to use questionable fringe sources in other places, like citing Amanjolov who is a Pan-Turkist fringe theorist [88] who claims, and I quote, that the Sumerians were Turks[89]: "The above "Sumer"-Türkic matches, as we tried to demonstrate, form a certain system, explainable from the positions of historical phonetics of the Türkic languages. The cardinal phonetical laws of the Türkic languages, because of these matches, display an extremely complex development panorama from proto-Türkic language or a language condition (Sumerian written monuments from the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, excluding the monuments of the dead Sumerian language, a sacred language of Babilonian and Assyrian Semites down to present), via the ancient Türkic dialects, to the modern Türkic languages. The systematic character of the most ancient Sumerian coincidences allows to posit that a part of proto-Türks of the Central Asia migrated to Mesopotamia 31, settled there, and materially affected the language and accordingly the graphic logograms of proto-Sumerian written monuments." As you can see, the writer is basically claiming that Turks resided in the Middle East as Sumerians...which is anything but mainstream academic position on the Sumerians. Unfortunately, the user has been using lots of fringe sources like that in various places. He has also been engaged in other questionable practices, like dumping/copy/pasting of sourced texts, and also changing/tempering with sources by adding or omitting a word, that completely changes their meanings, as documented here: Talk:Tarkhan#Deletion_of_big_parts It is the same on Azerbaijani people, he quotes an ethnic Azeri-Turkish nationalist making the claim that more than half of Iran are Azeri-Turkish. Whereas the CIA factbook has 18%, ethnologue has 11.2 million for Azeris and Encyclopaedia Iranica has 16%. I have requested from him to stop using fringe sources and follow WP:RS, but he just refuses to follow policy. He finds random non-expert sources on the web (Here is another example of WP:fringe by this user, caught by a knowledgeable administrator: Talk:Tat_language_(Caucasus)#Farrokh) to push an ethnic-nationalist agenda on various pages. Unfortunately, the user simply refuses to follow WP:RS, WP:fringe and WP:Undue and is WP:NOTHERE to build an Encyclopedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that I am a German and you are telling fairy tales about me to cast a damning light on me, the incident is about TARKHAN. And please don't talk about irrelevant topics in a childish way. It would just negate you. Good Morning. --Greczia (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Once you raise a complaint about other editors, expect your own behavior to be discussed also, and not just the incident you bring up. You are also meant to inform the editors you are complaining about, which you didn't do. I've just notified Lysozym about this discussion. "Telling fairytales" is a euphemism for 'lying' and it's a bad idea to accuse people of lying. I agree that you seem to have problems with sources and with WP:UNDE and WP:FRINGE. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My boomerang sense is tingling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Greczia is not only using unreliable sources (as per WP:RS), but he is also actively changing - i. e. falsifying - the content in order to make it more suitable for his own POV. For example, as I have mentioned on the respective talkpage, he copied larger parts from this source without explicitely mentioning that it was copied and then he added certain words, such as "Sogdian", to it, even though that word does not appear in the original text. That way, he makes the reader believe that this particular source is somehow comparing this or that language with Sogdian, eventhough that's not true. That is a violation of copy rights, of WP:RS and of WP:OR and that's why I have removed all of it from the article. As for the number of Azeris: the claims put forward by Greczia are bogus and contradict most reliable sources. As for his claim that he is German: no, he is not. He is a Turk living in Germany. His Pan-Turkist and partially pseudo-scientific nonsense claims are notorious in the German Wikipedia. That's why he was banned: for posting poorly sourced pseudo-scientific fringe theories as well as sockpuppetry after his ban. See http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer:Greczia. --Lysozym (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I am using reliable sources. Of course, sources which do not work for your Pan-Persian ideal/agenda are labeled by you as "unreliable" and "fringe".

2. You are falsifying and misinterpreting sources. (see: Sogdian, Hunnic and Xiongnu examples on Tarkhan article) You are simply underplaying in the most highest degree an Altaic/Turkic etymology for Tarkhan.

3. I was banned from the German Wikipedia, because I was new and unexperienced against your Iranization agenda on Turkic articles in German and English Wikipedia. One of the involved admins (Otberg) admit it.

4. About the number of Azeris... I cite from the talk page: "The book is obviously a reliable source. It is a fact that Azeri nationalists estimate the number at up to 35 million, and that official estimates are more inline with 14 million. That is exactly what the source says. This is just an attempt to censor the article by excluding perfectly good sources. It is not our job to select between bias nationalist sources and official ones when they contradict each other. We should be presenting both viewpoints. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"

So far about your keen and unsubstantial accusations.

5. I AM still a German. So hard to accept it? Doesn't it fit in to your chauvinistic mind? --Greczia (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

6. A recent example for your chauvinistic behaviour: Deletion of reliable sourced material: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greczia (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's "deletion of sourced material", huh?! Why don't you show us the exact quote and prove to us that the book is reliable. Since now you also seem to have become an expert on the Tarim mummies. --Lysozym (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material. DOT. Why are trying to find such childish excuses for such a clear POV-deletion? With such edits you are just confirming what I've said. --Greczia (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"István Vásáry (2005) Cumans and Tatars, Cambridge University Press" - so that's a properly cited and reliable source in your opinion, huh?! --Lysozym (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way: the book is actually called Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365. So how is such a book supposed to be a good source for the Tarim mummies?! --Lysozym (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 6 says "The Cumans must have lived to the east of the large bend of the Huanghe, in the vicinity of other Nestorian peoples such as, for example, the originally Turkic Öngüts." Linking this to the Tarim mummies is pure synthesis; removal was warranted. Kanguole 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kanguole. Remembering Lysozym to do the research before deletion would be nice. --Greczia (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have been even better if you had done the prior reading and then not added that synthesis at all. You inserted a wild claim with a vaguely specified source, so that anyone checking it would have to hunt for the book and then for the page. You do that a lot. I can understand why people remove such material on sight. Kanguole 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That section was obvious WP:OR and the citation was poorly, simply the same of a book and not the way it is supposed to be. The removal was fully justified. You, on your part, should not revert blindly and accuse others of doing wrong. Read WP:POINT. It is you who needs to do research. It is not the duty of readers to prove that a certain source is not correct. It is the duty of the author to prove that his sources are reliable and appropriate! --Lysozym (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So far agreed. --Greczia (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Protections by EncycloPetey

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

---

section heading redacted. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy, who calls himself an admin, has obvious problems to convert letters and symbols into any meaning in his head, nevermind check them where he should. He was reverting my IPA fix on this page (check the revision history since 15 August 2012) about 2 weeks ago, and now he uses my argument - IPA must match WP:IPA for Dutch, when I have fixed it to be so! Because now it does not match. There's /ən/ while it should be /ə(n)/ (pronouncing both [ə] and [ən] for /ən/ is perfectly acceptable in standard Dutch, it's just that most dialects don't pronounce the /n/ and some do), */h/ while it should be /ɦ/ (it does exist in Dutch, but in the standard variant just as allophone of /ɦ/ after voiceless consonants, and both /ə/ and /n/ are voiced), and */uː/ which doesn't exist anywhere in Dutch, but before /r/, as an allophone of /u/ (in which case it can be a centering diphthong [uə̯] instead). Not to mention him removing my transcription of "Antonie van". I've never seen such an abuse of admin power. This guy should be deprived from his rights, he's ruining this site. This is plain insane. He was also telling me before to "source the IPA", but the current IPA is not sourced either. It's plain wrong and DOESN'T match the bloody WP:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, as he started to claim yesterday. Very clever mate! Obviously you're not claiming it because it's right, you're claiming it because YOU want to be right, even when the fact that you're wrong (and you are big time) is blatant. I'm very curious what you're going to tell us. --89.79.88.109 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the sysop above undid an edit that the IP made, and then immediately semi-prot the article so they couldn't reinstate changes. I'm no IPA expert, but using protection to block out an editor, especially when you're involved, doesn't seem right to me, and should probably at least be looked into. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, just calm down a bit. Secondly, I can't see any evidence that the content dispute has been discussed on the article's talk page or on WP:DRN, so I agree that protecting the article is a bit premature, to say the least. Particularly when it's been done by an involved admin, which is a big no no. Assuming you informed EncycloPetey (and if not, you should have), I'd be interested to hear his point of view on this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) The article was protected twice (the first on August 17) in this dispute and without any sort of discussion from the first time, that I can observe. LlamaDude78 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• @89.79.88.109: Thanks for helping the encyclopedia, but this is a collaborative community, and the attitude displayed in this report, and at User talk:EncycloPetey#I've "reported" you, and in at least one edit summary at Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is not helpful. We all know about AGF, but the reality is that the few editors who patrol esoteric topics such as IPA are used to seeing unwise, if not arbitrary, changes to pronunciations. Yes, your first edit summary was good and had a link, but when reverted with plausible edit summary claiming the link was not applicable, any hope of a good outcome was lost when you quickly reverted with edit summary starting "Learn to read" (diff). This page will not deliver an opponents head on a platter, and Talk:Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was last modified on 16 May 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, now that we've appropriately chastised the IP editor, can we deal with EncycloPetey? What I'm seeing is two crystal-clear cases of abuse of admin tools: using semiprotection to unilaterally disadvantage a good-faith anon editor in a dispute with a logged-in editor, and using admin tools in a dispute he was himself involved in. Twice. No attempt at discussion on his part either. Admins are to held to high standards of behaviour, weren't they? The very least we need from EncycloPetey is an unambiguous statement from him that he understands why this was wrong and a commitment not to do it again. If not, heads on platters might in fact be unavoidable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    By the way, as for the content dispute, once the procedural dispute has been cleared away, I volunteer to check those transcriptions against the chapter on "Dutch" in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, if anybody wants a third opinion. From what I can see at first sight, 89.79.88.109 is probably correct about most things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    • This is not the first instance of such behavior from EncycloPetey either. - SudoGhost 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am rather concerned that EncycloPetey did not respond in that previous incident on ANI. In my view, any admin should be able to easily justify their actions on request without too much thought. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The associated policy section is WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the discussion was closed before I was given an opportunity to respond. It was then apparently reopened during a period of my absence from Wikipedia, and a great deal of discussion conducted without my imput. It saddens me to see the bureaucracy that Wikipedia has become. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was not "reopened during a period of your absence", it was reopened a few hours after you commented on it. Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools; that you chose not to edit Wikipedia until after the discussion was archived does not mean your misuse of the administrative tools could not be discussed. It was reopened in part because you gave no indication that you wouldn't continue that behavior, quite the opposite, you indicated that you didn't believe that this was even a case of being an involved administrator. - SudoGhost 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, textbook INVOLVED from an admin with previous I'm afraid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly a pattern here. This is another crystal clear case of protection abuse in a case of a legitimate difference of opinions over some trivial copyediting). This is another content dispute. From his protection log, one gets the impression that EncycloPetey rather systematically uses admin tools only on his own articles. While some are undoubtedly legitimate anti-vandalism protections, all the ones I found that were marked as "content disputes" were indeed content disputes he was himself involved in. This is not looking good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of abuse that makes life harder for other admins, as it causes a (well earned) loss of respect by the community, costs us editors and forces us into action. It undermines the work of everyone here. User:EncycloPetey, like every single admin at Wikipedia, must respond to any good faith question about their actions, and if they are not willing to, they need to surrender the admin bit or expect it to be taken away. That they didn't respond at ANI last time is disturbing and I'm confident it will not happen a third time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The best thing you as admins can do is exactly what you and Fut Perf. are doing: chastise other admins when they screw up and hold them accountable for their actions. I think a lot of what garners a negative attitude towards the adminship is admins protecting admins - e.g. closing threads early, asserting that ANI is the wrong venue and that RFC/U should be used instead (sometimes it is, but I've seen this abused), etc. If EP doesn't respond to this thread but continues editing doesn't acknowledge he needs to change his behavior may I suggest that an admin file a request at Arbcom rather than waiting for a regular user to do it? Sædon^talk 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

he sort of responded last time; he commented after the thread was closed [90], then reverted himself because it was a closed thread [91]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• If EncycloPetey does not respond to this ANI thread does not acknowledge that he needs to change his behavior, I will test out the theory that it is "easy" to desysop someone at ArbCom, so we don't need a community desysop procedure. The first person to suggest that an RFC/U is required first will be responsible for the bruise on my forehead from beating it against my desk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) edited my comment, due to my faulty memory. He did not ignore the previous ANI thread, he just refused to accept the unanimous opinion that he was in the wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP altered an IPA pronunciation, pointing out that Dutch IPA pronunciations must follow Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, which does appear to be true as far as I can determine. However, the changes made to the IPA do not match either the descriptions nor the examples at the cited page (e.g., see footnote 1). If the IP believes the policy is in error, then the policy should be corrected. Any changes made in accordance with policy are fine. Changes made claiming support from policy that does not appear to be there are, and made counter to policy should be reverted. In this case, the IP persisted in changes, so the page was protected. When page protection expired, the IP made the problematic changes again. As others have pointed out, the IP responds with brusque, unconstructive replies. If the IP is willing to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, so that a community of users can clarify the issue, and a consensus is reached, then that would be terrific. Ideally, the consensus would result in a clarification on the Dutch IPA page as to whether the IP's assertions about medial-positioned nasals in Dutch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's missing the point. Per WP:INVOLVED we need a statement from EncycloPetey that they will never, ever again use admin tools on an article they've been editing. Nobody Ent 02:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm missing something in that policy but (1) I see nothing asserting that such a statement is needed, and (2) I do see clearly that "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". My actions were governed solely by the guidelines of the MOS as expressed in the IPA for Dutch page. If it can be determined that the page is in need of correction, or that my interpretation of the page was incorrect, I will be happy to accept that mistake. I have no bias towards one pronunciation transcription or the other, merely a desire to adhere to the MOS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"My actions were governed solely by the guidelines of the MOS"...and that is not an administrative role, that is an editorial role. Therefore: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role?" Nope, because your editing was editorial, not administrative. That you used a guideline for the edit does not make it administrative in any way. "...or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias" Again, because you are the other editor in the content dispute, you have a clear bias in regards to the dispute even if you think you are right in the dispute, and what editor doesn't? Being "right" doesn't mean it isn't a dispute, and it doesn't mean you are uninvolved. Even if the MoS was clear, it is a guideline and not some rule set in stone. Seeing as how you are sad to see the bureaucracy that Wikipedia has become, it is odd that you are intent on edit warring to adhere to a guideline just for the sake of adhering to the guideline, without any sort of discussion with the other editor. - SudoGhost 09:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans doesn't mention anything about being a policy page, nor a guideline. Not sure how to interpret that. Sædon^talk 02:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interpretation as a guidleine stems from the MOS section on pronunciation, which refers to the various language-specific IPA pages as reference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point, so let me be direct: If you have been editing an article, more than trivially, you don't use the tools except in the case of blatent BLP violations or clear and obvious vandalism. When you revert back to your preferred version, as an editor, then use the tools to effectively prevent the IP from changing the page, and it isn't vandalism or BLP violations, then that is abuse of tools. That is using the tools to give yourself as an editor an advantage in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if you are "right" or "wrong" in your interpretation of the MOS on content. That isn't the issue. Using the tools to disadvantage another editor in an edit dispute is the issue. This isn't a request or just a good idea, it is policy and the community expects no less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, this is a content dispute, right? (You called it that yourself). There was edit warring, right? (You called it that yourself). You and the IP were the ones with the content dispute and doing the edit warring, right? You cannot protect a page in your preferred version to win a content dispute or edit war. WP:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools says "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)". Your protection does not fall under any of the listed exceptions. This was most certainly not in the realm of "administrative role only". The unanimous opinion in this ANI thread, and in the previous ANI thread, was that these protections are inappropriate. I know admins do this all the time on Wiktionary, but we don't do that here. So simple question: will you agree not to protect any articles in your preferred version when you are involved in a content dispute or edit war? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the statements above by EncycloPetey already show that he is totally unsuitable for the mop on Wikipedia. Basically he says that any administrative means are justified in upholding his interpretation of some page that may or may not be officially part of the WP:MOS. I think he's made it pretty clear that he considers his administrative duty or right to enforce his interpretation of the MOS, in blatant disregard for any other policies such as WP:INVOLVED. I think the case should be sent to ArbCom at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a more searching investigation of the edit history of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. This article, for whatever reason, has historically been a relatively frequent target of vandalism, some obvious, some subtle. EncycloPetey's first edit to the article was in January of this year, to revert an editor who had been trying to impose personal grammatical preferences across a range of articles, and had already been cautioned by multiple other editors about this. In total, EncycloPetey has made a dozen edits to the article, several involving the reversion of straight-up vandalism, and the rest dealing with this dispute. Many of us have dealt with very sneaky vandals who intentionally introduce seemingly innocuous errors into articles to see how much they can get away with, sometimes under the rubric of "fixing" a nonexistent error. I am certainly sympathetic to an admin reverting an editor who makes a suspicious edit that appears to run counter to policies (even if it's just a guideline, there's no reason to make an already-conforming page deviate from the guideline), warning that editor when they persist in an apparent error, and protecting the page when apparent vandalism is afoot. It does not help the IP editor's case that their first response to the reversion is a rather uncivil, "Learn to read". Furthermore, the first edit following the end of the page protection period was vandalism by a different IP. I grant that in this situation it would have been better for EncycloPetey to bring in a second admin, to avoid the kind of accusations that have been generated here, but he is not an "involved" admin with respect to this article beyond being an administrator routinely dealing with questionable edits to a common target of vandalism. bd2412 T 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He was "involved" in this specific content dispute, and this specific edit war. The fact that the article is a vandalism magnet might explain why he would mistake an edit for vandalism when it wasn't, but (a) this is not an isolated incident, it is a pattern of behavior (see FP@S diffs above, and previous ANI thread), and (b) he clearly acknowledges this is a content dispute in the protection log entry. A content dispute he won using admin tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others here that this is a case that may require desysoping. EncycloPetey, two direct questions: have you now understood that what you did was wrong, yes or no? If not: what else beside this ANI thread might be able to make you change your mind? If you haven't conceded to the unanimous opinion of your colleagues here in this thread, would you be willing to concede to the opinion of a User RFC? (and no, I don't want to be responsible for any bruise on Floq's forehead: I'm not suggesting an RFC/U is required at this point; I'm just saying we might keep that alternative open if there is a reasonable chance that it will be able to solve the issue. But if EncycloPetey is generally not willing to listen, there's obviously no point in that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought: screw that. If EncycloPetey has not been willing to listen up to now, why should we jump through the hoops of a user RFC for his sake at this point. The matter is really clear enough and further community debate is not needed. EncycloPetey has had his chance of correcting his ways and didn't take it. I'm filing that Arbcom case now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I don't particularly disagree with anything that BD2412 said with regards to the IP being the other side of the edit war - it's perfectly possible, as the WP:BOOMERANG proves time and time again, for both parties in a dispute to be in the wrong somewhere. However, when faced with a content dispute, you take it to the article's talk page, the user's talk page (possibly impractical with an IP, but still), you may even take it to WP:AN3 - but you do not edit war yourself. The minute you edit war and then protect the page to silence an opponent, they have absolutely every right to think you are biased and bullying them, even if they are wrong and you are right. Wikipedia's big enough to make its own gravity, but on smaller sites I have had experience with there is nothing more poisonous than a biased administrator to make people vote with their feet and leave the place. I'm loathe to suggest setting up a RFC/U for EncycloPetey, but I can't see any evidence that this abuse of tools won't happen again at present.

PS: Regarding "If the IP is willing to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, so that a community of users can clarify the issue, and a consensus is reached, then that would be terrific" - it appears that's exactly what he has done. I note with interest you have not joined in the discussions, and indeed made your comments here after the IP started trying to resolve the content dispute in a more placid manner. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a personal issue, and I get the feeling that EP has had the bit since the cowboy days, but we don't play cowboy here at enwp anymore, it has caused too many probs and cost too many good editors. I say that in good faith, as some of the older admins have had some issues adjusting to the "kinder, gentler" Wikipedia, but at the end of the day, we can't use the tools to help ourselves. At the very least, when we feel we must act immediately at an article that we are involved in, we come to WP:AN and dump it in the laps of our fellow admins, who will either sign off on the WP:IAR exception, or correct the problem and offer guidance for the future. What is so damaging is when this type of brute force admin'ing is done quietly and privately, out of the public eye. Petey, it isn't about bureaucracy, it is about transparency, particularly since Wikipedia is now a top 5 website globally. How they do things on other WMF Wikis, I have no idea but we simply can't do that here anymore. Part of the reason I founded WP:WER was because of the loss of good editors due to hamfisted admin'ing, so I've seen the damage it causes the project, even when it isn't intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat in edit summary

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

---

Please can someone take a look at the edit summary here. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blatant legal threat - indef. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat in BLP by an editor claiming to be the subject

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

---

See this diff were I rolled back the threatening edit. The editor concerned has been notified. Roger (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor has extended their threatening posts to my Editor Review - see the diff. Roger (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blatant legal threat - indef. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Damage at CBS Records

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Damage_at_CBS_Records. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)}}

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

Abuse and threat on my talk page by an ip

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

---

Resolved

 – IP warned and revisions deleted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This ip has abused/threatened me here.
I request this ip to be blocked. HARSH (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned IP and deleted their revisions. Disparaging insults for no apparent reason. De728631 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit discussion on Emily Giffin

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

---

I'm writing because I need some differing opinions on whether or not something should be added to an article for Emily Giffin and if so, how it should be phrased. Here's the whole scenario in a nutshell: Emily Giffin's husband posted a nasty comment about a review. Giffin herself then reposted about it on various social media sites and eventually got spanked for it by the general public, prompting one reviewer to chang her review rating to reflect all of this and got harassed. Giffin eventually issued a generic blanket apology over all of this. The issue is that although some blogs reported on this, only one reliable source has actually posted an article about the whole scenario. I personally don't feel that this is worth mentioning on the author's article, not because I agree or disagree with anything that she's done, but because almost nobody has covered this. It's not like Foyt and Save the Pearls or Candace Sams and Interstellar Feller, which got a score of articles posted about all of the controversy. There's also issues of tone and since there have been complaints over previous edits to the page, I thought I'd post about this on here to get a good consensus on the article's talk page and here. (Talk:Emily Giffin)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This type of issue appears beyond the remit of ANI ... you're doing the right thing by discussing on the talkpage. You could ask there for third opinion or even open an WP:RFC - again, both of those occur on the talkpage. Reliable source issues belong on the reliable source noticeboard dangerouspanda 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Santoor

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

---

May an administrator tell to user 24.146.246.15 to register? He had also edited under IP 65.88.88.203 .

