Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799

118.192.22.212

Could someone please help Special:Contributions/118.192.22.212 get a grip on their obvious love for and promotion of black people. Some examples

• Here for example, at Murder of Eve Carson.
• Or here at Demographics of Haiti in the Post-quake fertility section.
• Or here at French Blacks where they have repeatedly celebrated the impending victory of a black majority in France by adding unsourced content.

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have warned the IP User talk:118.192.22.212#Your edits --Glaisher (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus is using IPs

Although using IPs while still having a valid non-blocked account is okay, I am objecting User:Maunus's this act because of the reasons that i mention now. Maunus is now using IPs 68.9.182.96 and 128.148.231.12. He admits that here and at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.9.182.96/Archive. He was recently (17th May 2013) blocked for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. Previously in May 2011 while the user was admin, he had imposed a self-block for "preempting incivil behavior at multiple takpages". Block log. Now whether the blocks are self imposed or forced by other admins doesn't change the fact that this user makes personal attacks on other editors. As mentioned before, using IPs is valid. But using IPs thus wrongly attributes such personality-wise editing habits. The SPI can not take any action in this case. That's why i am here to note this point and get other admin's opinion and attention. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

so let me see, your argument is that because I have previously made personal attacks I should be exempt from the rule that allows editors to edit as IPs? Is that even an argument? 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought they had declared that they were doing thus, in a similar manner to what I had to do earlier this year? There are some situations where people might find it awkward to log in. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I also said that it is acceptable. But edits done through IPs aren't attributed to the right person. I am not caring about edit counts. I wouldn't even care of any constructive edits if the user himself has opted for not using their account. But non-constructive edits, like may be vandalism, multiple votes and personal attacks, should be attributed to the right person. Such behavioural attributions are helpful. The duck test relies on such behavioural features. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the duck test is about. It is about determining whether two accounts who do not acknowledge they are used by the same editor are in fact operated by the same sockmaster. Since I have acknowledged that I am using those two IPs, and probably will use more of them since they are dynamic the duck test is entirely irrelevant.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He cannot login in to his account as he has the enforcer enabled, as you linked to the SPI you must know that? He first posted from his place of work and then from another location later, he stated on the talk page that it was him, he has done nothing wrong here and this is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus in the guise of an IP puts a clarify tag here in the article they later revert me without giving any reason only to be reverted by another editor.Later they start to edit war over another section here most importantly they say that we should not revert without giving any edit summary [1] however if you look here they reverted me without any edit summary. The edit war continues where the IP/Maunus also crosses 3RR limit [2] and may be out of frustration they just blank the whole section [3]. All this while the IP user never informed that it was Maunus because if it was informed then they would have been blocked for such disruption. This was very clever tactic by Maunus. Recently Maunus was blocked for incivility and here he calls another editor a joker.-sarvajna (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He also explained on the talk page why he did it, he has not done anything wrong here and this is as already stated, pointless. Please explain what policies he has violated and maybe you will have something, right now all I see is, "this guy pissed me off". Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@DS: Committing to crime later on doesn't undo the crime. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If Maunus did breach 3RR then that is a valid concern, although I'm not sure why it is brought here rather than taken to WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I did break 3rr because I was being reverted and warned for invalid reasons - the information I added was fully sourced. the reversals was not based on having read the actual material, and the rationales given were incorrect. And Ok, I got angry.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blanking a section without discussion, breach of civility by calling other editor a joker even after being blocked for incivility, breach of 3RR. Did he not indulge in vandalism? -sarvajna (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The section blanking was based on discussion. Darkness shines said that the sources were unreliable, which of course should mean that we dont use them. Calling someone who makes jokes a joker is not a personal attack.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sitush: I did not bring it here to get action on his 3RR. I brought it here to get admin's opinions of how rightful attribution of edits should be done. We are in a way collecting feathers here to make a full duck. And its just a coincidence that his all colours are brought forth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, all I'll say now is that the more times contributor behaviour relating to the Narendra Modi article is raised here (see above thread), the more likely it is that someone with a mop will decide it is time to do some general cleaning. I doubt very much that the cleaning would be restricted to a single contributor. But if you want to push it then I cannot stop you. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... if that ever happens and wrong people are sacked for no reason, we at least would now be able to make reasonable guess as to who could be behind it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Please, do tell me! - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it's not sockpuppetry is it unnecessarily disruption. "I can't log in because of the wikibreak enforcer" isn't a good reason -- if Maunus has changed their mind about taking a break they should get the enforcer removed and log in with their account. NE Ent 09:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He has to do no such thing, there are no rule saying you have to be logged in to edit, so I just logged out to do this. 212.183.128.186 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, but why happens when you cause disruptions without logging in? to whom should I attribute that disruption to? -sarvajna (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would note that although I agree that editing as an IP is fine, historically certain admins and members of the community in high positions feel otherwise. The primary reason I created this account was because when I was editing as an IP several editors used it as an excuse to say I was socking...and the community didn't debate that or indicate it wasn't ok to block me for editing as an IP. Now even in my RFA some said I was socking and pointed to those IP edits. So unless the member wants to be called a sockmaster they should edit using their account if they have one established. Kumioko (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Im not an admin, but just to weigh in on the IP/user thing. The reason why it is discouraged is that for the average user there is little or no way to discern if an IP belongs to a user. This can obviously be used to to give undue weight to things said by editors who engage in this behaviour. Essentially, User:Foobar12345678 could edit as his IP, and back himself up in a discussion. If his internet connection does not use a static IP, then each time he reconnects, it will be yet another user. Obviously some users may not think this through, and may do it inadvertently, but there is little difference between this and actual socking. -- Nbound (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• On the enforcer - if you want to disable it, all you have to do is turn off JavaScript in your browser, then log in, and remove the enforcer script from your .js page. The enforcer doesn't actually block you from editing - it just lets you log in, and then automatically logs you out again, via JavaScript. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am kind of liking IP editing. I think I'll continue to do that and just leave my account behind. Thanks for the attention.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  If you're still editing as an IP while you have the enforcer enabled, I think it is a sign that you are well and truly addicted to Wikipedia, and that you should either just come back and use your account, or ask Dennis Brown for a self-requested block. I'd prefer the former, but it's up to you... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone who accidentally stepped into this dispute while huggling yesterday, I will say that I found Maunus's multiple-IP editing disruptive. Not because he wasn't using his account, per se, but because a) he was using two IPs essentially at once (notice how the contribs of IP 128 and IP 68 cross within minutes of each other, making the same arguments, without identifying them as each other or himself until well into both the edit war and the talk page debate, after the article had been protected and he'd lost his advantage in reverting there); and b) he used that IP editing to get something resembling "extra chances" from, at least, me. As a naive admin not otherwise involved in the dispute, with no indication that I was dealing with not only an experienced editor but an ex-admin, I warned him about our BLP policy and then stuck around to try to explain it to what appeared to be a newbie who needed help understanding, rather than just blocking someone who was edit warring to insert a what looked to me like a pretty egregious BLP violation. Similarly, as an IP he got a warning and extra revert chances on 3RR that he wouldn't have gotten had it been known that he was not only the other IP, but also Maunus, who knows perfectly well about edit warring policy already.

  If Maunus wants to edit as an IP now rather than using his account, he's free to do that - but he needs to be up-front about using multiple IPs on different ranges in the same discussion, and the playing "dumb" about policy to avoid sanction needs to stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My name is Maunus, with two u's. Read the sources and you will know why it was not a BLP violation. Block me for 3rr or more personal attacks or disruption if you wish, or give me a topic ban for any topic of your choosing, but PLEASE could we get some qualified admin attention to those pages already?68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there are two Us. Sorry for the misspellings; I've corrected them above. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to place this diff here [4] .-sarvajna (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your diff and I raise you with this one[5]68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctantly, given the blatant edit-warring and general disruptive editing via IPs, I think there should be serious talk about sanctions against Maunus. Edits such as this are very much not ok in the first place, let alone something to edit-war back in or double down on, and his bizarre comment about DS being an admin, together with the responses to that on the IP talk page definitely create the impression of an effort to evade scrutiny. All of this is very much unbecoming of any editor, least of all an admin.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure you're very reluctant. I am not an admin btw.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks]

I actually am reluctant. Also, I forgot that you resigned the tools.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, then maybe it will be less bizarre for you to believe that I mistook Darness shines for an admin when he was not.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was responsible for the page protection of Narendra Modi; I then had a quick check back through the contributions of Maunus and his IP addresses, looking to see if he was using the IP accounts to edit whilst blocked or evade sanctions. I came across the last block ([6] - he was blocked for 48 hours at 03:04 17th May) and any edits after 03:04 on 19th May are perfectly acceptable. It wasn't until I went back and looked did I see one single edit [7] from 18th May 2013 from one of his self identified IP addresses. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Wikibreak enforcer thing, but I'm now more concerned about this edit in light of the entire ANI thread here, than I was when I initially came across it yesterday. I'm not sure what action if any to take, so I'll toss it over to the community here to see if they think it warrants attention. Nick (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not my edit. That IP is from my job, the anthropology department at the university where I work, where several people work with India related topics. The edit is adding a space. Not exactly my kind of edit.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks]

• I have done a bunch of stuff thats against the rules, and I will humbly and calmly accept any and all sanctions taken against me. But please can we have some attention to these articles and the editing behaviour of the particular editors I am mentioning. They are not breaking any redline rules, but they are a real threat to wikipedia. I would think much more so than I am, but that is up to you to decide.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks]

You have not produced a single source of comparable quality to any of the ones I have just presented, and you wouldnt recognize an "expert" (or a reliable source) if he jumped from behind a bush and bit you in the ass. You are the worst kind of threat to wikipedia: an administrator who will wilfully abuse and misrepresent our policies and lie and slander honest editors while doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
— User:68.9.182.96 13:57, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

This is 100% Maunus. Why no blocks yet, for Incivility perhaps if not anything else? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not deny having said that, and that it may be considered a personal attack. But it is accurate, and warranted based on the editor in questions own style of interaction, editing and argumentation. He has shown me no good faith and thus can expect none from me.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seeing no actions taken by admins against Maunus and his various IPs, shall we assume that using multiple logins is allowed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the rules clearly state that it is allowed, that is safe to assume.198.7.241.250 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[Me, Maunus, editing from yet another IP...]

Well of course that’s what you think. I want some admins to agree here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not just that, are we going to tolerate editors using multiple IPs for disruption and acting like they are new comers ?-sarvajna (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you want someone to sanction me you should start by proposing a sanction based in some kind of policy that I have violated? Just a suggestion. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the disruption in the contributions of the 198.* IP? Whether it is Maunus or someone else, the point being made about Rajiv Malhotra is a perfectly reasonable one. The man (Malhotra) has no academic standing and cannot be used to undermine the reliability of an academic source. This seems almost like an attempt to filibuster stuff, using any straw that can be clutched. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should this even be part of this discussion? A specific content? And you would decide who is academic and who is not? and how? are you a "neutral reliable" authority on deciding the persons credentials? Both section of people above have reference to mouth pieces and every author of these reference can be demeaned as needed to make an argument, and every editor admin who has replied in this post is as involved and seemingly biased as Brutus in the murder of Julius Caesar. Why are you so pushy to pain NM in a negative light? Whats wrong in keeping the tone of the language in the page on a neutral side? If I had my way - Every one in this discussion should take a mandatory break from Indian political pages for a week or probably a month and reconvene with cooler heads. Will some admin please do it? because editors here wont do it themselves Amit (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Strike that for irrelevance. We are not talking about any Malhotra here. We are talking about disruptions like blanking sections. More disruptions already submitted above. Also that pretence of being a newbie and unaware of rules is playing foul. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Indulge me. My point was not well put. Basically, this thread has been open for a while, various people have said various things and the outcome until the 198.* IP began contributing seemed basically to be "tut-tut, but it is ok to edit as an IP". I've not bothered checking whether this one might be Maunus or not because it is irrelevant: whoever it may be, the point that they are raising is not disruptive. Any disruption that you may think had gone on before has already been commented on by numerous people. This latest complaint, in other words, is unlikely to go anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, did you even check the timings of my comment above and the appearance of 198 IP on the talk page before making this comment? I made the comment well before that IP came to the talk page, are you trying to divert the discussion here? -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No. It's just that this discussion is effectively dead and should probably be closed. No admin has taken action yet and so it doesn't look likely that they will. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So you thought to come here and incite it a little bit more? LOL.... There are too many admins already who were here and left (and were too involved to even take any action). If any editor above invites an admin it would look like the admin was biased too... so what is the conclusion on all this? Amit (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that Sitush somehow felt that I made a comment because some 198 IP who is Maunus as written by the IP here commented on the talk page, Sitush, I am speaking about the disruption which was caused by Maunus when he started using the IP, he has broken rules, please check the top of this section, I have given diffs, please do not bring content disputes here. -sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was pointing out my opinion that keeping this thread going seems to be futile. I predict a shed-load of blocks and bans being handed out before too much longer and that is why I have generally been trying to keep out of it here and on the talk page recently. The drama levels etc are high enough without putting yourself in the spotlight. And with that comment, I shall leave this thread: I've tried and, obviously, failed. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus continues his personal attack, he calls me a paid agent, again. here .-sarvajna (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Answering again. The policy states very clearly that it is allowed to use multiple accounts when they are not used disruptively. I have not used multiple accounts, I have edited logged out, I have not deceived and I do not consider my self to have disrupted. If you can show evidence that I have either edited logged out deceptively or disruptively you have a case. But it is not against the rules to edit logged out.68.9.182.96 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Asking again, as my past question was drained by jibber jabber.) Seeing no actions taken by admins against Maunus and his various IPs, shall we assume that using multiple logins is allowed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What I would really like

What I would really like is a lot of uninvolved admins and non-admin editors to take a look at the articles Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence and other pages related to Hindu-Nationalism and communal violence in Gujarat. They should pay special attention to the editing of a group of editors including User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, User:Yogesh Khandke, User:Mrt3366, User:Dharmadhyaksha, User:Kondicherry, User:OrangesRyellow User:A.amitkumar (perhaps not, he only seems to have gotten involved yesterday) and administrator User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (reverts all edits from new editors to the article, even when reliably sourced and well formatted (often without edit summary), then proceeds to warn them om their talkpages). These editors, many of whom are SPAs relating to Hinduism, are working very hard to keep all criticism of Modi out of the article about him using every kind of spurious non-argument available, but usually just sheer force of numbers. There is a huge amount of behavioral issues for admins to sort out, walledgarden, opwnership, misrepresentation of sources, extreme pro-Modi bias. I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda. In short there is a lot of reasons as many administrators as possible should take a look at this article and the editing behavior there.

So why should there be critical information about Narendra Modi? Easy question. Because the overwhelming majority of sources about him are highly critical. He is described in literally dozens of reliable peer viewed sources as having been an "orchestrator" of the 2002 massacre against Muslims in Gujarat. He has been accused of personally intervening on the side of the mobs, even by people who are his supporters (they have been filmed praising him for it), he has been denied visas to USA and Britain under a law meant to target individuals who infringe on the religious freedom of others, he is almost without fail described as the most controversial politician in India, he has given his name to a brand of politics now called "Moditva" (mixing his name Modi and Hindutva, described by reliable sources as populist, virulently anti-muslim hindu nationalism combined with liberal economic policies). See this write up for a review of some scholarly sources about him, none of which are currently used in the article.

Right now the article doesn't even describe the fact that the BJP and RSS are Hindu nationalist organizations and gives no description of his politics. There is a section on his "personality" that builds entirely on news sources, all of which are highly critical of Modi. One would not realize that from reading the article though, because in the section they are used only to cherrypick minor positive details. For example a source that is criticizing or even ridiculing Modis poetry is used to source that "he writes poems in gujarati". A source that critiques him as being virulently chauvinist and Anti-Muslim is used to source that he is a vegetarian. And a source that says says that he is considered an autocrat by his opponents is used only to source that that his supporters see him as a Protector (which in fact is a misrepresentation of what the source says). Whenever a critical piece of information is entered (even the fact that he is a hindu-nationalist) the mentioned editors show up and remove it (often using rollback or twinkle with no edit summary, they then proceed directly to warn the editor who makes the edit), and then when a discussion starts they argue that the critical information is not notable (even when it appears in ), is not backed by reliable sources (even when the same sources are used by themselves to source other pieces of information) or that it is inaccurate (usually not backed by any evidence or supported by blog or news column sources). Then the editor who inserted the information gives up and leaves and everything is back to "normal". The result is that no other living politician with a comparable degree of contentiousness (having been publicly accused of aiding and abetting genocide, having been denied visa to several foreign countries, having been the object of Supreme Court Investigations, strong nationalist and fundamentalist viewpoints, being described having some degree of involvement in sectarian violence in almost every single reliable source that mentions him etc.) is being treated with a similar degree of reverence. Might it be because this particular politician is supported by a large and well paid staff of propagandists?

This is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. And I humbly ask for all of your help in coming to the article and assuring that we achieve an article that gives a critical but fair article about this highly controversial politician that represents all the available sources about him.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: As this big essay is about the article and not about the IP usage issue i have raised above, i am separating it. There is no need to nest this topic in the topic thats going on above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT mess with my formatting again.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A Big piece of crap... just because I raised a sockpuppet investigation against you... and for a discussion which you couldn't be civil enough and i put a NPA comment... LOL... Hey where are your buddy admin's and users. I dont have to explain myself but i will do so.. i reached the NM page through an edit i was doing on digvijay page which i reached due to some date related cleanup i am doing all across WP... (see year maintenance tag removal history by me in my contribs). And here i meet this bunch of edit warers and got into this mess of war between BJP and congress activists... though what you may say might be true about other editors... this seems true about you too... is some one paying you? Remember WP is filled with so many rules and quotes that every rule has a counter-rule that i can quote, so it is many times best to maintain your civility which i did and you did not. What you claim as reliable sources are political mouthpieces in the same way as the other waring editors are using their mouthpieces... so how are you different from them? you are just another side of the same coin... Amit (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May I remind you that you were arguing that we could not mention the political stances of Modi or any of the parties or organizations with which he is affiliated because that would be libel. I have never heard a more absurd argument. As opposed to most of these editors (I think yuo may be an exception as well) I have a long history of editing many other topics on wikipedia and writing large amounts of article content, not just maintaining articles about my favorite politicians. That is the difference between a pov pushing single purpose account and an actual encyclopedic editor. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion I was mentioning about LIBEL due to edits that you had done here and for the addition of party agenda details i said - wiki reference to those party pages should take care of it instead of explaining it there and at this point i also compared it with Sonia Gandhi page saying congress agenda is not summarized in that page so why are you so much into this person alone... at which point you did seem get to enraged... irrespective of all this... lets say my arguments were not sensible... so is that what you would do? call me a joker? and you expect me to take it lying down? i put a sensible NPA comment on your page which was removed later here and when looking at the IP's i notice two IP's one identified by your id and another IP making the same points across the whole NM discusison page, I put a sock puppet investigation too.. i feel my actions are reasonable... where as yours were not surely cool headed.Amit (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now presented an array of some 10-15 academic peerreviewed sources at the talkpage most of them published within the last 4 years. The aforementioned editors are now arguing that these academic specialist sources are "obsolete" because the Indian government in 2012 released a report exculpating Modi. Some of these sources are critiques if that very report and the modus operandi of the investigation team (who rejected most of the testimonies of hundreds of eye witnesses, and let the murderers free on bail letting them threaten and silence key witnesses etc.). If these editors are allowed to call a 1 year old peer reviewed source by a professor specializing in the topic obsolete, then we can take our policy on reliable sources and use it for toilet paper, and just hand wikipedia over to the POV pushers. Administrator User:Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is among the worst to misrepresent and undercut our foundational policies about sources in this case.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Maunus, but you are handling this very badly. If your real concern is that certain articles need admin attention, you should file a separate report, and include some diffs. By adding sections titled "What I would really like" in a thread instigated to review your behavior, it looks like a desperate attempt to avoid scrutiny. Then concentrate on responding to the issues about your behavior in this thread. As an experienced editor, you should know this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

How would I avoid scrutiny when I have admitted to all the allegations of wrong doing? Block me, ban me or topic ban me I deserve all that, but please take a look at the long term abuse that is going under the radar at these articles. Trust me I have tried all the options, BLPN, NPOVN, RFC at the talkpage etc. and I got NO outside attention whatsoever. Yes, this is my last desperate attempt at getting some outside attention to solve the problem, because I realize that I am likely to be facing sanctions. Sadly admins these days only react when brightline rules are broken, because thats what they know how to handle, and they can be easily proven with a diff. When wikipedia is systematically abused by organized interest groups there is no way for them to act without getting their fingers dirty with actual content work, and lots of tiring back and forth at ArbCom. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• ANI is not the place for this. I doubt that the editors identified above by Maunus would accept me as an uninvolved admin. I don't doubt that Maunus has really good points to make but, as SPhilbrick says, this is not the way to get something done. I do believe that there is way too much fishiness going on in that article and on the talk page, and I believe that this should be taken to a different/higher venue. It's time that this matter be dealt with and an end come to the disruption: I agree with Maunus that the article is far from being neutral, and I'm trying to phrase that delicately. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know ANI is the place to request administrative intervention, which is what I request and what was requested against me (I supposed although noone ever actually made any proposal for any specific sanction). There is no other place for this short of arbcom and who has time for that?68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is always WP:AE (cf. WP:ARBIPA), if the editors you report have already been notified that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the topic area they edit in. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well for those who have not they should be per principles 1, 3 & 4 Any admin got the time to wade through the talk page morass? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume that (no particular order) I, RegentsPark, Maunus, Drmies and Sir Nicholas doo-dah ("Nearly Headless Nick") are aware even if we have not had notification. Some of the rest certainly should be - Mrt3366, Yogesh Khandke, Ratnakar/sarvajna etc. In any event, no-one need notify me. This thing is a mess and it is unfortunate that when various issues have been raised in an attempt to seek wider community input there has been, well, very little of a substantive nature. We seem to be heading from content dispute to AE almost in one step and, of course, there is a reluctance to deal with content issues where ArbCom is concerned. To be honest, the lack of swarming that usually accompanies controversies raised at ANI about major political figures mostly reinforces my opinion that we do indeed have a massive systemic bias here. Modi is potentially the next prime minister of India, a country that comprises around 20% of the world's population and thus knocks the UK, US and indeed probably most of the EU into a cocked hat. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone thinks that the systemic bias is limited to WP then take a look at this op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• To an uninvolved editor like myself, this affair looks very similar to the Tea Party RFAR. Given the difficulties in resolving that, I'm not holding my breath for the future of Wikipedia articles in similarly conflicted political areas... 5.12.68.204 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• As no admin her seems to have the balls to do this I will warn all users re WP:ARBIPA Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone with zero evidence writes "...I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda..." The community takes to these conspiracy theories like fish to water, and I am the one who gets a nasty looking warning. Very intelligent. Rhetoric and propaganda can work wonders on the WP community.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just delete the warning, sometimes it is just good to clean the garbage in your page. It is just seems like a WP:POVPUSH by some user who is trying to use WP:INTIM and WP:HUSH. If you feel this is WP:MEAT you should report it - which though I doubt but I am not sure about. Amit (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What an utter waste of everybody's time. If the IPs or a registered editor did something wrong, report it so it can be dealt with. Otherwise I suggest we should all get back to doing some editing. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats what is reported at the top of the main section; the destructive edits and pretending to be new on WP. This is the strategy; they will talk about weather & Margaret Thatcher & what not and no one will take any action. Its not the first time that such acts would go without any actions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The opening section has not one diff showing a destructive edit by any of those IP editors. You opened it complaining about user Maunus supposedly being the one behind them and nothing more. Again: if you find a disruptive edit by anyone (be it an IP or a user with an account) report that and let some admin handle it. Otherwise please carry on with article editing. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasnt supposing anything. And thats one sample for you. Blanking section. And the discussion has dragged probably just because of editors like you who arent admins, who cant take any actions anyways, who dont even care to read but have big words to spout out anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing a section written based on unreliable sources is not disruption.128.148.231.12 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::: Please care to read my first comment, I have given diffs and explanation also read the comments by other un-involved people like A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, The Devil's Advocate, Nick. -sarvajna (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, first: just because an IP claims to be a registered user is not proof that it actually is. Second: again, if you have issues with the edits by an IP then open a report showing clearly the disruptive diffs and nothing more. The fact that nothing is being done is because you keep trying to bind this to user Maunus. If an admin believe the edits are in fact disruptive then he/she will block the corresponding IP. It is really that simple (here is a good example). Third: I have read through this enormous waste of time and the only thing I ended up with was regret of having wasted my time. Fourth: in case you haven't noticed, 128.148.231.12 IP is clearly trolling you. Last: any editor is allowed/welcomed to comment on ANI, I'm sure you are aware of that. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

If you doubt I am who I say I am you can request a Checkuser, otherwise I'd request you to assume good faith instead of engaging in absurd speculations. I am also not trolling Ratnakar, I disagree with him on content issues and believe that he is likely to be a paid activist (which of course I cannot prove) pushing a religious and political POV across a range of articles (which should be obvious to anyone who checks his edit history).68.9.182.96 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Have fun trolling each other. I bow out. Gaba ^(talk) 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, I would consider your previous comment as a personal attack,don't forget you have already been blocked for Civility issues. -sarvajna (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider it what you will.68.9.182.96 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?

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.

---

Today, out of the blue, Collect (talk) shows up on two pages he has never edited before and deleted several passages of text that I contributed and have been on the page for some time. Moreover, the edit summaries do not reflect the scope of the deletion of material from the respective articles, or otherwise provide an adequate rationale. [8][9][10]

Earlier today there was been a discussion between Collect and I in relation to an accusation made by talk regarding tag teaming on this page Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic.

Recently I have been involved in a discussion here in which Collect has been arguing against the consensus, NPOV Talk:Fascism#.22Opposed_to_socialism.22_in_lead with respect to "socialism" and "Peronism" in relation to fascism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Though I have not had as many disagreements with Collect as other users (though I have on matters of the left-right spectrum), and thus not much animosity with Collect, evidence of Collect following Wikipedia users is not a good sign. Collect needs to be given a clear warning by an administrator to stop doing this immediately. If Collect continues to follow users around to different articles to argue with them as Ubikwit has described, interaction bans may be advisable.--R-41 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that correcting misuse of sources is not harassmanet, and that my overlap with Ubikwit is on a total of three pages here -- for each of which my edits were per WP policy and guidelines. And that you were, indeed, CANVASSed to come here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have eduited several thousand pages. HOUNDing is a serious charge and requires specifically: the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated ... 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 and I suggest my edits hould not make anyone feel harassed or intimidated by a mile. What I did was point out that flickr is not a reliable source for claims of fact. If you wish to assert that flickr is a reliable source, then please post at WP:RS/N and make that claim. SXSecondly - it was you who made the assertion that I was part of a "tag team" for which you provided absolutely no evidence - and you are fortunate that I did not bring that scurrilous act to AN/I. [11]

Also 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. I suggest that using flickr is a problem on Wikipedia, by the way'

What Ubikwit has done here is massively WP:CANVASS at [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. I suggest this blatant CANVASSING is contrary to Wiki polocy. He also [20] reinstated his use of flickr as a source, [21] reinserted a claim that Western architects used Masonic symbolism, and the fact the "Freemasons are buried in Nagasaki" which I regard as being a claim of no value, and [22] reinserting a "quote" of absolutely no encyclopedia value other than to show that people actually referred to the Bible. In short - no "harassment" of any sort whatsoever -- followed by massive CANVASSing of people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2013 (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.

Kira Reed - anyone care to apply pending changes and do some mediation?

Kira Reed is an actor/television host. There has been a long-running but slow-moving edit war over the inclusion of material about her start as a porn performer. User:AdamC90 is a single-purpose account who appears to have some connection to the subject. Lately they have taken to simply deleting sourced material about Reed's past. The material is soon replaced, often by User:HairyWombat or User:David in DC (who have also expanded this section to the point that it dominates the article). Perhaps someone could undertake to get the parties involved discussing the issues rather than edit warring? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked User:AdamC90, on his talk page, to join this conversation. I've also tried to suggest a better approach than blanket deletion and assertion that sourced information is libelous or slanderous. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also added to the lede, and done some copy-editing and re-arranging to try to respond to the phrase "...to the point that it dominates the article." Please review this diff and accompanying edit summary. Thanks.David in DC (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It it not just User:Adam90 that is attempting to sanitize this article; other single-purpose accounts are: User:173.196.204.154 , User:KiraFan, and User:MrCharlieMeats (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 6#Kira Reed for a summary). The problem, as I see it, is one of notability. Kira Reed is notable as a porn actress; she is not notable for anything else (see Talk:Kira Reed#Notability for a summary). Her hard-core career, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a large feature of this because they were very innovative in their marketing and this shows in the secondary sources. I don't believe this section has been given undue weight in the article. Finally, there has been ample opportunity for the single-purpose accounts to engage in discussions on the article's Talk page. Hopefully, they will now do so. HairyWombat 02:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just tired of seeing it pop up on my watchlist and wondering if there isn't some way to end the edit warring through discussion. One of the reasons I suggested pending changes is because of the possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to report sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdamC90/Archive. Nothing was done. (User:KiraFan has appeared since then.) Pending changes looks like a good idea. HairyWombat 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, User:AdamC90 seems to be making constructive edits to address WP:UNDUE and is no longer blanket-reverting. I've cleaned up a little after him, but it seems his objection is to the words "hard-core" and "sex". I think we may be making progress, with at least one SPA here. David in DC (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about that. The editor is here to edit these two articles, and that is it, textbook WP:SPA. In 5 years the user has never once used a talk page, either for articles, other users or their own. They have ignored all warnings, advise, and attempts at communication. They are censoring sections, stating "slanderous information" and "libellous" or "wording" as an excuse to remove cited content in opposition to WP:NOTCENSORED. Not to mention marking these edits a minor. Editor needs a wakeup call. Heiro 04:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

They couldn't even be bothered to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch, for one of the two articles they edit (which was relisted 4 times to generate discussion before it was kept as "No consensus"). Heiro 04:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got a point and I hear your frustration. But please consider what I've said on the article's talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Kira Reed is only notable for her career in pornography. To remove the word "sex" from such an article is silly. Hard-core porn, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a notable part of her career, so using this term seems inevitable to me (and not using it contrary to policy). HairyWombat 19:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is now going on in two places. I've replied to your similar talk page post here. David in DC (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL

I request something please be done re the shameless WP:STONEWALL and WP:GAME on the Syrian civil war article. In spite of truly numerous sources [23] that unambiguously indicate the involvement of Israel in the conflict, it is not possible to enter that country into the infobox - most likely due to the extreme negative pr the rebels would receive thereby. The entry would also be in complete accordance with the recommendations in the template guide. Again and again, edit-warring is used as a method to suppress sources, all under the banner of a supposed "no consensus". As a "consensus" is not clearly defined on our project, participants game the system by never yielding that an opposing "consensus" has been reached, giving way to infantile WP:VOTE counting. Further, reverting is restricted on the article, allowing disruptive users to undo in concert and freeze their position in place by threatening others with reports and sanctions. This pattern of disruptive behavior has successfully kept sourced material out of the article for months now.

With news sources now brimming over with reports of Israel's actions in the Syrian civil war, by excluding mention of the country our project may be viewed as displaying overt bias on a very sensitive issue - something that I'd hoped can easily be avoided through simple, "standard" implementation of our policies, and the sources which they advise us to follow. A constant barrage of highly illogical "non-arguments" follow, each as overtly flawed as the next - and each, in my view, displaying the excessive bias with which this issue is being viewed and treated by certain participants. Such as e.g. demands that sources be found using the specific word "combatant", when no other participant in theinfobox (arguably on this entire project!) is held up to such standards, etc. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the similarly-stonewalled dispute over Kurds and the third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no stonewalling. There are more people against it than for it, but more importantly there is a larger variety and depth of arguments against it.

DIREKTOR's proposals have gone through both dispute resolution and Request for comments, both times ending with no consensus. He accuses other editors such as myself of stonewalling because he believes his proposal is clear cut. However this is not the case for most other users. Sopher99 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only do you suggest that we should follow user votes in determining content rather than sources, you are also incorrect in asserting predominance in votes for your point of view. Six users currently support the inclusion of Israel, while five oppose it. On some occasions the numbers were clearly against you yet you continued to edit-war. But I will not engage in another such absurd vote-counting squabble. The sources are not ambiguous, and neither are the policies of this project. -- Director (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. "There are more people against it than for it, but more importantly there is a larger variety and depth of arguments against it."

Furthermore you. Funkmunk, Emersik, Al Ameerson and Baboon43 support the inclusion, while I, Futuretrillionaire, Pug666, mikrogoven, philip, and GabrielF - so its 6 oppose 5 support. But as we said, not a vote. But still no consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when the goal is to ignore sources, users often shift from one baseless argument to the other - as each is shot down in turn. You don't :). You just repeat the same ones over and over and over again, even though they've long-since been answered and effectively countered (which, in my view, is classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU, i.e. disruption). (You're also clearly not counting Lothar.. [24])

I think you and I have talked about this to exhaustion, however, and this is not the place to continue. -- Director (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And again, no one wants to touch this mess with a ten-foot poll... The article has tremendous traffic, and yet has been disrupted beyond functionality by partisan POV-pushing. Am I the only one who cares that combatants in this conflict article are not determined by sources, but rather by "who can revert the most times"? -- Director (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Kira Reed - anyone care to apply pending changes and do some mediation?

Kira Reed is an actor/television host. There has been a long-running but slow-moving edit war over the inclusion of material about her start as a porn performer. User:AdamC90 is a single-purpose account who appears to have some connection to the subject. Lately they have taken to simply deleting sourced material about Reed's past. The material is soon replaced, often by User:HairyWombat or User:David in DC (who have also expanded this section to the point that it dominates the article). Perhaps someone could undertake to get the parties involved discussing the issues rather than edit warring? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've asked User:AdamC90, on his talk page, to join this conversation. I've also tried to suggest a better approach than blanket deletion and assertion that sourced information is libelous or slanderous. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've also added to the lede, and done some copy-editing and re-arranging to try to respond to the phrase "...to the point that it dominates the article." Please review this diff and accompanying edit summary. Thanks.David in DC (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It it not just User:Adam90 that is attempting to sanitize this article; other single-purpose accounts are: User:173.196.204.154 , User:KiraFan, and User:MrCharlieMeats (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 6#Kira Reed for a summary). The problem, as I see it, is one of notability. Kira Reed is notable as a porn actress; she is not notable for anything else (see Talk:Kira Reed#Notability for a summary). Her hard-core career, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a large feature of this because they were very innovative in their marketing and this shows in the secondary sources. I don't believe this section has been given undue weight in the article. Finally, there has been ample opportunity for the single-purpose accounts to engage in discussions on the article's Talk page. Hopefully, they will now do so. HairyWombat 02:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just tired of seeing it pop up on my watchlist and wondering if there isn't some way to end the edit warring through discussion. One of the reasons I suggested pending changes is because of the possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to report sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdamC90/Archive. Nothing was done. (User:KiraFan has appeared since then.) Pending changes looks like a good idea. HairyWombat 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, User:AdamC90 seems to be making constructive edits to address WP:UNDUE and is no longer blanket-reverting. I've cleaned up a little after him, but it seems his objection is to the words "hard-core" and "sex". I think we may be making progress, with at least one SPA here. David in DC (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about that. The editor is here to edit these two articles, and that is it, textbook WP:SPA. In 5 years the user has never once used a talk page, either for articles, other users or their own. They have ignored all warnings, advise, and attempts at communication. They are censoring sections, stating "slanderous information" and "libellous" or "wording" as an excuse to remove cited content in opposition to WP:NOTCENSORED. Not to mention marking these edits a minor. Editor needs a wakeup call. Heiro 04:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

They couldn't even be bothered to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch, for one of the two articles they edit (which was relisted 4 times to generate discussion before it was kept as "No consensus"). Heiro 04:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got a point and I hear your frustration. But please consider what I've said on the article's talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Kira Reed is only notable for her career in pornography. To remove the word "sex" from such an article is silly. Hard-core porn, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a notable part of her career, so using this term seems inevitable to me (and not using it contrary to policy). HairyWombat 19:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is now going on in two places. I've replied to your similar talk page post here. David in DC (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL

I request something please be done re the shameless WP:STONEWALL and WP:GAME on the Syrian civil war article. In spite of truly numerous sources [25] that unambiguously indicate the involvement of Israel in the conflict, it is not possible to enter that country into the infobox - most likely due to the extreme negative pr the rebels would receive thereby. The entry would also be in complete accordance with the recommendations in the template guide. Again and again, edit-warring is used as a method to suppress sources, all under the banner of a supposed "no consensus". As a "consensus" is not clearly defined on our project, participants game the system by never yielding that an opposing "consensus" has been reached, giving way to infantile WP:VOTE counting. Further, reverting is restricted on the article, allowing disruptive users to undo in concert and freeze their position in place by threatening others with reports and sanctions. This pattern of disruptive behavior has successfully kept sourced material out of the article for months now.

With news sources now brimming over with reports of Israel's actions in the Syrian civil war, by excluding mention of the country our project may be viewed as displaying overt bias on a very sensitive issue - something that I'd hoped can easily be avoided through simple, "standard" implementation of our policies, and the sources which they advise us to follow. A constant barrage of highly illogical "non-arguments" follow, each as overtly flawed as the next - and each, in my view, displaying the excessive bias with which this issue is being viewed and treated by certain participants. Such as e.g. demands that sources be found using the specific word "combatant", when no other participant in theinfobox (arguably on this entire project!) is held up to such standards, etc. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the similarly-stonewalled dispute over Kurds and the third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no stonewalling. There are more people against it than for it, but more importantly there is a larger variety and depth of arguments against it.

DIREKTOR's proposals have gone through both dispute resolution and Request for comments, both times ending with no consensus. He accuses other editors such as myself of stonewalling because he believes his proposal is clear cut. However this is not the case for most other users. Sopher99 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only do you suggest that we should follow user votes in determining content rather than sources, you are also incorrect in asserting predominance in votes for your point of view. Six users currently support the inclusion of Israel, while five oppose it. On some occasions the numbers were clearly against you yet you continued to edit-war. But I will not engage in another such absurd vote-counting squabble. The sources are not ambiguous, and neither are the policies of this project. -- Director (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. "There are more people against it than for it, but more importantly there is a larger variety and depth of arguments against it."

Furthermore you. Funkmunk, Emersik, Al Ameerson and Baboon43 support the inclusion, while I, Futuretrillionaire, Pug666, mikrogoven, philip, and GabrielF - so its 6 oppose 5 support. But as we said, not a vote. But still no consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when the goal is to ignore sources, users often shift from one baseless argument to the other - as each is shot down in turn. You don't :). You just repeat the same ones over and over and over again, even though they've long-since been answered and effectively countered (which, in my view, is classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU, i.e. disruption). (You're also clearly not counting Lothar.. [26])

I think you and I have talked about this to exhaustion, however, and this is not the place to continue. -- Director (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And again, no one wants to touch this mess with a ten-foot poll... The article has tremendous traffic, and yet has been disrupted beyond functionality by partisan POV-pushing. Am I the only one who cares that combatants in this conflict article are not determined by sources, but rather by "who can revert the most times"? -- Director (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Threats and anti-semitic slurs made by User:Sallieparker against me

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

---

• User:Sallieparker made the following comments, which include several anti-semitic slurs and implicit threats ("Eh, boychik?" and "Marxist"; "I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!") over this editor's attempts at whitewashing the Joseph Breen page. I am not going to deny that I responded in measured but colorful language but as far as I know making a blatant threat ("I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!") against another editor is grounds for, at minimum, a lengthy block.

• • 1) "It is concerning to me..." Your comment was not adequately referenced at all, let alone "fully referenced." Eh, boychik?
  • 2) And WHO are you, exactly, "Quis separabit?", other than a contentious little anti-Catholic Marxist?
  • 3) Yes, please do "monitor" my edits, and I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!

Quis separabit? 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• • The entire thread being cited above appears on the users talk page and can be seen here. In my opinion, these are inappropriate comments and Sallie would do well to strike them and refrain from such comments in the future. Quis separabit? should also watch him/herself and avoid Sallieparker's user page and stick to content only comments on the article talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like an editor that is crossing the line with aggressive accusations of bad faith. See, for example, THIS exchange with Richard Jensen. More of the same ominous "We'll be watching" bullshit... Carrite (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And HERE we have the editor white-washing sourced material documenting anti-semitism with an ultra-aggressive edit summary, although THIS from the New York Times makes it pretty clear that the sourced information was actually correct. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, User:Sallieparker should be blocked as appropriate for issuing blatant threats against other editors, just as I would be if I left a message stating "and I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!". Quis separabit? 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody gives a shit about this kind of abusive behavior, it would seem. Let's recite a magic incantation three times and see if anyone wakes up to the problem here. "Wikipediocracy! Wikipediocracy! Wikipediocracy!" Carrite (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, Tim, if you're going to play that card... I've left Sallieparker an only NPA warning for these incredibly inappropriate comments. Why do so many people think they can act like assholes the moment they're on the internet? Don't answer that. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That reminds me of a joke about dogs that I'm not going to repeat here (or anywhere).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2013 (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

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

---

I am requesting a block for Johnleeds1 (talk · contribs) for repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY, particularly that cited sources "must clearly support the material as presented in the article". He has been warned by 10 different users, (User:MatthewVanitas, User:Daniel J. Leivick, User:Tgeairn, User:Dougweller, User:Faizhaider, User:Cplakidas, User:Sodicadl, User:Toddy1, User:Saintali and myself) and today in this edit he added references which do not support the claim. His talk page is littered with complaints and there is a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue.Pass a Method talk 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• So do you have any diffs of problematic editing? Carrite (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The majority of his edits are problematic, i.e. cites wordpress, uses a primary source, uses blog as source, misrepresents sources, Manual of style violations and creating duplicates [27] - [28], violation of UNDUE with constant focus on Zaydis (a minority sect), violation of WP:Relevance/WP:Scope here/here, Original research and NPOV violation, basic grammar issues, [29] WP:COPYRIGHT, etc. Pass a Method talk 22:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the surface (not that many clear links were given) I see several book references (he uses Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqa By Allamah Syed Sulaiman Nadvi Page 44 several times) and what appears to be someone who is trying to work in good faith, even if some of his work isn't up to snuff. I see you have thrown a couple of template on his page, but I didn't see you link to where it was discussed with him. I see some problems, but the kind of problems that call for discussion, or maybe an RfC/U, or a mentor. I don't see the links to where all this has been explained in greater detail. Blocking someone is a last resort, after discussion has tried and failed to resolve the issues. I can't see blocking at this point without much stronger evidence being presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I thought that misrepresenting sources was a serious issue? I've seen edtors banned for that.Pass a Method talk 00:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• You really need to be more specific here. The diff you provided has three different sources, some of which aren't viewable online, and you have provided no context. If you are asking for an admin to block someone, the violation has to be crystal clear and spelled out, not buried in a pile of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• In this edit he used the following 3 sources to claim that most Sufis follow the Hanafi madhab. One, two, three - all clear misrepresentations. Pass a Method talk 07:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm here because of this related thread on my talk page. I checked the links (The first of which wouldn't display the relevant page) and they seem to support the half of the sentence saying that Sunnis follow the Hanafi method but not the half that Sufis follow it. This could be an oversight on the part of the author, or perhaps it was so clear to the author that they didn't bother with a citation. (I actually don't know if Sufis follow the Hanafi madhab.) Anyway what I wanted to say here is that all I can see from the diff provided is that Johnleeds1 was reverting what appeared to him to be unexplained blanking, since the diff was a revert. You'll need some better diffs if you want to show that Johnleeds1 was deliberately misrepresenting sources. Also it would help to remember that Johnleeds1 is still kind of a newbie around here. Hitting him repeatedly with the same templates isn't going to teach him to edit better. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you track back, Johnleeds actually added those sources. Also i was going to communicate more but Johnleeds isn't much of a communicator and tends to ignore posts. Dougweller has also warned him about a lack of communication. Adjwilley, are you saying that nonsense edits are fine as long as its a revert? Pass a Method talk 16:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think he is saying the same thing I am, that this would have to be a CIR block since odds are that the edits are in good faith, even if wrong. There isn't a case here for CIR yet. More discussion must be tried before a block can be considered. Most people don't reply to a template, maybe trying some actual verbiage on his talk page is a good place to start. I can't speak for other admin, but I'm not going to block someone for making what seems like good faith errors when no one has taken the time to explain it outside of a template. We have to give them a chance to learn and conform. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Pass a Method, you might note that in addition to Dougweller, I too have tried to get the user to be more communicative (see User_talk:Johnleeds1#Edit_summaries from back in January). Also, would you mind removing the personal comments about me from your close of this thread? They are unrelated to the topic and consensus that was formed here. I suggest something simple along the lines of "Request withdrawn, pending further discussion" if you think a close is required at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note, I have modified the closing note above from "Attempting more discussion, but i hope Adjwilley would in the future avoid gatecrashing threads by making distinctions between reverts and edits when no such distinction exists AFAIK on wikipedia guidelines." to "No administrator action required". I feel that it is a more succinct and neutral close. As for making distinctions between reverts and edits, I would argue that in practice there is a difference, but this is not the place to argue about that, and I'm happy to agree to disagree. Cheers, ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the user Pass a Method has put a block request against me. Is there anything that I have added that needs changing. I am happy to make changes. Pass a Method you should have talked to me and explained what you wanted changing. Why do you wants me blocking. Do you want me to add some more references. On my talk page you left the message--Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC):

I think it will be useful for you to read the links under WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I constantly see you adding undue content or info not in line with policies there. Also read WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR and WP:RS. Pass a Method talk 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You are the subject of a discussion at ANI. Pass a Method talk 22:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But you did not explain what you wanted me to do or what mistake I made. I made the changes in good faith. I did not intend to upset any one. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that that Pass a Method left the following message on my Talk page and then 20 minutes later put a block request in. People have jobs and don't just sit on Wikipedia all day. It's very unfair giving people 20 minutes to respond and then putting a block request in. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

John, you used the following 3 sources to claim that Sufis follow the Hanafi madhab One, two, three. None of those sources actually say that. Can you tell me why you used those sources please? Pass a Method talk 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Then Pass a Method tried to block me 20 minutes later at 17:30, 28 May 2013

I was working in good faith. If he gave me time to add references I would have done so. I have also been very busy at work and do not always get time. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@User:Johnleeds1, don't worry, this thread has been closed and you're not going to get blocked from this. I apologize for any hostility you may have felt; It's a common problem on Wikipedia for new editors to get "bitten" because they are less-than familiar with our policies and guidelines. I suggest that the next step would be for you to provide sources supporting the diff that Pass a Method gave above, and either post them at Talk:Islam with an explanation, or add them to the article itself. I also recommend perusing the links in the templated warnings that were left on your talk page. Good luck with your job, and remember that real life comes first :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Adjwilley, Pass a Method appears to have deleted the content, even the content with lots of references, I will add further references over the weekend, Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2013 (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:Steeletrap refuses to stop posting to my talk page

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.

