Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831

Hacker threat today

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 received this beauty today:

"we the hackers of anonymous Philippines has been inform by one of our members that you and your so called friends in Wikipedia has been bullying him and prosecuting him and his articles in your web page,well in response we the hackers of Anonymous Philippines has decided to teach you guys a lesson so be ready with your deletion buttons so that you could clean the mess we will do to your beloved web page we don't stand for online bullying so be ready for war-hackers of Anonymous Philippines"

Looks like some people have nothing better to do with their lives. User indeffed. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[Update] Not sure where this came from or why, but it may be related to User:Malusia22. If anybody is familiar with this case (I am not), feel free to comment. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar threat aimed at Gogo Dodo [1]after he blocked one of the Malusia socks. "War-hackers"? I suspect it's just one person. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Some people may think they can break Wikipedia, but that is impossible. They'll learn it. Tito☸Dutta 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the thing about the internet. I can claim to be Liam Neeson with a particular set of skills, but that doesn't make it true. (Spoiler: it isn't.) Admins get some interesting threats but I have to hand it to you, Alexf, that's probably more entertaining than anything I've ever received. -- Atama頭 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I can top that, and from right here on Wikipedia. In response to my including cited negative views of the subject in a biographical article I was the subject of the following: There has been a concerted all-out effort by extreme leftist and Islamofascist individuals to attack [X] publicly in his online groups, by mass emailing, and by editing and redistributing articles about him on Wikipedia to include derogatory and false information. These repetitive daily attacks have been going on for several months with the purpose of disrupting [X]'s work and interfering with his communications with other physicists online in his groups. The reason for the attacks is to prevent any chance of an American Dark Energy program getting off the ground. Our enemies want to deploy Dark Energy weapons before we do to insure world domination. Our communist and Islamofascist enemies are also buying time in which to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US to destroy us. This is not a conspiracy theory. Interference with [X]'s defense work is a serious felony under US TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2388 § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.". Later in the same dispute I was listed as a "Judenrat" (one of the Jews who assisted concentration camp guards), a "blatant liar" and other similar epithets, and a statement that a suit had been filed with the US Attorney's office to prevent me posting such criticism. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---nuked beans go here---

Speaking of beans -- there's nothing like a hat to focus attention on a section of the wall of text known as ANI. WP:BEANS is generally something that should not be wikilinked, per beans. (Don't say "Don't stuff beans up your nose!"!!!) Beans is mostly about not making a post in the first place -- if you really think another's post is just shouldn't be there, remove the darn thing and let them know why (usually on their talk page, by email if absolutely necessary). NE Ent 11:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is all related to Malusia22 and their effort to get an article published about their gang related to their fraternity. I also got this hilarious death threat a few hours before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll should see the stuff we get at the WMF. I have a literal "pile o' crazy" that goes from your run of the mill tin-foil hattery all the way up to "seriously? you wrapped the LETTER in tin foil to protect me from the tiny little robots that live in meat and stole February? Thanks, i think." Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh, Philippe (WMF), please don't exaggerate. It was only the last two (or three) days of February that were stolen. BTW, where did they go? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh, the tiny little robots got them. You aren't paying attention, are you? :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I knew it! It was THEM that stole it! -- Alexf^(talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, it also coulda been Maggie. She's bad about misplacing things. It's only a matter of time before she loses February. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Philippe Beaudette, I know there are privacy concerns and all that, but honestly, I think there would be more sympathy and understanding of WMF if we knew the level of craziness you have to deal with. I know, reading over AN and AN/I has helped me understand both the legitimate requests and the more off-beat demands some editors and readers make of admins on Wikipedia that I had been unaware of in my editing bubble. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We are the Legion We are the Anonymous, beware of serious threat of vandalistic violence, suicide virus or shutdown death threat, mail bomb threat, etc hacking cracking phreaking passwording, for banning anyone interested in Anna Katharina Emmerick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.228 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like that (above), exactly like that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Liz, I've been thinking about that and toying with a Wikimania presentation. The problem is, for me to get the best of the stories out there, I'd have to edit them so mercilessly that we might take all the fun out of them. I'm still thinking about it, though. I've also toyed with a blog post that talks about some of what we do. I also did an office hours once and talked about our work. I'd love other ideas of how we could get some of that out there. You can take that to my talk or email me (anyone!) if you have any ideas. It's just philippe{at]wikimedia.org. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (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:K6Ka supporter

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.

---

Google Alerts sent me an e-mail when they found a new search match when one Google's "k6ka". Apparently, someone created a new Wikipedia account with the username K6Ka supporter. Here's what concerns me:

1. On the user's userpage, they state: "I am here to stop vandalizim in Wikipedia with the help of my friend K6Ka. Come and support me as well. Thank you, Siddharth"

I don't have a friend named Siddharth, nor do I know someone IRL with that name. A lot of my friends do know that I have a Wikipedia account and that I fight vandalism, but I simply can't imagine them doing something like this.

2. The username has "k6ka" in it. This concerns me a lot because a lot of people would think this is my sockpuppet. I want to clarify right now that this is NOT a sockpuppet account, and that a CheckUser is welcome to check.

I will keep an eye on this suspicious user's contributions, but I'm quite positive that whoever created this account is not someone I know personally. I would ask that the owner of this account, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, to abandon this account and create a new one, or use an existing one that hopefully has a less concerning username if possible. The last thing I want is to be blocked for sockpuppetry that I didn't do. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure (would someone please clarify), but in the future I think you would just need to put a brief statement at WP:UAA saying that the account was impersonating/attacking you. Whether or not the "supporter" can make up some fantastic story is not relevant, the account just needs to be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I have a different take on this:

1. It's clearly NOT imitation - the use of their "real name" on the userpage shows that, and it shows their intentions. Any admin would typically see that, and not consider it to be your sock
2. People who may have interacted with you on articles (possibly even while editing anonymously) may often feel some form of brotherhood with you based on similar views, and think of you as a "friend"
3. I do have a minor concern that the editor may already have an account and this was created as some form of alternate account - which while techically fine, might occasionally run afoul of the WP:SOCK#LEGIT aspects

The short version is this: you have a fan. Feel blessed. Most of us don't have any fans whatsoever. ES&L 11:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The user called me a "friend", and I'm rather hesitant on who I call a "friend". I have two kinds of friends - the Internet friend, which you meet over the Internet, and a personal friend, one that you met in person. Both kinds of friends require that I know the person for an amount of time and that I have worked or interacted with him/her before. So when someone pops up out of nowhere and calls me a friend... that's where I get really uncomfortable.

It doesn't seem right that I would get a fan while other users who've been on longer than me, have more experience than me, and have more edits than me, don't. I am quite wary of this person. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Try becoming an admin ... the "friends" get more nasty :-) Et tu, Bruté comes to mind ES&L 13:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's not acceptable. K6ka, I suppose this might possibly be somebody you know IRL having a joke with you, as people can be very, uh, jocular in an open project. But it seems more likely to be a vandal you have disobliged, having a little troll with you. In any case, it needs to be stopped, if K6ka, a harmless and useful vandalism fighter, is uncomfortable enough with it that s/he comes here to ask for our help. The name "K6Ka supporter" and the comment on their userpage is pretty obvious trolling, especially if you consider that there are no other contributions than the userpage — no "vandalism fighting". I have asked them nicely (well, nicely for me) to create another account. If there's no response, I intend to delete the userpages and indeff the account. Trigger-happy Panda, there are fans and then there a stalkers. Most of us prefer to decide which people we let snuggle up to us and call us "friends", even on the internet. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Funny that I have been often accused of being "trigger happy" with the block button, and indeed I think I was referred to as a bully once. ES&L 14:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense intended, ES&L, as I've seen you do some good work, but you seem to be having some judgement concerns today. Between telling a wary editor with a possible stalker "You have a fan. Feel blessed." and your condonement of the "jailbait" user page two threads down, seems atypical of you. Have a cup of tea, some fresh bamboo, maybe a nap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but his reasoning for wanting action was because he didn't want it to be considered as one of his socks. My argument surrounded that, n'est-ce pas? And I still stick by my comments below. Hell, we had a girl we called "jailbait" as a nickname in high school because of her penchant for older guys. It's not an uncommon nickname, and I certainly believe some overly-aggressive behaviour has taken place in that thread. Yeah, 4 nights with only 5 hours sleep causes issues...but not that bad DP 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is blockable per WP:IMPERSONATOR. Note where it states, "One should not choose a username that implies a relationship with an existing editor (unless the account is actually owned or the relationship is acknowledged by the editor themselves)." Obviously in this case, not only is the relationship not acknowledged, it's disputed. And for what it's worth, I've been accused of being a wimp with my blocking tools (in one case on this very noticeboard when I refused to be another editor's "hitman" years ago). -- Atama頭 19:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've waited long enough after my note to them, I'm blocking and deleting. In the unlikely contingency that K6ka's "friend" actually wants to edit Wikipedia (they haven't so far), they can just as well create a new account. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for taking yet another thing off my mind. The worst I can imagine are my friends begging me unsuccessfully for my password, but I haven't thought of this ever occurring. Let's hope this doesn't happen again. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a similar problem again, the simplest thing is to take it to WP:UAA as recommended by Johnuniq above. For other kinds of harassment, you're most welcome back on ANI or, perhaps simpler, my page if I'm active. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 28 February 2014 (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:Amsterdad

Several editors have identified this Wikipedian's work as appearing to be paid editing. there is a discussion on User:DGG's talk page and one of their article's is at AfD. Another example is: Monica Lindstrom. I am also wondering how these articles that have been created over the past couple of years were never tagged or raised red flags despite appearing to be very promotional and poorly sourced? Who has reviewing them? Is it possible to determine? Thanks for your consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are almost 4 1/2 million articles on Wikipedia. A handful are going to slip past the finite (and shrinking) number of people keeping track. It happens. -- Atama頭 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The first of these pages is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Hudson. If it is deleted, I intend to nominate others from the same ed., starting with the most dubious. Of the 4.5 million pages, perhaps about 1.5 million are substantial. My guess that at least 5% of them are similar to this, many of them from the earlier days of the project. When I joined 7 years ago, anything that technically met the GNG was accepted unless there was prejudice against the subject. The difficult question for us is not how can we get rid of them, which is easy enough if there is the will to do it (at least 1/4 of similar pages I send to AfD are being kept for lack of interest in removing them) , but how to identify the ones that are worth rewriting and find people to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I had to double-check when you said you joined 7 years ago, DGG. Because that's about the time I joined (or created an account, at least). I could swear you've been around much longer than me. I checked... And you joined one month before me. Sorry for the tangent, but it blew my mind a bit. -- Atama頭 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the concerns of DGG in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, no one is paying me to do my volunteer work here, and if this is how my work is being treated I will definitely be considering leaving this place. Life is too important to waste on friction. For now, I will be cutting down the articles as others have suggested, as it appears I've misunderstood what good sources are and which aren't. I do apologize, if you feel it is necessary, for trying to use as many sources as possible. I will obviously have to review the rules further if I choose to stay. Amsterdad (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gone all the way back yet, but I believe these are some of the articles in question:

• Sam Korankye Ankrah
• Laurette Koellner
• Greenberg Glusker
• Danny Rich (rabbi)
• Michael Jay Moon
• Simplilearn
• TakeLessons
• Fionnuala Sweeney
• Bill A. Jones
• Amy Markham
• LabWare
• Peter Staley
• Rob Dickerman
• Ritu Raj
• DJ Amadeus ‎
• Martin G. Bean
• George Walker (printmaker)
• Jill Konrath

As a side note, Atama's response in uninspiring. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Candleabracadabra, thanks for making a list of articles with potential problems. I have read up on reliable sourcing and I am working try to fix these articles as best as possible to meet Wikipedia's requirements/ Amsterdad (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Amsterdad You may want a mentor to guide you during the editing process Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is one place to start. Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As I told Amsterdad on the AfD, the problems are not just sourcing. Among the are: 1/ the inclusion of extraneous material and links in order to give a good impression of the importance of the subject, 2/ writing in such as a way as to state the subject's accomplishments without sources to back them up-- 3/ exaggeration, listing journal articles and book chapters as if they were books, inclusion of minor charities, not just naming the charity but saying at some length what its good works are, and claiming that everything good during the time the person was there even in a subordinate position was do the subject. His fix so far on the article at afd goes about half way to dealing with the major problems. the worst of the problems. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would want to work in this fashion unless they were being paid for it, and I find it very hard indeed to imagine why someone would pick this particularly scattered list of topics, unless they are clients responding to an advertisement. There may be an explanation, of course, Per arb com, we can not ask someone to prove they are not a paid editor, so the only recourse we have is to treat everything that looks like paid editing as it it were. Alternatively, the next arb com might decide to have enough sense to decide that outing does apply in this sort of situation where there are only commercial interests involved. Or Jimmy & those who think like him on this might realize one can not simultaneous insist both on no paid editing and on complete anonymity. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that all creations of this editor will have to be looked at. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

User:AnnerTown and gross WP:BLP violations

User:AnnerTown, a WP:SPA concerning the Juggalos (gang) and related articles, has repeatedly violated WP:BLP and other policies over this matter, and seems entirely incapable of understanding the need for proper sourcing, and the need to accurately report what sources say. The latest episode involves AnnerTown asserting as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that a homeless man, arrested after an incident which ended in a stabbing, was "a Juggalo and former member of the guerrilla insurgent group Irish Republican Army". [2] As the source cited makes clear, [3] the man himself is alleged to have made such a claim - but the source makes no suggestion whatsoever that either statement is true. Furthermore, it should be noted that the source (from May last year) only refers to charges, and an upcoming court appearence - accordingly it is highly questionable per WP:BLP policy whether this incident would belong in the article even if it could be established that the man was a Juggalo gang member, which of course the source cited doesn't state: it says - correctly - that "Juggalos are fans of Insane Clown Posse, a horror-based rap group", and says nothing whatsoever about membership of any gang. Which of course makes the entire section off-topic for the article anyway. As for the BLP implications of Wikipedia asserting as fact that a homeless man is a member of an organisation frequently regarded as terrorist, I think nothing further needs to be said. There is a long history of dubious sourcing and BLP violations regarding this and related articles, and AnnerTown has been at the heart of it. Given that AnnerTown is now edit-warring to retain this gross violation of multiple policies, and given that AnnerTown's past history (which includes a ridiculously premature appeal to ArbCom [4], and a thread started at Dispute Resolution which AnnerTown conveniently disappeared from as soon as relevent questions were asked [5], as well as multiple earlier WP:BLP violations - I'll document these later if needed), I think it would be for the best to block AnnerTown indefinitely, on competence grounds, before more damage is done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Incidentally, it should be noted that as well as labelling a homeless person as an IRA member, the edit in question also states that " a group of men accosted him for wearing a Juggalo-related T-shirt" - which isn't supported by the source either. AnnerTown is at least consistent, in that everyone involved in the incident gets to be the subject of a WP:BLP violation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. In my defense, I will say the following:

• AndyTheGrump here has been extremely rude and disruptive ever since I began writing at Wikipedia. You'll notice that all of his edits made in relation to the article in question are either to remove things, challenge things, or try to challenge the article itself. He's made it very clear that he's not interested in anything other than getting rid of the article (and now, apparently, the person who wrote it). He's also not talked this over with me at any length. He's only engaged in edit warring (of which I am also guilty) and done the absolute bare minimum for this to be reported at WP:ANI (a half-assed comment on my talk page), without attempting to resolve it peacefully.

• This whole wacky episode started when he accused me of a BLP violation because I added a sourced statement saying that a guy committed a crime, when the source said that he was in fact planning to plead guilty. I assume that Andy's problem was that he had not yet actually plead guilty, but of course he did not explain this to me, he just told me basically "you're not competent enough to edit Wikipedia." So I read over WP:BLP, added a source saying that he was convicted, and he removed the text AGAIN, even with a source, along with another area of text about a Juggalo criminal arrested for a stabbing. He claimed that it was a BLP violation to say that the guy who stabbed people was a member of the IRA, when he himself claimed to be a former member of the IRA. (FORMER member, which is probably why he's homeless.) This struck me as ridiculous, and (to no avail) I asked him what the problem was.

• AndyTheGrump, who is a much more experienced editor than I, did not bother to discuss any of the finer details of point #2 with me at all. He basically just said, "This is a BLP violation, and I want you blocked," and continued to edit war with me without explanation despite being asked what the problem was. If he would have said that "the problem is that he CLAIMS to be a member of the IRA, not that he IS one," then I would have simply changed the article to say that he "claimed". But an accurate Wikipedia article is not what he's aiming for here. He doesn't care if I have sources, or what the article itself says. He just wants me gone. I hope that whoever resolves this dispute will understand this and allow me to continue editing.

• As far as the WP:SPA accusation goes, I would agree that my edits are limited to a specific set of subjects, but I don't really think that I'm "advocating" anything. I wrote the Juggalo gang article because there are plenty of sources for this phenomenon, yet no Wikipedia article. I'm also working on a couple of other Wikipedia articles on my PC right now, so this will be a moot point in the near future anyhow.

• I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I apologize that I forgot about the dispute resolution thing. I'm more than willing to try it again while I have some spare time. Please also consider that I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, and I take frequent hiatuses as I travel, so I'm not as familiar with all of the policies and procedures as some people; I'm still getting used to things to some degree. I've edited Wikis in the past, but this is a whole new ball game, and I still have much to learn.

• I felt that the Juggalo/IRA thing belonged in this article because this article is dedicated to documenting the Juggalo criminal element, and it might damage the reputations of Juggalos who are not criminals if it were put in the main article. I've tried to make it abundantly clear through that article that Juggalos themselves are not dedicated criminals, and the criminal element makes up only a small population of the subculture, a position which is supported by most of the sources cited by the article. Clearly, this man was a criminal, and he belonged to that criminal element. This is something that should probably be discussed in the article's talk page instead of here, and I don't think anyone should be blocked for it either way.

• I am doing my best to understand Wikipedia policies and respond to Andy's complaints. He's doing his best to fail to provide me with relevant information and to get me blocked from Wikipedia. In my mind, that's what this boils down to.

• Finally, all of this should be discussed on the article's talk page in order to perhaps reach some sort of agreement. I'm not perfect, and for that matter neither is Andy, but no one needs to be blocked.

• Relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juggalos_%28gang%29&diff=597478005&oldid=597476990

AnnerTown (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly, this man was a criminal, and he belonged to that criminal element." Um, no, repeating a WP:BLP violation on WP:ANI isn't going to do your case much good. The only thing that is 'clear' is that the source doesn't say (a) that he has been convicted of anything, (b) that he is/was a member of the IRA, or (c) that he is/was a member of any Juggalo gang... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that Wikipedia wasn't allowed to cite arrests or criminal indictments until today, but what I meant was, he is a criminal if this is true. I'll give you that one, and I agree that this section can be removed until the court reaches a decision. Of course, you wait until we're on WP:ANI to give me these sorts of details, because you're trying to get me banned, not improve the article. Once again, that's what this boils down to. If you'd brought up any of the above issues on the article's talk page, using the detail that you are using here, they would have already been resolved, but it seems that's not the outcome that you are looking for. AnnerTown (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• AnnerTown (talk) - Ignorance of the community-adopted WP:BLPCRIME policy is no excuse to continually violate it, especially after being warned. Violations of the WP:BLPCRIME policy can be removed without discussion, because of legal ramifications to the Wikimedia organization (defamation). It's just that simple. Your edit-warring (even in ignorance of the policy) does not help your position very much. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AnnerTown, so what you are saying is that you didn't know that Wikipedia doesn't state that people are guilty before they have been convicted of a crime, and you needed this explained to you before you would stop edit-warring such claims into articles? Ridiculous.

And you have still to explain why you think that Wikipedia should be labelling someone a member of a terrorist organisation, based on nothing but a statement allegedly made by a homeless man under the influence of alcohol. Do you think that being drunk and homeless makes someone incapable of fabrications?

And furthermore you have still to explain why any of this belonged in an article entitled 'Juggalos (gang)' when no evidence whatsoever has been presented that the individual concerned was a member of any gang. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Fair enough, but it certainly would have helped if someone had explained all this to me in the first place. I think it says a lot when someone recommends that I be blocked from editing altogether instead of simply telling me what I'm doing wrong. I'll try to do better in the future, but this was an honest mistake. I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I think that educating me would be more beneficial than blocking me outright. It's a bit extreme to punish me when I don't realize that I'm doing anything wrong, especially now that I better understand the policy. Even if a discussion isn't required to remove the material, AndyTheGrump did not reference WP:BLPCRIME in the IRA instance at all, so I didn't even realize it was an issue in that case until he posted it here. It's not fair to block me when I specifically ask "What is the problem here?" and get no response. Hell, the first time he reverted the edit, the edit summary simply consisted of "reb" without any clear explanation of what that meant or why the material was being removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juggalos_%28gang%29&diff=597213933&oldid=597213310 AndyTheGrump should be working with me to improve the article, not being cryptic and attacking me. I am not his enemy, but he seems to believe otherwise. But I'll improve my editing in the future in that regard. Once again, I wasn't aware of that policy until today, and I apologize.

2. The article was originally titled "Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos" before being changed to "Juggalos (gang)", and I was operating under the assumption that it was not just limited to gang-related criminal activity, but to Juggalo-related criminal activity as a whole. I felt it would be better suited to place the information here than on the main Juggalo article. Furthermore, the article sourced just before that article, from the same news source, referred to "the Juggalo street gang, who are devoted fans of the horror-rap group Insane Clown Posse that participate in criminal activities." - http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/06/juggalo-street-gang-member-arrested-after-attack-p/ But this is, once again, something that should be discussed and perhaps moved to another page, or simply removed.

3. Where are you getting the idea that he was intoxicated on alcohol? I didn't see that in the source. He CLAIMED that he had a few drinks. It didn't say that he was intoxicated, or even make any indication that his claims of drinking were true. Anyway, once again, this could have simple been changed to "alleged member" or "claimed he was a member" or even discussed this on the talk page. There is no chance of it being a legal liability since it came out of his mouth. AnnerTown (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "I wasn't told" argument won't wash, since I had already posted the following statement on the article talk page, in the thread you recently started: "WE DO NOT ASSERT AS FACT THAT PERSONS CHARGED BUT NOT YET CONVICTED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENCES HAVE IN FACT CARRIED OUT SUCH OFFENCES. EVER" [6] That's right, I said it in block capitals. In bold. Not normally considered compliant with talk page etiquette, admittedly, but at least it should have been obvious. I'd have thought so, at least. And no, I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing this elsewhere. You clearly lack the competence to be involving yourself in such controversial articles if you are unaware of such elementary legal principles as the presumption of innocence - which isn't just Wikipedia policy, but law. As for the rest of your comments, they merely illustrate further that you were more concerned with padding the article with negative material than with accurately reporting sources, and it doesn't matter a damn what was said elsewhere: we don't engage in original research to decide what we think sources are saying. The article cited didn't state that the man was a Juggalo gang member, so neither can we - and accordingly it doesn't belong in the article. As for the lack of 'legal liability', even if you are right in that the homeless man can't sue us you* for stating that he is an IRA member (which may or not be true - we are of course reporting it third-hand), we also owe a duty to our readers not to post random bullshit into articles just so we can pad out an article. AndyTheGrump (talk)

*Note. It is much more likely that the person getting sued in such circumstances would be the person responsible for the edit, rather than the WMF, who take great care to ensure that they aren't accountable for such things. Which they do by ensuring that policies such as WP:BLP are in place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And further to you not being aware of WP:BLP policies, can you explain how you were unaware of the thread entitled "A gross violation of WP:BLP policy" [7] that I posted on your talk page in January of last year, where I pointed out the multiple violations of policy you had already made? Why didn't you ask for an explanation then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You never said that the IRA source had anything to do with WP:BLPCRIME, even after I had asked "What is the problem here?". You only indicated in your edit summaries that you were removing it because the idea that he was an IRA member violated WP:BLP, which is a completely different. I only learned about WP:BLPCRIME today, and it never once crossed my mind that it applied to the IRA source, since that's NOT what you said. I did figure out that the Norteno reference was related to WP:BLPCRIME after reading WP:BLP, and I added another source accordingly.

Also, the idea that I'm "only interested in negative information" is absolutely false and betrays your bias against me. Yes, I have added a lot of crimes committed by Juggalos, but I've also made sure that it is balanced out with an entire section on the differences between criminal and non-criminal Juggalos, as well as stating very clearly at the top of the page that not all Juggalos are criminals or gang members. My last major edit included quotes by police officers which have stated that not all Juggalos are gang members or criminals. This is an article about violent criminal activity. It's naturally going to have a lot of negativity. Violent criminal groups are not known for doing positive things!

But this has nothing to do with my competency as an editor, it just means that maybe the article doesn't read as well as it should. Andy is ironically just trying to pad this discussion with negative bullshit.

And I never said that he was a Juggalo gang member. You need your eyes checked. I said that this article was originally named Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos, and I was operating under the assumption that all Juggalo criminal activity would be better suited to that article than the main Juggalo article, because that's how the article started off. Maybe that's not the case, but if so, here is not the place to discuss it. (And I'm well aware that you're not interested in talking about it anywhere else, which only further betrays your bias - you just want me gone.)

As far as the old reivision of my talk page that you linked to, I doubt that I even read it or knew that it was there, considering that I apparently didn't respond. If I did, I certainly don't remember it. This was over a year ago when I knew very little about Wikipedia other than the basics. After this discussion, you can be sure that I won't forget again.

And yeah, I'm sure that lawsuit would go over real well:

HOMELESS JUGGALO: Hey, Judge. I said I was in the IRA, and then the news repeated what I said, and then Wikipedia repeated what the news said. Do I get money?

JUDGE: What the hell have you been smoking? Get out of my courtroom.

The rest of this discussion is just going to be me and Andy flinging shit at each other, apparently, so I'm done with it.

Closing argument, because I have to go to bed: STATicVapor has noted that while the article was awful when I first created it, and it still has issues, I have made an effort to clean it up and improve it. I will continue to do so. Blocking someone when they genuinely don't understand a Wikipedia policy is overkill, and I believe that the best course of action is to allow me to learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor, which I will make every attempt to do. AnnerTown (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, a clear lack of competence. AnnerTown "never said that he was a Juggalo gang member". but included him in an article on Juggalo gang members anyway. And thinks that's ok. And still thinks that Wikipedia should be labelling people as members of terrorists organisations based on a source that doesn't say that they are a member of a terrorist organisation. And thinks that just because they don't think they will get sued, that's ok. Ridiculous.

As for my 'bias', I'll freely admit to be biased against articles which declare people guilty prior to conviction, which cite material anonymously uploaded to filesharing websites as sources, and which still contain gross WP:BLP violations. I've just noticed that there is yet another assertion of guilt based on a source which refers to individuals who have been arrested, but not convicted - this time regarding an alleged murder. [8] I have of course removed the offending material, but at this point, I think it may be wise to ask for the entire article to be revdel'd as sorting out the valid content from the policy violations is probably less effort than recreation from scratch with appropriate sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You repeatedly calling them a terrorist organization, when they are definitely not, is a WP:BLP violation. STATic message me! 15:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is twisting the facts here, and this should be dismissed for that reason alone. The IRA is not a terrorist org, the suspects were convicted of the "alleged" murder that he just removed and complained was a WP:BLP violation, he claims that it's wrong to include Juggalo criminal activity in an article based on Juggalo criminal activity, and he's falsely claiming that I want to use "sources anonymously uploaded to file-sharing web sites", which is not the case at all (and all of the editors working on the article besides him want to keep the source in question). Now he's asking for the ENTIRE ARTICLE to be destroyed, not just whatever he believes is offending, along with all of the reliable sources used in it, and removed from public view (!), and asking for me to be banned, so that it cannot be easily rebuilt. His agenda here is clear as day. He's using underhanded tactics to get rid of an article that he doesn't like. AnnerTown (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:STATicVapor, that's splitting hairs. User:AndyTheGrump's initial statement insofar as that's concerned was that the IRA is "an organisation frequently regarded as terrorist," and the IRA's own article describes them as "a guerilla insurgent group." Terrorism is such a subjective word, but that a significant number of people do regard the IRA as terrorists should be uncontroversial, whether or not they actually are terrorists. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that "the suspects were convicted of the 'alleged' murder that he just removed", that is entirely beside the point - WP:BLP policy is utterly clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If they have been convicted, it is an absolute and non-negotiable requirement that a source be cited that says so. And for what it's worth I did a Google search, and couldn't find any evidence of conviction - not that I was under any obligation to do this. As for whether the IRA is a terrorist organisation or not, opinions differ - but it is an irrelevance, in that it is clearly a violation of WP:BLP policy to be describing an individual as a member of the organisation, on the dubious grounds that AnnerTown did. That AnnerTown quibbles over the legality of the IRA (Which IRA - there have been several organisations using the name, at least one of which is still engaging in bombings, shootings etc? And under which jurisdiction?) suggest to me that my comments regarding competence are still valid. Anyone with an ounce of sense, never mind a passing knowledge of Wikipedia policy, should understand that one does not describe someone as a member of "a guerilla insurgent group" without very strong grounds indeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Provisional Irish Republican Army (which the term "IRA" is most commonly used to refer to when talking about recent history) is legally a terrorist group, so STATicVapor's comment is inaccurate. Being blunt, AnnerTown should be indefinitely blocked until they agree to follow WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, and not to plead ignorance (this account has been around since November 2012, so not having ever looked at BLP at the very least is an unacceptable excuse). Interesting to note that that a month after the talk-page discussion went stale, and after a 5-month absence, AnnerTown popped up with this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Further gross violation of WP:BLP policy in the Juggalos (gang) article.

For some strange reason, User:Niteshift36, who clearly should be aware of Wikipedia policies by now, has decided to edit-war a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy back into the article. The source cited describes "two men arrested in connection with [an] attack" which left a man dead, as Juggalos, and states that the victim "called himself a "Juggalo," but it's alleged he snitched and lost his life for that" [9] - all allegations, nothing in the source stating that there has been any conviction. The material Niteshift36 has repeatedly [10][11] restored to the article states that " was found dead in the woods after having been stabbed more than 20 times with a meat cleaver by Juggalo gang members after it was alleged that he was a police informant. The culprits were discovered after a member of the gang wrote a horrorcore rap song about the incident and posted it on MySpace" - an unequivocal assertion of guilt, entirely unsupported by the source cited. Since, unlike AnnerTown above, claims regarding the ignorance of policy clearly won't fool anyone, I can see no reason whatsoever why Niteshift36 shouldn't be indefinitely blocked for a gross violation of core WP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Protected. I don't have time to read very far into this one tonight, but I didn't like the back and forth on a BLP and protection is better than blocking. --John (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm edit warring? Grow up. You've been reverted by at least 3 separate editors. You keep acting like your interpreta(tion is the only valid one. If there is anyone here who is edit warring, it's you and if this system works at all, there really should be a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way. When edit warring with one editor didn't work, you came here. You've failed to find the mandate you wanted and another experience editor started reverting you, yet you continued to edit war, hiding behind a false BLP shield. Then you started edit warring with me too. You have no moral high ground here. You have no consensus. What you have is a raging case of article ownership and some WP:IDHT. As for your request for an indef block: Go hump someone else's leg. (spare me the whining about civil because that's just hypocritical from you). Since you've expressed your intent to not discuss anything [12], addressing your objection is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that Niteshift36 has offered no defence whatsoever for violating core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently you didn't note that I rejected your claim that it violates BLP. So no, I didn't defend myself because it's not happening. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So an assertion that identifiable individuals committed a murder cited to a source that doesn't state that they committed a murder doesn't violate WP:BLP? That is an interesting interpretation of policy. Not one that will get you far though, I suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing says that committed the crime. It says it's believed that they did. We're not making the claim, the reliable source is reporting the belief. What I find interesting is how you seem to think none of us can read the policy correctly, only you can. In any case, your IDHT gets worse by the minute and talking to you is clearly pointless because you've already said there is nothing to discuss. I might discuss this with someone else, but I'm done entertaining your self-centered nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing says that theyy committed the crime? "stabbed more than 20 times with a meat cleaver by Juggalo gang members"? "The culprits were discovered..."? And that isn't an assertion that the individuals named in the source were guilty? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The article clearly calls them "the accused". Trying to cherry pick a sentence won't make you right. We're talking about ABC freakin News here, not some blog. They know about libel laws. You're just being a pain in the ass. Niteshift36 (talk)

• Oh, guess what? This is all fucking pointless. They were convicted.[13]. Life without parole. Convicted in 2011. That took me 45 seconds to find. All this whining, bitching and teeth gnashing about BLP and you never bothered to look to see that it has already gone to trial, they were convicted and sentence. Can we PLEASE put this bullshit to rest now. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The article asserted their guilt, based on a source that didn't say that they were guilty. Per WP:BLP policy, the material had to be removed. Not left until someone found a source. The policy is clear and non-negotiable. And if it was that easy to find, why didn't you find it yourself, rather than edit-warring to revert the WP:BLP violation? YOU are responsible for your edits - its not my responsibility to go around after you cleaning up your mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• the article called them the accused. They'd been arrested and charged. This is not a BLP issue. As for the rest of your excuse making and wound licking: You can try to save face all you want, but I don't see anyone rushing to your aid. Now, I'd love to see you do the honorable thing and contact the admin that locked the article and tell him the true issue is solved. Personally, I doubt you will. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Which article called them the accused? Ours didn't. It called them "culprits". Do you own a dictionary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The ABC news article that was the source. If you are solely talking about the wording in the Wikipedia article, then you're even more wrong. You shouldn't have removed it, merely reworded it. As for a dictionary, I have one and it includes the word "pointless", which is what this conversation has become. They were convicted already. Be a stand up guy, accept it and work in the best way to include it in the article, not this pointless (there is that word again) campaign of windmill tilting. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The material you repeatedly added misrepresented the source, and violated WP:BLP policy in doing so. I carried out WP:BLP policy by removing it: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Be a stand-up guy and admit you were wrong to violate policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry you're unable to let it go. The material WILL go back in the article. Sorry you wasted all this time fighting a losing battle. I won't admit there was a violation because there was none. On the other hand, we HAVE proven they were convicted, there is no longer a BLP concern and your refusal to ask that the article be unlocked shows me you are exactly who I thought you are. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you are incapable of understanding the simple instructions in WP:BLP. It seems my suggestion that you be blocked indefinitely was justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Evidently you're incapable of understanding simple English. It seems that my suggestion that you go hump someone else's leg is justified. BTW, I took care of contacting the locking admin since you've proven to be the (self-censor) that I knew you'd be. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some are entertained watching a brawl, but it is time to point out that Andy is fully correct. Adding a negative claim about a living person based on a source that does not support that claim is a BLP violation, and Andy was required to remove it. If it is true that another source has been located that allows the claim to be reinstated, suitable material could be added. Niteshift36 should spend more time listening and less time working on insults. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Still without taking a position on the details of the content dispute, I have blocked Niteshift36 for the leg-humping comment and his various other bits of rudeness. --John (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Too bad you didn't address the edit warring. In any case, since the material has been proven to not be a BLP issue, is there a valid reason for it to be excluded any longer? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I need help to move a page over a redirect

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 want to change the name of the page Draugr to Draug. Draug was however its original name, and is now a redirect. Since i can not move a page to an already excisting page (even though it's only a redirect) I need an administrator to do this. KnutfAen (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fine, I looked at Talk:Draug to see the discussion that led to the original move, and it looks like the discussion was mostly about merging Draug and Draugr, and very little discussion about which should take precedence. You've taken the time to ask at Talk:Draugr and nobody raised an objection. I'll perform the move now, in such a way to preserve the old discussion at the Draug talk page (just by copying it to Talk:Draugr before I do the move). I don't think histmerge is necessary since the two articles were merged at one point, and it would leave an unnecessarily confusing and misleading edit history to do so. -- Atama頭 16:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The move is done, and Draugr now redirects to Draug. -- Atama頭 16:53, 28 February 2014 (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.

@Atama: A history merge was not necessary, but it was necessary to preserve the old history for attribution of the older edits. To this end I have moved it to Talk:Draug/Old history. I've also restored the earlier edits to the talk page – overlapping history doesn't matter there so much. Graham87 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the help. -- Atama頭 17:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mthinkcpp and Debian edit war

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 trying to introduce these changes. There is a discussion in the talk page. mthinkcpp refuses to discuss what is wrong with the changes. Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue. Therefore I bring this issue to the administrator's noticeboard. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that User:Mthinkcpp's explanation of WP:SILENCE is correct. I don't understand the content side of the issue, nor am I going to try, having been awake now for 16 hours on 4 hours of sleep. But if they gave their position earlier, and you gave yours, and they're different, then consensus has not been reached. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about whether consensus has been reached. This is about discussion. This is about a user that systematically opposes to my changes without sensible reasons. mthinkcpp has stated to be against these changes. The user does not give a reason.

Does this situation mean that discussion on the talk page has gone as far as it could? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there's only you and one other editor participating, I suggest opening a WP:RFC to try to attract more editors to the discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is now at DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Debian). DRN has the following policy:

"We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums."

So I would ask that this be closed. It has been my experience that solving the content dispute solves any user conduct issues, and if not, someone can refile here after the DRN case closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2014 (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:Brianis19 — Continued copyright violations despite multiple warnings

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.

---

Brianis19 (talk · contribs) continues to introduce copyright violations to television-related pages despite multiple warnings on his talk page since October.[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23]. He copy/pastes the episode summaries from various sites on the internet with no regard to these warnings. In fact, his recent comment to another editor after a warning was "Well then fix it yourself!!!". He has been told these need to be in his own words. This is an ongoing problem, and I am certain he has many other instances of copyvios that have either not been discovered or that he was not warned about when they were reverted (e.g. [24],[25],[26],[27] (note his edit summary says he wrote them himself, but this was not the case. He was intentionally trying to deceive). --Logical Fuzz (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have indeffed him and opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brianis19. The "fix it yourself" attitude is totally unacceptable.

That would be the third non-communicative copyvio editor I've indeffed and CCIed today. SIGH. MER-C 12:52, 1 March 2014 (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.

Lord of Rivendell again.

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

---

You guys didin't gave much attention last time([28]) and let him go away with it, not he is vandalising my user page and writing disturbing things to his edit summary([29]), he did it because i reverted his edit on the template ([30]) by the way now he accuses my being an Islamist. Last time his accusation to me was being a Kurd as you recall. Will you take some steps now???

And yes he edits articles as he pleases, like a rogue. User:Liz, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Underlying lk.KazekageTR (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the current dispute, but this edit does look like trolling. Given that this happens mere days after his latest deluge of talk page insults, perhaps it's time for Rivendell to be rusticated for his bad behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I too have not noticed the current dispute until now, but this needs to be stopped. It should have been stopped last time, and the attacks have now even moved on from political/racial ones to just baseless personal ones like "Are your parents also cousins?". CMD (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes yes you're totally right. How about that. That is a hell of an insult to me because I've reverted his edit([31]) : "Are your parents also cousins?"

It's worth noting that Lord of Rivendell has got in trouble over editwarring in the Turkey article repeatedly. Simonm223 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell is a serial edit warrior. Only a few hours after the protection due to edit warring/content dispute was liftented, he started the war all over again:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]
6. [37]
7. ([38])

For "fun" he added a series of PAs in the summary of his edits that I, as West-European, already judges as insulting. By now, he was warned twice to stop edit warring. he has been blocked twice for edit warring in the last few months. This is not funny any more and highly disruptive. The Banner talk 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And the next revert after being warned three times (including one in the summery). The Banner talk 23:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent of this discussion, RolandR filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: [39]. The Banner talk 01:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

He's now been blocked for two months for the edit warring. Hopefully he'll get the hint. --Ironholds (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's one month, not two, and after such egregious cases of trolling he should be blocked permanently, IMO.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One month actually. But Canterbury Tail has warned him that the next block will be indefinite, which seems just right. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 2 March 2014 (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.

Lupita nyong'o

I have been in an edit war with another user on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupita_Nyong%27o page. The actress is from Kenya but was born in Mexico when her father was there as a professor. She has never referred herself as a Mexican, the media calls her a Mexi-Kenyan. The editor I have been engaged with "Rekx" come under several names it edit the page and to say the actress is a Mexican. I state that just because just because a person is born in a country does not mean they claimed citizenship of that country. Many Americans are born overseas but they are still Americans. I expressed to him/her that that his/her logic is wrong, because it would mean that Senator John McCain is Panamanian. Just because he was born there. The editor thinks its personal and that "I just don't want her to be Mexican" the editor brought an interview from a latino gossip magazine, it is in written in Spanish and she/he is claiming it is an interview of Lupita stating she his Mexican and Kenyan. I told him/ her that, it is not a valid source, its a gossip mag and its in a foreign language. English Wikipedia requires it sources to be in english for all anyone know. It can be the words to Mary had a little lamb. I suggested that we can put it in the body of the article as "According to..." this way I thought wouldn’t be controversial, because the truth is there no record of her being or saying she is a Mexican national. I thought I worded it in a way for us to some form consensus, but the other user refuse to work with me and I know I am very guilty of the edit war too but I think we need an admin to intervene.

The user editor has used many different names and devices including a mobile phone and is now under the name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rekx 68.194.18.81 (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This was my last edit [[40]] 68.194.18.81 (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And I will also like to add that even though the user I had the edit war with has many different names. Other people had engaged in an edit war over the same issue68.194.18.81 (talk) I initially put that she was a "Mexican-born Kenyan" that's what CNN and other refer to her as but the other editor said she didn't like how that68.194.18.81 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: The editor has reverted my last edit but has chosen to ignore the notice I posted on his/her page to come here to talk 68.194.18.81 (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made my last edit to the page, I have reverted it back to how it was before. The other editor added his/her claims and "sources" 68.194.18.81 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said with his/her logic it would be that John McCain is Panamanian, being born in Mexico affords you the right to be Mexican Citizen but that does not mean she claimed it. Foreigners who have children in countries that practice "Jus soli" have to right to claim it or not claim it. Especially if her father is a diplomatic official there on duties. It's not imposed by force. I took out the Kenyan-Mexican part and work "Lupita Nyong'o is an actress...and according to... because we don't know if she has dual citizenship. You are just making the assumption that she is a Mexican national only because she was born there, And your only proof is from a gossip magazine in a foreign Language. Stop trying to make this personal trying to make it seem that I don't like Mexicans. If you have proper facts state it. All nations practice jus sanguinis (right of blood), so regardless of where one it born you are form where your parents are from. Her Parent could have or didn't claim Mexican citizenship for her. That why it article originally had "Mexican-born Kenyan". 68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And stating a wiki article on Mexican Nationality laws as your source that shes a Mexican national is not a valid source.68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also we are both to be blame for warring but I never vandalized. I reverted your claims without sources and constant disruption of edits what you did was vandalism, so don't point the figure at me and don't try to make it seem like I don't like Mexicans either68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading what you've written below makes me realize you still don't understand, you need valid sources and you also have know that just because, you born in a country does not make you an automatic citizen, Keanu Reeves was born in Beirut, Lebanon, is he Lebanese? Joaquin Phoenix was born in Puerto Rico is he Puerto Rican? Rocker Tommy Lee was born in Greece is he Greek? Amy Adams was born in Italy, is she Italian? the list can go on. Like I told you before, if she has Mexican citizenship then of course the article should state it, but there's no proof. 68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Lupita Nyong'o

I am the user who the editor above (with IP address 68.194.18.81) is referring to. Contrary to what he/she says about me having different names, I figured I would just create a Wikipedia account and start using it to post, whereas before only my IP address showed.

The user with IP address 68.194.18.81 has a problem with the inclusion of Lupita Nyong'o's dual-nationality status on her Wikipedia page, Lupita Nyong'o, and he/she seems to be content only when her Kenyan nationality is highlighted. When I edited the article to state that "Lupita Nyong'o is a Kenyan-Mexican actress...", the other user subsequently deleted the Kenyan-Mexican bit to leave only "Lupita Nyong'o is an actress..."

However, before I updated the Wikipedia article with this dual-citizenship information, the editor with IP address 68.194.18.81 had no problem posting "Lupita Nyong'o is a Kenyan actress..."

Nyong'o herself has stated in an interview to Reforma (a serious Mexican daily newspaper) that she indeed has both Kenyan and Mexican citizenships. You can access the Reform article here (via paid subscription): http://www.reforma.com/gente/articulo/713/1425085/

That same interview by Reforma was syndicated to Terra Networks and was made available for free here: http://entretenimiento.terra.com.mx/cine/actriz-de-12-years-a-slave-presume-orgullo-mexicano,741bce2e04ef0410VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html

In it, Nyong'o states:

"Nací en la Ciudad de México, y antes de cumplir un año me llevaron a Kenia, donde crecí. Mi padre tuvo un trabajo (como diplomático y profesor) allí, y por eso mi acta de nacimiento dice que soy mexicana, tengo ambas nacionalidades..."

Translation:

"I was born in Mexico City, and before turning one I was taken to Kenya, where I grew up. My father had a job (as a diplomat and professor) there, and that is why my birth certificate says I am Mexican; I have both citizenships..."

Note: I have added this citation to the Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, Mexican nationality is automatically conferred to "individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;" as noted in Mexican nationality law. This is also cited (and locked!) in Lupita Nyong'o's Wikipedi article. The reason it had been locked is because this the editor with IP address 68.194.18.81 kept vandalizing Lupita Nyong'o's article in the past.

I ask you to please prevent this editor from further vandalizing the article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekx (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Can it be any more clearer than Lupita Nyong'o herself stating that she has both Kenyan and Mexican citizenships? No. It cannot get any clearer than that. That is from an interview she did which appeared on Reforma on 8 September 2013. http://www.reforma.com/gente/articulo/713/1425085/ (Syndicated here for free: http://entretenimiento.terra.com.mx/cine/actriz-de-12-years-a-slave-presume-orgullo-mexicano,741bce2e04ef0410VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html )

Update:

My 11:47, 2 March 2014‎ update had been made to reflect this in a language that is clear and not prone to confusion:

"Lupita Amondi Nyong'o (born 1 March 1983) is an actress and film and music video director of dual Kenyan and Mexican citizenship."

It cannot be any clearer than that. Please prevent the other user with IP address 68.194.18.81 from vandalizing the page any further. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekx (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This thing sounds like a content dispute. You two need to stop edit warring and calmly talk the issue through on the article talk page (which is empty of any discussion on anything!) before editing restrictions on both of you or the article result. And stop making mutual accusations of vandalism for stuff which clearly isn't WP:vandalism. I won't comment on the content dispute since this is the wrong place. But I will say that as Wikipedia:Verifiability makes clear, while we prefer English sources, we do allow non English ones if no suitable English replacements exist. As this is a WP:BLP we also require high quality sources, although we would generally be more tolerant of lower quality sources if it's an interview with the subject, particularly in cases relating to self identification (but note there's a difference between someone acknowledging multiple citizenship and national self identification) or other simple factual details of the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandal, harassing threats of lawsuits

• 58.7.243.245 (talk · contribs)

Have reported to AIV. Pending a block, probably wise to report here as well, given the lawsuit bullshit. JNW (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has been blocked for 72 hours by CIreland. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's dynamic (what a surprise). Bishonen | talk 15:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

issue on French WP (diff in French)

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, For several weeks now, French WP administrators have been thinking I was another contributor (due to one (wrong) filter reaction after a revert of mine). After 6 requests which only met ironical and blunt rebukes, I asked for a CU (about myself). They not only did not do it but blocked me (as a sock puppet of the other contributor !!!). I feel completely offensed by their attitude and as I cannot manage having them facing facts, I decided I could try here, where good faith and civility are not an option. See this diff for instance : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requêtes/mars_2014&diff=prev&oldid=101725742 (in French) I understand that Fr WP and en Wp may not be the same but as part of WM projects, I hope for a resolution of this incident what I consider a blatant lack of care for this project's values. Thank you in advance. With the best, --90.96.71.143 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) I just created account Slinggelid (talk · contribs) so that you may be sure that I am one person, as I use a dynamic IP ad. usually.

en Wikipedia CAN'T resolve, or arbitrate on any other Wikipedia.Arildnordby (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, soo...is there any WM Ombudsman or SOMEONE on earth who could have them CHECKING facts ? I tried 2 Admin's TP, Abuse filter 3 times... Noticeboard, CU. They just refused to check it because they think that it is likely (sic) that I am another...Thank you--90.96.71.143 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (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.

Etiquette of Redmen44

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

---

Hello,

I'm coming to AN/I today because I am concerned about the etiquette of Redmen44. Recently, he removed sources on List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases with the rationale of "it slows down my apparatus", which in itself is not a very good reason to remove sources. Also, many similar Featured Lists such as List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples use individual references. I am currently trying to reference every player and he and I continued to revert each other (part of which is my fault). I finally left him a message on his talk page, but he removed it within hours of me putting it up. However, I'm not concerned just because he removes messages, but that he continued and the fact that he removes people's messages gives me no confidence that anything would get resolved, so I came to AN/I to get community input. Thoughts anyone? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with report. Editor is slow edit warring but I didn't see the notice required for WP:AN3 so I added. Someone did ask Redmen44 to add edit summaries to revert, and they've been doing that, at least. I suggest OP follow suggestion another editor made to discuss at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_300_career_stolen_bases#References NE Ent 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I added some thoughts there and hopefully some more editors will opine, but generally in lists under WikiProject Baseball, individual references are expected, since official references may disagree. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

archivetop|status=Resolved|result=Editors are discussing on article talk page. NE Ent 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not resolved at all, since Redmen44 took it upon himself to revert again, which is again inappropriate, but I don't want to break 3RR, so I'm not going to revert but this is not cool. And Redmen44, it's not about computer speed for the thousandth time, it's about verifiability, something Redmen44 does not seem interested in, sadly. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is appropriate since the current consensus on the talk page is 2 to 1 for Redmen44's position. NE Ent 00:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

He is overruling consensus from WikiProject Baseball. Why do people believe less "clutter" is more important than having verifiable content. Plus, it is not a vote. Lets see what happens when regular featured content contributors comment and then we'll see. I highly doubt issacl and Redmen44 will be supported, since it is a norm to have individual references, but we'll see. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt any of that, but is there any reason discussion should be continuing here on what is now a content dispute? NE Ent 00:18, 3 March 2014 (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.

Atisone Seiuli

I think this needs to be speedy deleted if someone could check it out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Spam links by Arbappy.eee

User:Arbappy.eee (talk, contribs) seems to be here for the sole purpose of adding spam links. Specifically (all links are diffs):

• Replacing existing (often dead) links with spam links: Graphics tablet, Biological immortality, November, Imagination Technologies
• Adding new external links: Phablet (added as a citation), Leptin, Ubuntu (operating system), Binoculars

Possibly related IP addresses are 103.15.43.234 (edited the same link into Imagination Technologies immediately prior to Arbappy.eee's work) and 59.152.98.76 (started changes to Graphics tablet which Arbappy.eee then finished). -- Perey (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:84.127.80.114 and Debian edit war

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

---

I have been recently blocked for 48 hours. I insist that I was not the one edit warring. I even reduced the amount of my changes to a minimum. I got a WP:AN3 warning to not be disruptive in the article. I only reverted the disputed changes that used non neutral language. I was not disruptive. I was blocked because I made a change to the article.