From 13-April: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santoor&offset=20120504025244&action=history

To day: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santoor&dir=prev&offset=20120807163631&action=history

--Opus88888 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Users are not required to register to edit, they are only encouraged to do so. If there's a specific, urgent problem you're having with this editor, please provide details here or at a more relevant noticeboard (see the header at the top of the page); if not, I'm afraid there isn't anything we can do. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Physical threats

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

---

Hello. I encourtered HariBhol (talk · contribs) on Vaishnava-Sahajiya. The user seems to have a strong religious point of view against this...organization. I believe this user's latest message on my talk page includes a physical threat of violence against me. "then as I mentioned, dangerous situation is bound to act as fire is bound to act... Dangerous is a caution before anything happens. Like I just cautioned you...." I blocked the user initially because I felt I was acting in an administrative capacity the entire time which is allowed per WP:INVOLVED, but then I unblocked because I felt a personal threat against me is a separate issue of which I am involved. I request an indefinite ban.--v/r - TP 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I read at least two separate portions of his post to imply threats of violence -- the one quoted above, and the thing about thorns and pricking "Its a way I believed to remove a thorn with a prick before its too late and acts in most dangerous manner...." from the same diff. I have indef blocked him for the time being. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As I read that, in the context of the post he's telling you that if you don't do things his way God will smite you, not that if you don't do things his way he will smite you. Obnoxiousness either way, but not a threat-of-violence as such. Mogism (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• You forgot to notify HariBhol about this report. I have now done that. Apart from that I agree that an indef block is in order, this user completely fails to grasp the purpose and concept of Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oops. I dont create ANI threads often so I guess it slipped my mind. My bad.--v/r - TP 17:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban User acts as if god drives his actions and believes he can do what they want, whenever they want. User consistently spams or creates promotional content despite warnings from various users. User retaliates by writing nonsense responses in the length of 3 page essays. User shows no intention of improving and I think the best thing to do is to declare this user banned from Wikipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban - Spamming or creating promotional content is not really acceptable on Wikipedia. Also, I am concerned that HariBhol has shown no intention of improving and I believe it would be best if we should ban him from Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban User is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Making personal attacks against TP just 'ices the cake', so to speak. Electric Catfish 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Someone who so strongly believes the divine dictates his action is going to have major trouble collaborating on a site like Wikipedia. Not much hope of his edits being anywhere near WP:NPOV either. It's better to just boot him now. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, his divine entity did lead a few people to try and help him, but they just ignore it. dangerouspanda 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this user can edit on Vaishnava-Sahajiya as they have such a strong negative POV. User:Swatjester appears to have indef'ed them a few hours ago, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Gray-area editing from an IP...

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

---

I've got a question/concern, as I'm not sure quite where the following item falls. I came across this reversion in my watchlist today. Normally silliness like this would not concern me, but I also make a habit of checking contribs for a pattern, just in case. So I checked the other contrib from 90.191.21.161, and found this, which is a) wholly false on both counts, and b) could be construed as hate speech. The reason I'm not sure what to do with this is because AFAICT, this is a dynamic IP. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

the only two posts from that IP coming within 10 min of each other and neither being at all constructive, would lead to a DUCK or MEAT. the question would be how much good faith should be assumed that if they were told of their inappropriate actions would they continue in the same manner or begin to act in a more constructive manner. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

run of the mill vandalism, stale. Ignore. If it continues WP:AIV is the place to be. Nobody Ent 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Another sock of long-term problematic user Josh24B

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

---

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

I'd file an SPI, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who glances at his prior history, especially since he recreated his playground article Bus Routes in York, and resumed the same old addition of (incorrect) directory and (incorrect) advertising stuff, claiming that the York doesn't have any other means of publicizing that info (no matter how much others explain that doesn't matter).

For those unfamiliar with this guy, Josh24B is a bus-obsessive who has claimed to work for Transdev York under different account, posting made-up schedules and advertisements. Last time he was active, I emailed Transdev York, and they said that Josh does not work there and never has, but he did used to harass the office for not having the "right" schedules posted.

At the very least, a block of YoGoplus for sockpuppetry is necessary. I'm curious if anyone has any other suggestions or solutions for how to deal with this long-term problematic user. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Genre dispute on a specific articles.

For a long time, there has been considerable fighting, edit warring, arguing etc. over the genres listed in the infoboxes for articles related to the band My Chemical Romance. I don't know why it's this band in particular, but over the years that I've been watching the pages there have been countless, unsourced, undiscussed genre changes, while users involved have fought and fought, sometimes getting blocked. Personally, I'm against even listing genres in the infobox, seeing as only bad things tend to come from it. I would be lying if I said that the amount of "genre-warring" going on on this site doesn't drive me crazy out of its sheer meaninglessness, but in the interest of keeping the articles consistent and well-sourced, I've been trying to, firstly, keep the genre parameter as general and inoffensive as possible, and secondly, make sure any additions to the parameter are reliably sourced and verifiable.

Anyway, the reason that this has escalated is because over the past, say, month-or-so there have been several editors (who I'll mention later on) that seem to believe these three points:

Point #1. Despite being sourced, the genres listed in the infobox are too vague,

Point #2. Anything listed as a musical "style" on the website Allmusic should be considered a genre,

Point #3. Anything listed under "genres" on that same website is unreliable because it is too vague.

In my opinion, the first two are acceptable seeing as they clearly have consensus, and have seemed useful in stopping the edit warring. The third one, in my opinion, throws WP:V out the window entirely. If something is backed up by reliable sources, it's subject to inclusion. Personal opinions or interpretations are irrelevant, as verifiability makes the content usable. That's the entire purpose of WP:V.

But the reason I'm bringing this topic to this particular noticeboard is because what should be a fairly basic discussion has become very strange recently. The main user who began all of this was Musicstuff0324 (talk · contribs), who frequently edits anonymously as 72.89.197.34 (talk · contribs). (The user has never denied this or abused it in any way, so I'm not claiming sockpuppetry or anything.) They started claiming point #1 without any source, while changing the genres on various pages repeatedly without sources. The user and I exchanged messages over talk pages, in which I tried to explain why I was reverting their edits. Eventually the user, apparently frustrated, asked another user to "explain" to me, in essence, that I was wrong. They did this without telling me. Then, when that apparently didn't go as Musicstuff0324 wanted, they contacted Noreplyhaha (talk · contribs) without telling me, and asked the user to lock the article so that I couldn't revert their edits. Eventually, on this talk page, thanks to the more civil edits of Noreplyhaha some consensus was reached that we should allow point #2. Noreplyhaha even opened a RFC over the subject. I would like to point out that this is how I would prefer these situations to be handled, and so far Noreplyhaha has been the only one who has tried to be, in my opinion, both civil and reasonable about this. However, recently, Point #3 has been brought up with yet more reverts and unsourced edits. A fourth user, Ericdeaththe2nd (talk · contribs) was then contacted, again without telling me, by both Musicstuff0324 and Noreplyhaha. It was the discussion between pages that basically brought me to the point of bringing the subject here, and not on a content or reliable sources noticeboard:

Noreplyhaha: "Hello, I saw your recent edits to My Chemical Romance albums; putting "post-hardcore" in the genre box. I agree with you, but a user keeps reverting all of those genre change attempts. :/"

Musicstuff0324: "I agree absolutely as well, your a huge help in this little fiasco, friginator edits like a robot without any regard to interpretation, its insane! Thank you for all your help! and can you fix up the genre for the ghost of you that song still says pop/rock for some reason."

Ericdeaththe2nd: "No problem, every time he changes it we should revert it"

Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking this, but going behind an editor's back repeatedly and eventually planning on starting an edit war to resolve problems clearly seems like the wrong way to approach such a situation. Hopefully now that it's here we can discuss this without the sneaking around and fighting like children. I'd appreciate that. This whole situation further reinforces my view that listing musical genres on Wikipedia is a bad idea and a waste of time. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I hate genre warring as well, and it is a serious problem, especially on Wikipedia. I have an idea for this type of situation: all affected pages should have their genre fields removed permanently. Keep in mind that you can't please everybody in terms of genre description, so don't try to do that. Some people will have to remain unpleased, and that's the way it is, and that's the way of the world. Nonetheless, I agree that what you are describing here is canvassing. Several people are simply making too big a deal out of the genres, and it needs to stop yesterday! As I said earlier, I would support having all the genre fields be removed from relevant pages, and maybe even some pages getting equipped with temporary full protection, if there is enough editing activity on such pages to warrant such a maneuver. Also, edits like this, which removes what is considered by Wikipedia to be reliably sourced content, I cannot support.

This does make me wonder if Allmusic really is a reliable source for determining genres of music, because Allmusic is somewhat controversial on Wikipedia in this regard. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing, tag-teaming, WP:GENREWARRIORs. Ugh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if I were to remove the genre parameter from the affected pages like Backtable has suggested, would either of you support it? And would this be an appropriate place to gather consensus on the subject? Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If Allmusic categorised a thrash metal album as pop music, would you blindly add "pop" to the infobox? In the case of Allmusic, they have an extremely broad and unpecific music categorisation for their database. It lists every rock album as "pop/rock" for THEIR categorisation purposes. For example, look at Slayer, an American thrash metal band. They are apparently "pop/rock" according to Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/slayer-mn0000022124, but do you see that on their wikipedia page? Do you hear people refer to them as a pop band? Meanwhile, pop bands like maroon 5 are also classified as "pop/rock." Allmusic has "indie rock" on My Chemical Romance's page, but My Chemical Romance is obviously not "indie rock," as for starters, they're signed to a major label and have a large exposure in the music industry. Thus, Allmusic's genres listed in the side bar can be both incredibly vague and sometimes wildly inappropriate. Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls Slayer Pop/Rock, it can be included per WP:V. This is a very fundamental policy on this site, and one which you don't seem to understand in the least. I say this because if you did take WP:V into consideration, you wouldn't make arguments like this one, or the half-a-dozen others you've made. Content on Wikipedia is not about interpretation or opinion, no matter how widespread it is. It is about facts. Verifiable facts. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually kind of disagree with this. WP:V really only applies to statements likely to be challenged. For instance, we don't need a reliable source to say that the human hand has four fingers a thumb, do we? And if a reliable source mistakenly said otherwise, that human hands have seven fingers and a thumb, it doesn't mean we need to add that just because a source said it. Verifiability is important, but so is common sense. Calling a band like Slayer pop/rock is not common sense. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:OohBunnies!'s rationale. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V applies to all information on Wikipedia. The likely to be challenged part pertains to in-line citations, rather than general references. Although, one might want to consider whether WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE is pertinent to the notion of Slayer as a pop band. TBH, I think this is just caused by Allmusic lumping pop and rock together. I don't see what's so outrageous in calling Slayer a hard rock band, say. bridies (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. Firstly Pop/Rock what is that is it really.

'Rock' stylistic origins Rock and roll, electric blues, jazz, folk music, country, blues, rhythm and blues, soul music, please tell me how that matches My Chemical Romance's genre

'Pop' Rhythm and blues • Jazz • Folk • Doo-wop • Dance • Classical • Rock and roll, yet again doesn't meet the genre at all, but don't get me wrong its not always about styles but adding Pop and rock is useless you've listed 'pop punk' and 'alternative rock' so why have it at all. Also i've been told numerous times by countless admins that sidebox genres aren't reliable, you need sources that discuss the genres. I've been told that by User:IllaZilla , see this link here Talk:Blink-182#Genre_(again). Also where I said we should revert it everytime he changes it, is simply not an attack but correcting mistakes the way pop/rock and indie rock/alternative rock is so....I'm not sure how to describe it. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

The "mistakes" you're referring to are not mistakes. They are simply sourced pieces of info that you dislike. Also, other Wikipedia articles do not constitute Wikipedia policy. Yes, they hold precedent, and sometimes held up by consensus, but just because the Wikipedia article on "Rock music" says something, or the wikipedia article on "Pop music" says something, doesn't make it any more relevant when discussing policy. And like Noreplyhaha, most of your argument is simply based on your particular opinions, which are also irrelevant when discussing policy. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel the need to add pop/rock to this page friginator, it't not helping the page at all and you don't do it to any of the other bands you edit, so your reasoning for adding pop/rock to the my chemical romance album pages still makes absolutely no sense to me, it doesn't add anything of use to the page, i mean if you can give me a good reason i'll be satisfied. --Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. If a genre identification sourced to an RS is still disputed by editors (that basically means there isn't consensus that the viewpoint in that particular RS is necessarily the neutral point of view), it should stay in the article but have WP:INTEXT attribution rather than be presented as an uncontentious fact. It should probably stay out of the infobox in this situation.
2. If an identification is really dubious, like some source saying Iron Maiden is classical harpsichord music, it's ok to ask for multiple independent sources per WP:REDFLAG.
3. Self-identification (genre tag from officially published mp3's, for example) might be helpful in some cases, though not definitive. In principle they're supposed to be treated as inferior to sources independent of the subject, but use some common sense here.
4. I think independent, full length reviews should be preferable to Allmusic tags (they may even originate from publisher metadata or something like that) as sourcing.

69.228.170.132 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the Genre wars. What it comes down to is some genre's aren't "cool", and fans don't want their hipster sensibilities offended by being associated with liking bands that are uncool, or with their bands being labeled with genre titles which are uncool. The truth is most bands overlap genres considerably. Is The Police a punk band, a ska band, a reggae band, a pop band, or a rock band? Yes, and more. What's more is most bands fall into the same problem, you can't define any band well into a single genre, especially since some genre's get so specific as to be silly (take a look at the various subgenres of Heavy Metal; I think the total number of genres actually outnumbers the total number of bands...) What's the solution? I don't know. I'm not happy with the scorched earth approach of banning all mention of genre in an article, but I am becoming resigned that such Solomonic solution is the only way out... --Jayron32 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I stated above that I would be for such a solution as to remove the mention of genres from the infoboxes of affected pages. I will not retract from that stance, but I don't recommend this action as a first resort. I would recommend, before such a maneuver should be determined, that other sources be involved with determining the genres and the genre line-up. Other sources, such as websites listed here or websites and magazines devoted to music news, should be consulted, as opposed to hanging around what Allmusic says. What do those sources say about what genre(s) the music of My Chemical Romance is? While I'm not going to actively seek out such sources to help resolve this issue, since My Chemical Romance doesn't particularly interest me, I can say that this type of action is at least a considerable avenue.

However, if good sources have their information on the affected Wikipedia pages, yet fighting and feuding still exists over this über important topic which never wastes anyone's time, then I would have no reservations for resorting to the "scorched earth" method for at least the most affected pages. In one case (or two, depending on the perspective) where I was dealing with people editing genres without discussion, with such shameful activity happening on a long-term basis, I decided to remove the mention of genres from the infoboxes of Judgement (Anathema album) and Alternative 4 (album), both of which are albums by Anathema. This controversial info has been taken away from the pages since June and July 2011, respectively, and from what I've observed, the pages have been doing relatively well since then. Also, for a while, Night is the New Day, the article for the album by Katatonia, had its genre field removed, although it's been restored since then with sourced content (it's important to note that the content is sourced with Allmusic and Sputnikmusic).

Concerning Allmusic, I have significant reservations about it being a source for genre determination (not necessarily as a reliable source at all, but merely for genre determination at least). The habit in which Allmusic lists genres of albums or bands is strange; in the column to the left, there is one extremely general genre description listed in "genre", while "styles" describe some styles which are official sub-genres, and some that are not. When I source genres, I don't try to source that area, and instead rely more on the review or band biography. Should this factor about Allmusic warrant an in-depth discussion elsewhere or would that not be required? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments towards Allmusic's genre classifications. I don't actually listen to My Chemical Romance myself, but I would like them to be accurately classified, that is, not as "pop/rock," but more along the likes of "alternative rock" or "post-hardcore." Consulting sources other than Allmusic would be best, but like User:Backtable, MCR doesn't interest me enough to pursue some more in depth research. Furthermore, rather than the sorched earth approach as a final resort, we could consider putting the genre as simply "Rock." Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have been told by numerous admins not to use Allmusic's Sidebox genre as a source since its not reliable, I would let this go just remove Pop/Rock is it really necessary? I'll say again 'Allmusic is not a reliable source for Genres' Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

These album articles don't show much secondary sourcing and should probably be redirected to the main article about the band. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet abuse

Nasir Ghobar (talk · contribs) seems to be a new sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab. He is currently involved in various edit wars, all concentrating on the works of Abdul Hai Habibi, an Afghan academic notorious for various forgeries and fringe theories. Like Lagoo sab 2 years ago, Nasir Ghobar is trying to establish these fringe theories in Wikipedia as a mainstream source, while in the academic world Habibi is notorious for various ethnocentric fabrications, including (and most notably) the Pata Khazana. Already in 2010, this user was trying to establish this falsifying version of the article (for example [92] and [93]), but his edits were promtly reverted by User:Sommerkom, a German specialist on Pashto language and literature and the main author of the article. Now, after some 2 years of abscence, he seems to be back with a new account propagating the same POV-version. In fact, he is reverting to the same POV-version: [94][95]. Admins should have a closer look at this or maybe at Nasir Ghobar's edits. --Lysozym (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is he who is involved in edit-wars/disruptive editing.[96] I told him several times already that he's mistaking me for someone else who edited an article 2 years ago and some how by coincident I reverted the page to, according to him, the same version. This was my first edit [97] and that was in response to his this wild removal of valid RS sources. [98] That article doesn't appear to have been edited much in the last 2 or so years. I'm a new editor, I was not even familiar with Pata Khazana until he some how got me involved. He began claiming that a prominent Afghan scholar is rejected by all the Western historians and that was surprising to me so I asked who, where, how, he is rejected and to please show me something to read so I can learn about this but he FAILED to even show me one report.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Failing?! You should have read the articles first. It is not my job to prove to you that Habibi is being rejected - usually, he is not even taken into consideration. But since you asked (and as already mentioned in the article Pata Khazana which you blindly reverted without even reading it), he is being fully rejected by Manfred Lorenz and David Neil MacKenzie. The later exposed Habibi's forgery and was able to prove that the Pata Khazana was written by Habibi.

Strange that on the one hand you claim not to have known that page while on the other hand, you reverted to a POV-version of 2 years ago while contuing to claim that the above mentioned forgery is a "reliable source". --Lysozym (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have examined everything in that article word by word before I reverted it. The source added for David Neil MacKenzie failed verification, and I tagged it but you removed the tag. Show me where Habibi is rejected? Post a link here so I can read and verify it, and who is Manfred Lorenz?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW! According to Lysozym's user page at the bottom [99] he has used another suckpoppet Tajik (talk · contribs), and according to his contribs on that [100] he's been blocked so many times [101] for violating various policies, including Violation of ArbCom editing restriction and Arbitration enforcement: edit warring in the face of ArbCom editing restriction. This guy has the nerves to report others, lol.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

a) The ArbCom was lifted (it was actually based on a false accusation!) b) There are no sockpuppets. The account User:Tajik was closed so that I can use a universial account. Now, I have the same nickname in all Wikipedias I am working on as well as in Wikimedia (see for example de:Benutzer:Lysozym). It was known from the beginning on and was monitored by admin User:Kingturtle; you can ask him. So what exactly is your great discovery?! And as you have already "discovered", I am even mentioning it on my userpage. *sigh* Your case is totally different. Lagoo sab was banned because of sockpuppetry. And now you - a guy with the same interests, the same edits, the same reverts, the same POV and even the same writing style - show up 2 years later and revert to his POV. That is strange. --Lysozym (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom was NOT lifted but enforced [102] and it was actually NOT based on a false accusation. Your entire actions are disruptive, you engage in edit-wars with everyone who don't agree with you opinions, you call everything nonsense, you keep lying about prominent historians just to discredit them even if they were correct. I have no idea what Lagoo Saab did but that name sounds like a Nigerian or probably an Indian person, I'm nothing close to that. There are dozens of Iranians editing Iranian related articles, Indians editing Indian related articles, Pakistanis editing Pakistani related pages, etc. so according to you they are all sockpuppets of one Iranian, one Indian, and one Pakistani? I came across Sikh related articles and over 3 or 4 Sikh editors were coming with the same opinions, POVs, similar names, and even the same writing style.[103] Are these all one person? [104]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab but it is very long. Possibly the editors who have read the present ANI complaint can simply check out Abdul Hai Habibi and see what Lagoo sab did there. (You only need to check the first page of the history). Then they should compare with what User:Nasir Ghobar did at Pata Khazana. (Once again, just look at the first page of the history). If this is strong enough to be a smoking gun, then a block of Nasir Ghobar might be justified. I had previously received a complaint about Nasir Ghobar being a sock of Lagoo sab (back in July) but the information was not strong enough at that time to justify action. Some of his edits at Talk:Ghaznavids suggested he had a strong motivation to defend the glorious history of Afghanistan, so he was getting close to needing a warning for nationalist POV-pushing. He complained about language in Ghaznavids which suggested that this dynasty (founded in Afghanistan) had become Persianized. A strain of pro-Afghan and anti-Persian feeling is evident also in what is known about Lagoo sab from his SPI case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. You should familiar yourself with the people who edit these articles, people of Asia in particular. All Afghans think the same. The same way how all Iranians think the same. The same way how all Pakistanis think the same. The same way how all Indians think the same. The accusations against me are wrong.

2. Lysozym was put on 1RR per week [105] at ArbCom when he was using the Tajik (talk · contribs) account, then he decided to create a fresh account so that he can get away from that restriction. He just violated 2RR or possibly 3RR on Hazara people but admins closed their eyes. EdJohnston did not even bother to mention anything about Lysozym, that's a clear indication that some admins are here supporting the trouble makers and even helping the trouble makers find a reason to have constructive editors like me blocked. I'm providing readers with accurate information and reverting vandals, if you don't like it then that's too bad. Look at how EdJohnston wrote this: "If this is strong enough to be a smoking gun, then a block of Nasir Ghobar might be justified" That's like trying to say that anyone may just block him because he is an Afghan editor, even if he is a good editor. So much racism going on here.