---

• 15:44, 23 May 2013 - "Please don't post anything besides noticeboard alert type things."
• 23:15, 25 May 2013 - "Please stop harassing me on my talk page unless it is an official notice per policy. Second request."
• 18:15, May 29 - "Third request - not leave messages for me unless part of official proceedings." (Steeletrap justification for doing it
• 19:00, May 29 - " Fourth request. Do not post talk related debate here, only official notices. "
• 19:08, May 29 - "5th Request to User:Steeletrap about unofficial comments on my talk page" (Steeletrap justification for doing it

Note that Steeletrap is mad at me because at this diff where, after quoting, NPOV Dealing with biased contributors, I quoted her May 28th most recent derogatory comments about certain Austrian economists to explain her strong POV vs Hoppe which continues being disruptive. I've repeatedly asked her to discuss all this at the talk page but she continues posting on my talk page despite my repeated requests.

Request: Could someone please explain to her why this is uncivil and harassment? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Steeletrap's latest edits to your talk page and warned them not to post there in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Administrator keeps attacking me and 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.

---

This administrator DrKiernan seems to have a problem with me and the living person, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. He attacks any editing I make on the article, weeks ago we solved this out but he seems to want to create the same argument with me on Wikipedia again so I would stop editing on wiki or be blocked...He keeps removing important info from the lead which has been on the article for years, he's reason is because it's irrelevant, which is a lie because other royalty articles have the same thing in the lead. Can anyone else deal with this who's higher than him, it's been going on for far too long? (Monkelese (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

1) You're required to notify that user that you have brought their name up here.

2) You're both edit warring, I'd recommend that the both of you stop and establish consensus on the talk page. It would be best if you, and DrKiernan, stopped making edits to that page altogether. --Jayron32 20:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The info he removed from the lead is important...he keeps reverting the info and it seems to me its because of the animosity he has towards the living person...the info should be added... I thought this wasn't a fansite, however he's making it out to be one. (Monkelese (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

No, what is most important is that you don't fight. Don't justify it to me. I could care less one way or the other. What has to happen is you need to stop editing and start discussing on the article talk page. --Jayron32 21:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Monkelese blocked for 24 hours for edit warring/3RR by reverting again after receiving two warnings on their talk page. DrKiernan blocked for 72 hours for their five reverts in 24 hours (longer due to their block history). Dpmuk (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be concerned enough that an administrator such as DrKiernan should be blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations, but what really worries me is that looking at his block log this isn't the first time and it's the second time in 2 months. Now this isn't a case of him abusing his administrative powers, which he hasn't, but I do find 4 blocks since becoming an administrator for edit warring concerning. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If he submitted for an RfA now as a non-admin there is no way he would pass. If the President of the United States murders someone he would be impeached not because he was corrupt or a poor President but because he violated the laws he was sworn to uphold. Admins likewise are put in the position to uphold the laws, but this admins has repeatedly violated them. You still think he's got what it takes to be an admin? 50.140.166.14 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm no Learned Hand (yes, that was his real name), but I think it would be quite the opposite. There would be insufficient "nexus" between that and what was contemplated in Article 2, section 4 "high crimes and misdemeanors" provision. From what I've read, the section deals with malfeasance specific to the office: they would more likely be tried in a court rather than by Congress. (Then again, who knows? The more I look, the more the nature of the office of the President looks like a fossilization of the executive powers of a 18th Century British monarch.)--Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2013 (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

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 hope I've come to the right place. I didn't revert the IP, but I warned them of a personal attack with a level two warning and added a note regarding it. They then replied with the finger gesture. It didn't offend me or anything, but it is not appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. - Amaury (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2013 (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:Fayetsl

• thesmartlocal.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thesmartlocal.com

Mass revert needed for all edits by User:Fayetsl. 82.132.234.106 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --B (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remaining links cleaned. MER-C 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:THC Loadee

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.

---

Based on my interaction with him, THC Loadee (talk · contribs) is here to push an anti-religious agenda. As he stated on his own talk page, "Once again, there is a wiki for religious folk. It's called Conservapedia. Try it. You might like it better than Wikipedia. On Conservapedia, they don't like facts very much." He also has referred to other editors as "fascists", but now thinks we are "authoritarian" instead. He also was edit-warring well over 3RR at Coconut oil and only stopped very recently. I reported him to AN3 several hours ago for the edit warring, but nothing has been done yet. THC Loadee is completely dismissive of religious viewpoints (... religious beliefs are opinions and can't stand up to the light of facts...) and is clearly demonstrating his unwillingness to edit from a neutral POV. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

He has now reached about eight reverts here. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

THC Loadee's definition of "religious beliefs" appear to be "those beliefs that disagree" with his.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2013 (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.

Just be aware that he's stated in the past that he will "re-appear" if blocked in this diff  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

More harassment, User:Quis separabit-related

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.

---

Quack quack! Following the User:Sallieparker incident mentioned above, I received THIS message on my talk page, which I will quote in full:

Stop supporting bigoted and Anti-Catholic editors

Don't think we haven't noticed your posting on the ANI noticeboard in support of Quis separabit? and against Sallieparker. Are you another Anti-Catholic Marxist or are you a fellow member of Quis' tribe? In any case, consider yourself warned. We don't want to have to take severe actions against you, but will do so if forced. User:NYFinanceGal (talk) 8:38 am, Today (UTC−7)

Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack... Quack quack quack!!! Quack-quack? Quack! Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack...

I will notify User:Sallieparker and User:NYFinanceGal momentarily, although that seems rather redundant. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In making the notifications, I notice that the latter is already indeffed today, the former is only warned. If anybody wants to make an SPI complaint, please do. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, blocked for all the very obvious reasons, and Alf was way ahead of us both on starting the SPI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Muy goodo, thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Right here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sallieparker FWIW. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm blocking Sallieparker indefinitely for the obvious reasons: repetition of those slurs, socking, continued POV disruption at the article--did I miss anything? Sallieparker can accept the standard offer if she's interested. Also, I've semi-protected the article so Sallie can travel the world without missing anything. If any admin thinks that's too much and/or too long, feel free to tweak. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure the article needs protection, but the remedy is obvious and on-target, in my opinion. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Run for admin and revert me... :) Drmies (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (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.

Further breach of BLP topic ban

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:Nataev is topic banned from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum anywhere on Wikipedia.[30] He has been blocked already for breaching this ban[31], and was recently the subject of a discussion at ANI regarding further alleged breaches, as a result of which the ban was further clarified and explained to him.[32]

This edit[33] would seem to be a further explicit breach of the ban, and his contributions to the subsequent discussion could also be construed as furthering the discussion which led to the ban. Since reminders, polite requests[34] and clarifications do not seem to be woking, it would appear that Nataev needs a more forceful reminder that this disruptive editing is unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. I responded to a message that was addressed to me. I edited the talk page of the article on Plaut. So, it doesn't constitute a breach of the topic ban. Moreover, my edits are not disruptive at all, far from it. You can't seem to stop stalking my edits. You, the Jewish guy, and Nomowhatever have been trying very hard to bait me and get me blocked. Why do you all keep writing messages addressed to me? I'd say this is unacceptable behavior. I hope admins will analyze this issue in its entirety and proceed accordingly. Nataev (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot breach a topic ban merely because someone linked your name and triggered a notification - that's not how it works. But that does raise an interesting point - why the hell would they reference you in a discussion from which you are banned? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, but what I wrote isn't a breach of the topic ban. This is not the first time they've tried to get me involved. In this edit I responded to a message that was addressed to me. These edits have nothing to do with the topic ban. Nataev (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the second two edits, those do not seem relevant. And I'm not entirely convinced that that first diff is a violation, either. But no one seems to have linked your name to trigger a notification, and the comment to which you were responding was from 15 May - so why bother? If they are baiting you, as you claim, then why give them the satisfaction of rising to the bait? Unwatch the pages, even of those persons tangentally related to the topic, and move on. Seems simple, but that's me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. You're quite right. I noticed the message addressed to me only today. I didn't look at the date. These guys seem to hate Prof. Plaut. It's really troubling to observe that a group of editors who care deeply about a certain subject can abuse the system to their own advantage by doing all they can to get blocked anyone who disagrees with them. I'm sure this can't last forever. But I guess for now I'll just have to unwatch the article on Plaut like you said. Nataev (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The edit to which Nataev was responding was made two weeks ago, immediately after the topic ban was imposed. Since then, Nataev has unsuccessfully appealed against the ban, been blocked for a breach, and taken part in an earlier discussion on the scope of the ban. Had he responded at the time, this breach of the topic ban could have been overlooked; to respond now, in terms making it clear that he is continuing the behaviour which led to the ban, and following the subsequent developments and clarifications, can only be seen as a deliberate and provocative breach. RolandR (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's how you see it. Given that you seem to hate Prof. Plaut and have been trying to get me blocked for a very long time, your intentions are all clear. Let others decide. Nataev (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it's not clear whether user רסטיניאק that Nataev was addressing is or isn't Goldblum (despite the long thread about this at COIN), an explicit interaction ban between Nataev and רסטיניאק seems the simplest way to go here, short of just blocking Nataev. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just took a look at your contributions. You also seem to care deeply about this subject. I'm afraid you cannot comment on this issue impartially. I'm convinced that I haven't done anything wrong. Nataev ^talk 06:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I was willing to assume that an editor with your edit count would not make unsubstantiated comments like that. My only prior involvement in this are a couple of comments at a SPI yesterday. I've not edited anything about Israel, Palestine etc. It seems that in every controversial area on Wikipedia, whenever I make an uninvolved comment, some deeply invested editor immediately switches to full attack mode against me. You deserve each other. May the wikiwars eat all your lifetime. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at your contributions. I just saw your comments from yesterday. I think you took it too far when you wrote "Short of just blocking Nataev." I'm not deeply involved, actually. Thanks four your warm wishes. Unfortunately, wikiwars won't take up much of my time. Nataev ^talk 07:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I came back here to ask some admin should advise both editors not to conduct sock-puppetry investigations on a BLP talk page [35], with allegations against the subject. But I guess that's par for the course in this area. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The allegations are untrue and libelous and exposes Wikipedia to a lawsuit. I think they should be moved somewhere more appropriate. Nataev ^talk 07:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. If anyone should be considering libel action regarding the Runtshit account, it should be me, the target of several thousand obscene and clearlu defamatory attacks, and not a person suggested as being behind this. (And, to remove any possible doubt, I am not considering taking any legal action against either Wikipedia itself, or any Wikipedia editors) RolandR (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

To me it looks like Runtshit is an invented character. Many unrelated people attack you, and then you claim they're sockpuppets of Runtshit. So, to you and your army of biased editors anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet of Runtshit! I mean, how come you guys claim Runtshit has thousands of sockpuppets? There's no way one can have so many sockpuppers. It's just physically impossible. Nataev ^talk 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather uncivil remark from User:Nataev. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Only those who care deeply about Israel/Palestine chip in here. I doubt that there will be a single unbiased comment in this thread. Nataev ^talk 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nataev, answer me this. Would a person who never even knew Runtblank existed attack someone, then claim they are the sock of him? Also, be nice. 173.58.99.74 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, not over 1,500 times from a thousand different places! You'd have to spend millions to travel so much. So, you guys are just making wild assumptions. Nataev ^talk 22:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you never heard of proxies? RolandR (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I sure have. But this doesn't make your allegations any more convincing. First, it's not so easy to determine that a user is editing using a proxy. Second, a person smart enough to use proxies wouldn't do a dumb thing like opening 1,500 fake accounts. He'd quickly realize that it is better to edit constructively for a while with one account and then start writing about whatever he originally wanted to write about. Nataev ^talk 20:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nataev, to be perfectly blunt you have no clue what you're talking about with regard to serial socking. Is this discussion even relevant to the original topic (that being whether you have violated your topic ban)?--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that serial socking is impossible, I'm just saying that the allegations of Roland and the Jewish guy that Prof. Plat is Runtshit and that I might also be related to that vandal (!) are simply untrue. And yes, this is not entirely relevant to the original topic of this thread. Well, I'm convinced that I haven't done anything wrong. I'm afraid I can't afford to spend any more time on this. Admins will make a decision. Nataev ^talk 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the article on Runty, I'm sure that it's one guy or one group rather than random people. 173.58.99.74 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (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.

Swedish Resistance Movement

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 righfully replaced "nationalist" with "neo-nazi" in the article Swedish Resistance Movement but user:jcc does not seem to respond to sources see http://www.nordfront.se/motstandsrorelsen-nationalsocialisternas-alternativ.smr in which it clearly shows who they are. Istead he gives me a notice saying my edits are not contructive http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.195.223.226&oldid=557543537 95.195.223.226 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the user in question? This is a content issue, what JCC has done does not constitute vandalism. If discussion does bring resolution, try engaging editors at WP:RFC or a relevant Wikiproject. It is certainly not something administrators are any more empowered to deal with than any other conflict resolution process. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As I have replied on my talk page (and you haven't replied to despite a talkback) , "They describe their opponents as Nazis and that they are trying to fight them. I quote from the source. "No one chooses to give everything for what you believe in the 'Nazi Resistance Movement!" I know that this can be read as that they are Nazis resisting other parties but isn't that a bit odd saying that they are an offshoot of the Nazi party in 2013? " Anyhow, you didn't reference it and you should have joined it together. Also, the source is by one editor who is comparing themselves to Nazis, and most certainly not supporting the Nazi way of thinking. I sincerely hope other editors see my point of view, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[post-closure]: the guy compares himself to Nazis because he's proud of being one. The linked article was precisely about how they were the only real Nazi club still around in Sweden. I've added a properly template reference from a Swedish paper: it's not a matter of controversy that these skinheads are also neo-Nazis. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nnamdjou 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.

---

I have blocked Nnamdjou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing, but I set the time at indefinite due to this, which to me could be considered a legal threat. I bring the legal threat part of this block here for discussion, and if consensus is that his statement could not be construed as a legal threat I'm more than happy to shorten his block (or someone else may do so). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment User:Nnamdjou has made legal threat against me and User:MelbourneStar at Talk:Nima Namdjou and Talk:Care4Chairs also.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The diff you posted is pretty borderline as a legal threat but this edit is pretty explicit in their use of court order. However, I think they need some pointers about "bots and spam" as they call it as well as notability. Blackmane (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comment Both you and Melbournestar deserve to be thoroughly trouted for your overbearing attitude to a new editor. Throwing templates at a newly signed up editor who began today is about as big a case of WP:BITE as I've ever seen. I'm dropping an explanatory message on their talk page to help them understand how WP works. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

When asked to stop removing the CSD tags, they ignored the messages, and persisted with removing tags. So I don't need a lecture, especially from someone who has obviously not reviewed the situation properly. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've looked through all of Nnamdjou's contribs and your communications with him, all of which were templated warnings. In fact all of your last 2,000 edits have been automated (I stopped going back through your contribs after 4 pages, so how many thousands of automated edits you do I have no idea). Consider, how would you feel if, within your first 50 edits to wikipedia, the only communication you received were automated warnings? Perhaps if either of you had actually tried to discuss with the editor about what was wrong with their article to begin with rather than just straight up send it to CSD with only more automated templates this would not have happened. Blackmane (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to communicate him without template messages also. But he just choose to probably ignore. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but as it was buried amongst a couple of other templates, he probably didn't see it and deleted it along with the templates. Blackmane (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus what is the problem is using template message. They are so politely worded and read the same way, as a non template message. Moreover I communicated with him on talk page of his articles also under the assumption that he may not be reading his own talk page.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't gripe about using templates, a succession of them to a new editor, particularly one who has never encountered the wikiediting environment will only see a bunch of automated warnings. The wording is all so similar that after a while it seems like someone is just copy pasting them onto their page and they become intimidating. After a few months of browsing through wiki one may become familiar with wikijargon but getting slapped by all sorts of templates and warnings right off the bat is pretty harsh. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Blackmane - automated messages or not - those messages were quite clear. Nnamdjou had no intentions of discussing on the article's talk page - as is required, if you'd like to challenge a CSD tag. Now, you claim that s/he are not familiar with wikijargon. So, what don't you understand when a template message says: "Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says:..."? Does it say remove the CSD tag if you'd like? of course not. These messages were appropriate, they were polite (especially the first few) and they were straight to the point.

On Nnamdjou I don't believe they should be indefinitely blocked - I think like everybody else, they can easily understand wikijargon as time goes on - but nobody has learnt that by dismissing important messages and calling them spam; and then making baseless legal threats and accusing others of vandalizing.

And on the CSD tag, the rationale for the speedy deletion tag's do not need a rocket scientist to understand. They are quite clear too. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) a bit review. Initially this user was given welcome messages coupled with CSD notifications. So that is usual routine. Later when I noticed that one of the article is autobiography, then another welcome coupled with autobiography message was given. again no prob. This whole thing of so called biting started when this user started attacking me. He came to my user page, picked first article in a list and blanked it. What do u expect in that case? Further he kept on vandalizing my other user pages. When MelbourneStar reverted his vandalism on my user pages, he started attacking MelbourneStar. Went on to vandalise his talk page, blank ARV page, reported MelbourneStar to ARV, telling us that using some american law he will drag us india and Australia into american court. Now, if a lawyer does not choose to read a message, what can be done? If he can see, how to contest a speedy deletion nominations, then of course see that he knew that he was not suppose to remove the CSD tag. And in no way it meant that he could blank other pages. We did not blank his page. And I am sure, he must have failed to notice or choose to ignore that I had also fixed some syntax error in his article which improved the overall look of his article. He was given personal message also and the so called templates started much latter. There is no solution if one person, even if a new user decide to behave in an aggressive manner.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, rather than fight over differences in style (I've almost never used automated templates for anything) and approach, I'd be ok with letting bygones be bygones and agree to disagree. Yes, he was notified and then made various disruptive edits, vandalised here and there and got himself blocked after a legal threat, but with a bit of time, I can probably nurse this thorn out and we can move along on our merry way with little more than a few ruffled feathers. Would this be acceptable to everyone? Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone will be happy if he constructively edits. A block was necessary to put a break, not to prevent him from editing. But I think instead of time limiting the block, he should understand his errors and demonstrate some understanding of WP policies. But it is upto admin guys to decide this. My previous comments here was in response to your suggestion for a "thorough trouting" and not about Nnamdjou. I can only hope he become a better editor.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're right. We all mustn't get confused and argue over differences, because at the end of the day, we all want the same things achieved on the project; we just have different ways of showing it. I believe your approach that you're undertaking right now with the user, is really appropriate, and I'm glad someone's doing it. I also understand your contention with in regards to template messages - I however, find them more appropriate and easier to understand (because I don't believe I'm too straight forward at times). I believe that this is a case closed, and hopefully Nnamdjou can put this insignificant moment behind him/her, whilst acknowledging our policies. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no intermediate between a minnow and a WP:TROUT so I may have thrown larger fish than I really should have. Maybe a perch? On a serious note, I think I'm making some headway and may get a retraction of the legal threats. I've asked Peridon, who deleted his article, to userfy it for him if he wants to work on it although I'm hoping he realises that it's going to be a very hard task to get that kept here but rather than being discouraged he will go on to work in areas that he has familiarity with or is interested in. Blackmane (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You are doing good work as I see. Kindly explain him the difference between something being significant (as he described the work of his chair4care thing) and notability (in WP terms). On a non-serious note, no more fish today, had Sushi for lunch. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

He's fully retracted his legal threats and also asked for a name change. Given that the reason for his block has been retracted, I believe it would be reasonable to grant him the name change and an unblock as time served. Blackmane (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur (and kudos to Blackmane for positive engagement of a new editor). NE Ent 09:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking is fine, but I do not think he has actually understood what he has done, what others did and what he is still doing. Just look at his talk page : Care4Chairs will be in so many articles and so many publications that the naysayers will eat their own words, I can only pray that God has mercy on them for their ignorance, for I forgive for they know not what they do. I will look into this this Userfy from your associate Peridon, who must be related to God by blood or marriage, hopefully he can fulfill his destiny and Userfy care4chairs. And his talk page is full of such nonsense.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading the full post, you'll see that he does actually understand the need for good sourcing to establish notability. He added a post script after his signature, "I thought it was significant and notable, I guess I need some articles and publications to meet the standards of Wikipedia." He's passionate and that's a good thing unless it becomes disruptive. Apply AGF fairy dust liberally and lets move on. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2013 (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.

Problems Uploading Images

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.

---

Morning all, I have tried twice in the past 15 minutes to upload an image (a logo for a TV station). I go through the steps, source the image, etc. and each time the image does not upload. Is there a problem with the upload wizard or am I doing something wrong that I am not seeing? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the original online somewhere? This one, maybe:[36]? If you have a link, I'll try it and see what happens, if you like. Begoon ^talk 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. I think Sitush is going to give it a try, though. I asked him as well, in case no one got to it here on ANI (it can be slow during the early morning hours). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:K26GS-D TV Station Logo.png. Worked first time, go figure. If we end up with Sitush's as well, we can delete one. Begoon ^talk 10:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush's failed, so this one works. I am wondering if what I was trying to name it, "K26GS-LD_2013" was goofing things up. I always like to use the callsign and year, but I am wondering if it was kicking it because of too many numbers. Anywho, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You could ask at VPT. Possibilities I suppose are blacklist/filter or just a glitch - certainly seems to be the name if you both got that problem. I put it in the article straight away as it's fair use. I'll close this. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 10:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I will ask on VPT after some sleep. Darned insomnia is acting up again. Thanks again...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:33, 31 May 2013 (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:Hengistmate and civility (yet again)

This reversion, in conjunction with the content, is particularly unimpressive (per uncivil hounding, dickish behaviour or whatever you want to call it). This is a long-term pattern from Hengistmate (talk · contribs) and it might benefit from a quiet word with a cluemop.

For clarity, I have no dog in this particular fight, although I've frequently been on the end of Hengistmate's taunting in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have no long-term experience with them, but I left them a note. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • In my occasional dealings with Hengistmate, I have found him to be unfailingly courteous.Keith-264 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow, given his remarkably free hand with the snark, even when quite uncalled for (see Tank, Renault FT or History of the tank) I'm genuinely surprised that you've escaped this. It's his tendency to make every minor content disagreement into an opportunity to disparage editors personally, even over perceived slights from months earlier, that is the main problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure, but the last warning is from a few months ago. If there were a talk page plastered full of warnings (and diffs), it would be an easy case even for AIV. Now, it's a bit of a fishing expedition and not (yet) necessarily an ANI case. In my opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think he's set in his ways perhaps it's with you and not a general phenomenon. Have you tried changing your approach? I don't attempt to lecture because I can be as diplomatic as that iceberg that the Titanic ran into but it's usually the practial suggestions that help me.Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... in situations like this, I keep a running timeline as a way to reduce the attribution bias[37] that we all have. Normally I never have to refer to it, but as long as there is an ANI report, you might as well see the record of his interactions with me.

BTW, other names that will come up are:

Andy Dingley: a well-respected and productive editor in the science and engineering areas, but occasionally uncivil, especially when provoked.

Borealdreams: an editor with a severe COI problem who appears to be in the business of selling a product that is advertised as an alternative to lightning rods. We have a real problem with him pushing a fringe technology.

Qwyrxian: an well-respected administrator who on occasion gets involved with cases such as Borealdreams.

This all started when I gave Hengistmate a rather routine NPA warning.

01:04, 01 Nov 2011: Andy Dingley is incivil.[38]

22:46, 03 Nov 2011: Hengistmate is (more) incivil.[39]

23:18, 03 Nov 2011: Srobak comments on Hengistmate incivility.[40]

00:03, 18 Nov 2011: Guy Macon gives Hengistmate a routine NPA warning.[41]

13:02, 18 Nov 2011: Hengistmate objects to being warned, suggests that Andy Dingley be warned.[42]

16:58, 18 Nov 2011: Guy Macon gives Andy Dingley a civility warning.[43]

17:25, 06 Mar 2012: Three months later, Hengistmate jumps in to an unrelated COI issue.[44]

21:56, 12 Mar 2012: Hengistmate jumps in again.[45]

22:12, 12 Mar 2012: Guy Macon tells Hengistmate "I do not wish to interact with you in any way".[46]

22:34, 12 Mar 2012: Hengistmate attempts to continue the fight.[47]

22:49, 12 Mar 2012: Qwyrxian answers Hengistmate.[48]

22:52, 12 Mar 2012: Guy Macon deletes thread from his talk page.[49]

23:26, 12 Mar 2012: Guy Macon informs Qwyrxian of deletion.[50]

21:26, 13 Mar 2012: Qwyrxian responds.[51]

02:44, 14 Mar 2012: Hengistmate attempts to drag Qwyrxian into the fight.[52]

02:44, 14 Mar 2012: Qwyrxian responds.[53]

16:23, 15 Mar 2012: Hengistmate appears to be willing to drop the WP:STICK.[54]

15:15, 16 Mar 2012: Hengistmate tries to pick a fight again. Clearly he is watching every edit Guy Macon makes, waiting for something he can fight over. Nobody responds.[55]

16:34, 30 May 2013: Here it is, over a year later, and Hengistmate is still watching Guy Macon's edits, waiting for something he can fight over. [56]

18:56, 30 May 2013: Guy Macon refuses to fight, deletes thread from his talk page.[57]

19:18, 30 May 2013: Hengistmate edit wars in an effort to pick a fight.[58]

19:23, 30 May 2013: Guy Macon refuses to fight, deletes thread from his talk page.[59]

I have no idea why Hengistmate is still obsessing over a routine civility warning from 2011, but I don't want to have anything to do with him.

I also would not have bothered reporting this. One or two attempts to pick a fight per year is a situation best ignored. I suggest closing this case unless someone shows a lot more evidence than has been shown, and I am pretty sure I have 100% of our interactions on my running list. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Thunderbolt93

I know Thunderbolt93 (talk · contribs), because he vandalize the Italian Wikipedia site in the article The 2nd Law. Now, he continues to inser without attendible sources "Supremacy" in the singles from The 2nd Law. Also, he insulting me in the discussion. --SuperVirtual (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I say again that you are simply ridicolous. At my home to insult people are used bad words, vulgarities. And I do not think I have mentioned a single one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderbolt93 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not your home. And I'm not ridicolous, because it's not the first time I try to talk with you (do you remember it.wiki?) --SuperVirtual (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Several points here. 1) What happens on Italian Wikipedia has nothing to do with the English Language Wikipedia, so forget anything about that. 2) If I understand the above you're complaining that he is adding it as a single. However you yourself were the one to add it as a single in this edit and then complained when someone tried to remove it less than a week ago here. So you're contradicting yourself here. 3) please provide the diffs of any insults. Canterbury Tail talk 18:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Borked move at Crowdfunding

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.

---

Crowdfunding, a redirect was deleted so that Crowd funding could be moved there. But it looks like the whole thing has been deleted. Deleting admin - User talk:DGG, has been notified but appears to be offline. - hahnchen 21:51, 31 May 2013 (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:Inspectortr

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 is trouble. He's been warned too many times before. His recent contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=557742841 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan&diff=prev&oldid=557742221) show that he's only here to cause trouble. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2013 (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:N-HH - automatically assuming bad faith, combative uncivil behaviour in violation WP:NOTABATTLE

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 recently opened a discussion on problems I saw with the intro on the talk page of the Fascism article with repetition on points. N-HH has responded by automatically assuming bad faith on my part, accusing me of wanting to take over the intro, and presumably that I am not open to criticism for intro content. I will admit that in the past I have perhaps gone too far with WP:BOLD when I have seen material lacking in intros and main bodies of articles. However this accusation that I am trying to take over the intro is not rational when I specifically opened a talk page discussion on the subject.

All of these problems with N-HH started when I got extremely angry and uncivil at him at one point when he was accusing me of incompetence. I reported myself for incivility, and have since apologized on N-HH's talk page, and taken a long time off Wikipedia with some intermitting returns, and am only showing up to advocate changes I view needed. I believe that this is a long-term problem, that N-HH has neither accepted my apology nor has been willing to move on, and that this behaviour may indicate that he is holding a grudge towards me.

Still the main issue that I am addressing here is the automatic assumption of bad faith. The following two diffs demonstrate these automatic assumptions: [60], [61].

--R-41 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see what's ANI-worthy here. What action do you want against me? Even if there had not been a pattern of previous behaviour on your part – ranging from mild article ownership and disruptive editing all the way to random abuse and sockpuppetry – it would not be illegal to politely raise a query about actions and motives, while nonetheless focusing, as I have been, on article content. And, in any event, the second diff clearly shows me rowing back from any assumptions about your intentions. N-HH talk/edits 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I dunno -- but perhaps you might try finding compromise edits instead of using the revert button so readily? Sometimes intermediate wording can solve issues far better than reverts do. And charging anyone with "ownership" and the like requires quite a bit more evidence than you muster. If you wish to start an RfC/U on R-41 - do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there were serious problems with parts of the Fascism lead as was, some significant changes and improvements were made and then, as you know, we had an RFC on the difference, which pretty unanimously backed the version that I've since been sticking up for over the past couple of months. Most of the edits since the RFC have been politically motivated borderline vandalism (eg "fascism is socialism!") or barely improvements at all. Reverting those seems fair enough to me; and my having done that a couple of times over several weeks is certainly not something for ANI. As for dragging other users to noticeboards or into the bureaucratic stocks, I have neither the time or inclination. I'd sooner rely on people being persuaded that not every contribution they make is as helpful as they might think it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I used an anon account as part of WP:CLEAN START, so that I would not face prejudice for previous editing actions. But that didn't work. During that incident several months ago, when I reported myself for my inappropriate statements I made, N-HH got angry at administrators and accused them of being friendly towards me in a way condoning what I did, an administrator responded by warning him about the fact that he was not adhering to WP:AGF of the administrators, and asked approximately "did you leave your AGF at the front door this morning?". N-HH is doing this again, and I believe that it is possible that N-HH is doing this because he may be holding a grudge towards me over what I said several months ago. Therefore I repeat: I apologize for my extremely inappropriate comments I said several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actions that I request should be undertaken: I want a clear warning to N-HH on his behaviour: to stop posting automatic assumptions of bad faith on talk pages that are about article content that aim belittle the content of what I have added based on implicit accusations against the nature of my character that could manipulate other users' perceptions of what I have contributed. If N-HH continues to post automatic assumptions of bad faith on article talk pages after being warned, I believe a 24 hour block should be put in place, hopefully to demonstrate that automatic assumptions of bad faith are not accepted on Wikipedia, and to encourage N-HH to change his behaviour. If it continues afterwards, I will request stronger sanctions. These public declarations of automatic assumption of bad faith on my part by N-HH has gone on for months now, in spite of me having taken long breaks from editing and apologizing for earlier unconstructive behaviour, this needs to end.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If he really believes that I am acting in a damaging manner to the Wikipedia Project, then he open up an RfC/U on me, and request administrative review of my actions. He should not be posting his perceptions of the nature of a user's contributions on talk pages about article content. --R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what AGF actually says: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism ... Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others". You know, like constantly asserting that I am "holding a grudge" against you. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Automatically assuming bad faith that you have done regardless of what I am contributing is not productive, especially posting accusations of the nature of my editing behaviour on article talk pages about content to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions. There is a place to make such complaints: that is RfC/U, but that should not be posted on an article talk page. Instead of discussing with me how to get the best ideas of all the editors involved in discussion and providing constructive criticism, you are combative, as Collect has mentioned above you simply revert my edits and condemn my edits for mistakes rather than working constructively. Also, take a look at WP:GRUDGE, I think it is reasonable to observe your user-to-user behaviour with me and make the conclusion that you are holding a grudge because you are still holding me in contempt for what I did several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

N-HH has added new combative accusations against me on Talk:Fascism at this diff: [62]. N-HH's combative accusations are that I am making "arbitrary" searches that are "without any regard" for the text. I have read material on Mussolini's speeches before, including in a university course where I read that exact quote. I have Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 right in front of me. Yes I use Google Books because the content of those are easily verifiable by people who may want to investigate the content of sources used. N-HH needs to engage in more constructive behaviour, if N-HH has constuctive criticism on what I am proposing that could involve co-operative effort on working out how to improve content, that would be the best course of action. But these combative accusations about the nature of my behaviour need to stop being posted on article talk pages on content, if N-HH believes I am damaging the Wikipedia Project in such manners, he should open up an RfC/U.--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This section was archived but not closed and the issue is still ongoing. I am re-posting this. N-HH has posted further combative remarks at me, and keeps using hyperbole that exaggerates things. I have requested him to cease using combative uncivil remarks and have said that I will accept constructive criticism by him, he has not done so, instead he has escalated the combative uncivil remarks that is now at the point of breaching WP:NOTBATTLE. It doesn't matter what I seem to post, he always finds fault in it that he combatively condemns me for, and exaggerates it through hyperbole that effectively insinuates that I am grossly incompetent, malicious, and/or a person not to be trusted that he publicly conveys on article talk pages to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions.--R-41 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but most people will go "tl;dr", but your responses are dramatic and lacking evidence. First of all, if you are on a clean start you should actually read what it means. Editing in old areas is likely to make it obvious and connection never have been said or stated, until you reveal it yourself. Problems with editors are different from problem editors and you using an IP to bolster the same argument you did as R-41 is a problem. Furthermore, it is the reason you got blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Even if you remove it from the talk page, but we can still see it.[63] If anything this looks like you are trying to shift the blame when your own actions were worse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at this issue briefly, with no prior knowledge. User:R-41: Please provide real evidence that you are being mistreated, rather than restating that allegation. Several users and administrators have considered your editing to be tendentious. Unless you can establish that you are right and they are wrong, then by pursuing this issue here, you are just increasing the level of controversy. You have basically three choices. First, you can go away. I don't think that you will. Second, you can drop this thread, and let the process work. Third, you can continue posting here, and then it is likely that you will go away. Please drop this thread. You are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

R-41: blanking prior contributions in protest

I stumbled across some article blanking by R-41 (talk · contribs) with disruptive edit summaries (a combination of WP:OWN and WP:POINTY behavior), and did a 31 hour block to allow time to cool down. But, given their comments at user talk:R-41#Block regarding disruptive blanking and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R-41, it appears that they are intentionally wanting to get perma-blocked/banned due to perceived attacks they feel to have received. I haven't read all the background on the issues (I haven't even read all of the above discussion), so am hoping someone more familiar with the editor can assist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:42, 31 May 2013 (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:RSN813 wp:ROLE, wp:coi, incivility, legal threats

RSN813 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• wp:ROLE account / WP:NOSHARE violation - it is explicitly used by more than one person (Alex Davidson [64] and Robert Nathan [65])
• WP:COI - Robert Stuart Nathan
• incivility [66] [67]
• legal threats [68] [69]

Widefox; talk 02:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the mystery? I rewrite my assistant and he rewrites me. Is this uncommon? I guess maybe in some places it is, but not in show business. RN — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSN813 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this get more absurd? The sentence directly above was a response to the comment directly below. But unsigned!? My initials are right there after the comment. What the heck is this about? RN — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSN813 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The username policy that you agreed to is quite explicit when it states "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked". This means that each person must have their own account. You also should not be editing the same articles, due to the potential conflicts as per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. In terms of "signing", on Wikipedia there is a technical requirement for you to end any talkpage post with ~~~~ ... this adds an electronic signature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the two editors using the RSN813 account are listening - WP:IDHT. I don't think they've heard yet that they've aimed the above at me, when the edit was by User:Drm310. Don't think they heard either of us point that out. Widefox; talk 13:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the statement that "“Self-published” to the common ear would translate as “fraudulent,”" indicates at the very least a serious lack of WP:CLUE. I've also given a final warning regarding the use of the account by multiple people. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the RSN813 editors understand that the text of a template is automatically substituted in place when an article is tagged. Regardless of that, my reasoning for added the {{self-published}} template was the precedent in Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, which identifies the IMDb as a disputed source for crew lists and awards. If I have misinterpreted this guide then I am sorry for my mistake. But if I interpreted it correctly, then their dispute is better served at the guide's talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Reisio making controversial and undiscussed removal of content on all letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet, from A to Z

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:Reisio has with no prior discussion removed "ISO" from the text of the article of all 26 letters of the ISO basic Latin alphabet, changing "ISO basic Latin alphabet" to "basic Latin alphabet", in spite of being informed that there is no "basic Latin alphabet" other than that standardized by ISO, which could confuse readers, both because each language using the Latin letters has its own alphabet and because even after his/her edits each of the articles states that the letter in question is number "x" in the alphabet. Without specifying which alphabet. Reisio is now up to three reverts on each of the letters, once reverting the original text of each of the letters, once reverting User:LjL and once reverting me. And has clearly no intention of stopping what he/she is doing. In addition to that he has marked all of his deletions/reverts as minor edits in order to avoid scrutiny, in spite of being told not to in edit summaries by User:LjL. Since User:Reisio has made some 70 reverts it's hard to know where to start when it comes to diffs, so I'll just provide three sample page histories: letter A, letter S and letter Z. Thomas.W (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out what happened with the Latin alphabet page, which I made into a disambiguation page in order to make things clearer instead of just reverting bad edits; it got reverted, then reverted again, both time as minor, even though the intervening edit warned the user not to do that. The user has cited WP:MINOR as a justification in several of their edit summaries; however, after reading that article, I'm convinced it clearly states that edits such as those are not to be considered minor. LjL (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2013 (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.

Recurrent personal attacks against a named WP contributor on an article Talk page

On the Talk:Bicycle helmet page there have been recurrent personal attacks made against a WP contributor (me) who is identified by name, by User:Harvey4931. These attacks incorrectly and, I feel, maliciously, allege undeclared conflicts-of-interest and personal biases against me as a researcher, which are bordering on the defamatory. I deleted the material, but it was restored by its author User:Harvey4931 (and I subsequently deleted it again). The material in question can been seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_helmet&diff=557185303&oldid=557183020 The unacceptable nature of such personal attacks was made clear on the Talk page at Talk:Bicycle_helmet#No_personal_attacks.

The opinion of experienced WP editors and/or administrators on whether such behaviour is acceptable on WP would be appreciated. Tim C (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I barely read it but there is definite outing going on by Harvey4931 (I've corrected your links above to the user.) Another admin may judge if there are personal attacks, but the outing is definitely not on. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain, Canterbury Tail, how "outing" is involved when Tim C. openly identifies himself by name, career, and published articles he's written on his user page? I see no "outing" and also no "personal attack" in this linked exchange. Where is the evidence of malicious intent? What I see is an editor with a clear POV strongly in favor of mandatory bicycle helmet laws arguing with an editor with a POV opposed to such laws, about whether or not conflict of interest has been properly disclosed. How is that a personal attack? The relevant question is whether either editor is capable of editing in accordance with the neutral point of view? Tim C., if you ran across discussion here of bicycle helmet laws that did not include the strongest and best referenced arguments against such laws, would you be sure to include those arguments and references? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or to advance a point of view? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Outing is not an issue because I do indeed use my real name on WP. The issue is the attacks against me as a person, rather than discussion of the edits I make. I am a researcher, involved in research about bicycle helmets, and I have been contributing to WP articles on this subject, helping to ensure that the articles reflect all the available scientific evidence, regardless of what that research shows, and not just selected bits of it which happen to support a particular POV or set of beliefs. It is not my fault that a great deal of the published scientific research finds bicycle helmets to be effective. WP is supposed to reflect the scientific weight-of-evidence, not a balance between personal beliefs or points-of-view. My objection is that User:Harvey4931 is making assertions about me as a person, which question my integrity as a researcher and as a WP editor, rather than discussing specific edits I have made. My understanding is that discussion of WP editors, as opposed to discussions of the edits they make, are not acceptable on WP. Am I mistaken in this understanding? Tim C (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain, Tim C, how it is a "personal attack" for another editor to express a concern about whether or not you have adequately disclosed your conflicts of interest? And can you please consider answering the question I asked above? For your convenience, I will repeat it for you: "Tim C., if you ran across discussion here of bicycle helmet laws that did not include the strongest and best referenced arguments against such laws, would you be sure to include those arguments and references? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or to advance a point of view?" Thanks in advance for your frank answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I would and have been sure to include discussion of all scientific and policy evidence that meets WP criteria for reliable sources, regardless of whether it was favourable to helmets or not. As far as I know, that has been done - just about every peer-reviewed scientific paper on helmets is mentioned (or included in summary papers such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses). However, all arguments? No, because WP is not an encyclopedia of arguments and opinions. Anyone can argue the case for or against just about anything, or come up with just about any plausible-sounding but untested hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that view or belief or hypothesis should be reflected in a WP article. If data has been assembled and analysed, whether it is scientific or policy or social data, and reported via reliable channels, then yes, it deserves a mention. Bt no, not every argument. That is what I believe WP policy to be, in any case. Tim C (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question, Tim C. Both you and I have freely chosen to disclose our real life names here on Wikipedia, which I consider admirable of you. My real name, by the way, is Jim Heaphy. More formally, "James Cullen Heaphy III". Once we have made that free decision, do you think that either you or I are entitled to any protection against heightened levels of scrutiny of "a WP contributor (me) who is identified by name"? I don't. Do you? Anyone can Google me or you, and research us as they see fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. If someone asserts "WP editor Slartibartfast is biassed and is funded by XYZ industry and all his edits are biassed" it is one thing, but making the same incorrect assertions about James Cullen Heaphy III or Tim Churches is quite another thing. But that is beside the point: WP policy clearly states that Talk pages are not to be used to make assertions or comments about WP editors, only to make comments about WP content. That's the very clear policy, and it applies equally to pseudonymous editors as well as real-life editors. Tim C (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Jim, I misread your question - I thought you were asking if real-named WP editors were entitled to heightened levels of protection against personal attacks against them on WP. My answer to your actual question, whether real-named WP editors should be entitled to heightened levels of protection against scrutiny (for instance, of potential conflicts-of-interet), then my answer is no, definitely not. In my case, I consciously chose to use my real name because I wanted to contribute to WP articles in areas in which I have co-authored scientific papers that need to be cited in those articles. I had to add them to the articles, because no-one else had, but I wanted any conflict-of-interest in my doing so to be crystal clear to other editors. I also took pains to declare all relevant conflicts-of-interst on my user page at User:Tim.churches, last edited in March 2013 BTW, long before this issue of attacks against me arose. I think it is fine to ask other editors whether they have conflicts of interest with respect to specific edits they have made, particularly if such potential COIs are not obvious (for example, if the editor making the edits is pseudonymous). But that is quite different from questioning that editor's motives and generally impugning their integrity, which is just not on, as far as I am concerned. Tim C (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is it me, or is this beyond expressing a concern about someone's conflict of interest, and entering the field of soapboxing against a person? When someone starts a header on an article talk page with the sole purpose of discrediting another editor and drones on about it, it is inappropriate. The goal doesn't seem to address any point, but instead appears to be an attack on his character. If Harvey wants to take the issue to WP:COIN, then he should do so, but in this context, Harvey is clearly soapboxing against Tim and doing so in a disruptive manner. Obviously, everyone has their own POV there, but comments need to be limited to the merits and not the editor. Harvey might find a more receptive audience if he toned back the personal observations. At the very least, the entire purpose of Harvey's post was ad hominem. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 08:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just you. That is beyond the pale for an article talk page for the reasons you and others outline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• He's made a couple of contentious edits since this ANI discussion was started, and has chosen to just blow off the concerns here. I'm not sure what is going to get his attention. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 19:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to start with a bit of context.