My unblock request is not answered. I see that administrators are busy but I cannot work without an answer. I am worried this will be an excuse to block me for a longer period of time if I try to make any changes to the article. My ability to bold edit and revert is virtually blocked. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not blocked - if you were, you could not have edited here DP 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you been edit-warring at Debian? Yes. Has Mthinkcpp been edit-warring? Yes, but to a much lesser degree. You were more insistent with your reverts, having reverted twice in the same day, while the reverts that Mthinkcpp had made were spaced days apart. Neither one of you violated the three revert rule (reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period) but Bbb23 made the decision to block you as being the more aggressive editor in this case. I'm not sure I would have made that decision, but I don't think it was the "wrong" decision either; I can see the logic behind it.

In either case, you can and should be blocked again if you insist on reinserting the information that was disputed through reverts and is being discussed on the article's talk page. The proper way to resolve this is to convince other editors that you are correct. If you can't do that, and can't achieve consensus, it can't be added. If you can't understand that, or refuse to accept it, and continue on this path you'll be blocked again. Just continue the discussion at the article talk page, and resolve it there. Also, look at our page on dispute resolution for advice about how to best deal with an issue where you are unable to come to an agreement with another editor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am not technically blocked. But I "should" be blocked again if I repeat my actions. Therefore another bold edit or revert will mean a new block. I do discuss. I did discuss then. Reverters do not. Atama says that content without consensus cannot be added. I reverted that content without consensus and I got blocked. If what I did is considered edit warring, why cannot these changes be made to WP:WAR?

Will my next bold edit/revert to the article mean a new block? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably. The reason why such blocks are made are to force people to handle these disputes as they're supposed to be done; through the article talk page. For reference, read bold-revert-discuss, which is the usual course of events. (Someone makes a bold edit, another person reverts it, and they settle it by discussion; you're at the discussion stage now.) -- Atama頭 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama says someone is at the discussion stage. I certainly am. Will I be blocked again if I try to reintroduce the changes more slowly? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggested dispute resolution, and linked to it for a reason. It has suggestions for how to proceed. If you feel that you are trying to facilitate discussion, but only one other person is participating, then go to the link I just provided. It suggests asking for a third opinion to weigh in. If that third opinion isn't enough to sway either side, you can try asking at the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance, or if you want to continue the discussion at the talk page, start a request for comments and try to get input from even more people. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if you can't convince others to your point of view and find that you are either alone in your opinion or you are in the minority, that you're not going to succeed. Move on and find something else to contribute to the article or another article. -- Atama頭 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP 84.127.80.114 has filed a case at WP:DRN so this discussion should be discontinued as DRN does not allow multiple conversations in multiple venues. Thanks Atama for your good advice to the IP and thanks to the IP for choosing dispute resolution over edit warring. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 2 March 2014 (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.

Family / friends tag-teaming on an article on fringe claim of vaccine killing someone

The family and friends of Al Plastino are tag-teaming to perpetuate their edit-warring with a WP:FRINGE claim that a flu vaccine gave him Guillain-Barré. One editor on the article talk page misrepresents the CDC, which contrary to this editor does not say flu vaccines give people Guillain-Barré. The article states clearly that Plastino suffered from Guillain-Barré, with citing. But no disinterested, unbiased source claims the vaccine killed him — only the family, which has something to gain by putting that claim on Wikipedia as a way to bolster any lawsuit. They also make an additional claim that's untrue. This hijacking of a Wikipedia page by the subject's family and friends to push a fringe view unsupported by any source other than themselves is shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left JohnRTroy a warning about adding original research to Wikipedia. I see that the page has also been protected as well for the duration of this dispute. -- Atama頭 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Miniapolis 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the claim originated from the family one of who wrote something asking for wikipedia to be changed, is there any real evidence they are the ones editing? Seems more likely to be people who didn't know the subject personally but were influenced by the article such as fans of someone who looks likely to have many. Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who's doing the editing (they're registered accounts, hence the full protection); the repeated insertion of the unreliably-sourced claim is the deciding factor. All the best, Miniapolis 21:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A few quick notes. Mark Evanier is a noted comics journalist, and he's actually considered a reliable source, being quoted several times in the actual article, so if Atama is going to say I used "original research", then all the Evanier quotes would need to be removed. There is precedent of him being considered a reliable source in the comics field. Secondly, I tried to act in good faith, citing the source accurately and leaving it alone. The argument seemed to start with the Guillian-Barre claim. I saw nothing suspect in that claim, as the WP itself cites a reliable source that links GBS to any form of the virus including vaccines, although I can see why people might be concerned. I regret that it escalated to this point--however, I do feel that Tenebrae could have avoided this by not suddenly and completely reverting the article and responding in a confrontational manner like he did in the talk page. I have never encountered this issue before, and I also felt rather than assume the page was "under attack" (it certainly wasn't), he immediately went here, bypassing even getting the working group on comics involved. JRT (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The page was under attack, whatever the intentions are. When 3 editors arrive at an article to tag team and inject information into it, inserting information on 5 different occasions, that's an edit war. I will concede that Tenebrae violated WP:3RR by reverting 4 times in 24 hours, and if he had not brought the issue here in an attempt to stop the edit war I would have blocked him (though that would be punitive at this point). -- Atama頭 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. You're right — I'd honestly thought I was right at 3, and even said something to that effect on one or more of the talk pages. I shouldn't have gone over, but it was inadvertent. Thank you for being understanding.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

JRT is mixing apples and orange. Mark Evanier is a reliable source on comics and TV, not medicine. As well, the post this editor mentions is not Evanier's independent reporting: Evanier himself did not research and make the statement about vaccines causing GBS. All Evanier did is accept a family member's quote at face value and disseminate it with a headline literally reading "Let's Correct Wikipedia on Something!" That's not what I would call rigorous journalism, and it's certainly out of his field of expertise.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's back up a second, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. This is a biographical article about a comics professional, and Evanier is quoted a lot and has provided reliable information in the past. At least in the past he's been considered a reliable source, even in that very article. I think he's reliable when he wants to correct the cause of death of Plastino, and he's got the connections to be a reliable source for the quote of family members based on his track record and his own quotes as sources. Try to understand something--From my own perspective, you seem more offended he used that title in his article (in the talk page, you rant about it), when I can understand how exasperating it is to have to be quoted in print before you can correct an error on WP (I've been on WP longer than you, though not as active, so I'm no novice), then used the GBS quote as an excuse to revert, apparently not understanding that it can be linked to flu vaccinations, at least according to all the research, which was the main reason you reverted the page. Then we got into an argument over the cause of GBS, and all I saw was somebody make accusations over my editing motives, then immediately escalate it here without even wanting to discuss it with the other Comics group right away. From my perspective, you came across (and are coming across) as somebody who's hostile and letting his own personal ego get in the way of edits, and are getting emotional over having your own edits changed. Even in the talk page and the WP:Comics page, you are coming across as hostile, thinking I'm "threatening an edit war" on the WP:COMICS talk when I just want other comics experts involved in evaluating the statement. (Since it ends up being a class of egos if just two people disagree) JRT (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You make a good case for accepting as reliable the report of a claim by a family member. For the specific point that this injection actually caused Guillain–Barré syndrome, and that it did so in this case, I suggest that we would need relevant expert opinion. Not, on this point, the report of comics experts. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I honestly don't care if the claim of his death by the vaccine should be part of Wikipedia, just that he died of the disease. The only two things I'd want to correct in the article would be (a) to find out if he did have Prostate Cancer and (b) that he died of GBS. The only other thing I'd change is I would bring back my reference to Evanier's blog (which was deleted on revert), but I wouldn't put the actual claim about the vaccine in the text of the GBS itself. In fact, I didn't actually write that, the only place the claim appeared was in the quote text in the reference. Beyond that I'd be happy. I do think the blog entry should be sourced since other references to that blog are sourced and it would be hypocritical not to source it unless you want to challenge all the other sources in that article. I simply don't think Evanier had any "hidden agenda" in his post other than to correct a cause of death. JRT (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Evanier is certainly a reliable source in several fields and a person for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. I take him at his word that he indeed verified that the email was from a family member and by extension that a family member would know the cause of death. But that said I see no reason to include the flu-vaccine claim in the article. If a prominent scientist were killed in an auto accident, we wouldn't generally need to include the make, model, and colour of the other car. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well put; I myself have quoted Evanier on comics history many times, and find him a knowledgable and engaging host of comics panels at conventions. But we can't cite his blog for medical information. He's not even quoting a medical expert stating concretely that the vaccine killed Plastino, but a biased, non-disinterested family member who is not a medical expert and who stands to gain by disseminating a claim that would make the vaccine makers and medical personnel liable. And in concurrence with Andrew Lenahan, is a cause of death even particularly necessary when we're talking about a 91-year-old?

No one mentioned anything about Evanier having an "agenda," but the cited item certainly does mention his dissatisfaction with his own experiences with Wikipedia, so I wouldn't necessarily call him objective.

RE "to find out if he did have Prostate Cancer" — why does JRT refuse to read Maryann Plastino's own quote to the New York Post a month before Plastino's death that, yes, Plastino had prostate cancer. It's right in the footnotes, for heaven's sake.

And P.S to JRT: Please stop using words like "rant". And your comments about my "ego" and "hostility" are uncivil. All I see is a host of editors here and on other pages in agreement that Evanier's blog is not a reliable source for the killer-vaccine claim. So I'm not sure who's the one being unreasonable here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Evanier's dissatisfaction with WP seems more like frustration. Criticism of WP doesn't imply he's biased against it, or that he was trying to start a protest, just a correction. In fact, if he's considered a bad unobjective source, he shouldn't be quoted elsewhere in the same article. I did not "refuse" to read the source, as I have reviewed the sources better you are correct about the prostate cancer (unless MaryAnn is trying to recant that statement or was misquoted), and I have already admitted I jumped the gun--while there is some concern about vaccines and GBS it's not likely to be provable cause of death unless it's on their death certificate. But as far as "civility" goes, I'm sorry, I think you deserve some criticism for being antagonistic. I doubt this would have escalated to this state if you had been a little more welcoming, not immediate reverted an edit, and instantly assuming that there was a deliberate attempt to bias the article. In fact, if one of these other uses brought up the same point as articulately as they've done here, there probably wouldn't have been an issue here. JRT (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And as far as "ego" goes, I was making a statement when two people get into a WP edit war, it's mostly a battle of individual egos, so I'm making fun of myself here as well, which is why when this comes up I always try to solicit others to review and break the ties. JRT (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two things here. I agree it doesn't matter who is editing the article in terms of protecting it, but that's beside my point (you'd note I never said anything about the protection) which is the second thing we shouldn't forget about. Family and friends of the subject is likely a select group of people at least some of who would be easily identifiable. Tag teaming a wikipedia article would often be seen in a negative way and therefore accusing identifiable living people of it should not be done with out some evidence they are actually involved for WP:BLP reasons. This is even more so when we have no evidence of any involvement of said people in editing wikipedia at all (which from what I can tell, is the case here). And in a case like this where as I've emphasised, there is good reason to think there would be plenty of people who should not be called 'family and friends' who may come to edit. Just because we aren't happy about something that's going on or other stuff that people have done is no excuse to accuse those people of involvement in something related with no evidence. The fact is doesn't matter is a reason not to make such accusations in the first place. It doesn't mean we should ignore it when such accusations are made. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That was my biggest objection to the whole thing. It was being accused of both being a family member--I am not, I simply read Evanier's blog regularly--and engaging in "Fringe Science". When my edit was rejected for that reason, I looked up GBS, and discovered that at least one time it has been linked to a vaccine, and it sounds like a legitimate concern. Obviously I was wrong and it's inconclusive, though there does seem to be enough caution regarding GBS to have some warnings. But also, the simple quote may not have enough information--perhaps the family meant to say he died due to complications from it and it didn't come out clearly in the quote. But Tenebrae instantly took an accusatory tone, saying "This evident desire to use Wikipedia to help the family score a big lawsuit settlement is shameful.", as well as assuming this was some coordinated effort. That's actually a potentially libelous statement since nothing in that source says anything about a lawsuit or the like. If the tone of the discussion had been kept on the civility levels that have occurred here, I doubt we'd even be talking about it. Sometimes, being nice is important in these discussions. JRT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people try to use Wikipedia to promote FRINGE ideas, and there are lots of places where one can lookup information that is totally bogus. The cause of death of the individual (last time I looked) is not known. The fact that someone might think that a vaccine was involved is irrelevant and cannot be used as the basis to assert the cause of death. There is no reason for an article to note what uninformed people think about the cause of death. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• See also below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

United Russia

It appears this article has been vandalized by user User:78.56.70.222, who has no other edits than to vandalize this page. I have not done many vandal reports, but I think the page should be protected, with what is going on in Russia/Ukraine right now (not that I support UR, but wiki is not the place to vandalize the pages of parties you don't like)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was certainly vandalism. Thank you for reverting it, Bellerophon, and your request for protection makes sense. Even though the IP has only made one edit, I've given them a strongly worded warning on their talkpage, because of the nature of the vandalism, and semiprotected the article for a few days. For another time, it's generally best to request protection on WP:RFPP. I understand these boards are a labyrinth! Thank you very much for reporting. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen Hi, the user returned with some disruptive, POV wikilinking here. I referred them to AIV and they've been temp blocked for 36 hours. I've also asked that the Ukranian national anthem article (Shche ne vmerla Ukraina) be protected for 24-48 hours, although I dunno if that will fly since there have only been two recent disruptions. My thinking was, however, that the recent political situation in the Ukraine makes the article a high profile target. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, current events make that article too an obvious vandalism magnet. Semiprotected for four days. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

Legal threats and insults

User: JohnRTroy twice today has accused me of libel, and for the last several days has been using insulting language, which I have tried to let roll off my back. But with two legal threats in one day, here and here, I think it's necessary for me to task admin to take a look and seeing if his behavior is appropriate.

He is already the focus of an ANI, above, for advocating fringe science, which he since seems to have back away, after User:Atama warned him about about adding original research to Wikipedia [41] and User:Miniapolis protected the page he was editing, Al Plastino, for a week. Redlink editors, some evidently connected as friends/familky with the subject's daughter, had been trying to add a fringe claim about a vaccine — with this editor in one case misrepresenting the CDC [42] and in another claiming, "If you read enough, there is a link to vaccinations causing GBS. This is not 'fringe science'." [43]

He's called me "hostile" [44], again "hostile" [45], "antagonistic" [46], "hostile" and "passive-aggressive rudeness" [47] (evidently since I don't name-call, I'm being "passive-aggressive"), and "hostility" [48].

These may not be curse-word insults, but they are consistent and they have gone on for days without my saying anything. He's not stopping. He's just continued and continued to bait me and poke me in the chest, and I won't respond in kind. But he has to stop. I myself lost my temper elsewhere in early February and paid the price, a one-day suspension ... my only such block in more than 8 1/2 years. My normative behavior can be inferred here. I admitted I was wrong and did my time. Now I'm on the receiving end, and being call libelous to boot. I ask for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would ask those involved to review all of the correspondence between us on this very page, the WP Comics Talk page, and the article in question. My main points were I found this user's tone insulting when making comments--and in part, my comments are to ask him to be a little more civil in his criticism according to WP:Civility. I will agree with what this board says, but I am disappointed that over the weekend I have been part of two Administrative actions. My concern is that others will see this and it will reflect on WP badly.

Regarding the "Fringe Theories", I've been attempting to find out if there is a legitimate link between the viruses and I think the assumption or accusation of this was a little bit insulting, as there are certain complications that can occur. Ultimately, I think this is an over-reaction. JRT (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither "That's actually a potentially libelous statement" nor "Made a near-libelous statement regarding the family of Al Plastino, implying they were trying to get ammunition for a lawsuit" is a legal threat in he sense of WP:NLT. Not in my view at least. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, it is best to avoid the term "libel" or things near it in discussing the actions of other wikipedia editors if at all possible, as it can be takenm as a legal threat. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of DESiegel's points; no legal threats have been made, but try not to bring up "libel" at all when referencing other editors since it just escalates matters and can lead to misunderstandings.

As to the claimed civility breaches, I see Tenebrae accusing JohnRTroy of being uncivil, and JohnRTroy accusing Tenebrae of being uncivil. Why don't you both try this: ignore each others' perceived incivility. If you do that, it will magically vanish. JohnRTroy, if Tenebrae says something that you think is rude when you are debating a point, ignore it. Otherwise your accusation of rudeness will be seen as hostility. Tenebrae, try the same, if JohnRTroy calls you "hostile" or "passive-aggressive", then pretend those words aren't there, because they don't affect the argument in any way. What matters is what guidelines and policies are best adhered to, and what common ground can be found, and frankly nobody is going to care if one person thinks the other is rude (as long as it doesn't escalate into personal attack territory and so far everything has fallen far short of that). Hostility tends to fall into a feedback loop, where one person says "you insulted me", the other says "I'm insulted that you think I'm being insulting" and so on. It's pointless, and doesn't advance either of your positions. -- Atama頭 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this and will no longer make any comments involving that user in this instance. Furthermore, I will refrain from making any more edits in the original disputed article in question and will also end all comments regarding this dispute. JRT (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears the content dispute involved is over the cause of death of comic book writer Al Plastino. In particular this blog says that many news sources got it wrong by saying that he died from prostate cancer and that Wikipedia therefore got it wrong by repeating those news sources. At the time of the blog being published the article did not actually say that was the cause of death, but merely stated that he was suffering from prostate cancer before he died. Strictly speaking based on Wikipedia's rules we should just repeat the allegedly false information published in reliable sources (that he died from prostate cancer), but I am somewhat partial to the way the article is now, which is left ambiguous, as an IAR thing since it is a sensitive issue and we have some reason to doubt the mainstream press. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• See also above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a child molester

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 WP:BLP/N

 – LFaraone 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Talk page access revocation?

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

---

Can some uninvolved admin please consider the merits of permitting continued talk page access to the currently-blocked HRA1924 (talk · contribs). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you (Sitush) posting on the page? I suggest Sitush unwatch the page and HRA1924 refrain from pinging Sitush again. There is, depending on one's point of a view, either a) legal threat or b) ridiculous nonsense on the page about getting the Indian government to force Indian ISPs to block Wikipedia access. Probably worth a look if you're inclined (and have a block button). NE Ent 22:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You've kind of answered your own query: they pinged me and the issue is WP:NLT. If you'd faced this crap for as long as I have, you'd perhaps understand why I am fed up of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so the proper response is "don't ping Sitush" anymore and "revert your legal threat," not removing talk page access. (If anyone wants to squabble whether or not they've faced more crap, I'd suggest User_talk:NE Ent to spare the rest of the ANI watchers having a boring, pointless discussion churning ANI). NE Ent 00:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that you are not familiar with what has gone on. Try this for the very tip of the iceberg - a thread that itself resulted in the current block & has several people mentioning NLT. They've done it before and now they're doing it again. How much rope? Agreed, uninvolvedf people will not be familiar but uninvolved admins will presumably take a bit of care to at least check out some of the background before making a decision. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

HRA1924 denies "explicit" legal threats but their posts repeatedly imply legal action. They have also made clear they don't feel bound by Wikipedia's terms of use. Further, they have used the talkpage for personal attacks including calling another editor a criminal.

Editors, including me, have tried to address individual talkpage questions but regrettably not to their satisfaction. I am now concerned that we are a) largely relitigating the ANI thread linked by Sitush above, and b) straying into a legal discussion that should be something for the user to raise off-wiki with the WMF.

However I share NE Ent's general reluctance to block talkpage access - this is not a troll, it is someone pursuing a grievance that would be better taken up elsewhere. Absent any other views I propose at this point: declining the current unblock request, warning against personal attacks and implied legal threats and again urging the editor to correspond directly with the WMF and/or await their response. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

They have been warned about the attacks and implicit legal threats for many months now. What makes you think that they will change? They've appealed to the WMF, to OTRS and umpteen other places and are displaying a distinct WP:IDHT tendency which is sort of reflected in the closing comments of the RFM linked to in the prior ANI thread. I'm not getting into the semantics of trolling but this is an organisation that only pays lip-service to our policies when it suits them and won't let it drop on-wiki. How many more warnings and advisories? - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Struck a bit: I forgot the crazy rule about RFM being privileged, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

HRA is inappropriately wikilawyering all over their talk page. TPA should be cut off, we're not here to coddle malcontents, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Shut them down and let's get on with it. (And those who spend the vast majority of their time posting on noticeboards in favor of folks like this should also go and edit articles. Wikipedia is not a model community or a fucking debating society. Those "editors" who don't in some way improve the encyclopedia are freeloaders and need to start pulling their weight.) BMK (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A re-reading of the history, and the editor's latest post have convinced me. Striking the previous, and have blocked talkpage access per WP:NLT and WP:NPA. - Euryalus (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Euryalus that a talk page ban is needed. This user just won't take no for an answer. It started out as an issue about India Against Corruption. The legalistic complaints will go on forever so long as we keep listening. The underlying case was heard in several places and it appears to have no merit (at least, he can't provide sources to justify his position). EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (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.

Dalton761 disruptive editing of Logan Henderson

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.

---

Dalton761 (User talk:Dalton761) has begun his/her Wikipedia career with three disruptive edits to Logan Henderson. We need to prevent further disruption. This is my first time down this path for any disruptive new editor, so I hope I'm doing it right. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped, but I've posted a vandalism warning on their talk page. If they resume, this will escalate to a block. In passing, there's a noticeboard for vandalism reports like this - WP:AIV - where you can get a swift(er) response than here. Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2014 (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.

WP:Featured picture candidates

As you may know, FPC is the only featured content process to have a minimum number of reviewers required in a relatively short period of time - 5 supports in 10 days (and a supermajority of consensus in its favour) is required. Unfortunately, like all of Wikipedia, it's prone to the occasional lulls, and could use more reviewers during them, and this is currently one of those lulls. Any help would be appreciated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden - I'm not sure this is the problem that you're making it out to be. Images that get promoted generally have no problem getting the requisite five votes, or even more than that, in the allotted time. I look at that page every few days, and for the most part the images that only have one or two votes on them after five or six days are ones that I would oppose. Instead of opposing them, I don't comment at all, which (since there is a minimum support threshold) is a polite way of achieving the same outcome. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 16:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted

A user is utterly determined to slavishly follow the rules by insisting on a CSD tag on Lookout Mountain Air Force Station/Draft as a test page, despite having been told that it is NOT a test page but text submitted via OTRS by a veteran who is not computer savvy.

Having been told it's not my text, and not a test page (because, you know, I have been here long enough not to need test pages), he still insists that I may not remove the tag. Because we must never under any circumstances ignore any rule, however fatuous the circumstances.

So, someone please remove the tag for me because it's not a test page and this user is adamant that the CSD Test tag may not be removed by me because technically I created the article (even though it's not my text and trhe CSD criterion is blatantly wrong). Guy (Help!) 10:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't drafts be created in either the draft namespace or the user space? Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know the Draft namespace existed until recently! I do not care at all where it goes, only that we have the text as provided by a reader who took the trouble to email us to try to help improve the encyclopaedia. Feel free to move it anywhere you think appropriate. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, moved. (Draft:: is a super new feature, so no "boomerangs" necessary 'cause JzG created the draft in mainspace). NE Ent 10:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Being told I'm a dick and stupid makes one tune out what the other person is saying and just stick to the rules. Bgwhite (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, two servings of trout: one to JzG for telling Bgwhite to stop acting like a dick, and one to Bgwhite for acting like ... for not just moving an obvious draft to the draft namespace and instead using an inappropriate CSD tag. NE Ent 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Only don't forget to serve those trouts with a nice serving of chips. Both were trying to speak the same language, but both failed this time DP 11:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everybody. Note: I only called Bgwhite a dick when he continued to revert my removal of the {{db-test}} template after I'd explained that it is not a test and that I was not the originator, but was bringing text to the attention of editors on behalf of a veteran - a very decent gentleman who did not feel up to editing Wikipedia. NE Ent said it... I was really very surprised, as I did not anticipate a problem with Bgwhite, but I do take the blame for starting with gratuitous snark - {{db-test}} template notifications on an admin's talk page? Um, right. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:: is a new feature, but /Draft (in mainspace) has not been appropriate for at least as long as I've been editing. Guy should know better. {{db-test}} is inappropriate, but so is the placement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but this is a wiki, and edits don't have to be perfect—if someone notices a problem, they should fix it. When the speedy delete tag was added, the article looked like this. It can reasonably be argued that the article at that time was a "test page", but speedy deleting such content (which included a heap of references although unformatted and unorganized) is not desirable. If it is intolerable for such a page to exist as an article, move it to the draft namespace, or userfy it. It is useful to look at the current page: Draft:Lookout Mountain Air Force Station. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Casals

There is currently an ongoing request for comments on Talk:Pablo Casals. To summarise the issue very quickly (everything is given in more detail on the talk page), Casals is apparently commonly known as Pablo in English, even though his Catalan name is Pau. There is consensus for Pablo Casals to use Pablo, and the current discussion is about whether to use Pablo or Pau on other pages, in particular, articles that relate to Catalan culture.
I am writing to you because of the concerns I have with another editor. So far, users have considered this matter responsibly and thought neutrally about the usage of the names in English. On the other hand, User:In ictu oculi has ignored the findings of others and asserted his opinion that Pau should be used primarily from a Catalan viewpoint. I was happy to overlook this, but his comments are becoming less and less WP:NPOV culminating in the remark it seems strange for en.wikipedia to be introducing a Franco-era type ban on the name of one of the most famous Catalans. It is worth noting that the user has an extensive history of editing Catalan-related articles amongst the many articles he or she edits.
I would be very grateful if some administrators could take a look at the situation and try to keep it in order. I am concerned that nationalist feelings are disrupting what should be a sensible discussion. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

We see here an example of Gonzalez's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Franco or fascists approaches 1." EEng (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not an admin matter, I reckon, but every fan of classical music in the world will know him as Pablo. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Guy. Perhaps you might like to make a comment on the page to repeat your observation. The problem is that a lot of evidence has been submitted that supports the use of Pablo as the common name, but this is being ignored by the other user. I have assumed good faith for a long time, but it is starting to become apparent that he is pushing a pro-Catalan viewpoint, as much as I hate to make such allegations. I am concerned that the discussion is starting to become disrupted by his comments. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is an ANI issue as much as it is a content dispute. a posting on the WP:DRN would be more appropriate. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Epicgenius. I looked at WP:DRN, but it states there that they do not accept cases that are currently undergoing a request for comments, which is happening at Talk:Pablo Casals. I posted here not because of the underlying content dispute of which name to include in the article, but the general course of the discussion and the possibility of it becoming a problematic, contentious debate about unrelated nationalism and politics. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• THere's an RFC on the talkpage, which seems like the right approach. I've seen both Pablo and Pau used, especially for the Orquestra Pau Casals that he founded. Most sources say Pablo but it's not entirely one-sided. This is discussed in endless detail on the talkpage. The issue is contentious because Casals himself was a Catalan nationalist and came to prefer Pau, but he originally became famous under the name Pablo and then (per his autobiography) he had to keep performing under that name as his booking agents (etc.) wanted this, until he started his own orchestra under the name Pau. So now there's a nationalistic dispute projected onto Wikipedia. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Steve Lyons: Notability, sockpuppets, personal attacks, edit warring, etc.

Hi,

Not entirely sure where to request this. Can an admin please remove the apparent vanity entry in the back history of Steve Lyons? I have corrected it to the disambiguation page as it was before it was vandalised. It was deleted previously under another name at AFD. There are BLP issues here. There are also enough socks to fill a small chest of drawers (including Stephaniemcqueen (talk · contribs) Damian St. Charles (talk · contribs), Kristofmcking (talk · contribs), 24.153.157.118 (talk · contribs). I am also suspicious of DepressedPer (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're asking (and you didn't notify the Stephanie account, and possibly not the other ones either). You've reverted to an earlier situation and that's fine, but I don't see a reason to remove it from the history. Kristofmcking had one of those drafts in their user space, untouched for a long time, and I deleted that as an abandoned draft. (BTW, you didn't link to the actual AfD: it's here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lyons (actor, entrepreneur).) You're probably right about Kristofmcking and Damian St. Charles, but that should really be tackled in an SPI (CU won't be necessary, I think). I don't see how Depressed is involved. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I want the revisions deleted publicly from the article history. I also want Stephaniemcqueen (talk · contribs) blocked for socking and/or vandalism. Take your pic. But get it sorted please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

to add to the rap sheet: I am now being accused of racism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AStephaniemcqueen%2Fsandbox&diff=598014378&oldid=598001564 Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those revisions meet the WP:REVDEL criteria. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If this is continually a problem, I could see some of page protection being needed, but there's no reason it needs to be deleted from the page history. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Request Updating Information About Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA)

Greetings,

I wasn't sure if this was the correct place to post this, so please forgive me if it's not.

I am the Media Director for the Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA), and today I was made aware of the fact that some misleading information has been posted about our Scouting association on the following Wikipedia article, which we are unable to edit due to the fact that it is a protected page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States#Baden-Powell_Service_Association

There are several problems with the information contained in that article about our association that needs to be corrected. The most important of which is the statement that we are a "secular" scouting organization. This is not the way that the BPSA wishes to present itself, and is indeed very misleading. There are other factual errors as well, and I have corrected them all and have provided supporting links where needed. Can someone please update this section for us as soon as possible? Please let me know.

Thank you, Jeff Kopp Media Director Baden-Powell Service Association US http://bpsa-us.org Email: media@bpsa-us.org

Here's how we would like that section to appear:

The Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA) is an independent and traditional-style Scouting association that takes its name from the founder of the Scouting movement, Robert Baden-Powell. The BPSA is a member organization of the World Federation of Independent Scouts (WFIS), and is affiliated with the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association of England and works closely with the Baden-Powell Service Association of British Columbia.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/18/9-faith-based-and-secular-alternatives-to-the-boy-scouts-of-america/ http://www.troop97.net/wfis.htm

The BPSA offers a traditional ("back to basics") Scouting program for youth and adults, girls and boys, men and women, with open and inclusive membership policies that disallow any and all discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion (or no religion) or other differentiating factors. The association's motto is "Traditional Scouting for Everyone!"

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/new-scouting-group-brings-more-inclusive-philosophy-to-st-louis/article_005e6aff-7326-5b25-a56c-92dce7fca425.html

History

The Baden-Powell Service Association formed with an adult-only component, Rovers, in 2006. David Atchley, a former Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America, joined up in 2008, after being asked to leave his local Greater St. Louis Area council of the BSA after he attempted to create a non-discrimination policy for his own Cub Scout pack. In the BPSA, David was responsible for adapting the programs of the other Baden-Powell Scouting associations in introducing youth sections to the BPSA's program. In 2009, Atchley became commissioner. By 2011, the association had only a handful of units. BPSA reincorporated in 2012, became an official 501©(3) nonprofit in 2013, and has since grown to include more than 45 chartered Scout groups today.

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/26471/boys_scouts_alternative_081012 http://bpsa-us.org/news/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wiccans-earth-lovers-do-gooders-theres-scouting-group-your-kid-v19680825

Program

Within each BPSA Scouting Group, Scouts are organized in groups called “sections” according to their age: Otters (ages 5 to 7) Timberwolves (8 to 10) Pathfinders (11 to 17) Rovers (18+)

http://bpsa-us.org/program/ http://www.troop97.net/wrldsct6.htm

BPSA's highest award for youths (Pathfinders) is the George Washington Scout Award. The highest award for adults (Rovers) is the Baden-Powell Award.

http://bpsa-us.org/program/pathfinders/ http://bpsa-us.org/program/rovers/

Hi, I think making an edit request on the talk page of the article in question would have been a better approach, but this is a good start. I'm willing to help, as an uninvolved editor, unless someone objects. It would help to have 3rd party references for the information you provided above (some are 3rd-party, some link to your own web pages). Can you provide any? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it is a protected page, I could not find a Talk Page.

Regarding linking our own source material... Well, it's interesting that you would request that, because even if I were to dig around on the Internet trying to find 3rd-party sources for this information, they would all have gleaned this information from our own website or source materials (PDF downloads, for example) themselves. So I am not sure what providing 3rd-party links about factual information about our program could prove to you that reading our website about our own program would not! kopper (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Because all references must be unrelated to the organization, hence the requirement for third party sources. By the way, please also read WP:COI before proceeding, and ensure to propose any new changes on the article talkpage DP 21:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The relevant links from the protected page have been included in my edit above. The additional links to our site were provided for backup. Why is it a "conflict of interest" that we merely want to correct misleading information that someone, who obviously does not know much about our program to begin with, posted? Why is their information more relevant than our very own? And yes, I'm familiar with your COI guidelines. They also state that "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged."

It says "strongly discouraged," not "not allowed." Also, please explain to me how us requesting that FACTUAL information about our association be included here is somehow construed as a Conflict of Interest? There is nothing in the "tone" of my edits above that would lead anyone to believe that this is not a "neutral point of view." We're merely stating facts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopper (talk • contribs)

You're being unnecessarily combative here. We fully agree with FACTUAL information. As the founder of Wikipedia has stated, those with COI should never edit the article directly, they should propose changes on the article talkpage. That's still exactly what we ask not only NEW users but ALL users to do - especially when that information is potentially challengable. All articles have a talkpage - and in 99.999999% of cases, that talkpage is accessible to everyone. Administrators do not determine content of articles - that's done through WP:CONSENSUS and discussion, and in some cases dispute resolution. Please propose changes on that article talkpage, and use links to your reliable sources to support those changes. Note: you unfortunately cannot have any form of creative or content control over that article, but you can work to ensure that no "false" statements are included DP 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the relevant talk page is Talk:Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States and you should be able to edit it. Yes it's ok to use citations from the organization itself, as long as the info being cited isn't promotional or contentious. In this particular situation I think your approach of proposing specific new text is fine, at least for now. Other editors can then identify issues and fix problems before implementing the proposal. (Sometimes a problem develops where someone using that approach tries over long periods to take control of an article, but we can worry about that if it happens, which it hopefully won't). Note: please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) (see WP:TILDE for more info). That puts your username and a timestamp into the post, which makes the discussion easier to follow. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow that article is a trainwreck. I don't see how it passes WP:IINFO or WP:DIRECTORY. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

113.57.252.103 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes very well sourced informnation from Sabiha Gökçen, while not getting involved in the talk page discussion. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

On substance, the IP appears to have the better argument. The existing "Controversies" section is better balanced and much more compliant with NPOV requirements. There's certainly no reason to have two separate discussions of the matter in a single article. A brief cross-reference is all that's needed in the early life section. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any thing actionable for admins in this case. The IP just started editing and is perhaps not familiar with Wikipedia procedure. I have warned him about 3RR and encouraged him to use the talk page for content disputes. If any other issues arise, I think it will be best to return to ANI or just solve them directly on the respective talk page of the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I noticed that the IP editor only made two reverts. Perhaps just reminding the IP to post to the article talk page would be better; I've left a message on their talk page reminding them to use the talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Massive edit war and possible socking

A massive edit war has protracted for a couple days involving 2 IPs and 1 named editor. More than likely the named editor is also one of the IP's. It is seriously disrupting the article Lent history. Please look into the matter and determine if it should be rolled back some 70 or 80 edits to a stable version. I am at a loss on this one. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good luck with it! Pass the buck to the EW noticeboard, maybe--anyone. (I've semi-protected with no opinion on which one of the 129 recent versions is preferable.) Drmies (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I already passed the buck; reporting it here. My reasoning was that the pace of the back and fort activity was "mockingly" rapid – and wp:ew is un-refreshingly slow on the uptake; too often. This board is generally refreshingly prompt; and I was determined to see this thing resolved. I disagree that semi-protecting was the best recourse. You've given an editing advantage to the named user, who is editing through semi as I type. Seeing the wp:spi is proper, but I don't presuppose User talk:LimosaCorel will deny also editing as User talk:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e; but I am calling him to account here – and notifying User talk:131.123.177.19.

The editing prowess and edit summary clue precludes the editing parties from being so novice to not know they were doing wrong—they hardly flinched when I warned them to stop, (presuming LimosaCorel is the aforementioned IP); and carried themselves as children at play. Frankly, I'm ready to break out the paddle.—John Cline (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Teach us to care and not to care.

Teach us to sit still.

In my (mercifully) brief career as a junior high school teacher, I sometimes used to say this to my students. Even in unlikely event they heard me above the ruckus, I don't think they would have picked up the literary allusion. Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm now seeing that a fellow recent changes patrolman has reported this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e, User:LimosaCorel and User:131.123.177.19 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: ). Ultimately, the discussion regarding the EW will take place there. I will link from there, to this discussion; to show the magnitude of disruption achieved by this malfeasance; and leave it TBD if this discussion should be closed, or if it should continue as a separate matter.—John Cline (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Drmies&action=view Drmies apparently stopped editing shortly after his comment here, and he certainly missed my comment where I questioned the action. LimosaCorel had recently been released from a block for edit warring and had over 20 reverts on this article, (he should have been blocked). He has not been responsive to discussion, and effectively is continuing the edit war, unhindered by semi-protection – while the IP editor is locked out of the article. As a matter of content, it isn't known by me, who is on the right side, yet; LimosaCorel is progressively changing the article, and I don't trust his judgment after witnessing this EW. Please consider blocking this editor under 3RR, or at least making him stop editing Lent until he answers the EW noticeboard – or here.—John Cline (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies slept like a baby and was not bothered by socks (s/he sleeps without them, usually). If you report things like a "massive edit war" here you should expect someone to take swift action to stop the edit war. That's the "incident" part. The rest is for others to decide: it is not the admin's primary job to decide who's right and who's wrong; that's usually to be decided in other venues, though it can, on occasion, lie within both the discretion and the purview of the acting administrator, if the aforementioned rightness and wrongness can be determined by the status and behavior of involved editors rather than the actual merits or demerits of the edits themselves (Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION). To put it differently, if you want a different kind of action you should make a different kind of request. I've not given an advantage to anyone: there's thousands of editors who can go through semi-protection and ANI has plenty of eyes whose owners can get more deeply involved with the article if they so choose. Thank you for your report. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I managed some sleep myself, though I'll admit wearing socks. Thank you for helping me better understand the rationale of your action. It works for me. Mostly, thank you for taking action on the matter. Clearly, some chose to leave it for another. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Out-of-process move

In 2006, someone performed a copy-and-paste move from Bangs (hair) to Fringe (hair). No explanation was provided, and it's entirely possible that the editor simply preferred his/her English variety (which wouldn't be an appropriate rationale, obviously). But because I'd occasionally heard the term "fringe" used to describe the hairstyle in the United States (and found that the inverse apparently isn't true), instead of reverting, I performed the move properly. (See WP:COMMONALITY.)

Move than seven years later, on 28 February, User:2.219.46.24 initiated a request to move the article back to Bangs (hair), citing WP:ENGVAR (which, contrary to some editors' belief, doesn't guide us to always retain an article's original English variety, no matter what). I opposed the move (for the reason explained above), as did User:IJA.

Then Red Slash expressed "strong support per WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR". A minute later, he performed the move. Then he speedily closed the move request and relisted it in reverse, declaring that the 2006 move was "apparently in violation of WP:RETAIN" and that a move would require us to "override" that rule — a point explicitly contested in the closed discussion. (WP:RETAIN applies specifically in the absence of a good reason to change an article's English variety, the existence of which was plainly asserted. Whether one agrees or disagrees with my 2006 decision, it clearly had a good-faith rationale with no basis in nationalism; keep in mind that I upheld a move away from my English variety.)

I'm baffled as to how these actions comply with the non-admin closure criteria (to which Red Slash linked). He expressed "strong support" for the requested move (and therefore obviously wasn't "impartial"). The discussion had lasted three days and change, during which two editors opposed and two editors (the lister and Red Slash) supported, so it certainly wasn't the case that "the consensus or lack of consensus [was] clear after a full listing period (seven days)".

I request that an uninvolved administrator undo the out-of-process move, close the relisting (and notify its participants), and reopen the original move request. Thank you. —David Levy 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There were only two support votes for the move, one of which was an IP user who proposed the move in the first place and the other was the admin who closed the RM himself six minutes later after voting. It is almost as if Red Slash has made himself Judge, Jury and Executioner. This is completely out of order and not in line with WP:RM policy. This move should be reverted back to "Fringe" until there is a proper consensus to move it. IJA (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash isn't an admin. He linked to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, the criteria of which clearly weren't met either. —David Levy 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To spell it out a little more, here are the logs:

• Bangs logs – 10 December 2006 David Levy moved page Bangs (hair) to Fringe (hair) (repairing C&P move)
• Fringe logs – 3 March 2014 Red Slash moved page Fringe (hair) to Bangs (hair)

A speedy close after nearly 8 years is very much out-of-process. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have undone the move as this clearly wasn't right. Perhaps a new discussion is now needed to resolve this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you. Note that Red Slash's relisting (Bangs (hair) → Fringe (hair)) remains open. I don't know whether it would be better to reopen the previous discussion (Fringe (hair) → Bangs (hair)) or to initiate a new one, but something should be done. The current listing proposes the status quo, which apparently caused confusion. (Steel1943, whom I just pointed to this discussion, saw that the second request was ongoing and reverted your move. IJA then reinstated it.) —David Levy 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  Steel1943 evidently acted upon seeing the broken listing — "Fringe (hair) → Fringe (hair)" — at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —David Levy 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• My bad - I didn't check to see how long ago the move was made originally; I should not have done this to repair a move made in 2006. I made everything clear and above-board and there was no underhandedness, but definitely, this is not the process for reverting poor move decisions made over seven years ago. Wow. My full apologies. Red Slash 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased material at Eastern Europe 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.

---

User:Rjensen insisted on adding a bizarre paragraph on the denunciation of Soviets in the Eastern Europe page, sourced from a single author [49]. The rest of that section talks about a general overview of geopolitical changes in Eastern Europe following WWII, and the section simply does not belong. I tried to paraphrase the passage [50], and he quickly reverted it, accusing me of "whitewashing" the Soviets, blah blah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Rjensen didn't "add" that paragraph (at least, not recently) - he just reverted your not-very-well-explained removal of a section sourced to a Pulizer prize winner. He reverted your edit and you then decided that paraphrasing the section was a better solution so you tried that instead. But the English of the paraphrase wasn't great and it looks to have changed the meaning of what the source asserted. He reverted that too and you reverted his revert claiming he was pushing a partisan POV. For the record, I've reverted that and encouraged you to discuss this content dispute on the article talk page. And that's exactly what this is - a content dispute. Besides which, you've not actually notified Rjensen as you are required to do. I'll do that for you but I would suggest an admin should close this and send everyone to the article talk page. Stalwart111 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111 is right. this is a content dispute about a historical topic (how Stalin seized control of Eastern Europe after 1945). The material is not at all controversial; it summarizes a 2012 book that has been highly praised by reviewers. Our IP person did not provide any alternative sources whatever to the prize winning analysis by Anne Applebaum. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So it's wrong to paraphrase a passage and attribute the claim? I reject your explanation, considering that Wikipedia has plenty of articles where you're free to bitch about how evil Stalin and the Russians are. I came to the article to get an general overview of geopolitical changes after WWII in Eastern Europe, not someone's personal analysis on Stalin. And winning a "prize" does not give someone a free pass, especially considering that the same author is married up to someone in the Polish government.

Of course you can paraphrase something but a longer directly attributed section is always going to be better that an inaccurately paraphrased paragraph with confusing English. And blindly edit-warring one in over the other is just a bad idea. But you've missed the broader point - this is a content dispute which is what we have article talk pages for. ANI deals with editor behaviour and the only editor who has done the wrong thing in this content dispute is you. We call that a WP:BOOMERANG. Let this be closed, take it back to the article talk page and have a proper discussion about it. Stalwart111 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close - nothing for admins to do here. Stalwart111 21:41, 4 March 2014 (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.

Big deal at Santa Ana Mountains

Would someone please lock me up and throw away the key? This is crazy.

User:WPPilot replaces the lede image in Santa Ana Mountains with one of his own aerial photographs. I don't think it's as good as the photo in the article before (not mine) and I revert. He reverts back etc. We finally get to the talk page, and I explain, bluntly, that his image is not good enough for the infobox - for one thing it doesn't display well at that size. I point out WP:BRD that the article should stay in the status quo ante, and revert. I get the idea that maybe the photo is not so bad at a larger size, so I tweak it, crop it (taking out too much sky above the mountains) and insert it in the article at 900px. I tell him I've done this, but because I called him an "ass" along the way, I don't think he's even looked at the article to see that his image is now gigantic and much more prominent than it would have been in the infobox. He's just ranting away in all caps that profanity is illegal and by using it I'm defaming him -- and this is a guy who's supposed to be a small aircraft pilot who takes his own shots. So he's shouting and reverting and I can't get him to acknowledge the new prominence of his image.

I'm done with him, so lock me up if you have to, someone uninvolved and calmer should have a talk with this guy. BMK (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"who's supposed to be a small aircraft pilot who takes his own shots" Ken has been engaged in a "insult a thon" with me. My edit started by posting a new photo that showed the whole range, rather then a snow capped peak, and some trees and such. I posted my edit and reasons for making them, on the talk page ASAP. As it has been mentioned to this user before the lead image should really represent what the place looks like, so the snow covered shots are non qualifiers for the lead image. He revered over and over, in spite of the fact that I tried to communicate with him on his and the projects talk page, he just reverted and would not explain why that photo was a good visual depiction of that range. The snow capped pic does NOT belong on the page. If a fellow pilot (yes I have many ratings) was too look up that on wiki and see that it has a snow covered peak, he would never see it. Any person from here knows just how rare snow is on this peak, and Ken man has refused to address this, he simply reverts and calls me names.WPPilot 07:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

He's also reverting my deletion of his comments on my talk page, which he shouldn't do. I see he's posted below, someone should tell him that profanility is not illegal, that calling someone an "ass" may not be nice but it's not "defamatory", that admins don't do content disputes, and perhaps combine the two entries. I'm not going to touch it. Oh, and maybe you can get hoim to look at theversion of the article with his image very big in it. BMK (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

He's now reverted another editor, who restored my version. BMK (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The other editor is: User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah whom I suspect is a sockpuppet for Ken, if someone could run a sockpuppet IP check perhapsWPPilot 07:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That made my day, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK may be argumentative, but he's not conniving. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Santiago Peak and Modjeska Peak Saddleback photo D Ramey Logan.jpg

File:Snow on Saddleback (2008) 01.JPG

WP:LEADIMAGE

I do aerial photos for Wikipedia and have for years. A user has now resorted to using profanity in his edits and demands that a photo showing trees a snow capped peak from 2008 and is calling me names. He was already overruled in regard to other photos from a snow that took place in 2008 on a range in So Cal. He is now openly calling me a ASS on Wikipedia in direct violation of policy.WPPilot 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)WPPilot

I just responded at WT:Administrators#I NEED HELP ASAP Santa Ana Mountains that WPPilot might like to ask for opinions on the wikiprojects mentioned at the top of Talk:Santa Ana Mountains. I have combined these two sections into one as they refer to same incident. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a mess. From my look at the history of Santa Ana Mountains both WPPilot and BMK are past WP:3RR, WPPilot has made legal threats in edit summaries [51] [52] (the first blatantly violates NLT, the second, its spirit), and above WPPilot makes an utterly frivilous sockpuppetry accusation, which is considered a personal attack. Wow. As I'm about to head to bed I'm not handing out any blocks myself , but I have full-protected the article for three days so there can be dissuccion without all the sound and fury. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• For background, take a look at Talk:Mission Viejo, California#Infobox photo. BMK (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I never intended anything said to be construed as anything other then my dislike for unclean words used by the other editor, or to be construed as a legal threat, that's just silly. I tried to on the project talk page to have a normal conversation, asking how one peak with snow on it from 2008 is depicting the range. The consensus in this matter Talk:Mission Viejo, California#Infobox photo. was that a snow capped peak showing a fairy tale like photo did not qualify for Lead Image. WP:LEADIMAGE is clear and that was what I had hoped would prevail. Only after BMK had reverted 3 times did he respond to my talk requests, and try to appease me, after calling me names by placing the photo cropped in the story. I had already lost my patience with him at that junction and did get a little too frustrated, so I simply walked away. WPPilot talkWPPilot 15:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You should have posted on his talk page to get his attention. Then, he would have been able to respond to your talk request faster. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I wandered over to the Santa Ana Mountains article having seen this, and as a fairly local resident, hoping to help. What's going on is ridiculous. They're chipping and firing at each other on the article talk page, disrupting an attempt at actually discussing the image to be used. They're doing the same thing on the Mission Viejo article (and heaven knows where else), and they've both totally lost sight of what they're here to do. WPP is totally wrapped up in loving his aerial photographs, and seems to want to have all of the OC articles to have one (the Mission Viejo one might as well be somewhere in Minnesota for all I can tell what I'm looking at), and BMK is getting less and less civil; his name calling is out of control. I haven't looked at their talk page histories, but what little I've seen there is more of the same. BMK calls WPP an idiot or an ass, WPP retaliates with ownership-flavored demands and threats, and we're getting nowhere. I just hollered "time out" on the Santa Ana Mountains article in the hope of getting the discussion back on track; I also warned them that either of them starts again and I'll be back here proposing an interaction ban. Then we have their latest antics here. The two of them clearly can't work together, and I really can't see a way forward in the current climate of discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're overtstating things a bit.

The Mission Viejo discussion (there have been no others between myself and WPPilot) was back in January. Anyone who wants to can take a look at it. (Talk:Mission Viejo, California#Infobox photo) I was civil throughout, WPP less so -- as pointed out by another editor. I contrived a solution which involved putting WPP's picture into the article elsewhere than in the infobox at a much larger size. I thought that cleared the air, but WPP apparently kept a chip on his shoulder, because when this disagreement came up, he came out of the box guns ablazin' (see my talk page), and, yes, I reacted badly to that. I react badly whenever I'm attacked, and when editors seem to be concerned only with their own petty concerns and not with the overall quality of an article. I've uploaded over 4,500 of my own images to Commons (not artistic or brilliant, but functional), and I'm totally ruthless about them - if soemone else's image is better than mine, or serves the article better, then that's the one that goes into the article, not mine. I'm not here to massage my ego by getting my pictures into articles, I'm here to make articles better, often by adding or changing images, and I use exactly the same criteria for evaluating the images of others as I do for my own. If one image is inferior to another, it has no place being in an article, no matter what camera was used to take it, or what lens, or how hard to was to fly the airplane while taking the shot -- all that stuff is totally irrelevant, what matters is the quality of the picture, and how it serves the article.

So, yes, I overreacted, and I shouldn't have. I apologize for my language, but not for the standards I try to uphold when working on images in articles. The picture WPP put in just was not that good. It was better as a larger size after I had tweaked it, but at infobox size, it was just a dark blur that conveyed nothing whatsoever to the reader, the person we are supposed to be here to serve. (You can look at it, it's currently the image in the infobox of the article.)

Now, someone (can't recall who) transferred another image from Flickr, and it looks great - very sharp and clear, should look OK in the infobox at a slightly larger than usual size (because it's a landscape), and I'm all for it. I was not, and am not, a partisan of the image that was originally in the infobox. I was not, and am not, opposed to aerial shots. (WPP's aerial photograph that ended up being presented at a larger size in the Mission Viejo article looks good at that size, and improves the article in a way it could not do in the infobox.) All I want is for the images that are used to improve the articles they are in, and I am not prejudiced for or against any type of photo or any photographer's work, even my own.