3. Regarding the Ghaznavids, it starts like this: "The Ghaznavid dynasty (Persian: غزنویان‎) was a Muslim Persianate[3][4][5] dynasty of Turkic slave origin[6][7][8]". I called this an awkward leading sentence for an encyclopedia. Somebody else agreed with me. [106] I have said that them becoming Persianized or being Persianate should be in the second paragraph. You think I'm showing anti-Persian feeling because of this? What nonsense, we all know very well that Persian was the dominant language of this region for centuries. That's yet another reason why we don't need to mention this in the leading sentence.

4. Last but not least, I decided to discuss with Lysozym on the talk pages in which he failed. When he mentioned Habibi and Pata Khazana I noticed him vandalizing Pata Khazana and all I did was revert his vandalism. That article was missing alot of information and I decided to add the info on where the manuscript was found. Lysozym obviously doesn't want readers to know where it was found and who had it before 1943. Even if the work is not real it should address this.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Which part of "the ArbCom was lifted" don't you understand?! And my new account does not have anything to do with it. In fact, I created the account in the German Wikipedia. Unlike the old one, it is a global account. Posting all these wrong accusations in order to divert attention from the real problem - i. e. that there is a strong possibility that you are just another sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab - won't help your cause.

2) Your claim that "all people from the same nation think the same way" is so stupid that it does not deserve any comment.

3) Stop calling my edits vandalism. I was reverting a POV version by a banned user. And it seems that I am not the only one who has the impression that you are just another sockpuppet of that banned user. --Lysozym (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't play games, nobody lifted the ArbCom sanction. According to this [107] you are limited to one revert per page per week. I'm going to say one more time that I'm not Lagoo and I don't have any reason to use multiple accounts. I have a feeling that you are abusing multiple accounts because all of a sudden these other names came around and began reverting me to your version.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the important part: excepting obvious vandalism. And since you are an obvious sockpuppet, all of your edits are to be reverted. See WP:BAN: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. --Lysozym (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop making up stupid excuses.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another banned user with very similar edits is User:NisarKand. The same POV, the same writing style, also banned for sockpuppet abuse. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. --Lysozym (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's also wrong. My name is Nasir which is different from Nisar. Maybe you can explain who is this Greczia? His user page is decorated almost exactly like yours, including the mention of the previous account at the bottom. He gave you a barnstar [108] and claims to be from Germany where you are editing from.[109]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. That was by far the most ridiculous claim so far. See here. Interestingly, he is a sockpuppet-abuser like you. That's why he was banned in the German Wikipedia. As for his barnstar: I have no idea what he was trying to achieve with that, giving me a barnstar while at the same time reporting me and accusing me of this and that. Is there any doubt anymore that you are a disruptive sockpuppet-abuser and a man-on-a-mission posting ridiculous claims about other Wikipedians?! --Lysozym (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop your rants, go and get your self some sleep.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mosque moves

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

---

Can someone take a look at User:Modeltookmodeltook who has taken it upon himself to move all pages called "X mosque" to "X masjid". I asked him to stop pending consensus for this, but he just blanked his talk page [110]. See-also Talk:Mosque#Title_change_to_Masjid William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave a reason as to why all these changes. Google indicates that masjid is used more than mosque. A google search on English sources shows more instances of masjid than mosque (79 million to 75.4 million). Modeltookmodeltook (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll undo the moves. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours to stop the disruption. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also blocked Phasewhichphasewhich (talk · contribs) who created an account while this was going on and who refactored Modeltookmodeltook's comments. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the sock/meat issue above, I wouldn't doubt that User:113.203.182.214, who has no other edits and just happened to stumble upon the discussion at Talk:Mosque, is somewhat involved in these shenanigans as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's connected but their names remind me of himCategory:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MohammedBinAbdullah--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Islamuslim (talk · contribs), who used the same mosque/mosquito excuse a couple of years ago in the previous move discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's his IP, it's coming from the same range User:113.203.142.92--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Modeltookmodeltook indeffed based on the above. I'll take care of the IP too. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has fallen into an autoblock in any case. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User :Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

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

---

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had been causing problems for two days straight on the "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" page and has been abusing the page's associated talk page. He was told twice by both me and Toa Nidhiki05 to bring things up on the talk page and the incident with Toa he went outside the talk page to get his way and then brought it to the corresponding talk page to the article. Two days ago he brought a situation to my my talk page over something he did not like and I told him twice that same day to take it to the talk page and he decided to bring it up again today two days later after he dropped it. He has resorted to name-calling on both the "We Are Never Getting Back Together" talk page and the page where he went and complained before bringing up the situation with the sourcing of charts on the talk page and I think both me and Toa have been more then patient with Star and I have asked him nicely to back away slowly and work on another article but he seems to refuse to and I was told if he kept going to bring it here so that is what I am doing. I will leave it to you guys to decide to do what is best. I would also like to add that he was warned by a third user to stop being disruptive on the talk page or he'd be blocked. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That is star and he also now using sock-puppetry. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 23:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is not an ANI issue, it is not an "incident", it is a content dispute. Please take the concern to WP:DRN and work to solve the issue there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Swifty is a bit patronizing, but even that is not an ANI matter. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Someone close this. Swifty just moved on to another forum, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Continued removal of AfD template

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

---

The creator of Ken Sibanda is continuosly removing the AfD template on the page. There is an AfD currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination). In the interest of full disclosure, I am using an alternative account as there was harassment from the article creator during the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda). --Altfish80 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I protected the article. Not an ideal situation given an active AfD, but it seemed like the best short term solution to prevent disruption and allow a new user to have processes explained to them. We'll see if more action is necessary. WilyD 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored the AFD template and warned Mziboy about removing the AFD template. GB fan 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He isn't exactly a new user. He was warned specifically about removing AfD templates during the previous AfD nearly a year ago, but thanks for the quick action in any event. It should be sufficient for the moment. --Altfish80 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh - point taken. I naively assumed that anyone using articles for creation must be a new user. WilyD 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• There were actually two previous AfDs for this article; the other one is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissinger N. Sibanda. Also of interest is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy/Archive and the plethora of prior warnings for disruption on his talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of process Altfish80

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

---

The above user, ALtfish80 is a holding name for someone vandalizing the "Ken Siabnda" page. All issues have been addressed since the Ken Sibanda page was deleted years ago.

Violation of wikipedia policy ( multiple accounts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy, you need to either stop leveling socking and harassment allegations against people, or start an SPI with whatever evidence you think you have. Your habit of accusing those who don't do what you wish of malfeasance (see my "meta-comment" here) is harmful and against our civility policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy if all issues have been addressed then you shouldn't have anything to worry about on this AFD and will confirm that statement. GB fan 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing he should be worried about is his own outrageous behavior. This user has made these same accusations in about half a dozen places, all without one shred of supporting evidence. I have already deleted several pages they created and responded to a thread they initiated at WP:WQA, and warned them to cut this nonsense out on their talk page. of you want to accuse someone of something, you best have some evidence to back it up. It's " put up or shut up" time for this user. Proffer that evidence, or keep this to yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See note from Courcelles regarding use of alternate account upto this point. GB fan 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Tendentious behavior and personal attacks by Mziboy

• This is getting ridiculous very rapidly. It's obvious that Mziboy is emotionally involved in this issue, to the point where he feels justified in attacking others and misusing process to attempt to get his way and make his point. Mziboy has been here long enough to have read our rules and to have had them explained to him multiple times, and he seems unwilling or unable to grasp them. There is little benefit to the community in letting this continue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already left a final warning to desist or at least foloow proper channels on his talk page. I assume we will know fairly soon whether he is able to control himself or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any more of this kind of silliness from Mziboy should probably earn them a WP:COMPETENCE block. One's "sixth sense" is not enough to start throwing around barmy accusations of socking against users who happen to contribute to AfD discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• They've just gotten a 24 hours block from Boing! said Zebedee. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, a short block to bring this ridiculous spree to an end. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for site ban on Mziboy (talk · contribs)

I think this has gone on long enough. Mziboy has been here nearly a year, his talk page is a long string of warnings and advice, people have tried hard to explain things, but he has shown no sign that he will listen or learn by experience.

• His sole purpose here is to promote a self-published author, Ken Sibanda,[111], [112] his book and his company. See AfDs 1, 2, 3, and now 4

• He has denied any COI, but if his obsessive pushing of this article was not enough, two participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda received emails from Mziboy's WP account sent from proteusfilm.com, Sibanda's company. (His response was to claim that these were a forgery.)

• He has constantly thrown around accusations of racism, Nazism, sockpuppetry and has filed frivolous complaints against people who disagree with him

• He has himself engaged in sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy/Archive

• He tries to game the system, e.g. blanking his article during an AfD so that it is deleted and the AfD closed, and immediately recreating under another title

• He makes retaliatory speedy nominations

• He is still edit-warring to remove AfD templates.

Enough is enough. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Mziboy is not here to improve the encyclopedia, only to promote Sibanda, and he does not have the temperament to edit collaboratively. JohnCD (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Obviously involved) Support. After having watched Mziboy's behavior for this past year, I am convinced that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to promote Ken Sibanda and his products, and that Mziboy is not willing to even pay lip service to whether our policies allow this. Rather than abiding by them, he's actually quite carefully made end-runs around all the policies he's able (G7ing an article at AfD, AfCing an article that's been deleted but not telling anyone that it's a G4 candidate, putting an AfC'd article in mainspace when no one is prepared to approve it for him...). He's not here to work with us - he's here to sledgehammer his baby into Wikipedia, whether we like it or not, and he's perfectly willing to attack, intimidate, harass, and accuse if it will get him his way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I see no downside to a siteban, and a definite upside in stopping the cycle of behavior from continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Oh dear, I hadn't realised this editor had been causing so much trouble for so long - trying to evade policies in many ways to get non-notable article included, evading deletion discussions, accusing people of Nazism, racism, sockpuppetry, and attacking people in any way possible to try to discredit them. We don't need any more of this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This user is clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia and is only here to promote Ken Sibanda, and Mziboy has breached numerous policies in order to get a non-notable article included, evading deletion discussions and throwing around attacks in any way possible to discredit them. This has caused more than enough trouble. With that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know about the rest of the community, but my patience is exhausted just by looking at the user's talk page and edits. Sjones23 is right - enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support — I'm not one to enjoy telling someone that they can no longer edit Wikipedia, but Mziboy is one of those people that just doesn't seem to get it. Having a conflict of interest is one thing, but comparing people to Nazis, making accusations of racism, branching into off-Wiki harassment, and attempting to subvert our policies using dishonest means are quite another. This user has had numerous chances; they are simply not compatible with this site. I'm sorry. Kurtis (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but my impression is that this is not some paid PR person but rather a fan, possibly an acquaintance, who is having a lot of trouble understanding the most basic rules of both content and behavior. At the end of the day however it does not matter what their underlying motivations are, what matters is that they have persisted in acting in this manner regardless of how many times they are asked to desist and advised of the appropriate course of action. I would suggest a WP:OFFER based block or ban, whichever. If they could fulfill the terms of the offer it would go a long way towards demonstrating a proper understanding of what is expected in those areas where he has shown problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Despite over a year of effort on the part of honest and well-intentioned editors, this user appears to be incorrigible in his abuse of process, personal attacks, and non-adherence to content policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. On another note, it might be worth considering salting these article names. Given how singleminded Mziboy is about creating these articles, we can expect socks to appear to try to recreate them. At least until such time as reliable sources begin to report on the subject. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Editing for the sole purpose of self-promotion is itself grounds for an indef block. Demonstrated usage of socks to support his own battleground causes casts doubt on his ability to live by Wikipedia's basic rules, as does his inability to act civil. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Despite numerous warnings and attempts to help him correct himself over the past year, Mziboy's conduct remains completely unacceptable. Others have summed it up well, and I need not say more on it here. It will do us all a great deal of good to be rid of him. CtP (t • c) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The ongoing AfD regarding Ken Sibanda is being commented on by IPs which are quite clearly either the user editing logged out (which would be at the least, double-voting, and possibly block evasion, depending on when his block expired), or meatpuppets of the user. For example. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The style of writing used by the two IPs is different enough from Mziboy's that I believe them to be meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. However, they are similiar enough to each other that it's likely that the same meatpuppet is behind both IPs, probably (like Mziboy) someone connected to Proteus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not apparently Mziboy and not apparently the same person, although both IPs are from New Jersey. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Not the same? It seemed otherwise to me, but I've been wrong before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I was fairly sure that the first of the IPs to comment was a sockpuppet. The second IP to comment seemed to have more substantial contributions outside the topic of Sibanda, despite being from New Jersey, so it's probably a meatpuppet instead. CtP (t • c) 00:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

*headdesk* A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ai yi yi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why CU is not the only way to detect socks. This edit [113] is an onvious admission that it is him if you actually read it. He says he created the article, and then repeats the bullshit accusations of racism. As he is now banned that IP at the least should be watched for more socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This is gonna end up getting outta control in the near future if he stays. ZappaOMati 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have little interaction with this user, but it's clear from his edit history and tone that enough is enough. Wikipedia is not for everyone, and it's not for this user. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and stat - Editor is a net negative to the project and is not here to help build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe Mzi's comments below speak for themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: to my pleasant surprise, Mziboy has actually been fairly cooperative at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination) during the last half-hour or so. CtP (t • c) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  Considering that he was leveling the same old charges of racism and lying at people on the AfD during the hour prior to that, as well as edit warring elsewhere, I'm not sure how much weight we can give this as a genuine attitude adjustment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• For clarification, I do agree with you, and we'll need to observe his behavior further. CtP (t • c) 02:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - A site ban is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I'm not saying he's a good editor or anything of the sort, only that it's disproportionate and penalizing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy, refuting the above

This is my position on this page. The same editors who are arguing that the "Ken Sibanda" page be deleted are requesting a site ban. This is intended to stop me from answering and defending their accusations on the Ken Sibanda deletion blog. Please allow for that deletion debate before issuing a site ban. I am willing to take the punishment for the crimes that have been listed. but other editors should also be brought to the bench.

1. My sole purpose is not to promote Ken Sibanda, but this is my starting point; to write about him and black Africa. 2. the same editors have stated the same accusations in the deletion blog with very little success, they also have baseless accusations that everyone from new Jersey is somehow connected to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Sibanda_%282nd_nomination%29

3. One of the editors, Beyond the Ken, continues to remove Ken Sibanda from the black science finctionpage and yet Mr. Sibanda has been there for quite a well. I have told him (Beyond the Ken) to wait until it's proven that Ken sibanda is not notable. See here for vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_science_fiction&action=history

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's not intended to stop you, etc. It's intended to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia as you have proven yourself singularly incapable of editing in a collegial and cooperative manner here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect I will not be talked to in a onerous and paternalistic, its you who has provenm that all you want is for the page to be deleted and for me to be banned. i have reached out several times to get editors to help with writing this article. ban me but don't try and cover your lack of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions for Mziboy:

(1) Do you accept that Wikipedia is entitled to set its own guidelines and policies regarding whether a person is sufficiently notable to merit an article in the encyclopaedia?

(2) Do you accept that it is possible for a person to express an opinion that Ken Sibanda does not meet those notability guidelines and policies without being motivated by racism, or other malevolence?

A yes or no answer for both will be quite sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

banned

Between the near unanimity of remarks here after 24 hours and the edit warring while the ban discussion was underway it seems clear that this user is not currently willing to abide by even our most basic policies and there is a strong consensus that he should be shown the door. As such I have indef blocked him and informed him that he is community-banned. [114] I think we can close up here now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

sockpuppet User:AndresHerutJaim again

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

---

Resolved

-DePiep (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

... but how to register. Looks like sockpuppet user:AndresHerutJaim is back again. [115] from Buenos Aires. And oh, I read WP:SPI and only got ugly previews. I think I can read, but the SPI makes me doubt. Of course, I won't warn AHJ. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you have to not have a subject when you file, you have to save, then save again. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. If else fails, file the report and one of us SPI clerks will fix the formatting and clean it up. We don't mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

[116] The URL for Investigation (case) to create or re-open: does not ask (nor allow) for a "subject/headline", but blames me with big red font for not doing so. Now after that, I dropped my aim. Let AHJ spoil it, and some other editor will solve it for us. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to leave the subject blank, and hit save twice, annoying, I admit. I've looked at this IP, but honestly, I dont know enough about the topic to come to a conclusion based on the one edit the IP made. It is always hard to tell with only one edit unless you really know the subject matter or the original puppetmaster, and I just don't. Someone else will need to pop in and look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

and hit save twice, annoying -- We both are talking the SPI procedure & documentation then. That is not 'annoying'. That is 'frustrating', softly spoken. Clearly so, since I left the page. Sure someone else will solve it (an attitude that is). But will anything change in the WP:SPI page. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Easiest way to file an SPI report, I find, is to use Twinkle - you just give it the names/IPs and it does the rest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, the situation is worse than that one IP. Each of the IPs in this report editing Israel related topics will be AHJ and Special:Contributions/WikiPoun is probably another sock (see comparison). I don't know what it is going to take to stop this editor's socking. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Like we discussed before some general measures are needed in the area.Probably through ARBCOM or AE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should probably start working on those soon although I'm beginning to think collective punishment may work well e.g. every editor has to pick a side in the conflict and every time a sock is found, someone innocent from the same side of the conflict is blocked. This has the advantage of probably eventually removing all editors from the topic area or ensuring everyone is eventually a sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An easy & working SPI requesting (I recognised the sock master) would help. More of a routine. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I filed it -> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim#29_August_2012 Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow that. We might close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Alleged meatpuppetry/SPA usage on SPLC

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Single purpose accounts are not prohibited if their purpose is not disruptive. If you believe this user is a sock of another user WP:SPI is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me if this has already been reported, but Philipegalite (talk · contribs) created a SPA at 14:59, 26 August 2012[117] and proceeded to edit Southern Poverty Law Center just 17 minutes later like an expert.[118] He then proceeded to use the talk page. Could someone investigate this account? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued removal of AfD template

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

---

The creator of Ken Sibanda is continuosly removing the AfD template on the page. There is an AfD currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination). In the interest of full disclosure, I am using an alternative account as there was harassment from the article creator during the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda). --Altfish80 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I protected the article. Not an ideal situation given an active AfD, but it seemed like the best short term solution to prevent disruption and allow a new user to have processes explained to them. We'll see if more action is necessary. WilyD 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored the AFD template and warned Mziboy about removing the AFD template. GB fan 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He isn't exactly a new user. He was warned specifically about removing AfD templates during the previous AfD nearly a year ago, but thanks for the quick action in any event. It should be sufficient for the moment. --Altfish80 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh - point taken. I naively assumed that anyone using articles for creation must be a new user. WilyD 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• There were actually two previous AfDs for this article; the other one is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissinger N. Sibanda. Also of interest is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy/Archive and the plethora of prior warnings for disruption on his talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of process Altfish80

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

---

The above user, ALtfish80 is a holding name for someone vandalizing the "Ken Siabnda" page. All issues have been addressed since the Ken Sibanda page was deleted years ago.

Violation of wikipedia policy ( multiple accounts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy, you need to either stop leveling socking and harassment allegations against people, or start an SPI with whatever evidence you think you have. Your habit of accusing those who don't do what you wish of malfeasance (see my "meta-comment" here) is harmful and against our civility policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy if all issues have been addressed then you shouldn't have anything to worry about on this AFD and will confirm that statement. GB fan 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing he should be worried about is his own outrageous behavior. This user has made these same accusations in about half a dozen places, all without one shred of supporting evidence. I have already deleted several pages they created and responded to a thread they initiated at WP:WQA, and warned them to cut this nonsense out on their talk page. of you want to accuse someone of something, you best have some evidence to back it up. It's " put up or shut up" time for this user. Proffer that evidence, or keep this to yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See note from Courcelles regarding use of alternate account upto this point. GB fan 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Tendentious behavior and personal attacks by Mziboy

• This is getting ridiculous very rapidly. It's obvious that Mziboy is emotionally involved in this issue, to the point where he feels justified in attacking others and misusing process to attempt to get his way and make his point. Mziboy has been here long enough to have read our rules and to have had them explained to him multiple times, and he seems unwilling or unable to grasp them. There is little benefit to the community in letting this continue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already left a final warning to desist or at least foloow proper channels on his talk page. I assume we will know fairly soon whether he is able to control himself or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any more of this kind of silliness from Mziboy should probably earn them a WP:COMPETENCE block. One's "sixth sense" is not enough to start throwing around barmy accusations of socking against users who happen to contribute to AfD discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• They've just gotten a 24 hours block from Boing! said Zebedee. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, a short block to bring this ridiculous spree to an end. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for site ban on Mziboy (talk · contribs)

I think this has gone on long enough. Mziboy has been here nearly a year, his talk page is a long string of warnings and advice, people have tried hard to explain things, but he has shown no sign that he will listen or learn by experience.

• His sole purpose here is to promote a self-published author, Ken Sibanda,[119], [120] his book and his company. See AfDs 1, 2, 3, and now 4

• He has denied any COI, but if his obsessive pushing of this article was not enough, two participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda received emails from Mziboy's WP account sent from proteusfilm.com, Sibanda's company. (His response was to claim that these were a forgery.)

• He has constantly thrown around accusations of racism, Nazism, sockpuppetry and has filed frivolous complaints against people who disagree with him

• He has himself engaged in sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy/Archive

• He tries to game the system, e.g. blanking his article during an AfD so that it is deleted and the AfD closed, and immediately recreating under another title

• He makes retaliatory speedy nominations

• He is still edit-warring to remove AfD templates.