A few years ago, I observed Tim C argue about bicycle helmets in a never ending manner on a bicycle forum called SydneyCyclist. He was famous for his strong views on bicycle helmets. He came across as somebody on a mission to convert others.

A few months ago, I noticed Tim making many frequent edits in Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia. I noticed that many edits were biased in favor of helmets.

I noticed an attempt to discredit material (regardless of its intrinsic merit) from one of the main sources critical of pro-helmet studies, BHRF, on the basis that their position does not seem to be neutral. That seemed a bit odd while pretending to be neutral. Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#RfC:_Can_the_Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation_web_site_be_considered_a_reliable_authority_and_source_of_references_for_this_article

Tim suggested to put critique of papers in footnotes. I warned that this would result in a misleading article. This was ignored. Tim subsequently used footnotes to bury material critical of pro-helmets studies.

Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Trial_of_footnotes

Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Using_footnotes_or_generic_statements_to_give_undue_prominence_to_misleading_claims

I noticed that many misleading studies had been added by helmet advocates. This inevitably led other editors to add counterbalancing arguments, leading to confusing and overwhelming material for the reader. I mentioned this in two separate Talk sections, pleading for focusing on readability. However, Tim refused to get rid of contentious material that was more confusing than informative.

Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Wikipedia_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy_or_for_over-detailed_argument

Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Wikipedia_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy

Over the last few months, I have warned in the Talk pages about questionable practices making the article misleading or confusing. This made little difference, the misleading behavior continued regardless. That required other editors to make frequent corrections. None are as dedicated as Tim is though. Most have given up now.

Other editors have been frustrated by this behavior, especially when Wikipedia rules are abused to game the system. Some of this behavior has been described in by another editor, User:Kiwikiped:, in this talk section

Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Attribution_of_articles_published_by_the_Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation_.28BHRF.29_in_this_article

It was out of frustration over these repeated abuses that I started the contentious talk section, as Tim had failed to disclose several conflicts of interests. Each conflict of interest mentioned is true and verifiable. Evidence has been provided in the deleted talk section. However, I admit that I have gone too far in regards to usage of the Talk page. I'm not sure what is the best way to deal with this situation though.

The key issue is: how to deal with an advocate using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy while pretending to be neutral?

Wikipedia states as one of its key rule that it is not a place for advocacy. I'm not sure what mechanism exists when this policy is violated. I noted the mention of the WP:COIN page. Would it be the most appropriate in this situation? Harvey4931 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin here with a general opinion from perusing the talk page: there's a lot of back-and-forth COI accusations from both of the two sides in the debate. The diff that Dennis Brown pulled out is pretty extravagant, but on the same page, I've seen Tim C pulling the exact same "declare your COIs!" trick with User:Colin at cycling, so it is sort of going both ways. In terms of Tim C's alleged COI: in a situation where there is a person with expertise on a topic, to the point of being, say, an academic researcher or scientist affiliated with a mainstream research organisation shouldn't have questions about their funding brought up as negatives. There's skepticism, and then there's ad hominem-based idiocy and conspiracy theory. I think User:Tim.churches has been more than up-front with potential COI by listing his institutional affiliation on his user page. Comments of the form "ah, but you get paid to do research!" are just bad form: people get paid for all sorts of things. I saw a similar thing a while back when someone accused User:Jmh649 of having a COI on the topic of CAT scans because as a doctor he had a financial motivation to send people for CAT scans. There's a lot of playing the man rather than playing the ball going on here, with people shouting about imagined COIs. That needs to stop if anything productive is going to happen on that talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the WP policy of respecting anonymity of editors is paramount, but there isn't there also a policy of requiring editors to declare COIs with respect to the edits they make, or if they don't wish to do that because it might undermine their anonymity, to refrain from making edits with which they have a COI, such as repeatedly deleting references to published critiques of papers which they have written? Tim C (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, COIs aren't required to declare nor refrain. They are strong encouraged to not edit direction, but current policy makes it impossible to require it, outside of sanction. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 06:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tom, I agree there is concerns on both sides, even if it has been more lopsided as of late, which is why I haven't been quick to jump to action. I'm not sure what the right solution is here, and there some good points mixed in with that ad hominem. Obviously, the issue needs to go to WP:DRN to hash out the merits (and the merits are not something we want to discuss here at ANI), but the behavioral issues seem perfect for WP:WQA, which doesn't exist anymore. ANI is a terrible place to work out those kinds of issues. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I decided I needed to read the actual article. It is one of the worst articles I've seen in a long time, to be honest. The amount of trivial detail is nauseating. Literally 75% of that material needs to be deleted outright or simply summarized, as is what we expect from an encyclopedia article. Sorry to be so blunt, but reading it as a casual reader is literally painful. No wonder there is disagreement. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good gracious, me! Dennis is being kind. To call this article abysmal would be an insult to abysses everywhere. Over this article we're wasting gazilions of electrons that could better be spent on articles about new Pokemon characters?! I think the article needs serious pruning, by an uninvolved editor or editors who knows nothing about bicycles, helmets, bicycle helmets, or Australia. Who has no passionate attachment to the topic or its tangents. Who's not graph and stat-happy. Truly, this is worse than what I usually see when I hit the Random article link. If I get time in the next couple of weeks, I'll revisit the article and try to prune back this blight. I'd urge others to try to do the same. There's probably something worth saving here. But it will take a full scale excavation and rescue team. And beer. Lots of beer. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you and others were to do that, I would gladly buy the beer. I was serious that it needs to be about 1/4th its current size, and I do think this is part of the problem, there is so much irrelevant material to fight over and obviously a POV fight going on. If I had a magic wand and could just make up any rule, policy be damned, it would be that both parties complaining here leave the article alone for a month, and a few really experienced and uninvolved editors take a chainsaw to the article to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article, instead of a pamphlet/essay/book. It is worth writing about, it is a very valid topic and likely much of the sourcing is worthwhile (although I doubt we really need over 150 sources....). To do the topic justice means to summarize it in a way that makes reading it a pleasure instead of a burden. It really needs outside help, and once that is done and it is maintained as such, there will likely be less fights about it. Any volunteers besides David in DC? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the article I was talking about was Bicycle helmets in Australia, but I see that Bicycle helmet and its 200 sources is likely in just as bad of shape. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for offering to re-write the article David. From vague memory, the version from late last year is more concise and readable. It might be a better starting point. Same for the Bicycle helmets in Australia article.Harvey4931 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • I've tried to recruit some assistance as well, spamming a request on Drmies' talk page. That said, as frustrated as you might be, you need to stay focused on the edits, not the editor. His having a COI isn't a bar to editing, even if it is a bad idea. There is no requirement that someone be forthcoming on that either. You shoot yourself in the foot when you go off on someone like that, and need to consider WP:DRN or ask for help. I'm not saying sanction is needed here, it isn't, but you clearly went over the line. It is very possible (and common) to be completely right on the merits of a discussion and completely wrong on the behavior in discussing those methods. Tim's methods (and overzealous additions) aren't much better, but you have to avoid the page long rants on people at the article talk page. Hopefully we can put more eyes on this and take a chainsaw to it properly. I don't see a need for any other action at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Can I just re-iterate, for the benefit of all, including Dennis Brown, that apart from my co-authorship of a few (four I think) of the papers and articles referenced in the article, I do not have any COI with respect to the various bike helmet articles. The COI with respect to edits relating to those four references is obvious, since I use my real name, and it is explicitly declared on my profile page as well. I do not expect to find ongoing allegations that I have some other undeclared or secret COI, not on the article Talk page, and not here. Yes, I have a personal POV regarding helmets, informed by my study of the scientific literature on the subject, but having a POV is not the same as having a COI, nor is it a crime, provided a NPOV is maintained when editing. If people wish to allege a non-NPOV in edits I have made, please give chapter-and-verse (on the article Talk page, not here) and I will gladly defend my actions (or admit that I erred if that is the case). But would everyone please desist from making general statements about me or any other editor having undeclared or secret COIs. You can ask me if I have any undeclared COIs. The answer is no, none beyond those already declared. But then that's the end of it. Is that not how WP is supposed to work? Tim C (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis for your feedback. I apologize for the drama I have caused. As a novice editor, I didn't know how to raise the alarm when an editor is not genuinely contributing to an encyclopedic article. It seems to me that Wikipedia is far too tolerant of editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia.

About your suggestion, I am more than happy to stay away from these articles not just for one month, but forever. My experience as a wikipedia observer / editor over the last few months has been awful, having witnessed far too many condescending remarks, denigrating statements, and bullying tactics.

As long as these articles remain neutral, I have no intention to get involved any further.

After the cleanup, it would be nice if there were less fights, but I'm not too optimistic about that unless something is changed in the edit process. I'm not sure what form it might take. Perhaps all edits could go through a moderator, if someone is willing to take on that burden. Perhaps a strict discipline could be put in place upon editors misbehaving or not genuinely working toward an encyclopedic article.

Besides the conflicting POVs, there is one WP rule that seems to be at the root of the bickering. It is the sacred nature of "peer-reviewed" studies, regardless of their quality. Statistics can be misused to back up incorrect beliefs. Such pseudo-science doesn't prove those beliefs, but it gives them illegitimate credibility. This is at the core of this debate. It is made worse by the imbalance due to the larger number of well-meaning (and well-funded) people, who presume that bicycle helmets can only be a good thing, then attempt to prove it through studies. One of helmet advocates favorite misleading statements is to claim that the bulk of the science confirms their convictions. It would be more accurate to say they have strong beliefs reinforced by a lot of pseudo-science. It seems that some are too emotionally attached to their position to be able to see that.

As long as it is easy in WP to push a POV using pseudo-science, but difficult to undo such abuses, then this article is likely to remain a battleground. Distinguishing between science and pseudo-science is not easy, but it is essential in this topic. Getting rid of the (observational-based) stats would be a good place to start. Recently, I attempted to remove some of the worst examples of pseudo-science in Bicycle_helmet after providing detailed reasons in Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Confusing_science_with_junk_science.. Tim Churches did not engage in constructive discussion, while aggressively preventing any clean up of misleading pseudo-science. This is a hint of what lies ahead unless WP develops a policy around the use of pseudo-science.

I believe it would be best if all parties with a strong POV be prevented from editing Bicycle_helmet and Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia for the next few months, as any abuse from one side is likely to trigger more bickering. Another possibility would be to lock these articles for a few months, after they have been fixed up.

I hope this unsolicited advice will be helpful in improving WP policies..

Again, I thank you for being willing to fix this up. I wish you all the best in keeping biased edits, pseudo-science, and misleading statements at bay. Harvey4931 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible TBAN violation by Tristan noir

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.

---

Tristan noir appears to have violated their TBAN on Japanese literature (broadly construed) by commenting on an article about a haiku poet.[70] Also mentioned is the article's creator, who is clearly Japanese literature-inclined given their username. 182.249.241.40 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In the diff you linked to he is commenting about some sock-puppets, but not about any article. I don't see how that's a TBAN violation. A comparable example was closed recently with no action on this board. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2013 (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.

Continuing disruptive and ownership problems with Junebea1

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.

---

Junebea1 (talk · contribs) has been blocked before for disruptive editing on Bad Girls Club-related articles (e.g, Bad Girls Club (season 10) and Bad Girls Club (season 11). He continues to revert my edits of removing cast members last name per WP:BLP which are sourced to twitter accounts and YouTube videos. There was a edit war involving Junebea1 here about Nicole's last name (which was changed frequently) as reported here and here is just one example of unsourced additions of last names being changed by new users. Among the BLP issues that are constantly being ignored, Junebea1 shows signs of aggression to users who do not agree with him Junebea1 exclaims he will block others if they do not stop, another example and six others of the same issue. Instead of discussing ways to improve the article's page, Junebea1 tries to intimidate users to stop editing Bad Girls Club-related articles and here's another example. I've tried throughout the year to discuss with Junebea1 about his edits and tried to encourage him to join in discussions instead of violating the WP:3RR rule and posting user-warning templates. I don't want Junebea1 blocked from editing as he has shown improvement since the last run in with him, if he continues down this path of revisions I have provided, I believe a topic-ban would be more suitable until he is ready to be a team member and join in discussions with other users on the talk pages of those articles. Best, jona^{talk to me} 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The user also attempts to keep IPs from editing the pages, by requesting page protection. 81 of their 2402 edits are to the RFPP page. I almost always decline their requests for protection, because for the most part the IPs are attempting to make good-faith edits to the articles, not vandalising at all. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have also noticed this, and for my part have also almost always been declining his requests, but even leaving well meaning hints is to no avail; the user will just re-request protection some days later. A mentorship combined with a probable topic ban might be a way forward. Lectonar (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted his edit, but the only thing that was changed the second time was the infobox color. I left the last names out per his request. Also, when I put in requests for page protections, nobody looks at the articles' history to see that the IP's (most of them) are vandalizing. User:AJona1992 has frequently attacked me and has tried to get me blocked because of his own personal vendettas. Thanks Junebea1 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What a ridiculous answer. Everyone who works at RFPP gets it wrong when your requests are up? I usually skip your requests also. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• So nobody (your words) at RFPP is looking at the article history? As for your edits, the first edit I clicked on was this where you change an edit by making it worse, using youtube as a "reliable source". Are all of them like this? Looking at the first request I found [71] and at the article history when that request was made, I didn't see any vandalism at all, and the last obvious vandalism was a single edit two week prior to that request. Have you read WP:VANDAL? You don't seem to understand what that word means here. "I disagree with that edit" isn't vandalism, nor are sloppy edits that were done in good faith, even if they weren't helpful. I haven't looked at the total track record, but if they are all like this, some kind of topic restriction is warranted. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you, Drmies. You just proved my point and you aren't being a good Wikipedian. Junebea1 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Lectonar (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Junebea, are you incapable of realizing that it must be those sorts of comments that mean Drmies ignores your RFPP requests? Could you provide diffs here of RFPP requests that were denied, and the vandalism edits that you allege the IPs were engaging in on that article? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, take a look at any of the articles' history and you'll find vandalism. You don't just ignore requests, it's unprofessional and childish. Thanks. Junebea1 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some recent examples: On May 25 Junebea requests page protection for Bad Girls Club (season 7), citing "high levels of IP vandalism". Reviewing diffs for the days immediately preceding the request, I cannot find any vandalism at all, just normal editing. The request was declined by Lectonar. Here's a second recent example: On Bad Girls All-Star Battle, Junebea files a request for page protection on May 4. It's declined on May 5. Junebea tries again for page protection on May 10. It's declined again, because there's been no vandalism, just normal editing. Many times have I seen this pattern of behaviour on Junebea's part: repeated requests for page protection on articles that are not being vandalised. It's a waste of administrator time to make these requests; I am not surprised that Drmies ignores them. I usually skip over them as well. We are not being childish to do so; we are trying making the best possible use of our only resource here: our time. -- Dianna (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that Junebea has refused to give any specific diffs, and gave such a vague answer, backs up your point (and everyone elses). Now, is it possible to topic-ban Junebea from filing RFPP reports for a while? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban from all Bad Girls articles? Repeated RFPP for no reason is more suggestive of a WP:OWN mentality. Just a thought Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban from Bad Girls might be the way to go, as we have not yet examined the problems outlined by AJoha in the original post. For example,

• Threatening edit summary: Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked. (May 21)
• Threatening edit summary: Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked. (May 12)
• Threatening edit summary: Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked. (May 4)

There's plenty more of these, and here is why it's a problem. An example. A new editor, User:Slamber2222, creates an account on January 19 at 19:36 and tries to edit the suite of Bad Girls articles. Soon Junebea is there, and by 21:45 has left a warning on their talk, and all the new editor's edits have been reverted with the edit summary "Stop vandalizing. You will be blocked." Slamber2222's last edit was at 20:36. They left the project. And none of their edits were vandalism. This is just a random example, and was very easy to find. There's probably others. Articles about TV shows and other pop culture topics are a big draw for new users, and we are trying to attract new users, not drive them away. I can understand why Junebea wants to control the articles for quality, but if they choose to edit in this topic area or one like it, they are going to have to accept that new users will be drawn to their chosen field, and that they have to allow those people to edit. Since 90 per cent of Junebea's edits are to Bad Girls topics, a topic ban is in effect a site ban. Junebea, is there any way you can try to understand why your behaviour is not appropriate and in fact may be driving potential new editors away? Because otherwise a topic ban might indeed be the result. -- Dianna (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So when the IP's create fake characters and replace the real cast then that isn't vandalism? I didn't realize creating a whole person and claiming they are on a television show, which they aren't, wasn't vandalism. You need to read more carefully. Thank you Junebea1 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianna for showcasing a perfect example: one of the IP users took cast member Amy Cieslowski out of the article and replaced her with "alyssa", a person who was made up and has never appeared on Bad Girls Club (season 8) or any other season for that matter. Junebea1 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example of vandalism that Dianna pointed out was how an IP user created nicknames for the cast of Bad Girls Club (season 2). That same IP also changed the ages of the cast. Season two's cast didn't have nicknames and the ages of the cast were confirmed a long time ago when the season originally aired years ago. So stop saying that it isn't vandalism when it clearly is! So I'm still confused as to why you are skipping over my requests, when they are legitimate. It is extremely appalling and confusing. Junebea1 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this experience has been so frustrating for you. The actual problem is now becoming evident: It is not clear to me at all that these edits are vandalism, because I have never seen the show. I don't watch TV at all, so what is obvious and common knowledge to you is totally opaque to me. What you need to be doing differently is to be giving a lot more information both to the users to whom you are providing warnings and to the patrolling admins at the RFPP board as to why the edits are unacceptable. Because what is obvious and clear to you is Not Obvious to me. Not obvious at all. We all need to cooperate here, and that's impossible to do if we haven't got all the information. -- Dianna (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry I haven't been as clear as I should be. I just assumed that the requests would be more thoroughly researched, but I guess that isn't really your job. In the future (if I'm not banned of course) I will explain my requests and the reasons behind them. Thank you Junebea1 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the people adding fake information already know the info they are adding is wrong. The reason you need to provide more information in your warnings to them is for the benefit of any patrolling admins. So for example, include the fact that they've added a made-up character or nickname in your warning. This gives the patrolling admin the information they need to make good decisions. This means you might have to step away from the use of templated warnings a bit. I personally have found it useful to create custom pre-made warnings on sub-pages in my userspace to save time. It's not as quick as Twinkle, but it's faster than creating a new warning / message from scratch each time. Same deal when you are reporting at RFPP. Instead of using the limited options available with Twinkle, write up a custom report that gives more details as to the actual problem (specify which info is fake and who added it, for example). -- Dianna (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry if some of this information seems redundant in light of your reply. I had already composed it and got an (edit conflict) and decided to post it in case there's anything here you can use moving forward. -- Dianna (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This makes everything more clearer and simpler! I would've been doing this all along if I knew. Junebea1 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2013 (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:Seedennis

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.

---

Seems like a sock puppet of this user. Notice the very similar editing pattern. - Amaury (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is where you should report sockpuppets. You also don't have to notify them if a report is filed there. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see Dennis, so what's the point? --Rschen7754 07:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • They have zero overlapping articles [72] slightly differing timing and styles, and no diffs were provided, so bringing to a board where notification is required can cause drama. That was my main concern. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. - Amaury (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I take it you didn't get my horrible pun. :P --Rschen7754 07:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Would you care to explain it? XD - Amaury (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, it is 3:30am here, couldn't sleep but a little foggy I suppose. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"I see Dennis..." <---> User:Seedennis NE Ent 10:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm .... Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Going by the user's previous edits - which were mostly about ships and Eng. Lit. - it would appear this account may well have been compromised. I'm going to "indef" just as soon as I finish posting here. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hand-written block notice added here. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2013 (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.

Behaviour of User:Johannes003

• User:Johannes003 is making swift POV edits, denying the very existence of the South Indian film industry by proposing a cat deletion: Category:South_Indian-language_films and removing all references to it in film articles diff diff2 etc.
• He doesn't seek consensus with other editors for such edits as he thinks he is right during discussions: Maryan diff Talk:Maryan_(film). Some edit summaries displays this POV warrior thinking: "revert back again. last time Arjann. This is not funny."
• Most annoyingly he is convinced, that I agree with him, because I didn't reply to his last rant, even after I denied, that I would have agreed with him. He also uses abusive language: my statementhis reply. He does this to justify his POV edit campaign around eliminating everything South Indian from wikipedia.

Anything actionable here?-- Dravidian  Hero  12:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the deletion of that category is quite appropriate, and have said my piece at it's deletion discussion page. As for anything actionable yes, but per WP:Boomerang for this edit where you call another editor a rascist. No more personal attacks. Johannes003 edits while maybe strong don't seem like attacks. Goading perhaps. And there is definitely edit warring going on on both sides, by yourself and Johannes003. Reverting twice them bring it here to solve your edit dispute so you don't fall into the 3RR is gaming a little for my tastes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

He "accused" me on that page of South Indian separatism, which is nothing but a sneaky way of telling me "fuck you South Indians", and yes, I'm obviously a proud South Indian/Dravidian.-- Dravidian  Hero  15:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is only thus if you want to see and understand it like this....like a sneaky way of telling you what you expect to hear (and you rather go a long way and perhaps even want to understand them like you said). If you just read the words, they are just words, and there is no need to interpret them. And even all this does not excuse your attacks, btw. Lectonar (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your sensible approach but I stand by my comment.-- Dravidian  Hero  15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You are reading too much into it, and misinterpreting his statement based on your expectations, from what I can see. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• cease interaction The category is under discussion, let that play out, I've proposed that it be a container category, so I'd suggest you stop adding films and Johannes stops reverting, let the discussion play out and see where consensus lies. In the meantime, suggest you both start editing other corners of the wikipedia for a little while, to cool off.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am appalled! Nowhere have I abused or attacked any editors. We had a decent discussion going on and fellow editor Dravidianhero, did not reply back even after weeks. So I went on to remove the term South Indian from articles. (And I have stopped after reverting twice!) Dravidian, as Bushranger has rightly observed, reads too much into this, he has been doing this constantly. I have requested Dravidian repeatedly to not assume and to not misinterpret things. It's me who should be complaining here. And I'm seriously considering taking action against fellow editor for this personal attack against me. I am a senior editor and Dravidian by having falsely accused me of racism and having dragged me into this case, has belittled me. And, I AM a South Indian, too. Johannes003 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't like Indian regions at all. You wrote it yourself: "South, West or East, doesn't matter, it's all Indian, that is what I'm saying.". Your Anti-regional bias is evident from all your edits. So please don't call yourself a South Indian, it means absolutely nothing for you and insults real proud South Indians like me. You are just a OR POV pusher like many newbies ignoring reliable sources, consensus discussions etc (if someone wants evidence just read the full discussion on our talkpages). I have zero respect for you and I know I'm right. -- Dravidian  Hero  23:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say. You are separating a country by regions, that is right? Do you even notice what you're talking here? India IS one country, isn't it? India has several regions, yes, nobody denies that, but it is one country, we don't separate films or people by regions, we should not. Are you not understanding that your view point is so wrong, just so wrong? I don't how removing that obviously redundant word makes me a racist. And yes, please read our talks pages. Someone is making comments like "I have zero respect for you and I know I'm right" or "I never agreed with you and probably never will". I would even go so far as to say that editors with a fixed mindset like this are very dangerous. (And in which universe is this abusive language?) Johannes003 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes bro, everything regionalistic is "a big sin". I got your message. That's plain fanatic Proselytism and has nothing to do with wikipedia policies unfortunately for you. Take your moral policing in a very dark place and let other editors write per wikipedia policies.-- Dravidian  Hero  10:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When on earth did I state anything like this? Only read what I have written and don't read too much into it. And do you even know what Proselytism means? I suggest you read through the article first. It makes no sense discussing with stubborn people. I will let the admins do the talking from now on. Good luck, Dravidian! Johannes003 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The user Johannes03 always disapproves my and other user's edits. We here are providing references, writing neutral, considering featured articles on WP as source of page reference. Why does this user behave so. The way he responds and his talk backs are so demeaning. How dare he call someone a racist? We never use such insulting or abusive remarks on anyone! He thinks whatever we edit is trivia.Oh God! Arjann (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not removed any content, all I did was copyediting. I have explained all the changes I did in Maryan's talk page, you refuse to come and discuss there and neither explain why you keep reverting. No one has the right to act as though he is the owner of a particular article. Other editors will come and make changes. And please get the facts right, it's Dravidian who called me a racist. Johannes003 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Johannes is a highly discouraging editor. Arjann is a premium editor and Johannes belittles him all day and night while dubbing himself as a "senior editor", but with super low contributions from my 1st day (October) here. Johannes accused me of racism in his very first message to me: diff, but I assume that's a privileg for "senior editors". Also notable, how he links South Indian with racism in that diff as if it's a big sin to be proud of it.-- Dravidian  Hero  10:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

All I say is, admins may go on and compare my edits with Arjann's edits and decide themselves. I never boast about my contributions, that's why my user page is empty. But a little example here, that shows that I helped couple of articles reach good article level (all South Indian films-based articles, btw!) Fact is, I have got busy and stopped contributing. Does that take away my achievements? Newcomers nowadays here are hateful and it's them who bite senior editors. This is something I'm not going to put up with! And I said "That actually sounds racist", it indeed does, that does not mean that I called you a racist (like you did), that's a huge difference. Don't misinterpret things! Johannes003 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How on earth is mentioning South film industry for South Indian films racist? Can you explain it? India is a huge country and there is a reason why all reliable sources categorize films by region than by nation. Even National Film Awards categorize explicitly by language only, not by nation. Still you try to impose your POV on this critical matter without RS. Why do you think, you don't need sources? Is it because it's against your Anti-regional agenda? I guess so! -- Dravidian  Hero  11:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you are seperating films by regions and that hints at separatism. The National Film Awards are given by languages not by regions (why nation?). There is no "National Film Award for Best South Film"! You're scoring own goals in series. Also there is a Nargis Dutt Award for Best Feature Film on National Integration, just saying. And why we need sources for this? This is not an opinion. Johannes003 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Coming to self goals, there are regional censorship boards and regional juries for the Awards, not to mention the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce and numerous South Indian Award shows and Film Magazines as well as South Indian actors and actresses, all things based on RS. Basically you are saying that all such RS instances are meant to support separatism and racism. Is it so?

If you want more national integration start a career as a politician in India and become prime minister, but don't spread your thoughts here without any RS. I personally don't believe in Hindu-Muslim unity.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Now I am "cheap": diff.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• re: cease interaction - I hope other editors can see why I made this recommendation. Of course, each side is innocent, and the other side is a villain. Johannes and Dravidian - you are both just digging a deeper hole. Again, if you don't want a boomerang to hit both of you, cease interaction, and each go edit a different corner of the wiki for a few weeks, allow a cooling down period and allow other editors to come in and clean up any fights you've been in. I really don't see that you will somehow convince the other that you're right. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

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.

---

Brief background - Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) tagged a page I created back in 2011 with a CSD. I removed the CSD per IAR as the original creation was a redirect which had later been converted by Boleyn (talk · contribs) into a disambiguation page. There follows a bit of reverting between Pigsonthewing and Boleyn, I warned both users about edit warring and asked them to discuss the mater, and that's when it took the situation took a nosedive. Pigsonthewing removed my warning with the edit summary of "stupid threat" and he removed later comments of mine with edit sumamries of "bollocks" and "further bollocks" - when I apologised for my admittedly hasty warning (though given his most recent block for edit warring, combined with today's editing, I hope you see why I warned him as well as Boleyn), he used rollback - he then used rollback a 2nd time on a later one of my comments. I know I am most likely deserving of a trouting, given my hastiness and apparent threats (which I assure you were never intended as such, I simply wanted both parties to discuss the matter before we got ourselves into a messy edit war), which is completely fine. However, Pigsonthewing's uncivil behaviour and mis-use of rollback is simply not acceptable, especially given his history here. GiantSnowman 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• My notification to Pigsonthewing reverted using Twinkle this time, edit summary of "more bollocks" - I despair sometimes. GiantSnowman 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• The rollback reverts were on the user's talk page, so it's not misuse of the rollback tool. It appears this all started because of your hasty warning. The solution to me seems for you to just drop the stick. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've already dropped the stick. That does not excuse his behaviour. GiantSnowman 15:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bullshit. You haven't dropped the stick. That's why you brought them to ANI over nothing. He called bollocks (assuming that British for bullshit) on your warning for edit waring. Your warning was bullshit. So was your threat to block. Now that you've poked him enough, you think you've got enough to block. Quit sending out bullshit warnings and people won't call bullshit on you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, my warning was bullshit - hence why I apologised for it. But what about the other diffs? Was my apology also "bollocks/bullshit"? I've not poked him, I've tried to discuss a matter with him but have been unable to do so due to immediate reversion and uncivil behaviour. I'm not asking for a block, if I was I would have requested one in the opening post - I'm asking for other people to try and get through to Andy seeing as he won't listen to me and explain that his behaviour is not suitable. GiantSnowman 15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Their behavior is suitable. The rollbacks were fine as they were in their user talk. That action signifies that they have read them. The first instance of them using the word "bollocks" was fine. You threatened to block them over reverting one time. The warning and block threat were totally unacceptable and it is acceptable for a non-admin to get upset about an inappropriate threat to block them. I see nothing wrong with the other reverts using the word "bollocks" as they were directly caused by you being a dick. So quit being a dick and threatening to block someone who you are currently engaged in a content dispute with and you won't have people calling bollocks on you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Saying "take this to a relevant discussion page ASAP before you get blocked" is not a threat, and I've already said it should not have been interpeted as such - but hey, it worked, the article is now under discussion at AFD with input by numerous parties. As for the "bollocks" situation, are you therefore saying that removing an apology with the edit summary "bollocks" is completely appropriate? I'm not in a "content dispute" with Pigsonthewing in the slightest, please retract that accusation. GiantSnowman 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor, but I can see where Giant Snowman is coming from. Pigs is being uncivil and is misusing rollback. Per WP:ROLLBACK, it should only be used for obvious vandalism or disruptive editing where it's obvious the user is not trying to help. And, Nathan, you might want to read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA because your remarks are coming across as personal attacks. - Amaury (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the page, it can be used "To revert edits in your own user space". It is easier than undo and the function is clear enough that it equates that the comment has been acknowledged, but the recipient does not want to discuss, respond or provoke further issue. While it may seem rude; it is not a violation of the tool for edits on the owner's talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of rollback in this context is a nit not worth discussing. NE Ent 02:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has much more of a "vague civility concept" than an actual policy (see Notes on civility, now in it's third year!) We're not going to solve that problem on ANI, so I encourage both GS and PotW to disengage and focus on the improving the encyclopedia. NE Ent 02:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

History of diffs for the two relevant articles:

• Pigsonthewing requests speedy deletion on David MacGill 09:50, 31 May 2013‎
• GiantSnowman reverts by removing speedy and restores redirect on David MacGill 09:57, 31 May 2013‎
• GiantSnowman "fixes" double redirect on David MacGill (disambiguation) 09:59, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill (disambiguation) 13:11, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill 13:11, 31 May 2013‎
• GiantSnowman reverts on David MacGill (disambiguation) 13:19, 31 May 2013‎
• Pigsonthewing reverts by restoring dab on David MacGill 13:14, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill 13:33, 31 May 2013‎
• Boleyn reverts on David MacGill (disambiguation) 13:34, 31 May 2013‎
• Pigsonthewing nominates David MacGill for deletion 13:54, 31 May 2013‎

My conclusion, if GiantSnowman wasn't involved, neither was anyone else. I move to close this as no action needed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2013 (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.

Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke

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.

---

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added for clarity Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a new situation with the prolific TJ Spyke yet again. Despite countless warnings and requests to stop "fixing" redirects per WP:R2D/WP:NOTBROKEN, this editor continues to make these edits at a rapid pace (he uses AutoWiki Browser WPCleaner to really speed up his violations). His edit summaries often misleadingly suggest that he is performing "cleanup" when they have not been shortened to simply a period (".") or comma (",") which he presumably does to save himself time.

I'm currently trying to work with him to develop a set of proposed exceptions to the rule because I think there are some very valid reasons to bypass redirects on occasion, and I think we should bring them before the community for discussion. While this discussion is going forward I have asked TJ Spyke to stop making further edits of this kind but unfortunately he seems to be incapable of controlling himself. Our discussions began in early April and he has dragged his heels on it through all of April and May and I'm now much shorter on time than I was previously. Consequently I can't provide nearly as much oversight for the harmful edits he is making. I need help dealing with this. I've previously contacted User:Amalthea about this resurgent problem here, and I'll inform both Amalthea and TJ Spyke about this thread. Something needs to be done because TJ Spyke has demonstrated a real inability to make changes unless severe penalties are applied. For reference, here is a list of his prior warnings about this issue:
2007

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

2008

• 1, 2

2009

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

2010

• 1, 2, 3

2012

• 1, 2, 3, 4

2013

• 1, 2, 3

And here are his prior AN/Is on this topic:

• 1 - This is really connected to the terrible problems he was having with revert warring, but it importantly demonstrates his willingness to violate the redirect-related rules over and over again based on his own personal preferred usage of terms.
• 2 - His last R2D-specific AN/I

And finally his block log which demonstrates that real penalties with real impact are required to make any kind of impression on this guy.

Again I don't have the time to deal with this any more and I need administrative help at least until September when I'll have more free time. I'll continue to try to work with him toward developing a set of good exceptions to NOTBROKEN, but in the meanwhile he may need some discouragement in the form of blocks to stop him from violating the guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the only penalty left is an indef block at this point really. The edit summaries alone are disruptive enough but to continue the behaviour that has lead to not 1, not 2 but 6 separate blocks is taking things too far. If people still want to allow the user to continue to edit I would suggest an enforcement of not allowing them to use automated tools, a strict promise to always use proper edit summaries and a formal agreement on redirect editing with failure on any one leading to an indef block. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• This user's block log is a long, sorry read, with well over a dozen total. I suggest a preventative block of one year, to prevent any further consumption of editing time by the community. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've been reading over this since it first hit the page, going back through edits and there is a pattern of deflecting criticism and WP:IDHT. The last in a very long string of blocks was 35 days, with previous blocks ranging from sock puppetry to 3RR and obviously, lots of problems with improper redirect "repairs". I'm thinking there is little choice but to block here, for a minimum of 90 days. An indef might be the better choice because previous blocks have had no effect in changing behavior. I'm not sure, but it almost like the edit count is more important than the edit quality here, and Wikipedia isn't a video game. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason as to why the latest block increments for this users have been 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 35 days when so many users end up with increments like 1 day, 4 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 1 year, then indef? Is there the slightest reason to believe that the 32nd block will change his behavior when the first 31 blocks failed to do so? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've also taken a look over this and come very close earlier to indeffing myself but decided I wasn't quite ready for my first indef block for something other than copyvio (especially after my first admin block of the other day). That block log is atrocious and I think an indefinite block is the only answer as they have a serious case of WP:IDHT. The obfuscating edit summaries are the final straw. Dpmuk (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Boy, I'd really hate to have to drop an indef block over something as stupid as redirects.... but, honestly, if it's been this many years with this many blocks, all for the same thing? I don't know what other option is available. I'd like to see TJ's response to the above, but I am inclined to block in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think someone hit the nail on the head and it seems it's more about edit count and pride of place in the top editors list that meaningful contributions or helping to genuinely improve the project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am also waiting to see if they are wise enough to come help us understand before resuming editing. And Guy, I can't speak for other admin, but the idea of how to escalate blocks has evolved over the many years. Also, the violations are problematic but not the most disruptive type of problems that admin see, so I'm guessing that played a part. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out this does not seem to be AWB editing. It lacks the actual tag and the version number, something which has been rolled out for a long time now. Also, the functions performed are not of any AWB plugin that I've ever seen. A check for redirects seems to be occurring and then a manual insertion of the alterations. It is a bit bizarre and TJ's input is really needed at this point to make sense of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves me right (It's 3:16am, so it might not) but reading through his archives, he seems to be using some other tools that I'm not familiar with. At the end of the day, the editor is responsible for each edit regardless of tool. A block is inevitable short of a really good explanation, and sadly, he hasn't been forthcoming. If he hasn't come forward soon, I would likely just indef block and allow it to be hashed out on his talk page, as we shouldn't keep a report open forever. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, that's right. I guess one of the warnings from 2008 got stuck in my head. He's switched from AWB to WPCleaner now. I've fixed the statement above. As for TJ Spyke responding here, I was surprised that he didn't say anything yesterday (Thursday) since he had told me on his talk page that he'd be free on Thursday and ready to discuss the exceptions we've been working on. Something must have come up. Considering how prolific and experienced an editor he is, would it be worth dropping a note at WT:VG and WT:PW to get some insight into his behavior from his peers at the WikiProjects he is most involved with? It would be good to get some kind of explanation for his strange behavior. Given his history of sockpuppeting it might also serve the dual purpose of alerting others about pattern behavior that might show up in future socks. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. The problem here seems to clearly be choices made by the editor, not the software itself. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a non-admin, I strongly support an indefinite block. The block log is atrocious, and since the last 6 blocks are ALL for violating WP:R2D (which I wasn't aware existed, which may be a good thing, maybe not), then I can't see how any lesser sanction will make a difference. If they are ever unblocked, a topic-ban from all edits to redirects, broadly construed, would have to be put in place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and dropped the hammer for indef, as after six previous blocks for the same disruptive behavior I don't see how anything else is going to solve the problem. No objection to anyone unblocking if evidence of clue is provided in an unblock request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That goes beyond what I was requesting but I completely understand why that remedy was applied. As this makes it TJ's third indef block I think it's quite apparent that he's a thoroughly lost cause. It almost makes me saddest of all that the bulk of his "crimes" amount to 3RR vios (14 of them) and R2D vios (7). His "rap sheet" practically deserves its own place on WP:LAME. I really can't fathom why anyone would choose to edit as he has. Anyway I'll give it a little while to see if TJ Spyke wants to appeal the block but otherwise I'll continue forward with the R2D exception proposals on my own. Maybe some good can yet be salvaged from all of this futility. -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I just logged in to do the same. I think we have waited long enough for a reply. There really isn't any choice but indef here, and I wouldn't suggest considering an unblock for at least 90 days or more. It is easy to use sweet words, but there needs to be some reflection on what the real problem is here. I want to be careful and point out that he isn't guilty by the simple virtue of the length of his block log (not all blocks at enwp are wise blocks) but it is the the long history of the same behavior. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 10:59, 1 June 2013 (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.

Copyvios by User:Faizanali.007

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.

---

• Faizanali.007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

About two weeks ago, I left a final warning for copyvios in Qaiser Naqvi, Samira Fazal, Barkat Ali Siddiqui and Rehan Sheikh. His most recent creation, Tarang Housefull, copies from [73]. The user is generally unresponsive (3 user talk edits).

A contributor copyright investigation is already open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007. MER-C 12:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him. He had his chance to address the concerns and chose to continue violating the rules. Wizardman 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User has posted an unblock request. MER-C 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Which I've declined. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2013 (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 American_Academy_of_Financial_Management

I have reverted this edit as disputed. The edit summary includes a legal threat, though I do not see active discussion attempting to resolve the dispute. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is a very specific legal threat, posted on the AAFM's website: [74]. I am one of the editors named for "libeling" AAFM, although I'm not sure how they figure that to be the case, since I believe all I did was to quote a Wall Street Journal article in a talk page discussion. In any case, it's a clear legal threat, and anyone connected with the AAFM should be barred from editing the article - since they seem to edit through IPs, I'd suggest that the article be semi-protected (at least). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And the AAFM issues a press release the day after I ask User_talk:Wealthadvise if he is connected with sockpuppeteer User talk:Doctorlaw. [75]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist, but at the moment the frequency of disruptive editing (and the number of separate disruptive editors) would not seem to reach the level normally required for semi-protection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The exact edit summary says "News says that editors have been identified for defamation..." - that's not a legal threat, that's them supposedly quoting "news" - not a threat of its own. It is obvious that the goal is to create a chilling effect - at least IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The "news" is AAFM's own press release, which Beyond My Ken linked to above. It's not just a legal threat, it's off-wiki harassment. Bobby Tables (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but is it the IP who's making that threat - are they the ones "cleansing" the article? The entire "press release" is a joke - no self-respecting company OR legal team would release anything like that ... I especially love the heading that says something about being a financial supporter of Wikipedia ... you don't put that in a headline; period. Whoever wrote that "release" is a jokester. If WMF legal has received a formal submission from the supposed lawyer, great. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the purpose of WP:NLT is to eliminate the chilling effect caused by the threat of legal action. Clearly, the release on the AAFM website is an attempt to create that effect, and the ridiculousness of the effort is an indication that that is its purpose, since, as you note, it's legally dubious at best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies as a legal threat in the way Wikipedia uses the term. If it were a registered user, it would have to be blocked. As it is, it's a one-shot from an IP, so reverting it is about the best you can do, at this point anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also been named as one of the editors who must recuse themselves or else face legal action. The IP, I would wager, is just Doctorlaw, who is under a permanent ban for abusing multiple accounts. The socks would toss around fraud, defamation, etc. in edit summaries and talk pages prior to being blocked, although this is the first time I've seen the AAFM site get involved. This isn't really a one-shot deal, although it (probably) comes from someone who has already been banned, so I'm not sure what sanctions could be considered. A note of this threat should certainly be made regarding Doctorlaw and related socks, in case this escalates into a severe case of off-wiki harassment. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly harassed by the AAFM press release, since I judge that the chances of anything actually coming from the threat are infinitesimally small, but WP:NLT isn't based on the reasonableness of the threat, just the fact that it's made. Still, I see the problem with blocking an already-banned user, unless he starts using other IPs, in which case perhaps a range block would be reasonable. In the meantime, I suspect that all the editors who were named are probably watching the article and can keep it from being hijacked by an AAFM-connected editor with a COI and a POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Mistake while submitting PROD

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 attempted to PROD the apparently autobiographical article Donnell Alexander, but mistakenly pressed the wrong Twinkle button, and submitted it with no reason.[76] I realised my mistake, and self-reverted[77], then submitted a correct PROD.[78] However, I apparently did not do this correctly, and only the original incorrect PROD remained listed. Subsequently, this has been listed as a Speedy Keep, since no reasons were given; while my reasoned, correct, PROD on the article has been removed by another editor since it was submitted after the original incorrect PROD was opened. I had originally marked it as a BLP:PROD, since there were no sources at all; the original author removed this tag.

I have no idea how to rectify this mess, and still wish to list the article for deletion, since no evidence of the notability of this person has been offered. Could someone please help do this. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Since the author (as xe is entitled to do) removed the PROD tag, it needs to go through AfD, though. I've added your rationale to the deletion discussion. Theopolisme (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (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.

Non-admin closures of controversial RM discussions - appropriate?

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 requesting a quick review of two non-admin RM closures by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) because their appropriateness rests on an apparent difference in interpretation of WP:RMCI#Non-admin_closure, which lists the following requirement for non-admin closures:

• The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days).

In particular, how does this apply to an RM discussion where the !voting is evenly split, and so the WP:CONSENSUS determination depends on the evaluation of the arguments? Is it appropriate for a non-admin to close such a discussion?

These are the two RM discussions in question:

1. Talk:Avatar#Requested_move_2013
2. Talk:National Association for the Advancement of Colored People#Requested move

For Avatar,

• Nathan Johnson closed the hotly debated discussion without explanation, saying simply, "Not moved". [79].
• At User_talk:Nathan_Johnson#Controversial_close_by_non-admin here I explained to Nathan that the high level of controversy at that RM indicates that only an admin should close, and asked him to revert. He disagreed, I explained more, asking him to revert a second time, and he still said no, agreeing this should go to AN/I.
• At Talk:Avatar, after the close, Dicklyon (talk · contribs) reverted the close, citing "Non-admin should not close such a controversial RM."[80]. Nathan reverted that revert, saying simply "take it to WP:MR". [81]
• Further discussion by the three of us on Dick's talk page also lead no where: User_talk:Dicklyon#non-admin_close.