I hope that consensus on the article talk page will hold up that the new image is a good choice for the infobox, and it can be added when the article comes off protection. BMK (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK that is simply not true, I had added the photo, and three time in a row, you simply reverted the edits. I, after the first edit revert that you said the picture was poor first posted both photos on your talk page and hoped that you would communicate, that did not happen.I tried on your talk page as well as the project talk page to communicate with you, my words were to the effect of asking for a consensus but you refused to undertake any conversation and within minutes you used the words that IMHO were out of context of the sprit of Wikipedia. Within minutes you were calling me a number of names and inflammatory public statements "he says he is a pilot" as if to assert that I am a liar. I do not think that a photo of snow on that range is an proper way to show a range that has not seen snow since 2008, and I feel strongly that is not the way to display it. According you your first 5 reverts, my photo simply had no value and was deleted. Then you started calling me names. Once you had on a number of places called offensive names, I had enough and it was then and only then that I reacted, You sir are the only person that I have ever been through this with and I was shocked that our second interaction ever so quickly resulted in public name calling, by you. I do not keep "chips on my shoulder", don't know you and I at this junction could care less as negative interaction is something I avoid at all cost. The solution is simple, I will avoid interaction with pages that BMK has edited upon and refrain from placing my aerial photos upon them. End of dispute! Have a nice day! WPPilot talk--WPPilot 04:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot, I'm afraid your memory fails you in this case, just as it did in the case of the Mission Viejo article, where you insist that I was told that the infobox image was inappropriate (again, because of the snow) - but anyone who reads the discussion at the link above can see that's not accurate, or, indeed, they can look at the article, where that same image remains in the infobox.

Be that as it may, I think you're limiting yourself unnecessarily by boycotting any article I've edited. It's your choice, of course, but I've edited something like 25,000 unique pages. A better solution would be to be open to the possibility that one of your images is not as appropriate for an article as you think it is, and to be prepared to discuss its virtues and defects as objectively as possible instead of insisting (against all evidence) that your image is superior to any other possibility. That will reduce friction and induce discussion, whereas standing fast and not budging will almost invariable lead to bad results. BMK (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, my remark that "this is a guy who's supposed to be a small aircraft pilot who takes his own shots" wasn't doubting that you are a pilot, it was amazement that someone with those qualifications could behave in such a petulant and childish manner as you did - shouting and ranting, throwing around legal threats and sockpuppetry allegations, ridiculously claiming that profanity is "illegal" -- these is behavior I would expect from someone with a lot less life experience than yours. If being called an "ass" sets you off like that, I'd hate to see what would happen if someone with a really foul mouth were to unload on you. BMK (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not expose myself to people that are as foul mouthed as you describe sir. I was not shouting, my cap locks was on and I did not notice, your assuming a great deal here, and as it turns out the image was fine for the article. You within minutes escalated this by call me a ass, an asshole as well as posting that in a number of places. Once again my friends and associates would never do something like that as all of them are respectful. Public humiliation is not accepted in most societies today as many people grow out of the need to use schoolyard name calling in there youth. Trees, a lamp post, some homes and the back of street signs do not depict the mountain range, and after review of others here it looks like I was correct and that image will be replaced while the aerial photo remains, is that not correct BMK? Please just walk away too, like I said you can go ahead and own the stories that you edit, your a good editor and I would not want to have you feel the need to call me school yard bully names in exchange for sharing my aerial photography with wikipedia. WPPilot talk 05:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A picture of a mountain range does not have to consist of the mountain range and only the mountain range, just as a picture of a building can be valuable and useful even if there's a fire hydrant and streets signs and a traffic light in it, because those things are there, they form part of the world in which the building exists, just as the houses and other things are what one sees when one looks at the mountain range from a terrestrial viewpoint. Your love of aerial photography is fine, but I think it's led you to an unreasonably absolutist and purist point of view which is antithetical to the realities of the real world that 99% of us live in.

Anyway, I have no intention of walking away from the article, I will go with the consensus of the editors discussing images on the talk page, as a good Wikipedian should. (Incidentally, your synopsis of what's being decided there is not accurate.) I wish you luck in your future endeavors. BMK (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes it still looks like your in full control of the story, and acting ringleader of what gets posted on that story:

If that's the consensus, then I suggest that once the article comes off protection, the new image be added to the infobox, and WPPilot's image be placed where I had it at a large size. If there's room in the article, the old infobox picture, possibly with some editing, can be used as well, as long as it's not overcrowding it. BMK (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call consensus just yet; it's only been a few hours, and we have a three-day page protect that affords folks more time to discuss. Let's go slowly and avoid anymore bad feelings. --Drmargi (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hence my desire not to be involved in your pages. WPPilot talk 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ringleader"? I'm a participant in a consensus discussion. "Ringleader" is pretty insulting to the other quite independent editors involved in that discussion, don't you think? (Incidentally, you failed to quote the very next comment in the discussion you excerpted above, where I say "No problem, I agree.") BMK (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Beyond My Ken and WPPilot

As I commented above, BMK and WPP are unwilling/unable to work collaboratively, have utterly lost sight of what we're here to do, and are so wrapped up in their squabble that they will use any opportunity to continue their war of words, no matter what discussion or other activity it might interrupt. It's clear where one is, the other should not be, and that they should not interact any further, if for no other reason, for the peace of the project. Just this afternoon I warned them that if they opened fire on one another again and disrupted the discussion, I would propose an interaction ban. So what did they do? Abandoned one discussion, and brought their act here. This has to stop.

Therefore, I am proposing an indefinite two-way interaction ban between Beyond My Ken and WPPilot. I've never seen two people more in need of an interaction ban. (NB: It should be noted that I've never done this before, so if the language of the proposed ban needs fine tuning, I am open to suggestions and feedback.) --Drmargi (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. --Drmargi (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose What about the underlying issue? Applying several band-aids to ensure that no one has to hear illegal profanity might satisfy some, but it does nothing to address the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Except there was, and is, noting "illegal" about the (mild) profanity that was used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my witty comment has failed—obviously the complaints about "illegal" and "profanities" are extremely inappropriate. What I was trying to say is that there is no interaction problem and there is no reason for an IBAN; the problem concerns WPPilot who does not understand several essential points about Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose seems more paperwork just for the hell of it. Let it drop, let both of them walk away from it. If they won't walk, a couple of day's simple block (probably on both, as it takes two to tango) to stop it sharpish. If it arises again in the future (on any article) the hive memory will surely dredge this past spat up again and we can think about iBans then. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry, but a mutual IBAN for a content dispute on a single article is utterly ridiculous. Figure out who's right on the substance (I haven't thought about it, but my money's on BMK being in the right), implement that version, and if the opposing party continues reverting against consensus then impose a block or TBAN on that party. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have already and willingly imposed my own ban and decided not to edit the Wiki's that person edits, so what is the point here this matter is over? I have never had this type of interaction with ANY OTHER EDITOR on Wikipedia. I have never called anyone dirty names and I for the most part simply contribute aerial photography from around the world to the site. You guys seem to be creating a new mountain out of a hand full of mud. WPPilot14:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)WPPilot
• Comment - I actually agree with WPPilot in this case. We've only interacted twice, and the potential for future interaction now seems much lessened. If the community consensus is for a mutual IBAN, so be it, but it seems unnecessary to me. BMK (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It looks like these two are done, and a block serves no function.Truth991 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your comment. Nobody's proposing a block here? <smalll>(Also, is it just me or is the editing history of the above user a little...curious?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. --Drmargi (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If these two are prepared to take their mongoose and cobra act on the road, and remember why we're all here, I'm happy to withdraw my proposal. I was just appalled at the level of disruption and vitriol that accompanied what should have been a reasonable, civil discussion of the more appropriate photograph, and felt some rather draconian action was in order. --Drmargi (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Reed Cowan

Wow. I have no idea what's going on with the history of Reed Cowan. I followed an IP vandal, and it seems like a mess of WP:AUTO followed by BLP violations. It seems like Cowan may have edited the article to remove mention of his sexuality, which is unsourced and seems like something that should clearly be left out, and then a block of IP addresses (2602:306:CE9A:860:3C8E:AA55:B505:377D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) being the most recent) has been rapidly putting it back, along with a mish-mash of other stuff. Now it's nominated for deletion. I've got to go, but someone with more experience with BLP should take a look, please. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The article [history] of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon shows that this IP range (is that the right term?) has been vandalizing for a while, since February 22. Grayfell (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by Sportsgamaniacre

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.

---

When the template Infobox NBA rivalry was nominated for deletion (not by me) Sportsgamaniacre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) responded with a tirade of legal threats which are still visible in this diff. For the user's talk page, he also has a history of vandalism.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2014 (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.

Reporting user harassment from "Arthur Rubin" and accusatory bully mentality from administrator "OhNoItsJamie"

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.

---

Arthur Rubin has rolled back and reverted my edits and placed copy/pasted vandalism claims on my page which I disputed. He continued to harass me and I warned him I would contact an administrator if he continued. He didn't post any more, but then I get an accusatory and threatening comment on my talk page from administrator OhNoItsJamie which seems to be Arthur's own preemptive strike. I'm making this section in hopes of reporting administrator abuse by not only threatening and accusing me, but also encouraging user abuse by attacking me when I've done nothing wrong. Their issues can be seen on my talk page. Winnerex (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You can help your case, Winnerex, and make the admins' job easier if you provided specific "diffs" (linked evidence) that support your allegations. If you make them search to find out where and what the problems are, I think they are less likely to take action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• You vandalized Neil deGrasse Tyson, pure and simple. Three different editors have pointed this out to you (besides ClueBot), and I'm number four. No jibber-jabber about being attacked (you weren't) and "oh no wonder Wikipedia is so bad" is going to alter the fact that you committed a violation of our BLP policy, and I'll leave it at that. (Liz, there is nothing to prove here.) Drmies (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• lets see. Winnerex repeatedly blanks Wikipedia:Fringe theories [53][54], vandalises the Neil deGrasse Tyson article to describe a noted astrophysicist as a 'comedian' [55], and then complains here about 'administrator abuse'? Block indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely, trolling or a competence issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2014 (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.

Evolving Pictures Entertainment spamming their movie

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.

---

Scoop101extreme (talk · contribs) has been adding external links to news about a movie related to Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes. The link might make an interesting External Link on that page, but the others are just spam as far as I'm concerned. I strongly suspect they are involved with the movie's production team, Evolving Pictures Entertainment.

Similar edits from The scoop11 (talk · contribs) who has been previously blocked due to sockpuppetry.

Similar edits from Inside stuff 101 (talk · contribs)

Sorry if this is misplaced. Didn't know if it came under COI, external links, sockpuppetry, or spam?

Astronaut (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I reported this user at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which also deals with spam and promotional editing. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Request restoration of Space Fro and other pages destroyed by TheRedPenOfDoom

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has been removing content including references, external links from various articles without informing anyone (see user talk page), his most recent being Space Frontier (see history of the page).

I tried to restore it, but it said it cannot be undone. I just wish he's inform or issue a warning for his edits. He's destroyed quiet a bit of work of many contributors, including hard to find references, that cannot be reverted.

I'm not requesting he be blocked or banned, but his removal of so much content without ever informing anyone is plain disruptive and unhelpful.

I request the material be restored and the pages he vandalized be protected until all parties can reach a consensus. It is extremely disappointing to see so much work unable to be restored and his way of not informing anyone whenever he does it. Can a sysop please use the correct tools to restore the blanked pages and correct this mess? Thanks69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of what TRPOD deleted was unsourced WP:OR that had been tagged since August. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, it must be the time where everyone is going to moan about TRPoD again. If, instead of running here to the dramah boardz for no real reason, you'd bothered to look at the edits in question, you'd realize that almost everything in your report is unfounded (particularly the "removal of so much content without ever informing anyone" comment - you don't have to announce publicly that you're pruning something). TRPoD removed a bunch of things that were either totally unsourced, had citations that did not support the passage of text that they were linked to, were unreliably sourced, or were just attempts at refspam. He has not "destroyed" anything. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can link us to the problematic edits? I too am seeing explained content remove but a lot was not sourced or was poorly so by the look of it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK I will provide diffs, but I dont want my post to be misunderstood, I'm not asking for him to be in trouble. I just think it should be restored and then removed but with discussion so we know what's happening. I was attempted to revert it but cant seem to anymore 69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• You come to ANI, and yet you don't want someone to get in trouble? I'm not buying that. And that information should not be restored without sources. NONE of it was valid as it stood. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• And the two refs that were included talk about a theme within Sci Fi, not a sub-genre. That'd be like calling a steampunk novel part of the "exploration of Victorian cultural mores in a technologically advanced civilization" subgenre. Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's the point, the sources were removed before I had a chance to examine them. The ref list is half empty and the external link is gone. Can the page not be restored and protected from edit warring. If I wanted trouble I would complain about him & not the page. Or can I be directed to the right page where this request belongs. IMAO if I wanted trouble i'd ask he be warned and blocked. I tried to revert myself before requesting discussion but cant seem to. All I'm asking is one chance for material restoration and discussion. Jeez, no wonder people dont contribute as much they used to, they get misinterpreted, reverted without discussion and when they ask for help they get blamed....69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes editors are referred to AN/I as a place to get problems resolved and don't know that frequently cases brought here end up with one or both parties blocked. I know I wandered over here when I was a new user and just saw it as a "noticeboard", not a banning board.

69.165.246.181, I can see the revert/undo option, I'm not sure if that isn't visible to you because you have an IP account. But none of the material is gone forever, it's preserved in the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I tried doing that, it said it can't be undone. Try it. Can you please replace the references so I can see them? I can't believe the removal of everything without discussion, no matter how unacceptable the material, is being defended here. And given that so many users and IPs feel the same way why is it being overlooked? Last time I checked all parties need to resolve disputes. But all that aside, can please be shown the sources be replaced so I can see them. Seriously is there any harm in that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• What the IP will have tried to do is undo an individual edit in the middle of the block, which is why the software won't let them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IP, here is the old version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The maintenance tags have been there since August 2013, so you can hardly accuse TRPoD of undue haste in getting rid of the unsourced material. Other editors have had months to provide sources, and even now they are at liberty to add the material back if it can be supported by reliable sources. As has been pointed out above, the old material is there in the page history, and can be retrieved from there and added back in with appropriate references. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• 69.165.246.181: When you approached TRPOD and asked him politely to explain what he was up to, what were the results of that conversation you had? --Jayron32 22:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Once again. This isn't about me trying to win a revert war with him or anyone else. I'm asking for the page to be restored so I can address his concerns. I tried restoring previous pages myself, BUT was unable to do so, which is why I came asking for help. Also to assume I want help in editing warring with this person is ridiculous since I agreed with his recent edits on science fiction on television which I did not revert because it was entirely unreferenced.

• But his edits on pages like Space Frontier were removed of links. I feel like I'm talking to people who speak a different language without an interpreter. So once again can I be shown how to restore the page? :-) Thank you 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)69.165.246.181 (talk)

If you want to know how to read a page history, try Help:Page history. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's confusing, 69.165.246.181, because you say you don't want an edit war (which is good) but you want an earlier version fully restored. Now that would be the next step in an edit war.

Like I said, you can view any earlier version of the article (and people have tried to explain how to do this) so the material isn't lost. Be selective, only add back in material that is well-sourced. Ordinarily, the informal rule is WP:BRD - a bold edit, it gets reverted, then all parties go to the article talk page to discuss what should be done. That's how disagreement is handled every day on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The page in question has been PRODDed, so 69.165.246.181 may soon have even more trouble seeing the past versions. --Auric talk 23:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that anyone who disagrees with a PROD and wants to do work on improving the article to meet WP standards can remove the tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is true. But my crystal ball says this will be up in front of AfD within 24 hours of the PROD being pulled down - or it'll just become a redirect to Science Fiction Simonm223 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing sources from the historically archived version. 1 and 2 are still in the current version. 3 is a pdf of a set of class notes from a literature teacher in a high school. It also only refers to the frontier as a theme, not a sub-genre. 4 is a self-published website / blog with no indication it's a WP:RS and 5 is a repeat of 1. Simonm223 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Impossible

An unknown editor has vandalized Template:New page. Click here to see it. What surprises me is the editor managed to make so his edit is not in history, making it impossible to identify him. This is what the history claims is the "newest" page. Please, help me identify the editor so I can warn him. Best of luck, Aharonz1 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything unusual there or in any other recent template edits. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, the giant "STOP!" that appears when you edit it is intentional. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Can you please describe what vandalism you are seeing, or what problem with the template is occurring that the vandalism results from? I am not seeing any problem in {{New page}}. Often when people see a problem like this it results from vandalism to a trancluded template or image. That is, a template or image that is included or displayed in the workings of {{new page}} has been vandalized and so you are seeing the result of that vandalism without any change needed to be made in the template itself. Here, though, I suspect the issue was the edit to the template's documentation subpage that was reverted here (which by the way, if I am correct, was not vandalism but simply a newbie error). Note that you piped your links backwards in your post; you meant to type [[Template:New page|here]], not [[here|Template:New page]] (and likewise for the second link). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but let's take the discussion to the page, not the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonz1 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

How to stop a page being 'gamed' ?

Kindly refer to the TALK PAGE [56] of 2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea article where LNCSRG, ROBERTIKI and several other contributers are engaged in discussions in the Italian-language version of the article (translated provided on english talk page) on how to cooperatively transform the content on the english version here on Wikipedia.

• I am concerned about the talk of discussions involving a journalist. Can you use wikipedia to dialogue/coordinate on news content ?
• Is it really pure coincidence that we have an Italian admin who all of a sudden appeared on the talk page of this article ?

I am a bit concerned and worried about this kind of collaborative participation. Something does not look or sound ok here. But I am not going to carelessly throw any accusation. So, can non-involved Wikipedia admins view and check what exactly is going on both here on the english-language and Italian-language wikipedia pages of this article ? 81.240.144.24 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian editors are editing an article on an Italian subject...I don't see the reason for concern here. I also don't see why you have any concerns about editors undertaking discussion to reach consensus. What I do see, after taking a look at the talk page there, is what appears to be a content dispute, and that you are refusing to listen to the other editors' concerns because you're convinced you're right. The only remedy that seems apparent to me here is the IP (and the registered user he strongly appears to be editing-logged-out as) dropping the stick. (I also see that you have not notified User:LNCSRG and User:Robertiki of this discussion, as is required.) As for discussion taking place on it.wiki regarding en.wiki - while unconventional, I don't believe it's any violation of policy, and from what I can see it might be as a result of your refusing to drop the stick here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It is my first attempt to use this template to report a incident. So, I did not know about having to inform User:LNCSRG and User:Robertiki of this discussion. I will do that immediately. Also, I will stand back and stay calm while others can weigh in on the originally occurred differences of opinions which I adequately explained point-by-point. Anycase, I will abide by my word to stay calm till things get calmly sorted out with others weighing in.

91.182.126.147 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

II have just notified both ROBERTIKI & LNCSRG and saw that you had done it too.

Please note that my IP has indeed changed but I cannot do much about it (see talk page for the reason). So, as you know I am the same Belgian based contributor as 81.240.144.24 and Onlyfactsnofiction and whatever else IP I get. 91.182.126.147 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you should sign in using your account, to make things easier for everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As explained on the talk page, I am using fixed computer which is personal I can at times sign-in but on my portable tablet device or work computers I am not at liberty to customise and make personal log-in identifications (due to work-place policy). That said, I will try to sign-in whenever possible.Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

hello everybody, just observing my two interventions on Italian wiki talk page dated back to the first part of 2013, and were about translating or deriving content from the English wiki article to the Italian one, not vice versa. --LNCSRG (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I seek a wikipedia policy related clarification : I had expressed surprise a couple of days ago [57] about how an Italian contributor was in contact around the end of February 2014 with an Italian journalist called "Toni Capuozzo" regarding this Italian Marines case (translated here [58]) ? Well, it now appears that on 06 March 2014, the journalist "Toni Capuozzo" published an article (reprinted in many places in the Italian media) and made a TV documentary along an editorial line that exonerates the marines drawing from many hypothetical lines that are disturbingly similar to the ones being discussed on wikipedia. Kindly search "Toni+Capuozzo +maro" on any search engine to see the articles and documentary (in Italian language).

My question is simple : Is it Ok to coordinate/collaborate with a journalist who then goes on to publish an article which is thereafter used as a 'jump-off point' to modify the related wikipedia articles in english and Italian languages ? What is your take on this ? What is the Wikipedia policy on lobbying and opinion shaping. Is this allowed ? It it OK for anyone to contact a prominent journalist from one of the involved countries (India or Italy) and thereafter when a suitable article is published use it as a 'credible source' in order to shape the text of wikipedia article accordingly ? I am disturbed by this. But, maybe I am mistaken to be concerned and that this is all part of the game and is perfectly acceptable. That is why I am asking for opinions from administrators/arbitrators with clear understanding of wikipedia policies and editorial guidelines. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

AccuracyObsessed on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina

AccuracyObsessed on Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina: vandalism after final warning. AccuracyObsessed continues to change information in the article so the subject is singular and an attack on one individual. I have askedAccuracyObsessed to discuss on the talk page. AccuracyObsessed continues to remove content I add to the article without discussing on the talk page. Instead of "undoing" content I add to the article, AccuracyObsessed is editing and removing the content -- example: "corrects date and context of Caldwell comments; corrects death toll; adds references; brings information on records lawsuit up to date" Furthermore, AccuracyObsessed is citing references out of context. Schwartzenberg (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Consults WP:OWB ...yep...looks like another #72 case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the chance to defend my edits. You will find them unimpeachable if you take time to read the history thoroughly. Several days prior to my involvement, Schwarzenberg attempted to delete this page, which had been entitled the "Anna Pou case" for six years and described an important episode in recent American history -- the subject of countless news articles, television programs, and a recently released book by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. The Dr. Anna Pou case is taught at medical schools around the country, and the doctor herself is a public figure who has told her story to state legislatures in a successful effort to change laws so that medical staff who work in future disasters will not face prosecution for doing their best in horrible circumstances. The same time period in which Schwatzenberg attempted to delete the page, Schwartzenberg attempted to scrub Dr. Pou's name from other longtime Wikipedia pages, including that of the former Attorney General who had arrested the doctor and is now in a March 15th run-off for sheriff of Orleans Parish. Concurrently Schwartzenberg launched a POV attack on the Wikipedia page of the journalist who wrote about Dr. Pou. Schwartzenberg completed a unilateral move of the Anna Pou case, scrubbing her name from the longtime article. This all predated my involvement. Since then Schwartzenberg has attempted sometimes on a daily basis to add inaccurate material to the newly and inapty named "Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina", chipping away at the truth. This kind of historical revisionism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. It makes me despair for the future of our society if one person can successfully disseminate inaccurate and biased information that whitewashes history. I have submitted my edits with the greatest of seriousness and integrity. Katrina and Dr Pou's experiences in particular were difficult episodes in our recent history-- we must face them with sympathy, fairness, and accuracy. It is what we owe to ourselves so that we can learn from history. Thank you for listening. AccuracyObsessed (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. I'm new around here (I guess that's quite obvious), and when I joined was not aware of the way things work and how to request review of questionable editing, in particular. I'm quickly learning about the various policies. It's been quite a fascinating education-- one I'm thankful for, and I hope my contributions as an editor so far have been valuable. I look forward to contributing in the future. I'm glad that senior editors and administrators have been brought into this discussion to take an objective look at what was happening.AccuracyObsessed (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Civility - Harassment

I am being harassed by Parrot_Of_Doom who has been abusive, rude, insulting, condescending, and called me a racist fool. He disrupts my editing, and is purposely trying to discourage my participation. He has a serious attitude problem. This has been on-going for about a week now. Please, I need an Administrator to resolve this situation. Atsme (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this is to discuss with PoD and others the issues you believe are relevant in the content dispute in which you are engaged at Anjem Choudary. Leaky Caldron 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's more than that. I've already been through all those steps. It isn't content - I need an Administrator who can resolve issue. It has escalated beyond discussion. Should I go straight to Arbitration? Atsme (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? "racist fool" looks like a quote/paraphrase, but you didn't show where this was said. I provided detailed evidence of my grievance a few sections above and have received zero input for the last eleven hours. Seems a little unfair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[59] Other users shouldn't have to ctrl+f the word "fool" on the subject's contributions page. And the Daily Mail is not the best of sources to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Making a good-faith mistake and being wrong on the substance is not actionable. Being uncivil once is also not actionable. As far as I'm concerned, making a good-faith mistake, being wrong on the substance, and being uncivil is not actionable. In this case, it appears to be Atsme who is wrong on the substance and may have been mistaken about the policy at first but an editor who's been here for three years should know better than to engage in an edit war.[60][61][62][63] POD responded after being prodded over several weeks with a slightly uncivil comment. Am I missing something? I don't know squat about the subject -- it appears to be a BLP, which might mean that if one party has been violation WP:BLP then the other party can be excused for edit-warring, but... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Both Atsme and Parrot of Doom| have just been blocked by Callanecc for 36 hours for edit warring at Anjem Choudary, so neither can respond here at the moment. That said, Atsme doesn't exactly come here with clean hands. It's hardly surprising Parrot of Doom responds angrily to a post claiming he "has a history of bullying, and disenfranchising good editors". That's a nasty attack (coming immediately after a claim by Atsme that they will "take the high road".. !) Lacking diffs from Atsme (who is a new user, so I don't much blame them for that), reviewers can fairly simply check out Good article reassessment/Anjem Choudary/1, where the quote I've linked to can be seen in context, plus recent editing of Anjem Choudary and its talkpage, where it's not hard to gain an impression of their respective styles in controversy. Parrot is more bluff, Atsme more polite-aggressive, but I see little to choose between them as for civility. That's a matter of taste, of course. Parrot has indeed called Atsme a racist fool, which is bad and is mostly avoided by more cautious Wikipedia editors. On the other hand, Atsme has accused Parrot of making "racial slurs" against them edit summary here: "If you use another racial slur against me, I'm going straight to arbitration" — this in response to Parrot's summary "Take your bigotry elsewhere". ("Bigotry" sure as hell isn't a "racial slur".)

I'm not sure how this thread should be dealt with, in view of the 36-hour blocks. Perhaps archived, with a suggestion to the OP to either re-file later or (more relevant IMO) go to dispute resolution (mediation/ user RFC) ? Not sure using the Anjem Choudary talkpage further would be productive, as that has become very bad-tempered. Or the thread can sit here until the blocks expire, if that seems useful. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

@ User:Bishonen and User:Callanecc: It seems to me that both of these users believed they wear reverting a blatant BLP violation, and at least one of them was probably right. It seems to me like User:Atsme was misrepresenting sources and deliberately not giving page numbers (When asked why he disbanded the group, Bakri said he felt the group’s members and activities were under threat by the introduction of new legislation against terrorism implies the OPPOSITE of what it says on page 6 of the cited source). WP:3RR states pretty explicitly that Removal of [...] poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons is not counted as [a revert] for the purposes of 3RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's for Callanecc to respond to, not me. I haven't reviewed the edit warring blocks, and don't have time to do so now. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, I agree. I've pinged Callanecc to have a look. Atsme has previous for dubious sourcing and once claimed that Wikipedia is a "platform for Islamic extremism" [64]. Not someone who should be editing a BLP like that. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've unblocked PoD and left a note on Callanecc's talk page, making reference to Black Kite and Hijiri88's remarks as well. IMO, PoD was justified in making the reverts given the BLP. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation. Atsme simply added information from a study published by The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence I really don't see a BLP violation there. If we call those edits 'BLP violation' then the article on Osama bin Laden (state: 2010) was an endless BLP violation until he was deposed of by the US forces and the issue became moot.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't make that a reliable source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite and Drmies. Good unblock, doc. --John (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• No problem with the unblock. The blocks were (in a small amount) for stopping the incivility which had made it's why into the reverting as well. But edit warring was the primary reason so thanks for unblocking. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just going to add my 2 cents worth here. I was intending to raise this as a separate issue but then decided that life is too short. But, given that someone else has raised it already... I have no comment to make on the substance of the underlying policy and procedural disagreements but I do think that some strong action should be taken against User:Parrot of Doom for his endlessly abusive and insulting behavior. Looking at his history, he has on very regular occasions used language that goes way over the line in terms of what is acceptable for anyone, let alone an editor of his experience. From a brief search of this noticeboard, I think he has been reported for uncivil conduct on ANI 75 times. He routinely uses language such as "fuck off", "you are talking nonsense", "you racist fool", "these changes are utter drivel. Take your bigotry elsewhere", "oh don't be so bloody stupid", "rubbish", "ridiculous", "fuck it, I'm not being blocked for this", "waste of time", "stupid", "return of the clown", "can't believe this shit", "reply to dummy-spitter"; this is just a fraction of the gems from his history and it just doesn't stop. Unfortunately no action has been taken to try to get this back in hand. There is also an underlying issue driving much of this conflict in that he routinely reverts edits on the grounds that he doesn't agree with them. No other reason given just "I don't agree". When anyone objects, it's Abusing Time. It is no wonder that he feels able to head his talk page with "One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer." He then goes on to say "never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue". This, by itself, would be unacceptable. However, it is entirely unsurprising given the number of times that he has been reported here with no action being taken. Clearly he feels that WP:CIVIL does not apply to him and he is right; the policy applies to no-one if it is not enforced. He was even abusive to a number of editors in response to this very complaint, editors who had simply asked him not to call people racist, and yet no action was taken other than the editors involved simply saying that they didn't want to interact with people like him anymore.
• The real shame is that he is clearly a dedicated editor with 25k+ edits yet, as a result of his inability to conduct himself properly, almost every page that he is involved in disintegrates into an endless wall of argument and abuse as he just can't deal with other editors in an civil way. This destroys any possibility of resolving the underlying disputes, because it becomes all about his attitude rather than the substance of the article. What is even worse is that other editors, seeing that this is how he conducts himself without repercussion, think that this is simply the way that Wikipedia works and mirror his actions. People who regularly comment on articles that he is involved in are becoming just as rude and abusive. Wikipedia is a community and there is a 'broken windows' effect in play here. Allowing User:Parrot of Doom to conduct himself in the way he does with no repercussions is proving to be a significant deterrent both to improving articles with which he is involved and the overall culture of Wikipedia.
• I personally believe that, absent an improvement in his conduct, he should be given a final warning to improve his conduct and then subjected to bans of increasing length (ie 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month etc) to back this up. Otherwise, genuinely, what is the point of having a policy relating to conduct if it is simply ignored?
• Many editors have simply walked away from dealing with him and probably Wikipedia as well. Certainly, I have little interest in contributing when such negative behavior is freely allowed. I honestly feel that his behavior is so negative that, despite the volume of contributions, Wikipedia would be better off without him if he can't change. Anyway, that's my probably several dollars worth of opinion. I'll leave it to wiser heads as to what to do. Robinr22 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly on Wikipedia

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 know operating multiple accounts on Wikipedia is not a violation of Wikipedia standards, but some admin are trying to have monopoly on Wikipedia . They have created multiple accounts and annoying minor and new comers. They are interfering in the matter which goes against them where the small contributors like me are helpless. Even some of them are representing different individual which is quite funny as well as shocking too. It is my humble request that please review some of my below given issues and guide me for the. I AM REALLY HELPLESS-

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Domination on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Query Regarding signature

INPanda ^Talk 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you've been provided with ample guidance in those discussions and elsewhere. Bringing it all here hoping for different answers isn't really going to help. At no point have the editors involved tried to pass off alternate accounts as different people, you simply didn't understand it the first time you looked at it. I would suggest you heed the advice you've been given about fair use. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Im fairly certain this ANI is in relation to a conversation on User talk:DangerousPanda#Confirmation_request. I will notify him regarding this.Blethering Scot 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur that DangerousPanda/EatShootsAndLeaves is properly following WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I think it was actually pretty generous to not object to IndianPanda using a signature that's a close copy; if someone named "Atana" began copying my signature I'd probably be less comfortable with it. -- Atama頭 19:59, 5 March 2014 (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.

Requesting supervision of user Kumudpant - Submission of vanity/self-promotional content

Resolved

 – Indeffed for persistent self-promotion. Materialscientist (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As succinctly as I can:

• I happened upon BLP on Kumud Pant
• Article created by single-purpose account, Kumudpant, which hints at WP:COI
• Article nommed for speedy delete March 1 by user Aerospeed - result: CSD template was deleted by article creator, presumably because he didn't know any better.
• I PROD-ed article for having no references - User added three references 1 23
• User added filmography made almost entirely of "Man at bar" "pub punter" "wedding guest" content, with no named roles (AFAIK) or indication of significance of roles in the movies.
• I posted a request on article's talk page that non-notable roles be removed.
• User blanked my request and replaced it with copy/pasted text from the English interview.
• User was accused of edit-warring here
• Article nommed for speedy delete March 4 - result: deleted
• Article recreated by user Kumudpant
• Article nommed again for speedy delete March 5 - result: deleted
• User was advised to go through Articles for Creation
• User also appears to be injecting his name into various articles that he was presumably involved with, but since his filmography only seems to list minor, unnamed roles, his name probably should not appear in these other articles. Examples: herehere and here.
• User has yet to respond to any questions, concerns or advice.

Since I don't wish to be part of a third speedy-delete or be the only voice the user hears, I'm asking for admins to supervise the user's contributions to ensure they are consistent with community expectations. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, apparently in the time it took me to write the above, the article was deleted two more times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

He apparently has a backup of that article User:Kumudpant/Kumud_Pant here .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on redirect page by User:Asylum Bohnice2

Asylum Bohnice2 (talk · contribs) created a redirect page from Die biene Maja to Maya the Bee. So far, so good -- this is a redirect from the German language title to the English language title, and since the program is of German origin, that's an appropriate redirect. However, the original version of the page included, after the redirect syntax, offensive and defamatory content about the topic. I removed the improper material, leaving the valid redirect. Asylum then came along and reverted my change, with the edit summary Revert vandalism. I once again reverted this change and warned Asylum of the problem. Asylum has yet again reverted my edit, and has accused me of vandalism. Wishing to avoid an edit war, but well assured that this user is not likely to be reasonable about this issue, I would like an administrator to weigh in on the issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The subject page (Die biene Maja) has subsequently been deleted as vandalism. Not sure if any further action is required here. If the user continues along the same path, I'll take that issue to WP:AIV. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• And DMacks has indef-blocked that editor. Boom. Thanks DMacks. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder 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.

---

From a vandalism only account: [65] Ruby Murray 19:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Page deleted, so I guess it's all right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder threats need to be reported to the police. New England Cop (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also contact WP:EMERGENCY. GiantSnowman 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:New England Cop, who's police? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These guys? -- Atama頭 20:03, 5 March 2014 (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.

LimosaCorel is socking again with 3 IPs

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah directed me to post here at AN/I about LimosaCorel, who was blocked after socking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LimosaCorel/Archive

One of his IP's has also been blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:84B:49D8:1AD1:157E However, he has created new IPs to disrupt the articles that he was editing prior to being blocked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:E54D:20C3:B245:C208

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:80C1:6900:C27:5D5A:F5A1:705B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.3 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

IP bot fails to archive

• 10.4.1.126 (talk · contribs · logs)

Whose bot is this? It's tried and failed to archive talk pages three or four times now. [66] — Lfdder (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• See this - probably one of those. ₆an⁶sh₆ 01:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• ta — Lfdder (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Markaanderud

Markaanderud (talk · contribs) has been engaging in promotional editing at the article Mark Aanderud for a while now ([67]). Most recently, after having received a final warning ([68]), he added further promotional prose to the article (which also lacks compliance with the pages MOS:, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:LAY, WP:EL and various others), and marked it as "minor" ([69]). As for his talk page, he simply removed the warnings found there, and replaced them with his version of the article ([70]). Toccata quarta (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Likely a blockable username per WP:REALNAME, though the final warning followed by continuing should be enough to just do WP:AIV. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Ken_Yee_-_Bolshoy_Ice_Dome.jpg

I don't generally do fair use images. Frankly, I very rarely need to, but when dealing with a lack of Freedom of Panorama, it becomes an issue. If I'm going to fair use, I'd prefer something with an invitation from the photographer; as such, I checked Flickr and found one CC-by-NC-ND image. Restrictive, but better than just grabbing a work with no permission, in my view. As it was No Derivative Works, I didn't want to do a crop, so I've left it a bit wider to let the dome's details be seen. It's .11 megapixel, which seems to fit fairly well into the NFCC's suggestion of about .1 megapixel. Have I done this all right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have preferred to use WP:MCQ. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor unexplained incident.

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

---

Resolved

 – Block Evasion close, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Kapoor, dob has been presented with a source which indicate her as 26 year old. I highly doubt the venerability of the source as the Magazine released on March 5, 2014. Which clearly indicate her as 26 year old in 2014 as her birthday is on 3 March. But the twist part are that almost all leading newspapers in India mention, she turned 22 year old on 3 March 2014. source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4. Wikipedia should not insert her DOB if there are many verdict so far. The Yellow Boot ^{Of Posay} 11:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the article talkpage, as this board is not intended to deal with content. We work on reliable sources and WP:CONSENSUS, and if needed, you can take the disagreement to dispute resolution - but it seems for too early for that DP 11:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Normally when discussing about an issue, we should not insert the content in the main page as it sounds dubious. The Yellow Boot ^{Of Posay} 11:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I am closing this thread as being started by User:Smauritius. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2014 (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.

Reporting an administrator

Hello,

I had a very negative interaction with the administrator User talk:RHaworth, and hope someone there might have some time to assist him, as he seems to be struggling with positive communication.

This admin has privileges which seem to include deletion and rollback. My interactions all occurred on his talk page, and I took a moment to look at the interactions above mine. Nearly every entry was responded to with rudeness or worse. For example:

• A very polite but scattered letter got a response which began: "What on earth is this "self-reference" rubbish?"

• A very polite letter written from the president of a drama club inquiring about a deleted page. The response: "three infractions - so I ignore."

• A very polite letter inquiring about an email. The response: "Please give details of the alleged "notification". Your email of Jan 4 reached me perfectly well. But why on earth are you trying to email me. Two other things you should have learned in two years of contributions: wikilinks and that refs need a reflist tag but in any case they are inappropriate on user talk pages. OK, your article has been waiting some time for its third review but you must be patient. I do not usually get involved with AfC review so I have no comment on the suitability of the article."

• A very polite letter inquiring about a deleted article. His response: "May I introduce you to the concept of links? You do not clutter this page with article material - you provide a link to your draft. What does it say at the top of Thierry Noritop and fr:Thierry Noritop? "Needs additional citations for verification" and "ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources". This is the hurdle you must overcome if you want to create the Bernie Adam (get the capitalisation right) article. I suspect you are fluent in French so I suggest you create fr:Bernie Adam first. If it sticks it will provide a slight boost for the corresponding article here - which you should launch via AfC."

• A comment about a deletion review. His response: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested."

• An inquiry which stated: "I am curious to understand why you deleted the Orhan Sadik-Kahn page. Interested in learning how to best position on Wikipedia articles. Thank you!" His response: "Possibly mainly because it did not look like a Wikipedia article. How many articles start with == Summary == ? How many bios put the dates of birth and death at the end instead of in the first sentence? Have you noticed that other Wikipedia articles contain wikilinks? Did you think that putting some in yours might make it look more like a proper article. Have you considered the possibility of creating the refs as external links? Please learn the format to de-duplicate references. He is mentioned at least once in other articles - why did you not create incoming links to your article? I have restored your text to User:Kgardner1/sandbox - attend to the matters above then re-submit via AfC."

• A message from an editor who, I assume, had a previously deleted page about a prayerbook restored. He wrote: "I have taken pity on you," and then, "You will receive no further kindness from me until you explain..." Then, "In the highly unlikely event that the text agrees with what you posted, I shall report your priest to the bishop." Then, "my reference to your church was a joke".

• An editor writes: "Hi, I am a brand new editor working on the article of an animated film festival in Kosovo Anibar. I don't know much about Wikipedia, please bear with me. I am working on my personal space before I post the article on mainspace. Thank you for your understanding." His response: "The parrot has not squawked for several days and not yet on this generation of this page so — kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here".

• To the next editor: "What colour is this link?"

• To the next editor who clearly didn't realize she had deleted something from his talk page, he writes: "Before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism." She responds, "Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you but I am thoroughly confused. What vandalism? " He responds: "Did you see that the words this vandalism are a link? If you follow that link, it will take you to what we call a "diff report". That report shows the effect of an edit that you did. Please explain why you did it."

• To an editor asking why this administrator had made a rollback, he responds: "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action."

My interaction was next, and was equally negative.

In the real world, people get fired from jobs when they behave like this. The biggest problem though, is it turns new editors off. No kindness. No encouragement. Few suggestions of where to access help.

All of us here are volunteers. None of us deserves to be treated like this. If someone could please take a moment to offer this administrator some strategies for writing to others in a civil way, it would be a big help. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to reply because I don't want to give the impression that you are ignored. I looked over RHaworth's user talk page, and what I saw as responses run the range from brusque to acerbic, and I can definitely understand your concerns. Nothing there crosses the line in my eye to actual misbehavior, not even per incivility which is a much lower bar than personal attacks or harassment. But it's also not kind, either.

To put it in perspective, I wouldn't see any actions from this administrator to be worthy of any templated warnings (even ignoring the fact that templates generally aren't appropriate) but if a request for adminship were run today, these would probably be raised as objections.

I'm not going to offer advice to RHaworth. I don't suggest that administrators are above reproach (I certainly am not!) but for me to suggest to RHaworth that they need to change their communication style feels like arrogance on my part. At least not in the case where another administrator's "style" may be different from mine, but they aren't breaching any policies or guidelines. So I apologize, but I'm not going to take the action that you very politely suggest. All I can offer you right now is an assurance that I do understand and don't entirely dismiss your concerns, I just don't feel that it's my place to try to correct it. -- Atama頭 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama is exactly right. Nothing here rises to the level of incivility as defined by Wikipedia, and even if it did sanctioning other users for civility is controversial to say the least. There are over a thousand admins, with as many individual styles as you'd find in any group of 1000 people. You cite this quote, for example: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested." That isn't insulting, uncivil, or even curt--it's just saying the facts: specifically, that he's not bothered by the DRV and if he cared about the article he would've watchlisted it. Someone who took 3 paragraphs (plus seven links and a picture of a kitten) to say the same thing wouldn't be a better admin, just a more verbose and blustery one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone is acting like a bully and a douchebag, about 40% of the time they turn out to be an admin. Though some of the nicest interactions I've had have been with admins. Power goes to some peoples heads, and couple that with being behind a screen can make people act in ways they would never act in person. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be a caution towards a boomerang. RHaworth, an excellent admin, does not need to be dragged through the mud over this bit over oversensitivity. The OP brought it right here... for what? An admonishment? Move along. Doc talk 09:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How on earth can saying " "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action." be construed as in any way as uncivil? The other comments are at a minor level compared to some on Wikipedia - a number of them are clearly meant to be humourous. I suspect that there are also instances where the quotes have been taken out of context and regardless of history. It's a dirty job out there on the front line and RHaworth in my book is doing a fine job. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is this "bit over oversensitivity" rubbish? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Doc talk 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• What admin action are you requesting that you could not do yourself, Magnolia677? I don't see any of these as more than grumpiness on User:RHaworth's part, and we can all be grumpy sometimes. He isn't going to get a warning or a block for that, and it isn't because he is an admin either. So I don't see what anybody can do, other than maybe have a word with him. Would you like me to do that? --John (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

After I wrote on his talk page "your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing", he responded with rudeness. So sure, have a go. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's funny, I was just over there reading that again. When I review the whole thing I think you just got off on the wrong foot. We are all volunteers here, and RHaworth did everything you asked him to do, and everything that his status demands that he do, promptly and competently. That you found him brusque was probably just him being business-like. Honestly, I would just move on from this and put it behind you, if I were you. --John (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So, it's clear that no action will be taken against RHaworth because while he might have a brusque style of communication, it doesn't cross the line into incivility. Therefore, I think this case should be closed. Editors should feel like they can bring their concerns, especially regarding admins who wield more power than they do, to AN/I to seek counsel Magnolia677 has done so and I don't think they deserve a backlash for believing like this was a safe space to bring their concerns. This should not be discouraged and I don't think questions about admins should cause a defensive reaction. IMO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

I agree with the above comment. The user was justified in bringing his concerns here and talk about boomerangs is inappropriate. I think there will be a good outcome as I am confident that the admin complained about will improve his level of civility to other users after this incident. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

I never meant to say that this was a board that would earn any user a "boomerang" for reporting any alleged malfeasance by an administrator, as if admins are above reproach. I was speaking only to this case specifically. Doc talk 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RHaworth can be a grumpy old man (by his own definition), but he's usually got a point. I had a look at the discussion over Rutherfurd Hall and can offer the following conclusions: 1) New editor creates unreferenced article in a bad shape 2) NPP tags it as G11 three minutes later 3) Admin declines the speedy but userfies it instead 4) Editor copypastes the article back into main space and improves it 5) Admin histmerges the two versions and reminds the editor that not attributing properly is a copyvio 6) Everyone gets confused and it spills onto ANI 7) Tea and biscuits are served. Did I miss anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you missed my most important point, or chose not notice it. RHaworth has been granted the role of gatekeeper of new articles, an important and necessary job. This means he must frequently interact with inexperienced editors who have had their articles deleted. These editors appear enthusiastic and well-meaning, but naive of the wiki ways. They also have no choice but to deal with self-described grump RHaworth. So when this administrator deletes a newcomers user page, and tells them they don't deserve one until they make 50 edits [71], I get a bit concerned. Stating "before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism", to someone who has absolutely no idea what they did wrong, also concerns me, as does seeing an editor's ideas described as "rubbish", or jokes made about their church. I'm disappointed to see so many comments defending this rude behaviour, but maybe I'm just being unrealistic expecting that the front-line face of a volunteer organization should be a kind and helpful one. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Magnolia677 on this point, and i have asked RHaworth on his talk page to restore the user page deleted for "freeloading" and to give an account of his admin actions in that matter. I have mostly had positive contacts with RHaworth in the past, but he is often a bit overly grumpy in my view, and WP:BITE is particularly important for admins to remember. DES ^(talk) 19:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't defend any admin coming across as being rude or biting newbies. The way I interpreted the conversation I mentioned above though, it seemed that rather than being rude or curt, RHaworth was simply trying to explain policy to you, but making a bad job of it. Clearly, it came across as rude to you, which is why you responded in kind. Atama is right - unless RHaworth is regularly violating policy or competence as an admin, there's not much practically that can be done. Expecting him to change his manner and tone just isn't going to happen, and somebody has got to keep an eye on the CSD queue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's something that can be done. Wikipedia is a social environment, and most editors respond to reasonable feedback, especially if given by multiple editors. The problem is the "all-or-nothing" black and white mentality of this place (ANI) -- we don't have to block, ban, template, admonish, revert, fold, spindle or mutilate an editor to have a positive impact on their behavior. So, RHaworth, let's tone it down a bit. NE Ent 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RH, that's my impression also. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Who's a "douche-bag" ? - ^theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, I missed the tea and biscuits. I did not miss the message RHaworth left for Magnolia. Guess everyone else did. Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think this might just be a personality/style clash, nothing more? I see nothing of particular note. Some people are merely more direct than others, and this may be interpreted differently by people depending on their own temperaments. "your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing" seems the most uncivil thing on that page, but even that is a damp squib. Second Quantization (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian sport naming rules; please review this process and my block of Macktheknifeau

See here for a taste of the regular and frequent disruption that has been caused to our project by the long-term dispute over whether the game Wikipedia knows as association football should be known as soccer, football or something else in an Australian context. With a view to clarifying different understandings of the consensus here, I asked some of the disputants to comment here. Most have responded positively, but User:Macktheknifeau has continued to post personal comments after being warned to stop here, and in spite of the clear instruction at the discussion (For now, please restrict yourselves to stating your own opinion in your own section about the article titles and content, and how this is justified by the consensus. Comments about the opinions and supposed motivations of other editor will be removed.) I have therefore blocked him for 24 hours. Please review the process generally and the block specifically. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think John has A Tiger by the Tail, in that he is attempting to concurrently mediate an interaction nominally about content and enforce civility on the participants with admin tools. The problem is, as indicated by the arbcom finding and the dead in all but name RFC Civility enforcement RFC, we don't have a functional civility policy, which inevitably makes enforcing it ultimately subjective and arbitrary. I've been watching the conversation unfold and participating in my minimalist fashion -- I don't think there is really much of actual content dispute, as there was an RFC last August with a pretty clear consensus ("soccer"). What I saw was tedious WP:IDHT pov-pushing -- including arguments that a local consensus can override commonname with ad hominem attacks against the editor (HiLo48) trying to maintain the article in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, while HiLo48 is a decent editor, they are not skilled at wiki-politics / infighting, which leads to a seriously tl;dr merry-go-round talk page, which makes it time consuming to pick out the signal in all the noise. It is an interesting experiment in dispute resolution and I'm curious to see how it will turn out; 1K WQA and 2K ANI edits have made me a bit cynical about the chances for success but I've been wrong before and hopefully I'll be wrong this time. NE Ent 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

After checking User talk:Macktheknifeau I agree that User:John made an appropriate decision to block. To get the flavor of this user's attitude, notice their unblock request: "There is an ongoing attack from users connected to Project AFL to destroy football on Australian based wikipedia articles and they are deeply involved in this issue. You cannot silence me and are merely showing yourself to be a pawn of their wiki-lawyering by letting their ludicrous attacks get the better of you." In my opinion the unblock request was correctly declined by User:Jpgordon. The latest consensus discussion that led to the naming of football-related articles seems to be the one from August 2013 at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent correctly points out the difficulties surrounding the type of mediation that John is attempting, but the effort is very much worthwhile. I have been supporting HiLo48's attempts regarding this issue since seeing it erupt on some noticeboards, but I would put NE Ent's comments more strongly: HiLo48 has switched to being part of the problem—this is a website based on a self-governing community; badgering John (example) shows that HiLo48 is in full battleground mode. It's obvious that John is attempting to get the participants to actually think about what the August 2013 RfC said, then think about whether any new evidence is available that would justify continuing the dispute. The fact that people are unable to stand back and let that happen shows a topic ban might be required because perpetual bickering is intolerable. The block of Macktheknifeau is clearly justified, and if other participants cannot let a week pass without kicking an opponent, more blocks will be needed. In case people are unaware, the bite in John's mediation is that if it blows up, the matter will be brought to ANI where recent examples of the behavior of those involved will be hung out to dry. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to apply some self defence here. In recent months I have not broken rules here. Others have. It was primarily because of persistent abuse directed at me and others at Talk:Soccer in Australia that John's process began. It's still happening. I am NOT part of this problem, but I am being treated by John as if I am. I am being asked to again go through a process I've been through many times before. This repeated process apparently includes still being insulted. John gave a "final warning" (his words) to one of the editors in question, shortly after this editor returned from a block for throwing insults at me on my Talk page. Within hours that editor told me I needed "think a bit more rationally". John has declared that's not a personal attack. I disagree. In trying to be even handed, John is treating me like an offender, and allowing what I see as unacceptable and unhelpful behaviour from others. I find it incredibly difficult to maintain faith with that process. I don't see that as a battleground mentality. I've made a massive effort here to conform with a culture different from my own, and am still being treated like dirt. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank for the support guys. I have moved the discussion from my talk to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning if anyone is interested. --John (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

silly season in full force and vigour at Michael Grimm (politician)

Previous discussion here at [72]

Edit: [73]

IPs and "new editors" are in edit war mode to get the "extended cut" of the Grimm story into his BLP. The editors involved are unlikely to be "truly new" here, and the use of IPs for reverts stinks IMO. Will someone please tell them how the prior discussion here went? All they are saying is "notcensored" and similar stuff now. And the claim is now that it requires consensus to remove the contentious material. Please someone, anyone, help on this. They even push the anonymous claims again -- and I think a stand should be taken on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the unusual course of reverting out the BLP material which was previously discussed here, and full-protecting the article. I thought this was better than blocking people. I'll be happy to unprotect once the dispute is over. --John (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- though I think the miraculous IP edits are less than likely to not be socking :(. Collect (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• The sanitization of this article and protection with tools is complete bullshit. The news event wasn't an "interview," it was a televised threat. BLP claims are bogus. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I charge User:John with tool abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Video links for context, by the New York Times and Alternate Version to YouTube. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• • This is concurrently being discussed here, WP:BLPN and Talk:Michael Grimm (politician). If one of these conversations results in a resolution of the BLP dispute, feel free to ping me and I will unprotect, as I said above. Your melodramatic "charges", Carrite, will be treated, I'm afraid, with all the seriousness they deserve. --John (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd better be afraid yourself if your actions are treated with the seriousness they deserve. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• A case where policy and common sense go hand in hand. The first says to edit BLPs conservatively and with very reliable sources, the second says to not pay undue attention to minor events and to limit first-hand accounts since, after all, we're writing an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Activism is for your Twitter account. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  Bogus. "Very reliable sources?" How about: New York Times. Atlantic magazine. This is a politically-motivated whitewash. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  Are you saying that Collect, John and Drmies are engaging in a "politically-motivated whitewash"? It is not satisfactory for people to have their sins amplified in articles just because a source says it is so. An encyclopedic article is not a place to right great wrongs—wait until something of consequence happens, such as a conviction for an unlawful action, or an independent analysis saying that the politician lost an election because of a bad event. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wait--Carrite is charging me with being a Republican? That's NPA territory, Carrite. If we were Real Men, I'd challenge you to a duel. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I'd have chosen another noun in your case, rest assured. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Carrite (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• This article is still fully locked down in support of one (tendentious) side of an editing dispute. It needs to be unlocked immediately. This is a flagrant case the use of power tools to bury a content disagreement. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Zmaher, again

Hi everybody,

This is the fourth time that Zmaher (talk · contribs) has been mentioned here. Seven months ago on edit warring, four months ago for unconstructive edits and last week for the same reason. It was also four months ago I reported them to AIV, after that they got a personal message from @User:PhilKnight and @User:Zad68. Since that time, they hav shown no changes in their approach to Wikipedia. Again and again they are adding unsourced content and adding long, long lists of trivial information concerning concert tours of several rock bands. He was also playing a genre warrior, to which @User:Mlpearc issued several warnings. Yesterday, they added almost 22,000 characters to another concert tour article. I don't think that the occasional constructive, helpful edit is worth all this trouble. This has been going on for far too long, could someone please take some action? --Soetermans. T / C 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a typical example of what happens when an editor does a lot of rather low-level disruptive editing, spread out over a long time. Because the disruption is at such a low level, nobody actually blocks the editor, despite the fact that all that low-level stuff adds up to more disruption than would have led to a block long ago had it come in a more concentrated form. For the moment I have blocked for a week, and I hope that will serve as a wake-up call. The block length is a compromise: on the one hand, a week is a long time for a first block on a good faith editor, but on the other hand he/she frequently has gaps of a week or more between edits, and if he/she makes no attempt to edit while the block is in force, he/she may not even know the block took place, so it will have no effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think blocking the user for a week is a sensible decision. Obviously, we could go the WP:RFC/USER route, however considering the user isn't very communicative, and everyone else seems to agree there are serious concerns regarding their editing, we would just end up here again. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants: new User disrupting an AfD

Admin DangerousPanda has now blocked him for another week and has our thanks. Stalwart111 03:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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

New user persistently disrupting an AfD.