Enough is enough. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Mziboy is not here to improve the encyclopedia, only to promote Sibanda, and he does not have the temperament to edit collaboratively. JohnCD (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Obviously involved) Support. After having watched Mziboy's behavior for this past year, I am convinced that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to promote Ken Sibanda and his products, and that Mziboy is not willing to even pay lip service to whether our policies allow this. Rather than abiding by them, he's actually quite carefully made end-runs around all the policies he's able (G7ing an article at AfD, AfCing an article that's been deleted but not telling anyone that it's a G4 candidate, putting an AfC'd article in mainspace when no one is prepared to approve it for him...). He's not here to work with us - he's here to sledgehammer his baby into Wikipedia, whether we like it or not, and he's perfectly willing to attack, intimidate, harass, and accuse if it will get him his way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I see no downside to a siteban, and a definite upside in stopping the cycle of behavior from continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Oh dear, I hadn't realised this editor had been causing so much trouble for so long - trying to evade policies in many ways to get non-notable article included, evading deletion discussions, accusing people of Nazism, racism, sockpuppetry, and attacking people in any way possible to try to discredit them. We don't need any more of this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This user is clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia and is only here to promote Ken Sibanda, and Mziboy has breached numerous policies in order to get a non-notable article included, evading deletion discussions and throwing around attacks in any way possible to discredit them. This has caused more than enough trouble. With that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know about the rest of the community, but my patience is exhausted just by looking at the user's talk page and edits. Sjones23 is right - enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support — I'm not one to enjoy telling someone that they can no longer edit Wikipedia, but Mziboy is one of those people that just doesn't seem to get it. Having a conflict of interest is one thing, but comparing people to Nazis, making accusations of racism, branching into off-Wiki harassment, and attempting to subvert our policies using dishonest means are quite another. This user has had numerous chances; they are simply not compatible with this site. I'm sorry. Kurtis (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but my impression is that this is not some paid PR person but rather a fan, possibly an acquaintance, who is having a lot of trouble understanding the most basic rules of both content and behavior. At the end of the day however it does not matter what their underlying motivations are, what matters is that they have persisted in acting in this manner regardless of how many times they are asked to desist and advised of the appropriate course of action. I would suggest a WP:OFFER based block or ban, whichever. If they could fulfill the terms of the offer it would go a long way towards demonstrating a proper understanding of what is expected in those areas where he has shown problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Despite over a year of effort on the part of honest and well-intentioned editors, this user appears to be incorrigible in his abuse of process, personal attacks, and non-adherence to content policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. On another note, it might be worth considering salting these article names. Given how singleminded Mziboy is about creating these articles, we can expect socks to appear to try to recreate them. At least until such time as reliable sources begin to report on the subject. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Editing for the sole purpose of self-promotion is itself grounds for an indef block. Demonstrated usage of socks to support his own battleground causes casts doubt on his ability to live by Wikipedia's basic rules, as does his inability to act civil. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Despite numerous warnings and attempts to help him correct himself over the past year, Mziboy's conduct remains completely unacceptable. Others have summed it up well, and I need not say more on it here. It will do us all a great deal of good to be rid of him. CtP (t • c) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The ongoing AfD regarding Ken Sibanda is being commented on by IPs which are quite clearly either the user editing logged out (which would be at the least, double-voting, and possibly block evasion, depending on when his block expired), or meatpuppets of the user. For example. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The style of writing used by the two IPs is different enough from Mziboy's that I believe them to be meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. However, they are similiar enough to each other that it's likely that the same meatpuppet is behind both IPs, probably (like Mziboy) someone connected to Proteus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not apparently Mziboy and not apparently the same person, although both IPs are from New Jersey. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Not the same? It seemed otherwise to me, but I've been wrong before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I was fairly sure that the first of the IPs to comment was a sockpuppet. The second IP to comment seemed to have more substantial contributions outside the topic of Sibanda, despite being from New Jersey, so it's probably a meatpuppet instead. CtP (t • c) 00:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

*headdesk* A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ai yi yi. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why CU is not the only way to detect socks. This edit [121] is an onvious admission that it is him if you actually read it. He says he created the article, and then repeats the bullshit accusations of racism. As he is now banned that IP at the least should be watched for more socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This is gonna end up getting outta control in the near future if he stays. ZappaOMati 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have little interaction with this user, but it's clear from his edit history and tone that enough is enough. Wikipedia is not for everyone, and it's not for this user. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and stat - Editor is a net negative to the project and is not here to help build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe Mzi's comments below speak for themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: to my pleasant surprise, Mziboy has actually been fairly cooperative at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination) during the last half-hour or so. CtP (t • c) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  Considering that he was leveling the same old charges of racism and lying at people on the AfD during the hour prior to that, as well as edit warring elsewhere, I'm not sure how much weight we can give this as a genuine attitude adjustment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• For clarification, I do agree with you, and we'll need to observe his behavior further. CtP (t • c) 02:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - A site ban is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I'm not saying he's a good editor or anything of the sort, only that it's disproportionate and penalizing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy, refuting the above

This is my position on this page. The same editors who are arguing that the "Ken Sibanda" page be deleted are requesting a site ban. This is intended to stop me from answering and defending their accusations on the Ken Sibanda deletion blog. Please allow for that deletion debate before issuing a site ban. I am willing to take the punishment for the crimes that have been listed. but other editors should also be brought to the bench.

1. My sole purpose is not to promote Ken Sibanda, but this is my starting point; to write about him and black Africa. 2. the same editors have stated the same accusations in the deletion blog with very little success, they also have baseless accusations that everyone from new Jersey is somehow connected to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_Sibanda_%282nd_nomination%29

3. One of the editors, Beyond the Ken, continues to remove Ken Sibanda from the black science finctionpage and yet Mr. Sibanda has been there for quite a well. I have told him (Beyond the Ken) to wait until it's proven that Ken sibanda is not notable. See here for vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_science_fiction&action=history

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's not intended to stop you, etc. It's intended to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia as you have proven yourself singularly incapable of editing in a collegial and cooperative manner here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect I will not be talked to in a onerous and paternalistic, its you who has provenm that all you want is for the page to be deleted and for me to be banned. i have reached out several times to get editors to help with writing this article. ban me but don't try and cover your lack of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions for Mziboy:

(1) Do you accept that Wikipedia is entitled to set its own guidelines and policies regarding whether a person is sufficiently notable to merit an article in the encyclopaedia?

(2) Do you accept that it is possible for a person to express an opinion that Ken Sibanda does not meet those notability guidelines and policies without being motivated by racism, or other malevolence?

A yes or no answer for both will be quite sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

banned

Between the near unanimity of remarks here after 24 hours and the edit warring while the ban discussion was underway it seems clear that this user is not currently willing to abide by even our most basic policies and there is a strong consensus that he should be shown the door. As such I have indef blocked him and informed him that he is community-banned. [122] I think we can close up here now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

sockpuppet User:AndresHerutJaim again

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

---

Resolved

-DePiep (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

... but how to register. Looks like sockpuppet user:AndresHerutJaim is back again. [123] from Buenos Aires. And oh, I read WP:SPI and only got ugly previews. I think I can read, but the SPI makes me doubt. Of course, I won't warn AHJ. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you have to not have a subject when you file, you have to save, then save again. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. If else fails, file the report and one of us SPI clerks will fix the formatting and clean it up. We don't mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

[124] The URL for Investigation (case) to create or re-open: does not ask (nor allow) for a "subject/headline", but blames me with big red font for not doing so. Now after that, I dropped my aim. Let AHJ spoil it, and some other editor will solve it for us. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to leave the subject blank, and hit save twice, annoying, I admit. I've looked at this IP, but honestly, I dont know enough about the topic to come to a conclusion based on the one edit the IP made. It is always hard to tell with only one edit unless you really know the subject matter or the original puppetmaster, and I just don't. Someone else will need to pop in and look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

and hit save twice, annoying -- We both are talking the SPI procedure & documentation then. That is not 'annoying'. That is 'frustrating', softly spoken. Clearly so, since I left the page. Sure someone else will solve it (an attitude that is). But will anything change in the WP:SPI page. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Easiest way to file an SPI report, I find, is to use Twinkle - you just give it the names/IPs and it does the rest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, the situation is worse than that one IP. Each of the IPs in this report editing Israel related topics will be AHJ and Special:Contributions/WikiPoun is probably another sock (see comparison). I don't know what it is going to take to stop this editor's socking. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Like we discussed before some general measures are needed in the area.Probably through ARBCOM or AE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should probably start working on those soon although I'm beginning to think collective punishment may work well e.g. every editor has to pick a side in the conflict and every time a sock is found, someone innocent from the same side of the conflict is blocked. This has the advantage of probably eventually removing all editors from the topic area or ensuring everyone is eventually a sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An easy & working SPI requesting (I recognised the sock master) would help. More of a routine. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I filed it -> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim#29_August_2012 Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow that. We might close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Alleged meatpuppetry/SPA usage on SPLC

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Single purpose accounts are not prohibited if their purpose is not disruptive. If you believe this user is a sock of another user WP:SPI is thataway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me if this has already been reported, but Philipegalite (talk · contribs) created a SPA at 14:59, 26 August 2012[125] and proceeded to edit Southern Poverty Law Center just 17 minutes later like an expert.[126] He then proceeded to use the talk page. Could someone investigate this account? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim, a third time (though the second was never answered by an admin)

I am once again having issues with User:Bluerim. I have mentioned the Talk page multiple times in my Edit Summaries, but he has yet to post his concerns there, and then on his last two Edit Summaries (on the two separate pages linked later), he told me to post on the Talk page despite me having addressed it multiple times in my Edit Summaries. A few times he reverted without an Edit Summary to explain his changes. This editor has stated that he's "Not going to break down every change." I'm not asking him to break down every change, but instead, explain why he's changing things that have been discussed (from his statement, it sounds like he's practically refusing to discuss). This is occuring on the two articles, God of War (series) and Kratos (God of War) with their revision histories here (series) and here (Kratos) (where in the latter he claimed that I'm making "neurotic reverts"). The previous two incident reports are here (1st) and here (2nd). I was hoping this editor would post on the Talk page instead of making his reverts, but he didn't, which is why I brought the situation here so it can (hopefully) be settled. I don't see why this user does not post concerns on the Talk page and essentially ignoring past discussions about points that he's reverting. He also seems to only post on the Talk page when he's forced to by reports such as this one (only a few times has he posted without force per se). --JDC808 ♫ 05:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I previously left a note about a borderline personal attack on Bluerim's talk page, which he appears to have partially taken on board (he's using edit summaries when reverting now at least). Nevertheless his reverting while yelling "stop reverting" is obviously hypocritical as is saying "take it to talk" while never himself using a talk page. I felt the need to modify the edit he was reverting over re the above diff, so his condescending "my wording is so obviously much better" was spurious on that occasion at least. bridies (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped to think why the last case was never answered by an admin? Discuss first on talk pages and if that doesn't work go to WP:WQA or WP:DRN (but please not both). Remember that edits summaries are not a dueling field, and check out WP:EW too. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping this editor would post on the Talk page instead of making his reverts, but he didn't, which is why I brought the situation here so it can (hopefully) be settled. I don't see why this user does not post concerns on the Talk page and essentially ignoring past discussions about points that he's reverting. bridies (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As bridies quoted from my above post, it's hard trying to get this editor to discuss things. There's actually discussions on a couple of other pages where I've asked Bluerim some questions and asked for him to answer them multiple times but he has yet to answer them. I even posted on his talk page asking for answers and he ignored it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated before, third party comments are often required. This particular editor means well but many of his edits require work, being more suitable for a fan site than a Wikipedia article. On a number of occasions others have agreed re: certain points, but despite this he attempts to push what are very, very minor points. I apoologize for the term but it is a tad neurotic, and these "micro-wars" are tiring as no one should have to meticulously explain every edit. A third party might also help to tone this editor's style down: this is no less than the third attempt at administrative action (unwarranted), which is also coupled with several failed attempts at bringing in other editors via their Talk Pages. These issues can be resolved, but he needs to take a step back and get some perspective. Regards Bluerim (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Again I'll provide a third opinion then. You don't have to "meticulously explain every edit" but you are expected to provide an edit summary of some kind. And again if I may point to this diff: aside from the fact it wouldn't have killed you to write "active voice" (or whatever it was that made you think this an "obvious" improvement), here you neutered the sentiment that the sources "criticized" the points in question and introduced ambiguity into the statement. It is indeed a minor issue, but your claims of "obvious" improvement are baseless. And that's another tacit personal attack in stating the OP's contributions are "more suitable for a fan site", without citing any content. There's no need for the OP to "step back" and if you're keen to use the talk page, do so. bridies (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, if you would have fully read my first post, you would have saw that I stated that I'm not asking you to break down every change, but instead, explain why you're changing things that have been discussed. Also, that "number of occasions" is actually just a few, because if I remember correctly, more editors have agreed with my points than yours, but that's a side note. To be perfectly honest, I've generally had no problems working with other editors (except for one that made similar claims that you have against me, but that account is no longer around because it turned out to be a sock). For example, me and User:Niemti worked together and made the Kratos article an A-Class article. There were some things we disagreed with, but we discussed it and resolved it. Speaking of Niemti, there's a discussion involving you, Niemti, and myself about points that you began to change in this last week, which is what I've been referring to (with Kratos) when I stated "changing things that have been discussed" and though Niemti agreed with one of your points, he was more in agreeance with me on the others, which is what you've been changing. Niemti actually reverted you on these near exact current issues at that page. In regards to "ton[ing] [my] style down," not trying to brag, but I've made four of the God of War articles GA-Class and Kratos A-Class in the past month. I'll give you credit that you had some contribution to those, however, there were times where I was making edits and stated in my ES "as per GAN", and you reverted them. --JDC808 ♫ 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are drifting off track. Yes, this isn't the place to brag, particularly since there is in fact nothing to brag about. Several other editors efforts were required to bring articles up to standard. As for the ES, this isn't actually mandatory, but I will use it. I suggest moving with a third party to the relevant Talk pages. Bluerim (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How was I drifting off track? Everything I said (except the side note and GAN stuff) was directly related to this issue (as for the "up to standard," there weren't several editors required except for FAC, but I was talking about GAN). And I thought I made it clear that I wasn't trying to brag, but you essentially turned it into me saying that I was. I was making a point since you made the comment of toning my style down. Though the ES was an issue, this report is primarily based on your refusal to discuss on the Talk pages and ignoring past discussions. --JDC808 ♫ 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking to the user above at List of God of War characters. I hope this is the last time I am pulled unnecessarily into a discussion here. As indicated, this has happened three times thus far (all instigated by the same user) and is a waste of administrators' valuable time. Let's move on. Bluerim (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a waste of time if it pressed you to practise what you preach rather than engaging in risible passive aggression. bridies (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, that's fine, but that article is not the articles addressed in this report. You claimed that I was "drifting off track" but you have yet to discuss the articles addressed int this report. These discussions here wouldn't have happened if you discussed at the appropriate Talk pages in the first place. I've noticed a trend in regards to these reports; I made the first report for your lack of discussion, then you started to discuss, but then you began to not discuss, so another report had to be made and the same thing happened which is why we're here again. To add to you discussing at the List page, you asked me to not edit the page until there was a resolution. I did not, but you decided to edit the page after posting "fixes" without resolution. That's not discussing. That's leaving a post and making your own resolution. --JDC808 ♫ 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One: I actually added some of your suggestions rather than reverting. That's different.

You added one thing, a little bit of another and fixed the two typos I pointed out. Every other edit you made in regards to the points I brought up were not agreed on. --JDC808 ♫ 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Two: as I've seen nothing thus far in the way of proof that I've done something illegal or outrageous, I would like to see the unnecessary preaching stop and we move on. As indicated, a detached third-party may like to help at the relevant Talk Pages, although we are now making progress. And finally, my responding is not an open invitation to jump in again - if anyone has anything more to say, it should come from someone removed from the whole conversation. Thank you. 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerim (talk • contribs)

You didn't do anything illegal but proof is in the links I provided in my first post. We can't move on until the matter is resolved. Though you're discussing at the List page (which brings up the point in my last post at 22:41), you have yet to address the issues of why this report was made. As for the "not an open invitation to jump in again," are you saying me and bridies can't comment? This is an open discussion. --JDC808 ♫ 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean you ignored proof of passive aggression and personal attacks. bridies (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A) No proof. B) Your choice of link is interesting. The first sentence talks of "editors...sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus...decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". That's what I have endorsed. Neither one of you, however, could resist coming back for more after I stated it would be best left to a third-party. This is now childish and unnecessary. Once again, I suggest moving to the relevant pages and all parties involved refraining from continuing this pointless conversation (I use that term deliberately given it is the third attempt by an editor to have someone come down on their side over non-issues). Bluerim (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The diff I linked of you telling JC808 to "stop playing edit officer" is a personal attack; calling his contributions "suitable for a fan site" with no reference to content is a personal attack. Your continual "stop reverting!" while reverting, "use the talk page" while avoiding the talk page, condescending (and spurious) I-don't-need-to-discuss-this-'cause-it's-so-obvious claims, "nothing to see here" comments peppered with tacit personal attacks, bizarre requests for other editors to "go cool off" and now "stop replying to me!" comments are all passive aggression. As for my "choice of link", you don't understand consensus. Consensus is not what you alone happened to have "endorsed" or "stated". I'm delighted for you to go take things forward on the talk page rather than here, but if you haven't grasped such concepts as "comment on content, not on the contributor", "no personal attacks" and "consensus", that remains concerning. bridies (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What is concerning is how limited your perspective of the situation is. The other editor means well - I truly believe that - but he has become TOO involved in the editing of these articles. The need to revert against even minor changes is a fetish at best, an obsession at worst. Perhaps I am assuming too much of some editors, hoping that they will be able to see the logic in the comparisons. I will endeavour to spell things out a tad more. As for consensus, I understand the concept, and again you seem to have overlooked the fact that I supported/slightly modified several of the other user's edits. Your response above also implies I edit with emotion (the use of the word "bizarre": word to avoid when dealing with anyone) - far from it. I simply want what is best for the articles, and believe a third-party perspective would help. As someone is already helping in this regard, I'm satisfied. Bluerim (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't revert minor changes as a fetish or obsession or whatever, I revert (as linked above) if they were issues that have been discussed. I also revert if what you claim as "better, fixed, tweaked" or any other term that you have used to mean improved, was not actually that. There's been many times where you changed something and claimed it as an improvement, but it turned out to be worse than what was originally there (e.g. weird phrasing, grammar issues, overuse and unnecessary use of parenthesis). Your statement of "assuming too much of some editors" is condescending towards myself and any other editor, and it's not the first time that you've said something of a condescending tone towards myself (which bridies has noted). As for understanding consensus, if you understand the concept, then why don't you abide by it? A third-opinion editor at the List page stated specifically to you "a compromise does require concessions" because you were changing things in the midst of the discussion without consensus. Though true that you have supported/slightly modified some of my edits, there's been times where I had to explain in depth what it's supposed to be saying because you didn't understand (or check the source). --JDC808 ♫ 04:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's "bizarre" not because it's emotional (accusing others of emotional editing is what you have done, on the contrary: "step back and get some perspective", "TOO involved" etc.) because telling editors that before discussing a content dispute they have to wait some arbitrary length of time on your whim has no basis in editing guidelines and is indeed bizarre. And you're still, still, directing personal attacks at JD808: "The need to revert against even minor changes is a fetish at best, an obsession at worst" is completely needless. Maybe he reverted your change because (such as in the example I provided, and you ignored), your change was inferior. In any case, "this is a minor change" is not a defence against someone reverting that change, much less a justification for incivility. bridies (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are generous in your defence of him. But...my point was a gentle one, and it seems to be an issue Wikipedia in general seems poorly equipped to deal with (people becoming too involved in the process). The fact that said user is almost always at the keyboard ready to revert is...concerning. No real nice way to say this, but there it is. Most of what seems to be on this page is about editors who have gotten a tad too involved. Anyway, I digress. This has strayed quite a ways off topic and can discussed somewhere else. As indicated, a third party is helping out and seems to be doing a competent job so I'm good with that. Bluerim (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bridies is not necessarily being generous, he/she's telling the truth. You can think that I'm too involved, but at least I try to seek consensus and don't (or at least try not to) ignore discussions and past discussions on issues. I'm also not "almost always at the keyboard ready to revert." You ignored my question about consensus (which you ignore things quite a lot), so I'll ask again, if you understand the concept, then why don't you abide by it? As for the third party, who are you referring to? The copy-editor who recently copy-edited the List page, God of War I, and currently working II? Those aren't the pages in the original post (by the way, I requested to have those pages copy-edited). --JDC808 ♫ 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Non admin comment: Rather than carry on the fighting here, I suggest you three stop commenting at each other else this ANI is going to be ignored again. Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Bluerim has just about managed to avoid any personal attacks in his last post, I'm indeed content to do so. To be clear though: I'm not involved in any of the content disputes that gave rise to this, and just happened to notice the behaviour via an FAC. bridies (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

user:Daviddaved

Daviddaved (talk · contribs) embarked on a strange project which looks like a wikibook within wikipedia without any references and any other respect to wikipedia style. Please someone of admins talk sense to the editor. - Altenmann >t 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? It looks like he's working on an article in his sandbox. Perhaps he wants to get the text together first before he references it. Let him be... --Jayron32 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He is not working in his sandbox. He is polluting wikipedia main article space with new weird mathematish pages. You have to tell him to confine himself to his space and move/noredirect all his creations into his space. - Altenmann >t 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And check his history and block log; this is not the first time he's done this sort of disruptive editing (and been blocked for it). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to move __all__ of his work to his user space. Wait until it's cleaned up and then judge according to content in each case. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be described as "weird mathematish pages". I think they're legitimate mathematics, but in some cases possibly original research. I suspect this use is <outing redacted>. He clearly has no understanding of what Wikipedia's norms and conventions are. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you know an editor's real life identity or any other personal information, please do not disclose it, as that is a breach of WP:OUTING -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think communicating with him should be left to those who can read his articles. See the one I just edited. I don't know if authoritative secondary sources can be cited or not, but I think to a non-mathematician it may have looked like gibberish, and it showed no awareness at all of how Wikipedia articles should be written, but now it's in a comprehensible form where no one would mistake it for gibberish. If you try to tell him he should do things differently, do not create a reasonable appearance in his mind that you are an illiterate idiot. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody had any interaction with this editor? So far I haven't seen anything to indicate he ever reads his talk page. Eeekster (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is the only time he's ever replied to a comment left on a talk page. Mind you, that comment was posted today, so perhaps he's finally learning. Since that comment he appears to have shifted editing to his sandbox. But editors should continue to monitor contributions, and to press for further dialogue, to make sure that no further nonsensical or essay-like articles are created in the mainspace, and that he understands that even his personal sandbox isn't for non-encyclopedic content. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of them appear to be gibberish to mathematicians (well, at least one mathematician). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Which ones? To me, most of the articles he's created look like fragments, not yet ready to be articles. @Eekster: I met him about ten years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be rash!