For National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

• George Ho (talk · contribs) question's Nathan close, asking if it's a supervote, at User_talk:Nathan_Johnson#Talk:National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People.23Requested_move.
• I state my opinion that this situation is even worse (the reading of consensus is even less clear), and say this needs to go to AN/I.
• Nathan predicts the two discussions will be closed as non consensus/ not moved (perhaps, but I still think an admin needs to make that call, in both cases).

If non-admins can close RM discussions like this, that's fine, but it's news to me. I've always been under the impression that consensus has to be clear, almost unanimous one way or the other, for non-admins to close. In fact, I've closed similar RMs in the past, and have been reverted, and the community agreed my closes were inappropriate because of the judgment required in the close. Hence the impression I have. If non-admins can close discussions like this, where the !voting is pretty even, but the arguments are not clearly evenly based in policy/guidelines, then that needs to be clarified. Because I'm sure Dick and I are not the only ones who are not aware of this.

Thanks! --B2C 03:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the editor's status, closers should explain how they arrived at their conclusion. In both cases, Nathan Johnson apparently failed to do so. Failure to explain is not appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason for complex explanations when the result is clear. In the two listed above, there was no consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I received notice while I was browsing the user's contributions. I found the following closures that may not follow WP:RMCI:

• Talk:Godhra train burning#Name of the article — there were alternative proposals, but it was closed as "no move"
• Talk:Sam Morgan (General Hospital)#Requested move — closed as "no move" and suggested to discuss the matter outside request. Unfortunately, it should have been relisted.
• Talk:Extras#Requested move (2013) — closed as "no move" with a rationale, but there were one support and one oppose.
• Talk:Kutub al-Sittah#Requested move 2 — closed as "no move", but there were logical arguments that should have not been ignored.

There are too many to list; this should help: Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs). With regards! --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Where those closed wrongly? Or are you just bitching because a non-admin closed them? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nathan, I wonder if you know the NAACP situation or if you have read the NAACP article. Both sides made valid points, yet I question your closure. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I read the requested move discussion prior to closing it. Do you question the closure because you think it's wrong or because I am not an administrator? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, you changed your close rationale on the NAACP, so that's well-explained. Still, explanation is recommended for complicated discussions, and... the way you explained your closures confused me prompted me to doubt your abilities. But you fixed your rationales, so I hope this discussion dies down or is resolved. But I have the same situation with JHunterJ with closures, and he is/was an administrator. In other words, it's not because your are a non-admin nor are you wrong. Communication is very important for everybody, and great communication is encouraged, especially in requested moves. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I modified the close. I originally thought that it was clear why I closed it the way I did, but see now that I was wrong. I think the NAACP issue could have been better resolved on my talk page, but que sera sera. I will endeavor to be more clear in my RM closures (though looking through old RMs, it doesn't appear closers were more verbose than I). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just to let you know, I moved your relisting sigs into between original posts and first days of discussion, so the bot will move proposals to newer dates. I hope you don't mind. --George Ho (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When Nathan closed the Avatar RM, I immediately reverted him to let him know that he should leave it for an admin. He reverted back. He is not getting the message that RMs this complex or contested should be left to an admin. Non-admin closes are OK for easy cases, but he persists in doing complex ones. Admins have been approved for a degree of fair judgement; he has not, so he should limit himself to the easy cases – and explain the decision in any case. As for his "take it to WP:RM" "take it to WP:MR" comment in reverting my revert, that's what I was trying to avoid; that venue has been pretty much abandoned. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess he meant WP:move review. Challenges against the original arguments were weak, but dot the i is challenged lately. However, I agree that MRV is almost a ghosttown. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrected above. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

To my simple mind, the existence of this discussion indicates that the closes were not "uncontroversial" or "uncontested". Had they been so we would not be here. On the other hand, it's easy to see how Nathan thought he was helping with a backlog. Perhaps the answer might be to request closure at WP:AN whenever this situation arises. If the backlog moves to the noticeboard, it will be more visible to the community, and alternative solutions to keeping it under control might be forthcoming. Begoon ^talk 03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The existence of this discussion proves nothing. See Wikipedia_talk:Requested moves#Can "no consensus" mean "move"? where B2C knew there was no consensus but was trying to change the rules on what a no consensus close means post hoc to suit their needs. Also, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be a better venue to request closure I would think. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be a better place, as it transcludes to WP:AN, and that's where I should have linked to. Thanks for the correction, Nathan. Begoon ^talk 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is one more: Talk:List of black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees. It was closed as "not moved", but there were concerns about the current title without either oppose or support. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Nevermind, that was my err on my part. Nathan did appropriate close, yet rationale should have been better. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I think a no consensus in the Avatar case is fairly obvious. The discussion is complicated by the parallel discussion on WT:RM and there is no real consensus for either discussion. The NAACP discussion is, imo, not as clear since the oppose !votes tend to be based on 'preferences'. Regardless, I don't think it a good idea to start making a distinction between admin and non admin closes in the case of page moves. Better to bring up substantive issues on the closing editor's talk page and, if you're not satisfied with their responses and believe that the closer did not adequately address policy issues, take it to to RM/R. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion a little more carefully, I'm going to add that NJ does seem to have the habit of not explaining his closes and that's not a good thing. A closing rationale is important because editors should not have to go to your talk page for an explanation (that already raises the temperature a bit) and because it is unclear what policy points were being used to justify the close. My guess is that poorly explained closes will fester and will likely be reopened later. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the closing statements were brief or non-existent. It's not a good excuse, but I was simply following what I had seen done in other requested moves. In the discussion below, I said I would use more detailed closing statements in the future. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the consensus has changed considerably since the last time I saw this issue discussed on AN/I. Before, it was clear that non-admin should only close no-brainer discussions. Now, it seems that's no longer true, though good explanations are highly recommended. Something to this effect should be added to WP:RMCI. --B2C 16:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

When a non-admin RM decision is challenged

Sorry, I forgot to ask for clarification on this related question too, while we're at it.

I've seen admins immediately revert their RM decision/closes if they were substantively challenged. I know that's not required for admins, but isn't it for non-admin closures? I mean, if a non-admin closes an RM discussion, and someone challenges it (either on talk page or with a revert), isn't that evidence that consensus (or lack thereof) is not clear? This AN/I could have been avoided if Nathan had agree to my request that he revert his close, or if he had not reverted Dick's revert of his close. --B2C 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Any admin may revert any NAC for any reason or no reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • @User:SmokeyJoe that's wrong. Have you even read WP:RMCI? Admins cannot overturn a NAC simply because it was performed by a non-admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I certainly have read it, and do not give it much respect. More generally, closing discussions, distilling a difficult interpretation of consensus, is something admins are expected to do well, or not do poorly, and while NAC of discussions are welcome, if challenged we prefer to defer to admins. Admins alone are given the privilege of discretion in closing per a rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That's wrong. "We" certainly do not defer to admins. This has been discussed before. Admins have no special privileges in closing discussion (outside deletion discussions). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The time-limited RM discussions are on the boundary of discussions that an admin may close per rough concensus. You are stretching the language of RMCI. Did you annotate you closes with the recommended template? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry Joe, but there's no simpler way to say this than "you're wrong". Admins do not hold a hierarchical position above anyone else with regards to reading and interpreting consensus in any form, and that includes undoing bad closures on the part of others. Admins have access to additional technical tools, but that access only gives them the privilege to use those tools, and in any action that does not directly involve the use of their tools, they do not have extra privilege. Moving articles do not require admins because any user may move an article. Undoing a bad closure also does not require an admin, though users should not battle back and forth over the matter, as edit warring is a blockable offense, and THAT would require an admin at that point. --Jayron32 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Jayron32, your post surprised me, but no, I am not "wrong". Admins do have a special role in closing some types of discussion, especially XfD. For RMs, I guess you are not up to speed with WP:MR, why it was created, etc. Let's take this to WT:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know. But my question is whether a substantive challenge from a non-admin user of a NAC sufficient to establish that the NAC was too controversial, and so should be reverted? --B2C 03:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If every editor was equal and had to discuss on the merits of the arguments, than yes. Admins generally know the policies very well. Any closure, not even a bad closure, from an admin could be challenged. You just don't go about reverting admin closures without extreme reasoning; because even if they are "involved" the action is almost universally seen as disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, but I've never seen any policy that says anything of the sort. All closures are subject to review, like the above, but whether it was an NAC or admin closure is irrelevant, and a single admin overturning an NAC should only do so in the equivalent of WP:RAAA. The only prerogative reserved to admins in regards to closures is that closures that require admin tools to execute (delete, move over redirect, merge) cannot be done as an NAC. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Mostly agree, but in the case of moves, WP:RMCI clearly says that non-admins can close requested moves and then tag a page {{db-move}}. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • And doing so would have been fine, but the way you closed it was suboptimal and confusing. Closing "No consensus" is the preferred method (expected, actually) then explaining a bit. Then it looks like a reading of consensus and doesn't accidentally look like a supervote. Being an NAC, it is helpful to really dot the i's and cross the t's with procedure in a contentious case, so stuff like this doesn't happen. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you User:Dennis Brown for your helpful advice. I don't think stating "no consensus" versus "not moved" is either preferred (or expected), but I had already changed the close of the Avatar RM prior to your comment and added a link to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. I also modified the NAACP close and relisted 2 more of the discussions listed above. I don't think there was anything wrong with any of the closures, but I am open to constructive criticism. However, I don't think it's appropriate for users heavily involved in a discussion unilaterally overturning an uninvolved users close. Or to question, or revert, a closure for the single reason that it was done by a non-admin. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Thing is, Nathan, I'm not sure that is "the single reason". George annotated his comments above with his concerns, and then you asked "Where those closed wrongly? Or are you just bitching because a non-admin closed them?" I don't really follow that. Begoon ^talk 13:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • It was the primary reason for the original complaint in this thread; my closure of the Avatar RM. It was the primary reason for questioning the NAACP closure as well. I have added to the close of both those, as requested, and feel that now the only reason for questioning the closure is that I am not an administrator. There were complaints that the reasoning was not explained. I've looked through a large number of old requested moves and they are almost all simply stating the result, even when there was disagreement in the discussion. I have stated above that I will add better summaries in future. 2 of the closures that George mentioned above I relisted. I had thought of that before closing them. For one, there was move-warring going on, so I thought that referring them to actually discuss was better than simple relisting. The other 2 I still think were right, albeit with no summaries, but see previous. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • • Thanks, Nathan, for the clear response. Dennis speaks wise words (again) below. Communication is usually the problem with these things, and you're a braver man than me for taking on these closes. I'd never personally contemplate an NAC in anything other than a SNOW situation, but the way things are, non-admins seem needed to keep the backlogs under control. I might ask you to have a look at a Merge/Redirect discussion I started in a few days if anyone actually comments there... . Sorry if I added to your troubles. Begoon ^talk 15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • The authority in a close comes from the quality of the wording, not the bits assigned to the closer. To the eye, a non-admin close should look identical to an admin close. This is why I'm saying a close should appear more formal and with more information in a contentious debate. The reading of consensus IS separate from the action taken, which is why they need differentiating, to prevent situations exactly this this. It should be short, but speak with authority, so even those that disagree can clearly understand how you determined what the consensus was. Maybe old RMs did it wrong, so they aren't a good judge. I'm not picking on you, just trying to help keep you from having to do this part again. You are absolutely right that involved users should not have reverted the close and should have sought outside opinions, but again, a formal and explained close will make this all less likely.Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Thank you Dennis Brown, I agree with all you said. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not doing clean-up after move

Firstly this editor's closing statements are very brief and meaningless (which is being discussed above). The worse point is he is not doing clean up after moving articles.

• He closed Talk:Aishwarya_Rai_Bachchan#Requested_move with moved but a part of the article and persondata etc required some changes.
• Talk:Augusta_Township,_Michigan#Move.3F also required clean-up!

This is unacceptable! Generally RM closers do the required cleanups after moving articles. If someone can't/doesn't have time they should notify the nominator to make required changes! Nothing has been done in these moves! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 13:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this requires a response, but it reminded me of this scene in The Terminal. You are, at this time, simply... unacceptable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Or confess you don't know the reply! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I've moved Augusta Township, Michigan back to Augusta Charter Township, Michigan. There was no evidence that the short form is more common and the township web site uses the long form. There was no discussion at all of this move, only a request made to Anthony Appleyard's talk page that he moved to the article talk page. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine as only one user supported the move. WP:BRD and all. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Here again, I would have added "Moved to the new name, asking others clean up the article to reflect the new name". Or I would have cleaned up the article, either is fine. Finality is important, and is what defines "closing". And Bkonrad, if you had followed the link [82] you would have seen the discussion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown Why would you assume that I had not seen what you mistakenly describe as a "discussion". Do you seriously think "discussion" is a fair description of that exchange? older ≠ wiser 01:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• It probably is a good idea. However, I would expect that those users that actually care about an article, as opposed to me, would be much more qualified to clean up. Further, if they started or supported a requested move that requires cleanup, I would expect them to be watching an article and be ready and eager to make the necessary changes. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Even though it doesn't require the admin bit, closing is an administrative function, and when you do an admin-like job, you should do it in an admin-like way. Accountability to explain is the same for you and I, for example. You have to remember that many people are good editors but aren't policy experts, so you have to offer gentle guidance in the close, so they know what happens next. A close isn't solely for the benefit of the !voters, a close should be directed at the community as a whole. It takes a little practice. Nothing here got broke, that is how you learn, so I would say we just move on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

RMnac

The instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Step-by-step_formal_closing_procedure include the following:

Replace text on left with text on right. Add {{RMnac}} within the template if necessary.

I suppose "if necessary" should say, "if you are not an admin". In any case, I note that Nathan has not been using the {{RMnac}} template. --B2C 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is now simply harassment. Can someone close this thread now? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it harassment? I'm just pointing it out for future reference. I didn't know about it either. --B2C 17:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So, I changed the above to say "if you are not an admin" instead of "if necessary", and Nathan has removed the instruction altogether[83]. My change was a clarification of wording that apparently had consensus support. Nathan's edit, the deletion, is a significant change. Does it have consensus support? Should there be no instruction for non-admins to add the helpful RMnac template to their closes? --B2C 17:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted all edits. ANI is not a good place to debate the policy for that page. Best left for another time and another place. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Still no explanation at Avatar

Nathan has updated his reason at the Avatar close to say this:

No consensus which defaults to Not moved. See also this discussion.

The link to the discussion explains how "no consensus" leads to "not moved" for him, but there is no explanation for how he arrived at the "No consensus" conclusion in the first place. In particular, the arguments on both sides were not addressed, nor was there any explanation as to why they were both strong.

Per my reading, the only arguments opposing the proposal are based on the premise that article's topic is primary for "Avatar", which itself is based on some variant of the historical significance criterion. The argument in favor of the move is that since a similar argument can be made that the film name Avatar is primary based on the usage criterion and so it should be placed at Avatar, there is no primary topic here, and so the dab page should be at this location. This is not the case of two equal arguments. If the two arguments were:

1. The Hindu use is primary per historical significance and so its article should be at Avatar
2. The film use is primary per the usage criterion and so its article should be at Avatar

Then I could see the point that the arguments are equal and there is no consensus. But the arguments were not that. They were:

1. The Hindu use is primary and so its article should be at Avatar.
2. Since the film also has a reasonable claim to primary topic per the usage criterion, there is no primary topic, and so the dab page should be at Avatar.

The second argument is stronger because it does not even challenge any premise of the first argument - it accepts it and augments it. Consensus is supposed to be read based on the strength of the arguments. I see no reason to believe that Nathan did that. He seemed to rely on !vote counting, which is not an appropriate way to read consensus. --B2C 17:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• ANI isn't to reclose the discussion and a close doesn't require explaining the minutia in the discussion. although more might have been better. It can be as simple as "both sides present reasoned arguments but there isn't a consensus on how policy should be interpreted". In a case like this, I would probably have closed as "no consensus, take to a full RFC" as to solicit a larger audience and more input. We aren't in hurry to move things (or shouldn't be) so the 30 day cycle of an RFC is a better venue for a move as large and contentious as this. Rather than debate the close, your time might better be spent crafting a neutrally worded RfC and posting notices in a couple of neutral places, like the village pump. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was not originally nor now asking to reclose the discussion. Originally I asked whether the close should be reverted based on my understanding for some time that non-admins should not close such contentious RMs. It is now apparent that consensus has changed about that.

    I still think any closer should be held to explaining how the "no consensus" decision was reached, and, if he is unwilling to or unable to do so, that the close be reverted. However, in this case it seems reasonable to accept your explanation in its place, and proceed accordingly. --B2C 18:53, 1 June 2013 (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 Biggest Loser vandalism

Good day dear sirs and madams, I would like to report this ongoing vandalism on various The Biggest Loser articles. I have kept reporting those IPs that vandalized those articles. But they always come back. They have been around since 2012. They have been changing tables infos already. Here is a record of the vandalism going on, Records. I have sought help from Drmies aready.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• And said Drmies endorses this message. A range block (or a couple of em) is sought; I've started semi-protecting infected articles for long periods of time. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotion campaign involving a small sock farm

For at least six months, and more intensely over the last month or so, there's been a campaign to promote the Margo Feiden Gallery (a Manhattan business) and its eponymous owner. This has been a bit less ham-handed than the usual campaign -- the gallery is best known as the representative of the Al Hirschfeld estate, and most of the recent campaigning consists of inserting copyrighted Hirschfeld images into various articles with plainly inadequate NFCC rationales, often adding related promotional text, and plugging the Feiden gallery in the image captions. There are others, though, including an odd attempt to promote Feiden's 25-year-old book on dieting. I spent most of the morning today cleaning out this mess, to the extent I could track things down, but several aspects may merit scrutiny from extra sets of eyes.

First of all, there seem to be several SPAs involved -- possibly multiple associates/employees of Feiden or her publicist, but given the coordinated editing and identical rationale texts, likely sockpuppets. The accounts I've identified are User:Chicago57th, User:Rwonderling47, User:Robyn42, and User:Factor-ies.

There's also a heavily promotional AFC draft created recently that manages a lot of minimally sourced peacockery while whitewashing her notorious business dispute with Hirschfeld. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Margo_Feiden Feiden is likely notable enough to support an article, but this isn't an appropriate starting point.

Finally, Feiden, forty years after the fact, started telling a story giving herself an important role in the events surrounding the 1960's shooting of Andy Warhol. One of the apparent socks recently removed the standard account of those events (in Valerie Solanas) and replaced it with Feiden's ersatz version. There's no verification of the Feiden version, and when it was reported by the New York Times, the online comments were so caustic and skeptical that the Times added a comment of its own noting that "The Times does not present Ms.Fieden’s account as definitive." Absent any verification (and some reports that her account is contradicted by most if not all other accounts) I don't see how this version belongs in Wikipedia at all, and certainly should not be presented as anything other than an uncorroborated story told only after everyone in a position to dispute it directly had died. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Galleries are notorious for promoting themselves on Wikipedia; usually by riding on the back of some notable artists the may have exhibited, and using their in-house published exhibition catalogs as references, claimig them to be 'books' they have written. That said, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, what exactly do you want us to do here? Protect a page? Delete an AfC submission? Block someone? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani

Moved from a section of the same name at WP:AN, since this is an incident. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani (Persian: حسن روحاني) is a member of Combatant Clergy Association (ref:"Members of Combatant Clergy Association".) since 1976. But Gorrrillla5 insists on Association of Combatant Clerics which is a different association and Rouhani was never a member of. He ignores what I wrote on his talk page and keep reverting. Mojtaba Salimi (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You failed to notify Gorrrilla despite the big warning at the top of the page, so I've notified him for you. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mojtaba Salimi, this is the wrong noticeboard. Please don't bring trivial complaints here before seeking solutions at WP:Dispute Resolution or other boards that do not require immediate admin action. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

Resolved

 – 46.7.19.75 got blocked for 31 hours for vandalism on mainfreame articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

An anon IP, 46.7.19.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been engaging in vandalism and is currently misusing the Sandbox ([84][85][86]). I actually don’t know what the policy is on sandbox vandalism, but thought it’d be best to bring it up. —Frungi (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Stuff like this isn't really a big problem, except of course for your "engaging in vandalism" link. Just treat like any other vandal — warn until the user stops or until the user vandalises after getting a level-4 warning; if the former, forget about it, and if the latter, take the IP to WP:AIV. Note that the IP's been vandalising this section, so I've given a level-4 warning; feel free to go to WP:AIV if you notice anything else. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion removal

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.

---

RevDaKing keeps removing speedy deletion templates from OpTic Rev. This is the fifth time. I have warned him 3 times and another guy warned him the fourth. Citrusbowler (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2013

This guy just reverted stuff to ploy it on me. I think he should be banned. Citrusbowler (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I warned him, and he just removed it, he used my signature as some sort of personal attack, but I don't think he should be banned, more like a block. TheInferno! 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant block, not ban. I warned him several times. Citrusbowler (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. I've blocked User:RevDaKing. Not only was RevDaKing the one creating the non-notable article, he was the one removing the speedy deletion templates. Lying to blame the party behaving correctly is purely disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone beat me to salting it. I'm guessing this a young kid, there is a serious clue deficiency at work here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not really a matter of WP:BOOMERANG - RevDaKing switched the names around in the original report with this edit. I've switched them back. Stalwart111 02:17, 2 June 2013 (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.

Eve Hazza

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 reported User:Eve Hazza for stock puppetry. The user was than blocked from editing Wikipedia (except his/her user talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite. The user has since posted defamatory content about me on his/her user talk page. (see 1 for the latest example) Way2veers 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. Really, there are better things to do than to fight over some talk page content. I'll take care of it. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2013 (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.

Royal conduct

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.

---

• 75.15.222.126 (talk)
• 75.15.222.126 (talk)
• The Alex Jones Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They keep reverting changes in the Alex Jones article. No reason is given, except two on two different occasions. The first one was saying it's not a good source, even though it's Alex Jones' own site. The next one is "Uh, no." which his hardly appropriate. It's getting pretty ridiculous. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• You hadn't notified the other editor as required, so I did it for you. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is this complaint even here at ANI? User was never warned, and there's been a jolly old edit war going on. I've protected the page. Nothing more to see here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And given newcomer RocketLauncher2 (53 edits) a soft rocketfor edit warring. Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2013 (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.

Improper protection of Phyllis Schlafly

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.

---

Phyllis Schlafly has made many homophobic and bigoted/racist anti-latino statements. Despite this, an editor User:The Devil's Advocate has been reverting statements and refusing to attend the talk page discussion. Additionally, without notification or proper filing, he went through informal channels to have the page protected. This is a violation of wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.198 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to block you for BLP violations and disruption (with this specious post), but since the article is semi-protected you can't really do much real damage. Needless to say, you won't get what you want: your edits were reverted correctly and the article semi-protected justly. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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

(Personal attack removed)

User Shaushka: resumed edit warring, mass reverts, and ethnic namecalling

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.

---

Shaushka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on May 29 for edit warring. The blocking administrator also warned him or her against making "further personal cultural/ethnic slurs". Since the block expired, Shaushka has resumed edit warring on the same article1, made a gratuitous reference to another contributor's supposed ethnicity2, and appears to be engaged in a reverting spree of said contributor's edits (see contribs for multiple diffs). I think a longer, last-chance block is indicated. Rivertorch (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry my racist words but Ahmetyal resumed edit warring, not me. According to me-and most of scholars-, the topics that I have reverted are controversial. There are many sources that support my edits. Furthermore, I have written my arguments on talk page/s and I also said that I'll add the sources. Regars... Shaushka (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are being reverted by multiple editors, who have requested that you discuss your controversial edits. Continuing to edit-war in these circumstances is inadvisable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Whole lot of edit warring going on, inappropriate edit summaries by Ahmetyal [87], off topic summary by Rivertorch [88], forum shopping to wp:3rr by NbSB, little use of article talk page ... but yea Shaushka needs to stop or be stopped (blocked). NE Ent 10:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think it was forum-shopping, that wasn't my intent - I just thought it was necessarily a "required" formality to report the situation there, as it is obviously a 3RR violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

GB fan blocked Shaushka for 72 hours, so I think this can be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I blocked them for disruptive editing on Yazdânism. They continued to add a {{delete}} template without explanation even after I explained twice that they needed to go to WP:AFD if they felt the article should be deleted. GB fan 11:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

From the editor in question's talk page: "I am going to eat my fettuccine guys. Afterwards, I'am going to continue my "edit-warrings". Regars...Shaushka (talk) 5:40 am, Today (UTC−5)" It seems very clear from this and behavioral indication that this editor understands what they are doing, but is intent on continuing it as they do not see it as wrong (hollow apology after intentionally ignoring instructions aside). Were it purely up to me, the continued cultural/ethnic abuse would have earned an immediate indefinite block. A longer term solution is probably necessary at this point to prevent further harm to the site and its community. - Vianello (Talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I see your May 29 block notice on the user's talk page, but I see no actual block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The block was never instituted for some reason; the message existed but given that edits continued through the "block period" on May 31st. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I've got no excuse, it looks like I just got distracted at an inopportune moment and didn't actually put it through. - Vianello (Talk) 23:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but what was fascinating was that for quite some time there were no edits, almost like a notice was as good as a block (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This set of gems says a lot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone come up with anything useful this editor has contributed? Based on their history, I don't think I've ever seen so many reverts. Based on that alone, I think we should consider either a longer block or an indefinite block. And, of course, there's more than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

In looking over Shaushka's contributions more thoroughly, I see he is unquestionably a WP:SPA. Considering his willingness to casually toss out epithets, and considering how fraught with controversy his chosen topic area is, I doubt we're be doing anything other than delaying the inevitable by using a time-limited block. Consider: 1234567. Still, there's no particular harm in giving him one last chance, as long as someone is willing to closely monitor what happens when the block expires. (I won't be that someone.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just like Bbb23, I do not see any good contributions. WP:Competence is required. This user apparently has little idea about subjects they are trying to edit. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As is often stated, blocks are preventative. In this case a block is meant to prevent continued edit warring. Their intent to continue edit warring means that the preventative measure needs to stay in place until they can provide assurance that they will not continue to do so. Blackmane (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur; indef per WP:FETTUCCINE. NE Ent 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with the above, and after a review of the contributions (which made the problems very obvious), I've upped to indef. If they want to edit, they're going to first have to demonstrate a radical change in attitude. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2013 (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:Hazard-Bot broken

User:Hazard-Bot is adding talk page templates to article space. Can an admin please stop it? - Shudde ^talk 05:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked; thanks for the report. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Sorry about that, I stopped it. I'll try to get the edits reverted.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  06:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was pinged in IRC about the issue, and I immediately stopped it shortly before the block (I had two separate instances running, I stopped the one causing the problem, but after the block, the other wouldn't edit either, obviously). The task does have a check page, though a check shows it isn't linked from it's user page. I'll also make those updates. However, I'm asking for someone to unblock please, so I could try to run a script to revert the bad edits before I log off (I'm in UTC-5 and might not be on again until to do this until the earliest Monday night, Tuesday night, or Wednesday).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  06:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, unblocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. On a side note, Legoktm had pinged me on IRC offering to do the clean-up with a script that he already had, so it might not be necessary that I do this.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  06:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Mass-rollback is  Done :) Legoktm (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Lovely :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 09:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Leelabratee

Can we get some experienced eyes and/or admin intervention to help with User:Leelabratee? Her User Talk page is covered with warnings, mostly having to do with references, creating inappropriate pages, and copyright problems. But this is just the start of it.

An article she created, Shonkhobash, has been put up for AFD. She has removed (and been warned for removing) the AFD tag 123 times. Her user page has been put up for MFD and she has removed the MFD tag 12 times. Her User page was put through MFD because she is repeatedly changing it to appear as other users: the first time as User:Titodutta, a second time as User:Ronhjones, a third time as User:Kironbd07, and a fourth time as User:Sonia. She often changes some details so I'm unsure of malicious intent—I'm really trying to AGF here—but she's also copying and modifying text from deletion discussions, such as using this from 16 May to write this from 31 May. On top of this, we've got refactoring comments in deletion discussion, redirecting AFC pages to her article, and other little things like responding to an offer of help to understand our rules with a request for help with the article that user marked for deletion. At this point, she's been spending more time working on her User page than trying to save the page she created, which makes me wonder if she understands what's going on. I'm thinking there's more than a little language barrier issue at play here, but WP:COMPETENCE and all.

Any help would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All her uploaded images and a several pieces of text were deleted as copyright violations / no permission. I'm not sure she understands how copyright works.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Now I feel they are trying to learn. They copied my userpage, my AFD rationale and now they are using my signature too. Anyway, my signature is not that artistic and I'll change it again soon and remove "email" from it. That AFD comment change was a funny one— they updated Facebook like numbers. I'll see if I can offer more help! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 23:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment : No excuses for this editor, s/he edits often enough to have seen all the warnings on their talk page. If this hadn't been brought to ANI, stumbling on their behavior, I would probably have already blocked them for a very short while to prevent any further disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment : I am sorry, I am new to this world of Wikipedia and facing difficulties to understand the place. I promise I'll try to improve gradually. Helping hands will be appreciated. Best --Leela Bratee  (talk • contributions • email) 14:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that this comment was copied verbatim from a suggestion of how to respond from User:Titodutta. In that same suggestion, Titodutta advised her to respond to the AFD of Shonkhobash and she, again, copied much of it verbatim, including the parts where he told her what not to include. This is looking less like a problematic understanding of copyright—although there is that—and more like fundamental language barrier. Woodroar (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock User:Arjann

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.

---

He didn't violate 3RR at Maryan (film), for which he was warned. He is sole contributor of that article-- Dravidian  Hero  08:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it was not for 3RR, it was for edit warring (which you were also doing). And he is not the sole contributor to the article, as you well know - you have even contributed to it yourself! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I made only minor changes to that article, whole credit goes to Arjann. The warning doesn't even state which article he is edit warring. How should have Arjann known that, when he made just 1 rev in 24 h on that page. It's a very questionable block.-- Dravidian  Hero  11:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yourself, Arjann and Johannes003 are edit warring over multiple articles and this is a casualty of that war. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How could Arjann not have known? The article has a terrible battleground history in which Arjann was up to his ears in it. You personally, as Arjann's ally, have brought two reports (at least) before this one to administrative noticeboards. And both have been against Johannes003. You first brought this report to ANI. You next brought this report to ANEW. It was the latter that led to the block of Arjann who was first warned and then blocked when he ignored the warning and made a second (your claim about one revert in 24h is false) revert to the article. Arjann doesn't talk much, but I think this comment on the Maryan talk page in mid May sums it up nicely, particularly when he calls Johannes "really sick" and states that he is "not going to work on this article anymore." Unfortunately, he didn't keep his promise and continued to battle in the article. As for your "minor changes", you reverted twice on May 31, and my guess is the only reason Canterbury Tail didn't block you is, unlike Arjann, you did not revert after your warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

lol I'm not an "ally" of Arjann. I am concerned over people, who destroy work and discourage people from editing in wikipedia. This whole episode is a farce.-- Dravidian  Hero  16:23, 2 June 2013 (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 Karren Brady

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 diff. Will inform anon concerned as soon as I save this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making legal threats. _→AzaToth 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a clear legal threat, but I'm troubled by one piece of material the IP removed, which is supposedly about her admitting that she lied on a job application about having a degree. There's no cite for that next to the material. The closest cite, later in the paragraph, is a 45-minute audio interview, and it's not clear whether she actually said that in the interview (I'm not listening to 45 minutes to find out - I listened to the beginning). For that kind of material we need clear cites.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've transcribed part of the interview discussing her lack of a degree to the article talk page. I've listened to the first 18 minutes, someone else is welcome to listen to the rest. I just hope that you like Abba. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I stopped earlier when they started talking about songs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2013 (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.

KunoxTxa sock

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

---

QunoxTxa (talk · contribs), a likely sock of KunoxTxa (talk · contribs), is rapidly creating multiple Armenian football player articles again. Could someone please block them? - MrX 21:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by QunoxTxa (talk · contribs). The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KunoxTxa. I agree with MrX that the user should be blocked immediately to prevent further disruptive editing. Way2veers 21:39, 2 June 2013 (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_request_on_1_June_2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Egypt#Edit_request_on_1_June_2013 i do not know if this is the right place (meybe someone can tell me) that edit request needs more attention if this is not the right place then please tell me about another 95.199.6.163 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're in the right place; all you have to do is be patient. Though we get paid double overtime on Sunday, a lot of editors still take the day off. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

i meant ani is the right place, meybe some graphic designer user can see the request 95.199.6.163 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Graphics Lab’s request board at WP:GL/I will be the best place to get that illustration altered. See also the question under the original Talk-page request.—Odysseus1479 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

logged in and uploaded file and now it needs vectorization Beetsyres34 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lightspeedx owning Erica Andrews article

Lightspeedx has been trying to insert poorly sourced, or no sourced information into the Biography of Living person (recently deceased) of Erica Andrews including citations to unsourced playbills, myspace accounts, un-credited youtube video's, blogs, and main pages that don't mention Erica Andrews at all. When the information was removed per BLP, they started Forumshopping: Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Erica Andrews. After the Dispute resolution ended with three more editors stating that the edits Lightspeedx wanted were poorly sourced, lightspeedx disappeared for a month. During the interim two of the other editors involved, User:Qworty and User:Little green rosetta, were banned from the encyclopedia. Lightspeedx came back and claimed that based on Project Qworty, all the material deleted should be reinstated. Those edits were deleted by Howicus who was the moderator in the dispute resolution process. Both Silver seren and Obiwankenobi have come to the page and reinstated what they felt was up to standards from the deleted material. User:Lightspeedx is not satisfied with this, and has Canvassed to find anyone to support their edits [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. I made a post on those pages letting them know the extent of the conversation thus far, and Lightspeedx has responded to me personally on some of their talk pages suggesting that I am Trans/homo phobic, need to get a life, and that I am obsessed with Lightspeedx [95], [96], [97], this one adds that I was in cahoots with LGR and Qworty. Then they have gone to the project Qworty page to post another rant against me [98], and another one on the Erica Andrews talk page.

By my count we have over a dozen users letting Lightspeedx know that the edits they want to put into place require reliable sourcing and unless they can find reliable sources they shouldn't be in the article. Lightspeedx's response is to ignore that statement and find someone who will support their edits. They have been attacking me personally since this started, they claim that since I didn't know the actress personally like they did I shouldn't be allowed to edit the page, and they have taken to ignore any other editor who tells them differently instead focusing all their aggression on me. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As a note, I haven't edited the Erica Andrews article in over a month.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Lightspeedx has crossed the line and needs a block and a topic ban. Their ownership feelings are too strong. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the volunteer at the DRN and went through the article by hand, but kept the discussion open until it was autoarchived as was requested; Lightspeedx was blocked during a period of this. Howicus brought up the matter in detail on sources and I felt that things which were 404ed that probably shouldn't have been for the time that they were inserted and the dubious material and links were below the requirements or non-existent for verification at the time of my checks. I don't see bad-faith, but the user has been made repeatedly aware of the sourcing problems. Its just IDHT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

AFDs not being properly considered due to assumption of bad faith

I'm sorry I wasted your time with this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Late last week, I had sent 4 articles to AFD after finding that they were in poor condition and they happened to all be authored by Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) (formerly Tenmei and Ansei). These were: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gosei (Japanese diaspora) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teach fish how to swim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegitimisation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning the hard way Bueller 007 (talk · contribs) then independently decided to send a further 8 articles also entirely or partly authored by Enkyo2. The AFDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flogging a dead horse (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square peg in a round hole Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes two to tango (idiom) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad days (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barking up the wrong tree Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throw out the baby with the bath water Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talking past each other Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make a mountain out of a molehill (3rd nomination) Sometime after these had started, Enkyo2 posted this comment to all 12 AFDs (I will not provide 12 diffs for brevity), failing to follow WP:AGF and assuming that Bueller 007 and I were tag teaming him. As soon as he posted this to every AFD, all of them had been met with almost identical opposition from the same set of users, all of whom are opposing deletion in line with this same lack of good faith assumption, with several of them posting arguments obviously meant for the other AFDs. The "Gosei (Japanese diaspora)" AFD is particularly telling, with comments by 7&6=thirteen, ChrisGualtieri, and Doug Coldwell not addressing the AFD and copy pasted from the other AFDs. Barely any of these AFDs have been properly considered for discussion and are simply snowballing towards keep because of a series of lack of good faith and also just copy-pasting the same message to multiple pages. What can be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Shopping for a rouge admin? That one editor has indeed veered towards assuming bad faith, but so have you because the other !voters there did address the substance of the articles according to their understanding of policy. The vast majority of these articles are obviously also related by their nature—idioms. So expect the set of editors who !vote there to be related too if you're assuming good faith. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) A little diligence discovers that most !votes came in after the articles were listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion_sorting/Language by User:Rcsprinter123, User:Evano1van, User:Czar, and possibly others. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gosei (Japanese diaspora). Once again, Ryulong doesn't like the result, and now want to contest this in another forum? He and I read the rules of wikipedia entirely diffently. I disagree with his conclusions, and decline his invitation to change my opinion. Respectfully, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Not commenting on the actions, but noting that a few of these AFDs came up in this discussion at the Pump: WP:VPP#Time to get rid of WP is not a dictionary?. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) One can't copy-paste a response for something specific and term related. I didn't even respond to every single one; but had no need or desire to. I gave detailed and unique reasons with citations as I did for AFDs. Here's one I did for Salad Days; read it through, found a lacking cite, pointed to the cite in the reasoning and gave additional reasons for keeping. [99] I struck my comment from the Gosei one because it clear was intended to be here. Mistakes are human, and the cites are obvious when you look at I wasn't even talking about Gosei. Though I am appalled at Ryulong's bad faith accusation when I give detailed arguments for the AFDs which I became aware of from the VPP pump discussion. I agree and opt for merge here.[100] Here is an example of finding citations and developing a clear keep rationale. [101] Before I even did these comments I've been active at the VPP discussion here. From that discussion it seems that Ryulong doesn't understand the policy. Though here is a good post to summarize from Colonel Warden.[102] Ryulong; I think you owe me an apology because the accusation is blatantly incorrect; yes I posted to the wrong page, but just by looking at the source the intended idiom and AFD was obvious. If I had posted the delegitimization source instead would you have done made the accusation as well? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I thought there was an issue because your comment at the Gosei AFD did not have anything to do with the reason why I had brought it to AFD and it appeared that you had copy-pasted the same response to multiple pages. I apologize for including you in this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Notification. I have notified User:Colonel Warden and User:Acroterion of this discussion because besides Tenmei they are the ones who have made several comments alleging bad faith or pointy nature of the AfD nominations, here and here for example. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Forum shopping. The articles nominated are all English language idioms. A normal person would find a short article on them useful. It would not occur to me to look in a dictionary for them. (Dictionaries are most useful for single words.) It seems strange that the articles should have been nominated for deletion. Maybe the nominators do not understand. Then they complain here that their proposals are not supported by normal editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Delegitimisation and Gosei (Japanese diaspora) are not English language idioms. The latter is not an AFD for violating WP:DICDEF but that has not stopped people from copy-pasting their "Keep: Not just a dictionary definition" comments from the other debates.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) How is Delegitimisation not an English language idiom? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC) An idiom is a phrase that has a particular meaning attached to it. "Delegitimisation" is an individual word.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I see a whole slew of nominations where everyone is voting keep. So what, sometimes people disagree with you Ryulong. I fail to see how this is an issue for ANI. Is disagreement now an incident that needs admin intervention? Not everyone is going to think the same way you do about these things... --Jayron32 05:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC) That is not why I have brought this here. Multiple people just seem to be copy-pasting the same "keep" response despite the fact that isn't what the AFD is about.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Of course they cut and pasted. I would guess that they thought that the AFD proposals in question were fatuous, and did not want to waste their time explaining the obvious. (Well obvious to everyone except the nominators.)--Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Your edit summary is nice. My problem is that the copy-pasted responses are being added to the one item in the group that is not like the others, in that it is not being proposed for deletion for being a dictionary definition, in addition to the plenty of bad faith assumptions going around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) My impression was that this had something to do with the Ryukyu islands, whose status is disputed. Anyway, it seems to be a storm in a teacup and the most useful admin action now would be to snow close this bundle. Warden (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC) This had nothing to do with the Ryukyu Islands. How would an article on the phrase "teach fish how to swim" be related to that? You are mistaking the fact that I had made an inquiry as to whether or not Enkyo2's indefinite topic ban included the entirety of the Ryukyu Islands chain instead of just what was initially defined with anything else that's going on on this project, which is in itself not keeping with WP:AGF. What this was was a handful of AFDs I had started because, in all honesty, I found that Enkyo2 had authored one of the many phrase articles he likes to link to in discussions and found it to be poor, and then another editor came along and did the same thing with multiple articles. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because several editors have just been pasting the same response to all of the discussions, which would obviously be a good thing (if people can fix the idiom articles then fine), but the pasted responses were included in the only AFD in the set that had nothing to do with the others other than being authored by the same individual as well as several "keep, bad faith" !votes as noted above.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What administrative action are you asking for? If !voters cited inapplicable reasons, I'm sure that those !votes will be discounted by the closer -- what else, then, needs to be done? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC) What action should be taken when there's rampant failures to assume good faith?—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

Can an uninvolved admin close WT:ACCESS#Policy change or Clarification?? That discussion seems to have gotten more and more off-topic, and it wasn’t entirely clear which of multiple topics it was originally supposed to be about, so I think it would be best to just stop. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks after warnings-"Wikipediots" and "morons"

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.

---

Stenen Bijl (talk · contribs) See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Quite a few warnings have been given, some of them blanked. Another report was made by another editor (User:DVdm, the recipient of most of the attacks) at WP:AIV, although it probably should have been made here instead. Heiro 11:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hrs for NPA violations. Feel free to archive this. Heiro 11:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Spoke too soon I guess. Can we get talkpage access removed? Per threats to "out" other users. Heiro 11:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, in the time it took to type that up, someone dealt with it. Heiro 11:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Block increased to indef, with talk page access removed, for threats to out - HOTHERE. GiantSnowman 11:50, 3 June 2013 (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:Bgwhite

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

---

Can we get some experienced eyes and/or admin intervention to help with User:Bgwhite? This user is doing nearly nothing else then clean up violation. Its a good thing to delet nonsense but i guess its not very good to have users here witch do nothing else then find something where they can delet and destroy something. pls look his edits - he is nearly doing nothing else then to "cleanup". i think he should been told to write a bit more himself then to delet all day. Oliveru1980 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up crappy articles is a perfectly valid way to spend time here. Whose sockpuppet are you? Heiro 11:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Its a good thing if you do this from time to time.