• All caps shouting: "YOUR VOICE DOESN'T COUNT" [74]
• Blanking other editors comments: [75]
• Accusing other editors of bias: [76], [77], [78]

Attempts were made to counsel this user on their Talk page [79], [80] but it doesn't seem to be getting through. Someone with the mop needs to have a chat with them, please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the user is definitely out of line, but its just essentially a WP:SPA who is about to get their article deleted, and consensus is strongly in favor of the deletion so far. So, they're not going to be getting their way, and things will probably be over once its inevitably deleted. Still, no harm in a talking-to either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

They're now posting abusive remarks about each new commenter: [81] and [82]. Options are a block until the AfD closes, or perhaps a WP:SNOW closing of the AfD as a way to end this bad behavior. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given them a level four warning for personal attacks; seems more useful to block them for a little while if they carry on, and let the AfD draw to a close in peace. We may even manage a little rational discussion of MUFON as a source if SpongebobLawyerPants doesn't keep interrupting with boldface accusations of bias and ignorance. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

...and there we go, "i think Wikipedia should get rid of poorly qualified users like you" twenty minutes after a final warning. --McGeddon (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• non-involved note* The editor tried to delete the entire discussion twice. 2.223.97.5 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And he's now been blocked. He tried blanking the entire deletion discussion, and the deletion notice on the article, but I believe everything has been restored. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to McGeddon for alerting me to this. I blocked the user for 12 hours, hoping that he'd calm down in that time. I'll monitor what he does after that: a longer/indef block will obviously ensue if he doesn't reform.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(Since he deleted the notice from his talk page, I've reminded the editor about this discussion. Suggest it's not archived till his 12h block ends. Ta!  —SMALLJIM )

@Smalljim: WP:COOLDOWN states categorically Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please don't commit the same mistake again. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As I read it, the key word there is "solely". There were other reasons for the block. I think SmallJim was saying he might have made the block even longer but for the hope the user would cool down in the interim. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was repeatedly deleting the entire AFD discussion, and the AFD notice on the article. Pretty certain he broke 3RR over it, and continued to refuse to stop. Block was completely warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Dwpaul: I was reminding the administrator especially in the light that their response suggests that the block was done exclusively as a cooldown block and that the "Admins are Corrupt" party would love nothing better than to scream while jumping up and down on their soapbox. Denying them the opportunity to to point out the problem (because there is none) is the first step in diffusing the party's platform. Hasteur (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh alright. I thought you were nitpicking/lecturing on a bad block. You're just talking more about "less-than-ideally-worded-rationale". Fair enough. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hasteur. Yes, I'll admit that my comment above was less than ideally worded for ANI, but the others looked into the circumstances and "got it".  —SMALLJIM  20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD as a WP:SNOW delete. Hopefully that will encourage SpongebobLawyerPants to concentrate other things after their block expires in a few hours. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• He's back, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enfield Monster trying to delete the nominator's comments and elsewhere posting rants relating to editor Barney the barney barney. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has learned nothing from his block. Stalwart111 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See for instance this diff [83]. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Admin edit request at Talk:Murry Salby

Could an admin look at the edit request on this BLP? The article was locked while I was trying to add basic information to the article. As it stands the article is largely negative in nature so this would help balance out that concern. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about another aspect not related to edit request

Note: The NSF content is not a part of this uncontroversial edit request whatsoever. This is to fix a BLP problem that everyone agrees needs to be addressed - that the locked down version of the short article is mostly negative - and only an admin can do it. The NSF content discussion should stay at the article talk page. The NSF content discussion should stay at the article talk page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the BLP is a total NPOV mess, and the "proposal" is to make it even further from NPOV, IMO, as it indicates either total financial recklessness or actual dishonesty on his part. No actions appear to have been taken as a result, other than proposing that he not get NSF grants for five years, and the source given is specifically a primary source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be looking at another section of the talk page. This edit request has no mention of his NSF troubles whatsoever, or anything about his dishonesty, which by the way suspended him from grants for three, not five years. This request is to add content about his two textbooks, more fill out the positions he has held, and adding a specific 'positions held' timeline. This is specifically to address that the locked version of the article is very negative and lacking NPOV as a whole. This is to address that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The NSF findings are clearly notable. This is not a primary source; it's a summary report from the National Science Foundation in which the NSF "established an extensive pattern of deceptive statements made by the Subject to his University and to NSF", as well as serious and undisclosed conflicts of interest on Salby's part. The NSF also found that Salby's "focus on his personal financial gain conflicted with accountability and disclosure requirements, both to the University and to NSF. When these conflicts were uncovered during the investigation, the Subject's response was to continue and expand his pattern of deception and obfuscation, and to begin personal attacks on his former colleagues."

In contrast to Collect's insinuation that no significant action was taken, it should be understood that a 3-year disbarment is typically the maximum penalty imposed by NSF, except in truly extraordinary cases. I cannot see how this is not a notable part of his biography; being described as deceptive and dishonest by the National Science Foundation, and being barred from funding for 3 years, is an extremely unusual sanction in any scientist's career. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: NO comments have been removed or refactored -- all that is done is unhatting a discussion hatted by one participant on his own, and not by any disinterested observer. Hatting discussions one does not like is "not done." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I hatted it simply because it was blatantly disruptive, and deflecting away from addressing an easily solvable BLP concern, which everyone agrees should be addressed. And, ironically, an area you continually suggest to be better versed in than everyone else in discussions, until enough people demonstrate otherwise.

But here you are again, obstructing a process for … well I don't know why you bothered to post here as you apparently didn't even read the content in the edit request. Instead you started railing about the NSF content which no one has proposed adding to the article as of yet.

When you feign surprise that other editors see you as battle grounding, consider this a pretty good example where you interrupted a process, then continued to do so despite clues that you were specifically disrupting.

I don't know if you intended to prevent non-controversial content from being edited to a BLP that everyone agreed was too negative, but here we are on day three of article lockdown, and only the first part of the content proposed has been added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ford Taurus

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.

---

Over the last couple of weeks, this user has come to my attention as a very oddly behaving one. Some of their edits are constructive, such as [84] and [85]. However, the majority are very dodgy. Things such as [86], the edit summary here, this attempt at edit-warring a message back onto Mr.choppers' talk page, and this edit summary, [87], this set of edits and [88] show a mixture of trolling, no grasp of reliable sources/appropriate links, and flat-out vandalism. The user also has had an image deleted as a coypvio, an article deleted under CSD:A7, initially copy-pasted the entire Ford Taurus article as their userpage, and created a "bot" alternative account (that was promptly blocked). Normally I would attempt to discuss things with this user, but I'm doubtful that doing so with someone who is clearly a troll, but smart enough to do just enough constructive edits to avoid a straight-off-the-bat block for trolling, will achieve anything. I'm also pinging User:Mr.choppers, User:Knyzna1 and User:Meters, all of whom have had some involvement with this user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also note this talk page sub thread, which is very bizarre, and Mr.choppers has expressed the belief that the IP and this user are the same person - which, given the trolling nature of both the account and the IP, seems quite likely. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I wasn't copyright violating. The picture that was deleted from here was my girlfriend next to the Pagani. She gave me permission to publish it on Wikipedia. Ford Taurus (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that comment pretty clearly shows exactly the sort of issue we're dealing with here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Or this! Ford Taurus (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, cut the crap, Ford Taurus. Even if the girlfriend thing were true or at all plausible, copyright doesn't belong to the subject of the photograph, so she couldn't give permission, and "to publish on Wikipedia" isn't strong enough anyway, so that's still a copyvio. Constructive editing, even with a sense of humor, is welcome, but trolling isn't, so do the first and not the second, k? More trolling will result in a block, so quittit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, she gave me permission to publish it on Wikipedia. Strong enough now? Ford Taurus (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Will I get sued, though? Ford Taurus (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • See, that would've been funnier if you had actually used <strong></strong> tags instead of the single quotes, but oh well. Still got a chuckle though, so not bad. Anyway, in seriousness, the point about copyright is that things can't just be released for Wikipedia's use; they need to be released under the complete terms of the CC-BY-SA license to be used freely on Wikipedia (with a few narrow exceptions). And again, it's not the subject of the photograph who gets the copyright over the image, so the photograph subject here wouldn't be able to release anything anyway. And no, I doubt you'd get sued; that's why we delete copyvios. Despite all appearances, we do try to run a (relatively) serious project here; humor is fine, but you've went a bit overboard on it. Tone it down a bit, don't direct it at articles or other users (unless you're absolutely sure they'll get the joke and appreciate it), and we're fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
        • LOL! Ford Taurus (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have no problem with humour being used in the right place. The issue here is not just the incorrect tone in article space, it is the usage of highly unreliable sources (and persisting to use them even when it is explained to you that they are not appropriate) and the borderline/actual vandalism that has occurred. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note this: [89]. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's simply wrong and is in fact WP:VAND, albeit likely meant as a joke. Ford Taurus should not do something like that again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I initially thought thought that user:Ford Taurus was simply incompetent to be editing, but quickly decided that he was instead a troll. For example, after being reverted several times for adding non-reliably sourced entries to List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration and several talk page explanations of why youtube videos are not useful sources, he correctly removed a non-reliably sourced entry here [90] with a summary showing that he was doing so because it was not a reliable source. Nine hours later he restored it here [91]. When I removed it he left this [92] abusive message on my Talk page. I suspect that he is also further confusing/trolling by making other edits using an IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 March 2014‎ (UTC)
  • I don't edit under IPs on purpose — only when I click Save page and I don't realize that some glitch keeps logging me out. I always Incognito. Ford Taurus (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing but a vandal - prankster would be too nice. Occasionally does a few useful edits when he senses trouble brewing. I haven't bothered reporting him because of his countless alter egos and ip edits. I am pretty sure that Ford Taurus is the same as User:Mrtacos2 and User:Jasons99Contour, but blocking only seems to whet his appetite.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who Mrtacos2 and Jasons99Contour are. Will you please explain to me who .... wait, Mrtacos2 is my teacher's account!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, who is Jasons99Contour? I don't know him. Ford Taurus (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Waste of time. Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• And just in case any person wandering around in here thinks this was unfair, check out this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Trolling. Good block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This editor is User:Altimgamr continuing to evade the earlier block. I've now blocked mail access after receiving a taunting email message. Cindy(talk) 20:38, 6 March 2014 (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.

Delsorting removal

Can I get some oversight on the repetitive removal of delsorting being done by ‎Shalom11111 (talk · contribs)? He initially removed the country delsorts regarding the Jews and Communism AfD debate on 4 March [93] and charged it as being a "clear WP:CANVASS attempt". [94] He was reverted by another user, but again he removed them after voting "delete", and personally proclaimed that "only Judaism, politics (and maybe Russia) should be listed, and they are already have been" while failing to explain any of his reasoning for this. [95] I explained that "the historically significant events being discussed in the article take place in those countries. Of course the delsort was entirely appropriate as there was no "mass", "biased", "partisan", or "secret" posting." He has refused to respond and has chosen instead to edit war with this ludicrous comparison: "the Torah is also related to jews, that doesn't mean it should be included" [96] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I left a friendly reminder about WP:3RR on USER:‎Shalom11111's talk page. No comment regarding the content issues, however the editor seems to be misunderstanding WP:CANVASS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, this report could now backfire. Administrators, please look:

In addition to this call by ‎Galassi (talk · contribs), and the suspicious fact that this thread was posted a few minutes after I responded to ‎DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) on my talk page, I just found some possible sock puppetry evidence - and both DIRECTOR and PRODUCER might now be reported.

Regarding the removal, I'll explain everything again now. First, let me start by saying that another user agreed you were canvassing there. And as you should know, an editor is entitled to revert vandalism, canvassing, wrong information, or anything that violates Wikipedia's policies. I removed irrelevant wikiproject-links, and just because you disagree with me and other editors doesn't mean you are right. Yes, like others I also think that could easily be classified under WP:CANVASS. No other editor agreed with you that the deletion discussion of the article Jews and Communism should be linked to "list of Austria/Germany/Hungary/Romania/Poland/Ukraine/US related deletion discussions". By this twisted logic you're using, I could also link that deletion discussion to "list of Israel-related deletion discussions" because Israel is a Jewish country, or to "list of crime-related deletion discussions", because communism has caused a lot of deaths and crime. I must note that this behavior of yours is also reflected in that deletion discussion where you accused everyone who didn't agree with you of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and such. But for now, you'll be reported for Sock-puppetry. -Shalom11111 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, I kindly as you to take a look again: I reverted 2 times in 24 hours, and only then reverted again. The 3RR rule says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sorting is not canvassing in any way, shape, or form. Even inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting, if that was the case here, is not canvassing. Period, full stop, end of line. In addition please be reminded that spurious sockpuppetry accusations are considered a personal attack. "They have similar names and post in similar places and both disagree with me" is not adequate evidence for a sockpuppety accusation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger. The sockpuppet accusation was settled a long time in a self-endorsement by Direktor. It appears Yam's tactic is to do whatever necessary to draw attention from himself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Just because you disagree with me and other editors doesn't mean you are right." One can heed one's own advice. Again you bring up false equivalences that no one could possibly entertain. Thanks Joe, but it appears he is actually bragging about his attempt to circumvent 3RR and edit war without penalty. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

'The Bushranger', of course I personally don't know for sure if it was a canvassing attempt or not (at least one more user said it was.. Sorry, I didn't mean to rule out the possibility that it was not), but yes, I definitely think he inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting links, which is why I reverted him, and this is the proper way of doing it. Please do not accuse me of bragging or anything.. I just carefully followed the rules. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please partially revert this edit as you changed a post to which Bushranger and I already responded and have per WP:REDACT "deprived the reply of its original context". It distorts Bushranger's comment, making it appear as if he exaggerated and got the similar names bit from thin air rather than your post. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER, it's clear that my intention was not to distort Bushranger's or anyone else's comment in any way, I just decided to re-think and re-word my response. I mean, you did that too in the the page we're discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism, where you modified a few of your comments.. Exaggeration, overstatements, and minor mistakes[97] happen. I don't know where we're going with this, after all, no editor here has said whether he/she thinks these deletion-sorting links should be there or not. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think The Bushranger said it quite succinctly that there is nothing wrong with applying deletion sorting. And, I'd be careful with those sock accusations, Shalom11111, if I were you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it was your intention or not is irrelevant though it appears you're progressively acting in bad faith. I urge readers to read the diff to get the full context of Bushranger's comment as Yam has chosen not to revert. I note he still has not rolled back his delsort removals and has even added Israel in an effort to prove a point. [98] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Liz. And no, 'The Bushranger' actually didn't say his opinion about these deletion sorting links at all. Also, I explained very clearly why I added Israel too [99]. Read it and see that it was not "an effort to prove a point" as PRODUCER wrongly accuses me (again, and it's a personal attack as well). On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism they had still appeared and so I thought someone brought them back to the deletion sorting pages. Anyway, even though no one here (other than PRODUCER) said these deletion sorting pages should stay, and while there's opposition to them in the deletion discussion itself, I self-reverted myself now. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this continuous WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Pointing out your behavior is not a personal attack as it is quite obviously not in good faith. You've edit warred, gamed 3RR, refused to discuss, threatened sockpuppet investigations, and disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point. You've done all sort of gymnastics to make the delsorts of countries in which the events discussed take place appear invalid and then added Israel to prove point since you couldn't get your way. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Producer is a bully and continues to be belligerent. He needs to be reprimanded if not blocked. USchick (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recommending I be blocked on the basis of being "bully"? You probably shouldn't accuse me of being one while simultaneously personally attacking me. Your conduct is not much better than that of Yam. What with the extensive blanking during the AfD [100] and your urging of users to revert in your favor [101]. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While Director was busy canvassing, I was actually editing the article, which no one is allowed to do apparently. USchick (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note I have warned the user not to revert based only on his own suspicions, but to follow policy and report. He replied to the effect that the delsorting was "vandalism" and that it was his right to remove them. [102] -- Director (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER, I respond to bad faith behavior with bad faith, because such behavior is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. I've not edit warred or gamed 3RR (another accusation based on your assumptions while evidence shows otherwise), I didn't "refuse to respond" (another false claim) as I clearly responded here and here, I'm not "threatening sockpuppet investigations" but am telling you I'm going to start a new investigation soon as I and at least one more user suspect something, and didn't "disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point" - the deletion sorting remained pages so I added another country, Israel, per your broad inclusion of them. 'Director', you're now saying I called it "vandalism"? Are you aware of the fact that lying about someone else on Wikipedia has serious consequences? I wrote "an editor is entitled to revert vandalism, canvassing, wrong information, or anything that violates Wikipedia's policies." Inapproppriately overapplying deletion sortings falls under "anything that violates Wikipedia's policies. You're twisting another editor's words, again. And I fully agree with ‎USchick (talk · contribs) - you're very right about PRODUCER. -Shalom11111 (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing, but I believe you are directing your remarks to Director (above), not PRODUCER. They are not the same editor.

Also the attitude "I respond to bad faith behavior with bad faith, because such behavior is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia", I hope you can see that you are also arguing that your own bad faith behavior is "not to be tolerated". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no user is "entitled" to remove comments or delesort notices because they believe it to be WP:Canvassing. The only actions that an editor can take is to notify the offending editor to stop, then report it to WP:ANI if they don't. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to inappropriate canvassing for the specific language. I also recommend that you read up on what canvassing actually is, to influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is that is considered inappropriate. At this point, you have not explained how a broad delsort listing will influence the outcome in an inappropriate way vs bring more uninvolved editors to the discussion. The fact that you removed the AfD from the deletion sorting pages 3 times IS edit warring.[103][104][105] 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Shalom11111, and I don't think we ever worked on any articles together, so I'm not defending him. I can say that Shalom11111 is actually proposing solutions and moving the discussion forward on the page in question. Users Producer/Director have a history of tag teaming and driving people crazy until they get their way, which is not acting in good faith. USchick (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

More and more harassment. Yam why are there scare quotes around Director's name? Unless you have compelling evidence for an SPI then I suggest you refrain from such nonsense. How one can you one second claim others are "inapproppriately overapplying deletion sortings" all while jumping on the Israel delsort to prove a point? You even explicitly stated "I wouldn't link this deletion discussion to 'list of Israel-related deletion discussions'". [106] Honestly. USChick why are you still alleging Director "was busy canvassing" when you and Yam have been told by numerous uninvolved editors that that is simply not the case? Also I've had one prior interaction with you yet you feel you're qualified to claim a "history of tag teaming and driving people crazy until they get their way" and without a single shred of evidence. Finally, why do you feel it's necessary to alter my comments? [107] I'm really growing tired of these sneaky tactics. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was copying a link and I must have grabbed the wrong thing by mistake. It was not my intention to alter your comments. This is an example of Producer/Director and TFD ganging up to shut down any meaningful conversation from other editors. Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 4#Antisemitic? USchick (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to get annoyed here. I am not Producer, which should be obvious in a dozen different ways [108]. Will someone please intervene and put a stop to this? It is insulting to be referred to in such a manner.
At this point I must say that USchick is a novice and, by my estimate, a young person with little or no understanding of either Wikipedia policies or the subject matter being discussed at these articles. She actually blanked half the page because she thinks "Marxism" and "Communism" are separate things (as opposed to the former being a variant of the latter), she refers to the word "Soviet" as a "concept", she equates "Communism" as an ideology with the ideal Communist society - i.e. she doesn't understand the term, etc. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and all that wouldn't be a problem - if she didn't stubbornly defend such obvious folly and actually take offense at attempts at explanation. Her input neither contributes much to the discussion, nor expands the article. It offends and annoys.

As regards Shalom11111 he's just trying to delete the article, that's all. And to that end he removes notifications he thinks might draw more neutral participants. That ought to be perfectly obvious. He should be reverted and formally warned by an admin. Then if he continues to revert-war in attempting to remove other users' talkpage additions - I'd sanction him. Or rather, I myself would sanction him right now, but I suppose I might be biased. -- Director (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Producer wanted an example and I provided one. Are you still holding a grudge about my nomination to get The Jewish Bolshevism article deleted? USchick (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't even remember you doing that, nor do I recall anything about the issue. What I do recall is both TFD and myself trying to politely ask you to leave. -- Director (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrsud

Hi everyone. I'd be grateful if someone could have a word with Mrsud about his contributions in the last 24 hours. He has created IBook21.com three times, and it was deleted under CSD G11 each time (two of those deletions were also done under CSD A7). He has also been edit warring with me and Bonadea at List of social networking websites to add the iBook21 site. My message on his talk page didn't seem to get across, as he has since reverted again, so if someone else could have a try perhaps it could help him see that he's not going about things the right way. I've reverted him twice, so I don't want to take any administrative actions regarding him, and someone else might have more success anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mrsud_reported_by_User:JoeSperrazza_.28Result:_.29 JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrsud didn't breach 3RR, Joe (you counted one non-revert diff), though he certainly did edit war, and there are obviously other problems too. I've posted a comment on the 3RR board, and also a somewhat stern question about possible COI on Mrsud's page. There's another now deleted page he created, BinPy, where the COI is obvious, as admins can see. I'd like to wait at least half a day for a reply; after that, I won't stand in the way if another admin wants to block. Note that Mrsud is a new user, not in Wiki age, but in contributions (less than 50 since he joined the site in 2012). Bishonen | talk 21:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for that, Bishonen. Mrsud hasn't edited today, so it looks like we will have to wait to see if that worked. Fingers crossed... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Poepkop

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

---

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser for Golfballtruck and Big Menu 5 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He (or she) is continuously adding nonsense on Skeleton about a non-related matter, my revert summaries warned him (or her) about the mucking about and now I have no choice but to report him or her because the page stands vandalized[109]. --Golfballtruck (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just reported this vandal to via my Twiki, just check the diffs of the Skeleton article, involving blanking of relevant materials including refs etc. . Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this has something more to do with just simple vandalism, User:Big Menu Board 5 added this and then User:Golfballtruck truck showed up to revert war. Interestingly enough the accounts were both created today. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not vandalism. This looks like edit warring with possible socks involved. Enigma^msg 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Big Menu Board 5 lol my thoughts exactly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the section in question is a copypaste of the "segmentation" section from the Arthropod article; I don't see how it's particularly relevant here, so I think Golfballtruck is in the right here; I've declined the AIV report accordingly. Poepkop, perhaps you should slow down on the Twinkle and make sure that what you're reverting is stuff that actually should be reverted? I don't think this is a question of socks; I think this is just a case of simple vandalism from BMB5, and then a case of mistaken intent after that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They just admitted it on the SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The vandal admitted it. Golfballtruck denied it. That might be grounds for a good hand/bad hand check, I suppose, but it's hardly conclusive. man, seems like everyone's jumping to conclusions today... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Was that a denial or a play on WP:DENY by GBT if you noticed that account is not being used at all at the moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this on AIV. Golfballtruck reported Poepkop for vandalism. I can't say exactly what's going on with the new accounts, but it's fishy, and Golfballtruck's edits don't seem to be in good faith. Enigma^msg 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, isn't that the other way around, I (Poepkop) reported Golfballtruck to AIV, from his contribs I cannot see he/she reported me anywhere except right here at ANI? Poepkop (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Enigma^msg 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's what happened; it doesn't look like Golfballtruck has any contribs to AIV at all. I mean, if the CU comes back with a case of good hand/bad hand, that's one thing, but other than that, I don't see how Golfballtruck's contribs could be a sign of bad faith. They're getting increasingly agitated, but considering that (honestly mistaken) people keep reverting their efforts to keep vandalism out of the article, that's pretty understandable. His reversions to Skeleton were definitely good edits. Again, unless the SPI comes back positive, this looks like honest mistakes all around. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehh Okay so what just happened? One person - possibly - having fun at eliciting edit wars or confusing antivandalists using 2 accounts, is that it? Anyway I stand corrected, to me the diff(s) looked like a piece of references-containing biological text randomly deleted from a larger biological text; I did not look further back through the History of Skeleton than CLuebot's correction - the adding back of the materials. And no, I never rolback before checking out the diff - in this case the "adder" chose a pretty similar-topic text. And given Golfballtruck's unfriendly edit comment like this one [110] I figured he/she be a vandal. Oh well. Poepkop (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (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.

Reporting multiple personal attacks by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Immediately below this line is a copy paste of the complaint and discussion on a different page. You may read this, or go there to see the original postings themselves. I did ask for a second look there from an admin or maybe a different admin but apparently ( I always try to assume good faith )the matter had already been judged and could not be reopened there.

I asked for a second look or reconsideration of the outcome there Here is what I asked and am asking here:

"If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here.

BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014 "

The instructions there at the top of the section said further review would have to be brought up here. Also as per the instructions. I will be bold enough to put the notification template on the reported editors talk page, even though when I did only that before, I was accused of edit warring on the reported users talk page, and accused of repeatedly re-posting the same info on said page after the editor himself reverted the notices each time I placed another one. (placed as the personal attacks went on) As the personal attacks went on I posted on the offenders talk page templates to please stop a couple of times. You certainly can go back through the history and diffs at that talk page if you like, or for my and your convenience I kept a log of everything that I posted on that talk page.

It is included here for clarity: the link to the page where I kept the log is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale check there or read below

my log starts here

Extended content

March 2014 This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You may not remove well-sourced text involving noncontentious subjects from a BLP without good cause. Your apparent dislike for the subject is not good cause. You are also clearly edit warring on this an related articles, and may be subject to loss of editing privileges even if you avoid breaching the 3RR limit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC) the above warning to this page was in response to placing a simple required template on the users page regarding an edit warring discussion that he was involved in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_reported_by_User:Carriearchdale_.28Result:_no_vio.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents this warning was placed on his HW talk page (placed here for clarity since hw keeps reverting warnings to him placed by other editors. "personal attack warning[edit source] Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regarding using an edit summary to personally attack an editor link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history "(go somewhere else (preferably off-wiki) if you're going to keep up your caterwauling)" cat·er·waul ˈkatərˌwôl/ verb gerund or present participle: caterwauling 1.(of a cat) make a shrill howling or wailing noise. "the caterwauling of a pair of bobcats" synonyms: howl, wail, bawl, cry, yell, scream, screech, yowl,ululate More" _________________________________________- this is the final warning I placed on aother users page - placed here for clarity since user keeps reverting the warnings so as to believe they never occurred "You may keep reverting warning notices placed in good faith on this talk page, but that does not mean you were not warned. This is your final warning against personal attacks against an editor: from the history (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:53 . . (-628)‎ . . ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎(rmv caterwauling; Undid revision 598127011 by Carriearchdale (talk)) (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:51 . . (-244)‎ . . ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎(remove caterwauling; Undid revision 598127250 by Carriearchdale (talk)) (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:50 . . (+244)‎ . . ‎Carriearchdale (talk | contribs)‎(→‎personal attack warning) (diff | hist) . . User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎; 10:48 . . (+512)‎ . . ‎Ezhiki (talk | contribs)‎ (Kostino) (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:48 . . (+628)‎ . . ‎Carriearchdale (talk | contribs)‎(→‎personal attack warning: new section) cat·er·waul ˈkatərˌwôl/ verb gerund or present participle: caterwauling 1.(of a cat) make a shrill howling or wailing noise. "the caterwauling of a pair of bobcats" synonyms: howl, wail, bawl, cry, yell, scream, screech, yowl,ululate More _________ This notice was placed on the same users page (of course he has already reverted it - copied here for clarity) This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. end of my log** the following is the info on the other complaint page starts here ___________________________________________________________ User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: Both warned) This is now closed as an edit warring case. If you want further review use WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 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. Page: User talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) User being reported: Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts: notification listing of more than 8 reverts in the last hour or so TODAY Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 1 minute ago Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 21 minutes ago Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 23 minutes ago Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 40 minutes ago Hullaballoo Wolfowitz left a message on your talk page in "March 2014". This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further n... 1 hour ago | View changes Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 1 hour ago Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 1 hour ago Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 1 hour ago Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 1 hour ago Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history Comments: Comment - I don't' have the dif gathering skills that others do, but I'd like to comment on the fact that this is an ongoing issue with User:Hallaballo Wolfowitz. Granted, I've seen this User make good edits as well, but I have also seen this user attempt to discredit long standing sources as well as misrepresent information in those same sources seemingly to further their POV. One example is "here" in an article for deletion discussion. Furthermore, under the auspices of BLP policy (among others) I have seen this user outright ignore WP policy such as 3RR in instances where the exceptions hardly seem to apply. Additionally I've tried to communicate and "make peace" with this User only to have my comments erased with an accusatory edit summary. A quick perusal of this User's Talk page edit history reveals what this person thinks of attempts to communicate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Users are permitted to remove warnings placed on their own user talk page - removal indicates that they did see the notice. However, people who repeatedly re-add such material are in violation of Wikipedia norms of conduct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Result: The two parties to this dispute are both warned – Carriearchdale for edit warring on a user talk, and HW for using personal attacks ('caterwauling'). If this behavior continues from either party blocks are possible without notice. Anyone is permitted to remove notices from their user talk and per WP:3RRNO this does not count toward 3RR. But anyone who reinstates the removed notices is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your input, but I never reinstated any removed notices on the talk page of HW. As he continued to personally attack me, I did put notices on his talk page which he immediately reverted, I understand that he is able to do that. Please do not characterize my actions against someone, who was personally attacking me 3 or 4 times, by reporting them and putting simple notices on their talk page as the instructions say is proper to do as edit warring n my part. Really? Really? Yes really... If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here. BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014 ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) __________________________________________________________---------- edited to sign did not sign at bottom when posting just now

thanks,

I really do hope everyone has had the most magnificent day ever!!!

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale, is this just cut and pasted from a talk page? It's better to just provide a link to a long discussion. It is very hard to follow and I doubt many editors will take the time to make sense of it. Better to be succinct, make your argument in your own words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. It's a total mess. Try again, and (1) make it consise and (2) use diffs like this to highlight the edits that you're talking about. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm collapsing the "log" section; it's all viewable on Carrie's talk page, linked here, and the EW board, linked from the TP. ₆an⁶sh₆ 02:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a mess by Carriearchdale ... not just here on ANI, but on that article. Perhaps you should take a break from that subject, as you're certainly not helping there. While you take that break, re-read WP:EW and WP:WIAPA as you appear to have been edit-warring, tag-bombing, and have not at any time been subjected to a personal attack. What you've succeeded in doing above is showing us your issues on Wikipedia ... not HB's issues. When you wrongly accuse someone else of something either on Wikipedia or real life, you always expect some type of response - I think HB's has been a pretty tame response considering your behaviour. If you're not willing to voluntarily remove yourself from that article, I'm willing to suggest at least a 2 week topic ban DP 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have sat back a few days, and just listened to what was being said or posted here because I was hoping I might learn something new about how different people work together, or each give their opinion on some issue in hopes of coming to some semblance of an agreement or consensus. I am a general believer in the good faith in people, and hope that most people would set aside their prejudices, and preconceived notions about other persons, and let the weight of different things they were considered each have a due weight when they were figuring out which side of some issue they were going to be on.

Unfortunately some, but certainly not all of the users/editors/admins who are here at wikipedia are acting in some sort of gang mentality. I mean I was shocked to read one statement were one of the people insinuated that someone who had registered here only a few months ago, that that newer registrants' opinion on some issue such as these at the ani shouldn't have as much weight even in the voting of how many people are in support or against a certain issue. So in going by that sort of thinking, there should just be a mini paragraph at the top of this ani board letting some of the newer editors or users here that their opinion won't even be considered here until they have been registered and apparent actively editing for X number of months or they have X number of edits down on the wikipedia books.

To pretend that everything is "equal" here is such a big hypocritical mess, that no one would even believe it unless they the whole situation with their own eyes. The paranoia abounds around here to the point where one or two of the posters here were accusing me and Bob the Goodwin of being one person operating as sockpuppets??? OMFG!!! I wish Bob the Goodwin and I were one combined person because maybe then we could ask for some sort of lower combined tax rate from uncle sam! Actually I am quite honored that some of you were thinking Bob and I were alike in writing bullet points and whatever else was said and written here, because Bob the Goodwin is the most earnest writer and editor I have had the pleasure of working with on a few articles here. I read what Bob wrote up earlier in this list of postings and I do agree with him on at least one point that he spoke about.

Wikipedia itself has become a sad sad sad victim of the cesspool of mire and cultural rot caused by all the prejudicial actions taken as well as the gang mentality when all the troops are brought in to put their no or oppose down to somehow stuff the balance box and have the outcome be "what the popular kids want who have been here the longest." I mean really this all sounds like high school antics to me. If that the way it's going to be, at least be honest and upfront about. Post and paragraph and state which users will be pronounced to have been here long enough so that the other will let their vote count. It's called transparency people. But alas I fear dear wikipedia is too far gone already being sucked down into the infected mire of the cesspool of cultural rot it has become based on all the gang mentality, bullying, harassment, and prejudice among many other nasty, dirty, underhanded things that go on here. It really is a shame. Jimbo had a great idea here but the wikipedia is swirling away deeper and deeper into the cesspool of cultural rot. Wikipedia will soon die a slow and painful death...

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And how does this explain your actions? You didn't follow the rules, but you're blaming others for that? Odd. DP 09:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to explain any of my actions here. And what rules are you speaking of? I followed the instructions on how to report and deal with someone who was harassing and personally attacking me. This ani is about Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz and HIS actions while he was personally attacking me multiple times. You are trying to turn a victims report of being personally attacked right back on the victim. Can you really be that short-sighted? I guess you can. I have see it done constantly over these ani pages. Like I said earlier, the gang mentality abounds here. You guys keep quoting this policy and that policy in each and every sentence you post. It looks to me DangerousPanda that you are saying it is fine for someone to call another editor Bizarre, and write multiple times over and over that the person is caterwauling this and caterwauling that. You DangerousPanda look like you had your mind made up to tell the victim of the multiple personal attacks that they never happened. Now the protocol will be to gather the gang up and have everybody post for or against. Just go ahead and do whatever you and the gang have already pre-decided. You are acting just as I described above. and this thing we call wikipedia is still a cesspool of cultural rot, and is continuing to swirl in a downward spiral to its' imminent death. It really doesn't matter what I post or type here, because some of you are so power hungry and ready to gang up and try to beat down anyone who might not agree with you, or someone who might have only been registered here a short time. This whole ordeal, and the way stuff is handled here is truly a shame.

I quote the great leader Jimbo here, even he sees that editors are leaving left and right due to some of the draconian action and prejudices I have listed above.

"Wales spoke of contributors leaving as one of the main issues. "We are not replenishing our ranks". At 90,000 active contributors by March, the goal is to attain another 5,000 by next June. Speaking about its contributor base, the typical profile appears to be a "26-year-old geeky male", while others leave as there is a short supply of further articles to add. But as the fifth most visited site on the web, and nearly a decade old, it is struggling to maintain its community effort with so many contributors are leaving. Wales acknowledges the issues with Wikipedia from a founders' perspective, yet others who actively engage with the site see other barriers.

Speaking to ZDNet's senior technology editor, Jason Perlow, for which has his own Wikipedia entry, resonated similar feelings earlier with me on the phone in regards to Wikipedia's fundamental issues. "Wikipedia appears to have a strange undefined organisational structure, or lack thereof. It seems to be run by some Mad Max-like community stuck in the middle of the desert. Contributors have to submit to many editors that follow meticulously baroque editorial guidelines, which are imposed in an inconsistent fashion."" source= http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/54144

I am really just going to wash my hands of thus whole particular issue. I really feel any input I post on here is often taken and then tried to be be twisted and thrown right back onto me.

So go ahead and do whatever you think is the fair and equal thing to do. But maybe you all should look up fair, equal, neutral, unbiased, and non-prejudiced in the dictionary before you speak or post, because this cesspool of cultural rot called wikikpedia that you all have been swirling around in for so long has definitely muddied up your understand of being fair and equal across the board to all users/editors/admins/people here.

On a more positive note, I do hope everyone will have a clearer day today, and maybe if you open your eyes a little wider you will be able to actually see what is going on here. I doubt it. But I do always try to assume good faith, you never know. Maybe someone, anyone will get an epiphany and the downward spiral of wikipedia into it inevitable cesspool of cultural rot can be slowed and possible turned around someday. I really do not think so, but one can only hope.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Redmen44 deleting unblock request comments

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.

---

Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for edit warring, has removed twice[111][112] another editor's comments regarding their current unblock request at User talk:Redmen44 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). Community discussion in unblock requests is common. Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#What_happens_when_you_request_unblock says "Often you will find more than one user commenting on your block, or a mini-discussion happening". This discussion cannot happen if a user insists on removing these comments. I was bold and also modified Wikipedia:User pages‎ to close this apparent loophole.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed (and denied) the editor's latest unblock request and left a comment regarding the removal of those comments and, indeed, his earlier warnings (since in his first unblock request he claimed he stopped edit warring after the first warning). WaggersTALK 09:19, 7 March 2014 (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.

Tristan.andrade.136 - Concerns about competence

Hi, I'm concerned that User:Tristan.andrade.136 may not have the competence to edit constructively.

The user, who we are to believe is a kid, has been warned at least six times not to submit unsourced content, three times not to misuse flag icons, at least five times about disruptive editing, and twice to be mindful of spelling. User has created misspelled articles on Mari Tranior (presumably Trainor), Luitenent Gadget (Lieutenant), has submitted the word "vocied" instead of "voiced" at least six times: ([113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]) and continues to add flag icons without any rationale, requiring the assumption that the user is describing two different language dubs, maybe? User has made other peculiar edits like this one. User created an article on Walter's Christmas, which is written very poorly, contains no references and appears to contain copypasta, possibly from here or here. User has created another article here. (Come to think of it, here is a list of all the articles they have created.) User has removed proper {{Start date}} and {{End date}} templates here. More misspellings here, which could have been prevented as "its" and "premiere" appear earlier in the same sentence. It doesn't seem to me that the user understands our procedures and I question their ability to contribute constructively at this time. User was previously blocked in October 2013 by Zad68 and indicated that he wouldn't continue the disruptions, but it's clear that the user (assuming they aren't doing this deliberately) doesn't understand what they are doing is disruptive and doesn't have the ability to preempt or fix the problems they create. Rather than do nothing but template, I have tried on at least two occasions to make an impact through explanation, and I have also recommended the mentorship program to the user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I spelled "Lieutenant" as "Leftenant" for years. In fact, I still pronounce it that way, just like others seem to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect your right to pronounce it as such. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship seems best? Obviously a kid who doesn't quite understand dangers of revealing personal information, has undeveloped language, lacks understanding why refs are important etc. If someone would like to kindergarten this guy, that would be the best, I think.Arildnordby (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's unclear what their primary language is. Based on their other interactions with users I don't know how easy it will be to help them, because they don't seem capable of expressing themselves well, or comprehending what others communicate.[119][120][121][122]. I'm personally a little suspicious of behavior this consistently poor, particularly when I've seen a number of vandals who feign naivety and promise to improve, then don't. But that's just my own hangup, I suppose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

His native language appears to be French Canadian based on this edit on his page where it states he lives in Montreal  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sent the user a note encouraging him/her to reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Having read a bit further, I am now not altogether convinced your intial concern was false. He might be "just a kid" as I initially thought, but time will tell.Arildnordby (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby Well, it's not like we've never seen vandals feign incompetence and naivety to skirt past scrutiny, while committing good hand/bad hand edits. Not saying that's definitively the case here, and I've AGF-ed my fair share, but it should definitely be on the table as feasible. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I regard, as for now, your initial argument as definitely rational and well-founded, if a bit cynical (from experience, perhaps??). If he feigns, but desperately wants wiki-inclusion, he'll switch tracks. If he's a well-meaning kid, he'll try his best. If he feigns, but isn't too interested, we've heard the last of him. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of account I wouldn't mind seeing separated from the project for a lengthy period of time. Bad edits despite months of pleas, poor and insufficient attempts at collaborative communication over the history of the account, continuation of the same kinds of bad edits despite a few Talk page comments. As a result the editor is eating up a lot of editing time and patience of others. I believe it's a well-meaning kid and not an intentionally malicious editor but the only thing that matters is the quality of edits and demonstrated capacity for improvement, and I'm not seeing enough of either. If it's a kid, he can come back later; if it's an editor who would be more comfortable editing in another language, then the editor should go edit that language's WP. Zad68 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Based on his edits at Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond and other articles (Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond is just the most recent involvement that I've had) it's fairly clear that he is just a well meaning kid who doesn't seem able to learn from his mistakes. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A kind, but firm suggestion that he should wait a few years before editing again might, perhaps, be the right solution here?Arildnordby (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend I'm a little confused about what's supposed to happen here. Are we waiting for an administrator to do something specific, or are we going to gently encourage the kid not to edit here anymore? Note also this warning (including the word "charcter"). And this new article and this edit and this edit where "Slugterra TV show had currently 39 seasons divided in 3 seasons". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC) -- (Comment updated 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

Trolling from Holdek

Resolved

 – I believe there is consensus this wasn't trolling, and it's been four days since the last activity. Can it be closed by an uninvolved admin? Holdek (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently he is back with a vengeance [123]. I have no idea what his templated "warning" is about, but it seem to be payback/harassment after I commented on his behavior in previous ANI thread involving him. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody indef hem back please? How many times should this user be blocked so that everybody understands they are net negative?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that; that's Twinkle's automated notification that happens when someone tags a page for speedy deletion--in this case, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Holdek. I think using the "attack page" rationale is a bit much, but not wholly unreasonable; in any event, the post to your talk page is just a side effect of that tagging. It perhaps wasn't deliberate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I have figured out what that cryptic warning on my talk page was about. It's an ArbCom matter now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Toddst1.2FHoldek Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you even look at Holdek's talk page before coming here (much less discuss things on it)?unnecessary sass, although the point about discussing things before coming here stands Check out the User_talk:Holdek#Unblocked thread, wherein WormTT explains why it wasn't found to be socking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's correct: it was an automatic, unforeseen by me, and unintentional result of my deletion nomination for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Holdek.

Usually with Twinkle-based delete nominations that I'm familiar with it just gives a templated notice on the creator's talk page that the page they created has been requested to be deleted, with an invitation to object. Indeed, the box I checked was "Notify page creator if possible." I did not know that it would give a warning instead. Also, the other rationale box I checked was "Empty categories."

I will go ahead and remove the warning, and FWIW I think Twinkle should be fixed so that misunderstandings like this don't occur. --Holdek (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't found it to be "not socking", I found that Toddst's change of block from 1 month to indefinite due to socking but without decent explanation of why to be inappropriate. It might well be that Holdek has been socking, and anyone who feels that is likely should file an WP:SPI with evidence. I'll point out again that Toddst1's 1 month block was good and if Holdek has carried on with past behaviour an indefinite block would be the correct course of action. As it is, Holdek has removed the warning, and blamed Twinkle which seems plausible to me. It'd be a good idea if Holdek and Someone not using his real name did their best to ignore each other. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: The edit summary demonstrates that it was Twinkle, and describes it as a "notification": (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someone_not_using_his_real_name&diff=prev&oldid=597988758). Holdek (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am new to this process but I need to clarify actions which seem to cross a line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae has been engaged aggressively for a couple of days on an edit, and has escalated to and administrators board once, and also started an RFC. The debate is simple, and has been covered by administrators. I am not arguing here whether I am right or wrong. My concern is ongoing uncivil debate that has the following attributes.

• He has repeatedly claimed that my language stated that Woody Allen was a child molester. He was called out on this multiple times, and kept repeating the assertion. My language was only that the person that was the subject of the article has made an accusation that Woody Allen was a child molester. Even after the Admin discussion agreed that my language was accurate, the previous argument was continued.

• He has stated that since no trial occurred, that he is innocent (in the eyes of the law). Since the article is not about Allen, it is about Farrow, I thought it would be unbalanced not to include a vigorous defense of Allen without a counter claim that is based on even stronger RS, but that my preference was to do neither. Whether I was right or wrong, he repeatedly claimed that I wanted to claim Woody Allen was a child molester, and repeatedly took my comments out of context in ways to repeat the claim.

• Before I was even involved with this article, he was also making Ad-hominem claims against another editor, and continued to make those claims on the administrators message board.

• I have proposed a simple solution, which is very neutral, which is simply to link to the main Allen article, which is the correct place to address the facts of the investigation and the court record, and leave the Ronan article neutral. \

• He has repeatedly accused me of POV bias because I said that I could easily come up with RS to bolster the other side of the argument, as a means to prevent the article from being one sided. I asked him repeatedly not to do this, and he remained hostile.

• Venue shopping. After getting opinions on the administrators page, he starts RFC and rewords much of the debate to move the argument.

• Consistently taken my words out of context in order to establish a different meaning. I asked him to stop, and it continued.

• Overagressive. Requested RFC and two noticeboard requests. At least two of these were triggered before any talk page discussion.

I do not think that this can be resolved by slowing down the process for more discussion, because there has been escalation (to another notice board and also for RFC) at the first sign of dissent, and this does not lend itself to any discussion of the actual content.