Look at my recent edits to Compound matrix. Look at where this user left it (showing no awareness of norms and conventions of Wikipedia) and where I left it. If you had started with his initial draft and then written to him that he was "polluting" Wikipedia with "weird" nonsense, I predict that he would CORRECTLY conclude that you are dishonest and imbecilic. The article may still be objectionable as it stands, but let the objections be valid ones, no stupid nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The user needs to send an OTRS if he has permission to copy from http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/dmb/matrix/property.html . Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

Is that the original source? It's available here with a CC attribution non-commercial license, but I have no idea if that's valid. http://www.scribd.com/doc/46658346/Matrix-Properties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.126.182.249 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due deference to Michael Hardy and his immense contribution to Wikipedia, Eeekster observation above that Daviddaved appears totally uncommunicative on wiki doesn't bode well. As far as I can tell by looking at his Talk and User_talk namespace contributions Daviddaved never dialogued with anyone ever on Wikipedia. By all means, if you can engage him in dialogue or some kind of tutoring, on WPM or elsewhere, please do so, otherwise this isn't going to end well. He was already blocked once. Some of the pages he created, like Variation diminishing property, appear to be hopeless lecture fragments. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for creating inappropriate pages and extremely poor communication. He is at least responding in the form of unblock requests but I can't say I find his explanation very compelling. If Michael or anyone else would llike to have a go at making sense of the deleted articles they can be userfied or whatever until such time as they meet our minimum standards and can be at least vaguely comprehended by a general audience. . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the unblock requests he's made, he still doesn't seem clear on the difference between an encyclopedic topic and an encyclopedia article. Certainly the topics he's writing about are worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. But I don't think he is engaged in writing encyclopedia articles on them; he seems to be looking for a convenient place to record original research or teaching material. (Many of his now-deleted articles talk about a "book" he is writing here.) He needs to come out and say exactly what sort of work he intends to write (in terms of content, genre, and target audience) so that the best venue for it can be identified. Possibly that venue will be Wikipedia, but more likely it will be Wikiversity or some non-Wikimedia project like arXiv, a scholarly journal, or his own personal web page. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikibooks might be another possible outlet. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've broached the subject on his talk page; see User talk:Daviddaved#What sort of material are you intending to write?. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at some of the userspace stubs. They're not gibberish and the ones I looked at are probably sourceable, though they tend to jump around within a topic kind of abruptly, so they're not all that good as exposition. Within the jumps, they are well written (I mean in terms of the mathematics, not just the English). I wonder if they might be cut and pasted from existing mathematical texts or class notes. They have an informal style more like lecture notes than like a textbook.

It would be nice if we could change the blocking software for this type of (recurring) situation, where someone is editing inappropriately but not maliciously, and hasn't figured out how to respond to talk messages or is ignoring them. Rather than the bureaucratic block messages we use now, it would IMHO be better to have the user's edit screen say "Your ability to edit is temporarily disabled because we have to discuss [problem] with you before you can continue. We're not trying to get rid of you, but we haven't been able to get your attention in other ways we've tried. The issue is [description of issue] and we'll be happy to turn your editing back on once it's straightened out. Please enter your reply here: [text entry box]." 69.228.170.132 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't mind having those words in one of our bureaucratic block message templates. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support creation of that template and admin use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

second the support. This is not the first time I see an incommunicado person, and there must be a generic, polite way to attract their attention. This is especially true in case of anons. (Registered users at least receive a message that they have a message.) - Altenmann >t 02:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@M.Hardy: "I don't think they should be described as "weird mathematish pages". I think they're legitimate mathematics" — Yet legitimate mathematics may well generate tons of weird math pages, and I stand by my description. A can take any book in maths, open at random and type half of its page into a new wikipedia page. I can repat this $P=\sum _{i=1}^{n}(p_{i}-1)*2$ times thus creating P genuine maththematich wikipedia articles. - Altenmann >t 02:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can he edit userspace drafts during the block?

Is this user able to edit userspace drafts during the time in which he is blocked? I've copied one of his deleted pages into a userspace draft and encouraged him to develop it further. I've also done so with an article for which deletion was proposed, which also might become presentable with further work. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked editors can only edit their talk page, I think, not other pages in their userspace. If Daviddaved is really trying to write a book though, he should use wikibooks rather than wikipedia. Wikibooks exists for that very purpose. Can you advise him of that? I still suspect he is pasting sentences from lecture notes without understanding them. The individual mathematical statements make sense but they don't hold together in larger units. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately your suspicion that he is pasting things without understanding them is nonsense. His misunderstandings are about Wikipedia; not about mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No blocking is an incredibly blunt instrument. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC).

Unblock

For now, I have unblocked this user and put a statement explaining this decision on his talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to jump in there if others think it unwarranted, so I'll note here that IMHO someone should manually archive User talk:Daviddaved, and move the userboxes at the top to the user page (which inexplicably is a redirect to talk, created by someone else). One problem may be that the bafflingly long talk page looks like a computer-generated log of arbitrary messages—the sort of thing that would be readily ignored. I would remove everything from talk except the last section (although it would be better if Michael Hardy were to rewrite a new section starting from scratch, and explain, in appropriate words, that communication and collaboration are required, and offer some way to get assistance—all the user needs to do is reply with a question, and someone will offer suggestions). Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like the efforts to explain Wikipedia to Daviddaved have worked reasonably well. He moved some of his sandbox stuff to Wikibooks. I support the unblock for now because there's no other way to see what he's learned from this incident other than by letting him edit. One thing that he should be cautioned about is to search Wikipedia more before starting a stub. There were quite a few duplicate topics in his previous attempts. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan and Cirt

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

---

Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (formerly User:Off2riorob) who's currently supposed to be on a sabbatical following an RFC/U earlier this month, is currently soliciting others to "out" Cirt for the heinous crime of editing donkey puncher and choker setter. He's posted on an off-wiki forum:

The issues are ongoing, User Cirt- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cirt&offset=&limit=500&target=Cirt - a massive violator of the project. No one should be able to hide behind a pseudonym and violate the projects goals and neutrality - Its not outing in any way to expose a project violator, its good for the project to expose such violators. Who is he? If anyone knows, please expose him. [127]

This shows two things: 1) he clearly thinks the articles are about sex, which is really stupid (the articles are actually about logging and Cirt's editing of them has been completely innocuous) and 2) he clearly has no intention of abiding by the terms of the RFC. While it's true that he hasn't posted this on Wikipedia, it's clear that he's still making personal attacks against other editors. It's also completely unacceptable for him to be seeking to "out" other editors or to solicit others to do the outing, especially on a forum whose users have a history of targeting and outing Wikipedians. It's blatant off-wiki harassment of an editor whom he's targeted before. This comes only two weeks after the closure of the RFC, during which he narrowly avoided being blocked for the 20th time for edit-warring and incivility. I am utterly unsurprised at his inability to keep his nose clean; rather than taking a break from Wikipedia as promised in the RFC, he's simply moved over to a gripe site to continue attacking other editors. The question is what to do about it now. Thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this. Posting as Off2delhiDan but making it clear who he is, he wrote " No one should be able to hide behind a pseudonym and violate the projects goals and neutrality - Its not outing in any way to expose a project violator, its good for the project to expose such violators. Who is he? If anyone knows, please expose him." That's completely unacceptable. If no one else does it soon, I think I will indefinitely block him. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Um -- without sound reason to assert a positive connection between the two personas (and I, for one, doubt that this is a "real connection" (Joe job is possible here)), the complaint would make this a horrid example for blocking anyone. (BTW, I think the confusion lies in the Wiktionary def of "donkey punch" and Cirt's editing thereon -- and I would suggest, in fact, that the term is, indeed, "sexual" vide Cirt's edit at [128]. I have nothing to object to in those articles and definitions, but it is clearly disingenuous to aver that whoever thus person is, he was in the loony bin.) IIRC, however, without a solid basis for connecting an off-wiki account to an on-Wiki account, there is always a possibility that this is done by someone opposed to YRC entirely, and was done with the aim of having this sort of action. Which would be utterly reprehensible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this definitely YRC? If so, I will also look to indef him. GiantSnowman 11:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He is member 104 on Wikipediocracy. This was his first post, well before the RFC/U (March 18 this year). He has posted several times since, referring to the RFC/U [129] [130]. There's no indication from him or from anyone else that this is anything other than him posting. As Collect is a Wikipediocracy member, perhaps he can confirm YRC's membership on that site. Prioryman (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- talk about "guilt by association" -- I rather think Prioryman reads those pages? In fact I invite anyone to look at my posts there and find anything remotely improper about them -- the snide comment "Collect is a Wikipediocracy member" is an affront to reasoned discussion. I have absolutely zero authority there, and would not have the foggiest idea whether anyone there is who they purport to be at all. Cheers -- but this implicit attack on me is simply unwarranted and a violation of AGF from the get-go. Collect (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, are you saying that unless someone explicit says they're not someone else, they must be that someone? By that logic, I put it to you that you are Dame Judi Dench. (By the way, this link you gave requires you to log in to see it, so I presume that means you're a Wikipediocracy member too?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

can some one indef Prioryman for outing YRC on another site. John lilburne (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

John, from the editor's posts it is clear that they are posting as though they are YRC, there's no other possible interpretation. And outing is revealing someone's real identity. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Some people maintain separate usernames across different sites in an attempt to separate different aspects of their lives. Pulling all their online personae into one place is a form of outing, and I do believe that PM was indeed arguing for that being policy not so long ago. In any case should Cirt be identified it won't be due to a post by YRC that the dox appears across various websites. John lilburne (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not a member, and I'm not Dame Judi Dench either. Look, this isn't hard; as I've said below, it is completely obvious (writing style, general incoherence, typos, interests, username) that it is him. He said explicitly that it was him in his comments on the RFC/U. Until two hours ago nobody, including YRC himself, had raised any questions about whether the five-month-old account on Wikipediocracy was his. Why don't you ask him? Prioryman (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're not Dame Judi. But without being a member, how did you see his profile? (I ask out of curiosity). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I meant to reply to "Why don't you ask him?" - he's on an enforced break, so he can't communicate here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#The last stage: WP:ARB/R

Does this mean I get my dime back? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, he hasn't actually outed anyone, and you guys are pushing to ban him for outing? What's going on here? Cla68 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What's probably going on is that they hate YRC and they want to be sure he stays away from here permanently. And as Collect points out, this could be a total fraud, i.e. someone pretending to be YRC. Before any action is taken, perhaps Cirt should comment here, as he's the one affected by this alleged solicitation for outing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, Bugs. He's seeking to out someone over a mistaken interpretation of completely innocuous edits to two articles about logging. Outing or soliciting outing is never an acceptable response to an editing dispute. There's no "alleged" about it - "If anyone knows, please expose him" is not capable of being misinterpreted. In this case it's all the more egregious because of the facts that (1) YRC is not even supposed to be having anything to do with Wikipedia for a month and (2) he doesn't seem to have even bothered to see what the articles or the edits were about. Trying to out someone or have them outed is not just incivility, it's blatant off-wiki harassment. When it comes from someone with 19 previous blocks for edit-warring and incivility, it really is the last straw. Prioryman (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Outing is bad. No two ways about it. The question is whether it's really the same guy or an impostor. If Collect is on that same website, he might be able to find out. If it's 100 percent certain it's the same guy, then YRC is likely done here. But it's important to be certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that it is not him? He writes in the first person about the RFC. His writing style is identical to that on Wikipedia, complete with the ridiculous misspellings (apparently I'm an "anti-entomologist"). His username is an obvious reference to his old one. Other Wikipediocracy members address him as "Rob". He's been posting there for five months without anyone expressing any doubts. There's been no indication from anyone, on Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy, that the user representing himself as YRC on the latter site is a fake. It simply isn't credible to believe that now, after all this time, there's a question about his identity. Prioryman (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Any indication it's not him?" Hard to tell, since I never heard of that site until today. Why do you care what someone says on a page like that, or its virtual cousin Wide Receiver? Why go looking for trouble? Unless you yourself have an ulterior motive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If Collect is on that same website"" - Prioryman earlier gave us a members-only link, so would that not suggest he's a member of the site himself? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(Note: Prioryman has since said he is not a member - see above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

Bugs is just trying to get to his next celebration ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He's pointing out that you're about to hit 10k edits to ANI. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoop-tee-do. I don't keep track of stuff like that. But if my virtual cousin enjoys doing that, that's his privilege. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think we have to ask why is Prioryman stalking YRC, even so far as to monitor his possible off-wiki editing? Cirt is presumably an adult, and if he wants to take issue with anything that YRC has posted about him, then he is free to take the matter into his own hands. You're not a public defender, Priory, so quite honestly you should probably butt out of matters that do not involve you. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 ***@Cla68 - he is asking for other people to out Cirt. Are you really suggesting that this is acceptable, and that we can only take action if he does the outing himself?

• • • @Baseball Bugs - drop the personal attack, this is unacceptable behavior no matter what anyone's opinion is about the editor. And I don't hate him, I simply think that we can't tolerate this sort of attempt to out someone. I'll ask Cirt to comment.
    • @Collect - it seems pretty clear that this is Youreallycan, although it is possible, just (IMHO) not very likely, that it's a clever joejob. But since a block can easily be undone, I don't see this as justification for an argument that we can't possibly block him for this. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Some editors here apparently hate YRC. Not you. And the point justifiably raised is, why is someone going out of their way to find possible occurrences of a wikipedia user somewhere else? Is that not stalking and harassment also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the funniest things I have seen for a while. And most pathetic. The guy is a joke. If these are the sorts of antics that "Off2rionobhed" gets up to when he doesn't have Mummy Jimbo's apron-strings to cling onto, the he deserves the Order of The Boot to be conferred upon him. A painful and embarrassing joke. (Oh, and block Proiryman for needless troll stalkimg too) 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • It isn't "hatred" to point out that the subject of a recent RFC, supposedly on sabbatical, is soliciting outing. As Doug says, it's unacceptable behavior no matter what the circumstances. Prioryman (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
          • If it's for real, sure. But why did you go looking for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I didn't. I've been keeping an eye on that thread because it's been used to attack me. When I saw that YRC was using it to try to harass others, I raised the issue here. Prioryman (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Prioryman, did the person you say is YouReallyCan actually out Cirt, or say that he was going to do so? If so, can you point to it, because I'm not seeing it. Also, is Wikipediocracy the only place that you're attempting to observe what you think may be YouReallyCan's actions off-wiki? Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
              • You're not stupid, so please stop pretending that you are. The meaning of what he posted is crystal clear. Prioryman (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
                • It wasn't the user YRC that posted it, it was a user calling himself "Off2delhidan",[131] which might or might not be an impostor account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

as is Bugs parroting YRC's "hater" rhetoric. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally "parrot" anyone. Maybe "vendetta" would be the right term. I'd just like to know why someone would seek someone else out on another website. That's bad behavior also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so where has Cirt been outed and where has the person you say is YourReallyCan said that he is going to out him? Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, he hasn't been, and he didn't. It was an editor calling himself "Off2delhidan", which could be an alternate account parodying "Off2riorob", or it could be a faker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying someone has to SUCCESSFULLY troll? Don't be stupid. Block his ass, and let the troll-enablers take up a different cause so they can Fight the Power. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The account has only 9 posts since March. There is a real chance this is a Joe job. I don't think I'd put money either way. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm personally on the fence here. Soliciting outing is clearly wrong, but it didn't happen on this site and I'd prefer to see something more egregious to block for off-wiki actions, especially with the doubt over it being him (I personally believe it is, but cannot be certain) Youreallycan's complying with the agreed output of the RfC, meaning he's unable to respond to this accusation, and I'm generally unhappy with blocking an editor who cannot respond. Prioryman, in posting this request for blocking at this time, after filing the RfC and the Arbcom case, I'm really starting to see a pattern of harassment and suggest you voluntarily start to ignore Youreallycan before you end up with some sort of sanction yourself. Worm^TT(talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote above: "The question is what to do about it now. Thoughts?" I haven't asked anyone to block him - I'm asking the community what should be done about this matter. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  Despite the semantics, taking this to ANI, talking about off-wiki harassment and "outing" is the same as asking for a block. Worm^TT(talk) 13:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• 1) I gather Prioryman has history with Youreallycan so it would have been better if he had left it to someone else to raise this. 2) It's not obvious to me that this is in fact Youreallycan? Has Youreallycan stated on wiki that Off2delhiDan on that site is him? 3) Off2delhiDan hasn't made any direct link with 'donkey puncher' or 'Choker Setter', some other person (Randy from Boise) alleged that. Off2delhiDan could be referring to any of 500 edits in Cirt's contribution list. 4) While the comment is clearly unhelpful, he has not actually outed anybody. 62.25.109.204 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See this:

"Aug 17, 2012 2:30 am Off2delhiDan

Post Re: YouReallyCan HI Guys and Gals - Just dropping by to says thanks to all that defended my contribution history / commented in support. It was a good deal for me. I need a break from that place and was getting more and more distressed about it - a one month break from even reading, this will be a big help - I need to come to the place where I am less bothered about content issues. Its true I will likely not edit much during the BLP restriction (I might never edit there again, lets see) it must be hard to edit the wiki without mistakenly making an edit about some living person or other and I wouldn't want to violate my (as Errant calls them) self imposed community accepted restrictions. I have been involved in a fair few hight profile issues and was instrumenta/a main playerl in the bans of Cirt, WillbeBack and Fae and had content disputes with many more. I imagine Arbcom would have wacked me with the ban hammer (as seems to be their preferred method of disruption solution) and someone would have come and added that banned template to my userpages as they tend ot do ... so this is a good outcome for me, and I see that part of the fallout was that ChrisO was unvarnished, so it could have been worse and as I said, I really need a break from the environment. So, thanks again to y'all - love and light ." Ok, someone could be clever enough to forge this, but that seems extremely unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not take skill to make a Joe job -- and I assure you in my many years online I have seen very skilled fake posts from people seeking to roil the waters -- it is not "rocket science" to fake such a post, and it is clearly very likely to be a fake. I had to separate (as a contractual obligation for fifteen years) "fake socks" from "real socks" a few times in the past -- and the copying of "broad style" is exceedingly simple. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's "likely to be a fake", why has nobody, including YRC himself, expressed any doubts about it over the past five months until I raised the issue here three hours ago? Come on, Collect, this is just disingenuous. Prioryman (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- the "let's punish a person just because we think he might possibly be making posts on a non-WP site under a different name which do not actually 'out' anyone at all, but since blocks are 'cheap' we should do it"? Oh -- and we "know" an editor has been blocked before, so adding blocks is even better as a solution! Um -- George Orwell. @PM -- I think your animus has been evinced enough already. Including the snide comment that I am somehow part of a cabal opposed to Wikipedia in a "guilt by association" claim etc. I suggest you drop that stick -- I think you will find it has thorns. Collect (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this is essentially asking for an indef or ban based on the guess that Off2delhiDan is YRC. Unless there is something considerably stronger than I have seen that can link the two, it is a non-starter. We will not be imposing any indef blocks based on "gut feelings" today. I would agree that it is "likely" to be YRC, but "likely" is not an acceptable standard to measure by, and I would hope that we all expect more from ourselves than that. If it can be demonstrated that this is YRC by more than "a preponderance of evidence", even if somewhat less than "beyond a reasonable doubt", then there is an issue. Until then, this is conjecture and not particularly helpful. This is the same standard that we would want applied to ourselves if we were in this situation, and the same we should apply now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I respect you, but this is more than just a 'guess'. There's evidence. Not 100%, but even if he'd posted under one of his Wikipedia names it still wouldn't be 100%. Blocks are cheap, and we are talking about an editor with a loooong block history. And if he posts to his talk page saying that was an imposter, I'd willingly remove the block. It's not as though he doesn't have about 20 blocks already, so another one won't hurt his reputation. The point is we should not tolerate editors trying to out people, even off-Wiki. Do you agree? Maybe we can't stop it happening, but we can make it clear that if someone does try to out someone off-Wiki they will be blocked here. And if we refrain, when can we ever do it? Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, sucks when two people you greatly respect fall on different sides of an issue. But I need to second Dennis here. Collect presents some arguments which give reasonable doubt and we can't make decisions like this. Sorry to say.--v/r - TP 14:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, in that case, we should just take it to Arbcom and ask them to get to the bottom of it. Prioryman (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to find out who DelhiDan is, either way. If it's YRC, then that's a serious issue. But if it's somebody impersonating YRC to get him in trouble, then that's another serious issue. GiantSnowman 14:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps YRC could be invited to indicate, on his user-talk page, whether that Wikipediocracy account is in fact his. If he denies it, perhaps Wikipediocracy would want to close it down. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has presented a sliver of evidence that it's not him - it's pure speculation, mostly from past supporters of YRC, and there's never been any previous question about about the account's identity. On the other hand, there are plenty of indications that have been discussed above that it is him. If Cla68 thinks it's not him then I invite Cla68, who's a moderator on that site, to block Off2DelhiDan as an imposter. Prioryman (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC is currently taking one month off, enforced by WP:Wikibreak Enforcer per the outcome of the RfC. This means that he cannot even log into his account unless an administrator removes the enforcer (or he sneaks past the enforcer) Worm^TT(talk) 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

By disabling Javascript in his browser...not hard to do.--v/r - TP 14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that more due diligence is needed before we even consider a solution. This is a matter of threshold, and I'm glad to hear more evidence, but I don't think we have yet to pass the threshold here, even if I personally think your assessment is likely correct. The default action here is to NOT take action until that threshold has been passed, as determined by a consensus of editors, after enough time has passed to allow a full discussion. Acting today or tomorrow (or next week) changes nothing here and there is no great sense of urgency that demands we act now. As for ArbCom, I'm not sure how interested they would be in the matter, nor what they can bring to the table that would add clarity here, and might be seen as creating more drama when it isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ArbCom doesn't have a magic wand; they have no control or any more information about postings to external websites that the rest of us nobodies. Nobody Ent 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::And could people who are dubious please read his comments here [132](and he's still on the gay thing)? His first post to the thread says "Off2delhiDanost Re: YouReallyCan HI - guys and gals - I got a message - I am under discussion here - so came for a look - I am enjoying my break from Wikipedia - My input to the project had become imo a net loss - I wasn't enjoying it anymore and the content wasn't benefiting much either .....I needed it and am continuing to enjoy it - I am very busy in real life - working two businesses and as a single guy - busy dating also - Alll the Wiki business got the better of me and I just couldn't cope with it anymore - love to you guys." As for not being able to use his talk page, he still has email enabled I presume. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Crikey! (He says, well aware that his language is being watched) Can I point out the substance of the case here? As a Wikimediocracy forum member (which as far as I'm aware isn't a blockable offence - and as for why I'm a member, that is my own business), under the same name as I use here, I saw OffToDelhiDan's post (and yes, I've assumed, though I don't know that it is Rob) and looked at Cirt's recent work on Donkey puncher: and then, shock horror, edited it! It is a legitimate article, if on an obscure subject. Evidently, OffToWhereverWho made a fool of himself, which rather made any request for someone else to out Cirt less effective. That certain Wikimediocracy forum users have an infantile obsession with outing people isn't news, and that SomeoneWhoMightBeSomeoneElseButWeCan'tProveIt apparently shares this obsession is likewise not news (not least because we don't know who he is). Nobody was outed. OffToDelhiWithEggOnHisFace made himself look stupid. Nobody (except presumably Cirt) knows who Cirt is. Several of us know more about donkey punchers and why they punch donkeys than we did before, and (hopefully) the article has been improved a little. Otherwise this is a non-event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when does reasonable doubt fit into all of this? This is Wikipedia administration, not a criminal trial! No one is going to jail, no one is losing their constitutional rights, etc. If a mistake is made, it can very, very easily be reversed. I'm not going to give my opinion on this matter - I'm just making the observation that this administrative decision should be made without all of the rhetoric. If administrators decide that there is nothing to base a block on, so be it. If administrators block YRC, and discover later that there was mistake, then again, so be it. Nothing permanent is being decided here. Singularity42 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No one said it were a court. "Reasonable doubt" isn't limited to the legal system. I'm saying that as an administrator with tools, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable blocking this guy when there is still a reasonable chance that it's not him. I don't see the same 'evidence' that Dougweller sees.--v/r - TP 14:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I get that. But in the legal system, we sucessfully hold people civillily liable for far, far less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Are we really saying that Wikipedia requires more evidence than the legal courts? Here's the only thing that needs to be considered:

1. If an uninvolved administrator thinks it is not YRC, or that it is YRC but it's not block-able anyway, don't block.
2. If an uninvolved administrator thinks it is YRC, and that it is block-able, than block.
3. If YRC ends up blocked, and makes an unblock request, than consider it and decide whether to unblock.