If there is realy something to fix. If you just come here to play "Janitor" its not. Thats why there is also a point here its "cleanup violation". Some would call it profile neurosis. There are 2 good points to be here. To read a lot of articles and to write good yourself. But sure not to play the important "janitor". sad if you cant understand this. regards Oliveru1980 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I cant understand it because you can not write a coherent sentence. Heiro 12:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oliveru1980, when starting threads here you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You can do this by placing {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their user talk page. I've done this for you in this case, but please remember this for future reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm trying to figure out, what administrative action is being requested here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A single purpose account. Whoosh, anyway.. this is weird and ridiculous allegation against User:Bgwhite. There is no rule that one can not spend all his time in cleaning up articles. Actually his edits are very effective and helpful. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 13:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

SPA is not a "crime"; if I spent all my days addressing the unreferenced article backlog, would that be a problem? SPA is intended for singular page interest or very narrow range to suggest COI or an agenda to push; not moving from article to article fixing problems, properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

• I meant the OP has no other edit than this ANI! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 13:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Personal attacks

I have been very patient with Expatkiwi (talk · contribs) however their actions long ago passed borderline issues with WP:NPA. They have made repeated personal attacks and other insults directed at me because they either do not like WP:NFCC or do not understand it. Werieth (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Got diffs? Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
2. How about you go back and read that big-ass orange box you neglected to read when you posted on this page? You know, the one that says in big bold letters You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Echo already notifies users when their user page is linked to. Werieth (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still a requirement as per the directions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone will have it set up for that. Better to be safe and just drop a note. --Onorem (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of taking care of it, but it looks got it as well, Toddst. XD We must have both gotten the idea. =) - Amaury (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrisy, overzealousness, and choking red tape rule certain editors on Wikipedia. My efforts to enhance pages on this site have been pulled down like a condemned building. I've had an utter guts-full. Expatkiwi 21:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did violate a core image use policy ... WP:IAR does not apply to non-free image use and other copyright issues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

People don't read big-ass orange boxes on the internet, as determined by research six years ago: banners are invisible. If one of the five primary rules of a society is to "ignore all rules," it's not very reasonable to freak out when someone doesn't follow the rules. NE Ent 01:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:Expatkiwi_.28Result:_.29
• Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Submissions_for_List_of_Australian_flags_and_List_of_New_Zealand_flags

  Those are two areas besides the comment above. This editor is dragging this across a lot of different pages so its hard to keep track. Werieth (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You were called a hypocrite, and that rises to the level of an ANI report? This looks more like a tit-for-tat filing due to the 3RR report filed against you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

vindictive and my favorite, the same affection as I would a turd in a punch-bowl. Werieth (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he's calling you a "turd in a punch-bowl"? No. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I posted with good intentions, and it ended up getting torn out! How do you think I am supposed to take that? Expatkiwi

Good intentions or not, you have a responsibility to the rules - especially copyright. You're also responsible for your reaction when the edits are removed. The rules were explained - your role was to then eat a little crow and follow them - not call people names simply having advised you of the rule (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'rules' don't make any bloody sense!!!!! If non-free illustrations are illegal in Wikepedia, then why is there a section devoted to justification of non-free image usage? Care to answer that one, Sunshine? Expatkiwi

Do you care to check your attitude at the door please? "Care to answer that one, Sunshine" is more than a little inappropriate ... your actions are already up for review by admins, do you want to act like that while under such scrutiny? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of things. One: you appear to need to read the rules properly, and not just skim them. Two: you need to fix your sig, which appears to lack a link to your talkpage, and a datestamp. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as his sig links to either his talkpage or userpage, the linking is fine. The datestamping is an issue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bunch of petty-minded beaurocrats here who just avoid the issue instead of explaining things in non-beaurocratese. Its times like this that I wonder if I'm talking to a person or an answering machine. In any case, Bwilkins, since you told me that I'm under the microscope for the crime of trying to get a straight answer and a correct remedy for perceived errors and just getting double-talk and threats in response (thus making the unforgivalbe eeeror of blowing the whistle on that kind of conduct), it's going to be ponitless to continue as I'm sure that you and your colleagues whill find some interpretation to get me kicked off Wikipedia. User:Expatkiwi 23:30 (UTC) 1 JUNE 2013

Unless you tone down your comments, no one, not even our petty-minded beaurocrats are going to be very interested in investigating your side of the story - that's the way it works here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And now that Expatkiwi's 3RR report has been declined [103], he and Werieth are in an edit war: [104]. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's mostly true, unfortunately. Although I'd describe that phenomena as the the way it doesn't work here. NE Ent 01:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked at my talk page to take a look here in case I could help this user understand our requirements. After investigating his history, I think the issues are deeper than a simple explanation can resolve. It looks like this editor has been doing this since 2005 - or at least something similar, to judge by this note. (Over 7 years ago, he was told with regards to repeatedly restoring flag images to list articles: "This is the third time I have removed the image from this page because it is copyright and its use on pages other than the article discussing the flag is not within the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines.") In 2006, he was asked to stop using non-free images in userspace (" Fair use images cannot be used in templates or userspace under wikipedia policy."), and persisted (and for long after - see this suite of notices). Additional image issues with block threats: 2006 (you can see the next cluster of talk page messages for how well that worked). I've dug through his history, and he's been warned many, many times over many, many years about policies and has persisted in creating problems. His latest edits are the same behavior he was cautioned against in 2005. The second of these was done after an uninvolved and friendly caution on his talk page from KoshVorlon. I think we need some assurance that this isn't going to continue. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Now blocked. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Socking

• 170.94.104.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

It looks like Expatkiwi (talk · contribs) is now socking with their IP 170.94.104.36. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

24 hours block, for a start. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The "greatest" game

After a quick search in likely locations, I haven't spotted any previous discussion on this. Briefly, Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle for a "super-dumb" game. Some examples are truly funny, but most are just lame. The game involves making an unsourced comment in an article along the lines of "He truly is the greatest A'Tuin" in Great A'Tuin. Examples may be found here and here. The website "College Humor" posted a page of examples here. although it intimates that the game is over, examples continue to pop up.[105] --Pete (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone could create an abuse filter for this. --Glaisher (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That website has explained something: though I've graduated, and several times, my sense of humor is still at college.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been aware of this joke for a little while, and I find that searching for "truly was the" (in quotes) catches most of them. Howicus (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So that's where that was coming from. I saw that and was wondering where it was from. As for the continuing edits, well, somebody is always late to the party... It will probably keep going for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I see they got Truman twice, for a net total of two minutes, in spite of which they display the very-short-lived vandalism version on their page with what I gather is meant to be pride.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

In cases like this, I'd argue for revision deletion per WP:DENY, as "knowing it's there" is the point of the vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:GagsGagsGags

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.

---

GagsGagsGags has created 3 articles: The Mrs. Carter Show: Live in Belgium, The Mrs. Carter Show, Live in Antwerp and Young Forever World Tour that are all hoaxes. I wasn't sure how to proceed other than tag them all for WP:CSD, so I thought I'd notify admins here. —JennKR | ☎ 16:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're sure they're hoaxes? Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, (I Googled for all and found nothing). It's happened in the past too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mrs._Carter_(Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_album)&diff=552079990&oldid=551978946 I think he/she enjoys making up DVDs/CDs. —JennKR | ☎ 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That was my reaction, too, after swimming in weird articles about the tour and about what might happen in the future. Of course, the user name doesn't help. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a confusing mix of the factual (in the sense that they've taken the accurate set list of the tour) and the fictional (there are no DVDs, or in the case for Nicki Minaj, no planned tour). Oh, and it doesn't :) —JennKR | ☎ 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Now, next time, what you can do is simply warn them--there is a standardized template for "creating inappropriate pages". Bbb, I'm surprised you didn't know they were hoaxes immediately: you're the biggest Minaj and Beyonce fan I know on Wikipedia. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to recover from looking at Beyonce's website. Probably the only reason I've ever even heard of her is because of Wikipedia. I can only absorb so much new knowledge at one time. I'm still working on the stuff you try to feed me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no. I saw passed this over at New pages patrol and assumed it was genuine, I was really looking forward to a DVD of international recording artiste Beyonce Knowles from her tour, and can understand totally why she would choose Belgium as it is such an exotic, interesting and cool place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2013 (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 Bias and Discrimination

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 3 June 2013 (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. Thomas Smith (author) article which is properly supported and passes notability has been continually subjected to "Deletion", name changes, and disparaging comments. Please have an immediate response to cease these humiliating, biased, and discriminatory actions. The article is about a living person. See Articles for deletion and name changes to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Smith_%28author%29 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack/gross insult by User:Narssarssuaq in re my placement of OR and SYNTH templates on Straumfjörð

I found this article while reviewing links in the Vinland section of {{Canadian colonies}} today (a template that badly needs renaming and vetting) and found all kinds of rank OR and SYNTH and unencyclopedic content and speculative/rhetorical captions and irrelevant images boosting the notions put forward in this article, which are highly original research and promotional for someone's WP:SOAPbox. My templates were removed by User:Narssarssuaq, who built much of the article, it seems, and the article damaged as well; and returned to check the changes I had made, which had been wiped, but even before I had a chance to restore the templates, had already been done by User:A.amitkumar who also commented on the vandalization of the article re this edit, where the word "artist", I suppose, was rendered as "autist" (ahem) and the aforesaid blanking occurred. In the meantime I got a message on my talkpage entitled "Get a life", with the text "You seriously need to get a life". I don't understand the blanking of the article by its ersthile author, which I hadn't done though only AnomieBot stands between his edit and mine. I had, after my edits earlier today, which I'd given up on for reasons of irritation at improper use of images and captions and also bad English and bad spelling, reported the article to the OR Noticeboard as I feel the page is grossly "leading" and full of leapt-to-conclusions and imposed suppositions. My seven earlier edits begin here and end with AnomieBot's dating of the OR and SYNTH templates I placed. I stopped by for a look, and as per habit started fixing things and removing inappropriate content; once I realized how bad the article was I stopped and took it to the OR board. People complain about what they think is my conduct and attitude all the time (really it's just my thoroughness), but I never engage in forum-style attacks such as this "get a life" business, which is utterly puerile. I do have better things to do than waste more time on this, but reining this user in and also seriously vetting that article is more than called for.Skookum1 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Immediately following the ANI notice on his talkpage I received this.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) The article was excellent: it meticulously cites nearly 100 articles in academic journals as well as books by scholars, and there are no original conjectures made except obvious summarization. The subject-matter is by nature speculative, as Nansen puts it: in the mists. The aesthetics of the pictures had to reflect this vagueness, and to reflect even the incredulity towards the subject of some of the cited authors. When you approach this subject-matter as if you were writing about a mathematical subject, with absolutely no understanding that the aesthetics and the enigmatic nature of the sagas must be somewhat matched by the pictures, then I get angry, and rightly so. (2) Yes, I do not want to collaborate with you, and you deserved the insult, although it is not directed to you personally (after all, I have no idea who you are), but to a certain class of editors. (3) Seeing that I do not want to follow the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, I would like to delete my account here. But that is not an option. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

[post edit-conflict] Meticulous cites used to synthesize an argument and used in an work of obviously original authorship advancing a theory are decidedly against wikipedia guidelines. The article was in violation of much more than WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I will refrain from further comment on this other than to provide this link from previous versions for editors wishing to examine the condition it was in before I began purging it of un-wikipedian content. Another user, an IP user, had removed images for the same reason I had, which you immediately reverted as of that edit. Other than two edits previously to add Categories by User:Berek - - all previous edits of the article were by yourself. You do not WP:OWN it, nor do you WP:OWN Wikipedia, and clearly have not read nor care about the OR and SYNTH or other guidelines as evinced by your behaviour and comments here and on my talkpage and in the content of the article. This article was only begun, by yourself, on April 17 and IMO does not belong in Wikipedia. In fact I feel strongly it should be entirely deleted as WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and obviously a territorial stake-out and more but I'm not in the mood to launch an WP:AFD, not tonight anyway. This is already bother enough.Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the article is (was) not in breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. It gives a review of all published theories, and these theories are to a large extent published in peer-reviewed publications, and absolutely no claim is made without a citation. Also, absolutely no argument is synthesized, except a conclusion which summarises the cited propositions. If you fundamentally disagree with every premise of the research which has been performed on this subject, I will assume that you do not know enough about the subject, or that you have some nationalist agenda. (For the record, conflicting national narratives could be the fundamental reason for this dispute.) Furthermore, the aesthetics you are trying to impose on the article is inappropriate. Aesthetics is difficult to discuss, you either have a sense of it or you do not. You are correct about the WP:OWN - Wikipedia is about crowdsourcing and collaborative effort, and if I cannot collaborate without getting angry, then a fundamental rule is breached. However, disallowing any form of anger is a perfect way of dumbing down and disempowering individual editors, making them stay and meekly accept just about anything - it is the success formula of both Wikipedia and the internet, and the main reason why people spend more time within these pursuits than they should. You classifying "get a life" as a "gross" insult is an example of this culture of insensitivity. I'll not be part of that any longer. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There is zero discussion of the content, or of the templates, on the article’s Talk page. (My 2¢ worth on the content is that parts of it read as an essay, so could use some rewriting, but the worst of the ‘rhetoric’ was in the captions of images that have now been removed. I don’t see any significant synthesis in the text.)—Odysseus1479 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Another OR problem concerning Narssarssuaq can be found at this dif for Location hypotheses of Atlantis where he has twice added a section called 'Scientific background'. The first time it was reverted because it was sourced to a creationist site. Narssarssuaq then reworded his section (with the unacceptable edit summary "Re-added section, this time with links that conform to the last editor's religion") but none of his sources seem to mention Atlantis. It appears that Narssarssuaq either does not understand or does not accept our NOR policy. I haven't reverted it yet as I am trying hard to stay on a wikibreak for perhaps another fortnight (breaks are so refreshing!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Narassarssuaq made the statement "Seeing that I do not want to follow the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, I would like to delete my account here. But that is not an option." they are clearly not accepting the NOR policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no. I started out on Wikipedia seven years ago. However, over time things change, and by now I do not share the passion for crowdsourcing any longer. Dougweller's edit above is only one example of why: he not only rejects, but even tries to ridicule that a (documented) sea level rise of 120 metres (in the relevant period) is appropriate background information for the Atlantis myth - so much for common sense. In the long run the required suspicion and carefulness is draining both for the readers and the editors. At some point enough is enough. The natural thing to do is to close my account and to support Wikipedia through donations rather than edits, leaving that job to you. Apparently, Wikipedia does not let me close my account (i.e. blank and lock the user page, its talk page and the user's login). The only reason I can see for this is that it is an attempt to trick me into editing more. If I cannot formally close my account, then I will use it from time to time, because I am likely to get frustrated if an article has severe faults or omissions - as Wikipedians, you know that feeling very well. If anyone knows where I can complain about Wikipedia's lack of option to close accounts, which must be an annoyance to a number of editors, I would be grateful. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, them saying that they have no intention to follow Wikipedia's rules is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — Richard BB 15:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen userpages being blanked on the request by users. Locking it and the user's login will take effect when blocked. Leaves only the talk page but you can move the stuff into an archive out of sight. There are btw other Wikipedias where there is more space to breathe than in overcrowded and regulatory WP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You can requst to be blocked indefinitely, there are Administrators who will do that, including myself, although many won't. You can blank your own pages and if others edit them ask for them to be protected. My point about the sea level rise is solely that sources must discuss it in relationship to Atlantis - I disagree with the way you characterized my comment.Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Range block for IP socks of indeffed user ExcuseMeNYC

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.

---

ExcuseMeNYC (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely (by me) for disruption of the article Princess Marcella Borghese to promote outside interests, but continues to edit from their IP 24.215.76. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24.215.249.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). See expecially the IP's first edit, from before ExcuseMeNYC was blocked, to see conclusively that it's the same person. (Tone and style are pretty unmistakable too.) They continue to scold on the article talkpage, which doesn't matter so much, but have also inserted tendentious material in a related article, Georgette Mosbacher, to support one side in an ongoing RL legal conflict. They were blocked for doing this, compare my block rationale and here, second paragraph. IPs 24.215.249.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.215.248.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also no doubt the same user (or, I suppose, possibly other company shills), were used to edit the article in April and others from the same range can no doubt be used again. These are all dynamic IPs. I don't know how to deal with them, and I don't want to block half New York. Always scared of doing that. Anybody? Bishonen | talk 09:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen, you made some sort of mistake (didn't copy the whole IP address?); 24.215.76 has no edits, whether live or deleted. Do you mean this edit by 24.215.249.76 (talk · contribs)? It was made after the block, so I'm not sure, but it's the only IP in the history with a .76 in the number. Nyttend (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Wonder how I managed to copypaste and leave out a bit in the middle? But apparently I did. And you're absolutely right Nyttend: it was a fourth IP, 24.215.249.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that edited just before the block. So it looks like they get new IPs pretty quickly. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC).Bishonen | talk 10:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

24.215.248.0/23 - only 512 IPs would be blocked. Unfortunately the range contribs tool is 404 this morning so I can't determine if there's any useful edits coming from the range. But I have blocked the range for one week to start. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. A week may even be enough. Longer is better, though. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC).

Longer would be better, but I don't want to do that without reviewing other contribs from that range. We can start with a week and then see where we're at. -- Dianna (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

CU comment: It doesn't appear that there will be any collateral damage from the rangeblock, so feel free to extend it as necessary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Dianna (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2013 (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.

Behavior of User:Xenophrenic

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.

---

ArbCom has recently suspended its inquiry into Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), hoping that the moderated discussion page is going to work out. But the ArbCom case has illuminated the behavior of one editor, Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · logs). His behavior stretches across several years and several articles related to U.S. politics, not just the TPm article. I first encountered this behavior at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and at articles related to Ward Churchill, in 2009. Generally speaking, he is a POV-pusher for a progressive POV. It is as though he's trying to remake Wikipedia into an opposition research database for Democratic Party political operatives to use, while preventing its usefulness for that purpose to members of other parties and political groups. He adds negative material to articles about conservative political figures and organizations, no matter how trivial or irrelevant it might be, or how much it employs fallacies such as guilt by association; and he removes negative content about progressive political figures and organizations. He achieves these goals by being tendentious, and by using editwarring to a limited extent (particularly the slow edit war technique, or tag teaming).

This has resulted in an RfC/U for Xenophrenic. Evidence was presented here, and it is enormous. I focused on a recent 79-day period (March 9 to May 27), but it is merely representative since the misconduct goes back to at least 2009. At first, Xenophrenic tried several times to get the RfC/U deleted, rather than address the merits of the case, and was told by several previously uninvolved editors here at ANI that the deletion he sought wasn't going to happen. Finally, his response was that in the 16 articles I listed to illustrate that 79-day period of his editing behavior, he was the only one who was editing toward NPOV, and all those other editors the he was editwarring with were the ones who were POV-pushing.

Editors who push the same POV as Xenophrenic, in a similarly tendentious manner, are very likely to claim he hasn't done anything wrong, and that nothing has been proven. In fact, the evidence against Xenophrenic is overwhelming. I said at the beginning of the RfC/U that it was being done for two purposes. The first purpose was to present evidence that Xenophrenic's behavior creates problems for the Community. That purpose has been fulfilled abundantly. The second purpose was to convince him that his behavior does cause these problems, and that he must resolve to change this behavior. And for the second purpose, this RfC/U has been a miserable failure. Considering the huge amount of evidence presented, it comes as no surprise that I made a mistake here and there. But it's clear that Xenophrenic got into more than a dozen content disputes with more than a dozen different people, on more than a dozen different articles, in about two and a half months; and that his habitual response to such situations was editwarring. Most damaging to Xenophrenic, all of this occurred when he knew there were two different spotlights pointed at him (ArbCom, and the community's via the February 26 ANI thread[106]), and anyone would expect him to be on his best behavior during this period.

Even while we were discussing his tendentious behavior, Xenophrenic continued this behavior. At Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, he editwarred in the words "Bush defenders." [107] And even one of his defenders at RfC/U, TMCk, who is clearly no fan of mine, admitted that I was right, and that the words "Bush defenders" had no business being in that article and should be removed.[108]

So what we have here is a tendentious editor who has been presented abundant evidence of his tendentious behavior, but refuses to acknowledge that he has a problem, and refuses to improve his behavior. I recommend a topic ban for all articles related to U.S. politics broadly construed. After 18 months of constructive editing on unrelated articles, he can ask for removal of the topic ban. This 18-month period would take us past the 2014 congressional elections, and is necessary for protection of these articles. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think WP:Boomerang should apply here. You've forum shopped to try and get a resolution in your favour on one issue and any review of the article will show long and lengthy and mostly tendentious edits from you on the talk page as well as edit warring on the article before it was frozen. You came late to the discussion otherwise you would have been named in the ArbCom case. You now appear to be attempting to use ANI to remove an editor who disagrees with you and is prepared to engage in the face of you and a couple of other Tea Party editors (and please don't play the I support Obama, but want to see fair treatment to the Tea Party line: it lacks credibility). I gave up on the article as has at least one other editor given the polemical nature of the discussions and you are as much to blame as anyone else. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC has been an entirely partisan affair. The evidence presented has been less than compelling. Just today, User:Phoenix and Winslow linked to a talk page archive containing 271 comments as evidence of Xenophrenic's supposed disruptive editing, with no indication of which edits are supposed to have been disruptive.[109] But the lack of compelling evidence hasn't stopped the members of one side of the content dispute from lining up to certify the "evidence". The plan here is to have Xenophrenic topic-banned so that one side in the dispute can more easily dominate the article content. — goethean 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are two editors who line up on the same side as Xenophrenic in the content dispute. Nobody comes before the community with perfectly clean hands, but it's worth mentioning that even though both Xenophrenic and I were never named as parties at ArbCom, sanctions were contemplated against Xeno, but not against me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of that observation. As Snowded just said above, if you had been editing the TPM article at the same time as the other parties, you almost certainly would also have been named as a party to the ARBCOM case. — goethean 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The difference is that neither of the two editors are trying to use ANI to get you banned from editing. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the concerns expressed by P&L and others regarding Xenophrenic's actions (basically unusually relentless and extensive POV'ing work) are accurate and backed by immense evidence. But I would prefer to see this get more thoroughly developed at the RFC/U. I have little confidence in wp:an's and wp:ani's on topics of general behavior; they tend to go off in random nasty directions and produce random results. I would rather see more thorough work on development and analysis of evidence at RFC/U first. Such might even get Xenophrenic to self-modify their behavior. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, that was the result I was originally hoping for: an admission that he does have a problem, and a promise to change. Unfortunately, no matter how much the evidence is developed at RfC/U, and no matter how tall the pile of evidence grows, the likely result is that Xenophrenic will continue to deny that he has done anything wrong. He will continue to claim that he's the one editing toward NPOV, and all those other editors he's editwarring with are the real POV-pushers, on all those 16+ articles. This is me, giving up on an amicable solution. It's time to discuss a topic ban. RfC/U will continue to be useful, but as an evidence locker for the proceeding here, so that the evidence of his behavior doesn't cover this entire page. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not the time and the place to discuss this. A RFC/U is ongoing. Xenophrenic is engaged at the RFC. You may not think it will amount to any improvement in editing practice or style. It may not. It should be allowed to play out. I'd suggest withdrawing this ANI report. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (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.

Well, actually, some of the behavior was after the start of the RfC, in X's attempt to decertify it. But it's not the right time or place. Is it appropriate to add comments about the behavior of the subject of an RfC/U which occurred after the start, or is it more appropriate to open a 2nd RfC/U against the same editor while the first is still open. One or the other needs to be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Prints of Whales

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 seem to remember there being some sockmaster whose MO is to change date formats all over the place, but I can't remember the sockmaster. Can someone help me out here? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This, along with Neddington Seagoon (talk · contribs), is User:Kipperfield. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:46, 4 June 2013 (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.

Hacker alert

Please be advised: user at 119.160.193.154 seems to be attempting some type of coding hack. For example, see [110]. Lambtron (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just somebody confused pasting code into the wrong place. — Scott • talk 14:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the false alarm, if that's what it is. The edit seemed dubious because the article topic has nothing to do with coding, and I've never before seen edits like this that appear to embed hidden executables. Lambtron (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr J Yip (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but 119.160.193.154 has been blocked for "deliberately triggering the edit filter". Lambtron (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There might perhaps be a connection to User:Doreply who was blocked indefinitely a couple of weeks ago for vandalism, for among other things trying to insert massive blocks of code in a number of articles. Thomas.W (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruption at Nine Muses (band)

Resolved

 – Blocked by GB fan

We have a situation at Nine Muses (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a chronic target of unsourced birthday and position information by multiple disruptive socks and IPs. This is usual for K-pop articles but normally the socks and IPs which add this information stay quiet for a short while once reverted. However a new tendentious account Vgleer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken upon themselves through edit-warring and personal attacks to add this BLP information at first without sources and now using a wiki as source. I reported them at AIV but there is no action there. Now he is vandalising my userpage as I am preparing this report: [111] I would appreciate any help. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• My thanks go to GB fan. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Mattel

Could someone take a look at the war going on at Mattel? I have requested semi-protection of this article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but I am not sure that that alone will solve the problem. By its nature, this article attracts a steady string of editors who want to use the article as a soapbox concerning fairly trivial disputes such as whether the new Mattel Scrabble app on Facebook is better than the old app, plus there appears to be an effort to suppress information on notable controversies such as lead paint in toys. (Full disclosure: I have a COI here; I used to work for and still occasionally consult for Mattel and certain Mattel competitors.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: The consistently-reverted edits actually seem to universally be unsourced soapbox complaints about the new Facebook Scrabble app, boiling down to: “The old Scrabble app had a happy community, and Mattel ruined everything, so everyone is boycotting them.” I know for a fact that at least one editor has been blocked for repeatedly inserting that content. —Frungi (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Invited non-admin comment. Undo the edits, and each time issue a user-warning with one level higher than before — see templates {{uw-unsourced}}. After final warning, report at wp:AIV. Ask for article semiprotection at wp:RPP. I have put a few warnings on the IP's user talk pages already. I'll keep an eye on the article. - DVdm (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it’s really vandalism per se, but actually, doesn’t WP:3RR apply? The insertions are always the same content, usually with slightly different wording. —Frungi (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

When such edits are always unsourced, they can be removed per wp:unsourced, accompanied by a user warning. When the user refuses to react to the warnings, one similar edit after the final warning is usually considered to be vandalism, and as such reported by wp:Huggle at AIV. - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; this is precisely why {{uw-unsor4}} says that people may be blocked for further violations. Any admin who blocks you for a 3RR violation when you're removing this kind of thing from the article would deserve a pile of trouts — this is the kind of graffiti that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant 3RR for adding the same content, again and again. —Frungi (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I already gave User talk:Ccroberts123 a short block for 3rr and he hasn't edited since. Frungi has offered a further explanation there, and I would consider no further action to be necessary unless the problem recurs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Nabaker

User Nabaker (Nabaker (talk · contribs)) has been caught uploading a number of copyright violations on Commons (some of which have already been speedily deleted), and doesn't like it since he doesn't understand that taking someone else's images on the 'Net and uploading them as "own work" on Commons constitutes copyright violation (diff from his talk page). So he has made a personal attack on me on my talk page and has now also made legal threats (see diff 1 and diff 2), threatening legal action unless his images are recreated. Thomas.W (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked, it seems! Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Skirisk

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:Skirisk, a new 'contributor' is repeatedly creating a hoax article: The killgrim/Killgrim. Block per WP:NOTHERE and salt 'Killgrim' just for good measure? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2013 (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.

Chapulling

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

New article attempting to define a neologism, with political motivations. Fast-moving edit history....may need oversight and page protection, if it merits keeping. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Some oversight would be appreciated, as persistent vandalism, deletions, soapboxing, and reconfiguring of comments, driven by social media, persists within the article and its talk page. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Block 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.

---

Please bloack this IP address for this recent edit. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is minor vandalism at most. Total non-issue. --Drm310 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (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:Atcace

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.

---

Vandalising/SPAM only account. Imho best to block it, also he hasn't done any new edits: He has a big energy placing SPAM. Tagremover (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd like an opinion

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 Talk:King's Cross fire

on this edit to King's Cross fire. That edit added a quote made recently (start of 2008) by someone who was on duty at the time - and just so happened to be my father. The next day, an IP address removed it, but didn't leave an edit summary. I would like some advice on the usefulness of that edit; I believe that edit while that edit was a WP:COI edit, it was a net positive and thus came under the scope of WP:IAR. What does everyone else think?--Launchballer 17:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Support the removal. No disrespect to you or your father, but that a fireman attending a major incident with mass casualties found the experience stressful has no encyclopedic value, since it's a statement of the completely obvious. 78.149.172.10 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't add anything to the article. On the other hand, why is this at the admin incidents board? There's nothing actionable, so this thread should be continued at the article talk page. De728631 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (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.

Men's Rights Movement

Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The WP:1RR is not effective because there are too many players on both sides of the field that no one needs to revert twice by themselves within 24 hours. So I am proposing the following:

Any editor that reverts material in whole or in part from Men's rights movement within 48 hours of a previous revert of the same material, either by direct action or by editing, maybe blocked from editing whether or not that editor has themselves reverted the material previously or not.

Either that, or put the article on a 6 month full protection and require the editors to get consensus and an edit request for each and every edit. Those other sysops involved and I are tired of this constant BS. The editors on that article are incapable of editing cohesively.--v/r - TP 14:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I will admit to, at times, having problems with rules, so let me see if I have this right. An editor posts a referenced section. I check the reference then change the phrase "oppression of men" to "discrimination against men" because that is what the source says. Your proposal would mean that no one could change it back to "oppression" for 48 hours? Makes sense, in this little world of nonsense. Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the WP:BRD model and forces everyone to comply.--v/r - TP 14:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If we are trying to eliminate problematic edits, I'm not sure that a doubling of the normal 24-hour window will work. Nor do I like the idea of fully protecting the article as that, too, will create work for admins responding to edit requests. Perhaps what we need to do is impose more topic bans instead of blocks to get rid of single-minded, biased editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a controversial space, but imposing even more draconian rules won't change that. A few reverts isn't that big of a deal, and discussion is happening at talk.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this especially as the issue is due to problem pedants. Pleasetry (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• TParis, I think edit-warring can be considered to have occurred even if the edits are outside the 1RR 24 hour window, and blocks can be made IF a sysop thinks there is gaming going on around a 1rr sanction (this happens all the time at WP:AE). 1RR is the same basic principle as WP:3RR, the technicalities of how many reverts or the space of time is less important than the pattern, and both 3RR or 1RR are "not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". I would have supported the 48 hour 1RR but for the fact that it is a totally novel solution and as an unconventional sanction would lead to confusion. So in this situation Bbb23 is correct, if there is edit-warring (regardless of whether the 1RR is *technically* broken) block/ban because of it. The probation already allows for this, and there are long standing precedents for that kind of judgement. I also think (as I've said for years) we need more uninvolved sysops patrolling this topic area, its not fair to leave this on 2 or 3 ppl's shoulders--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuation of edit warring and using wikipedia to make a point.

Please see the edit history of the Laura Robson article an editor user:Fyunck(click) is demonstrating in the discussion the only reason they have made the removal in the singles section is to make a point and further their POV. This is against Wikipedia rules. Can this please be looked into.

the diffs are provide here for the talk page here and here for the edit simply to be disruptive

Sport and politics (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Multiple editors have told you that this infobox bloating has got to go. I don't see any editors on your side. I make one removal on Laura Robson, and did it without seeing the ongoing discussion on her talk page because it was posted in the middle of a 4 year old thread instead of at the bottom in sequence. Your subject line said read the discussion and not to remove and you moved it back. I looked at it more thoroughly and did not revert your pov again. You seem to want people to leave that info until this is decided (which right now is against you). I said that is at least reasonable (and I didn't revert Laura Robson again) but you can't have it both ways and keep adding it to other articles such as you did at Grigor Dimitrov while this is going on. That's is reasonable also. I have no idea what this is doing here at ANI but it seems to be a slippery slope for you. I even posted about it at Project Tennis so more people would get involved, in case my pov was viewed differently by others. Looking at the answers it would seem not. This was simply a "passing through" item I noticed... but with this frivolous ANI I can assure you my eye is firmly planted on it now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to stop thinking discussion are a mob rule, voting or who get the most people to say the same nonsense. It is about policy based and credible points based consensus not we all oppose this user so are going to oppose what they are doing, just because. Please also see further back in the history where other users have reverted the reverted the removal of the junior results you have also been ignorant of embedded text warning against removal.Sport and politics (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mob rule or at wikipedia "consensus" is how it's done here. There is no policy on jrs in infoboxes. That imbedded text looks like it was put up by you to scare others into not changing it. Almost all the reverting in the last few months has been done by you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

some user is attempting deleting my draft user subpages

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.

---

he claims that i should do all such pages in User:Beetsyres34/sandbox and am not allowed to create such pages for no reason which is against Wikipedia:Userpages#Terminology_and_page_locations Beetsyres34 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

now it is deleted Beetsyres34 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is trying to delete anything. What you've done is to create the sandboxes in the main article space rather than in your userspace. You forgot, when creating the sandboxes, to start the name with User:Beetsyres34/WHATEVER. You created the sandbox with just Beetsyres34/WHATEVER. It looks like someone else has already come along to correct that problem, from what I can read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beetsyres34/alternative 1. Is there anything else we can help you with? --Jayron32 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

ok i get it but it still does not justify the claims that i should do all such pages in User:Beetsyres34/sandbox Beetsyres34 (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the page to User:Beetsyres34/alternative 1 from Beetsyres34/alternative 1 and closed the deletion discussion. You are welcome to name your subpages names that are not "sandbox", as long as they are in your userspace. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2013 (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.

Should this maybe get a revision deletion?

Special:Contributions/Chrusader

The user's only edit is to add a pretty hateful rant to their talk page. I deleted the content, but I thought it was worth bringing here - I obviously can't redact the history or edit summary, and I think it could certainly be seen as "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done and blocked per WP:NOTHERE --Jayron32 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User: BigDataGuru1

this user has attempted to post a link to a promoted event at the page Financial_modeling, and filed a claim at WP:DRN when his edits were reverted. He/she claims to have provided a reference, but it's very clear that the user was only trying to bring attention to the event itself. Furthermore, the word "Guru" in the username is suspicious. I see people calling themselves "Gurus" on Youtube and Google all the time and it usually entails spamming. Please assess.

• Evidence:[[112]]

CarringtonEnglish_*chat* 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The DRN was quickly closed: "No extensive talk page discussion as required by this forum and by all content dispute resolution forums at Wikipedia". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

By going to DRN, he's clearly trying to work out something, but I'm still suspicious. Should he restore the link, spam warnings will be appropriate, and he should be blocked if he persist despite the warnings. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.CarringtonEnglish_*ring!* 03:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and possible socking at AfD

Jimkio12 (talk · contribs) Can somebody please have a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell? There seems to be a case of WP:IDHT wherein Jimkio12 has refused to listen, constantly pushing WP:PORNBIO as a reason to keep, and called Bgwhite a "hybercritic/hypercritic". I've tried and failed to convince him that solely claiming to have a large fanbase without a reliable source does not meet PORNBIO, and it appears that he has resorted to socking - frankly, there are two keep votes wherein both voters have made no edits beyond the AfD nomination. In addition, I suspect that Jimkio12 has forged someone's userpage for his own userspace - any ideas? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI already started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jimkio12 Bgwhite (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, HMSSolent -- Jimkio12 appears to have appropriated his set of userboxes from User:Steam5 (who actually has been editing since Oct 11, 2005 as stated in the first userbox, and is unrelated to the SPI). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't appropriate, considering that Jimkio12 has only been around for less than a month. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The account was actually created in September, 2012, but there's still a seven year difference, compared to what he has been claiming on his user page. So I took the liberty to correct the date in the userbox on his user page. Thomas.W (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, all the references to WP:PORNBIO are irrelevant anyway, because the subject does not appear to be involved in pornography in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

NovaSkola has called both Ninetoyadome and Yerevanci vandals here over edits on the Guba mass grave article. However, it was NovaSkola who was blocked for edit-warring and Ninetoyadome and Yerevanci's edits were clearly not vandalism. NovaSkola has a history of being warned for edit warring, calling reliable sources unreliable out of self-interest, and simply removing content he doesn't like, as can be seen here, here, here and here (This was the same day he was blocked). He has also told Ninetoyadome in the past that, "Your actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account", over the Guba grave again. He was already blocked for edit-warring, but not for his attacks. I want to propose a more lengthy block for repeatedly attacking other users and continued edit-warring despite receiving numerous warnings. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TheShadowCrow. I would also like to mention that NovaSkola continued edit-warring even when there was an ongiong Talk Page discussion regarding the contentious material he/she attempted to add. Furthermore, the material he tried to add that called these groups of people "genocidaires" and people who use "rape as a tool" wasn't backed by the source whatsoever. In fact, the sources don't even mention a word about Guba, Armenia or Azerbaijan. When contesting the matter, NovaSkola sent all the users to Admin intervention, Arbitration Enforcement, and even a SPI in less than one hour. However, it was the AE that WP:Boomeranged the user and placed his current topic ban.

I would also like to mention that I am not fond in the way he had warned and subsequently reported me at all. On my Talk Page he "warned" me by saying, "I will have to report your to admins." Fair enough. However, even when I did not make one edit after that (let alone the fact that I only made one edit on that article that he calls "vandalism"), he immediately commented on my TP by saying, Actually, I will report your disruptive activity to admins for not following Wikipedia's laws on talk page and for section blanking. He basically just "woke up" and said "you know what I'm going to try to ban him" even after I did nothing after his/her warning. Meanwhile however, he had already started his SPI's against me and Yerevanci. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above users. As TheShadowCrow stated above, on May 16, 2013 i added the Armenian version to the Guba Mass Grave article, and i did add my sources, he removed it almost a month after posting it without giving a reason. After reverting his deletion he posted on my wall claiming my account was for "vandalism" only. Recently he began removing my additions, which were sourced, while adding ridiculous claims. He added "sources" to his claims but the links he provided did not mention Armenia, Azerbaijan or Guba. He cited this and this as evidence that Amnesty International said "3000 mountain Jews were killed by Armenians." As you can see both articles were about Yugoslavia. Then he added a paragraph about Armenians supposedly raping Azerbaijani's in Guba and as evidence he cited a book "The men who killed me: Rwandan survivors of sexual assault." He claimed on page 16 it talked about the rape, but page 16 leads to a picture, and the whole book is about Rwanda and has no mention of Armenia, Azerbaijan or Guba. He did the same thing on the Ibad Huseynov page. I added an Azerbaijani source which he did not like, so he just removed it claiming "returning page to normal" while adding information from a propaganda movie that was made about him. I reverted his post and he reverted it back. I posted the reason for my reverts but he never gave me a reason for his reverts. Ninetoyadome (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I already got 6 month topic ban by User:Sandstein for all of this. There is no need to exaggerate, furthermore some of the armenian users also removed my edits without any constructive feedback, by calling' it unnecessary. How about that?--

Furthermore, I've asked admin to please look at this edit by Ninetoyadome in here which includes this reference (Azerbaijani's praise Ibad as a national hero for beheading an Armenian http://s019.radikal.ru/i625/1209/1a/22ed7caf3771.jpg) this completely extremist material, which includes beheading photo and user Ninetoyadome by knowing it deliberately added and I've removed it cuz nobody want to see photo of beheaded random guy from random blog site as a reference. --NovaSkola (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So now they're "your edits"? Weren't they some IP hackers as stated in WP:AE? Also, you didn't get topic banned for "all this"...you got topic banned for mere edit-warring violations. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from calling us "Armenian users". You are treating this like a WP:Battleground and are neglecting the fact that we are Wikipedian editors above anything else. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't said every my edit was hacked, furthermore, why you are bothered so much with Ninetoyadome's edits, it looks like you are like clone of him. Popping up always when he gets in trouble. Moreover, this doesn't mean that edit was right, it was extremist and Ninetoyadome must be warned/sanctioned for it --NovaSkola (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I also would like to admins take a look to this:

user:Ninetoyadome asked to help user:Yerevanci to punish me in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yerevanci#NovaSkola by creating lobbyist group to ban me. Why 2 users work together to work against me? Admin user:Sandstein already warned Yerevanci here who have more warning than me and trying to accuse me as seen in here such as [113]User:Yerevanci/Artagaght that if he keeps continuing violating laws, he will get topic banned. As seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yerevanci#Topic_ban_warning

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise also warned Yerevanci in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yerevanci#Copy-and-paste_moves so he stops damaging articles about Turkish Diplomats.

So looks like user Yerevanci have far worth reputation than me in here, and now by cooperating with NineToyadome accusing me of wrong doing --NovaSkola (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop Personal attack by Mediajet

18:31, 7 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+333) . . Bodu Bala Sena (Reverted 1 edit by Obi2canibe (talk): Ofcource you act like an extremist,not BBS,I know that you are a LTTE sup,but as you are a Wikipedian try to be unbaised. (TW)) by MediaJet Please don't escalate our dispute on Bodu Bala Sena into personal attacks. Comments like "you act like an extremist" and "I know that you are a LTTE sup" are enough for me to report you but I will give you a chance to act civil - like a real Buddhist.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC) So go ahead and Report I dont care,I dont want your chances,What I said is the truth.MediaJet talk 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Personal attack Reply from Mediajet This type of comments will make Wikipedia a battleground. கோபிநாத் 122.172.238.62 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

• The article in question is Bodu Bala Sena
• This incident report is about an edit summary on 07 April 2013 here and that another comment I am unable to find at present
• You can all see both how both editors identify themselves on their respective userpages

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarify

• The article in question is Bodu Bala Sena
• Here the personal attack is Ofcource you act like an extremist,not BBS,I know that you are a LTTE sup,but as you are a Wikipedian try to be unbaised.

The other editor requests him not to engage in personal attacks on his talk page But Mediajet refuses o Report I dont care,I dont want your chances,What I said is the truth. MediaJet stands by his comment. கோபிநாத் 122.172.239.35 (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that "you act like an extremist" is the personal attack? I've been parsing your report for an hour trying to figure out which part you're considering to be one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The incident reporter 122.172.238.62 may possibly a troll set on fomenting discord between User:MediaJet and User:Obi2canibe, who both have made a peace, disengaged from interaction and ceased any name-calling whatsoever over a month ago. Just my opinion. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Day to all !!!
I have fed up editing some of these controversial Wiki pages now,I don't contribute to those Wiki pages any more,truly speaking I don't have time to allocate for such pages.If some one is trying to raise a hand against me,I don't care about that also because I haven't done anything wrong here,Thanks.
See the Whole Discussion between we both :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MediaJet/Archive_1#Personal_attacks
MediaJet talk 13:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How can you say, you haven't done anything wrong after you have said, "I know that you are a LTTE sup" and then "So go ahead and Report I dont care, I dont want your chances, What I said is the truth."?

Thereafter you have come out with stories and not the apology to the concerned editor.

Better make use of this discussion to apologize him in his absentia. May the blessings of the Noble Triple Gem be always with you!

@ Shirt58 - Absence of Gun Fire doesn't mean there is a Lasting Peace.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong to him to Apologise,I can STOP editing Wiki but never Apologise him,What I said is the TRUTH,He is a Tamil Eelam separatist and that's what I said him,Anyone can see that from his user page and some of his contributions..But he has done much to Sri Lanka Wiki Project,I appreciate it,No more Comments,Thanks.MediaJet talk 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

PA removed --- that's just so not on
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well you happen to be a supporter of a genocidal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.53.157 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@ 184.144.53.157 Better if you can return from Canada and see the present situation here rather than Just shouting staying in Canada further I am not a Supporter of any party,I am a Sri Lankan that's all,You will come to know the real roots of this problem,if you read An Introduction to Tamil Racism in Sri lanka Read this as well -> http://www.scribd.com/doc/98322975/The-Mythical-Ethnic-Problem-in-Sri-Lanka-%E2%80%93-Parts-I-II-III-By-Prof-Nalin-de-Silva Thanks.MediaJet talk 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who this anonymous User talk:122.172.238.62 is or why they've started this ANI discussion but I want no part of it. I've moved on, I suggest everyone else does likewise.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Block As user is going to continue with Personal comments in edit summary like LTTE supporter,Bush supporter,Al qaeda supporter,Basque supporter etc.Comment on content and not on contributor is Wiki policy.There is no need to put such comments in edit summary and they are a personal attacks and this will anger other contributors leading to editing conflicts .கோபிநாத் — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.92.128 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@ 122.167.92.128 Good suggestion Mr Gopinath,So then I can save my time,Thanks for your concern :) MediaJet talk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Gul (clothing)

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.

---

Hi My name is Mike Flavelle and I am MD of Gul Watersports Limited or Gul. We are presently listed as "Gul(clothing)" which is incorrect and ifers we are a clothing company which we are not. We are a long-standing surf and sailing brand. How can our title be changed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroleflavelle (talk • contribs) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved to Gul (watersports) as a more accurate title. GiantSnowman 14:09, 5 June 2013 (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.

Blue Water Bridge vandalism mentioning "Laurel Robinson"

Please take a look at the Blue Water Bridge article and the talk page at Talk:Blue Water Bridge. Please take action against the IP address 108.66.8.65 who is the latest one to mention "Laurel Robinson." In the past, the article was vandalised by changing the bridge name to that of "Laurel Robinson." Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They seem to have been much busier last year. I've warned the latest IP and will keep an eye on the article: if it continues the course will be WP:RBI and report to WP:AIV. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Premature archiving of Talk:Newport County A.F.C.

Discussion at Talk:Newport County A.F.C., the most recent contribution to which was made on 16 May 2013, was archieved on 21 May 2013. Surely this is premature? Can someone look and revert the discussion back to the main Talk page if appropriate? Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Owain (talk · contribs) moved Talk:Newport County A.F.C. to Talk:Newport County A.F.C./Archive 2; that is not how archiving should be done (ideally a bot should do it automatically), let's wait for his explanation before reverting. GiantSnowman 08:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the problem that a week after the discussion ended was too soon or that the archiving was done in an improper manner? Are there any guidelines as to what constitutes premature archival? The "move" method is how I have always done archiving in the past. If one looks at the history of the page the size and time intervals are the same between the Archive 1 and Archive 2 pages. Owain (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We have bots that do archiving so that nobody ever does it manually. On heavy-traffic talkpages, archiving may be set up to archive discussions that are a month old ... it's usually longer than that, and a week is ridiculous in 99% of cases. And no, we don't move the page. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am just old school, but the move procedure is the way I have always done it. I was not aware that it had fallen out of use. Apologies for that. Owain (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Barring any objections, I intend to merge the history/content of the current talk page and the two archives at Talk:Newport County A.F.C. - there is not enough talk page content to justify one archive, let alone two. GiantSnowman 12:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't fallen out of use. On low activity talk pages it is still done manually. The bots that do it even have notes in their instructions stating that automatic archival should only be added to article pages if there has been a discussion to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the discussion was archived while still potentially "live". I see no reason why it should have been archived so soon and think it ought to be restored to the main talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means merge them all back together. Maybe my old-school tidiness instinct got the better of me! Owain (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, full history restored to Talk:Newport County A.F.C., I have manually archived everything pre-2013. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not you want a bot to automatically archive in future. GiantSnowman 12:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking for help

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

---

I am looking for some help for Wikipedia. --Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (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.