Thanks. My apologies if I used this forum incorrectly. [124] [125] Bob the goodwin (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to every page of whatever type on Wikipedia. Allegations of a criminal act are pretty much posited to be "contentious claims", and WP:BLPCRIME applies. Allen is well-known and the allegation has been in the press, but that does not circumvent the need for us to be scrupulous in how we handle any case. In the case at hand, the material that the allegation was deemed unfounded or insufficiently grounded by others is clearly pertinent. If we are to err, it must always be on the side of the person accused. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal view. Allegations of defamatory kind, or even to the point of criminal conduct of living persons might well be notable (and therefore worthy of inclusion), but extreme care in language must be exercised. This is such a delicate balance, that if you at all are to include such material, my own opinion is that you must constantly say that these are the words of the allegator, as well as ample inclusion of possible motives for a false motive, as long as such has been given by reliable sources (say, that the allegations occurred within the heated context of embittered divorce proceedings). Furthermore, formal dismissals of allegations by police/court MUST be included in context with the allegation, again with reliable sourcing.If you cannot find any reliable sources for motives for, or dismissals of, cited allegation, DROP THE MENTION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGATION, even if it appears in a reliable source.Arildnordby (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* I agree this should be handled very cautiously which is why I was alarmed by the disruptive behavior of a relatively experienced editor. It was impossible to debate the merits of the sources, the denials and accusations when an editor is accusing you of bad intent, misrepresenting your opinions, and most alarmingly trying to speed up the process with multiple ANI's and RFCs. His second ANI already established by an admin [126] that the four words I added were appropriate, and there were discsussion of improvements. Tenebraewas also repeatedly asked why he considered an accusation made by the subject of the biography was the equivalent to the editor making the accusation. He never even tried to answer, except to repeat previous talking points.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* I note that Tenebrae is cited on three different issues on TODAYS ANI board, in addition to the ANI on BLPN, and he also initiated an ANI on another editor in the last few days for this same article. Plus there were multiple RFCs, that seemed to be more aimed at speeding up discussion by creating one sided arguments in the middle of the night that would attract the desired opinions. I prefer measured discussion and to have time to research when new issues are raised. Tenebrae raised new issues when he cited the Yale report as exoneration, which has been discredited widely, but I need to slow the conversation down if we are to collect and weigh evidence.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* I received the following note from Tenebraeon my talk page [127] in which he states that ANI's should not be written by people with 2 months of experience on Wikipedia, and further mentioned Boomerang. I welcome feedback to my actions, and welcome honest discussion of encyclopedic entries, especially if I am wrong. I do not want to focus on abusive editing, I want to focus on making an encyclopedia.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* Lastly I want to not that this article is not about Allen, it is about Farrow. I completely agree that an accusation should not be left naked. But the fact is that there are two different PR machines pushing different narratives, and Tenebrae is claiming copying text from Wikipedia is equivalent to doing proper research. I do not want to leave the article as is, it is too one sided against Allen. I do not want poorly researched prose inserted into this article when both the prose and the article itself has such different context. I also would prefer not to be pressured to present incomplete research by a disruptive editor when this could result in unintentional bias. It is not controversial that there is a lot of RS on both sides of the debate. A careful conversation is desirable if we are to correctly include a notable action by Farrow, while neutrally protecting both the integrity of Farrow and Allen. I suspect that an Administrator will just make a decision to break the deadlock. Or perhaps this article is too overheated and we should shut it down for a few days and let others take a shot at the best treatment. Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* If I made a mistake by starting an ANI, I would appreciate that feedback. In the last 24 hours read the civility sections of Wikipedia three times. Only when I started to get angry at the abuse, and felt I could not slow down the process did I ask for help. I do not think I ever showed my anger, but continued engagement would likely have escalated. Thanks for the assistance of the admins and all editors who will work this hard to get a few words of prose correct.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. - It seems to me after reviewing all the information stated above that Bob the Goodwin has been relentlessly trying to bend over backwards to get the story down in a succinct manner so the situation can be appropriately so that the admins can make an analysis of the issue or issues.

As far as the message Bob the Goodwin quoted where the other party stated that anis should not be written by someone with two months of experience on Wikipedia, frankly I am quite appalled by that comment. I have found that many but not all user/editors try to pull that card out frequently. After all we are all adults here, or at least I hope so.

Although some weight can be given to the amount of time a user/editor has been registered at Wikipedia, the great part of a user/editors skill sets and experience to include being a published author, writer, editor, and or publisher should be given it's due weight as well.

Again, all this doesn't really surprise me here at Wikipedia. What happened to not being bitey to newer editors?

WTF?

I hope everyone will have the best day ever today, only to be out-shined by a brighter tomorrow! Never give up!

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the high-dudgeon walls and walls of text Bob the goodwin has been posting, tarring me from pillar to post, I'm not going to take an hour of my time to rebut his claims point-by-point. The fact is, his inexperience is a direct factor in his disruptive, argumentative, policy-violating behavior, in which he thinks it's OK to include unproven child-molester claims without including the denial that WP:PUBLICFIGURE required when the accused has made. Here's what I wrote: "I just now have seen that you've only been here since December 28. You're defending disruptive OR and POV biases when you've been here barely two months, rather than try and learn from longtime, experienced editors? And then starting what appears to be an ill-advised ANI when you're the one violating policy? Wow." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will rebut one thing: I did not say "ANI's [sic] should not be written by people with 2 months of experience on Wikipedia." Read it, don't skim it: I said people with two months' experience should not defend disruptive OR and POV biases. What I said about his ANII was that it appeared to be ill-advised — and that would be true no matter if he had been here two months or two years. Stop misrepresenting me, Bob. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The goal is to edit an encyclopedia. If an AFI helps create calm, I need nothing more. Passion is good. Our conversation, no so much. But I am happy to assume good faith going forward.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

AD HOMINEM attacks have continued despite my asking for help (and some editors have helped, I just want to get the issue closed), Blatant misrepresentations of my position and the evidence I have presented also continue. I am confused by the rules at WP. Is this behavior acceptable? Is this what a newcomer is expected to experience? Politeness seems to invite challenges.Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be an extension of the matter moved to Wikipedia:BLP/N#Calling someone a child molester. We really shouldn't be re-hashing this here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think you are misdirecting. I am willing to be told in one sentence how to handle BLP by an administrator or respectable serious editor and not debate further. Are you willing to ignore the issues that I brought up?Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also I was accused of DUCK and BLP violations in [[128]] and responded. Seriously, if people want to give me fair feedback, I am all ears. But so far I have done two edits (one edit had two different versions) on Ronan Farrow, one which was supported by an editor as reasonable on the BLP page, and the other in response to the only editor on the Ronan talk page talking about the content without ad-hominem attacks and misrepresentations. I came to Wikipedia because there was PR requesting new editors, especially in medicine. It was suggested I practice in an area I had no prior experience. What does Wikipedia want from new editors? Please make your intent known. I have responded constructively to every comment. Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not responded constructively and you're not being truthful here about your edits. Not a single editor at Talk:Ronan Farrow#Request for comment: molestation allegations agrees with you — all their Support comments go against you. At least three and perhaps four editors are asking you to stop making edits to the article, and after more than a week of several of us trying to be polite with you — with no one "attacking" you — one editor now flat out says you're either a liar or malicious. I certainly find much of your comments disingenuous pettifogging. You have not been showing yourself a constructive editor. Wikipedia does not need or want disruptive, misleading people pursuing POV agendas. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I feeding the trolls? Is that what God is teaching me? I also support the statement in the consensus that you claim I am violating. We have moved so far beyond that. Please do not pretend that you have been polite, and please focus on the article, and not the people. Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae has now made multiple requests of editors to ignore a poll I requested to ask specific questions about the inaccuracies and mischaracterization in the material he placed against my objections into the article. I offered to completely back off if there was a consensus that the existing material met Wikipedia standards. Since Tenebrae owns the article and the other editors are following his lead I am looking for next steps. My questions are specific, and recommendations and options are given. I know the rules say that if I get no response in 72 hours that I am free to make changes, but I am not interested in confrontation I am interested in consensus and a discussion of the article. Any administrators willing to tell me I am wrong? Just go into the talk page, and say that these sentences accurately reflect Wikipedia standards of accuracy and balance. 24.16.135.152 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I am seeing no response to my attempts at consensus after another 24 hours. Have asked an editor on his talk page to tell me I am wrong, so I can move on. Discredited claim plus blatant misquote should not require the national guard to render a consensus. Seems we have a no-edit order to prevent responses against my suggestions to delete gross inaccuracies. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

10.4.1.126

I'm puzzled by the activities of 10.4.1.126 (talk · contribs). It appears to be a logged-out archiving bot (or a user acting like one), but as an IP it can't create pages, so it fails from time to time. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See #IP bot fails to archive — Lfdder (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:An#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, closing then, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot trouble

10.4.1.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bot editing while logged out, which is not in conformity with WP:BOTACC. Administrative assistance in blocking the IP, and editorial assistance in identifying which bot this is would be appreciated. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging with the above: I was the third person to note this, you're fourth. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I just backed out the archiving at WP:AN3 before I saw this. I've left the others alone. I find the whole thing troubling. How many bots are archiving using this IP?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a few different IPs, User:10.4.1.65, User:10.4.1.102, User:10.4.1.125 and User:10.4.1.126. GB fan 02:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this is still correct, possibly a fair few, as it seems to be an internal IP/proxy. In any case, the ones mentioned so far (the ones ending on .65, .102, .125 and .126) aren't quite the only ones. 10.4.1.34, 10.4.1.74, 10.4.1.127, 10.4.0.115 and 10.4.0.156 also all have had bot-edits-while-logged out in the past few hours. Probably a fair number of them in the same range that I haven't spotted yet showing the same issues. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Don't block any internal IP addresses as it will cause misdirected XFF blocks. Legoktm (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to stick an appropriately worded template on internal IPs in the 10.4.1.x range, if that's the range the bots inhabit. While I, to my own astonishment, recognized it as an internal IP, others might not have the same delusion of technical competency. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw "abusefilter-warning-spambot-allowed" in the edit summary when this bot tried to archive WP:COIN, but looking at the IP's edit history I could tell it was User:lowercase sigmabot III which normally archives that page. -- Atama頭 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, this was noted at least as early as 02:30 (UTC) yesterday - User:NeilN found that User:Legobot was editing whilst logged out, and I reported the same thing at 14:20. So it's a site-wide problem, not just one bot; maybe the WMF technical team need to take a look? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The best I could figure, at the very least DPL bot, one or more of the AIV Helperbots, Legobot, Lowercase Sigmabot III and Hot Articles Bot have or have had the issue in the past 24 or so hours, so yes, doesn't look bot-specific. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't know they were bots I would've sworn they were socking. I hope this is not a portend of things to come. In any case let's hope they are aware of the Three Laws of Robotics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Found another one cleaning the sandbox: 66.55.144.246. 174.26.246.240 (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User page redirect to apparent self promotion article

I'm an admin myself, but I'm new to this topic and wanted to watch someone else handle this so I can learn. User:Villainsdance has a redirect to Villains Dance which is also up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains Dance. Sensing that the user page violates WP:G11 I put up a speedy tag on the user page... but it's a "user" page and can a "general" speedy apply to that? I think so because deleting the user page doesn't delete the user account... but then we may need to consider blocking the account as well. I've notifified the user on their talk page but I think this needs the attention of an admin with more experience than me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was moved from the user space to the article space with the create redirect box checked. Ideally it should have been moved with it unchecked. Speedy deletion isn't really needed; just blank the page and explain why in the edit summary. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer the general question: yes, the G criteria are applicable everywhere on the project, including user pages. Using G11 on user pages is actually not all that uncommon; it seems that some people choose their account name for the purpose giving their spam-laden user page a more relevant title. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Users are told they need to create an account to create an article, so I imagine they assume the account name needs to be the article name. LFaraone 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think non-admins even have that checkbox to avoid redirect creation, so the redirect isn't the user's fault. Huon (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And if the name appears to represent a company, organisation or product, as in this case, it should be indeffed as spamusername. Daniel Case has done this one. The Easyblock script is your friend! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huon's right, non-admins do not have that checkbox - which is bloody annoying. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Balochi tamur & Thbaluch

The users Thbaluch and Balochi tamur (perhaps a pair of socks) keeps removing a blpPROD-tag from Dr Haneef Shareef. Balochi tamur also tries to bribe multiple users (me included) with barnstars and such things for removing the PROD-tag from the article. I will not revert any of the users agin, because I think I have already passed the 3RR. (Block me as you see fit!)

I am requsting assistance! (t) Josve05a (c) 08:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

- I think that's pretty clear. There's nothing wrong with removing a PROD tag. There's a lot wrong with replacing a removed PROD tag. If you're still convinced an article should be deleted after a PROD tag has been removed, take it to WP:AFD. WaggersTALK 08:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just note that Balochi tamur, presumably trying to make a childish point, PRODded the obviously notable Veena Malik after that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Josve05a was attempting to use a "sticky prod" as described at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. In the case of "biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, without any sources (reliable or unreliable) or links to support the claims made in the article may be proposed for deletion and will be deleted unless at least one reliable source is added." When this process is used, the sticky prod may not be removed unless a reliable source is added. Josve05a actually didn't use the {{Prod blp/dated}} (i.e. sticky prod) tag so it wasn't a "blpPROD", just a normal PROD and of course it was declined. For reference, however, the article did contain sources/external links at the time of the proposed deletion and even unreliable ones like those preclude the placing of {{Prod blp/dated}}. --RexxS (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I need to correct myself. User:Smsarmad quite properly placed the original {{Proposed deletion}} tag. Josve05a incorrectly restored it, apparently thinking it was a {{Prod blp/dated}}. --RexxS (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

But the reason is this that this article is completely correct but Josve05a is inserting blpPROD-tag,why?

article had clear great external links,imdb links are link to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thbaluch (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the deal: the article has already been tagged with a PROD tag, and so such a tag cannot be reinstated (I'll be removing the current one in a moment). A BLPPROD would also be inappropriate, as the article does (at the time of writing) contain two sources - they aren't sufficient to establish notability, but they are present in the article. The appropriate action for those who feel the article should be deleted woudl be to perform a check for more suitable sources and then, if none are forthcoming, start an AFD discussion. I'll do this myself in a few moments. No-one's at fault here - Josve05 was only trying to put the BLP policy into action. There's no need for further disputation on this noticeboard, although I'll log a note here if I do find it necessary to file an AFD. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Sorry if we did mistake,again we will not do it,i love wikipedia,and i am creating good and real articles.

Please don't delete other users' comments. I have proposed the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Haneef Shareef, having found no sources that would make him suitable for an article here. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for that again we will not remove,but my article Dr Haneef Shareef is completely correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome to make a case for the article at the AFD discussion, but please read Contributing to AfD discussions first. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge my error by replacing the tag, and for that I'm truly sorry. I also appricate all the help in this matter. But one thing remain, as I mentioned in my first post above, the question must be asked. Are the users socks? Same writing styles, non of them signes their posts, simiular editing style etc. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we all make cock-ups sometimes. As to the socking... mmm, I have my doubts. The Haneef Shareef thing is the only time these editors have actually interacted, though the both have a number of edits to other articles, and their approaches and responses to the situation have been somewhat different. I think what we have here is two separate Balochstani editors who happen to both be interested in a particular page - if they were socks, I would have expected some actions by Thbaluch on some of Balochi Tamur's other articles relating to Shareef (most if not all of which are now up for deletion). The similar writing style is to be expected, given that neither of them has English as a first language, and the different spellings of Baloch/Baluch in their usernames suggest different systems of romanisation. If this came up at SPI I'd be hesitant to take any action, and so I'm inclined to AGF and give them the benefit of the doubt. If one is indeed a sock of the other, it will become evident in the future, but I doubt that that's the case. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: How about Balochifilm? Recreated an article which Balochi tamur created which was deleted. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's a sock. Wary of blocking it myself due to a degree of WP:INVOLVED, but it's so obvious that an SPI would be a waste of time. If a passing admin would like to do the necessary, please? Yunshui 雲‍水 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: See thread below Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sorry_for_my_all_mistake_but_solve_my_articles_issues. CaptRik (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I originally deleted Saeed Shad per WP:CSD#G12. It was recreated by User:Balochi tamur. It was created by User:Balochifilm without the same copyright violation and has now been nominated for deletion. I've blocked Balochifilm indefinitely as a sock puppet and Balochi tamur for two weeks as the master. There may be independent bases for blocking Balochi tamur for longer. I haven't reviewed all of their edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Crimea article into different articles

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 need an admin to intervene at Talk:Crimea. Sanctions are not necessary, just involvement.

Basically, there was a discussion to split into two different articles the information being hosted at Crimea about the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the "Crimean peninsula". I performed a non-admin closure to retain Crimea as the article for the republic and restored the old article at Crimean peninsula as a standalone article (since it was a redirect at the time with a rich history).

After placing Crimean peninsula as a stand alone article, another user requested that we renamed Crimean peninsula to Crimea while Crimea is renamed to Autonomous Republic of Crimea simultaneously (of which we are having a discussion right now). However, as discussion was ongoing another user reverted Crimean peninsula back to a redirect and we now have two separate distinct discussions going on at Talk:Crimea: one on whether we should split the article, and another on what do we do with the article titles.

Everyone involved is acting in good faith so I'm requesting simply involvement from an admin to fix this mess rather than impose sanctions.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have some time to help in this matter. But to be clear, here's what I read from the above:

• You want Crimean peninsula to be this version: [129]?
• You want Crimea to be this version: [130]?
• What do you want with Autonomous Republic of Crimea?

-- Fuzheado | Talk 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this is what I would like:

1. Crimean peninsula restored to this version: [131] (like you mentioned)
2. Crimea to be left as is (nothing needs to be fixed here)
3. Autonomous Republic of Crimea to be left as a redirect to Crimea (as it is right now, nothing needs to be fixed)
4. To close Talk:Crimea#Split proposal (since consensus is to split the article)

HTH,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, the actions performed by User:FutureTrillionaire seem better. That way we will have a thorough discussion about the split. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Review of my actions

Moved higher on this page. See the "Edit warring by Empire of War" section. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP user claiming to subject of an article

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

---

195.132.58.181 has made a legal threat at Talk:Rachel_Marsden#Message from the article subject (Rachel Marsden). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rachel_Marsden. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2014 (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:Tbhotch

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 keeps harassing me and threatening to block me and is coming across a bully can someone sort them out for sake of mind? 217.43.162.104 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note this user is THE GTA Guy (talk · contribs), aka AlisaJay (talk · contribs), aka MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs), and evidence can be found at the respective sockpuppet investigation pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlisaJay. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that this user has a few screws loose if all they think they can do is accuse people without facts 217.43.162.104 (talk)

You want facts. One page: Loud (Rihanna album), a constant target of you. Including a reversion of a reversion of the user 86.142.54.16 (talk · contribs), who is blocked and also comes from the same state you are currently located. Your personal attacks and EMPHASIS matches with those of Maria and your IP matches with already confirmed socks of Maria. I don't need CU evidence to know you and Maria and GTA and Alisa are the same person. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you're going 'round calling it a personal attack; ever heard the expression "The pot called the kettle black?" 217.43.162.104 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So calling me "freak" and to ask some one to "fuck me off" are not personal attacks. Neither "dumbass", "you are pathetic", and multiple of your attacks are not personal. It has no sense to talk with you (edit conflict).

In a side note to other users, is it possible to get this guy/girl banned from this site now? Nothing has changed since the User:MariaJaydHicky era, and now this person has decided to play to be a victim of circumstances s/he provoked her/himself. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If no admin agrees to unblock, that's a de facto ban already. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, people sometimes want it to be de jure. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal for AlisaJay/MariaJaydHicky/etc

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 propose the following:

For persistent sockpuppeteering and block evasion, which has exhausted the patience and assumption of good faith by the community, MariaJaydHicky is banned from English Wikipedia by the community.

• Support as proposer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle - Penwhale The last time I raised such a question, I was informed that an indeffed editor is de facto banned as long as there are no admins willing to unblock. And I believe we are still able to revert on sight, and report to AIV without any of the L1, L2, L3, L4 warning formalities. From some of the really incivil things she has penned, this actor seems committed to this hostile "chav" bit and doesn't seem capable of participating constructively in this community project. To formally "ban" might be to deliver a badge of honor. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - clearly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Agree that this person is not here to build an encyclopedia. Repeated socking is enough for me. The ban category is where we put our worst cases, and it appears this is richly deserved. Jusdafax 04:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Socking and block evasion are reasons enough. We are all here to build an enclyclopedia, no to disrupt it. Note: I changed "ban evasion" to "block evasion" in the proposed text, since the user is not yet banned (we won't be here otherwise). → Call me Hahc21 05:00, 9 March 2014 (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 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.

Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles

• Carriearchdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachel Reilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Carriearchdale has shown a frankly unhealthy interest in Rachel Reilly and articles related to her. Reilly is a moderately successful reality TV contestant with a very few acting credits. Carriearchdale signed up for this account in 2007, but had no edits until two months ago. On her first day of editing, she was blocked for edit warring at Jodi Arias. On her fourth day of editing, two editors asked her to stop reviewing AFC submissions due to her lack of experience, and she responded with accusations of threatening and bullying (User talk:Carriearchdale/Archive 1#Articles for creation reviewing). On January 20 problems were raised with her activity in the GOCE's backlog-reduction drive/competition.[132] At that point, her editing shifted to (mostly) using automated tools to tag-bomb newly created pages with little apparent regard for the accuracy of the tagging (eg, [133], [134], uncategorized tag on properly categorized pages; [135], [136], inline-citations-needed tag on well-footnoted, sometimes impeccably footnoted pages) In February, she moved on to detailed editing of individual articles (rather idiosyncratically), using edit summaries where the term "copyedit" was used to characterize virtually any sort of edit. And, on February 17, she turned her attention to the articles on Reilly and her husband, Brendon Villegas.

Carriearchdale began by challenging as inaccurate Reilly's declared date of birth, sourced to her own Facebook page (as well removing a citation to a newspaper article discussing Reilly)[137], with a rather specious edit summary. She has proceeded to make a long string of destructive, borderline vandalous edits to the Reilly article. Here for example, she replaces two perfectly appropriate reference citations (dealing with Reilly's college career) with a "citation needed" tag [138] (misdating the tag as well). Here she removes a cite to TV Guide regarding a TV casting, claiming that "show business magazines" are, across the board, not reliable sources for show business information.[139] Here, the article is tagged for COI for no reason other than that the article's subject's husband contributed a picture in which the subject was recognizable (replacing an inadequate one where guesswork was needed to pick the subject out of a crowd).[140] She has repeatedly added zero-value tabloidery to at least two articles about a sexting incident involving Reilly's then-boyfriend, now-husband. [141] [142] And, finally, in a display of truly appalling behaviour, Carriearchdale went to an online pay-for-access "background check site" and created a "Criminal Record" section, even though the "crimes" listed were little or nothing more than routine traffic offenses, many of which were dismissed or otherwise did not result in conviction or the equivalent.[143][144] After I removed the content on February 16; she reinstated it 3 days later, only to have it summarily removed by a third editor.

I find this fascination with detailing the supposed failings of very minor "celebrities" one has no connection to genuinely creepy, aside from the many violations of editing standards involved.

I don't know how much of this behaviour can be attributed to gross failure of WP:COMPETENCE, and how much to disruptive intentions. But she was at it again earlier today, removing valid sourcing in favor of citation-needed tags in the guise of a "copyedit".[145]

I therefore propose that User:Carriearchdale be topic banned from all articles and other pages related to Rachel Reilly and Brendon Villegas; that she be required to use accurate edit summaries, and specifically instructed not to use "copyedit" as a description of substantive edits; that she be prohibited from using automated tools like "Page Curation", which she as frequently misused, for a minimum of six months, until she was demonstrated competence in applying relevant guidelines; and that she be cautioned that further misbehaviour of a similar nature, regardless of the articles involved, is likely to result in substantial loss of editing privileges. I also hope somebody, when this is settled, will RevDel the most inappropriate material she added to the Reilly article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• response from Carriearchdale (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all please everyone review user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his block log:

14:57, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) unblocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(Per discussion on user talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: violation of the three-revert ruleand edit-warring under colour of WP:NFCC: Linda Ronstadt) 08:11, 27 January 2009 RandomXYZb (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing)

Regarding the Rachel Reilly article, and all the other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been following me around from article to article wiki-hounding me. You have the evidence right in his "ANI" report. I think that is a bit creepy to wikihound another editor, and try to make a big hullabaloo about miniscule incidents that may have occurred over a several month period. When that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz started trying to cause trouble, I did the correct thing and posted on the rachel reilly talk page for the article the following statement, which I might add this accusatory user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who has been wiki-hounding me totally ignored. An invitation to discuss??? No discussion was ever entered there by the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I guess he was too busy creepily filling out a laundry list of crap so he could get an ANI posted. So be it!

Here is the post I put on the rachel reilly article talk page. Please ask yourselves, why did the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz not try to come to a consensus there? and to not even make a comment?

I propose that the aforementioned user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from all BLP article issues regarding the Rachel Reilly articles as well as others as the admins may see fit. I would ask that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be instructed, and or advised to stop wiki-hounding and harassing me, and that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would be notified on the proper protocol to attempting to come to a consensus on any article. I always thought discussion between editors on a talk page comes before directly going to file an ANI. After all, the post sat there on the rachel reilly talk page since 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC). Apparently I am not the first, nor I am sure, will I be the last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

post that was placed on the RR talk page: at 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"==This article's factual accuracy is disputed==

• This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
• This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
• This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
• More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.

• • • This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

• • • Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

Let's all just discuss.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)"

• Comment - Concur with Carrie, Wolf appears the be the one with "creepy interest" in Reilly. Otherwise why would anyone go to such as extent as the bizarre explanation given above. --50.148.165.229 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur Carrie seems to be the victim here. I cannot understand any of Wolf's complaint outside of having and editorial disagreement. I see no reason to believe Carrie was outside of the lines. The accusation of Wiki-hounding and the supplied cot combined with this strange afi does cause concern.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also just to clarify my comment above regarding that I was sure I was not the first nor last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I include for anyone's perusal a true laundry list of "behaviors and their turmoil and consequences regarding user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz": Carriearchdale (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list; a third editor reverts HullaballooHullaballoo again blindly 30 KB (5,145 words) - 00:38, 5 December 2010 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter 301 B (35 words) - 08:38, 18 November 2011 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter 11 KB (1,814 words) - 08:38, 18 November 2011 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-01/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz trouble with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, they know better than I do the way HullaballooWolfowitz has acted toward 8 KB (1,418 words) - 11:46, 10 August 2010 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors) each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list a third editor reverts Hullaballoo:::Hullaballoo again blindly 523 KB (91,839 words) - 09:35, 8 August 2010 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131 (section Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1. Jimbo Wales' talk page is used as a forum 210 KB (36,345 words) - 01:36, 2 April 2013 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680 (section User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) carrots→ 08:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz User repeatedly reverting against admin-placed 474 KB (74,163 words) - 09:36, 19 March 2011 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137 (section Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz This matter does not fall under the ArbCom 170 KB (28,934 words) - 01:36, 2 August 2013 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries) the behavior of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Starting out with his own conclusion, Mr.Wolfowitz used blinders 571 KB (100,031 words) - 15:03, 26 July 2013 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz Resolved ...apparently gets off on undoing 510 KB (87,248 words) - 21:32, 17 January 2012 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1/Archive (section Comments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) pretty credible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Wolfowitz, I haven't been 18 KB (2,992 words) - 20:04, 14 September 2011 Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 38 (section Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz First of all I apologise if this is not 192 KB (33,789 words) - 01:39, 3 September 2012 Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive68 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Stale Hullaballoo Wolfowitzis reverting my edits on 164 KB (29,397 words) - 18:08, 1 August 2011 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 32 KB (4,808 words) - 12:15, 28 February 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 3 KB (434 words) - 06:54, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Article alerts Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 2 KB (245 words) - 06:52, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive15 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 2006 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Please change Harmonica Wolfowitz toHullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you 62 KB (10,668 words) - 05:38, 12 April 2010 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions policy, both on en-wiki and at Commons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) What 24 KB (4,196 words) - 18:50, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Inland Empire task force Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 11 KB (1,557 words) - 09:58, 20 January 2012 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user HullaballooWolfowitz has been following 154 KB (26,767 words) - 19:31, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Frost reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (319 words) - 20:06, 14 February 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Article alerts Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 6 KB (968 words) - 06:41, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 9 KB (1,329 words) - 01:55, 19 January 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (section User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Sportfan5000 (Result: Declined)) links | watch | logs)User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 43 KB (7,206 words) - 18:47, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) you cite them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz, your continued 5 KB (787 words) - 20:17, 24 July 2010 Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 23 KB (3,510 words) - 06:57, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 10 KB (1,532 words) - 23:21, 22 September 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Soprano (2nd nomination) there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (302 words) - 05:29, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 6 KB (954 words) - 06:50, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and will be rejected by the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Thank 155 KB (26,489 words) - 19:34, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 5 KB (718 words) - 06:44, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 125 KB (21,027 words) - 19:13, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes is encyclopedic -- but this lst isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The 31 KB (5,213 words) - 17:12, 15 December 2009 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive102 (section User:Swancookie reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: wrong board)) for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also reverted four times but appears 160 KB (27,881 words) - 01:35, 2 July 2009 Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California without explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 75 KB (12,290 words) - 06:04, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans/Article alerts Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 472 B (78 words) - 06:42, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fong and the article has WP:NOTPLOT problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep 6 KB (1,057 words) - 22:00, 28 October 2009 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 9 mentioned in the articles on its "winners." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Note: I 2 KB (306 words) - 15:20, 16 April 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Towers (2nd nomination) article expansion beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Delete: 2 KB (329 words) - 18:32, 11 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson (pornographic actor) SilverserenC 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling 11 KB (1,723 words) - 01:14, 6 April 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron James (pornographic actor) Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40 2 KB (337 words) - 00:39, 20 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie rather conspicuous porn-industry kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Note: This 4 KB (643 words) - 20:00, 26 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fáy András Economic High School reason for an exception has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) So that 4 KB (654 words) - 19:15, 9 October 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boroka sourcing for any biographical information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Delete 4 KB (654 words) - 21:42, 23 February 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed the "well-known/significant" standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Comment: 2 KB (312 words) - 22:11, 6 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Santiago has no significant non-Playboy credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Keep, weakly 5 KB (782 words) - 09:52, 18 April 2011 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection include is redundant and less NPOV-balanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC) This isn't 17 KB (2,670 words) - 19:21, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic/Article alerts Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 531 B (89 words) - 06:48, 28 February 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Note: 4 KB (690 words) - 17:18, 2 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercede Johnston was Delete. I considered a redirect per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz put felt that it was not appropriate given 2 KB (394 words) - 23:57, 8 October 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femjoy virtually all article sourcing is promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (256 words) - 19:24, 2 May 2011 Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23 pointed out by Drilnoth, Black Kite, et al. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz correctly points out that some of the images 59 KB (9,707 words) - 19:01, 17 August 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariush Talai no other valid rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (324 words) - 19:36, 25 August 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynne Austin margin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Keep perHullaballoo Wolfowitz. Unless 2 KB (340 words) - 00:56, 3 April 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Della Terza 2014 (UTC) Merge to Vote for the Worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Merge 2 KB (318 words) - 10:35, 28 February 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 26 KB (3,770 words) - 19:42, 23 January 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts/Archive PRODed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was deproded 30 Apr 2011 – Megan Mason PRODed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was 89 KB (14,344 words) - 06:54, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Addams (2nd nomination) updated version of WP:PORNBIO. Moreover as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz previously argued "Fails the GNG, no nontrivial 4 KB (626 words) - 23:09, 13 January 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Driller reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (287 words) - 08:53, 30 January 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Dames comment by an IP with no edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Note: 4 KB (633 words) - 11:51, 7 May 2013 Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 21 KB (3,291 words) - 17:30, 16 April 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress) to "civilians," not a bona fide honor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (357 words) - 13:45, 2 September 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Addison content. All references are promo pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Delete Same 2 KB (409 words) - 20:53, 9 May 2012 Wikipedia:WikiProject California Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 93 KB (14,874 words) - 16:02, 1 February 2014 Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 13 subject's copyrighted 1988 autobiography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) File:Walter 3 KB (530 words) - 08:56, 18 December 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilian Edwards mentioned by others, award cited in article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) When 3 KB (587 words) - 23:00, 14 November 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky (pornographic actress) site that is devoted to "free mixtapes." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Keep - 13 KB (2,294 words) - 19:23, 25 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikayla Mendez Negligible reliably sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 4 KB (706 words) - 11:45, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717 only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience 703 KB (124,039 words) - 14:28, 4 November 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Radcliffe (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The above 1 KB (230 words) - 23:48, 4 May 2011 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Woody Allen Clubintheclub (talk · contribs) – filing party Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) Clubintheclub (talk · 3 KB (558 words) - 06:31, 19 January 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Martinez (2nd nomination) Prior AFD withdrawn over bundling issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (380 words) - 19:45, 26 February 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Lexx (2nd nomination) candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz (talk) 02:52 2 KB (327 words) - 04:46, 18 March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Keep: Incubus 27 KB (4,660 words) - 10:45, 24 March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Filone (2nd nomination) treatment of the notable fictional work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I did consider 4 KB (654 words) - 18:38, 24 July 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malena Morgan to meet relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (251 words) - 18:12, 28 September 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Kerwin McCrimmon TV/print media coverage, if only briefly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Well, 2 KB (321 words) - 16:48, 3 August 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - PerHullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails 5 KB (843 words) - 20:08, 3 July 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie incident." As constructed it is too one-sided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Can you 10 KB (1,793 words) - 02:55, 28 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Dee 2009 (UTC) Delete as per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The above 2 KB (318 words) - 20:08, 21 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misti Love of the above and per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The above 2 KB (292 words) - 20:53, 8 July 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code result was keep. While i mostly agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is a clear consensus to keep. Kevin 11 KB (1,986 words) - 22:51, 6 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia to libraries and colleges, for example.)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC) It's the 8 KB (1,302 words) - 18:46, 1 August 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Johnson (Singer) why that wasn't noted in the relisting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Keep. 5 KB (871 words) - 04:08, 28 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Gold GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (278 words) - 02:43, 5 February 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Victory (2nd nomination) significant contribution to notability, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (318 words) - 09:54, 19 December 2011 Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting should take place on the article talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The above 21 KB (3,694 words) - 01:48, 18 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Hope substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (295 words) - 23:04, 2 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie West reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (310 words) - 17:09, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelle Marie (2nd nomination) every reasonable editor on the project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC) 5 KB (919 words) - 22:17, 17 September 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Wells with no independent reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Relisted 2 KB (292 words) - 07:41, 18 February 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassia Riley any other potential basis for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Relisted 1 KB (244 words) - 23:30, 13 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Dark scene-related, zero sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Note: This 1 KB (249 words) - 18:12, 12 May 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Ryan retailer to promote products it sells. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) What 5 KB (809 words) - 18:49, 26 April 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red King (novel) Cited in reference works, too. [4] [5] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Relisted 4 KB (646 words) - 19:01, 24 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Bangkok awards. No reliable/nonpromotional sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The sources 3 KB (529 words) - 12:40, 12 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Droke 2011 (UTC) Keep, appears to meet WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Delete 3 KB (576 words) - 03:27, 16 January 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm McKay provides useful content in problematic form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Keep 2 KB (365 words) - 01:35, 14 October 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D'Ass (3rd nomination) awards do not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Comment 7 KB (1,258 words) - 10:53, 17 June 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The November Criminals (2010 novel) strong keep per the reference found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, I'll keep an eye on the article 2 KB (259 words) - 14:11, 22 April 2011

Note: Content was condensed due to its length. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a WP:Topic ban is going to do it, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your thoughts? What would you recommend here? Cindy(talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I posted on Talk:Rachel Reilly (as 199.15.104.149 - my IP address as I forgot to log in, something I keep forgetting to do lately...full disclosure and all that) after seeing this on AN/I. I re-edited the article last night to remove the excessive tagging because, to put it bluntly, Carriearchdale is making a fine mess of things there. I don't know what her aim is but I suspect it's to muck up the article so much that it either gets deleted or to simply disparage the subject because of some personal dislike of her. I have no dog in this race as I don't even know who the subject is but a quick look at the history shows that Carriearchdale seemingly doesn't understand (or care) that we don't tag content with incorrectly dated fact tags that are followed by a source that clearly supports the preceding sentence and template the article with multiple issue tags, we don't tag obvious, non-contentious statements, we don't add "Scandal" sections about a subject's disagreement with her boyfriend supported by gossip sites and we don't scream "COI!!!" without giving some sort of proof for the claim. There are several issues at play here, the most obvious being WP:BLP violations, a lack of understanding about what a WP:RS is, civility issues and possibly WP:COMPETENCE. I think a block is in order if the edit warring, BLP violations, tag bombing and addition of dubious sources continue. If she can hold off on those, I still think she would benefit from a very patient mentor and a topic ban from Rachel Reilly and related articles. She needs someone to help her developed the capacity to work with others as her knee jerk reaction to my (admittedly curt) post was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, accuse me of acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and then she asked me if I was Jimbo (I wish but alas, no). She didn't address the content, the points I raised or even explain why she's tagging content that is already sourced. Even her response here is nonsensical. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm intensely concerned by the very bizarre attempts to boomerang this. There is no valid basis for any of the content under the "extended content" hatting, I have no idea who the IP is (and their argument is bordering on trolling, unless they're a sock), and Bob is a quite new editor. Carrie's comments about HW's blocklog are not relevant in this discussion, and are evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The combination of tag-bombing, invalid removal of citation needed tags, BLP violations and woefully inadequate edit summaries make me think that this user either needs a full topic ban from BLPs until they have satisfied a mentor that they will not engage in this kind of behaviour again, or just a blanket indefinite block under WP:CIR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see no weight whatsoever in the comments of the throwaway IP or the relatively new user "Bob the goodwin", and interesting to note that the subject of this ANI filing alsp leaps to goodwin's defense in his section below. I commented at the Reilly article last night, but so far no follow-up. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing good faith out the window, I think WP:DUCK applies to the IP commenting in this thread as well as Bob the goodwin's appearance here. Carrie has a tendency to answer/post with bullet points just like Bob. Both also have a healthy disregard for WP:BLP and neither will back down despite being told that contentious material needs to be impeccably sourced and we don't include every bit of tabloid fodder in an encyclopedia. The combativeness and the possible socking are enough for me to throw my suggestion of mentoring and topic banning out. This isn't an editor that will help the project or add anything to it except extra work for editors like Hullabaloo who try to keep the crap in pop culture article to a minimum. I know reality "stars" and Woody Allen aren't as important as truly controversial subjects like gun control, global warming or politics but the pop culture area of Wikipedia gets bombarded with this kind of POV warrior all the time. It's the kind of stuff that burned me out which is why I scaled back on editing myself. Carrie/Bob/whomever will lay low until the heat dies down and start again. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (resigned using account name as I forgot to log in. Again!)

• Yes, you have thrown good faith out the window in a really big way. My name actually is Bob Goodwin. Send me an email and I will reply with my name, address and if you insist my W2. I Will not speak for Carrie, but I have the strong opinion that she is female, and you are welcome to confirm by any means necessary that we are not the same person. I work in the software industry, and publish articles periodically. She is a publisher, but I do not know in what areas. In the spirit of throwing bad faith, I notice that since I backed up Carrie, that Wolf has started to post on talk pages against me. So Cabal paranoia seems to be overtaking Wikipedia. Please look at what is being proposed rather than assuming bad faith. If you think inexperience is playing a role, try writing a sentence drawing equivalence, and watch people change their mind. I change my mind every minute.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Bob" here accuses me of "start[ing] to post on talk pages" against him after he "backed up Carrie." My post to which he refers, on Talk:Ronan Farrow, was made at 00:38 this morning [146]. "Bob"'s post backing up Carrie was made at 1:47 this morning (see above), about an hour later. It's also worth mentioning that I've participated quite a bit on the general discussions on the Allen accusations, going back to mid-January. "Bob", please apologize for your misstatements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wolf is 100% correct, and I profusely apologize for a false accusation and my inability to read time. Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• rebuttal I agree with your concern about the burn out on editing. I do not agree that comments on ANI pages should exclude new editors. I also do not agree that that I have significant disregard for BLP. I have done exactly two edits in Ronan Farrow page (the biography is about Ronan, BTW, not Woody), the first edit was supported by an administrator on the BLP page as appropriate, and the second was to precisely respond to an experienced editors request. I have gotten ZERO feedback on any BLP violations except ad-hominem attacks. I am primarily a medical editor who is trying to learn the skills of controversial editing in an area with less importance (and zero importance to me, but I intend to see it through to its logical end, which could be as simple as an experienced editor with a calm voice saying: "bob, do X", which I will instantly). My position is well researched and your accusation is unfounded. As for my returning the favor to Carrie of reading the record and commenting, as we had previously tried to work together in another article. We have some established good faith, with exists broadly within Wikipedia editors, so can hardly be considered bad. I have read the transcript, and gave my opinion. You have chosen to attack the messenger with no assumption of good faith. I assume your good faith in wanting a good encyclopedia, but perhaps you might want to listen and see if there is a good argument being made by Carrie or I, and dispute the content on the basis of balance rather than assumptions. I doubt that you will find two more earnest editors than Carrie or I on Wikipedia, and if you want to attract more earnest editors Wikipedia should find ways to engage each of us on content rather than false accusation, misrepresentation, POV, or what you think our intent is. Wikipedia will die if it cannot find new voices and chooses to descend into a vacuous testosterone pit.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no one said new editors cannot comment on AN/I. What some people did observe was that the timing of your defense of Carrie seemed odd especially since you aren't involved in the editing of Rachel Reilly. Assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact and no one is bound to it eternally. So you're not Carrie's sock or vice versa - that's all you had to say. Also, three editors have attempted to engage Carrie and she hasn't responded. Listening, engaging and good faith is a two way street. I don't care if your voice is new and your ideas are revolutionary, we all have to play by the old boring rules if we want to edit here or we lose that privilege. I presume the rest of what you wrote has to do with what the Woody Allen et al debacle and has no place in this section. Let's not conflate the issues please. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am concerned that User:Carriearchdale has now offered to help with BLP and language/linguistic RFCs and sent a WikiLove message to a user blocked for socking over 2 years ago. WP:CIR and all that. Woodroar (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well on the last one there, the user probably meant to put the message on the page of User:Sportfan5000, and mistakenly inserted an "s". Let's not attribute malice to something that can be more easily explained as an error, or however the saying goes. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get back to the meat course here. The numerous walls-of-text and obfuscations added by Carriearchdale seem to have succeeded in taking peoples' eyes off the ball. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz laid out a number of assertions at the outset of this thread, supported by diffs. I find they do support his case that Carriearchdale has WP:COMPETENCE issues; misused automated tools to - very inaccurately - tag-bomb articles; failed to WP:AGF and engaged WP:IDHT mode when experienced editors raised concerns about her editing; has a very poor grasp of WP:RS with regard to BLP; has a very poor grasp of BLP policy (paying a 3rd party to access trivial criminal records in order to disparage a subject on a BLP! Fucking shocking.); and demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards the project. I'm in agreement with Woodroar also: this is an editor that is editing beyond the limits of their competence. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I have sat back a few days, and just listened to what was being said or posted here because I was hoping I might learn something new about how different people work together, or each give their opinion on some issue in hopes of coming to some semblance of an agreement or consensus. I am a general believer in the good faith in people, and hope that most people would set aside their prejudices, and preconceived notions about other persons, and let the weight of different things they were considering each have a due weight when they were figuring out which side of some issue they were going to vote on.

Unfortunately some, but certainly not all of the users/editors/admins who are here at wikipedia are acting with some sort of gang mentality and prejudice toward newly registered editors and or long time editors who may have more recently start to active edit here at wikipedia. I mean I was shocked to read one statement were one of the people insinuated that someone who had registered here only a few months ago, that that newer registrants' opinion on some issue such as these at the ani shouldn't have as much weight even in the voting of how many people are in support or against a certain issue. So in going by that sort of thinking, there should just be a mini paragraph at the top of this ani board letting some of the newer editors or users here that their opinion won't even be considered here until they have been registered and apparent actively editing for X number of months or they have X number of edits down on the wikipedia books.

To pretend that everything is "equal" here is such a big hypocritical mess, that no one would even believe it unless they the whole situation with their own eyes. The paranoia abounds around here to the point where one or two of the posters here were accusing me and Bob the Goodwin of being one person operating as sockpuppets??? OMFG!!! I wish Bob the Goodwin and I were one combined person because maybe then we could ask for some sort of lower combined tax rate from uncle sam! Actually I am quite honored that some of you were thinking Bob and I were alike in writing bullet points and whatever else was said and written here, because Bob the Goodwin is the most earnest writer and editor I have had the pleasure of working with on a few articles here. I read what Bob wrote up earlier in this list of postings and I do agree with him on at least one point that he spoke about.

Wikipedia itself has become a sad sad sad victim of the cesspool of mire and cultural rot caused by all the prejudicial actions taken as well as the gang mentality when all the troops are brought in to put their no or oppose down to somehow stuff the balance box and have the outcome be "what the popular kids want who have been here the longest." I mean really this all sounds like high school antics to me. If that the way it's going to be, at least be honest and upfront about. Post and paragraph and state which users will be pronounced to have been here long enough so that the other will let their vote count. It's called transparency people. But alas I fear dear wikipedia is too far gone already being sucked down into the infected mire of the cesspool of cultural rot it has become based on all the gang mentality, bullying, harassment, and prejudice among many other nasty, dirty, underhanded things that go on here. It really is a shame. Jimbo had a great idea here, but wikipedia is swirling away deeper and deeper into the cesspool of cultural rot. Wikipedia will soon die a slow and painful death...It is quite sad really, very sad indeed.....................

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Another irrelevant, diversionary, wall-of-text. Meanwhile, other editors are having to trail you with a mop. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that user that you say was mopping there was going around herself as part of the gang to articles I had edited long ago, and then she tag bombed the audy item article. I went back in after she tag bombed it, and fixed the issues she had tagged. So then she went right back to that article, and tag bombed it again. Obviously she never even read, or looked at the changes there, because there was a new lead written and several extra references had been added. But that is okay with me. She or anyone else can play whatever kind of games they want around here. It is all really quite amusing to me. I thought we had the goal of making an encyclopedia here, but I can see that many, but not all of you have your own issues, agendas, and persona vendettas to carry out, so go right ahead! You all seem to still be acting in the way I described in the paragraphs above. I really do not expect that anything will change here, but in the interim wikipedia is dying a slow horrifying death as it keeps slipping deeper and deeper into its' cesspool of cultural rot!!!

ciao!

Have a great day everyone!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A much bigger problem is the number of admins who abuse AGF to allow obvious trolls like this to continue for as long as they do. 199.47.72.58 (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to sit by and let the accusations stand against Carrie. She was obvious trailed by trolls, and the claims against her competence are outrageous, and entirely contrary to both the evidence and my experience. I was attacked by trolls for defending her, and when I protested, was ridiculed. Honest and competent editors need to get supportive voices, and I am willing to take the trash.Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Warning!

An editorial Blog from Lee Carroll

Co-Author of "The Indigo Children," "An Indigo Celebration," and "The Indigo Children Ten Years Later."

The interactive on-line encyclopedia called Wikipedia is not representing the Indigo Children subject accurately.

The whole idea of on on-line encyclopedia is actually a very good one, for the concept is that a collective informational base would always be better than even the best expert. That's what WIKIPEDIA is. It's an idea that has merit, in that there are many people who know a whole lot about things that others wouldn't know. The whole enclyclopedia is interactive, in that anyone can make changes to hopefully facilitate a greater knowledge-base for the planet. I celebrate the courage of those who have put this very popular website together.

Unfortunately the implementation of the editing process is filled with flaws. There is no way to verify the edits. In addition, if you are a knowledgeable person with good factual changes, others might have a bias that then erases the changes and creates an "editing war" of ideas. Some of these Wikipedia volunteers have nothing better to do than scan the pages of their bias interest, and constantly change things back to what they want them to say. They spend hours a day doing just that.

It would be great if Wikipedia had some kind of place where you could go to be validated as an expert, or an author, or to be checked out, but they don't. The logistics of this would take thousands of hours and the cost would be prohibitive. So we get what we get, and Wikipedia becomes a place that almost all educators know is flawed, and most teachers never recommend it for students, and will not accept it as a source in educational study or student reports.

source http://www.indigochild.com/wikipedia.html

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That blog post is irrelevant to this ANI. And you've copied enough of it to be borderline as a copyvio. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy

Dwy (talk · contribs) has been behaving disruptively on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura, defying consensus as to how we should represent the various origin theories of the poet. After a two-month-long debate, we had reached a rough consensus, only to have him turn a full 180 and reject the very position he had earlier been arguing for, apparently just to be disruptive. User:Shii[147] and User:Sturmgewehr88[148] have also taken note of this, and Sturmgewehr[149] at least agrees with me that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE of a politically-motivated user pretending to compromise when in fact there is no hope of compromise. He has been misrepresenting sources in order to get his POV across in the article ([150]: there is in fact no "consensus view" but rather several mutually-exclusive theories that Dwy has WP:SYNTHesized into a "consensus view" that in fact contradicts all of our sources) and completely changed his "view" of the subject after we agreed to include his POV in the article ([151]: he had previously said numerous times that "it is a fact that Okura was descended from the imperial family" but when I tried to include this in the article he suddenly changed his mind). He also flagrantly violated WP:RFC by posting a very non-NPOV lie in his opening comment in an RFC, thus biasing any third-party opinions.

As for the action I would like to see taken, I want a TBAN for Dwy for "links between Baekje and ancient Japan". It is pretty obvious that Dwy, having no genuine interest in or knowledge of this subject, is politically motivated by his dislike of modern-day South Korea (a fact borne-out by the fact that more than half of his article edits before this dispute related to geopolitical disputes between Japan and South Korea).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy is WP:NOTHERE. He initially fought against the adding of "Okura is from Baekje" (Torajin Theory), using the argument that the Shinsen Shojiroku says that "Okura is descended from the royal family" (Imperial Descent Theory). Once we reached consensus and were allowed to add Torajin Theory to the article, we also added Imperial Descent Theory to show both beliefs. Immediately, Dwy turned around and took the exact opposite stance, and began arguing that "Okura is not of imperial descent". This is just disruption at this point. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

His latest edit[152] also violates WP:POINT, inserting a request for a source into the article, when one is already given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that he is making the wording more specific, but instead using wording that implies SYNTH and says nothing about the subject is also not helpful. He appears to now have switched completely around again to join my stance that Okura is not mentioned in the Shinsen Shojiroku. Next time we try to accommodate his view he'll probably do another 180 and start claiming Okura was an alien. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sturmgewehr88:Obviously, I seem to have failed to make my position clear during the previous discussion, but I have never argued against the inclusion of Toraijin theory. Rather,I have been arguing for the inclusion of information on Shinsen Shojiroku. In my opinion, Shinsen Shojiroku is much more relevant than Toraijin theory.