Seems pretty simple to me. Not sure why we need this huge discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that we aren't a court and didn't require "beyond a reasonable doubt" but needed more than "a preponderance of evidence" as well. The fact that I use legal terms is due to the fact that most people here will understand these types of threshold, making them a suitable analogy. I am not going to block someone because of a 51% chance it is him (preponderance), that is certain. If I ever do block based on a 51% chance, please strip my name off the rolls of WP:WER, and my admin bit as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Because length of block logs are routinely used when slinging mud at other editors, regardless of the appropriateness of the blocks. Nobody Ent 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec a few times)Then we should not act like we should try a case. BTW, more than half of "delhi"'s edits on the outside site are in the 4 to 6 a.m. (EDT) period. Wikichecker shows that this is not a normal time to expect any edits from YRC. Thus direct and specific evidence which is empirical in nature would make it highly unlikely that the second name is related to the first. Unless, of course, one wishes to argue "when using a different name on a diferent site, one totally changes their usual daily sleep routine" of course. See Roy Bean. Collect (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's even a preponderance of evidence. What could be relevant, though, is the reason why we block: it is to prevent disruption. If there is a good likelihood that this is YRC (I'm not totally convinced), an admin could block on the grounds of preventing disruption. Blocking indefinitely can be undone, although community banishment requires very solid evidence. Food for thought. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that the ability of some folks to detect the same individual simply based on writing style exceeds the ability of other folks to fake an identify by copying a writing style isn't justified. Nobody Ent 15:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am disappointed but completely unsurprised that it took YRC/Rob less than two weeks to violate the terms of the agreement that allowed him not to be permanently banned. Soliciting on-wiki activity/WPing by proxy is an obvious breach of the wikibreak, and outing would not be acceptable under any circumstances and continues in Rob's trend of harassing users he disagrees with. I think entertaining the possibility that this is a very clever impersonator is a waste of time largely supported by people who don't think Rob's misbehavior deserves punishment at all, but it's easily dealt with. Ask him (by e-mail) if it's him. If it is, block the WP account. If it's not, block the off-wiki account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions: firstly, what 'on-wiki activity' was solicited by 'DelhiDan', and secondly, how could anyone here 'block the off-wiki account'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"the imitation attack succeeds with 68-91% probability"Nobody Ent 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cirt posted this to my talk page and says I can quote him but he doesn't want to get directly involved on this board. "I feel threatened. I feel persecuted for no reason. I feel a user who has been under multiple different sanctions and blocks is soliciting harassment offsite because he is sanctioned against doing so on site." As I've said, I will unblock YRC if he emails me that this isn't him. But if it is him, and we ignore it, we are telling Cirt and others that we won't defend them against this sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As for Collect's suggestion that YRC is not likely to be posting at a particular time, a look at YRC's contribution history shows that although he doesn't post at those times frequently, he does post at those times. That's not a convincing argument. He seems to post at all hours. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider that under 1% of YRCs edits occur during that time frame at all. Conseider that 5 out of 9 of the edits on "brand-x" are during that time frame. Using simple probability and statistics, I suggest that the odds are more than 1000 to 1 against such occurring unless one says that "of course he would change his sleep habits and editing habits just to throw us off the scent" and then use an obvious name which "everyone known must be YRC"? Probability is a very strong argument here -- and it argues against the position that this is anything but a Joe job. Collect (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we infer from this that you'll be blocking? Just a question, I'm not comfortable making a judgment either way at this time. — ChedZILLA 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to agree with Doug here, if we can establish that DelhiDan and YRC are the same individual an indef is more than warranted. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I suggest that Prioryman disengage from YRC-related issues at this point, since the community is aware of the issue at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"...we are telling Cirt and others that we won't defend them against this sort of thing" This just simply isn't the case and it is unfair and an emotional knee-jerk response to even claim such a thing. What I am trying to tell the community is that I don't want to overreact when I don't have all the information, and I don't want to instantly block someone when I don't have complete and convincing evidence. Whether we block or don't block will have no effect on this person's efforts to out someone, and making it sound like blocking is the only way to prevent this outing is misleading. Everyone needs to just step back from the edge of this cliff, and discuss the situation rather than rashly jumping to conclusions. Again, taking the time to properly discuss this isn't going to make the threat of outing any more or less likely, and I'm asking for a bit more calm and a little less drama here. If it is YRC, I would tend to agree with you, but we haven't established that to a fair standard yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The YRC account isn't currently active per the outcome of the RFC/U. Blocking or not blocking won't change that. We don't block accounts to show support for editors, we block to prevent disruption. All this entire debacle is demonstrating is how easy it is to troll Wikipedia without even having to edit anyway on Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've been asked to look into this since I closed the RFC. However this has nothing at all to do with the agreement established there, YRC has not broken any of those voluntary restrictions, as has been noted already he is still on the initial wikibreak he agreed to and can't log in. As for the actual issue at hand, it certianly is asking for someone to out Cirt, that much is crystal clear. Is it the same person? We don't know. The fact that he claims he is is not evidence at all, that os exactly what a liar would do. I can't say I support a block based on speculation that he might be some guy on some ther website. (I've always found that the best way to handle such sites is to ignore them entirely, they are mostly full of bitter, angry people and I hardly feel it a good use of my time to hang out at some website where all they do is talk about Wikipedia without ever actually accomplishing anything, but that's just me...) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WHY WIKIPEDIOCRACY IS IMPORTANT (for Chris). Wikipedia is a powerful American institution, one of the most dominant presences on the internet. It is a multi-million dollar organization with a professional staff over which there is little or no mechanism for bottom-up control. The pseudo-consensus-decision-making political model employed by Wikipedia itself is an arcane labyrinth, necessarily dominated by long-established insiders. Just as a free opposition press is a fetter to governmental abuse, there needs to be some similar external mechanism of criticism to help ameliorate abuses, challenge hubris, correct problems, and improve the institution. While Wikipediocracy is indeed dominated by "bitter, angry people," this is not to say that it is not to say that even they are incapable of improving the project, albeit indirectly. Even yesterday, a 4-year standing redirect link of the words "Inflated Tits" to a BLP was exposed (and subsequently fixed). If there are abuses, if there are problems, if there are underlying issues at WP, they will surface at Wikipediocracy, often there first. There is also a certain level of annoying whining there, but one can filter that... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here are the things that would persuade me that Off2DelhiDan (Wikipediocracy) and YRC (Wikipedia) are definitely the same person: 1) YRC states, via email to an admin or via his talk page (if it were available to him) that the O2DD account is his. 2) Someone with administrative rights to Wikipediocracy contacts arbcom or an enwiki checkuser and provides technical data on the O2DD account that matches up with the YRC account. 3) Someone can locate a point in the past where YRC has stated, on Wikipedia, that O2DD is his account. 4) Someone can locate a point in the past where O2DD said on Wikipediocracy he was going to make edit X on Wikipedia, and the YRC account did so.

  Absent any of these pieces of evidence, I'm going to have to agree with the majority here saying that yes, soliciting outing is definitely a blockable offense, especially if done by someone with a history of battleground behavior, but no, we can't block YRC solely on the assumption/gut feeling that the Wikipediocracy account is him. His distinctive writing style and the topics he likes to discuss are too easy to imitate by a joejobber for us to be able to safely assume that someone who talks like him is him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - EC Holy TL;DR, Batman! Prioryman needs to give the drama a break. First off, he misunderstands my witticism about ThePersonICallRob (presumably User:YouReallyCan) having (another) shit-fit about User:Cirt having been triggered by a couple saucily-titled articles on logging. It was a pretty funny in-joke and if you don't get it, don't worry about it. ThePersonICallRob clearly shoots first and asks questions later and is prone to going straight over the top... Maybe my joke helped slow the idea of outing Cirt down... I like Cirt, I think he's swell and an asset to the project, although we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, obviously. SECOND: Since when is it a crime against the Wiki to OPINE anything outside of WP. I also don't like the cult of anonymity here and think it leads to (a) excessive vandalism; (b) over aggressive editing behavior; (c) COI abuse; (d) sockpuppetry and an inability to truly BAN anyone (See: the case of Kohs, Gregory). That's my opinion. ThePersonICallRob has the opinion that outing is acceptable and someone in his sights. I think that's a bad idea... But ASKING for commission of an offense and COMMITTING an offense are two different things, are they not? They should be. If ThePersonICallRob's rather hysterical demand for outing is actually met by outing, THEN there is a possibility of a case against him. But for now: too much drama for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a setup to me. It may be real. But it smells wrong. Absent actual evidence I'm assuming a setup. Some of the commentary in that WO YRC thread, by the way, is exceedingly ignorant and offensive to identified living persons and reflects poorly on the posters and moderators. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This project has enough trouble trying to monitor things here, now we are going to deal with off wiki actions? What is the policy if any regarding this? I am in the camp that if it happens at another site, if should not be brought here. If any editor does something HERE, ie outing ect., then it should be addressed. --Mollskman (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with moliksman and anthonyjcole. We can't really go around monitoring what happens on other sites and trying to figure out who's who is a losing proposition (unless an editor explicitly links to his or her moniker on the other site). Just drop this, imo. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I've nothing to say about the substantive issue that's been raised, but what's absolutely breathtaking is the way that people repeatedly line up to defend this editor on the most ridiculous grounds imaginable. In this case, its the general epistemic question of whether we can ever be entirely sure of something even if it appears absolutely fucking obvious. For goodness sake, if you like the editor then you are free to defend him, but surely he's not worth you degrading yourselves like that? Formerip (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Reopening, 6 hours cuts off a lot of editors from commenting, alternative proposal

• Discussion reopened. Closing this after less than 6 hours is treating it like some minor blip. It clearly isn't resolved and editors in other parts of the world will have slept through all of this, been at work, etc. Let's see what others have to say. I don't have any examples to hand, but we have blocked people before for offsite activities.
• No one has said what we do if YRC comes back. Do we then just ignore this episode, or say 'well, it didn't happen here so no matter the effect on other editors we ignore it?' Hopefully not. Can we agree that this is unacceptable and if YRC doesn't convincingly deny that he is the person who posted it, that we indefinitely block him? He's had enough rope. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to expand on what a 'convincing denial' would entail? If Rob were to say 'No, that wasn't me' (whether it was true or not) it would constitute a denial. And what else could he say that would constitute a denial? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble, Doug, is that we as the community have very clearly asked YRC to disengage from Wikipedia for the month. He's not supposed to even log in, let alone post here or on his talk page to deny or confirm things. It would be unfair to interpret his abiding by his wikibreak (which he is taking under penalty of community ban should he violate it) as evidence that he can't or won't deny being associated with the WO account. Now, when he returns to Wikipedia at the end of his month's break, I think it would be reasonable to ask him then whether the WO account is him. Alternatively, if Rob is in email contact with any admins or other trustworthy parties, he could email them a confirmation or denial prior to the end of his break. If he verifies that Off2DelhiDan is him, and if this thread reaches the consensus that solicitation to out is as much a violation of our policies as actual outing, then a block would make sense. Right now, with the current evidence presented in this thread, with no way to judge who's who, it doesn't (at least, imho). Iff someone has more evidence than we've already seen, such that it proves that YRC is O2DD, then we can move forward now discussing a block/ban. If not, we're pretty well stuck until YRC's break ends. PS. The notion that outing or harassment somehow "don't count" if they're done offsite is inaccurate - note the outcome of the Fae case in regard to actions taken on ED and Wikipediocracy by wikipedians. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly would he say it's him if it's going to get him blocked? He's clearly going to deny it regardless. Silverseren^C 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have absolutely zero doubt that the account on Wikipediocracy is YRC. There is also no reason to doubt it. The majority of people defending him in this discussion are Wikipediocracy members themselves, so they are just trying to purposefully obfuscate the issue when there should be no confusion at all. It is quite clear that this is calling for an outing. Per Wikipedia:Outing#Off-wiki_harassment, "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." While this is not yet a privacy violation, it is an attempt to be one, which is nearly as egregious, in my opinion. This should definitely be dealt with by some kind of sanction. Silverseren^C 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Question: if you gave us a list of names, from the editors above, of all those who were Wikipediocracy members - would that be counted as "outing"? 109.149.205.23 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• So either you're one of the defenders up above editing logged out for some reason or, more likely, you're a banned Wikipedia user from Wikipediocracy. Silverseren^C 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was in fact YRC, then I think it's time for us to say goodbye to him. He has outlived his welcome here. Kurtis (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it were possible to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt', it might be worth discussing what we should do about it. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It very easily falls under the Duck Test, which we use extensively as it is. Silverseren^C 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are seriously arguing that the 'duck test' determines anything 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Remind me never to hire you as a lawyer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is dishonest (and bordering on malicious) to say that anyone who thinks this might not be YRC is protecting him. The issue is verification that the editor IS YRC. No one has argued against an indef block if it is YRC. Putting words into the mouths that are arguing for better verification goes against everything we claim to believe in at Wikipedia. Let us not be intellectually dishonest and resort to ad hominem to imply that those that are cautious are simply apologists. My concern is for the fairness of the process here at Wikipedia, whether it was YRC, Jimbo or any of you. If we do not give the same fair process for unpopular editors that we do for the most popular, then collectively, we are nothing more than hypocrites and vigilantes. I would love to hear or see more evidence, but I'm not that interested in drive-by opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that it is quite clear that most of them are trying to protect him. Now i'm not talking about you, but when most of the people questioning whether it is him are Wikipediocracy members, who have never questioned if it was him before on their site, it seems a bit fishy. Silverseren^C 18:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

There is clearly discussion ongoing here, this should not be closed. Silverseren^C 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the thread is over. If you feel there is more that needs to be done at the moment, you're free to propose a community ban, or a suspended ban, on WP:AN or contact the arbitration committee. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess if he tries to continue with this outing of Cirt, that'll be the next step to take. Silverseren^C 18:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in principal something like this shouldn't be shut down in so short a time. That's just wrong. What damage would have been done in letting other editors see this and comment? Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't foresee any admin. action being taken here on this particular incident, but there appears to be a desire to continue the discussion. Feel free to use: User talk:Ched/YRC. That may free up some admin. resources and time perhaps. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, Prioryman posted a link that requires having an account at Wikipediocracy to view. During a recent ArbCom case, Prioryman stated that he didn't have a Wikipediocracy account. Since he now appears to have one, it appears that he may have obtained one to try to stalk YouReallyCan. YouReallyCan is, so far, abiding by his voluntary sanction, but he has some Wikipedia editor named Prioryman attempting to follow him around off-wiki trying to catch him in any slip-ups that he can use to get him in trouble on-wiki. Is this ok? Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This is the problem with using off-wiki "evidence", as it is notoriously unreliable for our purposes, regardless of which editor you are speaking about. In both cases, there isn't enough evidence to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I told ArbCom, You can police your border at your border, or you can police it 25 miles into Lebanon. Well... welcome to Lebanon. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is a point of order or a point of principle (I suspect the latter), but those commenting above that YRC should send emails are missing the fact that the break-enforcer logs you out immediately. It enforces a complete wikibreak and that is why I recommended it to YRC, no watchlist, no email access, no nuthin'. He would have access to my own address if he kept our discussion, and that's it. I haven't heard from him, and I won't be contacting him. Hopefully he really is having a happy break. Also, more on the point-of-order side of things, Prioryman is harassing an editor who they clearly know is unable to respond here. When was that ever justified? Franamax (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't know how the break-enforcer worked, but that's irrelevant as I simply said that YRC could email me, as we have had an email discussion in the past. I've realised that I could email him about this but refrained from doing so. Franamax and others, can I ask what you think an editor should do when they find evidence off-wiki that an editor here is asking people to out another editor here? Cla68, do you have evidence that anyone is trying to stalk YRC? You're a moderator at Wikipediocracy. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all, lots of people do clean out their mailboxes, so it's never wise to assume someone still has your email address, and thank you for not sending an email yourself, as I do believe it's incumbent on us as a whole to give latitude for YRC to actually have a break. More pertinently, 1) no "evidence" has been presented, that could be you or me doing a good spoofing job; and 2) in any case, that is not "an editor here", since YRC is not currently editing here, keeping in mind the whole break-enforcer thing, remember? So save up your venom (not you necessarily, let's say your concerns) for when the editor actually does return to editing here. If they do, we can deal with the concerns then. If they don't, then they are just another crank at an external review site. But while someone is both voluntarily and script-wise prohibited from posting here, it is fundamentally unfair to begin enforcement proceedings against them in the manner Prioryman has done. It is a contemptible form of baiting in fact, since one salient outcome would be driving YRC to post on-wiki and thus violate a term. Or put another way, how often do you normally fly off the handle when you read usenet? Franamax (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Your point about him being an editor here right now is on the money, and I should have thought more about that earlier. And yes, we can, as I suggested, deal with it when and if YRC returns. So yes, we shouldn't be taking any action right now and my suggestion to block him, in hindsight, wasn't the best idea. I do feel very strongly that editors who choose not to use their real names have the right to privacy here and we should do what we can to ensure that. But am I wrong to feel that way? I note that an editor there (who seems to be an editor here) says "Setting aside the is-delhidan-riorob question, was there really anything that terrible about the initial "if anyone has anything on Cirt, expose it" comment in the first place? The Serens and the Dougwellers of that ANI thread act like he shat on the rug and hit on his grandmother while singing Springtime for Hitler." Is this becoming the general feelings around here now? Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Given the venue of the original comment; it seems more like a gripe/moan than anything else (if it is Rob, I don't know - but I did wonder if it was a spoof the first time he appeared). Because if info on Cirt's identity existed I expect it would have been published already! This is not doing anything except causing Cirt distress - which I feel Prioryman must take equal share of the blame. No outing appeared to be imminent and bringing it up here seems a) vindictive to Rob and b) attacking Cirt. The only admin action I could see left here is severe admonishment of Prioryman, but I am "involved" so won't do that. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I've adviced Prioryman to try to stay away from YRC and not initiate new actions regarding him. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Cold fusion?

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

---

I'm not sure how to read it this way but the quote is:

Wiki cold fusion is lost to paid obfuscators.

Lack of oversite is negligence. Time to sue WIKI? Cold fusion LENR is engineered science yet not recognized as good science by WIKI... go figure. Critisism of WIKI allowed or not? Not.