Anti-Socialist Activity by User:Dodger67

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 do not want to cause too much attention but User:Dodger67 is posting under an anti-socialist pretense. Please do not draw too much attention, but please look at his edits. Thank You Comrades. --Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Jangsu Juche Sasang is just another troll. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What is a troll? Anyway, User:Dodger67 must learn and study Juche and the teachings of Kim Il Sung. I can teach you. Go to your nearest North Korean embassy. --Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jangsu Juche Sasang, your editing pattern and attitude are becoming of increasing concern. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Was funny for five minutes. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2013 (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.

• Oh gawd, D LOLz D LOLz, saltwater LOLz...
  

I've seen so much earnest nastiness of late —on the wik— that it just cracked me up to come across a bit of irreverent frivolity. On ANI no less. It blindsided my funny bone. While I don't wish to encourage Long Live The Workers Party of Korea ! ! ! to escalate (or even to continue) —in the interest of honest disclosure— I have to thank him for the laugh. Improper though it may be. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s. The above apparently picked up the pretty colored field while I was in the edit window as I got an edit conflict and had to merge. As I started it well before the thread picked up it's present décor I'm leaving it here. If this causes anyone to feel overly irked feel free to strike (<s></s>). --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy Family Vandalism By Sock Puppet

User has been constantly reverting cited information, removing family members, page blanking, and he/she refuses to heed to warnings given to myself and other contributors. It is too much for us to continue having to revert the stuff, and it clearly is just being done as a joke

There is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArleneCavendish (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance at the Brazil article

I am simply not sure what to do about an editor that seems not to understand English. At the Brazil the editor in question (User:Vinícius18) is editing in good faith thinking that adding many many many many images is a good idea - but I cant get the editor to understand that sandwiching text between images is not a good idea. Could we get someone that speaks Portuguese to explain our policy on the matter and also explain that adding 9 images of the same person is not a good idea. By the oddly worded questions on my talk page I am guessing that comprehension is a big problem here. Moxy (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG, that entire article is a complete visual mess. It needs serious trimming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply cant keep up ...trying to move images to better locations were possible like here - but image galleries like this with 8 images of the same person i am just removing. Just need the editor to understand the problems at hand.Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say something different but instead I think what we have here is a massive lack of competence. They need to be given a short ban on image uploading until they understand the MOS. There's also a probable language issue here. And BMK has it right. The article starts of placidly but then descends into an eyesore. Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on the editor's talk page asking him not to upload any further images. If you guys could carry on trying to guide him/locate someone who speaks Portuguese that would be great. If he carries on adding problematic images I think a block is the only option, so contact me directly. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I speak both, but the problem here is that everybody just places and removes pics as they see fit. So you really need just a few different opinions -on what is important to showcase- to get to this. I think we can get to some consensus on the talkpage shortly, once the new editors understand what a waste of time this is. Blocking is totally not necessary, other users are already reverting to vandalism because their contributions are undone. Thanks Moxy for your help, like you said, just check it every few weeks or so and revert the lot, not worth an edit war.Magafuzula (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Things like 2014 Fifa Mascot are not really that important though. WP:IRELEV seems to catch quite a few of the problem ones, like 50%+ of the image being dominated by an out of focus sign or sky. This picture was one of four at the small education section which makes it impossible to properly identify the subject from the thumbnail. The article seems much better now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo from university city was interesting because of the history, the junta had it designed like this to avoid students' gathering, but unfortunately this story got lost in the multiple edits (not sure if I put it there in the first place). But the photo was bad. The picture you put in place there is totally insignificant, so I combined the 2 in what I consider the best option.
About taking out the image of Fuleco: -I think we may assume that you care little for soccer- the sports section now goes without any image of the upcoming FIFA worldcup, totally absurd considering the amount of effort and money the whole country puts into this. Easily the single most important event in Brazil of this decade. Everything in Brazil at this moment is about this cup, and the warmer-up Confederations which is about to start. No picture. I think i am going to change this if I can find a more appealing picture, with so many important sporting event coming up this section should reflect the current events, not some dusty old picture of players who are retired.
By the way, we have made a full circle in the last week and are roughly exactly where we were before a few new users started adding lots of pictures. Since they have seen all their contributions reverted I don't think we'll be seeing them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magafuzula (talk • contribs)

Interesting! You are the expert; so I'll move my response to the talk page. Since this ANI will probably be closed as the behavior surrounding the content dispute has been addressed... and the content is being addressed as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor in question is back .... and adding images again after our efforts to trim them down. Did we find someone that speaks Portuguese yet - as its clear they dont understand what is being said to them. On a side note anyone know why the user would make the images all different sizes - as in some 400px some 200px and others 140px? Wondering what type of PC they are viewing this from.Moxy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking at a few more articles the editor in question is editing there are other good faith problem that needs to stop. After a bunch of edits at President_of_Brazil we were let with a bunch of images that did not work see here and also they are simply adding two many images as seen here --Moxy (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Very disappointing to see not one admin reply to and old editor that is asking for assistance. Is there somewhere else we can take this problem to were it may get solved?Moxy (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned out the whole article; there were way too many images, even after reverting. Anyone feel like taking on Brazilian Armed Forces? ;-) If they continue to add images without replying to talk page posts, it falls into WP:Competence territory and the editor should be blocked. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am asking for the editor to be blocked at this point.Moxy (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems a dictatorship. Moxy is the dictator! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Editor is clearly not going to respond to communication effectively; talking is not solving the problem. Blocked indefinitely. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS changes and edit warring related to uncapitalized names

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 a neutral admin please sternly warn Jimthing that it's unacceptable to (a) make a large number of edits that lack consensus (please see his or her contributions; they're numerous and obvious) and then (b) edit war with editors and insist on maintaining those edit while he or she tries to change the MOS? He or she objects to the use of lowercase letters for the names of some people e.g., k.d. lang, danah boyd. That is a reasonable objection but this has been discussed in several venues and the current consensus is to use lowercase letters. Editing against consensus and edit warring to retain those edits while also lobbying to change the MOS is the wrong way to go about things. This is unethical and unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"discussed in several venues" – where please? ...there's been very little comment on my reasoned debate for a clearer resolution to capitalisation, here. Jimthing (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In just one of the articles in which you've edit warred, there is a discussion not only on the very Talk page to which you've already posted but there is also discussion in the archives here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You're welcome to raise this issue again but you're not welcome to ignore the current consensus and edit war against it as you try to change consensus and the MOS. ElKevbo (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, you already knew about many of the previous discussions! So why do you now claim to not know about them? ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this? An editor is abusing the system and bullying others to force their way in several articles. ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (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.

Need assistance at the Brazil article

I am simply not sure what to do about an editor that seems not to understand English. At the Brazil the editor in question (User:Vinícius18) is editing in good faith thinking that adding many many many many images is a good idea - but I cant get the editor to understand that sandwiching text between images is not a good idea. Could we get someone that speaks Portuguese to explain our policy on the matter and also explain that adding 9 images of the same person is not a good idea. By the oddly worded questions on my talk page I am guessing that comprehension is a big problem here. Moxy (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OMG, that entire article is a complete visual mess. It needs serious trimming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply cant keep up ...trying to move images to better locations were possible like here - but image galleries like this with 8 images of the same person i am just removing. Just need the editor to understand the problems at hand.Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say something different but instead I think what we have here is a massive lack of competence. They need to be given a short ban on image uploading until they understand the MOS. There's also a probable language issue here. And BMK has it right. The article starts of placidly but then descends into an eyesore. Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on the editor's talk page asking him not to upload any further images. If you guys could carry on trying to guide him/locate someone who speaks Portuguese that would be great. If he carries on adding problematic images I think a block is the only option, so contact me directly. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I speak both, but the problem here is that everybody just places and removes pics as they see fit. So you really need just a few different opinions -on what is important to showcase- to get to this. I think we can get to some consensus on the talkpage shortly, once the new editors understand what a waste of time this is. Blocking is totally not necessary, other users are already reverting to vandalism because their contributions are undone. Thanks Moxy for your help, like you said, just check it every few weeks or so and revert the lot, not worth an edit war.Magafuzula (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Things like 2014 Fifa Mascot are not really that important though. WP:IRELEV seems to catch quite a few of the problem ones, like 50%+ of the image being dominated by an out of focus sign or sky. This picture was one of four at the small education section which makes it impossible to properly identify the subject from the thumbnail. The article seems much better now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo from university city was interesting because of the history, the junta had it designed like this to avoid students' gathering, but unfortunately this story got lost in the multiple edits (not sure if I put it there in the first place). But the photo was bad. The picture you put in place there is totally insignificant, so I combined the 2 in what I consider the best option.
About taking out the image of Fuleco: -I think we may assume that you care little for soccer- the sports section now goes without any image of the upcoming FIFA worldcup, totally absurd considering the amount of effort and money the whole country puts into this. Easily the single most important event in Brazil of this decade. Everything in Brazil at this moment is about this cup, and the warmer-up Confederations which is about to start. No picture. I think i am going to change this if I can find a more appealing picture, with so many important sporting event coming up this section should reflect the current events, not some dusty old picture of players who are retired.
By the way, we have made a full circle in the last week and are roughly exactly where we were before a few new users started adding lots of pictures. Since they have seen all their contributions reverted I don't think we'll be seeing them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magafuzula (talk • contribs)

Interesting! You are the expert; so I'll move my response to the talk page. Since this ANI will probably be closed as the behavior surrounding the content dispute has been addressed... and the content is being addressed as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor in question is back .... and adding images again after our efforts to trim them down. Did we find someone that speaks Portuguese yet - as its clear they dont understand what is being said to them. On a side note anyone know why the user would make the images all different sizes - as in some 400px some 200px and others 140px? Wondering what type of PC they are viewing this from.Moxy (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking at a few more articles the editor in question is editing there are other good faith problem that needs to stop. After a bunch of edits at President_of_Brazil we were let with a bunch of images that did not work see here and also they are simply adding two many images as seen here --Moxy (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Very disappointing to see not one admin reply to and old editor that is asking for assistance. Is there somewhere else we can take this problem to were it may get solved?Moxy (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I just cleaned out the whole article; there were way too many images, even after reverting. Anyone feel like taking on Brazilian Armed Forces? ;-) If they continue to add images without replying to talk page posts, it falls into WP:Competence territory and the editor should be blocked. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am asking for the editor to be blocked at this point.Moxy (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems a dictatorship. Moxy is the dictator! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Editor is clearly not going to respond to communication effectively; talking is not solving the problem. Blocked indefinitely. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS changes and edit warring related to uncapitalized names

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 a neutral admin please sternly warn Jimthing that it's unacceptable to (a) make a large number of edits that lack consensus (please see his or her contributions; they're numerous and obvious) and then (b) edit war with editors and insist on maintaining those edit while he or she tries to change the MOS? He or she objects to the use of lowercase letters for the names of some people e.g., k.d. lang, danah boyd. That is a reasonable objection but this has been discussed in several venues and the current consensus is to use lowercase letters. Editing against consensus and edit warring to retain those edits while also lobbying to change the MOS is the wrong way to go about things. This is unethical and unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"discussed in several venues" – where please? ...there's been very little comment on my reasoned debate for a clearer resolution to capitalisation, here. Jimthing (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In just one of the articles in which you've edit warred, there is a discussion not only on the very Talk page to which you've already posted but there is also discussion in the archives here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You're welcome to raise this issue again but you're not welcome to ignore the current consensus and edit war against it as you try to change consensus and the MOS. ElKevbo (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, you already knew about many of the previous discussions! So why do you now claim to not know about them? ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please look into this? An editor is abusing the system and bullying others to force their way in several articles. ElKevbo (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2013 (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.

Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People

After all this time, why hasn't Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People been indef semi-protected yet? The issue has been brought to RFPP many times within the past few years already, but each attempt is met with "there is no significant increase in vandalism within the past 24 hours" or something. There is no need for this page to be updated regularly; a new list only occurs once every year, and this can be done by registered users, which means that there is no need for IP editors to edit this page. This page is regularly vandalised by IP editors, who think it's funny/cool to add their own name to the list. Practically 95% of IP edits here are vandal edits, but they occur so infrequently (once every 6 days or so), that people who patrol RFPP think that it doesn't need protection, due to the assumption that a page needs to be vandalised every second in order to warrant protection.

Can someone justify why IP editors should be allowed to edit a page, that only requires constructive editing (read: non-vandal) once every year? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is intended to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If someone casually browsing the article notices a mistake, or a way to way to improve the wording of that article, they should be able to without creating an account. That means there will also be silly stuff added to that article. How is this an incident? --Shirt58 (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not an incident, but the edit notice at WP:AN says "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you.", which suggests that this is the correct place to bring attention to this. RFPP did not work, so the next logical step would be to take it to ANI, which brings more attention.

Yes, many of the things you say are correct regarding this encyclopedia being one that anyone can edit, and I do not disagree with you in regards to that. However, exceptions do exist, and likewise, I cannot edit pages such as Barack Obama or Scientology without logging in. My question is, why, for this page, do we need IP editors freely making edits? How likely are there going to be mistakes, that registered users cannot fix up? Having contributors clean up messes created by vandals every now and then is a pain in the neck, and it would be beneficial if the page was indef semi-protected. If it wasn't obvious already, this article is a vandalism magnet. Think about it: it's a list of the most important people on this planet - which 12 year old kid wouldn't find it cool and awesome to put his own name on there? If I was ten years younger, I'd probably do the same thing too. A overwhelming majority of pseudo-anonymous IP edits to this page are not constructive, and I honestly cannot believe that we're doing anyone a favour by letting non-autoconfirmed users make edits on that page. These vandal edits happen frequently and constantly, but not frequently enough to be convincing enough at WP:RFPP. Until semi-protection occurs, these vandal edits will continue on a regular basis, and reverting these wastes man-hours of good-faith editors who can do other things instead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A total non-issue and a brilliant way to scare off potential new editors. What if there is a spelling mistake to correct? A formatting error to fix? What if a page is moved and a re-direct needs sorting? etc. GiantSnowman 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All these "what ifs", but given the history of that article, how many of these hypothetical "what ifs" occurred in this real world? And no, we're not "scaring away" potential editors, because there are plenty of articles on botany, zoology, popular culture and history that these new editors can freely edit. This one article isn't going to kill Wikipedia if it becomes semi-protected. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody is interested in "botany, zoology, popular culture and history". GiantSnowman 15:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But many are interested in vandalism. My goal here is to minimise or prevent that for this page. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another question for you: Does the Barack Obama article scare off new editors? Article talk pages have a purpose, and if new editors cannot edit mainspace articles, they can make suggestions on the talk page. Now that pending changes has been mentioned (I've never thought of that in the first place, but it's a good idea), that too is a valid way to fix this problem, and I'm open to having this as a compromise. In fact, it might even be a better option, given that pending changes are intended for "Infrequently-edited articles that are experiencing high levels of vandalism... from unregistered and new users". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A broad - and incorrect - generalisation of anonymous editors. Many are actually here to improve Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not generalising IP editors in general. I'm generalising IP editors who edit this particular article. My justification is based on anecdotal evidence based on the article's edit history, which shows a statistically significant correlation between being a new editor and making a vandal edit. The trends in this article are not valid for all of Wikipedia, due to the nature of this article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is generalising IP editors. GiantSnowman 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to my earlier comment "But many are interested in vandalism", "many" does not denote "majority". "Many" refers to any sizeable portion. I don't see how my judgment was incorrect - are you saying that vandals don't exist? Look, I know how IP editors can be beneficial to the project in most cases, and that the large majority of IP editors do make good edits, but in the case of this article, the benefits just don't outweigh the hassles. When calling for semi-protection or pending changes, the means outweigh the ends, because we see very little constructive behaviour on that article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Would pending changes protection be an option here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, pending changes is also a valid alternative solution. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No admin issue here to be resolved, please close and discuss in the appropriate place such as Village Pump. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Sawwooddoow

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.

---

Obvious troll: [114] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave you AGF and several mins to notify said user about this thread; but you still didn't and even made other edits in the mean time. Please make sure you follow policy by notifying users, and it's common courtesy.Camelbinky (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in whether you give me AGF or not - User:Sawwooddoow is aware of this post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1. You two need to stay the hell away from each other, for reals.
2. Did you even bother looking at the contribs, Camelbinky? It's Technoquat, and notifying them after they have outed themselves merely to satisfy some stupid bureaucratic point is a waste of time, at best. — The Potato Hose 20:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Re CamelBinky and me staying away from each other, that's fine by me. I suggest that CamelBinky starts by not following me around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (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:AnotherPseudonym and Carl Hewitt. With a cameo appearance of User:Untalker.

Is AnotherPseudonym (talk · contribs) another sock of Carl Hewitt? Introducing "paraconsistency" in (the talk page) of an article (Material conditional) which doesn't relate to consistency or paraconsistency is problematic at best, and generally indicative of Carl's (students') activity on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone experienced enough to be an admin is bringing an issue here without filing a Sock Puppet Report and without engaging with the editor on the talk page of the article concerned. AnotherPseudonym is a new user, from what I can see on the NLP page s/he is contributing from the basis of some knowledge of the field (I can't answer for Material conditional. There surely has to be some real offence and also some dialogue before an ANI report is made? ----Snowded ^TALK 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter for SPI; the Carl Hewitt sanctions explicitly apply to "meat-puppets". I just found an edit introduced papaconsistency, a Carl Hewitt concept, where it doesn't belong. However, I'm not sure it was AnotherPseudoym who introduced it. I'll have to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If s/he did I can't see it and even so at least talk to them first? Coming to ANI without any engagement or checking seems wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AnotherPseudonym's edits mostly concern neuro-linguistic programming, a topic that has nothing to do with Hewitt, judging by his biography. Despite the word "programming" appearing in NLP, it has nothing to do with computer programming or computer science, which seems to be Hewitt's expertise. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides, Arthur Rubin seems to be crediting Hewitt with far too much when he writes that "papaconsistency" is "a Carl Hewitt concept". Looking at paraconsistency, it seems that Hewitt had no contribution the notion, but that he merely applied it to something in software engineering. In line with the ANI program of today, this is another mountain out of a molehill. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

And finally, Arthur Rubin does not appear to have considered the substance of what AnotherPseudonym wrote [115]: "Also the failure to even mention propositional calculus -- which is the context in which someone is most likely to look up the meaning of the operator -- was an unacceptable omission. By the time someone reaches the study of paraconsistent logical systems they will likely have no need to look up what a material conditional is on Wikipedia. A novice is most likely to look up this entry in wikipedia and they will most likely have encountered the operator in the context of classical/Boolean propositional calculus." AnotherPseudonym merely gave "paraconsistent logical systems" as an example of advanced material in logic. He did not try to introduce it anywhere. He was actually arguing for something rather opposite, namely that page on the material conditional needs to be simplified and made more accessible for beginners in logic. Building a whole bang bang theory from that aside is rather worrisome when coming from an administrator like Arthur Rubin. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys and gals, this is discussion some real Wikipedia weirdness. I'm not Carl Hewitt (and I don't know who that is). Prior to registering the account AnotherPseudonym I was contributing to the maintenance of the NLP article without an account so you can see my IP address there. I was actually arguing against introducing notions of paraconsistency in the lead of an article on a logical operator. I mentioned paraconsistent logics because Incnis Mrsi criticised me for (apparently) failing to consider that the equivalency which I specified is valid only with respect to classical/Boolean logics; a substantial chunk of the non-classical/non-Boolean logics are those that termed paraconsistent. For this reason I read Incnis Mrsi's criticism as suggesting that the lead (and article?) should maintain a generality which makes it true over all logics -- paraconsistent included. I disagree with that idea and I thought I made that clear in my commentary (and the actual lead). Incidentally, Paraconsistent logic is not the idea of a Carl Hewitt; rather it is a major field of study in philosophy (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/). This seems an especially bizarre discussion. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I am now intrigued by Carl Hewitt and am trying to work out how a logical operator can elicit a level of passion that would cause conflict that would warrant administrative intervention. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't get too intrigued before looking at WP:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. The article at Carl Hewitt is under indefinite full protection. Hewitt has amply deserved the admin attention that his edits have received. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the devil... Can admin attention be directed at Untalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This seems far more likely to be Hewitt or a student of his based on the massive promotional contributions actually related to Hewitt and going on for the last three years. Here are some diffs although all his contributions except the minor edits are clearly Hewitt-related [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]. I think this is what is called a single-purpose account. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Now knowing who Carl Hewitt is I wish I was him -- he has achieved much more than I have. :) His main body of work appears to be in software and in what is termed "incosistency robustness" and paraconsistent logic comes up in relation to that. I don't think a reflexive association between "paraconsistent logic" and "Carl Hewitt" -- as exhbited by Arthur Rubin -- is justified though, he hasn't made any major contribution to paraconsistent logic as far as I can tell. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like "incosistency robustness" is some application of paraconsistent logic to computer theory. If one bothers to search for "paraconsistency" in Google Books, there are at least a dozen books covering the logic topic and are not written by Hewitt and most if not all such books don't even mention him or his computer application. On the other hand, this discussion turned up another account, Untalker, which clearly has been promoting Hewitt on Wikipedia for the past tree years and has done little else. Looking at the ArbCom log, the situation should be handled similarly with how Madmediamaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was dealt with. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. Looking at the user contributions, see no reason to think the account User:AnotherPseudonym is related to Hewitt, but the account User:Untalker very strongly resembles an SPI for articles related to Hewitt and the Actor Model. However, to give Untalker a chance to prove me wrong, I would recommend just a topic ban for User:Untalker from all articles related to Carl Hewitt and the Actor Model. If the account is unrelated to Hewitt, they should be free to edit other topics. — Carl (CBM · talk)

(Did you mean to say an SPA?) They've been here for three years and never yet shown any interest in editing anything else, so a topic ban in preference to a block seems bureaucratic enough. And I'm not sure there's widespread enough interest in this thread to get a healthy consensus either way w r t a topic ban. But let's have a proposal and prove me wrong. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC).

I did mean SPA, thanks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for User:Untalker

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.

---

• Proposal: Per the above comments, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and per their contributions, User:Untalker is topic banned from all articles related to Carl Hewitt and the Actor Model, broadly construed. Please record your opinion below. As proposer, I support the ban. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC).
• OK. Psychotropic sentence (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons explained by Bishonen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, not that my judgment is to be trusted. Appears not only to be an SPA, but an SPA on Hewitt presenting Hewitt's views. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: In the hope of attracting more business, I've just mentioned this thread on AN, comparing the spotty interest in Untalker (who has been compromising the integrity of articles for three years), unfavorably with the latest civility block forest fire there. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
• Support as being the least disruptive method of dealing with the problem. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ms. Shonen and Dennis. — Ched :  ?  15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a non-admin, simply because this is the sort of thing that matters here. This is the sort of behavior that will do serious damage to the credibility of the encyclopedia. Intothatdarkness 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose They barely edit, and edits like this are fine. There isn't actually a policy against SPAs, we're just supposed to count their votes when we "don't vote" less. NE Ent 23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, SPAs are OK in general. The difference in this case is that Untalker is almost certainly a sockpuppet of a banned user. The topic ban would allow them to continue edit if, somehow, they are not a sockpuppet. The other option is just to block the Untalker account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 7 June 2013 (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.

Stalemate in Southern Palestine

This article has been subjected to disruptive editing between 31 May and 2 June, when large chunks of information were cut before any discussion. The article has also been tag bombed. [124], [125], [126], [127]. There are many more examples. Attempts to discuss the problems on the talk page [128] have been side tracked by the issue of the unidentified editors who have not edited any other articles, but who are clearly experienced. They may even be sock puppets. As it stands the infobox of the article has been cut and despite being discussed on the talk page [129] an attempt to reinstate it was undone. [130], [131] There has been a lack of social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively, demonstrated during the disruptive editing. [132] Reasonable responses to posts on the talk page have been ignored [133], [134] or attacked. [135] Could the article be reinstated including infobox, while a discussion about problems takes place. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(Although I know a bit about this subject, I did not see this article before.) This is an extremely long and detailed article (more than 210K) about a subject that is not extremely important (but important enough for an article, imo). Rskp wrote most of it and now defensively resists any effort to reduce it in length. As far as I can see, the main editors engaged with the article are acting in good faith and it is quite wrong to describe the problem as a behavioral one (unless it be the "ownership" problem). It doesn't really belong on this board but should go to some content noticeboard. Zero^talk 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Have people brought the Israel/Palestine conflict into this article? It seems to pop up in articles that are decades removed from the current conflict, even when the articles (like this one) involve conflicts between other groups in the same region. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the I/P conflict is not part of the article or the argument about it. Let's keep it that way. Zero^talk 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Its not true that I "now defensively resists any effort to reduce it in length." The article stands in tatters and has been for days without any meaningful discussion about the article's problems. Anonymous edits have been made disruptively Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in a slash and burn way, while at the same time the article has been tag bombed. Its the disruptive editing attacks which are the reason this article has been posted here. --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Scrolling to a random point, we find:

In addition to 67 water carts, each mounted brigade required the following transport,

• 4 Brigade Headquarters transport wagons = 413
• Regimental transport wagons per regiment = 3920
• Machine Gun Squadron transport wagons = 204
• Brigade Field Ambulance transport wagons = 4.[275][276]

These wagons were deployed in three echelons

• "A" Echelon commanded by an officer, consisted of 21 Limbers and 4 water carts

...

Ye Gods! EEng (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, everyone acknowledges the article is too long. But what about the disruptive editing, the tag bombing and then leaving the article in tatters, without initiating any meaningful discussion? The infobox is still cut for goodness sake!! --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The first three edits which have been labelled "reverts" were to cut the grammar tag, explaining that a copyedit had been requested from the Copyeditors Guild. The second edit cut the notability tag noting that a discussion was moved to talk page, which I initiated. Instead of a discussion on notability the fact that anonymous editors were making the cuts was focused on. The third reinsert reinserted "10,000" "which emphasises the scale of the two defeats‬." These were all good faith edits and not reverts. --Rskp (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to all, after some thought I've hatted this part since it has nothing to do with issue at hand and would cause an unnecessary digression. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had an encounter with RSKP in Battle of Nablus (1918), which popped up at WP:GOCE as I'm a member. I tend to keep articles i've copyedited on my watchlist so I can revisit them every now and then to tweak here and there, but this one I took off my watchlist after a thoroughly dismissive comment from her in this talk page section. Rather than argue over her lack of civility, I posted to an admin who had previously been asked to provide an opinion in that article, left a final comment and unwatched the article. Blackmane (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Relevance was the issue Blackmane was referring to: "highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)" and I replied, "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)" Blackmane chose to unwatched the article because of those few words. So be it. But, what has this polite exchange to do with disruptive edits to the Stalemate article? --Rskp (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I should have noted in my edit summary that it was a follow on comment to Zero's statement above. In response, if you do not see that as dismissive of another editor's opinion then I have nothing more to say. Blackmane (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, I thought this was about disruptive edits of the Stalemate in Southern Palestine article. --Rskp (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, I've hatted off my comments as they weren't really salient to the discussion even factoring it in as a response to Zero's observation. That being said, the only comment I'll make re this article is that this is not disruptive editing so much as pruning. The efforts of the IP's should not merely be dismissed as the work of sockpuppets, a flagrant lack of AGF. There's just a great deal of ownership being displayed here. Quite frankly, most of the material here could be incorporated into other articles as an Aftermath-type section and the rest of the padding and filler dispensed with, but that's a content discussion not to be had here. Blackmane (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone concerned by the disruptive edits? --Rskp (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles J. Hynes

The article for Charles J. Hynes is almost entirely in a negative POV, for which I tagged it as such. I also removed a number of portions which are copied word for word from various media sources. The negative information has been added by a couple of editors who have edited this article almost exclusively. One has undone my removal and is now edit-warring to keep the plagiarized material in the article. The editor has also refused to engage me on his talk page. Some additional eyes would be appreciated. Grsz 11 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard [136]. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• One of the two warriors is now blocked. The other is practically an SPA and is not playing by the BLP and NPOV rules. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

edit warring, misinformation, and BLP vio

24.130.62.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be disrupting Hossam Mohammed Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He would like to claim Iraq has WMD, despite the many sources to the contrary in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, in a BLP no less, and he's way over 3RR. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for misrepresenting sources and edit warring. Had to go and read the whole Huffington article first, so it took a few minutes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have offline source he says claims that Iraq has WMD; given the immediate BLP considerations present, I've removed it for now. We can decide later whether "Seal Target: Geronimo" was being misrepresented too, in which case it can be restored, or whether it is an extreme WP:FRINGE work, contrary to essentially everything in the Iraq and weapons of mass destruction article, which should be permanently excluded. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That can be decided on the talk page, and if there are conflicting sources, that can be handled there. Warring over content when the first source contradicts, however, isn't fruitful. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

Hello! I came here to bring IP Users 2.133.54.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.76.79.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 217.76.68.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...... to your attention. I am exhausted of correcting their POV edits on facts about religions and races. As you can see on [[137]], [[138]]......, their contributions have been continually reverting good faith edits from different users on these pages for a long time! Could any admin decide what to do about this editor? Thank you!Chris1636 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Slight problemo

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

---

I am not sure where to post this, so I am posting it here. I have tried to edit Demographics of Uzbekistan about 6 times now to no avail. I have clearing up and updating some statistics on the page, and when I try and submit some information , none of my edits go through. I have e-mailed WikiCommons and some other Sysops, and no one has gotten back to me. I even tried editing under a proxy (Slovenian proxy) but to no avail.

I am literally at the point where I want to throw my office chair across the room. I have already broken some keys off my keyboard (the C, H and F keys) and punched a small hole in the wall. I am very angry now, 6 times I have tried to edit this page. I have a bit of a short temper and I am known to take out my anger on inanimate objects. It took the Helpdesk like 4 hours to answer my question about proxy servers. I am very close to vandalising Wikipedia in my anger but I have such respect for Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia foundation in general, I will not do so. --Warrink Lubjublana (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I find all of this extremely difficult to believe. In any case, click here, make your edits, include an edit summary, and press 'Save Page.' — The Potato Hose 20:19, 6 June 2013 (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.

Accused of personal 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.

---

User:Ï¿½ has put a personal attack template on my talk page, but I am unsure why? I have not made any personal attacks. It is my 'last warning' apparently ? I am confused. --The East is Red (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. You might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG

I see no specific "personal attacks" as such, but your habit (and almost your only edits) of placing a random quote from Chairman Mao, together with a large portrait, onto other editor's talk pages certainly isn't going to win you any friends. Please desist. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, socking. Time to close. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2013 (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:Thibbs

The entire discussion: User talk:Despatche#C1, User talk:Thibbs#C1_and_SF1, Talk:C1 (television), Talk:SF1 (television).

I can't deal with this editor anymore. He deliberately ignores any given statement for reasons I do not know, and at no point have I shown him such behavior. He somehow uses this as a springboard to be accusatory and condescending without any sort of provocation or, again, some kind of similar prior behavior on my part. The worst of it at all is that he actually has a point, and it was one conclusion I came to when dealing with these articles (the why-I-didn't is all over the pages). But how am I supposed to acknowledge this when he seeks to destroy with that point? I've been writing myself in circles for reasons I don't even know now... I don't know what to do. Despatche (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you feel he is condescending (I am not saying he is), why do you lower yourself to that level and say "He doesn't understand what an SPS is. He cannot read these words that are on this bright screen which is probably destroying whatever eyesight he may have. Why does he still exist?" As much as you -may-have a point, it might be worthwile to try to see if you can understand his line of thinking and come with a reaction to that other than: "it's on the box, so no other opinion is possible". L.tak (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Content wise, there's only yourself and Thibbs discussing this, since the discussion has started to run in circles then it's time to go to one of the noticeboards for outside opinion. Try WP:DRN, WP:RSN (which Thibbs already suggested) or WP:3O. That being said, Thibbs has been incredibly calm in their approach to discussion. At a few points you descended into unnecesarily aggressive ad hominems. Was this amount of snark really needed? If you really feel that Thibbs is actively blocking the discussion then raise an RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as much as I'd love to start an RFC/U, no one's going to bother honoring it, because apparently Thibbs is some kind of "trusted editor" and is free of all obligations. Time to run yet another lap around his little track... Despatche (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would honor it. I'm not perfect and I admit that freely. But I'm not worried that I've done anything sanction-worthy, though. I think you'd be wasting your time with an RfC/U, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all I completely refute the claim that I'm ignoring you, Despatche. I've read everything you said and tried to respond appropriately. I will note, however, that despite my repeated requests that you provide sources for your claims you still have failed to produce a single one and that despite my repeated requests that you cease to make edits in furtherance of your disputed vision of the Right and True name for the article, you continue to do so with abandon.

Now for any condescension that you may have felt, I apologize. If you're referring to my reference to when I was new at Wikipedia, then that was just my clumsy attempt to show you that I understand where you're coming from and don't consider you to be arguing in bad faith. Telling you in the same post to "try actually reading WP:SPS" was probably a bit ruder that it could have been, but the frustration here runs both ways. The question of whether box/packing material is a self-published source or not is absolutely tangential to anything and is a very silly thing to dwell on. SPSes can be used as sources in situations like this because the topic of the article is the product of the companies that printed the box. My objection to your use of the box as a source has nothing to do with its status as an SPS. I'm objecting to your sourceless interpretation of the box to differentiate between descriptor, logo, product code, and official name when the reliable sources on the subject all seem to disagree with you. SPSes (and indeed all sources) can be cited for actual claims, but nowhere on the box is the claim made that "XY is the official name of the product contained herein." You're basing your argument on the assumption that it is obvious to the world that "W is the descriptor, XY is the official name, and Z is the company logo". I think you need sources to back that up because it is not obvious to the world at all. In fact all of the reliable sources I could find suggested differently.

I'm willing to go through an RfC/U or through DR or 3O, but I still think that this question would best be handled by throwing it open to all members of WikiProject:VideoGames. Let's let the community weigh in on the content. Would you agree to that, Despatche? Let's leave the higher-level remedies to our disagreement for later if they are indeed necessary. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully support bringing it to WP:VG; it is active enough that its usually a good place to get a consensus going. For the record, in my experience, I find Despatche's report very hard to believe. Thibbs has been a great editor, very helpful in discussions on source reliability. I've never seen him act incivil. Anyways, I absolutely think an RFC/U is not necessary for Thibbs, of all people. I think this is strictly a content/source issue. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are a liar! You have been deliberately ignoring many key and non-key points, all with a strangely arrogant flair that does not befit you. As much as I would like to know why, all I can really understand is that it's making you look like a horrible person who has some kind of cruel deficiency (I apologize a thousand times but what is that going to do). Now, I wanted to avoid content territory, but:

I'm not sure I can trust anyone who thinks SPS has anything to do with the actual subject of the article (the television, the box it came in, the manual, etc); whether or not the product itself is an SPS is important here, when it's the only valid source to find a name from; "the world" doesn't care one whit what the thing is called. I've already explained a hundred times why "this is this and that is that" is more than simple conjecture, and why I'd still like more official material anyway. I've already said again and again that I don't object to this full title, because it's still correct in a sense (I would prefer ", fully known as <x>,"; mind that adding this descriptor makes the name a bit fancier than it might need to be, never mind that UCN is exactly why you want "C1 NES TV" so damned bad. And I've already said again and again why I object to that "C1 NES TV"; because it's wrong on a fundamental level, you know it's wrong, and the only reason you're giving it any thought is because one guy ran a story on it and the others bandwagoned way too hard. When things like that are found, shouldn't that start to make these sources a little less reliable, not more?

Whatever. In any event, it wasn't until now you even tried being "civil" again, and the why to that is a mystery to me too! Why should I be civil to someone I see as a monster? Despatche (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

1. No personal attacks.
2. Can you specifically provide some difs where Thibbs allegedly treated so poorly? Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, having read the talk page discussions it was Thibbs having to deal with your round and round points. Also, attacking the user you are aiming to report, calling them a "liar" and "monster", is going to result in a wicked boomerang. Blackmane (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely coming from him. You only go round and round because someone else leads you in a circle.

I've gone through all the labelled reliable sources, official or not, gone through all the valid info imaginable with a simple "this is here, how does it stand" and bringing in the necessary consistency checks to solve that. But I have come to the conclusion that there is a disconnect in the later unofficial sources as there always seems to be, because someone reported something wrong and we all get to deal with that. I have come up against a champion of such reporting, and he absolutely refuses to listen to reason to the point where he is outright ignoring anything, no matter where that info is coming from (he ignores key details of his own Google spamming, for Christ's sake).

What else can you really do except continue and continue putting down what's "right" (as determined by reliable sources) until they either realize that there's a disconnect (good), give up and leave you alone (bad), or ignore everything and resort to trickery to "win" anyway (harmful)?

Go ahead and cuff me for the "monster" comment, but how is calling someone a liar supposed to be a personal attack when you've come to the conclusion that this is what they're doing after careful deliberation and you're treating it as a fact? Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the flood gates seem to be open: "descriptor, logo, product code, and official name"? Where is all this coming from? Are you making things up now, no longer content to just ignore what you don't like? Sorry, but there's only one time where anyone "gets" to make stuff up at all, and it's done with an entirely different spirit that doesn't even really "ignore" anything.

I have only mentioned "the name" and a so-called "descriptor"--a description located near that name that is a common part of '70s and '80s tech styling, which could easily be interpreted as part of the name. Here's an example of Sharp's descriptors in action (you can find tons more of "pasokonterebi x1" all over Google, it's the same scenario), here's another example from Sega... and here is what you actually want (inb4 you try to use it as proof of something). So, "My Computer TV C1" is as valid as "Perso-Com TV X1"; actually, good luck figuring out how to romanize that thing, because it's got to done!

This is what I've been saying the whole time, I've had to say it in at least 3 different ways across 3 different pages at any one time, and you still choose to ignore most of it, even as I've kept up with every single word for the sake of discussion. Boggles the mind, it does. And for the last time, I'm fixing bad links to disambiguations, because they don't just fix themselves during petty squabbles. You can go on and on about how I'm trying to whitewash this and that, but you know as well as I do that fixing formatting circumstances from a recent rename are separate to any discussion on the actual rename. Despatche (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, here's what Thibbs really wants; let's say Kotaku or whoever made up a new name for the PlayStation 3, or even kept referring to the Wii as the "Revolution", and for whatever reason most of the other big names followed... yeah. Can't wait for someone to tell me just how valid that is anyway. Despatche (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not going to let you bait me into responding to your content-related arguments here. I've already told you that centralized article-talk-page discussions are the most helpful for content matters and AN/I is neither the time nor the place for carrying on a tempestuous content dispute. Remember why you came here: it was to get administrative action regarding my behavior. Cut and paste the above content-related paragraphs into article talk space if you want a response to them. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Despatche

This is all strictly content-based, and thus, not the right place to discuss this. Thibbs has done nothing out of line here, this seems like nothing more than Despatche being exasperated that he's not convincing Thibbs. This isn't the place for solving content disputes. Despatche, set up an RFC or something, and someone make sure WP:VG is notified. Let's close this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a behavioral issue; see here and here. He continues to accuse and put words in my mouth, and very likely he'll ignore half of my response to prove some point of his, just as he's done so many times before. If it's a content issue, it's because he keeps bringing up the content here, and I apologize for even entertaining it. Despatche (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The diffs you linked to are all the same. I'd really like to see evidence of Thibbs putting words in your mouth in that diff. They (singular gender neutral usage) even linked to diffs of your accusations. Looking back through some of Thibbs work on those articles, there's been nothing but constructive edits. Some of this is rising to histrionics. Quite frankly, this should be closed down forthwith and a request put through to WP:3O. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand at all, Despatche. That first link in your last post is Thibbs calmly asking you not to make outrageous claims against such as calling him a "monster", something you indisputably said right here in these very discussions. That is your lead-off, best example of him putting words in your mouth? Him mentioning a personal attack you literally called him? Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Despatche meant to link my talk page here. It's another case of him latching onto some tangential phrase I've used that drives him to distraction and causes him to completely miss the central point of my argument. The same thing has happened with his mania about my reference to corporate-produced source materials (fliers, ads, box art, etc.) as SPSes. That seems to have really gotten his dander up for some reason. Anyway I'll avoid posting to his talk page except about business issues (future RfCs, community matters, or serious warnings) until he's calmed down and I'll just ignore his tone. I guess I don't really care that much if he wants to cast me as a destroyer of some kind. I think my record speaks for itself. And as I suggested on my talk page I think he's really just harming his own positions by taking such a pugnacious stance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds good. I do think some sort of RFC or WP:VG-wide discussion is necessary. I've only interacted with Despatche once before this, but he acted the same way towards me when I asked him a single question on why he changed the capitalization of a sub-title on my watchlist. Even a simple question like that sparked this response on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_7#re:_Ristar_.28read:_why_I.27m_batshit_insane.29 - Is this just how he interacts when questioned? I don't know. But if we show that the community doesn't support what he's doing, then at least maybe he'll stop with his misguided malice towards you. (Alternatively, if the community does side with him, that'll settle things as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I initially tried helping at Talk:C1 (television), but quickly backed away due to my lack of time to meaningfully argue, and due to the fact the discussion was generally looking like it wasn't going anywhere helpful. I strongly recommend making a full-fledged WP:RM and notifying WT:VG. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at this! So much accusing, so much condescending nonsense. Now I have to defend myself, look like a fighter, even though you guys threw the punches!

So this response is somehow a problem, even though it answers your question perfectly? How does this, at all, compare to what we have now? What is this "tone" you're speaking of? If I was a bit brusque with the language there, I apologize, but I would like to point out that a "why do you feel" question does not call for a simple answer. And apparently I can't just tell someone what I truly believe that are, because that's somehow a "tone" issue that requires I need to be ignored? Do you guys really think I'm trying to insult you? Why do you automatically assume it's "misguided malice" simply because Thibbs has "good standing"? Why bother me about "equals" when you've tried as hard as you can to be above such? And why are you worried so much about "fighting"?

Above all, why do you guys keep accusing me of things that I'm not doing, why do you keep hiding things from me, and why do you deliberately ignore things I say? I did not target any one "tangential phrase" when speaking to Thibbs then, I targeted them all, because they all needed to be answered. And so I target them all again. I take issue with his description of an SPS because it's completely wrong both according to Wikipedia and according to reason. Ignoring terminology, corporate-produced material is a more reliable source when it comes to the name of the product they produce. How can this possibly be up for debate?