At the same time, however, I have been saying that we must be very careful about what we say about Shinsen Shojiroku and that we have to make clear distinction between what is a fact and what is a tradition/legend. My position in this regard has always been:

1. The article should say “Shinsen Shojiroku recorded that the Yamanoue clan has the same ancestor as the Awata clan.”
2. The article should say “Shinsen Shojiroku recorded that the Yamanoue clan was descended from Emperor’s Kosho’s son.”
3. If we have to choose only one statement from 1and 2 above, we should choose 1, because the Awata clan is much more relevant than Emperor Kosho in the debates among the scholars.
4. The article can say “Based on Shinsen Shojiroku, scholars said that Yamanoue no Okura was descended from the Awata clan” because, in my opinion, this is the majority view of the scholars.
5. By the same token, the article can say “Yamanoue no Okura was said (based on Shinsen Shojiroku) to have descended from the Awata clan.”
6. However, the article cannot say “Based on Shinsen Shojiroku, scholars said that the Yamanoue no Okura was descended from the Emperor Kosho” because no mainstream scholar has advocated this.
7. By the same token, the article cannot say “Yamanoue no Okura was said (based on Shinsen Shojiroku) to have descended from the Emperor Kosho.”--Dwy (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (correction of inadvertent omissions --Dwy (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

• Here is a list of quotes compiled by User:Hijiri88 regarding Dwy's stance on the Shinsen Shojiroku. Notice that later quotes contradict earlier quotes:

Figure 2: Dwy quotes relating to the Shojiroku and Okura's imperial ancestry

Now let's see what Dwy thinks of the Shinsen Shojiroku: Shinsen Shojiroku, an official genealogical record compiled by the order of Emperor Saga some 80 years after Okura's death, registered Yamanoue clan as branched out of the Japanese Imperial family. This is a fact that all scholars agree."(16:00, 2 February 2014) Okura being a descendant of the Divinity is NOT a fact. A contemporary official record having registered his clan as a branch of the Japanese Imperial family IS.(11:10, 3 February 2014) Shinsen Shojiroku is the only primary historical text that directly records the origins of the Yamanoue clan, and no sensible scholar would disregard this fact in forming an argument. That Shinsen Shojiroku gives the Yamanoue clan as being related to the Ookasuga clan and being descended from Amatarashihikokunioshihito-no-mikoto is a fact that all sensible scholars recognize, and even if we are going to cite the toraijin theory, the first and most important thing for us to recognize is this fact. It is my opinion that, even on Wikipedia, we should start by citing Shinsen Shojiroku, and only discuss the toraijin theory and its counter-arguments below.(16:12, 5 February 2014) Little is known about the genealogical origins of Okura, the only extant record being Shinsen Shojiroku, which classified Yamanoue clan as "Kobetsu"(皇別), families having branched out from the Japanese imperial family, noting that the clan shares the same genealogical line with Okasuga (大春日) clan and descended from Amatarashihikokunioshihito no mikoto.(09:11, 6 February 2014) I started the passage by referring to "Shinsen Shojiroku" because that was exactly what Nakanishi did when he began the chapter in his book on the genealogy of Okura's family.(16:45, 7 February 2014) (Note that here Dwy claims that the reason he started the passage by referring to the Shinsen Shojiroku is that Nakanishi did, despite his previously having stated that we should be doing so, before ever having read Nakanishi's book.) And there is apparently some misunderstanding about "Shinsen Shojiroku." No sensible scholars seriously argue that Okura was descended from some legendary prince who we do not believe even existed. It is mentioned only because it is the only extant primary source directly covering the subject.(08:04, 8 February 2014) Aha! You've been thinking that I was trying to use Shinsen Shojiroku without reference to modern scholars. If that is your objection, I will go ahead to edit the article attributing every statement to modern scholar's[sic] work.(12:28, 8 February 2014) Little is known about the genealogical origins of Okura, the only extant record being a brief description in Shinsen Shojiroku, which listed Yamanoue clan as "Kobetsu" (皇別), families having branched out from the Japanese imperial family, noting that the clan shares the same genealogical line with Okasuga (大春日) clan and descended from Amatarashihikokunioshihito no mikoto. (12:30, 8 February 2014) Most scholars doubt that Emperor Kosho actually existed and nobody claims that Okura was a descendant of the imperial family now. (22:55, 18 February 2014) I may agree to the inclusion of "descendant of Emperor Kosho" if properly worded, but I don't think I will ever agree to the exclusion of "Kasuga/Awata clan" because (in my opinion) it is not only what was recorded in Shinsen Shojiroku, but also the consensus view among modern scholars including Nakanishi. As for Juzumaru's wording, I don't agree that Yamnoue clan actually "is descended from Emperor Kosho." It is a legend rather than a fact. Tradition has it that he was, but he was most likely not actually. It is something like we agree that Julius Caesar was said to have descended from Venus, but nobody believe it as a fact. (22:50, 19 February 2014)

in my opinion, this is the majority view among scholars In the space of a month, Dwy has found a total of THREE SCHOLARS who might hold this view. Two of these have been silent sice c.1985. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One

User:Lockean One is a single purpose account who has been engaged in protracted, wearying debate at Talk:Libertarianism since December.[153] Today, he edit-warred to remove all reference to capitalism from Libertarianism, a change which involved the removal of, by my count, 34 sources from the article.[154] In my experience, User:Lockean One does not cite sources, but rather explains how the article should be based on his own ideas of logic and history, some of which are idiosyncratic.[155] He claims that all of the sources (maybe 20?) which are cited for the left-libertarianism sections of the article are illegitimate or biased.[156] My understanding is that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, but to endlessly debate his own personal views on libertarianism. — goethean 22:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add, except that there's a previous ANI case of this editor warring on the same article, which resulted in a 24-hour block. Finx (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem goes beyond Lockean One, but he is definitely a top contributor. The Libertarianism article has been mired in ideological debate for some time—reasonably understandable considering the nature of the topic—to the point that consensus is essentially impossible. As goethean stated, Lockean One has a habit of misrepresenting capitalism and socialism and concluding that these views, authoritative in his mind, demand the removal of well-sourced material. He rarely brings forth reliable sources to support his views, and instead relies on claims that a socialist libertarianism is only evidenced by biased sources. I must admit I don't find this rationale persuasive, as he is more than happy to retain classical liberal sources talking about classical liberalism, but refuses to admit anarchist sources talking about anarchism. (These two terms—classical liberalism and anarchism—are alternates for the most popular currents called libertarianism and are often ideologically opposed, which is why so much vitriol exists on that page.) The impetus for this ANI was a mass removal of article content with a clear intention of feeding a feud with another user (User:Finx), who retaliated to Lockean One's aforementioned comments favoring the elimination of libertarian socialism from the article by demanding the removal of capitalist libertarianism (i.e. classical liberalism). I reverted Lockean One's mass deletion as it was blatantly fueled by petty vindictiveness, and received this note in the edit summary when I was reverted: "I'm not joking, mentioning capitalism is [un]necessary and Finx should undo it if the suggestion was not good faith." Honestly, I'm so disgusted by editor conduct on that page, from both sides of the debate, that I am leaving Wikipedia as soon as I finish a translation of the French article on Le Libertaire. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The talk page may not be the most appropriate venue for satire, but I'd hardly call a tongue-in-cheek proposal a feud or retaliation. I'd call it a joke, with a point in there somewhere. Whether on not the brand of libertarianism some editors want to evangelize can stake a claim to classical liberalism, this crusade to expunge disagreeable political views from the article has been going on for years, and I don't know why anyone entertains it when it offers nothing new to the discussion. I want to see an encyclopedia article and some other users apparently want to write a political brochure for the USLP. That makes things considerably more difficult than they need to be. Anyway, I hope you reconsider leaving. Finx (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One argues that only free market libertarians are real libertarians and therefore other libertarians should be removed despite the fact free market libertarians reference non-free market libertarians. Obviously a POV editor who has wasted our time for months. Recommend a ban on editing libertarian articles. TFD (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been a bit of a pseudo pseudo moderator there for about 3-4 years. The main decision that started quenching the flames 3-4 years ago was a decision to cover all (significant in sources) strands of libertarianism. The term has widely varying meanings, and there are lots of complicated debates, and people who want more coverage of their preferred type and less of others, but I don't think that there is any ongoing underlying conflict. The "flames" were more a tower of babel situation than an underlying conflict. People immersed in vastly different definitions of libertarianism each sincerely thinking that the definition that they know was the correct definition. The more recent activity started when Lockean One made what I thought was a pretty convincing case that libertarian socialism is socialism, not libertarianism. I ran the idea of dropping that sub-section explicitly up the flagpole (even including it in two edit summaries, and the article has about 950 watchers) and there were zero objections over 2-3 weeks. I then did the edit and was reverted, and then a substantive discussion ensued. While various general discussions of the topic occurred (which would be OR if put in article space but not out of line for a talk page) in the end Lockean One's argument was not an unsourced assertion, but that persons arguing to keep it were making an unsourced assertion (that libertarian socialism is a form of libertarianism.) IMHO sufficient arguments for keeping it were made where I now believe it should be kept, so now I do not agree with Lockean One on how it should end up, but do not consider their arguments to be mis-behavior. A new (now admitted to be a wp:pointy in response volley) suggestion was made by Finx and Lockean One went with it (or a part of it) and made one edit which I think had some merit / a good point (that pro-capitalism is permitted by but not an element of significant libertarian philosophies) that was a bigger and bolder edit than I would have done, and they went to 2RR trying to keep it in, (and MisterDub went further to (but not past) 3RR to undo it). I do not see what they have been doing overall as "reporting level" out of line Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick comment, North8000... you say that Lockean One made a "convincing case that libertarian socialism is socialism, not libertarianism," but I think this betrays a deep misunderstanding you two have of libertarian socialism; it is socialism, but it is also libertarianism—in the original sense of the term, no less. Anarchism is the libertarian side of socialism, as opposed to the authoritarian socialism of Marxism and its variants (Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc.). American individualists called attention to this difference, stating that "the fact that State Socialism during the last decade or two has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea." (Benjamin Tucker, 1897. Instead of a Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One.). "After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." (Sacco, Nicola and Vanzetti, Bartolomeo, 1928. The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti.). In other words, this libertarianism, up until the modern American movement appropriated the term, was necessarily socialist in nature. Murray Rothbard acknowledges this fact in The Betrayal of the American Right: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ... 'Libertarians,' in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...". -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, thank you very much for that! I guess two things added complexity. One was that my comment was referring to the moment 2-3 weeks ago when the conversation was much more limited. The second is that I guess (at least in the US) "Socialism" has picked up a common meaning which is different than it's technical meaning, basically that of (or limited to) country-level implementations of socialism in modern times. That might even be the cause of the disagreement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

North8000, I think that is exactly the cause of this disagreement, and were I able to locate Lockean One's first posts—before he was a registered user—I would quote him here to illustrate this. As I stated in my initial comment above, he "has a habit of misrepresenting capitalism and socialism" by equating them with voluntary exchange and domineering economic control, respectively. As for the "explicit" call for comments regarding the deletion of this material, no new section was ever made to specifically discuss this. It was appended to a previous discussion that had severely waned, and no one but you and Lockean One were paying attention to it anymore. Hence, it actually was a surprise when the material was removed. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This quote from Lockean One demonstrates well his bias and intentions with the article:

The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. ... It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition.

— Lockean One, as IP 166.147.72.36 [[157]]

Sorry, it took me so long to find this; the conversation was hatted for violating WP:FORUM, which prolonged my search. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I ended up disagreeing with Lockean One (and thus with my own original edit) over inclusion/exclusion of the material, (and think that that item is settled) but do not consider it to be misbehavior to argue otherwise, particularly since that argument is valid under one common meaning of the term socialism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You think it's okay to edit war over the removal of 30+ sources from the article, because one party believes that they are biased? Because that's what User:Lockean One did. — goethean 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the removal of the "libertarian socialism" subsection, or of the capitalism related edit related to the section that Finx started? North8000 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a "common meaning of the term"; it's a wrong interpretation, used by people ignorant of what it means. We shouldn't be promoting ignorance on Wikipedia. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Common meanings/uses are and are what create definitions  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If an administrator would like my input on something specific above, please let me know. Otherwise, it would seem that the profound confusion of goethean and MisterDub here (and on the Libertarianism talk page) is fairly obvious (assuming honest confusion instead of purposeful deception), and the false statements above need not all be refuted one by one. Sincerely, Lockean One (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Empire of War

User talk:Empire of War has been reverting the article Forced adoption in Australia

See below (all times UTC)

• 07:06 7 Mar 2014
• 07:09 7 Mar 2014
• 13:06 7 Mar 2014
• 13:16 7 Mar 2014

These are clear reversion, but there are actually a number of edits in between that technically could be described as reverts, and certainly edit warring, but I have not bothered to provide those diffs since I think what I have here is enough.

I first reverted the user here, advising him to take it to the talk page, explaining here and here what was wrong with the article and why I had removed the excessive references at a single point in the lead (10 refs!) The next time I reverted I advised EoW that another revert would earn a trip here and advised EoW not to exceed 3RR in this article talk page post. EoW does not seem to understand how 3RR works and the edit summary to his last post makes it clear that he intends to continue reverting. Hence we are here. I recommend he receive a 24 hour block with escalating periods if he continues down the same path. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Nick I followed all your advice and we settled it on the talk page where you told me my edit was okay but I shouldn't have so many references in the opening, which I took on HiLo48's advice. So whats the problem exactly?--Empire of War (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I have just reverted another edit by HiLo as he continues to stoke the flames by saying, "read the advice you were given". What advice? I've followed everything, and have asked repeatedly on what grounds do they have to revert my edit? Both HiLo and Nick Thorne have failed to answer me. I gave credible references but that apparently was not good enough for HiLo so I now suspect he is pushing a personal bias in the article.--Empire of War (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Empire of War and User:HiLo48 both blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have appealed my block and been unblocked, and I now have a simple question. I was never advised of the existence of this thread, and so was unable to even attempt to explain or defend my behaviour here. Was my block EVER valid? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

People are required to inform someone when discussing them on AN//I and if someone notices a lack of such notification they should carry it out or ask the person who made the comments o make it. But there's no requirement a person be given the opportunity to respond before most blocks. So the lack of notification doesn't invalidate most blocks just as someone sleeping or in a hospital during a discussion. (Exceptions would be stuff like a block for being unresponsive.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Block review

I've moved this from the "Review of my actions" section down below. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I blocked User:HiLo48 for edit warring at Forced adoption in Australia. The original report on this is at #Edit warring by Empire of War. Although they've now been unblocked, they've complained to me on their user page and seem, to me at least, really quite unhappy with my actions. As I'm still relatively new at being an admin and they've been around a long tine I'm asking for a review to see if my actions were reasonable so I can possibly do things different in future. Dpmuk (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's a difficult situation. On the one hand, it is edit warring. On the other, it is reverting a very misguided edit (diff) made by an inexperienced editor. In a case like that I would recommend protecting the article and strongly warning the participants. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Blocking someone who has edit warred is within the realm of what admins do. You've done nothing wrong. Could you have handled it differently? Sure. Would it have been better? What is better? Of course he's pissed; you blocked him. People who get blocked tend to get angry exactly 100% of the time. If people don't want to be blocked, getting unhappy isn't the solution. The solution is to not commit actions that they knew before they committed them can get them blocked. You could have done what Johnuniq said, and that would have been fine too. But you've done nothing wrong by blocking either. --Jayron32 02:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I should add that the edit warring was also misguided—all experienced editors should know that the edit in question does not satisfy WP:VAND or any other policy that exempts from 3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know blocked editors get angry, and I wouldn't have brought it here for just that. The reason I asked for review in this case is that there seemed, to me at least, to be an implication that I acted outside of policy and/or our norms. Dpmuk (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd agree with Johnuniq. You didn't do anything wrong, your action was quite within policy, and I don't remember any community norms that would condemn your action. At the same time, I'd advise against such an action in the future, for more-practical reasons. Blocks are best applied when everyone's misbehaving equally, especially with a one-on-one edit war, e.g. the edit war of 23 June 2009 here. When it's more than two people, blocks-all-around generally aren't best: two people are more of a consensus than one, so a block for just the one may be appropriate (assuming that neither side is violating policy majorly), or protection may be best. I guess the biggest thing in my mind is that all participants "lose" when blocks-all-around are applied (the block log is expanded), while a protection log entry and a usertalkpage warning don't have the same longtime-obvious effect. I'd be tempted to protect immediately upon seeing a more-than-two-person war, and then unprotect-and-block if only one or two people deserved a block. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay, so now I realise that you didn't block Nick. What I said about blocks-all-around I also say about blocks purely for 3RR/editwarring: I don't think that a block for HiLo was the best idea (although completely within policy) because of the circumstances, so I think I would have protected in this situation rather than blocking anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Block was fine. I especially don't like that HiLo was communicating with the other editor in edit summaries, and claims that was an appropriate way to explain issue. WP:DR exists for a reason, and "believing something has become vandalism" does not mean it is vandalism. On the other hand, I'm fine with the unblock DP 10:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues on WP:MOS-JA

Ryulong (talk · contribs) has been behaving very badly on this guideline page for a very long time and I'm not the first to notice it. You can look at the entire page history and see him liberally adding/removing material himself, but demanding that everyone else get "consensus" on the talk page first ("consensus", unfortunately, seems to mean permission from him despite the consent of everyone else[158][159]). I could cite legion examples of him opposing changes just for the sake of opposing them (not providing any other justification), but for me the breaking point was "Ah ah ah: you need my permission before you're even allowed touch this page; I on the other hand am allowed introduce radical changes on a whim". It might be worth noting that a currently still-open RM is affected by this, and while Ryulong appears not to agree with me on that RM he decided that radically altering the relevant guideline page would be more constructive than directly opposing the move. For good measure, he also decided to revenge-revert me on a completely unrelated article at the same time.[160] (His edit summary claimed to only be reverting a separate edit by a separate user three weeks earlier, but he chose to revert said edit hours after mine, and "accidentally" got my edit too.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have engaged in talk page discussion on all relevant issues. Reverting undiscussed changes to WP:MOS-JA, particularly in a recent case still somewhat under discussion on the guideline's talk page where another editor removed a large swath of the content with no preceding discussion, is not WP:OWN. If my rewriting of existant parts to be clearer in their intent without changing the meaning is improper, then I will accept that judgement. I have raised a question regarding the old wording and the new wording I implimented on the guideline's talk page. However, I believe that Hijiri88 is grasping at straws here with the remainder of his arguments.

His reference that I was "opposing changes just for the sake of opposing them" was in regards to Nanshu's arguments for changing the guideline that are peppered with ad hominem attacks towards me that still take up a good portion of the guideline's talk page. I have admitted that I refused to acknowledge his statements at first due to their excessive length and because he repeatedly called into question my intelligence, as well as a false assumption that I was the original author of the content that he so opposed. However, I have since acknowledged the arguments and put forth an alternative that appears to have acceptance by other parties. Hijiri88, on the other hand, has blatantly admitted he would oppose anything I've suggested simply because he believes I am violating WP:OWN, which is a definite WP:POINT threat.

And I did not "revenge revert" Hijiri88 at New Ishigaki Airport. I intended to revert Jpatokal's use of an improper romanization and I just went back several revisions because undo would not work. Either way, that reference that Hijiri88 removed seems useful, as it seems to be sourcing the fact that the unofficial name of the airport is in use.

I would gladly like to solve this issue amicably, but Hijiri88 has already made up his mind about me and I've no use in dealing with someone who refuses to assume good faith like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You make an average of like 100 edits a day: why did it take you weeks to revert Jpatokal but you just happened to do so less than hours after I edited the page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And again: I wanted to resolve this issue amicably (I think I even had the good faith to tell Ryulong my real name in an email a few months back), but after a full year Ryulong's position of "my changes don't need to be discussed, but everyone else's need not only to be discussed but to be approved by me" has only gotten worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't have New Ishigaki Airport watchlisted and didn't see the implimentation of "paï nu sïma" until yesterday. It may have been because I saw you edit the page through your contributions, but your deletion of a single ref tag really doesn't weigh much in the scope of things. And what does your fight with JoshuSasori have to do with this mess?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. That's why if you re-read my comments carefully and thoroughly you will find that I did not mention him once. You went back and read my e-mail to you, and published that particular piece of information from it. I would ask you not to publish anything else that was in that e-mail, or my aforementioned good faith will wear even thinner than it already has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not like the JoshuSasori dispute is secret.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to intimidate me by bringing up completely unrelated bullshit, it's not going to work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that the last user to insert random references to that guy into unrelated discussions in order to intimidate me wound up getting indefinitely blocked (his word was "lynched"). I don't want Ryulong to be blocked. I want either a TBAN or 1RR on MOS-JA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LittleBenW got blocked for violating a topic ban and had nothing to do with your dispute with him. Your mention of him is definitely "trying to intimidate me by bringing up completely unrelated bullshit". Neither TBAN nor 1RR are necessary just because you and Nanshu disagreed with portions of the page and took matters into your own hands to impliment massive changes that have been opposed. My proposals in both cases have since gained the approval of other uninvolved editors in any capacity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my all mistake but solve my articles issues

But why my all articles have issues?I deleted all copy rights and also i deleted these websites,so please my humble request to you admin make clear all issues,and delete these all tags and deletion nomination.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This thread is related to the above thread titled Balochi tamur & Thbaluch. -- SMS ^Talk 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reporting an administrator

Commons matter, not relevant to English Wikipedia

After being accused by administrators Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 for being already engaged in known license laundering, I requested explanation on his User talk:Magog the Ogre and leave the following message: To accuse someone of license laundering is a serious matter. I find photos with appropriate license(CC BY-SA 3.0) and then upload them, no more no less ! I do not contest the images validity but if someone have to be accused of License laundering address your concern and warning to the panoramio and flick users not me! I did not find any rules that said that prior to upload a file with a valid license(CC BY-SA 3.0), I must go through extensive research. If I am wrong prove it, otherwise review your wording as I find it extremely offensive, totally unjustified especially when it comes from an administrators who obviously do not respect one fundamental: USER GOOD FAITH ! Fredtham59 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Then surprise. Administrator Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron make a clear threat: The above user is apparently trying really hard to get blocked for license laundering. This is a serious breach of WP:ADMIN Wikipedia:Civility WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL conduct. Furthermore : Commons:License laundering make it clear that license laundering is not my fault since such uploads may evade detection as copyright, since the source website appears to provide "evidence" for the license. I do not contest license laundering I contest of being wrongly accused of license laundering. I also tried my best to explain why I have reason to not suspect "license laundering" prior to upload the files hereCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 following an invitation on my talk page. Administrator are expected to be fair, exercise good judgment. Visibly we do not have the same concept of "Fairness" Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others WP:NOTPERFECT. Does the treat he made should be regarded as respectful and civil ? Harassment"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats". Are administrators above wikipedia policy ? Although I do not care on the photo outcome, since the administrator leave the treat message on a user talk page involved with the dispute resolution, there is a clear COIWP:CONFLICTand WP:NPOV for both users Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron within the consensus-forming process. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but that right is denied, before I can explain myself I am already labeled as guilty of license laundering. WP:ADMINABUSE I did follow the procedure by leaving a message on his talk page, he had time to make treat on other user talk page but can't respond to my polite request.Administrator are expected to give explanations and be communicative as necessary Wikipedia:Administrators. It seems that this administrator have little concern with that. I am not asking much: My right to participate to the dispute resolution without treat of being banned. Be fairly treated, unless an other administrator will make the final decision, I have good reason it will not be the case. Reword template and conversation that said "This user" by " the photos author" Formal apologize from the administrator. Best Regards Fredtham59 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC) @Fredtham59: I can't seem to find the discussions you're talking about. Are you sure they aren't occurring on Commons, rather than here on the English Wikipedia? If they are on Commons, you'll have to take it up on Commons directly; we can't do anything here about the behavior of editors on other projects. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Ok thanks and my sincere apologize for this mistake Fredtham59 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User removing Speedy Deletion Template on page they created

User:Kamie256 has repeatedly removed a speedy deletion template from Kamie Jimmie King, a page they created. The page does not seem to meet the guidelines for notability and is ridden with poor grammar, external links, and badly formatted references. Evidence of the removals can be found here, here, here, and here. Also, judging by the user name, and the fact that they have only edited that page, they may be attempting to create an autobiography. G S Palmer (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article, it was an odd mix where the creator was taking pains to promote the subject yet at the same time failing to assert the subject's importance. I agree that it was likely an autobiography due to the preponderance of candid images and the unlikelihood that the subject is well-known enough for someone unconnected to him to be inspired to write it. -- Atama頭 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I also deleted the redirect (the article had been moved from its initial name). I'm normally pretty forgiving about A7 criteria, because it's a pretty low bar to clear, but this was not enough even for me. -- Atama頭 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I just G11ed his userpage, since he pasted what was in the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User page was speedy deleted, but user has created it again. I've tagged it again. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching this page, and the SPA who has popped up in support. Leave it with me, and I'll do whatever needs to be done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles

To whom this may concern,

I apologize to have to bring this incident to your attention, but while I was doing some edits on behalf of WP:MDP, I found that Talking bird was listed on the page. Before I did any substantial edits to that page, or related pages, I noticed that there was a dispute happening in regards to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Talking bird". Since I was not one to boldly determine this term's primary topic, the only edits I did for the time being were cleaning up the disambiguation page A and editing a few hatnotes due to no primary topic being established B, C, and D (revert of my hatnote edit due to what I am about to state.)

The reason I performed the edit in diff "C" was due to JHunterJ reverting the non-consensus based move from Talking bird to Talking bird (mimic) - E. The original non-consensus move was performed by CYl7EPTEMA777 - F. This move was performed without consensus, and there is currently a related discussion on Talk:Talking Bird (mimic) that has yet to conclude. In addition, there is currently an AfD discussion for Talking bird (cognition) happening.

Even with all of these events happening right now, mainly in regards to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, CYl7EPTEMA777 has been performing a series of disruptive edits on Talking bird, Talking bird (disambiguation), and Talking bird (mimic). In a situation such as this, I am aware that the standard procedure is to kindly inform the editor of the disruptive editing on their talk page. However, this editor went out of their way to "threaten me with an "unlimited block" on my talk page", as shown in the following diff: G, and then seemingly seemed to mention/threaten other users with a block in the next diff: H. So that all editors' names in that diff are listed, here they are: DrChrissy, Johnuniq, Kurt Shaped Box, Boomur, Epipelagic, and Dbrodbeck.

After reviewing the conversation on Talk:Talking bird (mimic), it looks like CYl7EPTEMA777 has threatened a block at least once already. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that CYl7EPTEMA777 also has problems understanding Wikipedia copyright policy - for example the paragraph entitled 'Aimee Morgana' here [161] is a direct copy-paste from the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[162]

(after edit conflict) CYl7EPTEMA777 has threatened to get people banned in the past for little to nothing. I told him to knock it off at least once. See Talk:Talking_bird_(mimic)#mimic_vs_utter_in_lead_sentence for the background to this. As far as I know, English is his second language, and I suspect that there have been communication issues here. Also of relevance is an IP editor who has issues with User:DrChrissy in the past (not sure of the full details) posting on CYl7EPTEMA777's talkpage with allegations about DrChrissy's 'gang' of POV/COI-pushers - which CYl7EPTEMA777 appears to have accepted and run with, I think leading him to believe that every editor not with him on the issue of talking bird cognition must be working against him in a coordinated manner. Hence the list of names posted on Steel1943's page tonight... For the record, I am not a member of DrChrissy's gang - should any such gang in fact exist, or otherwise. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no gang....Honestly! Please can we drop any reference to this complete falsehood or the IP hopping Troll will pop up again creating work for us all. ...and I for one am on the verge of leaving wikipedia bcause of the sustained and unwarranted attention.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to Kurt Shaped Box's very peculiar assertion, I would like to counter-assert that, for the record, I am not a member of Kurt Shaped Box's gang - should any such gang in fact exist, or otherwise. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I returned the Talking bird (mimic) article to the base name again, and move-protected it for 2 weeks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CYl7EPTEMA777 has been causing a large number of problems at a few articles. He/She has a poor grasp of English (see [163] for example). This editor has accused a number of editors of being sock puppets of each other, with no evidence [164] for example, oh and in that same edit he or she has edited another user's comments on an AFD. He or she has used non helpful or descriptive edit summaries such as [165]. There is a complete lack of civility (the user continually calls user DrChrissy 'DogChrissy' which stokes me as uncivil [166], or see [167]. I propose an indefinite block, there is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE and this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, user DrChrissy was also threatened with "unlimited ban" by CYl7EPTEMA777 [168]. Additionally, Johnuniq was individually accused of sock-puppetry on an earlier occasion [169]. CYl7EPTEMA777 admitted that their English was too poor to write a full article alone [170], but ignored advice from other users after writing up a draft in their sandbox, which they went on to publish. Also, having been accused of being in cahoots with DrChrissy and other editors, I would like to go on record saying I have had no contact with the other editors involved with the exception of our discussion on public talk pages related to the Talking bird dispute. It's not really clear to me what CYl7EPTEMA777's intentions are, but regardless of whether or not they are trying to be constructive, they do not seem willing to cooperate with other editors. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to recommend. CYl7EPTEMA777 does not have enough English to participate adequately, and it's hard to tell whether that may explain the inappropriate commentary on other editors. However, one helpful thing done by CYl7EPTEMA777 is that they have not attempted to restore attacks on another editor made by an IP hopper—attacks that I and others have removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking over their edits, they appear to have competency issues and I believe serious behavioral issues Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CYl7EPTEMA777. I am One of Many (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See the thread farther down: I've blocked CYl7EPTEMA777 indef for a repeat of the behavior outlined in this thread and for other issues, including implicit endorsement of attacks from the Australian IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Useitorloseit

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.

---

Do we have any mop holders who want to volunteer to follow this editor around and tell them not to stick their finger in a light socket? or do we just let them stick their finger in the socket and quietly inter the remains? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is just about WP:BLPCRIME? The subject of this BLP blogs himself about his arrest, but there is no secondary or third party source to confirm that he was ever convicted? Per BLPCRIME this would suggest that it ought not to be included. However, I can see that the significance of the incident may be larger than the incident itself: the topics he writes about, the history of his education, involvement in any issues that touch on life in a particular neighbour if you are a particular ethnic background, etc. may make the incident significant in his development. It could, I suppose, be included as a directly attributed comment from the subject that he got in trouble at school, and then as an attributed comment rather than a "fact" would it fall outside BLP?

In the mean time, to address your question, the user is certainly operating against current consensus and bordering on WP:POINT. The trouble is, everyone is involved. The content issue in my first paragraph is for discussion somewhere other than AN/I. The basic disruption, well. I might message the user. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left the user a message, possibly in the mould of WP:ADOPT I could discuss calmly with him the ins and outs of the situation, without the user resorting to ironing out the issues while wielding the revert button on the article, while the rest of us wield the ban-hammer around the place (note: I'm not being critical of anyone, just using colourful metaphors!) I think there is a point of BLPCRIME that I alluded to above that I'd like to work through with this user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:41, 8 March 2014 (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:2024 Manila Olympics

2024 Manila Olympics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inappropriate (promotional?) username with an inappropriate userpage, creating inappropriate articles, considering the 2024 Games have not been awarded to any country and will not until 2017. Not sure if this requires a block, speedy of the userpage, MFD, username change or all of the above. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for title blacklist override

(please  mention me on reply) Not sure where to request this. Can someone create the following redirects?

• Lᵖ → Lp space {{R from Unicode}}
• ℓᵖ → Sequence space#ℓp spaces {{R from Unicode}} {{R to section}}

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist seems to dislike the "ᵖ" character. Keφr 06:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (Yay, my first post to ANI!)

@Kephir:  Done. 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, Lᵖ space and ℓᵖ space could be created as well. Keφr 09:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kephir:  Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

BetterThanSuchAsYou here to help?

Take 2 - We have an editor (User talk:BetterThanSuchAsYou) that despite a previous block for editwaring and the concerns raised by multiple editors by way of reverts and talk page discussions is still adding the exact same content over and over at Culture of Canada and Template:Culture of Canada sidebar. Its very concerning that they are claiming consensus with edit summaries like "pls we have a discussion here with most of the contributors being agreeable to this & that's where we're working it through" and "mplementing outcome that pornography be not classified under 'arts'" yet there is no such outcome. What can be done here? Do we just keep reverting every day or can real action be taken here? Is this person here to help.... Culture of Canada: Revision history. -- Moxy (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Questionable content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Legendary bisexual Canadian porn cock "woodsman" and auteur Peter North Main articles: Pornography in Canada and Child pornography laws in Canada Pornography is viewed somewhat universally by Canadian males. Children of the youngest age may own or possess pornography, though the sale of hardcore pornography is permitted in Canada to anyone of the age of 18 (19 in some provinces) only. No specific laws control distribution of pornography. Some over-the-air television stations often broadcast softcore pornographic films after midnight whilst hardcore films air on a channel operated by The Movie Network. In addition, pornographic films are advertised and publicly shown to adults. The courts in Canada have occasionally come to the aid of the purveyors of artistically meritorious child pornography. References

Despite re-adding the same content over and over several times he/she only edited the talk page of the article once, with no consensus whatsoever. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The editor helped generate a lively and (in my opinion) interesting discussion on the talk page of the article, so what they should have done was participate in the discussion or at least wait for a consensus to be reached before implementing changes. Continuously re-adding the material while discussion is ongoing is disruptive, and they've breached WP:3RR, so I've blocked them for 48 hours. I'll leave a note that if they promise to stop re-adding the content, and especially if they want to participate in the discussion, I'll consider unblocking them, otherwise they will stay blocked for a couple of days while the discussion proceeds. I can't quite tell if they're here to improve the encyclopedia, maybe this will help show it. -- Atama頭 19:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of NFCC

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.

---

Censorshipwiki (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added non-free media to User:Censorshipwiki/ Ultras Dynamo in violation of WP:NFCC#9. They where warned several times and have refused to communicate. At this point a block is needed until the user confirms that they will abide by NFCC#9. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2014 (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.

Salt Warx2 please

Hello, could an Admin please delete and SALT Warx2... It's being recreated too many times recently by Guputa1111 (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppet Lioness00 (talk · contribs). I have opened up a SPI case too. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to speedily delete the film in its current state. It's not overly promotional, it doesn't contain information copied from the production company's web site, it credibly asserts importance, etc. I doubt it would survive AfD but you'd have to start (another) one first. If deleted via AfD, any recreation could be speedily deleted per G4.

As for sockpuppetry, that's a whole different issue altogether. -- Atama頭 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama:It was at AfD already, AfD and the result was Speedy Delete. JMHamo (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the AfD was canceled because the article was eligible for speedy deletion at that time, since it was basically a copy of the web site. Afterwards, the article was recreated with original language so that it was ineligible. If the AfD had concluded as usual then further recreation of the page that didn't address the concerns at the AfD would be eligible for a G4 speedy deletion (recreation of a page deleted via discussion) and persistent recreation would probably necessitate salting it. But if an article is recreated and changed to no longer have the same problems it had before, then speedy deletion isn't an available option.

I think the article should be deleted, if no AfD is started I'll probably start one myself. It looks like someone using Wikipedia to promote their film, to try to generate attention by having it here, which is backwards; something must be notable first before it merits an article. -- Atama頭 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you send it to AfD again then please. Thank you! JMHamo (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been done. -- Atama頭 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

86.27.22.111

Please review/block Special:Contributions/86.27.22.111 ** WARNING: NSFW ** . Thanks. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 183.89.4.6 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

---

Dear administrators, I hereby request a ban on User:Gįs Contismalter for the following reasons:

• Personal attacks. (please see the image file attached)
• Constant edit-warring, trolling and vandalism of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

User:Gįs Contismalter has repeatedly showed vandalizing behaviour by maliciously adding false information to an article knowingly it is not true, getting involved in edit wars with other editors (violating the WP:3RR in the process), while ignoring instructions / advice given by an (involved) administrator, User:Mjroots.

Please take this matter into consideration. Thank you. --Mark Chung (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indefinitely by User:DragonflySixtyseven. Mark, I'd recommend filing a complaint at Commons also if you haven't done so yet (unless there's a Commons admin reading this who can also take appropriate action there). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

might I make a request to look at the other 2 people too (User:Kage Acheron and User:Thecodingproject).they kept removing each others post and "fighting" to be honest it was an absolute mess. should I drop them a note about this post? Redalert2fan (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I was only trying to undo the vandalism and call Gis out on his unsourced claims and inconsistencies. I apologize for any mess created or problems caused. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Having taken a break for several years, I am now unfamiliar with the procedures of reporting to a Commons admin. Can you please show me how I should so it? Thanks. --Mark Chung (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it's been done for you. Images deleted and Gįs has been blocked on Commons. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's beyond me why not such displayed level of malevolene does not lead to immediate permanent block, rather than indefinite.Arildnordby (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but permanent and indefinite both mean forever, or am I missing something ? Redalert2fan (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, "indefinite" is "permanent, unless you are able to convince Wikipedia you've changed"Arildnordby (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So I did misunderstand it, well thank you for clarifying. It totally agree with you, however im getting a little off topic now. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (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.

2014 Olympics Figure Skating Pages

This relates to the following 2 pages:-

1. Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics

2. Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

These 2 pages contain large amounts of opinion related content pertaining to the outcome of the ladies figure skating competition at the 2014 Olympics. Essentially, it is the view of supporters of the skater, Kim Yuna, that Kim Yuna should have won - not Adelina Sotnikova (the actual winner). Unfortunately, Kim Yuna has a considerable number of highly extreme supporters (known as "Yunabots"). Since the Olympic ladies competition, these Yunabots (90% of whom are from Kim Yuna's home country of South Korea) have gone to extreme lengths to try and get the result overturned (unsuccessfully). These activities have included death threats, extreme abuse targeted at Adelina Sotnikova herself and Russia as a country, and other highly obnoxious behaviour.

In terms of the 2 pages referred to above, they have essentially been hijacked by Yunabots. They contain a considerable amount of pro-Kim Yuna related opinion which quite clearly breaches wikipedia neutral POV policies. The two pages in question were compiled specifically as a results page as you will note from the equivalent pages from the 2010 Olympics (Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics & Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles). As a results based page, they are not supposed to contain opinion related content. Normally, where there are controversial results, a separate page would be created (i.e. in this case, for example, it could be something like: "The 2014 Olympics Ladies Figure Skating controversy"). with appropriate links to other relevant pages. That would separate out the controversy from the results pages. As a figure skating fan, I find the results pages invaluable - but they should not be contaminated by the controversy, which can addressed separately elsewhere.

Although there should be a separate page dealing with the controversy, the page would still need to conform to wikipedia standards in terms of a neutral point of view (i.e. well sourced, and containing both sides of the argument). At the moment, its all been hijacked by the Yunabots as they have been conducting a highly aggressive campaign and have removed all opposing points of view. Hence, clearly, the page would need to be well monitored.

In terms of the 2 results pages, to keep them as purely results pages, I think the controversial content should be removed and transferred to the new page in question (with the content in the new page rewritten to conform to wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements). I think the results pages should then be locked for a period until the attempts by Yunabots to hijack the pages abates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresthatpenguin (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've refactored your message to include wikilinks instead of URLs. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be glib, Wheresthatpenguin, but is there anything stopping you from removing that content and creating a new Wikipedia article for the "controversy" content? Admins can respond to your request to protect the page but I think few will volunteer to rewrite an article and you clearly know a lot about the subject. I say, bring up the subject on the article talk page and go for it! These fans of Yuna may disagree about the content but they might not object to a separate article from the results page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to create a controversy fork, see Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Criticism. Users should discuss on the talkpage and hopefully come to some sort of consensus. I see Discospinster is watching the articles, fortunately, and has blocked one revert warrior. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC).

User:DIREKTOR again...

This is the second time I am posting a notice about this user and again regarding his behavior the same pages he seems to think he owns. The discussion spans for almost over two months now, main contentious issue being wheter Kingdom of Croatia was in personal union with the Kingdom of Hungary or not. There are large number of sources confirming the view of the mainstream historiography (both Croatian and Hungarian) that the personal union is in fact the best way to describe the relationship. There are also 5-6 sources which mention the dispute but they all also affirm that there was some kind of union whether it be personal or dynastic union or something else, but nevertheless that Croatia was not part of Hungary but a separate legal entity with large amount of autonomy. There is also a source which explicitly states that the view of mainstream Hungarian legal historiography is that Croatia and Hungary were in personal union, most similar to that of England and Scotland prior to Act of Union 1707. Now we achieved some sort of compromise by removing the wording personal from personal union only leaving union as an ambiguous term. I have personally made notes, linked the term union to List of personal unions#Croatia (disputed) and the other user (User:Tzowu) recently introduced a small link under it leading directly to the section elaborating on the matter. Needless to say all don't seem to satisfy the said user besides his own and only his own POV. Neither lead paragraph nor the status in the infobox mentioned personal union in any manner whatsoever. That somehow again provoked DIREKTOR and now he considers even that contentious and started another edit-war on both Kingdom of Croatia (925–1102) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Croatia in the union with Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), completely reverting all changes without any valid discussion prior and certainly by no consensus. Now the other user is not completely innocent in all this (I personally have backed down almost two months ago now) but it should be clear that it is the user in question here that I consider is the main solicitor of these recent events and edit-wars. He even resorts to blatant sockpuppetry accusations without any proof. Also this was his reaction when I warned him about WP:EW on his page and he then proceeded to post this as some sort of retaliation or whatever he thinks he was doing there. The reason why I am posting in here is because I am not sure whether this belongs under WP:3RR or just blatant violation of WP:ARBMAC. Only by looking in how many disputes this user has been and how many times he was reported here I believe it should be about time someone actually does something about this users blatant WP:OWN, WP:HEAR and his constant Edit Warring all over the place. Shokatz (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Direktor and the other editor he was edit warring with were reported to WP:ANEW and I blocked both before I saw this thread. My block should not be taken as an indirect endorsement of this complaint. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Shokatz, it looks like the immediate problem of edit warring has been inadvertently addressed but this looks like a dispute over content and weighing of source material and if a talk page discussion hasn't resolved this (and it sounds like it hasn't), I'd try dispute resolution or getting an independent third opinion. These blocks will be eventually lifted and you need to find a place to resolve the conflict that was made worse by edit warring. AN/I is not the place for this conversation but try WP:DRN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: I wasn't looking for the content dispute resolution. ;) I was merely giving an expanded explanation on how this charade started. He was reverting the articles (at least Croatia in the union with Hungary) on false pretense. He also disregards almost two dozen sources, at least 4-5 other users...I mean it is ridiculous. It's one man chasing everyone away with his confrontational and aggressive behavior. I believe this is more than just a content dispute now. He has refused all compromise by recent reverts and getting to know how he operates, in these couple of last months that I came into contact with him, I doubt the 24hr block will do any good and he will just continue as usual. These articles are not isolated incidents, wherever he goes he seeks dispute...I've seen him do it on Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Byzantine Empire, etc. He even tried to pick an argument on Talk:Coat of arms of Dalmatia with me over some ridiculous irrelevant and unrelated thing about Venetian Doges, while I was merely explaining the origins of the arms. I guess in the end nothing else will be left to do but to simply report him to WP:ARBMAC since no one here cares about looking into this... Shokatz (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dbrodbeck

[171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180] - vandalism,distruptive editing,trolling, [181] and [182] - infinity cruel and absurd trolling,harassment and [183], [184] attempt indefinite block me (that hide animal intelligence that torture and kill animals) -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

None, none of those diffs show anything of the sort. Based on this thread, the thread above and the SPI evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CYl7EPTEMA777, I'm blocking CYl7EPTEMA777 indef for this bad-faith report, competency and general NOTHERE issues. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block of OP. Not everyone is able to effectively contribute at the English Wikipedia. I checked each of the links given in the OP—none of them show a problem of any kind (except that a problem with CYl7EPTEMA777's edits can be seen if the underlying issue is examined). The user is apparently unable to collaborate even at the Russian Wikipedia, see ru:Special:Contributions/CYl7EPTEMA777 which shows that the user was indefinitely blocked at 13 February 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef per all of above. OP is of no benefit to the en.wp project. Zad68 22:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalking and hounding by User:Dougweller

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, I've recently had a dispute with Dougweller, as evident from the revert here: [185] and resp. edits at talk: [186]. He reverted my edits numerous times and opposed my views.
I now see with regret that this very same user is following me around other articles to revert me [187], [188]. There is no other plausible explanation that the user concerned is simply following my edits and blindly reverting those. He had never edited the article concerned: [189]. In addition, he is canvassing other user to revert me, as evident here: [190] (I've had a dispute with that user at Talk:Far-right politics, so it was reasonable from Dougweller to expect this user would perhaps support him in his hounding of me). There is no other plausible explanation that the user concerned is simply following my edits and blindly reverting those, even at Nørrebro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that has some five different edits or so a year (!). This is clear violation of WP:STALK and I do expect the community to reprimand the violator. Thanks.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC) PS. the user is now edit warring against me at another (!) article, despite the fact that my addition is reliably sourced [191]. the user has no qualm whatsoever at edit warring against users he perceives as his 'enemies.'. Now what kind of co-operative understanding is that?. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Your evidential links suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG might be on the way. There is nothing wrong with someone pursuing an interest in the contributions of a person whom they consider may be editing in a dubious manner. You'll likely have even more of them now that you've raised it here. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Mate, you seem to have misread some policies. WP:STALK says:

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 exactly the case here. A user has disagreed with me on one issue, started following my edits on other articles and even started asking for third parties to join in edit warring against me. There is per WP:STALK absolutely no justification fort following an editor across Wikipedia and mindlessly reverting him. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You selectively quoted the policy, and conveniently left out the most important part... "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." Unless you can show that Dougweller is doing this only to distress you, and not out of an attempt to prevent disruption on your part, then you can't claim harassment. -- Atama頭 18:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

From this discussion that you'd linked for us previously, Dougweller seems to be more concerned with WP:BLP violations than irritating you. -- Atama頭 18:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this contradicting my understanding? He is clearly following my edits to create irritation, that is, to disrupt me from improving articles. Of course, the user can see himself as simply defending the truth. That's what they all say. Nørrebro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has noting to do with BLP, so please drop this red herring, shall you? It's about user trying to force his POV across articles and hence hounding users who may disagree with him. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::He thinks I'm an evil "commie". See his comment at Talk: Far-left politics. And his edit summary to another editor, ""get lost and read a bit karl marx and quran instead of edit warring". I don't think there's much question that this editor is editing in a dubious manner. When User:OhNoitsJamie declined his block for edit warring and personal attacks he said ", I'd say you got off easy with 24 hours. Your next block will be longer." He's adding badly sourced material to articles. That's why I've reverted him. If he wants to state the result of polls,[192] he needs to say that they were over six years ago, and not use an article by Melanie Phillips[193] as a source but the actual polls. At the Danish article, he's used another biased source to label a whole town.[194] Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The complainant also appears to have missed this bit of WP:HOUNDING:

• "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"

They probably ought to also read the rules on reliable sources and neutral point of view. The last thing WP needs is yet another editor apparently focused solely on one particular bugbear (seemingly, as so often, Muslims and "Islamofascism" in this case) going around, unchallenged, adding one-sided contentious assertions of fact and opinions sourced mostly to extremely partisan think-tanks and publications. There are plenty of those already thanks. N-HH (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked Lokalkosmopolit's first diff, which is to the article on Unite Against Fascism. The page history reveals five reverts by Lokalkosmopolit!

• 27 Feb 14 IP editor added a paragraph about Michael Adebolaj speaking at a UAF meeting.[195]
• 27 Feb 14 Dougweller reverted 148.188.1.60.[196]
• 28 Feb 14 Lokalkosmopolit reverted Dougweller and added more paragraphs.[197]
• 28 Feb 14 Snowded reverted Lokalkosmopolit.[198]
• 28 Feb 14 Lokalkosmopolit reverted Snowded.[199]
• 28 Feb 14 Dougweller reverted Lokalkosmopolit.[200]
• 28 Feb 14 Lokalkosmopolit partially reverted Dougweller.[201]
• 1 Mar 14 Snowded reverted Lokalkosmopolit.[202]
• 7 Mar 14 Lokalkosmopolit reverted Snowded.[203]
• 7 Mar 14 Snowded reverted Lokalkosmopolit.[204]
• 7 Mar 14 Lokalkosmopolit reverted Snowded.[205]
• 7 Mar 14 Hell in a Bucket reverted Lokalkosmopolit.[206]

When someone behaves like this, it is perfectly reasonable to have a look at their other edits. This is what Dougweller has done.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no justification for stalking. Second, the problem we had at UAF was mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is, no real argument against the inclusion and no real counterproposals have been offered. As you see there at talk, it was all muddle. there was no real reason, why criticism of this hate group should not be included. The Independent is a good centre-left source. Some people do not allow even this [207], when it criticizes their pet groups. that's the real issue. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You listed my edits to UAF with the comment ″When someone behaves like this″. Could you please tell me, what exactly was wrong with adding Peter Tatchell's opinions? I thought adding this notable gay rights activist's opinions to an article to be a reasonable things? Am I wrong? Is, conversely, something from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi better perhaps? More PC I mean than the thoughts of a LGBT activist? What was wrong with adding the Independent's journalist J. Bloodwoth's opinions, as I did? How is adding the grounded opinions of such people something base whilst removing them, as the tag-team did, something to be proud of? What is your justification? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is no justification for stalking." And yet, WP:WIKISTALKING lists numerous justifications for it. Continue to ignore policy, Lokalkosmopolit, and you're going to find yourself running into more an more conflicts until you lose your editing privileges. This willful ignorance is just digging you a deeper hole. Take a step back and rather than focus on what Dougweller is doing, focus on why. -- Atama頭 19:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple, Atama. Dougweller does not like criticism against radical groups based on sources like The Independent, Peter Tatchell and others. A clear case of WP:TE. That's why he got angry and started following my edits and mindlessly reverting these. If this is not a violation of WP:STALK, what is? You can repeat hundred times that Osama bin Laden is a better source than Peter Tatchell or James Bloodworth, but in fact it isn't. Even based on your own rules it isn't. There is no rule that says people who want to criticize UAF based on sources like Tatchell and The Independent have to be hounded from Wikipedia. There is no such rule. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, yes, but not here. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong is that you kept reverting so many times against different editors. If it had been just one editor, you could have done it a few times and said that the other editor was just being unreasonable - but when it is more than one editor, you have to stop. (In any case five reverts is too many.)

As for the content issues - they are not relevant here. I do not know whether you are right or not. I think that some of the points you made on Talk:Unite Against Fascism#Whitewashing of the article have merit. But in my opinion you spoiled them by using inflammatory language.

With some of your other disputes, you spoiled your case by citing sources that did not back up what you were citing them for - in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2014 Ukrainian revolution you seem to be citing a report on an attack on a synagogue in Zaporozhye as evidence for the alleged destruction of a synagogue in Kiev. Zaporozhye is a long long way from Kiev. --Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've just reverted this, where the OP is edit-warring to insert an inflammatory bit of polemic using an utterly unreliable non-NPOV source (you simply have to read the website from which it originates to work that out). I suspect a WP:BOOMERANG is well due here. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How is Soeren Kern not reliable? His scholar.google hits are available here: [208]. I guess the guys doesn't like Osama bin Laden very much, but is this a reason to remove? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, a quick google on Soren Kern shows a prime example of conservative islamophobic extremisim. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is so simple, then why don't you have reliable sources supporting your thesis that ″Soren Kern shows a prime example of conservative islamophobic extremisim″? If you don't have any, why are throwing around accusations like that? I mean, Ayman al-Zawahiri may of course agree with you but does it make sense accusing Western citizens like that and make yourself liable for a libel suit? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well this recent article by Soren Kern, reminds me of Alf Garnett. Anything sourced to such a person needs to be carefully prefixed as his/her opinion, not as objective truth.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And a more accurate Google Scholar query shows he publishes mostly in a few fringe conservative publications like that Stonegate one. [209] Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that anything originating from a website which compares Islamism with Nazism on its front page can safely be said to be unreliable. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Lokalkosmopolit, I think it is already clear that my opening message in this thread was one heck of a lot nearer the mark than yours was. You've been editing disruptively against several other people of good standing, so maybe you should take a breather, gather your thoughts and take a read of WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS etc. If I were you, I'd stop digging here and take the content issues back to the relevant article talk pages. In the event that you disagree with the consensus at those pages, you can try dispute resolution, query at WP:RSN etc. Although if you're going to pursue one of the DR methods then it usually helps not to abandon it straight away ... - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

″editing disruptively against several other people of good standing″ - what exactly was disruptive in the additions I made to UAF? as opposed to unexplained erasure of those? Please, explain your point of view. If it is so clear, it would be all the more easy for you. What was so disruptive in adding [210] the well-founded views of Peter Tatchell and J. Bloodworth from The Independent to the article? What was so wrong in your opinion that it justified tag-team edit warring against me and now justifies the stalking that followed? So, what was it, in a word?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please note that before posting this Lokalkosmopolit filed a WP:DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Unite Against Fascism and then abandoned it without any further participation. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not adocate closing it, it was you who just closed it. Based on the comment there, it was me, who was advocating close cooperation and finding a solution, while some of my opponents for reasons unclear argued that the thread was unnecessary. In my opinion, the thread is extremely necessary, for I haven't seen a single argument yet as to why my sourced additions don't suit or what would be the constructive alternative to my proposals. So please re-open the dispute thread. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line, Lokalkosmopolit? Dougweller might be seeing what other pages you edit and reverting some of your edits. But the question is which one of you is being disruptive? Are your edits introducing badly sourced material and you are being disruptive? Or is Dougweller causing disruption by maliciously following you to random pages and undoing your edits for no reason at all? I think that is a valid concern for a user to bring to AN/I.
But given the unanimous response of other editors here, they have faith that Dougweller is not undoing your edits for malicious reasons. So, I think, best case, you've brought your concern here and been told that your interpretation is off-base. No harm, no foul. Worst case? An admin will interpret your bringing this case as harassment and give you a temporary block. I hope for the former. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with edits I made to Dougweller's displeasing like this to Unite Against Fascism - [211] - what was wrong with those? You're talking about ″introducing badly sourced material″ - how was this 'badly sourced? What is wrong with using sources such as The Independent and Peter Tatchell as opposed to Osama bin Laden? Where's the disruption? That's when hounding me began. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (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.