--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You can see the comment here [133] I'm aware that he posed it in a form of a question but it's inappropriate or at least to me. ViriiK (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor just came off a 90 day topic ban from cold fusion. I think it's time for an indef. Skinwalker (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat blocks are only technically indef -- they should be lifted upon retraction of the threat. Something to keep in mind. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but he also was not notified about this ANI discussion nor directly asked about the comment to see if he would retract it. It's borderline to me, so I would think giving him a chance could be the easy way out. I've done both of these. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I was dealing with RL stuff so I forgot to send him the notice. ViriiK (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand far too well about that. Given the past, I'm not expecting much to happen from the editor but there's hope ... Ravensfire (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See AE thread where he was banned. He first made an accusation of "possible slander" in Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_44#POSSIBLE_SLANDER but then he promised not sue wikipedia or his editors. After being banned he made a vague threat of changing his opinion[134], but minutes later he changed the meaning of the sentence... in a manner that doesn't make semantical sense, and looks like a attempt to avoid further sanctions for legal threats [135]. Now he makes another legal threat, while accusing people of negligence and of paid editing. He doesn't provide any proof of the accusations, of course. And all of this in an article under discretionary sanctions...... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside...can anyone make sense of his userpage? My eyes crossed about halfway down... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not supposed to make sense of it. It's a stream of consciousness (unconsciousness?) log of his thoughts. It's intended to be understood only by the writer, and even then ...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The editor is only interested in the Cold Fusion article. He contributes nothing of value. He's inarticulate/incoherent (some sort of pseudo-Socratic style of question-and-answer). He's disruptive. Why is he here?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have removed the list of email addresses that the user posted to Talk:Cold fusion, and I have removed the off-topic material from Talk:Cold Fusion (disambiguation) (a copyvio had previously been removed by another editor: this is how the page looked before those removals). Gregory Goble (talk · contribs) has edited only topics related to Cold Fusion: 1 edit at Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion; 1 edit at Pathological science; 3 edits at Cold Fusion (disambiguation); 22 edits at Cold fusion. Given the problems surrounding this article, an indefinite topic ban of the user would seem warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he has ever made one single constructive edit on any of the articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Gregory goble is mostly harmless, but is completely incoherent (I don't think I am being mean to suggest there may be actual mental issues involved here). I think his response to Blade asking if his account was compromised says it all: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#July_2012 "gbgoble at g mail com or 415 seven two 4 6702... Hi it is me uncompromised lovevolvestillovevolvestillovevolvestillovevolvestill learningregoble--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)", and User_talk:IRWolfie-#Get_Over_It; I asked him if he was a native English speaker and instead I received a 13 thousand character reply about cold fusion [136]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Harmless or not, he keeps dropping vague legal threats about suing "wiki". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to an admin The user has been blocked by The Blade of the Northern Lights but their message said they were unable to edit ANI or put in the block template. Would an admin mind handling that? (And given the rest of his posts on the talk page, absolutely support the decision. Just ... odd.) Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted a block notice to make it easier for the user to appeal. Good call by The Blade of the Northern Lights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible abusing multiple accounts

1. Sikh-history (talk · contribs) created "Could you try and Reason with a User?" as a new section at User talk:Diannaa [137] and reported someone by writing: "Hi Fellow editor .. keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles..... "
2. Theman244 (talk · contribs) created "Could you try and Reason with a User?" as a new section at User talk:Diannaa [138] and reported me by writing "Hi Fellow editor, User:Nasir Ghobar this user keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles......... "

In addition to these two, Desijatt1 (talk · contribs) may also be connected. All of these users have been opposing me at Talk:Ranjit Singh without clarity, plus they edit Sikh stuff, show the same agression towards Afghan editors, and share very similar behaviour, English style, and opinions.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You should bring this to WP:SPI MisterUnit (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the obvious duck appears to be obvious ... dangerouspanda 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One should compare the edits of User:Nasir Ghobar with those of banned User:Lagoo sab. The obvious duck appears to be obvious ... --Lysozym (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lysozym has been blocked for many violations including "disruptive use of sockpuppets" [139] and is probably doing it again. He or she is going around reporting me everywhere, which is annoying and disruptive, just because she FAILED in the discussion pages. She claimes that Abdul Hai Habibi, a professor from Afghanistan, is rejected by many scholars. I asked her to show just one report about this but she failed miserably and now turns to this nonsense by wrongly connecting me to another person. I just have one name and I'm using that right now, I have no reason to use multiple accounts.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More nonsense by this sockpuppet-abuser. It is already written in the article Pata Khazana that Abdul Hai Habibi is rejected by various experts, including David Neil MacKenzie who exposed Habibi's amateurish mistakes and his forgery in The Development of the Pashto Script (in Shirin Akiner (Editor): Languages and Scripts of Central Asia. School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, London 1997, ISBN 978-0-7286-0272-4. p. 142). This notorious sockpuppet-abuser (a.k.a. User:Lagoo sab a. k. a. User:NisarKand) should spend more time educating himself instead of POV-pushing, vandalizing, sockpuppet-abuse and editwarring. --Lysozym (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut it out! You have a long list of blocks and you just violated 1RR. Plus, this is the wrong section for your baseless accusation and rantings. Who wrote the Pata Khazana article? Let me guess, YOU. This book, which is cited in the Pata Khazana article, cannot be verified (it's fake source) because I already tried searching but no luck finding anything. If you were telling the truth you would have shown convincing proof long time ago.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's all mind WP:CIVIL here please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means check these accounts and you will find no link.Nasir Ghobar does however, have a history in terms of WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:LAWYER. He has been warned by Administrators for such behaviour. I really do hope this editor changes his aggressive behaviour. Thanks SH 11:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Accounts

• Theman244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thejatt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Desijatt1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

are  Confirmed indistinguishable based on technical evidence (although there are some oddities). Two of them were also created on the same day.
Sikh-history is from another continent.
Amalthea 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is an admin going to block the sock puppets? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like someone is making a bunch of sock puppets deliberately impersonate another editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Block on what account?. I was never involved in any edit war except for Ranjit Singh. Nasir Ghobar is adding misleading information in the article Ranjit Singh. In the discussion on the Talk:Ranjit Singh no other user is agree with Nasir Ghobar. User:Profitoftruth85 and User:Sikh-history disagree with claims made by Nasir Ghobar. This guy Nasir is adding highly misleading information that was rejected by almost all historians. Verified by reliable sources provided by me and other users.

Nasir Ghobar has a history of disruptive edits. Already mentioned by User:Sikh-history. Nasir Ghobar have a history in terms of WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:LAWYER. I never get a single warning in these terms. All my edits are done within the policies of Wikipedia. Most of my edits are done after July 2011 and i never got a single warning, note etc after July 2011. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On the account of WP:SOCK. The use of multiple accounts is only acceptable under certain, tightly-defined criteria; these accounts do not meet those, and the fact they all have edited Harmandir Sahib - recently - and two of them have edited Sunny Deol indicates that these were made to circumvent policy. Thejatt and Desijatt1 are blocked. Theman244 is warned that sockpuppetry is against Wikipedia policy, and any further use of multiple accounts by him will result in his main account being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Plastic surgeon using Wikipedia as an advertisement for his services

Please note today's press release, [140]:

Mommy Makeover Presented by San Francisco Plastic Surgeon Miguel Delgado, is a New and Exciting Addition to Wikipedia,

Mommy Makeover, is a new term added to Wikipedia. Known as the “free encyclopedia” Wikipedia quickly became a favorite source of information on the internet, consistently rating high in Google searches. Content contributions come from experts all over the world. Dr. Delgado saw the need for an extensive description for the Mommy Makeover procedure after receiving many inquiries from his patients. [...]

Miguel A. Delgado, Jr., MD holds the two credentials most coveted by plastic surgeons practicing in the United States, namely certification by the American Board of Plastic Surgery and membership in the American Society of Plastic Surgery. He has his own fully accredited surgery center and two offices located in the Bay Area, San Francisco and Marin. For more information go to [...]. To see a full gallery of before and after pictures click here or call for a consultation at [...]

The article this links to is Mommy makeover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I do not feel comfortable with Wikipedia being leveraged in this way, and I would suggest the article could do with a good lookover from a subject matter expert that does not have a commercial conflict of interest. JN466 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Dr. Delgado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread. --JN466 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't really suitable for ANI. You probably want to take it to WP:EAR instead. From a quick look, marking references explicitly as "Original Research" and stacking 7 or 8 references to cite a single sentence probably isn't the best way to get a "Keep" consensus out of WP:AfD if it goes there. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

7 to 8 references a sentence? Bombs away! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is serious enough to warrant the extra eyes that ANI brings. I've tagged this article with COI, expert and NPOV which is the best I can do for the moment, but the idea of using Wikipedia to promote one's own medical procedures is very disconcerting. An expert review would be an excellent idea. Have you thought of bringing this up at WP:MEDICINE? --Daniel 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, I would be tempted to redirect the article to Plastic surgery, pending an investigation by WikiProject Medicine (who I'll notify presently). --JN466 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I say go for the redirect. It is simply a package of already existing plastic surgery techniques with a cute name. None of the sources refer to a "mommy makeover." After looking it over, I highly doubt it would survive an AfD. --Daniel 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the expression "Mommy makeover" appears to be completely absent from PubMed [141] it seems unlikely that the page title, as it stands, could be the subject of any reliable medical source. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, for now. --JN466 16:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support redirect - the PR Web article makes it clear that Wikipedia is being abused for marketing. Rklawton (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• No problem with the bold redirect - saves an AfD. The question now is what to do with all the orphaned photographs. Yeah, I know this place isn't censored, and you could even make a case for including one as a good example of plastic / cosmetic surgery results that a description couldn't give, but a line drawing or diagram would probably be more educational. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the individuals in the photographs gave their permission for them to be released under a Creative Commons licence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Without any clear evidence of permission and given the misuse of WP for the main article, they should probably be deleted to be on the safe side. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Mommy makeover Patient 1 post op .jpg (warning - not suitable for work or small children) is tagged as "own work" with CC-BY-SA 3.0 own work. However, would you not also require proof of the woman in the photograph, as this isn't a photograph taken in a public place? File:Mommy Makeover perioperative picture.jpg (likewise), however, has an OTRS ticket. Take them to WP:FfD and see what happens, I guess. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Medical journals take anonymization really seriously (eg [142]). WM seems to be more concerned with copyright considerations. My !2c would be to delete. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the references do not support notability. With respect to patient confidentiality as long as the person is not identifiable only verbal consent is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Self-promotion by plastic surgeons has been a problem and I'm really glad to see it get some attention. I support the redirect.--Taylornate (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've sent to RfD as an implausible redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• While it's true he hasn't edited since November, is there any reason this account hasn't been indef'd as clearly WP:NOTHERE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure that is really needed. If they haven't edited since November, they are already not here, so blocking seems improper and ill-timed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • He may not have edited since November, but he posted a press release about the advertorial a couple of days ago. Someone should at least keep an eye out on any future activity by this account. JN466 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Potential legal threats at Sharyl Attkisson

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

---

Admins may wish to review the statements of 170.20.247.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in claiming that sourced content is "libelous". I have just given the NLT notice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply calling content "libellous" does not constitute a legal threat, he's not actually threatening to take any action. Content is either libellous or not; it doesn't matter whether someone decides to act on it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if the comment has a "chilling" effect and is legalistic in tone, it would qualify. This is on the borderline so I'm not inclined to block, but it is already better to bring it here to get a second opinion, via WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It has a chilling effect, in that it is explicitly mentioned as a "Warning" rather than simply saying "content is libellous". Looked at a different way, it's not an instance where someone is remarking on the potential content of an article being libellous, but rather an instance where someone is using the argument that the article contains libellous content as a tool to prevent others from editing. I think that falls on the side of a blockable legal threat, personally. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale, comments were made over a week ago; lacking any stated intent to pursue legal action (as per Basalisk), there's nothing to be done. Nobody Ent 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

the comments tossing around libel on the article talk page are stale, but they had resumed today with the edit summary here -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP address resolves to Sharyl Attkisson's employer, CBS Corporation, Washington D.C. and similar threats have been made from 170.20.11.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which resolves to CBS Corporation, New York. This is more than a passing schoolkid. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

Probably nothing but ...I will seek council if I read such libel again." is clearly a concern per WP:NLT. Maybe a block will not be needed after an admin explains it and the editor shows understanding. Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DOLT, especially seeing as the comment was made in response to what looks at first glance to be an egregious BLP vio. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger warned them, I revdel'ed just the summary itself and made a note on their talk page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of AfD template even after warning

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

---

This ip has been warned for abuse. Now he has resorted to deleting the AfD template on Nishikant dixit even after having been served a notice. He deleted the template before closure of discussion, thrice>>here. I request that this IP be blocked from editing as soon as possible. Harsh (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, should be done, but next time, just list it @ the vandalism noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

211.26.243.102 (talk)

This edit by 211.26.243.102 (talk) placed Nazi imagery on another user's talkpage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• This should go to WP:AIV - but before that you should just try plain reverting and then discussing it on the IP's talk page. The vandalism has been reverted, so I don't think there's anything else to see here for the mo. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked that IP for 31 hours. There is no conceivable way that any person could have thought that was an appropriate thing to do, so I don't see the point in giving a warning. They can explain themselves if they want to edit an article. --Jayron32 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I had given them a single final warning, but I don't have issue with the block either. It could have gone either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have issue with the ANI post, the warning, and the block -- it's all troll feeding. Edits like that should simply be reverted, it's just vandalism.Nobody Ent 13:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Nobody Ent. A revert was all that was required here. I can't tell easily from a WHOIS if the IP is dynamic, but the fact this IP has only one other contribution years ago, and came straight in knowing how to link images correctly, suggests that it is - so all the block's probably done is aggravate somebody else needlessly through collateral damage. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's why the block was a short block (only 31 hours). Long enough to stop the current user, short enough to minimize the possibility of collateral damage. If you believe this person is a positive contributor to Wikipedia, you can argue that and unblock them. --Jayron32 16:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe so but I was lead here by WP:PA.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to mention an important additional point: This anon IP, under similar IP addresses, has consistently vandalized my page with Nazi imagery for probably a year now. I'm afraid reverting in and of itself has never worked: He simply keeps coming back on a given day, over and over, until he is blocked. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've got my stories mixed up, and I don't want to say too much... but is this the guy who was constantly violating BLP rules about a particular public figure? I think he hit me with the swastika a time or two also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

203.134.140.48 (talk · contribs) I didn't dream it, but I don't know if it's your same "friend". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Both in Melbourne. Maybe they are just like-minded "pals", in the same city and with eerily similar interests, completely unrelated. Doc talk 07:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise this. In which case - yeah, multiple offender, block and point towards WP:DOOR which explains carefully how to avoid hitting it on the way out. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest semi protection of the page. Nobody Ent 23:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem editor

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

---

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

Settdigger created an account on August 24, 2012. Since that time, he has made 84 edits, of which precisely half are to articles. He appears to be interested in political articles and, in particular, whether a person's death is a targeted killing or an "assassination", by the American government or by the Obama administration. See Anwar al-Aulaqi and Barack Obama. In addition to editing contentiously at the al-Aulaqi and Obama articles, he has also edited similarly at the Targeted killing article itself. This edit gives you a flavor of his agenda.

He has edit-warred on the Obama article (and I should have blocked him at the outset for the violation but chose to engage him instead). He has butted heads with many editors on other articles, both in the articles and on the article talk pages. His communication style is non-collaborative. He is clearly contemptuous of Wikipedia. He engages in personal attacks - at least I think he's calling Tarc a Nazi (Settdigger's style is often oblique and/or opaque).

He created a new article for an apparent friend ([143]).

Overall, my concern is that his purpose in being here is not constructive. Some of his behavior borders on trolling, and very few, if any, of his edits enhance the project. I thought about blocking him for edit-warring. I thought about blocking him for the personal attack, but my instincts tell me there's something more going on here, and I figured with more input we might achieve a longer-term fix.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your first instinct is probably going to be the correct one.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, trying to engage first is always the best solution. It doesn't always work out, but it does often enough that the rewards far outweigh a little free effort. To put it bluntly, the editor seems to think he is clever, but he needs some clue as to how we accomplish things here at Wikipedia. Let's see what he has to say here at ANI, assuming he is wise enough to engage here, and perhaps we can offer a little assistance. He seems plenty bright enough, but his communications skills are lacking and I can see why it might look like trolling to some. On a forum, this would be typical, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and perhaps he can be convinced that a little more decorum is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been attempting to discuss things with the SettDigger on my talk page. I think he has the capacity to make helpful contributions here, but I think a cool-down period is in order, at least as a first step. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't block for cool down periods, however, and when an admin mistakenly does, it tends to have the opposite effect. So, persuasion is the order of the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Settdigger (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. To be clear, it's not a "cool-down" block - he violated 3RR and engaged in personal attacks, and most of his recent posts are disruptive and unhelpful, if not outright trolling (e.g. [144]). I think there should probably also be some discussion here of how to work with this editor in the long-term, but just wanted to notify participants of his short-term block for edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I support the block, particularly because it relies not just on the edit-warring violation, but also on the other issues this editor has. I am not anywhere nearly as sanguine as Dennis or Jethro that Settdigger can be transformed into a constructive editor. However, to the extent that people want to hear his side at ANI, that, obviously, won't be possible until the block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done to calm down all the Obama/Romney pages until after the election? We need a way to handle new editors who turn up wanting to insert outrage into the lead (or anywhere), and who dominate the talk page with opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest looking at the editing habits/patterns of socks/disruptors past such as Gaydenver. I'm quite used to negative reactions from POV-pushers when I tell them that they suggestions about Obama's Kenyan birth certificates don't go in the article, or their OpEds about "assassinations", or whatever the conspiracy-theory-of-the-day is. There is a world of difference between a genuinely new-to-Wikipedia editor expressing frustration at not getting his way and this. That is a uniquely visceral and personalized type of aggression that a returning old user uses when he is trying to get around the same editors that have opposed and stymied him in the past. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If not him, then maybe Grundle2600 is worth a check for a connection. This isn't exactly Grundle's prior edit war of choice, but he's long tried to force in anything critical of Obama, and perhaps he's trying a new tactic as he's learned his old tactics are recognized and not working. I'm not 100% tied to this being Grundle, but it's been a month or so, and we haven't heard from him, so it may be worth checking out. --Jayron32 05:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We hear from him all the time, e.g. just yesterday, posted on a few hours before settdigger's block. I'm just an armchair shrink, but IMO it'd take quite a drastic personality shift to go from polite yet persistent POV-pusher to vitriolic Nazi-name-calling bomb-thrower. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Shonuff. Just thinking out loud mostly. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Settdigger came off of his block. He made some uncharacteristically temperate comments on two talk pages. He then went against consensus and added his agenda-like edit to the Obama lead ([145]), which was subsequently reverted. He also made this change to the Targeted killing article. I haven't looked at his other edits, but I note he has also not come here to defend himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not really convinced now that settdigger is looking to edit more constructively per this all-or-nothing attitude. He might be trying to engage editors on the talk page now, but trying to own the article in this manner by exclusively deciding what is and isn't important before consensus is built on a highly-watched article is disruptive. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• After being properly reverted by Jethro, Settdigger made this edit, which reads like a nah-nah-nah from a child who didn't get what he wanted. I have blocked him for one week for resuming his edit-warring on the article after MastCell's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Dispute with Esc2003 in Turk's head brush article

Esc2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Turk's head brush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here's a summary of a change I made in the Turk's head brush article:
Removing link to "anti-Turkism" because there are no sources to prove that this brush was called "Turk's head brush" for "anti-Turkish" reasons. Also removing sources in the Turkish language. Sources must be in English.

Later, Esc2003 undid my version and restored the foreign language source and anti-Turkism link.

I don't think this user understands that Turkish language sources cannot be used in English language articles because we wouldn't know their contents. Also, he adds an "anti-Turkism" link to the bottom of the page even though there is no source which states that the Turk's head brush is an attempt of expressing anti-Turkish sentiments by those who originally came up with the term. This might turn into an edit war if he keeps undoing my edits based on his poor understanding of how to provide links in a wiki page. Would be nice if an admin monitors the situation before things get out of hand. I didn't post this in the edit/warring noticeboards because technically it isn't. He and I only undid one revision each, mine of which was based on the above reasons, but I think the user needs to know that his understanding of the page and its sources is incorrect, and his failure to understand it might lead him to undo revisions with no grounds. The user will be informed of this in his talk page. Qatarihistorian (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page. And I'd like to add that non-English sources are perfectly acceptable when there is no equal English content available. See WP:V: "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." I.e., it is considered good editing practice to provide a translated quote for questionable statements. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Implicit threats of violence

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

---

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

Nienk started a thread on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Is it true that the Columbine massacre took place during the Clinton firearms ban. After some discussion, he identifies with the IDF and claims to be handy with his guns. Following some more discussion, Jayron32 (talk · contribs) closed it as trolling, to which Nienk responds "Wish you were a Palestinian." Given that the Palestinians are enemies of the Israelis, I was concerned that he was essentially saying that he wanted to shoot Jayron32, so I inquired about the edit on his talk page. He then takes it to my talk page, claiming he has no respect for "land thieves". I then explicitly asked him whether he was threatening violence, and he did not deny it but instead stated: "He deserved that response...." What should be done? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add the homophobic part which caused my response? Nienk (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Having also felt like I was threatened recently, I don't think anyone deserves to come on Wikipedia and even have to question whether someone means to be violent or not. My opinion: Indef Nienk until he decides that threatening others is not acceptable whether it's explicit or implicit.--v/r - TP 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just block the idiot and be done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am exceeding the shits I have to give about this issue just by commenting here. This thread gives more import to this person that they deserve. Do whatever you all want. Don't involve me in it one way or the other. --Jayron32 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The return of Mziboy

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

---

Would someone please block KingArthur2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), obvious ban-evading sock of Mziboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Note that both incorrectly use "gramma" (meaning "grammar") in their edit summaries. KA2012 is newly-created and jumped right in to !vote "Keep" on the AfD for Ken Sibanda, Mziboy's article, as well as restoring Sibanda's name to Black science fiction, which Mziboy was edit warring to do before he was banned and indef blocked.

The quacking is piercing.Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Bushranger had opened an SPI] on this after I pointed the situation to him, but considering that the ban discussion is still above and hasn't scrolled off, there's no reason it can't be handled here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I reported him to AIV half an hour ago, but apparently they're asleep at the switch there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact I've gone deaf from the quacking now I've blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! (Thanks) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT..." Oops, I was channeling Garrett Morris for a second there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, I as channeling Stan Freberg above: "It's shrill, man, it's too piercin'" Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Daaay-O! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. If his IP is static (I don't recall), maybe a lengthy block on it would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that he has regular access to at least two IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comcast is a rather static ISP despite being listed as dynamic. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Now comes brand-new Harrypottergirl82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). New obvious sock is as obvious as old obviious sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And obviously blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and to T.Canens for semi-protecting the AfD for a week, and GB Fan for deleting the AfD talk page created by the sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks due to Beeblebrox as well for semi-ing Black science fiction, another Mziboy target. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's telling that he thinks we would be dumb enough not to notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Every block-evader seems to think that they're the first ones to try it. I think you should add a couple of days to his indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Bugs, I don't think that's going to help much, let alone be any type of deterrent whatsoever. --MuZemike 05:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Revert attacks

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

---

Clearly someone has a grudge?

Special:Contributions/109.76.115.151

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Black Kite, mass rollbacked (or is it mass rolled back?) by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on this remark I can only suspect User:Sheodred - there has been no other Irish Vodaphone IP editor ever crossed me before, in such a manner. Checkuser? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open an SPI. That ISP is very dynamic though. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Block Request of user Gabirro

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

---

This user has carried out personal attacks, provocation and slander to my person, as you can see here, so I request urgent measures. Zorglub-PRV (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

You didn't build that

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

---

I was reading this section at You didn't build that and close to the bottom of that section there are several editors hurling about invective. Can an admin please bring a hose in and cool everyone down before things get even more out of hand?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of bringing this here myself, in the context of asking an admin to have a word with Kenatipo (talk · contribs). This editor treats Wikipedia as an ideological battleground at baseline and dismisses the Associated Press a partisan left-wing source (that's par for the course). But really, when he explicitly describes his role on Wikipedia as "shovelling shit against the liberal tide, one teaspoonful at a time" (while addressing another editor as "you hypocrite"), we're probably at the level of battleground behavior that's disrupting constructive efforts to improve the article.