There is a problem, there's proof that there's a problem, there's an easy fix, and all I have is opposition who can't put down one status quo in favor of another, even though this not-so-new status quo would be more beneficial to pretty much everyone. Despatche (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, really, why are people here so obsessed with this "fighting"? They don't want to sit down and really discuss anything, they want to beat each other up all day like this is some game. Despatche (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also softly recommend you drink some tea, maybe have a nice walk, and stop seeing accusations everywhere? I hear Tai Chi is an excellent way to maintain a calm, positive and zen attitude at all times. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

More snark, huh? You want an accusation? Okay: I think the real reason you ran from that discussion is because you can't do anything without a bunch of cruel snark. There, happy? I'm not "seeing" anything, I'm not ridiculously angry or whatever; these things are actually happening, and I feel the need to point them out, because they're being used as weapons to shut me down. Despatche (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm giving honest recommendations about how to deal with the obvious stress this is causing you; if that is cruel, then Ghandi must've been the root of all evil. Trying to argue with your ideas because there is disagreement and "trying to shut you down" are two different things entirely... although when the only position you're willing to defend is that your idea is indubitably correct and that anyone disagreeing isn't being rational, I can certainly understand why what should be a productive discussion feels more like conflict. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am filled with disquiet at the general tenour of this discussion. User:Despatche is clearly angry about the content dispute but this remains only a content dispute; there is no evidence that User:Thibb is a 'monster' or has behaved even faintly uncivilly tot he point of requiring administrative action or sanctions. There should, instead of this type of discussion, be instead a conversation with an arbitrator (not ArbCom, of course, but a neutral party to offer up a balanced analysis of the content issue and work out a reasonable consensus within the Videogame Wikiproject. I firmly also believe that the request for checkuser (RFCU) mentioned earlier is inappropriate since there is no evidence that User:Thibb is sockpuppeting or abusing the system in anyway. DrPhen (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not look and I have not felt angry at all about any of this (at best, I'm a bit annoyed that Thibbs cannot understand Wikipedia principles, and that all three of these folks still insist on deliberately ignoring things), but that's a perception and there's not a whole lot I can do about that. But I have made it very clear that this is a behavioral issue, and carefully pointed out when and why. If this has somehow become a content issue, it's because Thibbs keeps pointing out the content, and I have to talk about that content on the page it's presented. (I beliexperienceeve they meant RFC/U, though I don't think that will be any more or less helpful than RCFU, haha.) Despatche (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK the article talk page discussions seem to have completely stalled so I'm ready to carry on with the content issue with the help of community input. The question is which forum would be most appropriate. Suggestions above include 3O, RfC, RM, and DRN. Which of these sounds like the best method to move forward? There are two articles but if possible I'd like to have a single discussion covering both topics. This AN/I thread can carry on in parallel with minimal input from me, I think. -Thibbs (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have had positive experiences with the formal request or comment feature (my apologies for mixing up acronyms above). based solely in my it has been fast, effective, and useful. A third opinion as you noted may be useful. I really don't see this as a good candidate for admin intervention since User:Thibbs has not even come close to breaking policy and this is mostly a content dispute rather than a situation in which User:Thibbs has done something meriting some kind of sanctions or adjudication. DrPhen (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK I've filed an RfC now. It seems awkward to try to shoehorn them both onto a single page, but I'm not sure I see a better option. Anyway I've dropped a note at Despatche's talk page and hopefully that will provide a better outlet for his constant stream of content-based arguments than this thread. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a reasonable consensus from uninvolved editors that Thibbs has been going about this the right way and the content issues are going to be addressed by the RFC that has been raised. Despatche, I'm sure you will disagree with my summary but as you read above you'll find that virtually no one agrees with your interpretation of events. This is not to say we're slappingy you on the wrists or anything just that there is a consensus (more or less) that the bahavioural issues you are accusing Thibbs of just isn't seen by those who have commented here. My advice, whether you choose to take it or not, is to let the RFC run its course and accept the consensus that is developed there. If you still feel that your perspective is justified, seek the dispute resolution noticeboard's help. Beware though, seeking all avenues for a justification of your opinion is forum shopping. Beyond that, I move that this be closed. Blackmane (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm of course biased here, but I agree that a close would be in the best interest of all. I wanted to note for the record that Despatche is behaving admirably in the RfC at present. -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree as well. There's nothing actionable here. Let's get this closed, or let it sink into the archives. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing

I borrow the term "whitewashing" from Despatche above. I was wondering if someone could please speak to him about going systematically around performing edits in furtherance of his contested page move. Since learning that his move was controversial he has continually made edits in support of his controversial decision. I have asked him many times to stop "fixing" redirect so that they point to his new titles (diffs: 1, 2) and to stop performing page moves of other articles to make room for his new title (diff: 1, 2). But I see that he has only spread this kind of edit across to en.Wikipedia's non-English sister projects (diff: 1, 2). I would like it if he could leave the terms alone until we've finished discussing the matter because newcomers who aren't familiar with his editorial style might wrongly assume that the whole brace of new terms that he's added are the terms that have been in use a long time. They might then wrongly assume that there's a degree of consensus by silence when in fact these are all controversial moves and link alterations on his part. I've only met with hostility when I have asked him to stop making this kind of edit so could someone else give it a try? -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem still ongoing. -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's gaming the system. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for topic ban

• Evrik (talk · contribs)

This user has been warned multiple times about their non-free file usage. I have warned the user multiple times about this, however they refuse to listen. Most recently Scouting in Massachusetts where the user is re-inserting files that lack rationales. I do not want to see a useful editor blocked over this, so I am seeing an alternate method. A topic ban with regards to the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• First, this is an extension of the debates on Scouting in California and Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine. Werieth has just retaliated by asking for this ban because I warned him that his edits were about to become 3RR. Werieth claims that "enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR." However, if you look at the edit summary for each of the edits, the editor says, "missing non-free use rationale's for this article," and yet each of the five images does have an appropriate rationale. This is simply retaliation, or a bullying tactic. I refer you to this and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_20#State_articles this for some of the backstory.

I will also note that to date, none of the images in question have been deleted. --evrik ^(talk) 20:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note that the version of the file description page does not have a rationale and was only added after I filed this request. Werieth (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I added two that were specific to the page in question, but three of the five were correct. --evrik ^(talk) 20:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And I never touched those files. I only removed the files that lacked a rationale for that article, per my edit summary. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
      • As a measure of peace, I have withdrawn the 3rr notice. Can we agree the article is okay as it is and just move on? --evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Actually the 3RR report was in response to this request, almost 10 minutes before the 3RR report was filed. Werieth (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. I made the warning first. You just beat me to the punch. The 3RR form is more intricate. ;-) I have to go engage IRL now. TTYL. --evrik ^(talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this is a retaliatory filing and should be considered as such.PumpkinSky talk 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, retaliatory filing. Trout Werieth and close the discussion. Cavarrone 15:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't knbow if a trout is needed. This issue appears to have calmed down. --evrik ^(talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Chartered Institute of Management and Leadership is unambiguaous copyright violation of here and here. I added a CSD G12 tag and it was removed twice by 197.255.175.22 (talk) diff 1, diff 2. I warned the user after the second removal (here). The template has now been removed again by 197.242.106.101 (talk) diff.

I suspect that the two IP's are the same person and could also possibly be the page creator Israel henry (talk | contribs)‎. Their user page also contains the same content and I have also tagged that for speedy deletion. I think that its pretty clear that this page is in violation of copyright and should be deleted so can someone please do that because I don't want to get into an edit war trying to keep the CSD template on the page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuked it. Looking into the IPs involved... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to say exactly what's going on without a full SPI (which I encourage you to file if you feel it's appropriate). I think it's clear that User:Israel henry = User:CIML USA, which suggests an American origin, but although the IP edits are jolly suspect, they geolocate to Nigeria... My advice would be to keep a close eye; report Israel henry if they add any further copyright infringements, but otherwise don't worry overmuch about it. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda

User is citing unreliable and inaccessible sources to stamp his Jainism religion on historic figures like Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. Nature of religions keeps evolving over centuries and millenia. It is impossible to tell what was religion of historic figures, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism or some other similar religion. There will always be conflicting sources. It is better not to stamp religion on historic figures but user looks religious fundamentalist with specific agenda on wiki. You decide. I don't want 'honor' of getting blocked third time for edit warring. neo (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jainism by Helmuth Von Glasenapp publisher Motilal Banarasidass is a perfectly reliable source. If you doubt the reliability, you could have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you didn't provide a reliable source to any conflicting claim. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not just about reliable sources. I believe that as you are 'Jain', you are pushing your religious 'Jainism' agenda through dubious sources and edit warring. I googled about Chanakya. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website says that Chanakya studied Vedas. this and this history authors says that Chanakya was brahmin. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing brahmin caste with Chanakya. So I believe Chanakya was Hindu. And on Chandragupta Maurya you again reverted my edit with 1 inaccessible and 1 fake source. neo (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am 100% sure that you are sockpuppet of User:Rahuljain2307 who was blocked after this sockpuppet investigation. I request admins to confirm this. neo (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually Rahuljain2307 is no longer blocked but hasn't edited since 20 January 2013. The Rahul RJ Jain was created on 29 January, so I'd like to ask them if they are indeed one and the same editor. Abandoning an old account for a clean start is not sockpuppetry but it would be good to know the link between them. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the same editor. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He was blocked for a week on 20 January 2013 and he created this new account the very next day on 21 January, NOT 29 January(clearly to create another sockpuppet on very next day). He made first edit on 29 January and resumed as if continuation of previous account. neo (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul RJ Jain has above admitted that he is same editor as User:Rahuljain2307. Above admin indicated that this is not sockpuppetry but I think when user create new account during period of the block his intention is to avoid block, not clean start. He is daring me in edit warring without worrying about block as there is always new sockpuppet. neo (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also suspicious about this account which was created, made some edits during his block period and then vanished. neo (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I admit that I only looked at the contributions by Rahul RJ Jain. But the log states indeed that this account was created on 21 January while Rahuljain2307 was blocked. For a start I have now indefinitely blocked Rahul RJ Jain as an illegitimately created account. I haven't yet looked into the history of their edits about Jainism and historic figures, or any edit wars, so I left Rahuljain2307 and Rk195057 open for editing, but given the past socking activities (The Fake ID) I wouldn't be surprised if there were more incarnations.

Help from fellow administrators will be appreciated as I need to go offline now. Please administer further blocks as you see fit. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After study I think Rk195057 is unrelated. I will remove his religion edits in Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya, Bimbisara & close this matter.neo (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rk195057's edits don't seem to fit those by Rahul Jain. The latter has now requested unblocking so as to participate in this discussion without returning to his old account. I don't see any need to abandon the first account, so I'll leave that decision to an uninvolved admin. As to the claim of pushing an agenda and using poor sources, let me say the following: While he seems to use reliable sources when it comes to Jainism in general (e.g. [139]), I don't see how those sources that were later removed by Neo ([140], [141]) are unreliable when it comes to attributing Jainism to specific persons. What bothers me more is the deliberate creation of new accounts, i.e. Fake ID and Rahul RJ Jain, to circumvent restrictions. While the Rahul RJ Jain account was not used for editing during the masterblock it shouldn't have been created in the first place. De728631 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since my appeal to unblock was declined, I have switched back to my previous account (much to my dislike, but I will honour the decision of the admins). I will continue to edit wikipedia with this account in future. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:David-golota disruptive editing and personal attacks

Since I don't want to start breach WP:3RR rule, I'm reporting here User:David-golota disruptive behaviour in List of Polish football champions article. He simply copypasted a content from Ekstraklasa[142] article and put into existing list[143] which include all Polish championships (not Ekstraklasa only), and also includes second and third places like you can see there[144]. So now, the list of champions is incomplete, there are no champions from 1946 and 1947 listed and there are no runners-up and third places like in other similar lists: List of German football champions or List of English football champions. Also two other tables he copypasted from Ekstraklasa articles [145] are incomplate as they don't include Polish champions from 1921-26 and 1946-47 when Ekstraklasa was not played.

Also this user is not able to comunicate in civil way and always personal attacks me in his comments like[146], [147], [148] or User_talk:Oleola#Not_the_BOSS.--Oleola (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I remind people that this complaint seems to have been left unresolved due to the unrelated drama below? From a quick look, it appears that User:Oleola's complaint is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oleola is a Wisla Krakow fan and many users have complained about him and his way to ruin alot of Polish soccer articles. He always want to make Wisla Krakow a team with 14 championship. But they only have 13. Way do he want to make the article about Polish football champions ugly and bad? Beacuse on the article Wisla only have 13 championship and Ruch Chorzow 14. Im not fan of neither team. Im not fan of any polish football team. I just want to make the articles better.

Oleola did NOT create any of the boxes or any of the text that is in the article of Polish Champion. It is not his work. Somebody else made all the graphs and statistics. He is just being childish. He always wants the articles to be like he thinks they should be. Look at my editing history. All of my work has been legit. Oleola just cant handle something not going his way.

David-golota (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) David Golota

who created the graphics and statistics is irrelevant. What matters is whether they are correct according to sources. From what I can see, the article doesn't cite any sources at all, and without them, nobody can possibly say who is right or wrong. I suggest that rather than slinging insults you find the necessary sources, and then discuss this on the article talk page. If you can't agree after finding sources, you could perhaps try one of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

David-golota your accusations are ridiculous, nobody ever wrote in List of Polish football champions that Wisła was Polish football champions 14 times so please stop lying. If you can't understand that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not a competiton for Polish football championship, that's your problem. And don't know why are you talking about Wisła, because that's not a point. You removed runners-up and third places without any explanations (just beacasue you copypasted from Ekstraklasa the list with one change in 1951 season) and copypasted two incomplete tables from Ekstraklasa article - that's the point. So please tell us why you do that and stop talking about Oleola and stop making personal attacks because it reflects only on you. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Oleola (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. Frankly, though, David seems to have some real problems editing at Wikipedia. I don't know how much of it is language, incompetence, or POV. After he arguably vandalized this board, I left him a message warning him and asking for an explanation as there was always a possibility, however slim, that it was accidental. He then left me this clueless message on my talk page. Still, I didn't feel I could block him for edit warring and not also block Oleola.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic diversion regarding a troll

Here be trolls. De728631 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The accused user is currently being invesigated and we will get back to you shortly. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Really? Investigated by whom? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) AlldiRessie (talk · contribs) looks like a troll. The account is two days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am not a troll, and the investigation will be investigated by us, the Wikipedians. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Someone who complained about the use of "you're" is going to investigate? No thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) User:Bwilkins, please be civil. Pointing out these silly points is childish. Lets go back on track. I am investigating this matter, just give me some time. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am being civil - this is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. You've been here for 2 days, have caused a ruckus, insulted people, told people they need mentoring because they used a contraction on their talkpage, and now you're leading an investigation? Seriously - step back. Your comments may be welcome, but you're not the "investigator", so don't tell people to back off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting text on User:AlldiRessies user page: "User:Kauffner is my friend. I am a product of User:Kauffner and his team of sockpuppets". Thomas.W (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This warning on my talkpage is also interesting ... the sheer lack of a clue here is overwhelming (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) See [149]. Faking posts by Jimbo Wales? Clueless beyond belief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) ... and that is the nail in the coffin. Indeffed. Someone disagree, go ahead and change it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Being Vandalized

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

---

The User:Beerest355 has been vandalizing me for quite some time now. The user has been tracking my edits from various articles like for example, Bob's Burgers (season 4); The user has been getting into edit wars with me about the user's own opinions, then the user changes from Fall to September. I undid the user's edit for a reason, when I clicked the reference link next to what the user typed in, that website took me to a Tumblr website created by someone and actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr. I undid it and told the user if he undid the edit, it'd be considered vandalism and I'd report the user. Obviously, I guess he wanted me to report him because what do you know, he undid my edit and told me to check the reference which the user knows that I already did. Honestly, the user has been variously turning my words on me for other articles like Family Guy (season 12), The Simpsons (season 25), Bob's Burgers (season 4), and etc. I don't know if the user is trying to get me annoyed by this or the user wants to cause problems with me. Honestly, I don't even care what the user's trying to do. If the user continues to vandalize me because the user thinks that I have spelling/grammar problems, the user should be blocked. --Archcaster (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• He isn't "vandalising" you (see WP:VANDAL) but he is insisting on using a blog for a reliable source, and it isn't a reliable source. You forgot to notify him using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} tag, and I've done that for you. It is required, ping/linking isn't enough notification. You both are edit warring a bit there, and really this is a matter for WP:DRN, not WP:ANI since it is about content. I'm not sure if he is following you, or just that you have similar interests ('toons) so not ready to jump to that conclusion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think you need to capitalize fall, summer, spring per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS as they aren't proper nouns. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, can you tell him to stop following my edits on various articles, the user is acting like a know it all. What kind of user puts a blog as a reference? I already undid his edit earlier and we all know that he's gonna add it back on when he logs on. --Archcaster (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it could be that he has similar interests. Don't edit war, and again, file at WP:DRN if he keeps reverting. Continuing to revert back, even if you are right, can get you both blocked. As for "what kind of editor", he might say the same about capitalizing the seasons, so it is better to just assume good faith and try to engage outside of an edit summary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember also that this is a global encyclopedia, so fall in the US is spring in the southern hemisphere. For that reason it is good to avoid the use of those seasons, except to the extent they are in quotes, or otherwise relevant, so I would support changing fall to September.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the user or you has proof that the 4th season of Bob's Burgers is premiering in September, it should be remained fall. --Archcaster (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And the seasons are relative to the country to which it is being released. I haven't looked at all the sources, but I bet they are saying "this fall". Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! That's why it shouldn't be changed to September "whatever" 2013 if Fox or the other sources didn't announced anything yet.--Archcaster (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is more for WP:DRN or better yet, the talk page of the article first (per our requirement you try to work it out on the talk page first). This just goes to show that you might be right on some points, wrong on others, and not everyone agrees on yet more. ANI is about incidents, and I'm not convinced he is stalking you, and more likely he just likes 'toons as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if anything else happens like if he reverts or undoes again, I report you, the WP:DRN, or both? --Archcaster (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It means you need to stay calm, go to the talk page of the article, present your case in neutral terms, and invite him to do the same. If he won't participate, or won't in good faith, then go to WP:DRN. Our goal here is always to solve problems with the least amount of interference as possible, and most of these kinds of issues can be solved by the two editors themselves if they will remain calm and just discuss the disagreement. This also allows other editors of the same article to participate. You might read WP:BRD and he would be good to do the same. Regardless, stop reverting back and forth or you will end up getting both of you blocked for WP:edit warring. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you being unwilling to discuss this with User:Beerest355, Archcaster, while the former has made attempts to discuss it with you puts you in a not-so-great light. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Like I asked before..., do I report to you, the WP:DRN, or both if anything else happens? --Archcaster (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did answer your question if you read it fully. You never "report" to me, I'm not in charge. No one is. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What if I report to the WP:DRN, and they don't do anything to make the vandalism of the user stop? --Archcaster (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first step is to raise it on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user. So far you have done neither, so it's nowhere near the stage for WP:DRN or WP:ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please start back at my first comment, and read slowly. This isn't vandalism. There is no need for me to repeat what I've already said. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Archcaster: There is no vandalism going on. On Wikipedia, vandalism is defined at "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Disagreements between editors is not vandalism. And you don't go to WP:DRN to "report" someone. You go there so that uninvolved editors can help resolve the disagreements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

and (edit conflict)For the record DRN rarely acts until a dispute has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages for the article in question. WP:3O or WP:RFC would seem to be the more useful steps at this point in the process. Once again please stop calling the edits vandalism because that is not what they are. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: You should first attempt to resolve the issues on the article talk page which neither of you are using. Attempt to explain why you made your changes, and give them a chance to respond. Continue discussing the matter until you can come to some sort of agreement. If you can't, follow WP:DR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I planned to do if he keeps vadalizing the articles. Also, if he's not doing vandalism, what exactly is he doing? --Archcaster (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I count five times in the text above where people have explained to you that it's not vandalism. Vandalism usually involves the word "poop" or similar juvenilia. You have a disagreement. Discuss it with the other party and see if you can come to an agreement and stop making accusations of vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: Wikipedia's explanation on what vandalism is and isn't is here: WP:VANDAL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I linked that in the first few words of my first comment, and that isn't the only thing that has had to be repeated. Archcaster needs to slow down and actually read what has been said here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I can read, just to let you know. Second of all, I'm not repeating anything, y'all are not being reasonable to the words that you say, that's why I ask the questions that you think that I'm doing on purpose so y'all can repeat yourselves, I'm not doing that. --Archcaster (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here I am. I just want to say that the Behind Bob's Burgers blog is indeed the official blog of the Bob's Burgers writers. Here is the official Bob's Burgers Twitter account posting about it. I should've stated that, sorry. It is a reliable source, and seeing as how the blog states the new season will start in September, I think it is appropriate. "actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr" isn't really nice, or civil. I also really truly fail to see why you are mentioning the Family Guy/The Simpsons articles. I have already told you several times that capitalizing "fall" is not correct. Beerest355 Talk 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you forgot to tell me about how you got "behindtheburgers.com" from, you should of told me on my talk page when you send me a message yesterday. Anyway, I understand now that fall being capitalized is incorrect, obviously. I didn't know that you got the website from their Twitter. I was mostly concerned because when I went on the link, it looked like someone created a blog of the website on Tumblr, that's why I undid your edit. Next time, be specific about what you type in and what it's about. --Archcaster (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "reliable source" is a reasonably well defined term in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. While blogs can be used in some rare circumstances, they are not generally reliable sources, even if they are the official blog of anything. So please do not assert that the blog source is a reliable source, it almost certainly is not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how this blog is related to and is run by the show, I think this one can fit the bill. Beerest355 Talk 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Not unless you get it approved at the RS noticeboard, which is possible, but unlikely. Someone would have to show that it is subject to editorical control, which is possible, but not easy to prove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources such as blogs can be used as reliable sources in either one of the following two situations:

• When its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party reliable sources. This means that we can cite Stephen Hawking's blog (assuming he has one) on black holes if we want.
• Self-published can be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-promotional or exceptional
2. it does not involve claims about third parties
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources

This means that we can cite the official Star Wars web site on AT-ATs, for example. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both Archcaster and Beerest355 have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. A page protection request was denied for a very unusual reason. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think that adding another revert to the edit-war is the way to solve a content dispute.[150] Why not start a discussion on the talk page? Or if the reliability of this source is in question, take it to WP:RSN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For several hours now the two editors involved have been told to start a discussion on the talk page yet it is still pristine. Page protection in such circumstances is normal. Why should GSK have to start a discussion at RSN, or the talk page for that matter, when the two involved editors have ignored all attempts to get them to engage in conversation? MarnetteD | Talk 01:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Because edit-warring is never the way to solve a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion for Behind Bob's Burgers at the WP:RSN. I also do not think this is an ongoing conflict anymore, as Archcaster's reply to me above seems like he is content with the explanation. Beerest355 Talk 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that and GSK was not edit warring. Unless one edit can now be considered an EW. All I can see is that GSK has tried to protect the integrity of the article, has taken the time to file the proper reports and is now receiving unwarranted grief for it. That is sad. On the other hand I am glad that the two involved editors seem to have settled things. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• @GSK, the reason for denying protection was sound. I don't like fully protecting an article because two editors are edit warring. If there are more than two, then protection may be warranted, but why should other editors suffer because two editors are misbehaving? I'm not sure what to do with the ANEW report at this point. I'm inclined to leave it open to make sure there is no further disruption to the article. Beerest has made the somewhat novel assertion that one of his reverts was not a revert because it was done with permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors have been blocked for 48 hours by User:De728631 at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (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:Omdo

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

Omdo seems to have one main focus which is to add bits of 'content' to articles with a view to reinforcing the position that Sabah and Sarawak should have more rights because of "agreements" at the time of the formation of Malaysia. The result is often to transform articles into WP:COATRACKS for these views, with difficult to understand, unbalanced content and irrelevant pdfs/links/documents.

He also makes edits such as adding the 2 states to lists of sovereign nations. He never explains any of his edits, in summaries, or on talk pages, and he won't join discussions even when invited.

The most recent 'incident' is his creation of the formation of Malaysia as an unattributed copy/paste of the stuff we had cleaned out of the 20-point agreement article, from its history. Related posts are at User talk:Omdo#The formation of Malaysia and Talk:History of Malaysia#Proposed merge of any suitable content from The formation of Malaysia.

Talk:20-point agreement is a good example, and provides a good overview of the pattern I'm trying to describe - it's only a short talk page, and illustrates the issue well. This diff, in particular, helps to explain: [151].

Here, there is a short edit war over the inclusion of irrelevant material relating to one of the 'disputes' [152], [153], [154], [155]

Here, [156], he adds North Borneo to the List of sovereign states by date of formation .

At User talk:Omdo#Sarawak Sovereignty Movement logo, it was necessary to create and upload a new image to replace his copyvio image, and to rewrite most of the content so as to be intelligible and accurately reflect what the sources say.

There are many more diffs, available on request, but I didn't want to make this ;tldr. I discussed this with Dennis Brown at User talk:Dennis Brown#Advice before bringing it here, but sadly I think I'm now left with little alternative. I believe that a block may now be the only option to enforce some sort of proper communication and understanding. Omdo does have content and a point of view to contribute, I just wish he could 'play nice' with other editors. Begoon ^talk 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't dug through all the contribs, but what I did see seems to be consistent with Begoon's description. Hopefully, Omdo will show up with a new found desire to communicate, cooperate and and edit in a neutral fashion that doesn't include copyright infringing. Otherwise a block may be needed. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that the reaction since being notified of this discussion appears, so far, to have been to again remove the maintenance tags on 'the formation of Malaysia', and continue adding content with only a very minimal response, here: Talk:The formation of Malaysia. I am stepping away from the issue completely, now, as I feel anything I say or do will not help at this point. Begoon ^talk 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Begoon has summarised this well, and has commendably gone out of their way to try and gain cooperation from Omdo before bringing this here. It is true that Omdo represents a POV that is rarely seen, which has its benefits, but they are singularly focused on this issue. Their edits also contain quite a bit of synthesis based on a variety of primary sources. Discussion with them is difficult, as they usually just state points and refer to various sources without elaborating. (It is made harder by what seems to be a poor grasp of English, but this in itself isn't a fault.) I wouldn't like a block, but as Omdo doesn't discuss the only other options are expending great effort cleaning up the better edits and continuously having to revert the more extreme ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong page moves

User:Chanderforyou moved Aanchal Munjal to Aanchal munjal, then he manually moved all source text from 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal' and redirected 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal'. Now everything looks ok except that history is with 'Aanchal munjal'. I tried to revert but got error message. He has done such experiment with 4 articles. I could move and restore talkpages with history but can't do with articles. neo (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best to resolve it. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Ravi dubey to Ravi Dubey, Aanchal munjal to Aanchal Munjal, Ashika Bhatia to Aashika Bhatia, and Sargun mehta to Sargun Mehta. Is that it? Please note that moving the talk page without the article isn't that helpful — it makes the fixing process confusing, if nothing else because the software wants to move the wrong talk page on top of the right talk page. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no experience of this move thing so I was confused. neo (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and you're welcome. I figured you weren't familiar with it, so I did my best not to sound as if I were objecting. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Oleola disruptive editing and statements of me being blocked

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.

---

Oleola Accused me of a lot of things. He says that my article dont have any source, when they cleary do in the external links. He also keeps acting like he is an admin or boss. He keeps posting things on my talk page, that I will be blocked. Then he puts me on this page, when cleary he is not better than me at all. He has disruptive edits too.

David-golota (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) David golota

So... What administrative action are you requesting? From a look at David and Oleola's page, they seem to be involved in an edit war on Polish football players. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:12, 7 June 2013 (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:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda

User is citing unreliable and inaccessible sources to stamp his Jainism religion on historic figures like Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. Nature of religions keeps evolving over centuries and millenia. It is impossible to tell what was religion of historic figures, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism or some other similar religion. There will always be conflicting sources. It is better not to stamp religion on historic figures but user looks religious fundamentalist with specific agenda on wiki. You decide. I don't want 'honor' of getting blocked third time for edit warring. neo (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Jainism by Helmuth Von Glasenapp publisher Motilal Banarasidass is a perfectly reliable source. If you doubt the reliability, you could have posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you didn't provide a reliable source to any conflicting claim. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not just about reliable sources. I believe that as you are 'Jain', you are pushing your religious 'Jainism' agenda through dubious sources and edit warring. I googled about Chanakya. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website says that Chanakya studied Vedas. this and this history authors says that Chanakya was brahmin. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing brahmin caste with Chanakya. So I believe Chanakya was Hindu. And on Chandragupta Maurya you again reverted my edit with 1 inaccessible and 1 fake source. neo (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I am 100% sure that you are sockpuppet of User:Rahuljain2307 who was blocked after this sockpuppet investigation. I request admins to confirm this. neo (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually Rahuljain2307 is no longer blocked but hasn't edited since 20 January 2013. The Rahul RJ Jain was created on 29 January, so I'd like to ask them if they are indeed one and the same editor. Abandoning an old account for a clean start is not sockpuppetry but it would be good to know the link between them. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the same editor. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He was blocked for a week on 20 January 2013 and he created this new account the very next day on 21 January, NOT 29 January(clearly to create another sockpuppet on very next day). He made first edit on 29 January and resumed as if continuation of previous account. neo (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul RJ Jain has above admitted that he is same editor as User:Rahuljain2307. Above admin indicated that this is not sockpuppetry but I think when user create new account during period of the block his intention is to avoid block, not clean start. He is daring me in edit warring without worrying about block as there is always new sockpuppet. neo (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also suspicious about this account which was created, made some edits during his block period and then vanished. neo (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I admit that I only looked at the contributions by Rahul RJ Jain. But the log states indeed that this account was created on 21 January while Rahuljain2307 was blocked. For a start I have now indefinitely blocked Rahul RJ Jain as an illegitimately created account. I haven't yet looked into the history of their edits about Jainism and historic figures, or any edit wars, so I left Rahuljain2307 and Rk195057 open for editing, but given the past socking activities (The Fake ID) I wouldn't be surprised if there were more incarnations.

Help from fellow administrators will be appreciated as I need to go offline now. Please administer further blocks as you see fit. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After study I think Rk195057 is unrelated. I will remove his religion edits in Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya, Bimbisara & close this matter.neo (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rk195057's edits don't seem to fit those by Rahul Jain. The latter has now requested unblocking so as to participate in this discussion without returning to his old account. I don't see any need to abandon the first account, so I'll leave that decision to an uninvolved admin. As to the claim of pushing an agenda and using poor sources, let me say the following: While he seems to use reliable sources when it comes to Jainism in general (e.g. [157]), I don't see how those sources that were later removed by Neo ([158], [159]) are unreliable when it comes to attributing Jainism to specific persons. What bothers me more is the deliberate creation of new accounts, i.e. Fake ID and Rahul RJ Jain, to circumvent restrictions. While the Rahul RJ Jain account was not used for editing during the masterblock it shouldn't have been created in the first place. De728631 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since my appeal to unblock was declined, I have switched back to my previous account (much to my dislike, but I will honour the decision of the admins). I will continue to edit wikipedia with this account in future. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:David-golota disruptive editing and personal attacks

Since I don't want to start breach WP:3RR rule, I'm reporting here User:David-golota disruptive behaviour in List of Polish football champions article. He simply copypasted a content from Ekstraklasa[160] article and put into existing list[161] which include all Polish championships (not Ekstraklasa only), and also includes second and third places like you can see there[162]. So now, the list of champions is incomplete, there are no champions from 1946 and 1947 listed and there are no runners-up and third places like in other similar lists: List of German football champions or List of English football champions. Also two other tables he copypasted from Ekstraklasa articles [163] are incomplate as they don't include Polish champions from 1921-26 and 1946-47 when Ekstraklasa was not played.

Also this user is not able to comunicate in civil way and always personal attacks me in his comments like[164], [165], [166] or User_talk:Oleola#Not_the_BOSS.--Oleola (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I remind people that this complaint seems to have been left unresolved due to the unrelated drama below? From a quick look, it appears that User:Oleola's complaint is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oleola is a Wisla Krakow fan and many users have complained about him and his way to ruin alot of Polish soccer articles. He always want to make Wisla Krakow a team with 14 championship. But they only have 13. Way do he want to make the article about Polish football champions ugly and bad? Beacuse on the article Wisla only have 13 championship and Ruch Chorzow 14. Im not fan of neither team. Im not fan of any polish football team. I just want to make the articles better.

Oleola did NOT create any of the boxes or any of the text that is in the article of Polish Champion. It is not his work. Somebody else made all the graphs and statistics. He is just being childish. He always wants the articles to be like he thinks they should be. Look at my editing history. All of my work has been legit. Oleola just cant handle something not going his way.

David-golota (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) David Golota

who created the graphics and statistics is irrelevant. What matters is whether they are correct according to sources. From what I can see, the article doesn't cite any sources at all, and without them, nobody can possibly say who is right or wrong. I suggest that rather than slinging insults you find the necessary sources, and then discuss this on the article talk page. If you can't agree after finding sources, you could perhaps try one of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

David-golota your accusations are ridiculous, nobody ever wrote in List of Polish football champions that Wisła was Polish football champions 14 times so please stop lying. If you can't understand that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not a competiton for Polish football championship, that's your problem. And don't know why are you talking about Wisła, because that's not a point. You removed runners-up and third places without any explanations (just beacasue you copypasted from Ekstraklasa the list with one change in 1951 season) and copypasted two incomplete tables from Ekstraklasa article - that's the point. So please tell us why you do that and stop talking about Oleola and stop making personal attacks because it reflects only on you. Comment on content, not on the contributor.--Oleola (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. Frankly, though, David seems to have some real problems editing at Wikipedia. I don't know how much of it is language, incompetence, or POV. After he arguably vandalized this board, I left him a message warning him and asking for an explanation as there was always a possibility, however slim, that it was accidental. He then left me this clueless message on my talk page. Still, I didn't feel I could block him for edit warring and not also block Oleola.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic diversion regarding a troll

Here be trolls. De728631 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The accused user is currently being invesigated and we will get back to you shortly. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Really? Investigated by whom? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) AlldiRessie (talk · contribs) looks like a troll. The account is two days old. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am not a troll, and the investigation will be investigated by us, the Wikipedians. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Someone who complained about the use of "you're" is going to investigate? No thanks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC) User:Bwilkins, please be civil. Pointing out these silly points is childish. Lets go back on track. I am investigating this matter, just give me some time. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) I am being civil - this is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. You've been here for 2 days, have caused a ruckus, insulted people, told people they need mentoring because they used a contraction on their talkpage, and now you're leading an investigation? Seriously - step back. Your comments may be welcome, but you're not the "investigator", so don't tell people to back off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting text on User:AlldiRessies user page: "User:Kauffner is my friend. I am a product of User:Kauffner and his team of sockpuppets". Thomas.W (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC) This warning on my talkpage is also interesting ... the sheer lack of a clue here is overwhelming (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC) See [167]. Faking posts by Jimbo Wales? Clueless beyond belief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) ... and that is the nail in the coffin. Indeffed. Someone disagree, go ahead and change it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Being Vandalized

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

---

The User:Beerest355 has been vandalizing me for quite some time now. The user has been tracking my edits from various articles like for example, Bob's Burgers (season 4); The user has been getting into edit wars with me about the user's own opinions, then the user changes from Fall to September. I undid the user's edit for a reason, when I clicked the reference link next to what the user typed in, that website took me to a Tumblr website created by someone and actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr. I undid it and told the user if he undid the edit, it'd be considered vandalism and I'd report the user. Obviously, I guess he wanted me to report him because what do you know, he undid my edit and told me to check the reference which the user knows that I already did. Honestly, the user has been variously turning my words on me for other articles like Family Guy (season 12), The Simpsons (season 25), Bob's Burgers (season 4), and etc. I don't know if the user is trying to get me annoyed by this or the user wants to cause problems with me. Honestly, I don't even care what the user's trying to do. If the user continues to vandalize me because the user thinks that I have spelling/grammar problems, the user should be blocked. --Archcaster (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• He isn't "vandalising" you (see WP:VANDAL) but he is insisting on using a blog for a reliable source, and it isn't a reliable source. You forgot to notify him using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} tag, and I've done that for you. It is required, ping/linking isn't enough notification. You both are edit warring a bit there, and really this is a matter for WP:DRN, not WP:ANI since it is about content. I'm not sure if he is following you, or just that you have similar interests ('toons) so not ready to jump to that conclusion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think you need to capitalize fall, summer, spring per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS as they aren't proper nouns. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, can you tell him to stop following my edits on various articles, the user is acting like a know it all. What kind of user puts a blog as a reference? I already undid his edit earlier and we all know that he's gonna add it back on when he logs on. --Archcaster (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it could be that he has similar interests. Don't edit war, and again, file at WP:DRN if he keeps reverting. Continuing to revert back, even if you are right, can get you both blocked. As for "what kind of editor", he might say the same about capitalizing the seasons, so it is better to just assume good faith and try to engage outside of an edit summary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember also that this is a global encyclopedia, so fall in the US is spring in the southern hemisphere. For that reason it is good to avoid the use of those seasons, except to the extent they are in quotes, or otherwise relevant, so I would support changing fall to September.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless the user or you has proof that the 4th season of Bob's Burgers is premiering in September, it should be remained fall. --Archcaster (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And the seasons are relative to the country to which it is being released. I haven't looked at all the sources, but I bet they are saying "this fall". Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! That's why it shouldn't be changed to September "whatever" 2013 if Fox or the other sources didn't announced anything yet.--Archcaster (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is more for WP:DRN or better yet, the talk page of the article first (per our requirement you try to work it out on the talk page first). This just goes to show that you might be right on some points, wrong on others, and not everyone agrees on yet more. ANI is about incidents, and I'm not convinced he is stalking you, and more likely he just likes 'toons as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if anything else happens like if he reverts or undoes again, I report you, the WP:DRN, or both? --Archcaster (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It means you need to stay calm, go to the talk page of the article, present your case in neutral terms, and invite him to do the same. If he won't participate, or won't in good faith, then go to WP:DRN. Our goal here is always to solve problems with the least amount of interference as possible, and most of these kinds of issues can be solved by the two editors themselves if they will remain calm and just discuss the disagreement. This also allows other editors of the same article to participate. You might read WP:BRD and he would be good to do the same. Regardless, stop reverting back and forth or you will end up getting both of you blocked for WP:edit warring. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you being unwilling to discuss this with User:Beerest355, Archcaster, while the former has made attempts to discuss it with you puts you in a not-so-great light. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Like I asked before..., do I report to you, the WP:DRN, or both if anything else happens? --Archcaster (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did answer your question if you read it fully. You never "report" to me, I'm not in charge. No one is. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What if I report to the WP:DRN, and they don't do anything to make the vandalism of the user stop? --Archcaster (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first step is to raise it on the talk page of the article and/or on the talk page of the user. So far you have done neither, so it's nowhere near the stage for WP:DRN or WP:ANI. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please start back at my first comment, and read slowly. This isn't vandalism. There is no need for me to repeat what I've already said. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Archcaster: There is no vandalism going on. On Wikipedia, vandalism is defined at "adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Disagreements between editors is not vandalism. And you don't go to WP:DRN to "report" someone. You go there so that uninvolved editors can help resolve the disagreements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

and (edit conflict)For the record DRN rarely acts until a dispute has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages for the article in question. WP:3O or WP:RFC would seem to be the more useful steps at this point in the process. Once again please stop calling the edits vandalism because that is not what they are. MarnetteD | Talk 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: You should first attempt to resolve the issues on the article talk page which neither of you are using. Attempt to explain why you made your changes, and give them a chance to respond. Continue discussing the matter until you can come to some sort of agreement. If you can't, follow WP:DR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I planned to do if he keeps vadalizing the articles. Also, if he's not doing vandalism, what exactly is he doing? --Archcaster (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I count five times in the text above where people have explained to you that it's not vandalism. Vandalism usually involves the word "poop" or similar juvenilia. You have a disagreement. Discuss it with the other party and see if you can come to an agreement and stop making accusations of vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

@Archcaster: Wikipedia's explanation on what vandalism is and isn't is here: WP:VANDAL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I linked that in the first few words of my first comment, and that isn't the only thing that has had to be repeated. Archcaster needs to slow down and actually read what has been said here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I can read, just to let you know. Second of all, I'm not repeating anything, y'all are not being reasonable to the words that you say, that's why I ask the questions that you think that I'm doing on purpose so y'all can repeat yourselves, I'm not doing that. --Archcaster (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so here I am. I just want to say that the Behind Bob's Burgers blog is indeed the official blog of the Bob's Burgers writers. Here is the official Bob's Burgers Twitter account posting about it. I should've stated that, sorry. It is a reliable source, and seeing as how the blog states the new season will start in September, I think it is appropriate. "actually thought to be dumb enough that Fox created the page on Tumblr" isn't really nice, or civil. I also really truly fail to see why you are mentioning the Family Guy/The Simpsons articles. I have already told you several times that capitalizing "fall" is not correct. Beerest355 Talk 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you forgot to tell me about how you got "behindtheburgers.com" from, you should of told me on my talk page when you send me a message yesterday. Anyway, I understand now that fall being capitalized is incorrect, obviously. I didn't know that you got the website from their Twitter. I was mostly concerned because when I went on the link, it looked like someone created a blog of the website on Tumblr, that's why I undid your edit. Next time, be specific about what you type in and what it's about. --Archcaster (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "reliable source" is a reasonably well defined term in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. While blogs can be used in some rare circumstances, they are not generally reliable sources, even if they are the official blog of anything. So please do not assert that the blog source is a reliable source, it almost certainly is not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how this blog is related to and is run by the show, I think this one can fit the bill. Beerest355 Talk 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Not unless you get it approved at the RS noticeboard, which is possible, but unlikely. Someone would have to show that it is subject to editorical control, which is possible, but not easy to prove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources such as blogs can be used as reliable sources in either one of the following two situations:

• When its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party reliable sources. This means that we can cite Stephen Hawking's blog (assuming he has one) on black holes if we want.
• Self-published can be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-promotional or exceptional
2. it does not involve claims about third parties
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources

This means that we can cite the official Star Wars web site on AT-ATs, for example. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both Archcaster and Beerest355 have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard. A page protection request was denied for a very unusual reason. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think that adding another revert to the edit-war is the way to solve a content dispute.[168] Why not start a discussion on the talk page? Or if the reliability of this source is in question, take it to WP:RSN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For several hours now the two editors involved have been told to start a discussion on the talk page yet it is still pristine. Page protection in such circumstances is normal. Why should GSK have to start a discussion at RSN, or the talk page for that matter, when the two involved editors have ignored all attempts to get them to engage in conversation? MarnetteD | Talk 01:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Because edit-warring is never the way to solve a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion for Behind Bob's Burgers at the WP:RSN. I also do not think this is an ongoing conflict anymore, as Archcaster's reply to me above seems like he is content with the explanation. Beerest355 Talk 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know that and GSK was not edit warring. Unless one edit can now be considered an EW. All I can see is that GSK has tried to protect the integrity of the article, has taken the time to file the proper reports and is now receiving unwarranted grief for it. That is sad. On the other hand I am glad that the two involved editors seem to have settled things. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• @GSK, the reason for denying protection was sound. I don't like fully protecting an article because two editors are edit warring. If there are more than two, then protection may be warranted, but why should other editors suffer because two editors are misbehaving? I'm not sure what to do with the ANEW report at this point. I'm inclined to leave it open to make sure there is no further disruption to the article. Beerest has made the somewhat novel assertion that one of his reverts was not a revert because it was done with permission.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors have been blocked for 48 hours by User:De728631 at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (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:Omdo

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

Omdo seems to have one main focus which is to add bits of 'content' to articles with a view to reinforcing the position that Sabah and Sarawak should have more rights because of "agreements" at the time of the formation of Malaysia. The result is often to transform articles into WP:COATRACKS for these views, with difficult to understand, unbalanced content and irrelevant pdfs/links/documents.

He also makes edits such as adding the 2 states to lists of sovereign nations. He never explains any of his edits, in summaries, or on talk pages, and he won't join discussions even when invited.

The most recent 'incident' is his creation of the formation of Malaysia as an unattributed copy/paste of the stuff we had cleaned out of the 20-point agreement article, from its history. Related posts are at User talk:Omdo#The formation of Malaysia and Talk:History of Malaysia#Proposed merge of any suitable content from The formation of Malaysia.

Talk:20-point agreement is a good example, and provides a good overview of the pattern I'm trying to describe - it's only a short talk page, and illustrates the issue well. This diff, in particular, helps to explain: [169].

Here, there is a short edit war over the inclusion of irrelevant material relating to one of the 'disputes' [170], [171], [172], [173]

Here, [174], he adds North Borneo to the List of sovereign states by date of formation .

At User talk:Omdo#Sarawak Sovereignty Movement logo, it was necessary to create and upload a new image to replace his copyvio image, and to rewrite most of the content so as to be intelligible and accurately reflect what the sources say.

There are many more diffs, available on request, but I didn't want to make this ;tldr. I discussed this with Dennis Brown at User talk:Dennis Brown#Advice before bringing it here, but sadly I think I'm now left with little alternative. I believe that a block may now be the only option to enforce some sort of proper communication and understanding. Omdo does have content and a point of view to contribute, I just wish he could 'play nice' with other editors. Begoon ^talk 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't dug through all the contribs, but what I did see seems to be consistent with Begoon's description. Hopefully, Omdo will show up with a new found desire to communicate, cooperate and and edit in a neutral fashion that doesn't include copyright infringing. Otherwise a block may be needed. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that the reaction since being notified of this discussion appears, so far, to have been to again remove the maintenance tags on 'the formation of Malaysia', and continue adding content with only a very minimal response, here: Talk:The formation of Malaysia. I am stepping away from the issue completely, now, as I feel anything I say or do will not help at this point. Begoon ^talk 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Begoon has summarised this well, and has commendably gone out of their way to try and gain cooperation from Omdo before bringing this here. It is true that Omdo represents a POV that is rarely seen, which has its benefits, but they are singularly focused on this issue. Their edits also contain quite a bit of synthesis based on a variety of primary sources. Discussion with them is difficult, as they usually just state points and refer to various sources without elaborating. (It is made harder by what seems to be a poor grasp of English, but this in itself isn't a fault.) I wouldn't like a block, but as Omdo doesn't discuss the only other options are expending great effort cleaning up the better edits and continuously having to revert the more extreme ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong page moves

User:Chanderforyou moved Aanchal Munjal to Aanchal munjal, then he manually moved all source text from 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal' and redirected 'Aanchal munjal' to 'Aanchal Munjal'. Now everything looks ok except that history is with 'Aanchal munjal'. I tried to revert but got error message. He has done such experiment with 4 articles. I could move and restore talkpages with history but can't do with articles. neo (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best to resolve it. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Ravi dubey to Ravi Dubey, Aanchal munjal to Aanchal Munjal, Ashika Bhatia to Aashika Bhatia, and Sargun mehta to Sargun Mehta. Is that it? Please note that moving the talk page without the article isn't that helpful — it makes the fixing process confusing, if nothing else because the software wants to move the wrong talk page on top of the right talk page. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no experience of this move thing so I was confused. neo (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and you're welcome. I figured you weren't familiar with it, so I did my best not to sound as if I were objecting. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Oleola disruptive editing and statements of me being blocked

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.