Misleading RfC wording

I don't know if this is the right place to post this.
An admin hastily started an RfC on the Battle for Berlin's talk page[212] without asking me or the user I was debating with for any input on how it should be worded or even if we wanted to have an RfC at all.
He (or she?) has left out important issues I brought up regarding sources and violations of wiki policies.[213][214]
Currently, it looks as if a well sourced fact is being challenged by a fringe source, which is far from the truth.
When I participated in disputes that required an RfC before, the admin asked both sides about how it should be formulated and there were also drafts.
In this case, the admin refuses to change anything for the RfC wording.
I don't know how he came across the dispute in this article (he also reverted my changes[215][216]) or if this was done on purpose on behalf of the user I was arguing with (who had three reverts in less than 15 hours).
What should I do to get a fair RfC? -YMB29 (talk)

Given that the admin, Diannaa, came out of no where to revert my edits[217][218], start the RfC[219], and then proceeded to comment against my position in the RfC[220], it does look like Diannaa reverted and created the misleading RfC on behalf of PBS (the user I was disputing with). -YMB29 (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa may or may not have formulated the best wording for the RfC but the way to deal with that is through the bullet point guidance in the WP:RFC:Suggestions for responding (a bullet point I helped draft)

• If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.

Bringing a complaint to ANI is inappropriate. Further your accusation "it does look like Diannaa reverted and created the misleading RfC on behalf of PBS (the user I was disputing with)" is both a breach of assume good faith and factually inaccurate (I am one of many who have disputed the issue with you on the talk page of the article to date not one person has spoken in support of your position). It also implies that Diannaa and I have colluded. We have not.

Your edit history shows that since 17:49, 16 January 2014 you have made about 250 edits all but one of them about changing the wording in the Battle of Berlin article. About a year ago you became simmaly myopic over Continuation War where you were singled out by a frustrated editor (Thomas.W) on 25 February 2013 to read certain guidelines including Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (see here). During Continuation War dispute you brought a similar appeal to AN and were ignored Request to change RfC result (13 March 2013)

Your repeated Wikipedia:Tendentious editing in this area could easily end up with a topic ban on all articles about the Eastern Front in World War II.

I too have spent far too much time arguing with you on talk:Battle of Berlin and more recently reverting your changes for which there is no consensus for the biased wording you wish to add. But to show you that I am not being hypocritical about this: that I am not obsessed with the issue as you appear to be -- since the 16 Jan I have made many edits to many pages and for example have created more than 60 articles that have nothing to do with World War II, (many but not all of the article are geographic stubs with in Belgium and France, and Napoleonic War officer stubs -- because I am constructing an large detailed article on the advance of Coalition armies into Germany during the Waterloo Campaign and for that I need the location of places (see {{Coord}}) and short biographies on the actors in the campaign who do not already have biographies). -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your activity elsewhere does not prove anything, and only shows that you are obsessed with other topics. I choose to concentrate on one article at a time.

You have shown that you are only interested in pushing your POV, since you dismiss reliable sources you don't like and ignore basic wiki rules.

There is evidence of you coordinating with other users to have them comment or revert on your behalf.

You were not able to prove many of your claims that you made on the talk page and frequently ignore the discussion.

According to you, trying to get articles to reflect all views accurately by providing proper sources and quotes is tendentious editing? -YMB29 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I did ask Diannaa to change the RfC before coming here, but he refused.[221] -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming abit contentious. @YMB29: You might consider disengaging. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. Take a breather and it'll be there when you get back. Diannaa modified it adding a third option that was your suggestion. Everything you wanted added other than that you could have added as has been pointed out to you multiple times. If this is stressing you out so badly consider concentrating on one of the other 4 million plus articles for a while until you are less stressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to state that there's been no off-wiki communication between myself and PBS. The reason I opened the RFC is because I've had good success with its use in solving content disputes on other articles. My actions on this article are as an editor only, not as an administrator, as I have edited the article in the past and am thus involved. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So why did not you ask the users involved in the dispute about the wording?

The wording is biased and only helps to advance the position of PBS.

Whether there was off-wiki can't be proven for certain, but your behavior suggests so, see the diffs on top. -YMB29 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the instructions for conducting an RFC, and there is no requirement to consult other editors about the wording. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: So why did you create the RfC?

If it was to resolve the dispute, it is useless since it does not reflect the dispute accurately.

You had to ask both sides about the wording. -YMB29 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already addressed all three of these concerns, so I am disengaging now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What have you addressed? -YMB29 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa has already answered your questions. You may not like the answers, but they were answered. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well his answers or lack of answers only show that he did not respect both sides of the dispute when he created the RfC. -YMB29 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ban evasion; COI; Legal threats; Not assuming good faith.

IP editor 92.90.17.13 claiming to be subject of BLP article (Rachel Marsden) is avoiding a previous block for legal threats (see #Legal threat by IP user claiming to subject of an article above). See edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I believe that this is a block evasion, not the "ban evasion" of your title. Secondly, although I haven't yet digested these edits in full, they seem to be amicable and constructive; the author seems to be the person she claims to be; and (putting aside WP's policies and guidelines for a moment) it seems extraordinary not to allow a biographee to make suggestions on the talk page of the article about herself -- an article that she (or more strictly speaking the person claiming to be her) still wishes would just disappear. I'm not going to revert your deletion, but this is something a previously uninvolved administrator might consider doing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the exact procedure, but if she is the subject of an article and she has concerns about its content, she should contact WMF, not edit the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the block evasion (which I don't know anything about) subjects of the article can still edit their own article. As long as they are not adding content that is promotional or where they stand to gain financially from the content. But this appears to simply be someone making suggestions on the talk page and that is more than acceptable. However it has been easier for the subject to simply contact an admin or other editor to seek assistance in regards to content that either is a BLP issue or that they can help identify the accurate information. We should be sensitive to the subject...trust me.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my misuse of ban vs block. Regardless, this user was blocked last night for legal threats. You can view that IP editor's edits to see they also claimed to be Rachel Marsden. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And while serious, the legal threat can be (and hopefully will be) unambiguously retracted.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the OTRS team but I've seen recent mention of an OTRS reference in a context that suggested that she was the writer. I've no idea what the ticket [is it called?] said (and don't want to know), but I think that yes she's using the other channels that are available. As Mark Miller points out, she's not attempting to edit the article about her; she is attempting to influence it. The long, deleted comment makes clear an inference of bad faith in one other, specified editor; I'm not happy about this, but it doesn't obviously go further than what that editor was told directly by a admin (not me) only a few hours ago. I don't think it's be a good idea for a biographee to appeal to a particular admin for problems that aren't humdrum, because there could easily be the suspicion that the particular admin was chosen for a particular reason. ¶ Meanwhile, I've started to look through the points in the deleted comment. I've edited the article where/how I think appropriate. I'm soon going to pause, and I encourage some other editor who's experienced, disinterested and neutral to take over. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be much more than requesting accurate information be added or contentious material removed and I believe you are absolutely right that any editor or admin assisting in the manner I mentioned (which would be best for simpler issues) would be viewed with suspicion and that could create unneeded drama.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

what, specifically, was the legal threat? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears the subject claims litigation is ongoing. That would need clarification that such has ended before any block would be reversed I believe.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can be found here: Talk:Rachel_Marsden#Message_from_the_article_subject_.28Rachel_Marsden.29. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor update: Whether or not I was right to read, digest, and at my discretion act upon the long comment that EvergreenFir (with a degree of good reason) deleted, it's what I was doing. But I've now paused. (Not because I think I should pause, but because I have other demands on my time.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be how I'm viewing things (and a lot of edits have been oversighted so I know I'm missing a lot of content) but what the original IP says is there is some legal action by this editor against another editor. There are no legal threats against Wikipedia or against anyone, just the disclosure that some legal process is ongoing. So, it's not clear to me that WP:NLT was a good basis to block this user based on what exists on the article talk page now.
I should also mention that I came across this Arbitration Committee ruling regarding this particular article that should be kept in mind: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden#Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure that had nothing to do with her relationship with Jimbo. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As far back as I can remember, WP:NLT has said something similar to what it says now in the intro:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, you must not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.

So yes, if there's ongoing legal action against someone relating to wikipedia than NLT applies. Remember a policy is more than just the name.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• So yes, if there's ongoing legal action against someone relating to wikipedia than NLT applies.

But that's not what I said and not what she said. Marsden said that an individual she believed was this editor had been harassing her and there was legal action being pursued to address this perceived harassment. This all happened before the recent edits on Wikipedia and doesn't involve Wikipedia, the organization, the website or its employees. She was just stating that there was ongoing legal action and then she encountered an editor that she thinks is the same person and mentioned the hostile relationship between the two. But since these edits in question are so recent (the past week), Wikipedia can not be included in any legal case that was filed sometime in the past. I just don't see that disclosure in any way "legal action" involving Wikipedia or a legal threat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Liz, NLT applies here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't and still don't think it's clear from your original comment whether or not the legal action related to wikipedia in any way. But even if it's true the legal action doesn't relate to wikipedia, the wording I quoted doesn't preclude someone being blocked when they are involved in legal action against another editor which doesn't directly relate to stuff on wikipedia. In particular, I'm fairly sure it's common for both editors to be blocked when they are involved one party is involved in legal action against the other and they bring their dispute to wikipedia. Reading the comment left by that contributor, I don't think it's accurate to say the mention of the legal action was simply normal disclosure. To me, the wording is clearly intended to convey the idea that the other editor is in the wrong. And there is an obvious risk that the message will have the same chilling effect that any legal threat will have.  :::There is an obvious grey area here, if an established editor is involved in legal action against someone completely unrelated to wikipedia and this person follows them to wikipedia and tries to harass the established editor which the established editor ignores, I don't think many would agree the established editor should be blocked because of it. And we obviously should be careful about not too easily barring people from trying to address concerns about article on themselves.

But considering all that's gone on here and in the past, I don't think you can say it's clear NLT shouldn't apply. Ultimately it comes down to what NLT says. We can't stop you taking legal action, but if you do so, you may need to deal with your disputes via means other than editing wikipedia while it's ongoing.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Mike V has swept away the message that was the immediate prompt for this thread, and rendered it irretrievable. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was requested by Hoary to comment on this matter. Unfortunately, all I can say is that there was material that met the oversight criteria that needed to be removed. Often such material extends through multiple revisions and needs to be oversighted as well. The content relevant to this thread can be viewed on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not going to far in saying that I have an idea of some of the material that was removed having seen it yesterday based on RM's complaint (and it being missing now) and I'm not at all surprised it was supressed/oversighted. As Mike V has said, the material directly referred to here is still there. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gimmeallyourmoney disruptive editing

Gimmeallyourmoney (talk · contribs) has made over 450 edits in the last two days, most of which are strange.

• POV move at Al-Manar [222]
• A huge number of sockpuppet accusations on IP user talk pages, some of which might be valid. Most of the addresses are in the same class B IP block. However, the nomination of 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs) as an IP sockpuppet was a bit clueless. They were warned to stop on their talk page, and they did.
• Miscellanous uncited edits to road and technical articles which may or may not be correct, but which now have to be checked by someone.[223][224][225]

They've had various warnings on Talk. This looks more like a confused editor than hostile activity. It's the volume of questionable edits that's troublesome. Please watch for the next few days and see if the problem has stopped. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at one edit at random diff and it's ridiculous to add additional SPI tags on a Talk Page as if an IP was a sock of multiple different accounts. It's confusing and it's being done to so many different IP pages (hundreds?), there can't be any investigation into this accusation. I'd advocate using rollback to undo all edits for the past few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, DP has been rolling them back like there's no tomorrow. Irritating: if such a page is created by this cat, you can't roll back, and there's an irritating message: "Grabbing data of earlier revisions: No previous revision found. Perhaps Gimmeallyourmoney is the only contributor, or that the user has made more than 50 edits in a row." That that needs to be removed! (And No needs to be in lower case.) Drmies (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was only able to mrollback about maybe 50? 25? DP 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I've blocked indefinitely--that is, until they offer a satisfactory explanation. DangerousPanda asked them about the sock templates days ago and received no answer, nor were other questions addressed. If they ever want to start talking they can do so, via an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I know the "why" is not always important but it does seem weird that he'd go after all of these similar IPS, many of whom haven't edited for years. Talk about stale. It looks like he was after someone specific and just cast a very wide net. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'd love to know why, but my speculation would be rather useless. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ajraddatz just globally locked it, so I think we're done here. --Rschen7754 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For interesting speculation, try this: one of his article moves was about a specific ISP. If all of his sock tags were of a different ISP, was he trying to badmouth an entire ISP by referring to all its users as socks? Does "Gimmeeallyourmoney" refer to ludicrous costs for internet/phone/cable, so therefore it's a one-man stand against the ISP DP 09:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

One man, but with many accounts. This is another sock (or possibly the original account) of Trollingtrolls, who reported IPs in that range to AN/V before being blocked. He is also doing similar stuff xwiki, hence the lock. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hoops gza and Nazi topics.

While it hasn't erupted into anything major yet, I'd like an admin to review the questionable POV-pushing edits of User:Hoops gza today and going forward for the next few days related to August Landmesser, List of Nazis and other Third Reich topics and historical figures. The editor has been advised to seek consensus but is argumentatively insistent insistent on pushing a POV that right now is a combination of borderline disruptive/tendentious editing and ownership mentality that has the indicators of easily increasing into a full-blown conflict.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing POV about it. I am simply applying defining criteria to August Landmesser and the List of Nazis. You can see the discussions on the talk pages for proof of this.Hoops gza (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• When I reverted an addition to a subpage of List of Nazis that didn't meet the stated criteria for the page, he removed the criteria, claiming it had been a "random editor" who'd inserted it, when it was in fact the creator of the article, who'd added it during a 2010 AfD discussion to answer criticism that the scope was overly broad. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Redirect_from_alternative_language for another example of the-rules-don't-apply editing: He's creating redirects to the Holocaust in every language (even when there's no direct equivalent), and when I pointed out this was contrary to policy, he responded: "Yes, I know. The Holocaust is not a standard subject." [226]

Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine

Are there any eyes on this page? I am seeing personal attacks, troll comments and such being made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a looooong discussion page. As it says at the top of this noticeboard, "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." -- Atama頭 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:IPadPerson

I've brought this to all of your attention before but it slipped into the archives, although a few users noted that IPadPerson's behavior, specifically their edit summaries and attitude, have been unacceptable. See the last ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#User:IPadPerson - there are plenty of diffs there of the users' past edit summaries that were disruptive, which I can copy and paste here.. or you can take a look at if you'd like over there. IPadPerson received multiple warnings about this issue. [227], [228], [229]. A look at their user page also can give you an idea of the attitude this user has. Directly copied, it says "If I EVER find someone trash talking me about an edit, you will DEFINITELY be reported to an administrator FOR REAL. Don't play those silly games with me. Also, I will NOT and NEVER WILL tolerate anyone invading my privacy by revealing my IP address (71.77.78.28), which is an alternative thing that I use when not logged on. Anyone who mentions me anywhere on Wikipedia better have a good explanation why." Recently, they've sparked back up with the edit summaries: "You shouldnt've even changed the damn infobox in the first place." "Don't be adding no bullcrap without no source!" "Bullshit." I think you get the point. Gloss • talk 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I see what might be categorized as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but (at least in the diffs) I'm not seeing any personal attacks, WP:HARASS, or outright disruption. I do, however, see a lot of warnings on IPadPerson's talk page. Could you provide more diffs of disruptive behavior or personal attacks, please? Otherwise, based on your current post all I could support is a trout. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they personally attacked anybody. The comments like the ones I've brought here are all uncivil. Gloss • talk 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Gloss, but I'm with Jorgath here. Uncivil, maybe, or maybe sure, but such relatively minor infractions, that's not something admins block for. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's the kind of behavior we're endorsing, something has gone wrong with this project. Gloss • talk 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if someone warned him/her about the uncivil text on their userpage? As for the the edit summaries, perhaps a harsher warning. -- User talk:Gourami Watcher 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't endorse it. We used to have WP:WQA, but some brilliant people determined that trying to get people to interact civilly was not important. We also have a civility policy that apparently has as many teeth as a 40 year old mule, and with half as much kick. You want to file an WP:RFC/U for chronic incivility, go ahead. Until they actually attack someone, we're somewhat neutered DP 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've read about the closing of WP:WQA and I still don't understand why it was shut down. It seems like it would be useful if there was some place, between talk pages and AN/I, where editors can bring their problems working with others. It would be most useful to new editors, who would find AN/I or filing an WP:RFC/U very intimidating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reason it closed was because it was such a drama board (made AN/I look like a middle school summer romance) that no one had the patience to deal with it all without violating civility themselves. Which is a pity - the board was a good idea, no matter how difficult to deal with in practice. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Jorgath. It's hard to imagine a noticeboard with more drama than the existing ones. Doesn't sound pretty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim that WP:WQA was more of a drama board than ANI is not correct. Of course there were eruptions from time to time, but it was not as troubled as ANI. The problem was that WQA had no discernible function—if a discussion decided that editor X had badly violated WP:CIVIL, there was no path to do anything about it (I did not quite agree with that as I saw several discussions where a good result came from the fact that uninvolved people had politely told X that we don't do that here). It was decided that (bad) content disputes should be at WP:DRN, and behavioral disputes where some editor may need a sanction should be at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That idea is what I got out of skimming the discussion to close the board. That and that it had no teeth. Not saying you're wrong, just saying where I got the idea from. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• WQA had some good things come out of it. this not-yet-mainspace template, this essay, this useful warning (not yet mainspace), this nice way to extend an olive branch. I spent eons in WQA trying to a) create processes, b) start interactions off correctly from the start - especially when new editors arrived, c) stop things from coming to ANI, and d) bringing things directly to ANI when it was required. DP 09:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm glad at least the Teahouse is around for newbie editors. When I went from being a casual editor to a more involved editor last summer, well, it was a frustrating experience. I'm sure some of my edits in my IP years were reverted but I was unaware of when it happened. I completely empathize with new editors who are shocked when they find themselves reverted or their new articles deleted. Since they are not familiar with how common this is, they take it personally and get frustrated. They don't know about noticeboards or get no response on talk pages so they act out. I'm not condoning this misbehavior but I understand why it happens unless a new user goes to Help or the Teahouse to get an explanation and direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The biggest personal attack I could personally find off bat (which Gloss mentioned on IPadPerson's talk page) that IPadPerson made was this by telling someone to "fuck off". I haven't searched in depth, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This just in, he called another user's edits "stupid". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like nobody wants to do anything about it. It's apparently perfectly okay for this kind of edit summary. Gloss • talk 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If so, I find that surprising as it comes off as an insult towards the editor that IPadPerson reverted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Borderline personal attack. Gloss • talk 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IPadPerson left the edit summary: "Do not remove "U.S.". I'm serious." here. I removed what IPadPerson warned other editors not to [230], because it was incorrect. This type of intimidation is uncomfortable and unwelcome. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• While I haven't done much digging into the situation, I have seen IPadPerson around from time to time, and I will say that I have seen some very inappropriate behaviour. This, especially, is completely unacceptable. Surely something needs to be done about this user, but I'm afraid I don't know what. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, what are people's thoughts on the "Removing some stupid bitch ass vandalism!" summary? Seems to go against this policy. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a policy or a guideline. Please read the disclaimer at the top of the article. That is just an essay which is the opinion of one or more editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• But what they reverted doesn't look like vandalism, which makes it a false accusation of vandalism (couched in highly uncivil language): that's disruptive and a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Giving an only warning for vandalism to a bot [231], even if they didn't include any problematic edit summaries or text besides the warning and the bot clearly made an error doesn't exactly help to reenforce the view they're paying much attention to what they're complaining about either. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored and calling edits stupid is not calling the editor stupid. At the very least, look into the policy and guideline before asking for administration to step in and take action. Seriously. It is unfortunate that newbies don't know all the ropes, but they are expected to start learning and not make complaints that are based on the commentary about the content.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad for mistaking it for a policy, though calling edits "stupid" doesn't seem appropriate at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't the best form, but we need to let a lot of this stuff slide off our backs. Just remember that we emphasize that editors comment on content not the contributor. Some may take that up to the very line. Feel free to ask questions. I welcome new editors to stop by my talk page and ask about policy, guidelines and anything that concerns them as do many editors. Not all...but many.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
      • If one thing is for certain, this "fuck off" comment is completely inappropriate as previously mentioned. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Actually...no, it isn't certain.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Here is the current page on our communal consensus on edit summaries: Help:Edit summary.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
            • This falls under: "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, making collaboration more difficult." It is not a policy or a guideline but the best practice and what we hope others will follow.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
              • I am well aware that Wikipedia is not censored, but telling someone to "fuck off" sounds rather harsh to me..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I requote something quoted at the top of this thread from the user page (removed in this edit), though after removal of typographic extravagances: Also, I will not and never will tolerate anyone invading my privacy by revealing my IP address (71.77.78.28). Or to paraphrase: "The revelation that I am hereby making is an intolerable invasion of my privacy." There seems to be some ... disturbance here. Or might this user just be very young? -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

PS "this 'fuck off' comment" referred to close above is only "fuck off" in part. In its entirety, it reads "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! EITHER ASSUME GOOD FAITH OR FUCK OFF!" (typographic extravagance in the original). This is somebody who's far too excited to be editing an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for those diffs, Hoary. I noticed this one as well. And seriously, first adding and then removing an IP address editing from said IP address, that's highly untelligent. What's next, an admin should go through and revdel all the IP addresses from the edits they made while logged out? And revdel that nonsense comment from their user page to protect the privacy they claim to guard but give away in the same edit? IPadPerson has not seen fit to even visit this discussion. At least they held back a little bit in recent edit summaries, so I'm going to assume they at least read these comments.

  Let's put them on notice: IPadPerson, and your IP address, you are to stop insulting other editors in edit summaries and elsewhere. This is a collaborative project and you are not being collaborative. There's a fine line between commenting on edits and commenting on editors and you have crossed it too often. Next time you will be blocked for disruption. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • That makes it certain. From Drmies explanation I see this is a long term issue of using the edit summary for shock value and insulting, disruptive behavior which is not isolated. Regardless, everyone should be trying to work together. If not...all we can do is ask. If asking doesn't work. Admin have the tools to deal with the issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalising climate data for months

75.191.173.190 (talk · contribs) has been on a trail of disruption, including undoing the transclusion of established templates, falsely claiming "updates" to data (when most government meteorological agencies only update normals every decade), "adjusting" temperatures that have been verified countless times without changing the source, among other crimes. Since this has been going on since at least New Year's Day, a several-month-long block is in order. GotR ^Talk 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the user? What do they say? --Tóraí (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but to no avail. GotR ^Talk 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually discussed with them specifics of what is wrong with their edits? All I'm seeing in the above link is a generic templated message about unsourced material. (Such a discussion would also be helpful to administrators, as I'm not seeing any outright intentional vandalism, not knowing the specifics or intentions of the IP editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I told them to: 1) make their edits directly to transcluded templates, not supplant their transclusion with several more KBs of code; an example is Minneapolis#Climate, which transcludes {{Minneapolis weatherbox}}. The user was told by others to obey this custom. 2) False claims, as I find it hard to believe the IP does not notice the main source presently used at {{Seattle weatherbox}} is the same as the "new", and "more accurate" source the IP has been claiming to use; the user may be lying 3) I also hinted to them of the vastly superior quality of normals, which include smoothing for missing and suspect data, over simple arithmetic averages. Therefore, this user has indicated no will to cooperate, and this is a behavourial issue, not a mere dispute over the undisputed official status of Normals. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• The IP has blanked warnings from their talk page and ignored discussion. They're engaged in the same edit warring on Minneapolis, Honolulu and other cities. I've requests page protection. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At it again, and even reverting the edits of countless others (this one to Madison, WI has nothing to do with climate, too!). Also, Dennis B, thank you for bringing attention to this matter in another venue. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So if I go to editing in {{Minneapolis weatherbox}} is it fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are still reverting, and after all these hours, you have finally come here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another revert, after edit warring warning. (I would not recommend that Lieutenant of Melkor revert again -- let an admin respond.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All my renewed datas are from NOAA include Average temps and there's no any false informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that he's not putting out blatantly false data, so we can't just treat this as vandalism. But he is changing the data without changing the source (or even the time period of the source), which indicates either that all of the data was false to begin with or that the IP's numbers don't actually match the source he's claiming they come from. It may be, however, that he's putting out data that matches the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and just neglecting to say so or change the source. It does seem that at least some of the data he's adding (I didn't check it all; NOAA's data access takes more steps than it should) does indeed match the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and therefore should stay in the templates if at least the source is changed. —Soap— 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These are the official normals; anything else isn't. I had went through and corrected the templates, mostly temperatures, to match them over the past year. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Repeating the same revert six or seven times in a row, as at Template:Boston weatherbox, is not the way to overcome other editors' objections. 2. There has been no explanation forthcoming, that I can find, as to why any changes are necessary to the climate information for any of the cities involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been nearly 24 hours since the last comment on this thread. So are we going to silently allow this disruption to continue as it likely will? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And indeed it has resumed. Administrator attention needed here. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. Lieutenant, while I appreciate your willingness to put so much work into a much-neglected area of Wikipedia, I don't think we can simply decide that the NOAA website is the one and only source from which we can get climate data, or even that it is superior to other sources, which is what you seem to be saying. However I wouldn't go to the other extreme and simply accept all of the IP's edits either, particularly as he hasn't explained where they're sourced from. —Soap— 06:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not bent on continuing the arguments from a content dispute at AN/I, but NWS Baltimore/Washington and Pittsburgh all use the quality-calibrated normals, which are more often than not different from simple arithmetic averages; for example, the normal January high at PIT is 35.7 °F, not the simple arithmetic average of 36.0 °F. This is not at all a matter of preference; it's a matter of whether the Earth revolves around the sun and is not up for debate. NCDC states "Procedures are put in place to deal with missing and suspect data values [when calculating normals]". "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The content dispute can't be resolved unless the IP goes to the talk page and discusses it. The reason this issue is here on AIN is that IP 75.191.173.190 intends to edit war ad infinitum and will not discuss. I think a block or page protection would prod them to go talk out the content disupte. To me it boils down to a 3RR violation across many articles and templates, and 3RR violations draw a block. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated 3RR vios with refusal to discuss should draw escalating blocks. If admins here won't take action, perhaps the Edit Warring noticeboard at WP:AN3 will. Jusdafax 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And now it's been directed back here. This is really frustrating. When the vandal makes his next edit contrary to policy, please tell us what action to take. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

After reading this thread and seeing the reverts that 75.191.173.190 has made, I was almost ready to issue a block for edit warring. However, the IP hasn't edited in two days, so it seems a bit late for an edit-warring block now. I've left them a note on their talk page instead. If they start reverting again, please let me know and I will block them and/or protect the pages involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user socking

On 27 February, Worm That Turned declined the unblock request of User talk:Arri at Suburban Express, a user with an already long history of socking and disruptive editing.

Three days later, there are edits on it's owner's article from 99.67.249.6. Geolocated to CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS; the IP removed substantial information from the article. Can we please get a semi-permanent way to deal with this sock?

Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, a ban or something like that? Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Arri is blocked, has had an unblock declined after functionary review, and is probably socking would strongly imply he's de facto banned (see WP:BAN). As such, and given sufficient behavioral evidence (since CU won't confirm IPs), any admin should feel free to issue lengthy blocks to the IPs in question. If we want to have a formal community ban discussion I think we can do that, though it really wouldn't change anything (and I'm not clear on whether we can have a community ban if ArbCom or the functionaries have asserted jurisdiction over a case, not that I'm sure that's happened here). Regardless, endorse blocking 99.67.249.6 of any length greater or equal to one month (prefer three). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I wasn't sure if a ban was the most effective way or just get an admin to block the IP. Given that either action needed an admin anyway, it was best for me to comment here and let other admins look into this. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well at this point this is probably going to be declined as stale since the edits were a few days ago. It also looks like there are a lot of IPs that may be being used here, so a simple block might not do much. But according to the IP tools, 99 is a static IP, so blocking for a period may help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Block that sock. Jusdafax 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked by me for 1 month. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Reece Leonard

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 Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [232], [233], [234], [235]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [236], [237], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: [238]. He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: [239], [240], and has begun canvassing other (uninvolved) editors with this same material as well, [241], [242].

I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: [243], [244], [245], [246]; Katy Perry: [247] and Britney Spears: [248]. He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits [249], [250].

It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have to be honest: when the article was first created, it ended up on my watchlist. Over the last bit, I've seen edits by Reece that made me shake my head - so much so that I took it off my watchlist, rather than see countless, repetitive ad nauseum bad edits. Might have been here for some reason, and might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago ES&L 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that the only reason why this argument got so out of hand was STATic's ridiculously rude, inflamatory rhetoric, including calling me childish, incompetent, etc. He has a lengthy history of insulting various users (evidenced by his talk page) and that leads to this kind of uncivil discussion. He also admitted that he disliked the artist who's page we were discussing twice. Homeostasis has previously been blocked for behaving unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. I've stated numerous sources that back up my claims, although I recently ended this debate because I realized that it was ultimately pointless as these two have no intention of compromising at all. My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, in my time with StaticVapor, he's has been a very good editor with a strong grasp on Wikipedia and its policies. Without any clear difs, I'd be likely to doubt any claims of "uncivil discussion" or rudeness. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perusing Talk:Artpop, I have to disagree with Reece Leonard's assertion that this is all the fault of STATic. I believe that the main issue is Reece's dismissive attitude, which he demonstrated somewhat just above me, "My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye." I see that Reece communicates in this manner consistently, proceeding by essentially stating that he is correct, everyone else is wrong, and there's no need to debate the issue. I'm not saying that Reece refuses to get involved in discussions, he most certainly does, but he too frequently refers to those who disagree with him as vandals, and often refers to an editor's past conduct issues as a way to discredit their arguments (as above where he points out STATic's block history). Stating that WP:NOTHERE applies is hyperbole, I believe that Reece is sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, but he has a lot of trouble collaborating, which is a major problem. -- Atama頭 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I can assure you i do not live a double life on here, I am the same person. Reece just seems to enjoy making up things and harassing other users when the conversation is not going their way. He was owed a WP:NPA block for the insane focus on commenting on fellow contributors as you can see above rather then the topic at hand. I have been stating over and over, i have no bias, I can edit any subject, keeping a perfect WP:NPOV, a serious problem Reece has, which can be based off the entire discussion and his other edits as explained by the OP. @Atama: Just saying, he was referring to Homeostasis' block history. NOTHERE might not apply, but WP:COMPETENCE clearly does. When there is clear WP:CONSENSUS he has to learn to drop it, not just keep harassing editors for days and pressing the issue. I feel like this user has attempted to drag my name through the mud on way too many pages through this, as can be seen through the 5+ user talk pages he was canvassing his malicious harassment [251], [252], [253], [254], [255] through. STATic message me! 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it was my block history Reece was referring to, and not Static's. That was a block for 3RR 6 months ago. Since then, I've not come close to infringing 3RR (ie, lesson learned), so, again, this is just another example of Reece saying anything he can to discredit another editor's position. Attempting to use a 3RR block to suggest that I'm "biased" against a particular subject (see the last 4 diffs Static posted above) isn't cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bringing this discussion back from the dead. I would like to see some sort of action against this user for the extremely inappropriate behavior as detailed above. The user seems to believe this was "declined" and they have done no wrong, which is clearly incorrect. Since the last comment they have added a false certification which ties in with the WP:NPOV issue bung up above, started genre warring, not abiding by BRD, which they are aware of, and have resorted back to the personal attacks and refusal to not focus every single post to comment on other users rather then the topic at hand. STATic message me! 09:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not declined - what User:Reece Leonard should have got from this discussion is that ANY future similar behaviour would lead to a block. Consensus above was that their behaviour was problematic. As they were involved in the discussion, they know that. You cannot get more of a warning that to have your wrist slapped by consensus. They ALSO learned from above that STATicVapor's actions were NOT overall problematic - again, a good thing to have learned DP 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This user has been harassing me since this discussion was tabled, attempting to goad me into some other argument so that he would have any excuse to bring up this discussion again. If my original actions were punishable by a slap on the wrist then STATic's are as well. He has repeatedly been rude and aggressive with me after I repeatedly told him that I wanted to avoid any kind of issue with him again. His actions in the original debate were absolutely problematic as he called me and another user children, and has accused me of being illiterate numerous times, amongst multiple other issues that I brought up above. I never stated that this board thought that I had done nothing wrong; that is a fabrication. I stated that my actions were not punishable by a block, which they obviously were not. I've not started edit warring; one revert on one user does not constitute an edit war. The user above has consistently used ridiculous hyperbole to blow all of my actions way out of proportion and has issued so many baseless warnings to me with the hopes that I either react violently or cease editing altogether that I can't keep track of them all. I've attempted to move on from this issue and distance myself from STATic to avoid any kind of other problems in the future and he has refused to do the same. I realize that I should've made more of a case for myself originally, but seeing as how I assumed that administrators would review ALL of the information necessary to come to a verdict instead of the stuff that one user gave them that supported their side, I didn't think that would be necessary. I've repeatedly tried to move on and even stated that I would cease all interaction with STATic, and he has responded by bringing this up again with no actual basis for doing so other than what he has attempted to blow out of proportion. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Thanks for stating the facts of the matter. The thing is, they have returned to the behavior as seen here. My behavior has been respectable, Reece yours has not and you need to address it rather than repeatedly deny it. I did not call you a child and definitely did not call anyone else that. I only questioned the literacy due to you refusal (see WP:COMPETENCE) to read or understand any of the guidelines or policies I have linked to you including most of all WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. You still have yet to do that. Your "issues that you brought up" are non-existent. Not publishable by a block? The users above sure think so, along with a few in the discussion. The warnings are not harassment, every warning I have gave you was 100% deserved, as would be a block. I am not trying to get a reaction out of you. All the information was reviewed and it is clear as day you are the only one in the wrong. Nothing is being blown out of proportion, how do, you think, this, is, okay??? STATic message me! 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Enough

Based on Reece's comments above, I have a proposal:

1. User:Reece Leonard is indefinitely topic-banned from Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles.
2. User:Reece Leonard is subject to a mutual interaction ban with User:STATicVapor

These restrictions will be logged, and violations will be subject to escalating blocks. These restrictions can be appealed on AN/ANI no sooner than 6 months after their implementation ES&L 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as exhausted voice of sanity ES&L 18:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Incredible idea User:EatsShootsAndLeaves. I was just about to ask for an interaction ban from this user. STATic message me! 18:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga articles? I certainly support an interaction ban, but I do not deserve to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages indefinitely. That's an extreme measure and unfounded, as @Atama: agrees that I'm not operating with a WP:NOTHERE. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support but with a reminder to all that indefinite is not infinite. Would like to establish a scheduled topic ban review in a few months. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Edit to add): And by a few months I mean sooner than that 6-month thing in the initial proposal. 3 or 4. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I be banned from editing these types of pages at all? The user above has admitted twice that he dislikes the artist at hand and... I would be blocked from editing her pages? Why? What grounds are there for that? The grounds based on STATic's repeated accusations? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do not enjoy listening to her music, not my cup of tea at all. When did I ever try to hide that? You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love. I only watch listed the page to combat vandalism on a popular page and my contributions have been nothing but constructive. The difference between us is that I can edit without a bias. You would be blocked from editing them since you refuse to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. If you can prove that you are a proper editor on other subjects, then you can have a review in a few months, good luck. STATic message me! 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You claiming that your edits have been constructive doesn't make them so. I ALWAYS abide by the guidelines you just cited. You claiming otherwise because I don't agree with you on ONE edit doesn't make it so. Absolutely not. Stop attempting to make me out to be some rabid fan off the leash attempting to misrepresent wikipedia articles. I gave NUMEROUS sources to back up what I was saying and you responded with the same argument over and over again. You repeating that you can operate without a bias isn't an argument and it certainly doesn't prove that I can't operate without bias. You repeating that I'm biased over and over again doesn't make it true. You have no evidence to support that claim, other than your own view of a person who disagreed with you on an edit and who you're now attempting to get blocked to shut them up. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, I do not support the statement, "You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love." People should definitely be free to edit subjects that they have interest in, I believe that's how most article creation and improvement comes about. Anyone who does so for a subject they feel strongly about (positively or negatively) must adhere to our neutral point of view policy, or risk sanctions (because their editing becomes disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia), but if we maintained that people could not focus on subjects they liked we'd have an even bigger problem with participation than we already do. -- Atama頭 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: That is why I said not all your editing, obviously 90% of the article building I do goes into subjects I enjoy, but enjoy and interest are two different things. I never implied that editors should not edit subject they like, or edit subjects they do not more often, it is just about adhering to the neutral point of view policy, which Reece has failed to do continuiously after many warnings and comments about it. STATic message me! 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You aren't showing any evidence of my supposed refusal to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. I had sources that backed up my claims; that's not just some biased opinion, and you repeating it doesn't prove anything. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - With the provision that Jorgath suggested. As I said before, I don't think Reece is deliberately disruptive, but he is definitely having problems with collaboration. I don't know if that is just how he is as an editor in general, or if it is due to the passion he feels for the subject making it hard to be objective. It looks like the mutual interaction ban is accepted... mutually... So there seems to be no problem with that portion of the ban suggestion, although it would be difficult to adhere to if they continue to edit the same pages. It looks like Reece has an interest in 30 Rock and other subjects, maybe taking a break for a few months to work on other articles would be a positive change. -- Atama頭 19:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: Just to be clear, what part of this are you supporting? It reads like you support the interaction ban and not the ban on my editing certain pages. And why would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages and not STATic? If the issue is us interacting, why would you only ban me and not the person who's admitted to disliking the artist? I've never operated on anything other than neutral point of view and have always listed numerous sources that back up my changes and STATic has no evidence to support his repeated claims otherwise when I've given evidence of his own bias against Lady Gaga. I will point out, once again, that he had no reason to bring this discussion up again. I did nothing to incite this kind of hyperbolic response and his listing of various guidelines and accusations of myself not following them have no factual basis if you will look into what he's saying. Again: there are no grounds for BANNING me from Lady Gaga pages. That's an extreme measure that punishes me for arguing with STATic when he originally initiated the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. If this is the attitude that wikipedia administrators take (older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them), it's no wonder that you have a serious problem with editor participation on this site. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Reece, you have been the single most disruptive editor on Artpop since its creation. Hands down. Trust me ... I've had it on my radar since then. The problem seems to be that you cannot recognize how disruptive you're being - THAT is the reason you need to be topic-banned from it. This isn't rocket science, but you're not even using the right textbook when it comes to editing this project as a whole. "Indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that your behaviour will not recur", it's not "indefinite" - I even proposed a review date, which some folks are being kind enough to lower to 4 months. By then, you might have learned how to get along with people DP 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure very single person involved in the Artpop discussion would support your topic ban from the page, rather then mine. That goes without saying though considering the nuisance you created there. You do not edit with a neutral point of view, saying you do does not change the facts, that is the reason for the topic ban. Myself and User:Homeostasis07 listed more than enough diffs and points, and I am tired of repeating them if you refuse to acknowledge your horrid behavior. "Bringing the discussion up again", it never closed and I am so happy I brung it back to the main page because we are finally nearing closure and sanctions for your behavior. About the whole last part, completely incorrect, stop trying to play victim now after all the malicious harassment that you have done. Any result here is 100% deserved. STATic message me! 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

YOU saying that I'm operating with bias doesn't make it so. You cited multiple instances where YOU gave me warnings because you didn't agree with my edits. And of course you're happy: that's what you want. You want to ban me because I disagree with you and create a monopoly so that you can continue on editing pages the way you see fit without opposition. I gave numerous sources that stated exactly the point I was arguing for, which proves that I wasn't basing my argument on my own biased opinion. You repeating that I'm biased and ignoring the fact that multiple publications stated exactly what I was saying makes zero sense. And finally: "brung" is not a word. It's just not a word. This entire process, you've repeatedly insulted me, told me that I was illiterate, called me a child, and questioned my intelligence while continually using non-words and phrasing sentences in nonsensical ways. When I point these glaring instances of hypocrisy out to you, you claim that they are "personal attacks" and proceed to rant and rave about how "malicious" I am and how I'm "slandering" you, and then you have the gaul to accuse me of playing the victim. There is absolutely no basis for banning me from editing Lady Gaga pages as the argument I stated was backed up by numerous sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf) which completely negates your arguments of bias. If this is an opinion shared by multiple journalists, it's obviously not some fabrication of my supposedly "biased" mind. I did nothing to warrant you re-opening this case and even told you that I wanted to avoid these kinds of issues in the future multiple times, and you responded with another attempt to get me blocked for disagreeing with you. You DID originally initiate the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. And now you're continuing to further your goals of banning all opposition by continuing to claim that I'm biased without real evidence to back your claims up, when you previously admitted you didn't like the artist at hand twice. Look: I recognize that my argument wasn't a majority opinion. I took it past the point where it made sense and continued to argue with people when there was no realistic expectation for anyone else to change their mind. This is something that I will absolutely keep in mind when editing pages in the future. That being said: banning me because STATic has accused me of being biased when this is clearly not the case is a ridiculously hyperbolic response and again: If wikipedia administrators seriously think older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them, it's no wonder that this site has a serious problem with editor participation. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

...and with that, it looks like case closed. Thanks for proving me, Static, and every single past editor of the Artpop page correct. DP 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What?! What are you talking about?! Did you even read my paragraph?! Reece Leonard (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reece, I'm supporting both bans (the interaction ban and topic ban). I'm enthusiastically endorsing the interaction ban, and less enthusiastically supporting the topic ban. My lack of enthusiasm isn't because I think that you're not exhibiting a problem, it's because I'm not sure that the problem is going to be solved by restricting you from particular topics. It's more an issue with your communication style.

I will state that it is at the very least counter-productive for STATicVapor to insult Lady Gaga fans on the talk page of one of her album articles. Whatever a person's feelings, it's disruptive (almost trollish) to make statements that will rile up a group of people that are likely to be participating at that page. Combine that with the earlier statement about people not editing topics that they love, and it indicates to me that this topic ban might also be extended to STATicVapor as well. If they have and acknowledge a bias against Lady Gaga topics, why should they be editing those topics? -- Atama頭 21:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If I'm going to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages for four months purely because of the way I communicate (which I don't understand, seeing as how you're not attempting to ban other members of the Artpop talk page who use aggressive rhetoric), STATic should absolutely be banned for insulting Lady Gaga and her fans, exhibiting a clear bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

.... @Atama: What? I never insulted her fans, the only one ever offended by my comments has been Reece, of course in his backwards world where they refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing of there's. You obviously did not read my post above (starts with That is why I said not all your editing), where I was replying to you. I have never ever ever said I had a bias, and I have had to repeat that over and over already to this single editor. My edits and discussion show zero indication of someone that does not have a NPOV, that just sounds ridiculous to me. STATic message me! 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Yes, you did. 2) I acknowledged the fact that I took the argument too far above. Read my arguments before commenting on them, please. 3) I wasn't offended by your insulting her and her fans; I pointed out that you making fun of her constitutes bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: You either have a poor memory, or you don't consider these to be insults, which itself is concerning (and I'll note that Reece has linked this diff previously, which you ignored). Whatever Reece's behavior problems, you've certainly exacerbated them. -- Atama頭 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about earlier. Yes, I went too far with the arguing. I'm honestly extremely apologetic for the way that I approached the situation because it ended up wasting months of my time (and others' time) on users who were never going to change their opinion no matter how many sources I gave them. At the same time, me behaving inappropriately doesn't explain why I would be banned from certain articles. That doesn't really have anything to do with Lady Gaga; it has to do with how I approached this particular situation and how I will revise my behavior in the future. STATic has exhibited a clear negative view of Lady Gaga. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes one diff, the only point he has had. Still no where close to the malicious slander that Reece has brought into this project, need I repeat just this example of links [256], [257], [258], [259], [260]. I have no negative view at all, I never said I hated her music or had a bias or negative feelings of her as a person. Its pretty clear by my user page and edits I prefer a different type (hip-hop/rock), rather than pop, but I am a lover of music in general. I can neutrally edit any article and I did not cause extreme disruption as Reece did. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think the user's comments above speak for themselves. Also, while "brought" was the word that should have been used in the context "brung" was, Mr. Webster would like a word about the contention that "brung" is not a word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I forgot to address that as I got used to ignoring the irrelevant little attacks they want to throw in their responses. It is most certainly a word, but that goes without saying really. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, pointing out your consistent grammatical errors to combat your own claims of my illiteracy would, in no way, constitute an "attack". You're using insanely hyperbolic rhetoric, as an administrator stated earlier. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've seen this going on for a while and this proposal works fine for me. If this discussion isn't enough to show why the proposal is receiving the support it's getting, I'll just say my reasoning for supporting this is the same as others above me. Gloss • talk 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger:, @Gloss:, What about @Atama:'s statements of banning STATic as well? And can you two please point out exactly what you're having an issue with in my arguments? I'm inquiring with the goal of avoiding this kind of situation again in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Easiest solution for now, and can also be escalated further if the disruption moves elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Best thing for now!, And as per Luke if it gets any worse It'll be extended. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Even though I'm an involved editor (ie, I created the original ANI complaint), I think we can agree that enough is enough of this. The user started off editing some articles about 30 Rock, but then moved squarely on to Lady Gaga articles, and shows no sign of moving on from the topic (read any of his replies above or his contribs page). He shows no sign of ending his disruptive editing. Even though it's been disputed by other editors, I still believe that he's NOTHERE. He's here to "correct any bias" that he comes across on Lady Gaga pages. He's clearly not NPOV. A topic ban (for whatever duration) is warranted. If the user then returns to his old habits after the ban expires, more serious measures might be required. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support the interaction ban and Artpop ban, but I'm not sure about banning from Gaga articles. Since I haven't looked very far into Reece's editing history of Gaga articles, could someone provide examples of his edits to those other pages that would qualify for topic ban? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It says nowhere on my page that I'm on here to correct any bias on Lady Gaga articles. Linking to my contributions page in no way proves that statement. I'm am operating with NPOV as multiple administrators on this page have stated, and while I don't understand why these administrators would institute a topic ban on myself if the way I communicate it the issue here, if they are going to issue one to myself they would absolutely need to block STATic as well as he has proven he is not operating with a NPOV here: x Reece Leonard (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the ban on complete non-interraction with these two users, Static and Reece. I do not support ban from other Gaga articles since Reece has not disrupted them I can see. For Artpop edits I think an edit review needs to be done for both their contributions as well, so that no further issues like this crop up. In nutshell, Static and Reece do not edit the article, any contribution you want to make, take it to the talk page first, others have it listed on their watchlist. And zero tolerance on Edit warring from both of them. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to sanctioning User:STATicVapor I recommend a simple trout and perhaps a warning, since they have recognized that they did cross the civility line and have apologized for doing so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jorgath: That was actually me that apologized. His response is just underneath mine. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that - without any intention of offence whatsoever - @Atama: could do with reading the entirety of the Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception page, to avoid confusing the situation. Reece's contention that StaticVapor is somehow biased against Lady Gaga seems to stem from this edit. But if you read it for yourself, StaticVapor in no way suggests that he is biased against Lady Gaga. He in fact says the opposite: that he's there to provide a neutral POV. Reece Leonard immediately misinterpreted/manipulated that edit to make it sound as though StaticVapor was biased, something Reece is still mentioning to this day. But those two diffs I just provided should speak volumes. A certain user has been attempting to misconstrue this entire situation to his advantage for several weeks now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama DID read that section of the talk page and even cited it himself above in support of his conclusion that it warranted banning STATic as well. I didn't misinterpret anything, and Atama attests to that above. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reece, just because STATicVapor said Gaga isn't his "cup of tea" doesn't mean he has a bias when editing articles relating to her or anyone else. In fact, many people make edits to articles of people/things they aren't particularly fond of and never are biased in such edits. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I really doubt he/she read it all, or even close to it if they supported your side in the slightest. As you can see every person that has followed the discussion from the start is clearly on my side, as they know the insane amount of disruption you have caused. Reece also give up the hope I am going to be banned too, it is clearly not going to happen. Thanks XXSNUGGUMSXX, I do not get how Reece refuses to understand this after I have said it no less than a dozen times now. STATic message me! 03:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama DID read it and cited to you the specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans. How can you claim that they haven't read it when they commented on your specific statements in my diff? And you keep referencing the fact that you've denied that you're biased against Lady Gaga, but that doesn't mean anything. I've denied having a bias when it comes to her and yet you keep accusing me of having one anyway. I cited a specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (here, for the third time: x) and Atama agreed that that would constitute grounds for banning you from her pages. Atama also stated that you certainly exacerbated the discussion with this kind of "trollish" rhetoric. You can't just claim that anyone who agrees with me hasn't read the discussion. That's a fallacy-based argument. Furthermore, not all the users on this page have advised for me being banned from Gaga pages. Multiple users (IndianBio, XXSNUGUMSXX, etc.) have argued for the interaction ban and not the ban from editing Gaga pages. As user Atama stated above, you're ignoring certain pieces of the conversation and presenting a one-sided, inaccurate summation of this page. XXSNUGGUMSXX, the point I'm trying to make here is that I've cited an instance in which a user made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (with rhetoric user Atama has described as "trollish" ). If you're attempting to have someone banned on the grounds that they're biased and you don't have any proof to back that claim up (other than vague links to my contribution box) and then go on to make fun of the artist in question, that argument obviously just doesn't hold up. Repeating over and over again that my bias is obvious or clear, etc. doesn't prove anything. When you have an administrator blatantly stating that they believe that STATic is biased (As Atama does above), that certainly does support my case. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