I should add that ideologically driven edit-warring is also out of control at the article; I've filed two WP:AN3 reports in the last two days ([146], [147]). Given the prominence of this article subject in partisan election-season politics, sustained administrative attention would probably be useful. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as the article presents the complete statement, and not the truncated and purposely misleading version used by the Group of Old People, that should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Group of... Oh, I get it. I'm reminded me of what that young whipper-snapper Bentsen said to old codger Quayle back sometime last century. --Shirt58 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've given Kenatipo (talk · contribs) 48 hours respite from his shovelling shit enterprise. I think if he returns and continues the next block should be indefinite. Thoughts? --John (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If there's an escalating pattern to this behavior (be it from him or other political ideologists) that's leading up to election day, the brakes definitely need to be put on, or things in general are liable to be worse than they were in 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good call, John. And I agree that this needs to be kept at bay between now and November. Those with the block botton shouldn't be too squeamish about it in both directions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund

I'm coming here to report an argument that's starting to get heated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund. User:Thom-293 is one of several users that have edited an article about a lecture fund for Georgetown University. The article lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, so it was nominated for deletion. I voted for it to be deleted based upon this and a search. I'm in the habit of checking back with AfD discussions because you never know when something could suddenly find sources that pass notability and Thom-293 had added sources that they claim shows notability. The issue with the sources in the AfD and on the article as a whole is that the coverage is trivial at best, being comprised of passing mentions. Other sources are primary (the fund website), sources that would be considered primary because they're released by Georgetown University student newspapers, articles that do not mention the fund at all, and non-reliable sources from non-notable blog entries. I pointed this out in the AfD discussion, as well as mentioning that the piling on of sources will not show notability for the article because none of them show notability for the fund. Multiple trivial mentions do not give notability. I gave a list explaining why the sources weren't usable. (It was rather lengthy, being over 60 links.) I was then accused of having a vendetta against the group and against the user because I asked them if they were involved with the group in any way. The user is a "member of the speech and expression committee at Georgetown which governs Georgetown's free speech policy on campus" (I'm quoting this because it's just easier this way). I've tried to explain that being a student at GU and part of a group that reports on the fund could still be considered a COI because by being a student in a group that still has ties to the fund indirectly, it's easy to see notability where there is none. It's not as strong a COI as if he or she was part of the group, but there's still a concern of COI, just as I'd have a COI if I were to edit articles about my college or any of the groups they run. This is pretty much just bickering back and forth now, so I thought I'd just cut it to the quick and bring it here. I'm trying really hard not to bite the newbie, but I've explained why the sources are unusable for notability and I've suggested a compromise by having the article mentioned on the larger GU article and redirected there. It's just coming down to baseless accusations at this point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As no admin action is needed until Monday when the AfD closes, I assume you are here for advice: My advice is to let the normal processes deal with it. I think their declared purpose and COI is so apparent, that there was no particular need to emphasize it, there or here. You've explained things well enough at the AfD , and that's the time to stop. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pretty much spot on. I just wanted advice and for an admin to keep an eye on everything, as well as for others to come in and monitor the situation and get some fresh eyes on everything. I'm going to try to walk away at this point, as I can't do much more than I already have. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked at the page, it's pretty mild as far as AfDs go. The closing admin will have little trouble with the one or two SPAs who posted repeatedly and somewhat vehemently over there. As for advice, Tokyogirl79, you've stated your case quite clearly, so you should stop responding to them unless they bring up some new & independent sources. (And COI arguments are rarely decisive in any content discussion on Wikipedia these days.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitelist request == unanswered

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

---

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Whitelist_removal_for_Paralympic_table, could someone (admin) whitelist the link on the table? The Games are ongoing and we need the table..Lihaas (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

yes? WilyD 07:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. WilyD 07:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Stylops melittae

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

---

Someone translated my german article. In german Wikipedia usually the history is imported in these cases. Maybe here is an admin who could do this now? --Kersti Nebelsiek (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a precedent for transwiki history importation. The history of the en.wp version includes a mention that it was translated from the de.wp edition, which is usually good enough for Wikipedia's GFDL and CC copyrights.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

While it's not a widespread practice, it can be done if desired: I'll import the dewiki history and do a history merge in the next hour or so. Graham87 (talk · contribs) and I have been the most prolific importers, I think. Acroterion (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Linguistics

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

---

We need a block, possibly range, on the IP that's having fun at linguistics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for 2 weeks, which should solve the problem more handily than a range-block. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless the joker decides to have fun elsewhere. Thanks though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Slash and burn on New York City

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

---

History of New York City is being repeatedly hit by user 208.103.76.62 -- I count eight major vandal attacks by this IP in the last 10 minutes. Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User: 173.174.159.84

The IP editor Special:Contributions/173.174.159.84 despite already having been blocked twice for disregarding Wikipedia policy in regards to WP:MOSFLAG is now moving onto disregarding WP:MOSBIO and adding in speculative original research into boxer articles that appears in some cases to be at best biased and selective. They have already had two new warnings: User_talk:173.174.159.84#New_warning. Despite these warnings they continue to carry on regardless and has been reverted by 3 different editors:

1. [148] - unsourced ethnicity
2. [149] - unsourced ethnicity
3. [150], [151] - removing or altering nationalities
4. [152] - this one intentionally tries to classify a Northern Irish boxer as Irish
5. [153], [154] - over-categorisation by adding in parent categories alongside child categories
6. [155] - changing flag of country boxer fought for - another biased change from Northern Irish to Irish
7. [156] - going quite frankly overboard with adding in unsourced ethnicities into article ledes
8. [157] - more unsourced ethnicities

These are only some the edits this editor is intent in pursuing with. The fact this editor once their past two blocks expired goes straight back to being disruptive, and as such i think a longer block of maybe a month or more is needed to help deter this editor from persisting with it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Urp-frontdesk

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

---

Urp-frontdesk (talk · contribs) keeps on removing copyvio tags from University Research Park - Madison Wisconsin, even after a final warning. Can an admin please intervene? Thanks, Electric Catfish 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

I've blocked them because of the username, you aren't allowed to have a username which closely matches that of an entity like this. I also deleted the article per WP:CSD#G12, as unambiguous copying. Anything else? --Jayron32 18:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else. Thanks! Electric Catfish 20:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:sheena.mundra

Sheena.mundra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This SPA editor seems to do nothing but create articles about Dah Yu Cheng, only one or two of which seem likely to survive. Many have died through WP:PROD as copyvios or as blatant advertizing. He has appeared again to de-PROD CLN (technology). His talk page testifies to his lack of response to numerous notices. I raised this COI/N issue and discovered today that Sheena Mundra could only have a stronger COI if he were named "Cheng". I would request some administrator action to get his attention as he seems to have little interest in playing by our rules. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick sock block needed please

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

---

212.187.45.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sock of Misternumber1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who also edited as 24.132.2.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Only edits from the current IP are BLP violating ones, so if someone could do the necessary it'd be helpful. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. IP blocked and tagged. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation

Here of this work, after I warned them before. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Freedomcali7 notified. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And he's still going. EDIT: Upon further examination, he is changing it some, but that version still contains at least two verbatim lines from the uh.edu. I think it may only be necessary for another editor to talk with him about this, to get the point across that it's not just me but the site that's against copyright violation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

They're new and they're referencing the author of the material, so I'm going to assume they just doesn't understand they can't do it. I've left a personalized message on their Talk page. Hopefully, that will help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing low-level harassment

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

---

Hey there, I just logged in to make a minor edit to a page and noticed a new message on my own page. Hooray! Unfortunately it was this. I am not going to try contacting the user at this stage because they posted anonymously, leaving only their IP address, and it would be ineffectual.

The backstory to this is pretty obvious - once upon a time (five years ago and longer) I very briefly maintained a games-related website, and one person seems to believe that I have done some grave disservice to the world by ending my support of it. Talk about your flies and vinegar! I've been offered assistance before on this, and seeing that this individual is still continuing to randomly edit the page, I think some measure might be helpful here. --Edwin Herdman 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Herdman (talk • contribs)

I fixed your link. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have hardblocked the IP for a week. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

71.56.38.166 sockpuppet?

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

---

24.131.61.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making similar edits to 71.56.38.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Trivialist (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also, said user is persistent in editing List of television spin-offs to say that Sweet Valley High is a spinoff of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers ([158] [159] [160]) which is either deliberate vandalism or utter cluelessness. I'm almost at 3RR, so if anyone else wants to revert the latest edit, please do. Trivialist (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Probably not a sock, but very likely to be dynamic IPs of the same user (Geolocation) - something that you too can easily check up on. IPs are now blocked for a short time for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Abusive change of the name of an article

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

---

War of the Ragamuffins is about a 19th century Brazilian rebellion known in Portuguese as "Guerra dos Farrapos". An unregistered user has changed the article's name to "War of the Farrapos" without bothering to discuss with other users and even less asking for a move request. I reverted him but he has reverted me. See here. Now here is the thing: "War of the Ragamuffins", that is, the name in English most used by English sources has 21,100 results on Google books.[161] "War of the Farrapos" has 2,070 results.[162] Could someone do something about this? --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, and continue to discuss on the talk page. Not (yet) a matter for ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the rules, but they are worthless when an editor does not care about them. --Lecen (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• User talk:Imnotkeller warned for edit warring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Lucen was the one reverting my edit. He decided completely by himself to change the name of the article some time ago (a major change), even though there was one objection by an experienced editor in the talk page. Give the discussion had happened a few months ago, I changed the name of the article back to "War of the Farrapos" and gave multiple rationales in the talk page. Lecen ignored the talk page and simply started everting my edits.

I don't give a rat's behind about warnings, but, at the very least, he deserves one too --I. N. Keller (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Explained on my talk page. No admin action required here, take to WP:DRN if necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This has progressed to a substantive and polite content discussion on the article's talk page (including the participation I. N. Keller), so I don't see what administrative intervention might be needed except closing an eventual WP:RM, but that's for another venue. I suggest closing this incident thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

COI accusation

Hi, my editing activity is currently under discussion at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Issue is related to the Michael Servetus article and its Talk page. I would like that neutral Administrators or volunteer users would monitor this case and would participate and/or resolve on the discussion. I have exposed my defense arguments but still no feedback from neutral users, and I would prefer the issue to be fairly settled and resolved. Thanks. --Jdemarcos (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

173.71.215.219

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

---

173.71.215.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), after numerous warnings, continues to add false information about "Little Einsteins"/"Justice League" crossovers to Little Einsteins and List of Little Einsteins episodes. Trivialist (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave him a 1-month vacation; this IP address is obviously static given the long-term nature of the vandalism. In the future, you can use WP:AIV for situations like this. --Jayron32 05:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

This has been sitting at AIV for almost an hour

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

---

Could someone block the above, please? It's a sock of this guy. Thanks in advance. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

82.4.43.10

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#82.18.191.248 for full background on this editor's previous IPs and behaviour.

With current IP 82.4.43.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) we've got the same problems, no user talk posts, no talk page posts, adding unsourced categories repeatedly (since those diffs are just recent ones and the tip of the iceberg), adding fictional Irish names and so on and so on. They've had many warnings on their various IPs and many blocks too, a 3 month block (fourth block on that IP as well) when editing as 82.16.122.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done little to curb their appetite for disruptive editing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sawtooth National Forest

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

---

Unfortunately, there is original research with the acreage, vital information. It was obtained in an honest way, peicing sources together, but it is original research. There are other examples on the page. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 10:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not really an ANI matter, not an incident that requires admin intervention. Normally, I would just make an appeal on the talk page of the article with specifics, or just dig up the sources. This isn't really contentious, and if it any part really was contentious in some way I don't get, you would just remove it it, copy over the to talk page and discuss, but you don't need an admin to do any of that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The revisionists are back

The Nazi revisionists from Croatia (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#IP-hopping_vandalism_of_articles_related_to_Nazi_Germany) are back: see User:78.3.46.88, on the 1 September article here [163], the Timeline of World War II (1939) article here [164], Mile Budak (again) here [165] and Switzerland article here [166].

After I range-blocked them earlier, they have moved from editing via Optima Telekom (AS34594) to Croatian Telecom (AS5391). While their leitmotif is the changing of the term "Nazi Germany" to "National Socialist Germany", they have in the past made much more serious revisionist edits, generally aimed at exonerating the acts of the Nazis. Since I have removed almost all of the occurences of the words "National Socialist Germany" on Wikipedia (except for the few where it is actually warranted from context) I hope their footprints should be fairly obvious. Be on the lookout! -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that they've IP-hopped once already on their new ISP: I've softblocked that range for a short time to prevent this. Hopefully this won't be too intrusive. -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: I just performed a revdel, for what I hope (for those among you with admin permissions) are obvious reasons: can someone please run this past the oversighters to get it expunged properly from the record? -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFO, or you can ping an oversighter by email. — Edokter (talk) — 11:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I know: but can someone else do it for me, please, for reasons too gnarly to go into here... -- The Anome (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cloverfield Page - Vandalised

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

---

I've been reading the page to clear some points up after watching the movie, and I saw that there is the word "Slenderman" a large number of times in the plot, seemingly replacing words that are supposed to be there. Cloverfield is absolutely not related to the urban legend Slenderman. I'm not sure if it's considered spam or vandalism, but it's obviously not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.136.190 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It was already fixed before you posted here. Thanks for noticing and letting us know. GB fan 17:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

alrite

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

---

Alrite bitches. Who wants some fucling ice cream then you prrrrrrrrrrrricks! 92.15.0.71 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like Pidgin-English for "Please block me, NOW!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they may be alluding to The Great Toasted Almond Shortage of 2012 [167] which we woefully don't yet have an article for:) Ditch ∝ 21:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that appears to be a tragedy on a cosmic scale. Life without the right kind of ice cream is not really life, it's just existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Orvilleunder

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

---

This appears to be a SPA created for the express purpose of Wikihounding me: [168]

Based on a couple of the edit summaries, if I were a betting man I would say the account belongs to this IP-hopping user: [169], [170], [171], [172]. But, since he normally edits during working hours from a government IP address, and it's currently a 3-day weekend, there probably isn't much point in launching a SPI.

Nevertheless, it should be quite unacceptable to use a new account this way. It's a very, very clear example of WP:NOTHERE. Belchfire-TALK 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please disregard, it's already been handled per the note at User:Orvilleunder. Belchfire-TALK 03:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Cinque stelle

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

---

Cinque stelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite multiple warnings keeps attacking me personally. He came today to my talkpage with a personal attack because I had objected to his/her refactoring the talkpage at Tenedos:

• Your game is clearly to obfuscate the issue as much as possible, and therefore make it more difficult for an admin to make a sound judgment on the naming dispute.

After I gave the editor a level 1 NPA warning, s/he attacked me in their edit summary:

• Your passive-aggressive edit warring is quite transparent

I tried to explain that I rearranged the talkpage of Tenedos to true chronological order before s/he came to my talkpage with their insults and that therefore s/he failed to assume good faith, only to have my edit on their talk reverted and be attacked again in their edit summary:

• Dr. K again being passive-aggressive. Thanks for your visit.

I would appreciate admin intervention to stop this tendentious and disruptive way of editing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment refactoring does not look good, though I might not agree on those edits being personal attacks worthy of a block. However, what I do see is something ominous with this, which seems to be a real personal attack. The minor edit wars are not good because it takes two to edit war. I do not suggest a block yet, but I will say that the escalation of this issue won't do good.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I objected to their rearranging of the talkpage of Tenedos away from chrono order. I actually put it in true chrono order and that untangled the flow of the discussions. This account is a single-purpose account. In and of itself this should not be a problem. But if you add personal attacks and aggressive editing on their part, this becomes a real problem. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's too early for a straight-up block. If one's needed it's going to have to be 24 hours or less. I feel a block would lead to further disruption; the user has not edited since you posted here, and that's why I do not think a block is necessary. However I share your concerns and this edit summary seems to imply that "I'm not going to assume or edit in good faith unless..."--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note: Their edit: Nice to see that Dr. K admits his fallibility. Good faith restored! is still a personal attack. This editor keeps attacking me any chance s/he gets. It is also a lie that I admitted any mistake because I made no error. I actually restored the chrono order of that page and they did not. I don't think that it is proper for this disruption to keep happening. This is obvious battleground behaviour by an SPA. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, they stopped after you opened this thread. However, one more personal attack + more WP:BATTLEGROUND would = 72-hour block, probably.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not big on civility blocks, but I do think Cinque Stelle has crossed the line. That talk page stuff, that's ridiculous, and CS should know a bit about talk page behavior, after an earlier complaint they filed. They are a self-professed SPA (judging from their edit history and their user page) and do treat this as a battleground. Tenedos itself is one as well, of course: it's a mess. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Cinque stelle is currently lying low trying to avoid the spotlight. Regardless, I think they should be given the message that they cannot employ methods of guerrila warfare, i.e. give several quick hits to your opponent when the opportunity arises, then disappear hoping the storm will subside. This simply should not be acceptable in a collaborative wiki environment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any positive contributions Cinque Stelle is making to the project. Since registering their account on August 24, they have made 49 edits, not one of which to article space. Their very first edit after creating their user page was to remove an editor's comment from the Tenedos talk page (the only article they're interested in). A couple of edits later, they threatened the editor whose comment they had removed. They then filed an EW report against Dr.K. which I closed as baseless (and forgot to sign). Despite the fact that I explained my closure at ANEW, they opened up a topic on my talk page asking me to explain. Then, despite being warned multiple times, they refactored the talk page again here, succeeded by a series of confusing edits on the talk page rearranging things. They did that again subsequently, which brings us to the present. So, I repeat: how is CS an asset to Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Unrequited vandalism

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

---

68.230.252.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly making disruptive edits on Fringe (season 5) after numerous warnings, and is in the middle of edit wars with several editors. Purposed block. LiamNolan24 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. The edits, edit summaries, and overall behavior present a long-term problem with behavior, which does go back to July. --MuZemike 06:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Florin92 de facto trying to make their user talk page inaccessible?

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

---

Florin92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a U1 request to their UTP which I declined, noting that user talk pages did not fall under speedy criteria. However, their practice of repeatedly blanking and moving their user talk page strikes me as a way of getting around this problem and effectively hindering editors from reading their UTP, bypassing the prescribed routes (an MfD with Crat approval for cases where UTPs genuinely ought to be deleted).

• User talk:Florin92 blanked, moved to User talk:Florin92/1
• User talk:Florin92/1 blanked, moved to User:Florin92/1

I would personally recommend moving the current page back to their UTP and move-protecting said UTP. However, if they are actually perfectly within their right to do what they have been doing, then I do not want to harangue them, and so have come here for a second opinion. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't moving a user talk page elsewhere effectively the same as archiving? And blanking them is just fine. As long as the talk page is not deleted and its history is accessible, I'm really not sure I see a problem here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are no links to the archives, meaning people would have to go digging to find the extant threads; and is it OK to move these things across namespaces (note that the current page is in the User, and not in the User talk, namespace)? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a link, and a user can blank their talk page any time they like (or keep copies in different parts of their user space). There is no obligation on a user to keep past talk page content currently visible - it's all in the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK, which says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They may freely remove them, but I don't see how it is at all beneficial to allow a series of cross-namespace moves in an attempt to put extra work on anyone who wants to view the history. That's the whole point: you should be able to just click "History" and see it, not have to click through a series of moves to find the right page. Additionally I'd point out that we have a guideline that states "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags." and the moved content contained such unblock requests. Now in this case I don't think it is such an issue, since I don't think blocked users can move pages, but the prior record IS important in cases of a future block and unblock request. If they want to archive it, they can archive it. But barring any strong objection, I'd be inclined to move protect the talk page and its subpages. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it makes tracking the history trickier - but is Florin92 actually in breach of any policy here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia:Archive#Move procedure describes a procedure to archive by moving. It does suggest adding links etc, but it's a procedure suggestion rather than mandatory policy, and it does at least support the validity of archiving by moving. The question, I think, is whether moving the archive outside of User talk space is allowed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind - see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If my talk page is so important to you, print it and put it on your wall. What will happen to me? You will block my account for my abuses made on MY page? Nobody cares. Florin92 11:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florin92 (talk • contribs)

You're not doing yourself any favors here. Please be civil and understand that people are concerned with your behavior and your attempt to hide your past history on the project in such a way that it cannot be found. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the moving is the issue; the deletion-request is. You're obviously trying to get around the idea that the page's history should remain accessible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just declined several CSD U1 speedy requests that were blatantly inappropriate. One was on a user page that contained only user talk page content that was moved -- the CSD U1 tag in fact EXPLICITLY says that this should not be done and that deleting admins should check to ensure that it is not moved user talk page content. The other was for a user talk page, which does not apply under CSD U1. I'm not sure what Florin is trying to do here, but it's becoming a waste of admin time. I'm going to go ahead and move protect his user talk pages and the moved user pages as it appears the moves were not made in good faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally this is the second time he did so, after being declined once already. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Those U1 attempts, coming after the discussion here made it clear that user talk history must be preserved, suggest the deletion requests can no longer be seen as a good faith mistake. I support move protect - and I'd also suggest moving User:Florin92/1 back to User talk:Florin92/1. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I've done it - it's back at User talk:Florin92/1 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

184.161.10.194 (he's baaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaack!)

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

---

184.161.10.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He repeadtly adding unsourced material to various Disney articles such as Disney on Ice, Magic Kingdom Parade, as well as Disney Sing Along Songs. He aso was crystal balling and adding hoax! I say that a permament block is needed! ACMEWikiNet (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They don't permanently block IP's. However, he was just blocked for 2 weeks and once it was up, he resumed his activities. So they could try 4 weeks now, then 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc. as needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for being a naughty boy. GiantSnowman 18:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Would an uninvolved admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs? There are four proposals there: (i) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD, (ii) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan, (iii) Proposal to refer to Arbcom, and (iv) Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Would an uninvolved admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs? There are four proposals there: (i) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD, (ii) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan, (iii) Proposal to refer to Arbcom, and (iv) Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)