---

Oleola Accused me of a lot of things. He says that my article dont have any source, when they cleary do in the external links. He also keeps acting like he is an admin or boss. He keeps posting things on my talk page, that I will be blocked. Then he puts me on this page, when cleary he is not better than me at all. He has disruptive edits too.

David-golota (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) David golota

So... What administrative action are you requesting? From a look at David and Oleola's page, they seem to be involved in an edit war on Polish football players. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:12, 7 June 2013 (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.

major blp vio needing revdel

Talk:Ted_Nugent#BLP_VIO Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please contact oversight directly about these issues in the future; I happened to notice this thread, so I suppressed the content in question, but it's much more efficient to just point us to the content privately in the first place if you're an editor pointing out a BLP problem or an admin carrying out an RD2. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter. For those who don't know, there's a list of admins that can be contacted by email at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. The email address for oversight is shown in an edit notice at the top of this page. My experience with that service has been that the response time is excellent (within minutes). -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that that was the preferred process in situations like this. I will do so going forward, thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Adamlouismarre

It seems that the only purpose of this account is to make disruptive edits to this template. I already opened an ANI notice six months ago about this very silly question, and just now I have written him a message on his talk page that he saw fit to delete immediately and went back to revert without even giving an explanation. Could someone please take care of this troll?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

While I've found some problematic edits by Adamlouismarre (battlefield mentality: "I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document", and removal of an other editor's comment), I'm currently trying to understand the statistics behind that template. It's linking to the UN's Human Development Report 2013, and the issue in this slow but long-term edit war seems to be about the number of countries in the document that are ranked in the so-called Gender Inequality Index. On page 31 of the current report, they write that "Based on 2012 data for 148 countries, the GII shows large variations..." That is also the total number in the template as restored in this edit by Underlying lk. At the talk page, Adamlouismarre wrote that one of those countries should not be considered at all because it doesn't have any programs that actively enforce changes in gender inequality. The counter-argument is that the template links to a table of countries rather than to the explanatory text in the document. And that's where I'm having a problem with the current data: The Gender Inequality Index (GII) table starting at p. 156 of the 2013 report lists 186 countries and territories sorted by their Human Development Index, but 37 of them are not ranked in the GII. 186-37=149, which is still incompatible with the statement on p. 31 (data for 148 countries), not to mention Adamlouismarre's counting of 147.

So instead of reverting each other, I suggest the following: don't try to publish your own version of statistics; both the subjective counting of countries in a table, and the equally subjective exclusion of one country from the list because of its perceived inappropriate preconditions can be stamped off as original research. How the UN calculated their index is explained in the summary on p. 31: "data for 148 countries". That, and only that, should be reflected in the template – not what you think might be the 'real' base of calculations. De728631 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The bigger issue for me is not this (relatively petty) dispute, but the complete and demonstrable unwillingness of this Adamlouismarre to discuss matters in a civil manner, and to make a serious argument to justify his edits. He can't even decide how many countries should be included: one time is 145, another time 147. It's like any number is fine with him, as long as his opponent doesn't 'win'. That's hardly constructive behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh User:Carolmooredc, canvassing and other

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 first became aware of this user due to some disputes she is having with SPECIFICO, srich, and some others regarding economics. As I also was having disputes with them both on content and behavior, I was inclined to sympathize and side with Carol, but as I have watched the interactions unfold longer, it seems clear that she may have a WP:COMPETENCE issue. She has been warned multiple times about edit waring, personal attacks, canvassing, etc, and making improper accusations of the same against others. Most recently, she came across an AFD and !voted keep, and made some decent arguments and attempted to find additional sourcing (all good, and good faith actions), however, she then proceeded to WP:CANVASS with multiple postings, in a non-neutral manner, to non-neutral forums, including off-wiki, and further she did not notify the AFD regarding her postings. [175] [176], [177] I propose that Carol either needs blocking, mentoring, or perhaps a (topic?) ban from some of the administrative/maintenance forums until she develops a good understanding of what our policies are, and how to apply them correctly. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In Carol's defense, I notified her this was canvassing, and she struck the non-neutral parts of the notification on the project site.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what BS, in so many ways. First off, calling into question the competence of a user with just under 25k edits and 7 years experience...and a grand total of 1 egregiously-long block (later thankfully shortened) 2 years ago...in this project is beyond the pale. Invoking WP:CIR should be reserved for the clearest of cases, e.g. non-English speakers, very young minors, or brazenly disruptive POV-pushers. I have known of this user for several years, particular work in the Israeli-Palestine topic area which is notoriously nasty and hot-button. Many editors, particularly those sympathetic to the Palestine side, who spend time there get hit with "edit waring, personal attacks" accusations, the bulk of which are completely unfounded. As for canvassing in this case, as I noted at the AfD, there have been long-standing and serious issues regarding women editors and articles, including editor retention, dearth of coverage, and biased coverage. The gender-gap mailing list is not secret or private, it is a WMF list that non-members can view at any time. If Carol's message there broke the technical letter of WP:CANVASS, a guideline, then IMO that can be set aside if the aim is an honest intent to improve the encyclopedia, or to bring wider attention to a critical problem. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be invoking IAR rather frequently. The problem is, your defense of canvassing in the name of IAR and "improving the encyclopedia" can be legitimately used by ANYONE - e.g. "I think the Israel article is not getting a fair treatment, so I'm going to send an email to the Israeli list and bring more editors from my side" - and then a Palestinian-supporter could do the same thing. Someone might say "The Men's rights article is getting trolled by POV pushers" - so I'm going to send an email to the mens' rights reddit to bring attention - I just want to improve the encyclopedia! As I said elsewhere, notifying a list such as gendergap in this case is ok, but the notification should have been neutral, and she should have notified other relevant wikiprojects, not just those she thought would be sympathetic. IAR applies to everyone, and should not be misused as you're proposing here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't think much else is needed here, I disagree with the need for blocking, mentoring, or a topic ban, and a simple minnow across the cheek would suffice. Tarc should be trouted for a useless invocation of IAR OTOH.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, put a cork in it. I invoke IAR rarely, and honestly don't care for it much at all as it is misused 99% of the time. It just happens that in 2 recent cases I have been involved in, there is really no other way to get past the institutional bias and knuckle-dragging inertia that is preventing the right thing being done. Those being this AfD and this movie discussion.

well, the wiki is certainly lucky to have someone who knows so well when to use IAR. Now that I think about it, why don't *you* put a cork in it. Your general incivility across every thread I've seen you in is disruptive. Why not take a little break and let the editors do their work without your bullying.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say I really enjoy when those who are screaming "BIAS!!!" use such wonderfully sexist language.[178] Arkon (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And I equally enjoy when people profess a belief in reverse discrimination, a thing which doesn't actually exist. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooo! Ooo! Who said such a thing? I bet he was just a teenage boy, or an editor acting like one. We all know that's the problem after all. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be deteriorating rapidly. It does not appear to me that there is any action that needs to be taken here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The AfD is caught up in (a) one or two people who routinely oppose any deletion of articles on "non-mainstream" topics, and (b) a steady stream of people who see that there are sources and do not address the criticism of those sources already recorded in the AfD. Tarc's rant against keeping fancruft and deleting this article meets my approval halfway, but he is now one of several people turning what I see as a routine case of undersourced puffery into a crusade for ostensibly neglected topics. I don't really see that there is anything for an admin to do here other than be aware of what's going on when it's time to close the discussion and make a resolution. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Complaint

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

---

I am here to make a quick informal complaint about User:AndyTheGrump, he called me a troll, just for asking a question at the help desk? I did not mean to do anything wrong but I think this is out of order. Look at this please. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was me that raised the question, not Andy. Anyone else reading this, just look at contribs for the basis of our suspicions. At the very least, WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. — The Potato Hose 15:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh. The Potato Hose should not have asked if the OP was a troll, Andy should not have agreed with them, and the OP should not expect any action to be taken because of this. Does anyone disagree with that assessment? --Jayron32 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• What is the basis of The Potato Hose and Andy believing this editor is a "troll"? GiantSnowman 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you read the contribs? This is also relevant. — The Potato Hose 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Admins are (believe it or not) regular people, not Mystic Meg - we don't know the editing patterns of every blocked/banned user. The SPI was submitted one minute after I posted my question so forgive me for not being aware of it. GiantSnowman 16:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Don't get snippy with me. Did you read the contribs? I pointed out that the SPI was relevant in the knowledge that you had not yet seen it. — The Potato Hose 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
        • What in the contribs was supposed to make me realise this was a sockpuppet? GiantSnowman 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
          • WP:BEANS, if you catch my drift? — The Potato Hose 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• I find it very odd that when I go and make a minor complaint against another user, it turns on me. I think there is a small number of high-up admins that think they are superior and can rule the roost, while us ordinary Wikipedians have to be subjected to this nonsense . --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Neither The Potato Hose or Andy are admins. No they should not have called you a troll, although I agree with them that your edits are slightly suspicious, but you should not have brought your admittedly "minor complaint" to an Admin noticeboard. GiantSnowman 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• If I want to make future complaints then where should I go? --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Future complaints about what? Please note my good faith towards you is rapidly wearing off, I suggest you drop the stick, pronto. GiantSnowman 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Future complaints against agitators and other provocative editors. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why would a "new editor" like yourself worry about having to complain about people? Final warning - either drop the stick as previously advised or I will block you indefinitely for tolling, regardless of the SPI outcome (though I have my suspicions as to the result). GiantSnowman 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for answering my question... not. I still do not know how to go about complaining so I am drafting an e-mail to Jimbo Wales as we speak. the following users will be mentioned:

• User:GiantSnowman
• User:The Potato Hose
• User:AndyTheGrump

Good day to you, sirs. --Ivilbderoneday (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ivilbderoneday blocked for trolling, also increasingly likely they are indeed a sockpuppet. GiantSnowman 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• You do know that now they will put in their letter that an involved admin blocked them to hide the truth, don't you? ;-) And yes, I had previously endorsed the CU at SPI in my clerk capacity and I agree with this block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm just happy that Jimbo will get to see my name! GiantSnowman 16:45, 7 June 2013 (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.

Holocaust denial trolling

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.

---

95.150.129.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) With the exception of one edit last year, the IP's only contributions have been:

• to repeatedly troll the talk page of Zyklon B using classic Holocaust denial language, using a piped link to describe the Holocaust as a "great lie", insisting that the extermination camps were instead "resettlement camps for enemies of the state", and referring to "the Jew who fabricated this lie" (the "lie" being that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill their victims)[179] [180] [181] and
• to respond to messages on their talk page with further Holocaust denial language[182] and to call me a bigot and mock Wikipedia administrators[183].

I sought a second opinion yesterday regarding the original edits from an uninvoled administrator (thread here), confirming my basic premise, but would prefer that someone else revert again. There are plenty of discussion boards on the Internet for anyone who holds these views and wants to chat with like-minded others; there's no reason we should host their propaganda at Wikipedia. Block requested. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the admin Rivertorch approached for a second opinion., as listed above. I'm not previously involved with the topic, I don't know the editor under discussion, and I don't believe I've edited this or any related articles. While I understand that detecting the line between POV edit warring and trolling can be subjective to determine, I came to the conclusion that this is the latter, in large part based on the quote from 95.150's point 5 that Rivertorch quotes above. I'd support appropriate any policy-compliant measures consistent with this determination. Give me a ping if you have questions, I'm not intending to follow this thread. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and reverted the comment again. It doesn't matter whether this is trolling or POV-pushing, either way it's disruptive. Hut 8.5 18:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope a few more people will add the article to their watchlists. It's subject to this sort of thing on occasion. Rivertorch (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (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.

Indefblocked editor User:Shaushka and his disruptive socks

A SPI was already filed this morning by another editor here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaushka however the wheels of justice seem to be cranking awfully slow today, and the editor is being very disruptive, as soon as his IP was blocked a moment ago for breaking 5RR on Yazdanism, he comes right back with a new IP number. With the level of constant disruption, attacks, contentiousness and bigotry I'm seeing from this user, I would like to see his IP rangeblocked soon. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think the wheels are cranking slowly - I think you're cranking fast. :-) I'm having trouble keeping up with the many IPs and with you, even though your heart is in the right place. I've removed one report filed by the IP at ANEW. I've closed your report at ANEW. I've commented at the SPI. On balance, I think SPI is the right forum for this, although SPI is often slower than ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Raycom Sports

• Raycom Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a farce, and an abuse by well-meaning accounts; I've tried numerous times to remove a wholesale copyright violation and purely promotional content, placed by the articles' subject, and am persistently reverted by numerous accounts. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• You do have to wonder what the hell those three editors are doing. Perhaps they're under the impression that a large removal of content by an IP editor is automatically vandalism. Well, they're clearly wrong, and they need to be far more careful in their editing. Anyway, it's been removed now, and I shall watchlist it; it may be worth others doing so. Thanks for reporting it here. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's probably the thinking, but I wouldn't want to presume to know others' motives. But I am more hopping mad than a man at a computer ought to be. I've reported the eponymous account. Thank you, Black Kite. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have learnt that lesson myself tonight. Apologies again 229. You really should get an account lol. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:DracoEssentialis

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 suspect these edits [184] [185] [186] are worth some attention. --Cyclopia^talk 17:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like trolling to me. Their knowledge on the Commons situation suggests that they are quite familiar with Jimbo's page. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem, Cyclopedia? I would feel honoured if it were me, and it seems a pretty good likeness. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if some dude stuck their penis in a bucket of paint, then rubbed it on canvas to produce my likeness, I'd be all like "wow". Tarc (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How sure are you that that hasn't already happened? Maybe even more than once!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is, the edit to Jimmy Wales is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Cyclopia should have followed WP:BRD and especially shouldn't have used Twinkle to template DracoE for vandalism. Discussion about that is here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism, even if the editor in question seems has some questionable methods and summaries. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And in fact I templated for disruptive editing, not vandalism. Or am I missing something? Calling it a content dispute is quite amusing. --Cyclopia^talk 18:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering he made the same edit to Jimbo's userpage (which I reverted, and then he reverted me, before being reverted by someone else), I think we can lighten our stranglehold on AGF here. I didn't see anything wrong with Cyclopia's warning; it was for disruptive editing (and a very light warning at that). Replacing a photograph of a person with a painting from some random person is mildly disruptive (emphasis on "mildly"), regardless of what body parts were used in the painting's creation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask around Jimbo's page to see if should be added. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like Jimbo didn't take too kindly to the art. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy wasn't interested. I'm still a bit disturbed by the brush, admittedly, but if you take the painting at face value and ignore the brush, it is actually a decent portrait and manages to captures some of his essence. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries and image caption show quite obviously that the editor wanted to troll by calling attention to the, ehm, brush. --Cyclopia^talk 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, in light of the caption and summaries, the editor knew what he was doing. Maybe a little hasty of me to call it trolling, but I still think he knew. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course he was being pointy in the addition and the image caption made that obvious, but I'm not inclined to block for that one act. Others may feel differently. I can't fault the artist for the act, only the editor. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was more than "one act", apparently, she did several times. As you wish anyway, let's see. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm... why exactly is Draco a rollbacker? And a filemover (1 file edit ever)? And an autopatroller (4 articles created)? The latter two rights are rather limited in their distribution, and the former probably shouldn't be given out to someone who'll use it in an edit war. SlimVirgin added all three rights (along with reviewer, but who cares about that) without any summary back in November. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence they're misusing any of those privileges? NE Ent 22:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well she violated the rollback policy with this revert. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:35, 8 June 2013 (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:ThinkingYouth

This user is being reported for contravention of the following policies despite repeated advice from various editors.

• WP:OUTING This diff [187] posted to my talk page implies that I am a "senior" person connected with "Humjanenge" organisation. When I requested [188] him on his talk page to explain it, he immediately blanked his talk page [189].

(NB: As per the policy (and to protect my privacy) it is immaterial if the alleged "outing" is true or false, and I am not required to confirm or deny the truth of it).

• WP:DELTALK and WP:CSD Another editor had advised this user (on the user's talk page) to respect my edits / revert on page India Against Corruption which is locked (on my request). The user gave a TLDR reply. I also gave a short request [190] to him to correct his edit which had disrupted the formatting of the concerned talk page. His response to these was to blank his talk page and place a WP:CSD template. When I undid his blanking (to preserve the record of our disputes), he insisted it was my talk page and blanked it again [191]. I explained WP:DELETE and CSD / G7 to him indicating my tolerance was running thin [192] and he blanked his talk page again [193]

, [194] with the edit summary "Stop spamming my talk page with your poetry ;-)."

• He has also "spammed" a Talk page Talk:India Against Corruption to the extent it is unreadable by new editors who are being called in to resolve intermediate edits almost at WP:WAR. For almost 2 years from 2011-till 2 June 2013 (ie. when he entered this talk page for an article rated as "High Importance" for India) the talk page's size stood at a mere 2,493 bytes. In the space of just 6 days it has reached 48,545 bytes of TLDR and highly unformatted / unreadable text with allegations of NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI WP:SPA etc etc. I frankly admit I allowed myself (as the page maintainer) to be Trolled under WP:AGF and the impression I was assisting a newbie, and I went out of my way to help with equally TLDR edits explaining WikiPedia's policies and norms (which in hindsight I regret).

• I mention in passing (but not formally as yet) coincident edits (by a "11th class student") like these [195], [196] which quack with a "12th class student" who stopped editing Arvind Kejriwal just 3 days before this editor created his account to do complex edits like these [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] on his first day at Wikipedia.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked into his edits yet, but I will point out a few things:

• He's allowed to blank his talk page if he wants. If an editor removes messages from his talk page it is taken to mean that he has read it. You haven't any business commanding an editor to restore your edits to their talk page (with the exception of block notices).
• That isn't outing. That's a very obscure inference you're making there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:DELTALK, "User talk pages ... are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users". I am currently locked in a dispute with this editor, I need his talk page to be preserved or archived for my reference while our dispute is on. His placing a CSD (ie. admin delete) request at this stage is not a sign of Good Faith but a sign of obfuscation. Furthermore CSD:G7 says "... If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. Note that this does not apply to user talk pages, which are not deleted except under very exceptional circumstances: see WP:DELTALK"
• I shall comment on the seriousness of the "outing" later. In brief, WP:OUTING says "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment ... Personal information includes ... job title and work organisation ... and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia". Specifically, if I am NOT connected to this organisation but another editor here wrongly implies that "Humjanenge" is behind what he says is defamation and abuse of "Leaders of the JanLokpal movement" on Wikipedia, it may have serious physical consequences for those innocent office bearers of IAC who are named in the article as being with the "Humjanenge". Please see this [202], [203] to see the bitterness which exists between the 2 factions, they had no qualms beating a cop to death.
• I don't mean to "wiki-lawyer". AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right in saying generally user talk pages aren't deleted, which is why a more experienced user removed the CSD template not long after he added it. Blanking messages on the other hand, is a completely different matter. Archiving user talk pages is preferred over blanking, but users are not obliged to do so and may remove posts from their talk pages if they wish. Your need for an archive of your squabbles is a secondary consideration. If you want to keep track of what's been said you can look at the page history.

As for the outing, we'll have to agree to disagree. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the user who removed the CSD template. Had I not done so it is probable that the request would have been carried out and the user talk page deleted with the diffs removed. Requesting deletion was neither "general" nor "normal" behavior and ought to have been explained. For eg. when another editor informed him on 08:49 4 June that his account was WP:SPA, the user at 11:11 is on a spree of machine gun edits to boost his "edit count" and obscure his edit history. (Comment: it seems that this kind of unWP:CIVIL editing is now the "norm" at Wikipedia and "uncles" must drop all pretense at civility). 04:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)

Good work on removing the CSD template, but I can assure you the patrolling admin would not have deleted the page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Slandering CT Senators

Somebody has been slandering former Senators Dodd and Lieberman. [204] Jehochman ^Talk 03:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. No text here is slandering the Senators, only pointers to other web sites. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this thread, really. I don't see any specific slander at all. Doc talk 06:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Somebody was slandering the senators by associating them with me. :p Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Must be an "inside" admin joke. Whoosh! Doc talk 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I revdeled the edit summaries in question. I thought of it as a false "outing" rather than "slander", but I suppose a claimed association could be looked at as slander. For either party. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Charmlet

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 illustration from Category:Animals with transparent background --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey all.

So, after the month, and talks with many people, I've decided that I really should return to editing, if okay with everyone. Many of you know about, or have at least heard of, the issues with my old name, and so I'm dropping that and carrying on with this one, if fine with everyone.

Since the circumstances surrounding my previous retirement were "under a cloud" to use the Wikipedia term, I feel it's only proper that I notify everyone here to continue any discussion of sanctions or whatever may have come of that if I hadn't retired at that time. If the community chooses something, I'll gladly stick to that.

Thanks, gwickwire/Charmlet (Thanks SineBot...) Charmlet (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to WP:FISH. (I wasn't aware there was any viable discussion ongoing at the time you stopped editing. Could be wrong.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• • I remember that particular ANI. I think it resulted in a desysop ofan admin resigning their bit followed by said admin and gwickwire retiring. As far as I remember, there was no real bad blood just a lot of fish being thrown around and Facepalming. (Will need to look for that ANI, it wasn't that long ago) Blackmane (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, here we go. Blackmane (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi gwickwire/Charmlet. It looks like if you wish to have rollbacker and reviewer rights at some point in the future, you will have to re-apply, as you resigned these bits "under a cloud". Continuation of editing was not discussed, because you had stopped editing. So in absence of such discussion, my opinion is that you have tacit permission to carry on -- Dianna (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why WP:FISH? Perhaps you meant WP:TROUT? Anyway, as the admin who actually removed the rights, I'd be willing to restore them upon your request. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, did I get the wrong wikilink? Well, perhaps I shouldn't have been carping on about all that anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Your account was created the day after your "retirement". Did you retire to avoid sanctions from the account sharing incident with Riley Huntley? Optimom (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The notification is noted as is the notice you have placed on your userpage. I counsel Chamlet for the foreseeable future to stay well clear of the controversies and types of discussions that led him into disputes under his prior username. I do not believe any further action is required here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your Brad (absolutely definitely on the staying out of trouble, avoiding the usual hotspots for administrators, i.e here, there and elsewhere) but I'd like some clarification on why the new account was created when he had retired, told everybody who asked that he wasn't coming back, but had covertly created the account a day after his retirement vanishing act. Are we being led up the garden path and could we get a clear explanation on everything that happened. It just seems like this was to evade potential sanctions and a proper mark against the account. Instead of a proper bollocking, there's a triumphant return by a lost hero instead.

Oh, and I would prefer Charmlet edits without any problems for 90 days before applying for or receiving any advanced permissions. Finally, given I don't see it anywhere, can we get confirmation this is indeed gwickwire and not someone playing silly buggers, an edit under the gwickwire account to confirm ownership of Charmlet would suffice. Thanks. Nick (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked them to do just that. If they do not manage to do so in a timely manner, I expect them to be blocked as an impersonator. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's him.

As for the one day thing, how many people who "retire", really plan to retire? At least here it was done with rather more openness.

Brad is right to offer the advice he did. I know that Chamlet has indicated a willingness to follow it (or something that means the same thing). How well that works, we shall see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the transparency. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a lot of comments, here goes for a more thorough explanation:

I retired, and it was suggested that I should cleanstart. I'd been thinking about it for a while, but created this account just in case. It took me quite a while to find an account that had no SUL/global account and would have no conflicts, so I registered this one so that it would be there for me.

I quit cold turkey, and then was persuaded by both users and curiosity to hang out in some Wikipedia related IRC channels, mainly the help channel. A few users there would PM me asking for advice, so I just hung around there and helped still.

People asked me why I didn't continue editing. I had no answer. It was suggested I either cleanstart or start back up publicly. I didn't feel like cleanstarting would be in my or others' best interests, as it'd force me to pretend to be new, and not be able to help out where I most wanted to. So after consultation with multiple users, I decided to start up with this account.

To those who say I am evading sanctions with this, I felt I made it clear in my initial post that if anyone wishes to further discuss sanctions on me for the incident before, I would not mind. If anyone wants to support sanctions, I feel that there's nothing stopping you, and please do if you feel them necessary. If I did something to make this less transparent than I tried, feel free to fix that too.

On the issue of confirmation, you can ask any arbitrator, I believe they all have the confirmation I sent them, User:Worm That Turned in particular, or send an e-mail to the old account via Special:Email and I'll try to reply unless there's something barring me from doing so.

Thanks again, Charmlet (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to be unduly dismissive... as "incidents" go, this is a non-incident. Does anyone have anything exciting to add? If not, I reserve the right to add as many additional pictures of fish as the OP has already added mentions of fowl. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet, why can't you simply make an edit with User:Gwickwire to show that you control it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There could be many reasons, I don't wish to ever touch that account again, I scrambled the password, etc. Any arbitrator can provide confirmation, as can any user I trust won't abuse it if they e-mail that user account through Wikipedia. Charmlet (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there 'could be many reasons, one of them being that you don't control the account, and it is your control of the Gwickwire account that I am trying to establish. Your inability to answer simple questions with straightforward answers just reinforces the impression that something is fishy here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I told you - The email to that account is still active, and if you email it through Wikipedia then that account will get it. I will reply from that account, and that will allow you to establish your "control". You saying my inwillingness to ever access that account is fishy doesn't mean anything, I just do not want to access that account again, for any reason. Arbitrators (should) have proof, I know for a fact that WTT does, aside from that e-mail the old account and wait for a response. Until then, unless you have some proof something's actually fishy, please refrain from saying things like that. I come back to try to be constructive and the first thing I get is "fishy". Thanks. Charmlet (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet, surely you must understand why people are asking whether you control your old account - you left, under something of a cloud (albeit it relatively small one) because you were involved in accessing another user's account, therefore there are concerns about your understanding of account security and account sharing. I really do think you need to reassure people that you are in control of your own accounts here at Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions as Gwickwire seemed mostly focused on creating drama, and abusing people who asked for help. Do you intend to change anything about your contributions, Charmlet? Optimom (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can confirm that I had the above mentioned discussions with gwickwire, the email addresses match, there is no reason to believe that they are not the same person. He and I also agreed that he would be keeping away from the "drama boards", so hopefully he can focus on the stuff he's good at. Worm^TT(talk) 06:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Can't edit 'long thread'. Request to move this to thread /* User:Rahul RJ Jain and his Jainism agenda */

So as User:Rahul RJ Jain is blocked, as per admins decision he used his previous account User:Rahuljain2307 and reverted my edit on Chanakya. He said on article's talkpage that Indian Goverment site, academic site of Chanakya National Law University, Bihar Chief Minister are unreliable sources. Further he said that being 'Brahmin' or reading Vedas does not mean he was 'Hindu' (nobody can say he was Hindu because 'Hindu' or 'Hinduism' term came into existence after 15th-16th century). Basically user is trying to say that being Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra does not mean that they are Hindu. I don't understand how to respond to this. I am saying that sources are conflicting, religion field should be blank but user is hellbent on POV and edit war and admins are silent. Please resolve this matter. neo (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that being Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shutra does not necessarily mean they are followers of hindu religion. I can point out why most of the sources you mentioned were unreliable, but the fact is, none of those sources mention anything contradictory to any of the claims that is made in the article; therefore attacking their reliability is useless as of now. As I mentioned here, if you provide reliable source which mentions anything cotradictory, we can give it their due weight in the article. I was willing to discuss the matter on the respective talk page, but it seems you don't really want to talk. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look that you are in your senses when you write outragious things like Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudras are not necessarily Hindus. Are Catholic and Protestants followers of Christianity? Are Shia and Sunni followers of Islam? And please teach us whether Earth is flat or round. neo (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a place to answer that. If you really want to know whether earth is flat or round, consider studying about it. Same goes for other questions as well. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. this article on Outlook (magazine) website also refers Chanakya as Brahmin. But now you have taken bizzarre stand that Brahmins are not necessarily Hindu. Anon IPs are inserting outragious unreferenced statement that jainism declined due to growth and opression of followers of hinduism and islam and you are making edits as if you support it. You remove thousands of kb from articles citing that magical word 'unreferenced'. Why you support unreferenced 'oppression by hindus and islam' statement? You are pushing your POV to new level. neo (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss the issue on the relative talk pages? Rahul Jain (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already stated that I resorted to this forum because I believe that you are pushing your jainism agenda through dubious sources or no sources in various articles. I can't run discussion on talkpage of every article simultaneously for same problem. Also very few users are active on jainism related articles so your dubious edits will go unchallenged for many months or years on talkpages. So I came here. Have I made myself clear? Now you have reverted my edits, you have what you want in articles, you are sitting outside and laughing by making extremely weird claims that (1) Indian Government website, Chanakya National Law University website, Bihar Chief Minister and other dozens of sources are not reliable sources but your book sources, which are not available online to verify, are reliable (2) Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra are not necessarily hindu (3) Reading and preaching religious books like Vedas by Chanakya does not mean that Chanakya was hindu. neo (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for an admin to comment on this. My case being that User:Neo. didn't even try to resolve dispute through the talk page (or any other means) and denies any intention of doing so. He is consistently blaming the sources to be dubious, but isn't explaining his position as to why the sources are dubious. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My Talk Page Needs To Be Unprotected

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 protection has expired, yet it is still unable to be edited. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird -- I can get to the edit buffer logged out. Not sure why the ip can't edit? NE Ent 22:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You just edited it. And while I'm here, unless you have something useful to contribute at Wikipedia, go somewhere else, or you will be blocked for much longer. Your "warning" on Ymblanter's talk page has been removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The IP has already edited his/her talk page with no admin involvement, however, I'm concerned that one of their first actions upon un-blocking was to issue a templated harassment warning to the admin who blocked him/her. It's hard to imagine this as something other than tendentious editing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now been warned as well. I feel much better now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Todd restored a shared template to the talk page, noting WP:BLANKING. The IP reverted Todd. I have restored the template and again semi-protected the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Todd restored a shared template, noting BLANKING and then edited BLANKING, to replace something removed a month ago. AGF that the IP expected that it was an acceptable item to remove. --Onorem (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any question that the same behavior is being repeated here? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the addition of IP templates as something that cannot be removed was added to WP: Blanking TODAY by the SAME EDITOR who put the template on my talk page (Toddst1): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUser_pages&diff=558826192&oldid=554775646 RIGHT AFTER I removed the template from my talk page. What's going on? 68.50.128.91 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the IP talk headers had been done a couple months ago ... but such a change should have gone through an RfC to ensure consensus before that clause had been removed. Toddst1's edit reverted that removal to restore the previous long-standing version per BRD, until such time that consensus does support the re-removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, RIGHT as my block expires, the policy that had been in place for MONTHS is changed by the VERY EDITOR who added the template, and I am sanctioned for violating it. This is harassment. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• If any admin wants to lift the protection I imposed on the IP's talk page because of the confusion, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, YOU need to lift the protection, since YOU erroneously put it on there. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So, how is that barking orders at people instead of asking politely working out for you? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 is admitting he's in the wrong, but is refusing to take responsibility for fixing his error, let alone apologize for it. I'm not being uncivil, but I'm not going to beg him to do something he's supposed to do. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And politeness pretty much went out the window with his comment above: "And while I'm here, unless you have something useful to contribute at Wikipedia, go somewhere else, or you will be blocked for much longer." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As someone not involved in this mess, why doesn't the IP just register an account and be free of the bothersome template? Also, disruptive and grating attacks on anyone, especially admins at ANI is likely to turn out badly. I suggest 68.50 stop, take a breather and realize that Wikipedia is not going to tolerate abusive comments. No one is "required" to do anything and given the circumstances, being nice and polite goes a lot farther than commands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

First, please review WP: Human. Next, you should review my talk page. It will fill you in on what's been going on. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This does not make any sense. 68.50.128.91 has edited his/her talk page within the last hour.[205] So why is he/she complaining here?

On his/her talk page he/she complained on 24 May 2013 that an unblock reviewer had "also referred to me as a "troll" twice before". The posts on ANI seem like trolling to me. I suggest that this disruptive IP editor be blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this disruptive? That unblock reviewer did refer to twice as a troll before, and I listed the diffs ([206] and here: [207]). Also, please read WP: Assume Good Faith. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A better suggestion to fix the problem. Unlock the page and tell the IP that BLANKING has been restored to a prior version that doesn't allow for removing the template. --Onorem (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is more important than the blanking confusion and the protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Deal with the underlying problem then. Using false reasons for the protection just gives them more ammunition for their anger. --Onorem (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. The underling problem is you refusing to take responsibility for your mistakes and your comments that generally run counter to WP: Civility and WP: HUMAN here. You've been warned about this before by other editors. What you should have done, and could still do, is say, "You're right. I made a mistake. I'll fix it. My apologies." And that would be the end of the story. But for now I'll settle for you just unprotecting the page and leaving me alone. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 68 started this thread solely to make a very simple request: to have the protection removed from his talk page so that IP editors can comment. I don't know if he made this request anywhere else (I haven't looked), but instead of just obliging the request, this has unnecessarily turned into yet another war with IP 68. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that talk page protected from unregistered editors, let alone for the two weeks it's been in place already. 68's block is over so please, just remove the protection and end this silly, pointless battle. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, I just saw all the warning templates you put on various admins' pages. Just stop it, please. Instigating a fight with everyone is definitely not going to work out well. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to fight with anyone. I'm just warning a select few admins (Ymblanter, Toddst1, and Bbb23 specifically) to stop harassing me. Apparently it's become necessary. One of my warnings was to Bbb23 regarding his inappropriate removal of your comment from my talk page (he responded with taunting me with a potential block: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABbb23&diff=558826342&oldid=558825803). I'm not the only editor who has warned them or brought up ANIs regarding their conduct. I just want these editors to go find some articles to add to instead of adding unwarranted protections etc on my talk page. I'm not going to give out anymore warnings, and won't even bother bringing up another ANI about their conduct. I just want my talk page unprotected. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's really not a good idea to template administrators. Plus, I wouldn't call their actions harassment, but rather their job. If you continue your disruptive behavior, you can be blocked. It's not harassment, it's basically what will happen. Just like parents and children. If a parent wants their child to do something and they retaliate, the parents tell them they will get a timeout or grounding if they don't. It's not harassment. If you want more info on this, you should read up on WP:HARASS. - Amaury (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation. I'll assume good faith and say that you are mistaken. Read through this entire ANI to understand what occurred before commenting again. In the meantime, refrain from personal attacks (i.e. comparing me to a child that needs to be punished by a parent), and read this: WP: Civility. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Amaury, I hope you don't think that you're helping with comments like that. You're not. And you failed to mention that you put a warning template on 68's talk page about in the past couple hours regarding the exact same thing you just lectured him about, so one might wonder why you felt it necessary to come here and do essentially the same thing again. You have your own history of being blocked, so perhaps you should stop going down this unproductive path you're on. And for the record, your analogy of of parents/admins vs. children/non-admins can be perceived as consdescending. And bogus. There are some really great admins, but they are editors just like everyone else. The only difference is... they have tools. Anyway, it always amazes me when uninvolved editors make comments that do nothing but escalate an already volatile situation, rather than trying to calm the waters. Now, 68, you say you don't want to fight anyone, but slapping all those warning templates on various admin talk pages doesn't make it seem that way, especially when it's admins you've been at war with for the past month. It's like a kamakaze mission. (Maybe someone should create an essay titled "Wikikamikaze".) You know full well that there are some edtiors who would love nothing more than to see you blocked forever. So why would you give them any ammunition that could help them make that happen? Some admins are looking for any reason to kick your ass off of Wikipedia permanently. You were absolutely right about the issue of your talk page being protected from unregistered editors; it's complete bullshit. It should never have been done and should be removed immediately. But launching non-stop rockets and grenades is crazy, particularly when you know there are so many editors who have no problem making your life on here miserable. Some apparently even enjoy it. So if I were you, I'd register for an account and never edit any of the pages you've edited previously. Start fresh and move on. After everything that's happened, it would be nearly impossible for you to ever get a fair shake and establish a good reputation, even if you deserve it. In the meantime, hopefully a reasonable admin will look at the one sentence with which you started this discussion, and just take care of it so that yet another completely unnecessary drama will put to rest. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to fight with anyone, that's why I warned them not to harass me. I want to prevent it from happening. But anyways, I'm willing to walk away from this without any further action so long as my talk page is unprotected like it should have been once Bbb23 realized he had screwed up: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=558828573 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, are you seriously going to ignore everything I just said to you? What are you doing?? Please, stop. I wish an admin would just do the right thing and unprotect 68's damn talk page and that 68 will stop his damn attacks on everyone. I hate these fucking drama boards. I don't understand why so many editors have to be so fucking stubborn. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not templating anyone, or attacking anyone. What are you even talking about? Calm down. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm one of the only editors (perhaps the only editor) who has treated you with kindness and respect, and has tried to help you. I spent all that time (just above) asking you to please stop the attacks (and to create an account). And what did you do? You came back and didn't even acknowledge one postiive piece of advice I gave you. Instead, you went into full defensive mode (again) and posted a comment that ended with "once Bbb23 realized he had screwed up". Maybe now you can understand my frustration. And it's not just with you; it's with many of the editors involved in this war you've been in for the past month. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate your treating me with kindness and respect. I've said as much. And I've also pointed out that you're one of the few who has. If you want me to thank you for that again, then yes, thank you. But, I'm not going to just "create an account." You, editing with an IP, should understand that this is not the correct way to solve this issue. That Bbb23 screwed up is not a "personal attack," in fact, he admits he did in that in very diff I posted a link to (did you read his comment in the diff?). Your frustration should be directed at him, not me. He protects my talk page, says "oops," then wonders off with a "well that's someone else's mess now." Hence most of this ANI. This is the same editor who removed your comment from my talk page (which I restored, during the time it was briefly unprotected, by the way) and then protected it. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, here you go again. Every time you post a comment, it's to insult someone and be defensive. These ongoing gripes about Bbb23 are getting you nowhere and hurting your cause even more. Everyone gets it... you're pissed at Bbb and think he was wrong. So why do you feel the need to pound everyone over the head with it? And apparently, you just want to keep ignoring everything I've said. Did I not state (more than once) that it was completely wrong to protect your talk page? And that I fully realize that there are editors who'd love to see you banned forever? If you do not understand why repeatedly saying that someone "screwed up" is uncivil and counter-productive, then no one can explain it to you. Regarding my advice that you create an account, you say that I "should understand" since I'm an IP, too. Actually, what I understand is that your reputation is essentially ruined on here. And that doesn't mean I'm saying you deserve it. I'm simply saying that that's how it is. So if you don't understand why registering would help your situation, then, again, no one can explain it to you. If you'd prefer to continue with this ongoing path of hostility between you and many other editors, no one can stop you. But I think there's a very good chance that you'll eventually be indeffed, even if you don't deserve it. In any case, I hope you'll choose to stop this constant pleading of your case and trying to convince everyone that you are right and others are wrong about things. Even if you're right about everything, it's getting you absolutely nowhere. I'm sorry if I ever gave you the impression that I was defending your behavior when it was uncivil. I wasn't. I was defending you on some editing issues and trying to get other editors to ease up on you (if you would stop attacking or insulting people). Being really senstitive and having a bad temper are not good traits for someone who wants editing Wikipedia to be a pleasant experience. Especially for an IP. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not to add more heat to the fire, but the IP editor seems thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia and was so from the very beginning. Check the contribution history.[208] By the fifth edit made remarks about deletion review.[209] and hit the edit filter as the very first edit.[210] Also the Bell ANI seems to be much of the same here.[211] I think the editor is concealing their identity and takes a hostile approach to scrutiny. I think an explanation is in order. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is a bunch of nonsense. Doc talk 03:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is, nor what you are asking. I seem "thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia." I disagree, but, thanks, I guess? "I think the editor is concealing their identity." Please read: WP: ANONYMOUS, especially this part: "Many people refer to IP editing as 'anonymous editing.' But in reality, IP editing is less anonymous than registering a username. IP addresses in many cases can be traced to an exact location." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 68, where in that comment was I comparing you to relations between parents and children? I was simply giving an example. The "you" was third-person. Furthermore, I know about civility. I've been here since December 30, 2008 and have read it several times.

IP 76, my block history has nothing to do with this. - Amaury (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess it hasn't sunk in yet. You brought up an analogy of adults punishing children in the context of a topic about my interaction with three admins. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I think you meant, "Not to add more heat to the fire, but I'm going to anyway." What a bunch of pointless crap that serves no useful purpose whatsoever. And let me remind you that alleging that someone is a sock without filing a report at SPI can be considered harassment. And while you think "an explanation is in order", 68 owes you nothing. If you think he's a sock, report it. And you better have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, knock off the disruptive rhetoric. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Amaury, you obviously don't want your block history to be a part of this, but when you do the types of things you've been doing in this situation, it will become a part of it. When you keep choosing to unnecessarily intensify the drama, rather than trying to cool things down, you always run the risk of being boomeranged. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just giving my two cents, like anyone is freely able to. However, seeing as I'm not involved in this, this will be my last comment on the matter. Have a good night. - Amaury (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

68, I should have asked this originally: Why was coming here to AN/I the very first thing you did after your block expired today? Why didn't you just go to Bbb23's talk page and say, "Can you please unprotect my talk page?" I think all of this crap could possibly have been avoided if you had done that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted the first admin available to remove the protection. It was supposed to automatically expire, and it didn't. I thought it was a tech issue, so the first admin who could figure out what was going on would be able to fix it. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. Cruising for a bruising. Can't see another point opening this thread. Doc talk 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Doc9871, please read WP: Assume Good Faith. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Never heard that one! Quit harassing good-faith users. Doc talk 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please read it in its entirety. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Contributions, and especially history of the user_talk page of 68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as attacks against Toddst1 and against Bbb23 reveal an obvious WP:gaming the system pattern. I think it’s a time to put the end to IP lawyers who waste the time of legitimate editors for many weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the links you posted. You'll see that that they aren't attacks, but rather are warnings. Also, read WP: HUMAN. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your last statement is well-meaning, but a bit sweeping. This particular IP just needs to stop opening the AN/I threads, pronto. And this thread should be closed and archived as a waste of time. Doc talk 05:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You can thank Bbb23 for wasting everyone's time. As 76.189.109.155 wrote above, "IP 68 started this thread solely to make a very simple request: to have the protection removed from his talk page so that IP editors can comment. I don't know if he made this request anywhere else (I haven't looked), but instead of just obliging the request, this has unnecessarily turned into yet another war with IP 68. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to have that talk page protected from unregistered editors, let alone for the two weeks it's been in place already. 68's block is over so please, just remove the protection and end this silly, pointless battle." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

He also said you shouldn't have come straight here. You're here to make trouble. Let the others sort you out. Doc talk 05:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He asked why I came straight here. And I responded. This is your second warning: follow WP: Assume Good Faith. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the second warning. You are currently an edit warrior who attacks admins with ludicrous warnings. I AGF of the admins I already know way before you and your foolish warnings. You don't seem to get what vandalism or harassment is. My AGF of you is low. So pipe down and learn the site's rules. There are quite a few. Or open another thread like this. Doc talk 06:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, again, I'd like to wipe my hands of this, and I'm sure others would too. No further warnings back and forth, bickering, or anything else. Just unprotect my talk page, and we can all go on with other things. Also, any ANIs regarding admin or editor conduct regarding this topic won't come from me. Clean break. That's my proposal. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, please. Unblock the talk page, archive, move on. Enough. Doc talk 06:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Doc. Will someone please just unprotect 68's talk page and close this thread. As you'll see from all of my comments above, I've tried to help 68 with the issue that brought him here, but his behavior in this discussion is getting out-of-control. I have a strong feeling that if this discussion continues, he's going to end up getting blocked yet again. For a long time. And I don't want to see that happen. So is there an admin (Bbb or someone else) who will just please unprotect his talk page and put an end to this useless conversation? Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is depressing that this little bunfight has gotten far more attention than actual content-related threads occurring above. Could we all (myself included!) work a little more on tilting the signal:noise ratio a little further to the left? — The Potato Hose 06:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  There is one simple solution. An admin removes the talk page protection. The thread is then over. Doc talk 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Point of information Can an IP edit their own talk page while it is semi'd? NE Ent 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Unless they have had their talk page access revoked for other reasons. Theoretically. Doc talk 11:19, 8 June 2013 (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.