STATic didn't make fun of Gaga herself as far as I know, though calling her fans "childish" was rather unneeded. However, I don't think he was describing all of her fans, just lots that he's interacted with. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there other Wikipedia editors who are Gaga fans that he certainly wouldn't describe as such. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparing that one comment to the vile, malicious personal attacks and harassment that Reece has made is like comparing apples to watermelons. Yes I referred to the actions of one of her fans (Reece) childish. This thread is just another example of his refusal to act like a adult in a professional environment and I am just tired of responding saying the same thing over and over. Yes a single admin said they thought that, before they had even read my response to them where I refuted that point. Do not forget they still supported the topic ban for you. Multiple editors/admins have stated here that I do not have a bias, while to quote a very knowledgeable one: "Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas." Couldn't have said it better myself... Since there has been ten supporters of both points brought up by User: EatsShootsAndLeaves can we move to close and end this already? STATic message me! 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, he stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general, and then called myself and IndianBio children, as I have sourced above. STATic, disputing with a user who is attempting to have me banned is, in no way, childish. Please stop referring to my actions as "vile" and "malicious" and "attacks". That's ridiculously hyperbolic. The instances you are referring to and have linked to were instances in which I attempted to enlist help from other users and conveyed to them my opinion that you had a biased view of Lady Gaga, which user Atama has contested to above. That's it. That's what you're attempting to spin as a "vile" and "malicious attack", when you have personally insulted my intelligence and my maturity, in addition to calling me a child, illiterate, and have subsequently attempted to have me banned after posting numerous, unearned warnings on my talk page every time I would make an edit that you disagreed with. You're deliberately misleading these administrators. I am not a fan of Lady Gaga; you are making an accusation with no evidence other than your own opinion. I don't know where you got that ten users agreed to both of these provisions. Seven agreed with both while several have stated that I should not be banned from Gaga pages, and two voiced the opinion that you should be banned from her pages as well. You and Homeostasis are involved parties and can't support these provisions. None of these users have explicitly stated that you don't have a bias. That's a fabrication. One of them has stated that you do, point blank, after you alerted them to the response that you allege "refutes their point", so that is, again, a fabrication. Can you all see now why I behaved the way I did on the discussion page? It's impossible to have a civil conversation with someone who refuses to intellectually debate an issue, ignores valid points and makes up points in his responses. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Reece, but you completely lost me with that edit. You're "not a fan of Lady Gaga" all of a sudden? After all this? It's clear you're trying to WEASEL your way out of this. Also, your comment about "[StaticVapor] stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general" is very reaching. Seriously admins, don't let this just fade into archive territory for a second time. This needs to be sorted out one or the other now. I've closed the Critical Reception discussion that instigated this ANI, but Reece tried to start a similar situation up in [[261]] (which is why this topic was activated here for a second time). This user seriously needs a talking down. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly denied being a fan of Lady Gaga, so this is not "all of a sudden". I'm not trying to weasel out of anything and that accusation is unfounded; linking to my contribution page isn't proving anything. That "situation" you just linked to ended three days ago after all of the users at hand, including myself, came to a consensus of "EDM" for the album genre, which obviously does not constitute re-opening this already baseless request for banning. You and STATic are compiling small incidents and using ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric to mislead these administrators. This was re-opened because you and STATic wanted me banned, plain and simple. That was both of your go-to responses when I disagreed with you; when I brought up my concerns on the ARTPOP critical consensus, STATic immediately accused me of being biased and threatened to have me blocked before the debate even started, and when I called you out on removing sourced facts from the critical reception page (something you did multiple times) because you personally found them to be "too positive", you accused me of bias and called for a ban on myself because I disagreed with you. You've also added unnecessary, negative information to the page, cited tabloids to add ridiculous, slanderous claims against the artist to her page, reworded reviews to make them sound more negative than they really were, and attempted to misrepresent her album sales to be listed as lower than what they actually were, which would all also suggest that you have a biased view of this artist, something you admit you've been accused of numerous times in the past. You've also previously been blocked for such unprofessional behavior on Lady Gaga pages. And no, it is not reaching to assume that someone who laughed at anyone who would be a fan of an artist, would personally have a negative view of that artist. Again; this debate got out of hand because STATic has a tendency to insult (he called me and another user children here and then called another user a child here) and threaten users that disagree with him by redirecting them to WP guideline pages and accusing them of bias, as evidenced by his repeated accusations of my supposed "bias" above without any actual proof. Could I have ended the debate sooner? Yes. Does my drawing a debate out constitute grounds for banning? No. Does it, in any way, insinuate that I have a bias and should be blocked from editing certain pages? No. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Reece, but you're being terribly inconsistent here. You had claimed that STATicVapor called you a child above, and supported that statement with a diff showing that STATicVapor called Lady Gaga fans children. If you're now claiming that you're not a fan of hers, you invalidate your earlier claim. So which is it? I have to agree with Homeostasis07 about weaseling, and I'm more convinced that the problem is more one-sided here, and less convinced that STATicVapor requires any sanctions other than being involved in a mutual interaction ban. -- Atama頭 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, in the diff I provided he called me and user IndianBio children and then went on to say "what should I expect from Lady Gaga fans?". He called me a child independent of insulting Lady Gaga fans; I never stated I was a fan of Lady Gaga. Is this kind of behavior really acceptable on this website? You're allowed to call users children multiple times and express a negative viewpoint of an artist and her fanbase and continue to edit her page and get off scott-free while having someone else banned because they disagreed with your edits? How does that make any sense? And what about the numerous instances of bias Homeostasis showed that I have provided above? STATic flat out insulted Lady Gaga fans and Homeostasis' edits are suspect at the very least, and the first time I disagreed with either of them the immediately called for a ban against myself. This was their go-to strategy because I actually went against them. They have no real evidence of my supposed bias other than the warnings that THEY gave me after I disagreed with them (99% of the edits they sent me warnings about were small ones that didn't have anything to do with the critical reception page). Reece Leonard (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You are just so inconsistent with your statements, repeatedly commenting here is not going to change anything, heck you changed Atama's mind to the other side due to your continuous comments. I did not insult IndianBio, and I am sorry, but you are not acting like a professional adult, and that is clear to anyone. The only one that has harassed or insulted anyone has been you over and over and over again. This was not go to, this thread came up after you would not let it go, and any result is completely deserved. As were every single one of the edits you were warned for. STATic message me! 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, you're completely ignoring the sourced instances where you called myself and Indian bio children, on top of calling IndianBio a child again. I will reiterate: It is STATic's arguing tactics like the ones he showed directly above (ignoring points and sources in lieu of his own domineering opinion) that caused this debate to escalate to the point it got to. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• I am in support of the Lady Gaga topic ban (he clearly has a bias opinion towards her that cannot be stopped), but I am opposed to an interaction ban (I personally do not like the idea of such a ban). — Status (talk · contribs) 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's obvious some of these administrators aren't even reading this discussion. This one just accused me of having a bias AGAINST Lady Gaga, which would be the opposite of what STATic and Homeostasis are saying. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"This one" meant towards. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support both proposals. → Call me Hahc21 05:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposal (1) as written; oppose proposal (2) (interaction ban) as i don't feel they are generally helpful. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Move to close

• The consensus above is pretty much rock-solid, and the proposal has been present for 5 days. I think it's time to wrap this up now, so everyone can move on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, when will the ban(s) take effect if not already in effect? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As is the usual case, whenever an uninvolved admin determines formal consensus, closes the thread, advises the 2 editors, and logs the restrictions. Since I'm the proposer, I cannot do it myself ES&L 11:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the call of numerous users above for STATic being topic banned as well, as he called numerous users children (here and here) and insulted Lady Gaga fans (something the first diff shows and that Atama has attested to above), exacerbating the process by riling up users and exhibiting a clear bias against her? I would also move to extend the topic ban to Homeostasis, as he removed sourced facts from the critical reception page (something he did multiple times) because he personally found them to be "too positive", on top of adding unnecessary, negative information to the page, cited tabloids to add ridiculous, slanderous claims against the artist to her page, reworded reviews to make them sound more negative than they really were, and attempted to misrepresent her album sales to be listed as lower than what they actually were, which would all also suggest that he has a biased view of this artist, something he admits he's been accused of numerous times in the past. He's also previously been blocked for such unprofessional behavior on Lady Gaga pages. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For all that is holy and good, just drop it. "Numerous users"? I did not call any user that, since you (the only commentor for the other side in that discussion) have stated you are "not a fan". As you know Atama changed his/her position in their last post. Even if they did not, one user's opinion would not matter when compared to the clear consensus or "general agreement", as is the definition if you still do not understand that, every user and admin here only supports to ban you from Lady Gaga pages. Not like editing them or that single one, means a whole lot to me. I obviously did not do anything wrong to be banned from them, like you have. You have made your bias clear as a cloudless day in Summer and every commenter here has attested to it, no diff needed. You refuse to edit with a WP:NPOV, which is why the topic ban is necessary. You are the only one under discussion here, not me and not Homeostasis07. No future comments here are going to do you any good, so as I said before just stop commenting, you are just wasting your own time. Try to get started in another area that interests you and in a couple months you can request the topic ban to be lifted. STATic message me! 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In the critical reception discussion, I gave seven sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf) that attested to what I thought the page should've read. As I've repeatedly said, how can I be operating with bias if what I'm arguing for is backed up by numerous sources? Atama was under the misconception that I had contradicted myself, which I refuted in my post following his/her's. It seems as if you're just going to deny calling other users children even though I'm linking to the specific instances in which you did so, so I will lay them out here from these diffs: (here and here). To me and IndianBio: "No need to gossip on various talk pages either, children." You then insinuated that you think all Lady Gaga fans are children and that pop music in general is inferior to rap by following up this insult with: "What should I expect from Lady Gaga fans though lol, back to some Ghostface Killah." You additionally called IndianBio a child here: "What a childish response." In response to your statement "you're the one under discussion here", I would refer you to WP:ANI, specifically "ANI has a tendency to review your actions as well and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself". You're attempting to get me banned on grounds of bias when the only ones who've exhibited clear bias are you and Homeostasis and when two other users who were a part of the discussion have come forward and stated that I shouldn't be banned from Lady Gaga pages (IndianBio and XXSNUGGUMSXX); of course I'm going to defend myself. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Including information on a pre-release estimate by Billboard and updating sales information is not "unnecessary information"; You conveniently cited your own undoing of my edit, but my own edit explains exactly why I made that change (which was reinstated by another user) - you'd been removing things you don't like from that page for several months; and as much as people don't like Rupert Murdoch/New York Post (myself included) - it's still a news source, and not much less reliable of a news source than many of the newspapers that are often cited on Wiki. But it doesn't matter what I say here about any of the diffs you've just linked to. This is about the 15th time I've read your "I gave seven sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf)..." salvo (despite the fact the latter two sources have been discredited). No matter how logically one responds to something you say, you simply respond with the exact same thing over and over again until you get the answer you like. A discussion about a single line in a critical reception field shouldn't take over five months to resolve, cause all sorts of other conflict and result in an ANI report. Your demeanour and attitude have been atrocious. Wikipedia is not a battleground. There was no need to cause such massive, five-month long conflicts over what - on other articles - are very minor things. It's absolutely pointless. And you need a block until you work out that you don't need to argue over every little thing and then intentionally misinterpret things other editors say in order to make others see that you're always right/everyone else is wrong. That's completely the wrong mentality for Wikipedia: You need to collaborate. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I also want to point out that administrators don't seem to have a collective opinion on why I should be banned from Lady Gaga pages. Some say that I have been disruptive, a few are saying that I have a bias, many aren't giving a reason, a few are saying that only an interaction ban should be handed out, etc. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're merely proving yourself unable to edit this project in a community-based manner. Perhaps a topic ban and an interaction ban are too little ... DP 19:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out discrepancies, rebuking false statements, and pointing out that numerous administrators are operating on incomplete and skewed information and ignoring the actions of STATic and Homeostasis, but if this is going to devolve into threats then I have nothing else to say here. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2014 (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.

Dr. Blofeld / The Banner dispute

There is a dispute going on between Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and The Banner (talk · contribs), both long-term editors. See Blofeld's talk page as of now. I don't know what started it. Lately they have been warring over the semantic distinction between parish and village in County Clare, Ireland. This is childish. Can someone step in and try to resolve it. Maybe some sort of ban or at least rap on the knuckles. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

After removing some inappropriate grave dancing from Banner on Blofeld's talk page, he left this charming bad faith response for me, with no reason, no evidence and no truth to the insults. - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading over the gist of the dispute, it seems like it was completely avoidable. Dr. Blofield was cleaning up a large area of articles on Irish parishes and Banner took issue with several, when they were mostly likely a work-in-progress. It's unfortunate to lose someone who has been such a productive editor and I hope he returns to editing. It won't happen with this "win/lose" mentality. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I had told him before that the list of civil parishes in County Clare was a total mess that had to be cleaned up first. I did that here: User_talk:The_Banner#County_Clare in a rather friendly discussion. The discussion at Talk:List of civil parishes of County Clare, including some remarks of mr. SchroCat, was already more desperate, topped up with this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civil parishes of County Clare. It did not help at all. And from here it spiralled down is a fast pace. The Banner talk 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Civil parishes? More like be civil, or perish! I'm here all week... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Banner, of course: it's all to do with everything that everyone else is doing, and nothing to do with your actions or reactions at all. Perhaps you could read through the various topics again and put yourself in someone else's shoes, asking if your comments needed to be as pointy as they were, and whether you could/should have reacted differently. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, could you please stop throwing fuel at the fire? You are absolutely not helpful in resolving this case. The Banner talk 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Banner, I am not "throwing fuel" onto anything. I have pointed out that your behaviour has been sub-par, which is why someone has brought the matter to ANI. Your approach to most of the things Blofeld has been doing has not been constructive and you need to accept a large part of the blame for that, not just try pointing the finger at others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are here, it should be known that The Banner grave danced all over Dr. B's talk page when the latter took some time out to cool off. If anything, THAT would be "throwing fuel at the fire". Cassianto^talk 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of trolling was also very useful. And yes, it is hear warming to see how many of Blofeld friend are coming out to protect poor Blofeld, but nobody is talking about the behaviour of Blofeld and his accusation of bullying by me. You guys could spend you time more useful than hanging around here. In a few days Blofeld has dried is tears and is back. Just like the last time. The Banner talk 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And your accusation of me being guilty of owning and primma donna behaviour was just laughable. Your uncivil approach to people just because they disagree with you is the reason a third party has brought this to ANI. It's reflected in the fact that your pointy (and pointless) attempts to delete an article like Kilmoon was kicked out with absolutely no-one thinking you had a leg to stand on. Your approach is belligerant, you treat discussions like a battleground and your stalking of Blofeld's activities needs to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read, my friend, read. It is a remark directed at Blofeld. And I am not stalking Blofeld. He is not worth the effort at all.Not are you worth the effort of responding to your aggressive and attacking behaviour. The Banner talk 22:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not being aggressive or attacking Banner (and I am not your friend, either). What I have done is point out that your behaviour is sub-standard. You are approaching Blofeld with an overly-aggressive and battlefield mentality that does nothing to help anyone. Blofeld's taken a sensible option of stepping away for a few days before he over-reacts to something you will undoubtedly drag to ANI. You should have done the same, rather than just treat the whole situation as some form of pissing contest against another editor. I suggest you try stepping away from conflicts and avoiding unnecessary conflicts with that editor in future, or ANI will see more of this as it escalates. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I second the opinions that Banner's way of communication is sub-par. He is bullying and making snide remarks instead of discussing disagreements. This editor sees only their own opinion and ignores reasonable arguments instead of disputing them. - Altenmann >t 03:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's very difficult to be sympathetic towards Blofeld: [262][263][264]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• And this has exactly what to do with Banner's poor behaviour? Sinden, if you've only come here to make pointy insults to others, rather than discuss how Blofeld and Banner are interacting, then it's probably best not to post. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just an example of the kind of interaction that this editor regularly engages in that can quickly aggravate a situation. The "heartwarming" tributes left on Blofeld's talk page seem a little misplaced to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• And your comments seem a little misplaced and ill-judged, to be honest. And, just to point out the bloody obvious, your interaction also seems to turn a number of situations into something of a shit storm too. Got anything intellignt to say about the discussion in hand, viz, Banner and Blofeld's interaction? - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sinden, your comments are misplaced everywhere! Cassianto^talk 16:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, the irony. WP:THREAD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, it's telling that you only choose to comment on my stance against your friend Blofeld's general behaviour, but not on the comment above regarding Banner's conduct elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll take that as a 'no', then... - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As do your comments here seem a "little misplaced".. Haven't you got anything else better to do Austin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, this case has been on AN/I for five days without even one admin weighing in with an opinion or proposed action. Time to close? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Close if you wish, but I suspect it will make a reappearance later. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, SchroCat. But if no admin has commented after six days, they likely won't. And, yes, admins, you can take that as a dare. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from the discussion on the Ireland project page that the Banner has no intention of accepting the consensus and instead wishes to impose his own POV on civil parishes / villages in Ireland. I think that he and his blood pressure would benefit from a temporary topic ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by an admin

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 would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account. My motivation was:

1. To avoid being attacked by Eric's supporters
2. To avoid people complaining about how I work for the WMF and the WMF is trying to "police Wikipedia". Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF, but I was made an en.wiki admin 5 years before being hired by the WMF and have been an active member of the en.wiki community for nearly 10 years. My work and principles as a volunteer are separate from my employment at the WMF, but that seems to be a difficult concept for some people to recon with.

Initially, I did not consider this edit sock puppetry as I was not involved in the interactions I was reporting, but simply wanted to report them anonymously. After talking with some other people, I've come to the conclusion that this was an incorrect assessment and my action was a violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically "avoiding scrutiny". Since I have interacted with Eric in the past, and even once blocked his previous account, it's only fair that this past interaction be open to scrutiny when evaluating my report. No one has threatened to out me or take any negative action against me, but as an administrator I feel it is important that I hold myself to the same standard as I expect from everyone else. I apologize to everyone for violating this policy and I apologize to Eric for not being forthright in my interactions with him. Also, I apparently misread Eric's comment to Bencherlite, so I apologize for that as well.

Clearly, I have strong feelings about civility on Wikipedia and these feelings have caused me to act in a manner unbecoming of an administrator. In light of that, I hereby resign my administrator rights. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your very principled stand. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Normally I wouldn't bother striking blunders, but in view of Kaldari's statement at 03:01, 8 March 2014 below, my AGF is withdrawn. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• What complete rubbish! You had no fears of attack from Eric's supporters here [265] and continuing to justify your atrocious attack. It's quite obvious that you have been rightly checkusered and have chosen to go before you're pushed; doubtless thinking that will make for an easier return. The whole case was a disgrace to avoid the bad timing of negative publicity for the first officially paid Wikipedian [266],which woudl have been very embarassing for those supporting paid Wikipedians. You just added to the whole hypocrisy and deceit surrounding that case. Giano (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Kaldari's admin rights were removed this morning and the SPA User:Vox Brevis was blocked indefinitely a couple of days ago. WaggersTALK 09:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Before this is hurriedly archived, I do have a few very petinent questions for Kaldari: Your sock account was blocked almost three days ago [267]; why has it taken so long to come to this 'honourable' decision? Secondly, you are an employee of the WMF; were you socking from a WMF computer, if not - from where the edit was made during business hours? and thirdly, how do your colleagues at WMF feel about one of their own being investigated for abusive socking, especially as that sock was smearing an editor who had already been insulted by one of its former employees/interns. I would like to hear the answers to these questions. Giano (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Aww, how cute. You're playing at being an attack dog. And by virtue of that, you're only proving Kaldari right. Resolute 14:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Resolute, you might want to think about that for a minute. The sock was obviously an experienced user using deceptive socking to focus attention (whether or not appropriately) on someone whose edits he had been following - and in at least one case misinterpreting. Checkuser is standard in those cases. A lot of other people's information got caught up in those checks; Giano isn't the one who brought the WMF into this. But make no mistake, this was nailed down three ways to Sunday by standard CU investigation. What does the community usually do if experienced editors use socks in this way? Full disclosure, Kaldari and I spoke yesterday before he posted this statement, and part of that discussion was weighing the risks and benefits of resignation of administrator tools against the inevitable request for arbitration. I agree that his admin resignation was a better result for everyone involved (especially the community) than a long, drawn-out and nasty Arbcom case would have been. Risker (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit. That is the fair result based on what Kaldari did. But at some point Arbcom is going to have to start looking at things like why. And despite Giano's hilarious protestation, there is validity in Kaldari's stated reasoning. I think we both know that Giano and his ilk aren't happy that Kaldari resigned, because it took away part of another opportunity to harass their enemies. They will just find another avenue, however. Resolute 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on. What you're saying is that it's okay to sock on this noticeboard if one is worried someone might question the motivation for the report. But the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts. And I think you might be missing something I've said obliquely in my prior comment. Risker (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• What part of "I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit" means "I think it is okay to sock" to you? I'm not defending the socking. But if you don't think there is a legitimate concern over harassment and attacks for daring to question these users, I really don't know what to say. Certainly members of the current Arbcom share that fear given the kid gloves treatment; One that dared stand up to them ended up eating a barrage of misogynistic attacks for her trouble. Kaldari was wrong in their actions, but at some point, you might want to take a serious look at the why, especially their first reason. Resolute 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone would argue, but is there an official statment anywhere this is "under a cloud"?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That particular "offical" statement would be best at the 'crats noticeboard IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point Pedro, I've reposted my question in the thread on that board.-Cube lurker (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An "attack dog" is just a personal insult, and I am sad to see it raised here, but the points raised by Giano are pertinent. It is an issue of bringing an institution into disrepute by actions that have caused grief for more than one person in the past.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And we have another sock tagging this sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and a sleeper. Not sure what skin they have in the game but judging by previous account contributions they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To be an administrator means to be targeted for attack by certain people. This isn't a "have pity on the poor admins" statement; to the contrary, administrators use the tools knowing that they're going to be subject to harassment from people on occasion (sometimes relentlessly). It comes with the territory. If at some point an administrator feels that they need to use deception or some other means to deflect retaliation in the course of performing the administration role, rather than taking those steps (like creating an undisclosed sock account) they should consider whether or not they should resign the bit. The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps. -- Atama頭 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this course of action you describe would certainly be gaming the system to retain, after a break, one's admin status. If discovered, it should certainly result in a removal of tools, just as has happened in this case. This is because it shows a distinct lack of desirable qualities and morality, and a distinct excess of deceit that would render that person unsuitable to be an admin, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I don't think Atama was saying what you were suggesting - I see no suggestion to pick the tools back up in what Atama said. However, even if that were what was implied, I would think, instead, that it would be thought of as "taking a well-deserved break", and encouraged. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Under a cloud", in Wikipedia-speak, is solely a way of saying you have to go through another RfA to be resysopped, so presumably there was an implication of picking the tools back up.

ddstretch, I think you misunderstood: Atama was suggesting resigning as a wise alternative to socking, not something to be done in conjunction with it. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Emufarmers: I agree with your comment about the implication. As for your suggestion of a misunderstanding by me, I can explain my reasoning as follows: What Atama wrote was "The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps." Amongst the controversial actions Kaldari did was undoubtably and clearly creating a disruptive SPA sock from which an attack was mounted against Eric Corbett which contained errors of fact amongst other undesirable accusations. So, Atama seeems to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to resign the admin bit so as not to be under a cloud before taking the actions that Kaldari did (creating a disruptive SPA account). If we consider this as a "thought experiment", then taken together with the tactic of resigning not under a cloud, if this disruptive SPA account was not detected, then they would certainly be apparently free to take up the tools again. It is this which is the attempt to game the system that I was objecting to, because it would have evaded correct action that should be taken here. This should be detectable and counteracted because it automatically, in my opinion would provide sufficient evidence to deny the former administrator the tools ever again. Now, may be I have misunderstood what Atama wrote, in which case, I must apologize, but I certainly would not think that the actions could be described as "a well-deserved rest", and even less "encouraged", if looked at in its entirity.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if an administrator feels that they need to use sockpuppets or do something else to avoid scrutiny because of the added pressure and attention that they receive from being an administrator, just give up the tools. I'm not saying to give up the tools, and cause disruption. I'm also not just saying that so that an administrator can come back and ask for the tools again, because anyone who has given up the tools because of the stress that comes with them would have to think very hard about whether or not they want to deal with being an admin again. No need to apologize for misunderstanding me, I apologize for not being clear enough originally. -- Atama頭 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest archiving this discussion. Whatever everybody involved has done, Kaldari is down now, and should be treated with understanding. Please don't kick a man when he's down.76.126.140.150 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation; I hope the WMF are taking this breach of trust, using its own computers, seriously. I have always refused to identify to the foundation because of just such a employee have access to private and sensitive records. Quite frankly this is just not acceptable and only confirms my view. What steps are being taken to prevent another breach of trust. Giano (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Giano, first, your question is predicated on a misunderstanding: Mr. Kaldari had no such access to private or sensitive records about volunteer identity. In fact, such records do not exist. We've made it very clear that we destroy documents submitted for identity verification once that's done, so no such files exist for him to access. The Wikimedia Foundation takes this circumstance extremely seriously. I don't know that your statement "using its own computers" is true - I also do not know that it is not. I see, above, where you asked that question, but I do not see a response, so I would urge you to be careful about presenting it as fact. As to your question regarding breach of trust, I'll be happy to carry any suggestions forward on your behalf. I believe that it's too soon for us to come to a knee jerk statement about changes to policies or steps to be taken; I'm the wrong person to speak to that regardless. It sounds like a question better suited for our executives - probably Gayle Karen Young, the Chief Talent and Culture Officer. It's rather outside of my purview and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment or commit the Foundation to anything there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: You destroy documents that if ever there was serious legal problem would have to be used in a court of law? How extraordinary. Anyway, destroyed or not, there is word of mouth from those that have seen sensitive material. Are you seriously suggesting that unlike all other offices in the world, the WMF does not have at least one very large mouth. This is just not acceptable, is this person still in WMF's employ? Giano (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• With certain well-defined exceptions, there is no requirement for any individual or organization to retain information just because it might be used in some future lawsuit or criminal case. You can't delete things once you know about the legal action, but having and following a data-retention policy is allowed. One of Philippe's jobs (along with the entire legal team) is to figure out what information we need to retain and how long to retain it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, let's kick. Dishonesty needs to be dealt with. Admitting it (in odd circumstances) is mitigation, not absolution. 3 month block. 6 months if it's member of WMF. If it interferes with their day job - tough. Been more than enough mischief caused by WMF Admins. Leaky Caldron 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why does this person work for the WMF? This isn't the first wiki that Kaldari has created a sockfarm on either, see en.wikiquote. I say get the WMF to cease paying them, and remove any advanced permissions, since they obviously can't be trusted with them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ajraddatz: I think you have them confused with Kalki... --Rschen7754 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That I did, sorry. Rather similar usernames O_o. Still, a block would seem appropriate here, as would firing them from the WMF. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Kaldari should be blocked, pure and simple. Resigning their admin status a few days after deliberately creating a disruptive sockpuppet should not change that - at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Can you show evidence of ongoing disruption or the threat of it? Resolute 20:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Standard procedure is to temporarily block anyone who deliberately games the system via a sockpuppet. That this person was originally an admin, and took the coward's route out, should not make the slightest bit of difference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that a block serves a useful purpose here other than being a ritualistic "he socked, therefore he should be blocked". Unlike some others, Kaldari has recognized the problems with his actions, and has taken steps to mitigate them. He has self-reported. He has apologized (which is more than can be said for many others who have walked this path before). He has taken steps to eliminate the need for an extensive and caustic arbcom case. I see more value in encouraging Kaldari to restrict his participation to more circumscribed areas of the project (some interesting but not very controversial topics would be a good place, for example, or doing copy editing or AWB or AFC reviews); after an error in judgment like this, it's important for everyone to take a step back. Risker (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Risker. A block would just be an expression of unhealthy excitement IMO. Would it help the encyclopedia? No. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

HE brought the issue to AN/I on his own initiative, acknowledged his mistake and resigned as an admin. I think that is a fair punishment for creating a sock account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's rather naive. The course of events is that he was caught by a checkuser and decided in consultation with others a few days later that this would be his least damaging course of action. So let's hear no more talk of a "principled stand". But having said that I don't see what good blocking him would do, even though he's blocked me for less. Eric Corbett 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is possibly one of the bigger "facepalm" acts I've seen in a while (well, that someone has owned up to). Agree that blocking pointless at this juncture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that blocking will not serve any useful purpose here, because what is needed is evidence of an appropriate recognition of what has been done here. That has to come from the ex-admin himself. I don't know about anyone else, but if I were ever to do anything like this, I would not only hand in my resignation as an admin, I would also try to become as invisible as possible, because I would be just too ashamed and disgusted by my own behaviour to appear "in public" on here again. If I were an employee of a related organisation, my shame would lead me to resign. May be different people have different ideas, but if any rehabilitation is to take place, it requires sufficient action from the ex-admin, and just handing in the tools may not be sufficient for the community just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've very recently become aware that Kaldari operates this rather unwholesome site, which is rich given the recent events in which he took part. What was that about "principled stand" again? Eric Corbett 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone signed up to take a look? Is it what it says it is?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worse. Wikipediocracy has it. I dropped the link here earlier, but someone deleted it. It's as bad as you think it is. I'm disgusted. [268] Hell might be other people (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it is it makes his original complaint about Eric in the Kevin Gorman case look more than a tad hypocritical. Leaky Caldron 23:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is and it does. And it doesn't seem like an appropriate activity for an employee of the WMF. So what are they going to do about it, having recently sacked Sarah Stierch for paid editing? Eric Corbett 23:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps creating a website that mocks and belittles the brutal, real-life rape and murder of a 6-year old girl is not against the WMF's T&C of employment? It ought to be, of course. Either way, they can fucking whistle up their arses for any more donations from me: I'm not paying his fucking wages any more. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What this episode and others like it has shown is that the WMF carry out no checks at all on their future employees, they just have to be friends of friends. Doesn't seem like a good way to run a top-ten web site. And true to form Jimmy Wales is nowhere to be seen. Eric Corbett 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, Jimmy Wales is exactly where everyone knows they can expect to see him. Why fault him for granting deference to the community noticeboards, or expecting that if one wanted his opinion, one would feel welcome to ask?—John Cline (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I see below that he has been notified; I suspect he will answer – and I've only just learned of snuffster, which precludes my ability to support Kaldari or rationally discuss this matter further.—John Cline (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not important to this discussion, but I should record that my "principled stand" above was stupid—sorry! I had drafted something else with qualifications regarding possible reasons for the announcement and the clueless approach regarding Eric, but it looked ugly so I removed it. A better statement of my opinion is at my talk (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indulge me; to ask a question: not knowing the answer troubles my conscious. How is the above revelation exempt from the policy provisions at wp:outing?—John Cline (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I have never mentioned the site on Wikipedia and have no public association with it other than the domain name registration, I do think this is a pretty blatant invasion of my privacy. It's one thing to post such personal information on Wikipediocracy, but bringing it onto Wikipedia, especially as a way to attack me, does seems like a violation of our WP:OUTING policy. Kaldari (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

    Do you really think that you are fit to hold a position at the WMF? Don't you see how badly you are damaging us? Hell might be other people (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

    Don't you think that's a desperately flimsy defence, not to mention a blatant lie? Outing refers to the revelation of personally identifying information, not information that you'd quite naturally prefer to be hidden. And in what way is it an attack to provide evidence of your abominable hypocrisy? Eric Corbett 07:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari did not appear to offer a defense for the wrongs he admitted doing, but rather to answer my question; solidifying my concern as valid. Several readings of the policy that governs attempted outings are in stark contrast with your previous comment. I believe you erred in posting the information, attempting to identify Kaldari's job title and place of employ as the owner/operator of xyz.com. More than likely, outing is a concept that has outlived its wiki-usefulness, whereas I suspect you will not be held accountable. Then again, I may be wrong in that regard. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric posted a link that was already accessible via earlier references to the discussion on Wikipediocracy. I don't think it would be appropriate to hold any editor to account for outing where the presence of the offending material was already previously mentioned in this thread and therefore only a couple of clicks away. As for the claim that it was a blatant breach of privacy, in the circumstances that Kaldari has put themselves in, that's just risible. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@John Cline. Seems like I have to repeat my question, in words of one syllable. What personally identifying information about Kaldari was made public? His name, occupation, employer, job title, even where he lives, is all a matter of public record here on WP. So in what sense was Kaldari outed? But I realise of course that you're simply trolling in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from Kaldari, so I don't expect any kind of sensible reply from you. Eric Corbett 14:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As several people have complained about the wording of my original statement, I would like to clarify the circumstances of my self-report. As Risker pointed out earlier, a Checkuser was used to identify me as the source of the sockpuppet account. Once it was clear that I had been associated with the account, I decided to out myself and resign my administrator tools. I did not speak with anyone from ArbCom directly prior to posting the statement, although according to Beeblebrox, the ArbCom was already aware of the identity of the account at that time. As there was a good chance that my identity would be publicly revealed at some point, it would be fair to say that I reported the sockpuppet due to being discovered, regardless of the fact that no one had actually threatened to out me. That is my final statement on the issue. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So you lied in your earlier statement? Hell might be other people (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. That is not exactly what I said. The committee was aware of the general situation but did not know the actual identity of the sockmaster until just after the initial statement was posted here. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Time for a block?

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.

---

Is there any real argument against blocking, really? Do you really need to consult the endless WP:* arcana of rules and essays and policies to tell you that this is an a) deceptive and b) disgusting human being that no one in their right mind should wish to be associated with? I realize this runs counter to the hipster/libertarian streak that permeates much of this websites these days, one that loathes to ban people just because they believe in or advocate distasteful thing. But seriously, a WMF staffer masquerading socks and operating a faux snuff site has to be a scale-tipper here. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's not very often that I would publicly call for someone to resign or to be fired, but I feel this has to happen here; Kaldari's position is now untenable. Talk about falling on your own sword in spectacular style. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• I totally agree this is some of the most offensive stuff I have ever seen, considering I survived a fucking suicide attempt back in October and I'm dealing with a mother who might die any day now. Anyone who takes death as some kind of pleasure and entertainment should be banned from Wikipedia and let the foundation deal with it. Secret ^account 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The site appears to be a parody / art project, not associated with actual deaths. Are we seriously going to try and use that as an excuse? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• JonBenét Ramsey is an, quote, "actual death." Go set up an arty-farty "parody / art project" about that in Boulder, Colorado and see what happens. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Jon Benet Ramsey page shows four photos which are various modeling photos of her, nothing to do with her murder or body. It is in poor taste, but does not depict any violence. We ALSO have no way of knowing who signed up with that profile; I believe everyone who's looked at the site had to sign up, correct? So you understand that it could be anyone's posting of material there, not Ryan's? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Squirm all you like in defense of kaldari. Your premise has been proven false. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• He hosts the site, pays for registration fees, approved the user login who is listed as a friend. It's beyond sickening. It's worse that you're defending the indefensible because of misplaced loyalties. If he were not employed by the WMF, this would already by a ban. Hell might be other people (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Really? I saw much more real blood and wounds at the last Folsom Street Fair than on that whole website. Frankly I am not sure there were any wounds depicted on the whole site that had more damage than the two IV lines I had inserted while in the Emergency Room last Monday. While in poor taste, this is absolutely tame compared to any real blood/gore sites. The idea that anyone who participated in a parody this tame would need banning from Wikipedia is ludicrous and absurd. I certainly am not going to praise him for it, but he's put it behind a sign-up wall, it seems all fake (as opposed to any number of non-protected sites with real bodies, body parts, etc), and is obviously self-posted parody by most of the members. Get a grip. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Don't turn up to a gunfight with a knife, hombre. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that WP is not supposed to consider off-wiki behavior unless it involves violating wiki policies (like outing). As tasteless as it might be, it should not have any bearing on whether or not the editor receives a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's very similar to some of the material hosted at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which various well-known Wikipedia editors and functionaries are or have been involved with. (Whether that makes it "OK" or not is another thing.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of being a shithell etc, discussing blocking here is, of course, s acceptable but behaviour related to Kaldari's employment isn't (simply because this simply isn't the correct venue). I would ask that this be raised with the Wikimedia Foundation through the proper channels: Maggie Dennis the community advocate, the three community representatives on the Foundation, SJ, Phoebe and Raystorm, and of course, Jimbo Wales. ANI and the administrative corps of this site, well, we're completely unable to do anything about the behaviour concerns relating to employment. All we can do is block Kaldari's own account or instate a ban against the user's own account, if that is the wish of the community. Nick (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've notified Jimbo's talk page, but we have every right to discuss Kaldari's future; people who donate to the WMF pay his wages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've pinged Jimmy to try and attract his attention. I've no issues with you discussing it at all, just that this page really isn't the correct venue (you might be better off discussing employment related concerns about their editing behaviour their extra curricular behaviour somewhere on Meta) and we are unable to take any administrative action other than blocking Kaldari's personal account. Nick (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's own policy on socks such a blatant abuse of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, disruptively edit, deceive the community and pose as an uninvolved editor, is deserving of a ban. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• A single edit under an an undeclared alternative account when not used to carry out an administrative action or make an abusive edit is not reason to block anybody. I would not even have argued that it is adequate rational for a de-sysop after the explanation given. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are free to interpret policy ("The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses") however you want in order to defend one of your own. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how using the most drastic actions available for this particular isolated instance is likely to have any effect in preventing disruption of the encyclopedia, or discouraging the sorts of sockppettry that do disrupt it. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Had Kaldari not been an administrator I doubt you'd be so forgiving. Eric Corbett 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose block per Liz. NE Ent 11:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

NO to McCarthyism/cyberbullying!

I don't know if the "sockpuppetry" of trying to report something you think is a wikicrime anonymously normally receives a block if you apologize for trying. The community is nuts about that whole issue - we should have a system whereby anyone can start as many new accounts as they want, and the weight given those accounts' opinions is light enough that this is not a gaming mechanism.

But what I do know is that this practice of claiming that Wikimedia employees should be "vetted" to see if they've ever in their lives said something outrageous -- of trying to get editors' real names claiming that is some step toward accountable behavior, immediately before using those names to try to collect together a list of oddities and photos you think are unflattering to try to make them feel uncomfortable -- those things are just plain and absolutely wrong and we have to hold absolutely firm against them. If we let these bastards pull this stunt, it could be like what they did to Fae all over again, and Wikipedia establishes itself even more firmly as a shining example of cyberbullocracy as a form of government. Sure, they should be free to have their giggles at WO if that's what they feel like, but the basis of that freedom is that we angrily resist any effort to use that to change our behavior. With freedom comes responsibility - and this is the responsibility. I urge Wikimedia to stand by Kaldari's right to free expression, and not allow a couple of edits to outweigh his day to day work history, let alone some content he may have something to do with that is totally outside of his duties at Wikipedia!

I say this despite the fact that I agreed at the time that Eric Corbett had been poorly treated - based on what he mentioned about his father, he deserves our sympathy just as much as anyone else in that story. There are many times when the best thing for us to do is nothing at all, sanction no one, but recognize that we should aspire to a higher standard of freedom than what we have. Wnt (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly I agree with Wnt. It will be a sad day indeed if those with responsibility for a site, one of whose main activities is the documenting the peccadilloes of others, are ever subject to the same level of scrutiny that the sites victims are. John lilburne (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Anyone who finds entertainment in the murder of children has no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I created the Snuffster website as a parody of Friendster back in 2003. As you can see from this archive of Friendster, virtually every word on Snuffster is a direct parody. As the site was just an outdated joke, I never policed the content that other people added later. And for the record, I was only responsible for a single profile on the site which had nothing remotely offensive on it. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of not pro-actively censoring the offensive content that other people added. Now that it's been brought to my attention, I've disabled most of the site, although I left the home page if people are curious about it. The site had long outlived its purpose anyway. I'm not ashamed of having created it, however. Maybe it's a bit morbid, but I thought it was a fun experiment in creating a social networking site (and not a bad parody either). That's all I have to say on the subject. Kaldari (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sick, you created a website, it is your responsibility to police it. The fact that you did not and have no shame in the content posted shows a lack of moral fibre. You ought to be banned for that shit. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not buying your argument, Kaldari; you were paying the bills to keep that website online, and being the owner of a website that mocks the murder of young children is unacceptable, and would get you fired from most jobs if that became public. This should be no exception. The hypocrisy of you running a website that mocks suicide, and then attempting to claim that Eric did the same, should mean that you should quit yourself before you get pushed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• There's certainly some hypocrisy in Kaldari's behaviour. And yes, the person who owns the registration for a domain bears some (moral) responsibility for things that are posted there. Just as I would hold the person listed as the registrant of wikipediocracy.com responsible for some of the things posted there; though it serves no purpose because he's already banned here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's unconscionable that Jimbo doesn't police the site he created. At least Larry Sanger takes his responsibility seriously! —Emufarmers^(T/C) 11:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• So let's get this straight, Kaldari; at the time you posted this, you were funding a website, which you had created, that mocked a murdered child? And then you created a throwaway sock account to attack another editor? But you're still defending your conduct? Is that your position? --John (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's easy to read your first sentence as meaning that the website as created by Kaldari mocked a murdered child. Which is not the case. Just pointing this out, as I'm sure you didn't intend to be ambiguous. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I chose my words very carefully, but thank you for clarifying if you found them ambiguous. Once more, at the time Kaldari posted his ill-founded rant about Eric supposedly "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian", he was paying for a website, which he had created, which mocked a murdered child. That's the scenario we are looking at, yes? --John (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but if one is specific one ends up with at the time Kaldari posted his ill-founded rant about Eric supposedly "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian", he was paying for a website, which he had created in 2004, to which someone else had added content which mocked a murdered child. Those are the facts, but writing them out in full like that sounds a little less dramatic, eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I followed some of the links from wikipediocracy, he had commented on a lot of those images, so he know that shit was there. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Same here. One or two of the snuffster.com pages mocking actual deaths of children that were linked on WO had a comment by "Ryan". "Ryan" was linked to his profile on the site. I don't know when he made those comments. It may have been ten years ago. Andreas JN466 11:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• If Kaldari was a common-or-garden member, and not part of the WMF/a former admin, they'd have been indeffed by now. Typical bias. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• If Kaldari was, as you say, "a common-or-garden member", this probably would not have reached witch hunt level. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  What's your definition of "witch hunt"? Are you suggesting that Kaldari is a witch? Eric Corbett 16:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Anybody got a large duck so we can check? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am obviously not suggesting that Kaldari is a witch. While I am not at all impressed by recent revelations concerning the user, the suspicious nature of the timing is not lost on me. Strange how this information about Kaldari's website is brought to attention while the user is already in hot water. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are you, Northern Antarctica, really so ignorant and stupid, or are you just pretending to be so? People were hardly likely to take a close look at Kaldari while he's enjoying popularity. He's attracted attention to himself by being monumentally stupid, so it's obvious that those at Wikipediocracy were going to take a closer look at him. Can you not grasp that? He's completely the architect of his own misfortune. Giano (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll overlook your nasty attack and instead calmly ask you why the folks at Wikipediocracy are taking a closer look at him? What purpose does it serve? Is it going to be beneficial in any way? Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oh FGS do stop bleating about nasty attacks and leave the playground behind you, Northern Antarctica, this is the real, grown up world. If you attract attention to yourself, people take a closer look. I have no idea what purpose it serves; I suppose if one works for WMF, others expect you to be whiter than white. Kaldari made a ridiculous attack on Eric Corbett and his ownership of that website made his attack hypocritical. surely you can see that? And yes, it will be benificial because it will make others think twice aout such repulsive websites in future. Giano (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it is doubtful that this scenario is going to prevent very many people from creating inappropriate websites in the future. Most people probably wouldn't do such a thing anyway and those who are thoughtless enough to do so are not extremely likely to heed warning signs. Also, I didn't realize that real grown-ups prided themselves on making nasty attacks. One would think that as people get older and more sophisticated, their chosen methods of debating will develop similarly. Well, live and learn! Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Just so we're clear, are you trying to defend Kaldari's web site, or his participation in it, which he has lied about here? What's your motivation for wanting to hide any discussion of Kaldari's involvement in such a site after he accused me of taking pleasure in the death of another, a charge I note that you were rather supportive of at ArbCom. Had you known about Kaldari's site would your opinion have been the same? Eric Corbett 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't read Kaldari's website and don't intend to, but I certainly wouldn't condone anything that mocks death. I'm also not trying to hide discussion. For me, the issue is that it looks like Kaldari is being piled on unnecessarily. Also, I'm not sure what I might have said that makes you think that I agree with the charge that you were taking pleasure in the death of another. I don't agree with that charge at all. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  That site is rather distressing to anyone of a normal disposition, so best not looked at. The point though is that had Kaldari not socked and then been forced to admit it after being checkusered he'd still be flying under the radar, maintaining his disgusting site. It's quite natural that when someone steps out of line they'll come under increased scrutiny don't you think? Eric Corbett 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is quite natural, but since Kaldari's already been desysopped, I don't see why the scrutiny is still needed. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• it's a tough fact of life, but Pandora's box is as true today as it was then. Once opened, you can't put things back and close the lid. Giano (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Northern, here's what you wrote at the Kevin Gorman RFAR ... You (once again) dismissed any importance to knowing details of a case before drawing conclusions (BTW, why do you keep doing that?! -- so that you can exempt yourself later from backing up what you say!?): I haven't fully studied the circumstances of this specific case (and don't intend to), then you went on to euphemistically minimize what Kevin Gorman did: I think Eric had a legitimate point in his original comment that Kevin took exception to., then you brushed aside Gorman's gravedancing allegation with another euphemism: I certainly don't think that Kevin's handling of the situation was ideal, but he has admitted as much., then you went on to recommend to Arbcom to take the opportunity to sanction Eric Corbett: it could be argued that this situation further demonstrates Eric's failure to respectfully tolerate dissenting positions. [...] and maybe the committee should consider whether it wants to take decisive action now [...]. So no, you never accused Eric of gravedancing. You just didn't directly mention it, minimizing and forgiving what Kevin did with your pat euphemistic mealy-mouthed manipulative grandstanding, when you weren't "fully" acquainted with the facts to begin with. (Your shallow CIV concept and POV agenda against Eric Corbett is so transparent and disgusting you make me wanna vomit!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to create drama by stirring up an old controversy? Maybe you should think about whether or not you are helping to make ANI more of a cesspool (to use one of your words). Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to consider taking your own advice. Your position was very clear in that ArbCom case: to paraphrase, "let's forget about what Kevin Gorman did, here's an opportunity to stick the knife into Eric Corbett". Eric Corbett 22:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So, just because I was saying that your behavior should be scrutinized, that automatically means that I wanted Kevin's behavior to be ignored? Perhaps you should be more careful when connecting dots that are so far apart. I never said you were guilty of gravedancing and I don't think you were. I made that clear above, but Ihardlythinkso certainly wasn't going to miss an opportunity to attack me, even if it meant dragging up an old argument and creating more drama. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

it looks like Kaldari is being piled on unnecessarily. Oh, that's rich! When he is the architect of his own demise. 1) He said the website served it's parody point long ago, right? Yet he continued to keep the site active by paying year after year for the domain name. 2) He says he never looked at the content others posted there. (There seems to be some counter-evidence to that, but assuming it is true for a moment, is it believable? He provided a mechanism for others to post pictures toward his gruesome theme, then never bothered, even out of curiosity, to check on the response? Yeah right. I think that does not stand to reason. I think he's lying. [Is it a shock? From a sock puppet?]) This guy is totally creepy. His word cannot be trusted. (At all; zero.) His "mocking suicide" false accusation of Eric Corbett is so astoundingly hypocritical, it takes one's breath away even considering how to respond. (This guy is a WMF employee!?!?!?!?! [Jesus Christ!] He's still around, only desysopped? [Jesus Christ!] What will make this creepy thing go into its cave and stay there?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quite so. If you play with hellfire, you are going to get massively burned. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is it justifiable to pursue a vendetta against someone (in this case, Kaldari) by digging up as much dirt as possible? Will that help build the encyclopedia? Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  Will it prevent the encyclopedia being built, or might it prevent another episode like this one, if all of Kaldari's skeletons are shaken out of the cupboard? Eric Corbett 22:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• It certainly won't do Kaldari any favors, but then again I doubt you care about what happens to him. How does shaking his skeletons out prevent these "episodes"? He's already in trouble for socking. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Another similar website

Above we have claims that Kaldari was involved in a website that made fun of murdered children. And we have a plausible statement by Kaldari that he was not responsible for posting the material concerned; and he states that he's now removed that material.

Another website that makes fun of murdered children, where the material in question has not been taken down, can be found by googling "Encyclopedia Dramatica Madeleine McCann". The Google search results give you an idea of the sort of content there; visiting the page itself may be inadvisible for many. That's only the most notable example that springs to mind; there's a great deal more like that on that site.

And we have an English Wikipedia oversighter, checkuser and OTRS member who says in 2009 (that's really rather recent, compared with things Kaldari was up to in 2004) "I'm also a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Yes, it's true! ... I keep both these arenas very separate". The big graphic on that page is an interpretation of Encyclopedia Dramatica's logo; there's an even bigger one on her current userpage that's similar.

There's nothing to indicate that person has edited the pages about murdered children there - either to add to them or to make them less offensive - just as no-one has suggested that Kaldari added any of the similar material mentioned above. But Kaldari does seem to do a better job of keeping "these arenas very separate"; he's not promoted or mentioned his Friendster parody on Wikipedia.

The English Wikipedia community has historically been quite tolerant of editors involved in such things. Maybe it's one of these "free speech" things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the substantive point you raise here, but you should have notified Alison that you were bringing up her conduct here. I have done it for you. Is this one of these "two wrongs make a right" things? --John (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you managed to drop a template on her talk page exactly 120 seconds before I posted a hand-written note. That was useful.

And no, I don't approve of the behaviour of either of them. The purpose (as my last paragraph suggests) is to provide context about how the community has viewed similar cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you didn't forget and that you spent those seven minutes well, crafting a hand-written notice to Alison that you had brought her user page from 2009 up here in 2014. That was certainly time well spent. --John (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the community had any problem with it in 2009 either, unless you know otherwise? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's be clear. WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal even for things with a far more immediate connection to Wikipedia. Some people here are essentially saying "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Well, as it happens, there is a difference between allegedly being uncivil on a project that tries (counterproductively) to prohibit incivility, and allowing similar alleged incivility on a site you administer elsewhere on the Web. Even if you try to ban the one you don't have to go out looking for ways to penalize an author for being prolific. Now to be clear, I'd prefer that people on Wikipedia be free to freely express their anger toward those who commit suicide and leave people behind. But Kaldari shouldn't have to walk on eggshells because he has other writings in the world. He should be free to be as wrong as anyone else. Wnt (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed, we should all have the right to be wrong. I don't think it is civility that we are talking about but more hypocrisy and dishonesty. It appears that Kaldari (by his own account) made a false allegation about another Wikipedian supposedly "speaking ill of the dead", while a site that he set up and was paying for was hosting mockery of a dead child, and then set up a sock account to harass that Wikipedian. All this in a matter of a few weeks? Do I understand correctly that this is what Kaldari admits to? No, incivility is nothing to do with it. --John (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well stated. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• John, I like that summary--thanks.

  I don't know if anyone cares, but I'll say it anyway: I do not favor a block for Kaldari, let alone an indefinite block. We don't typically block for one act of socking, as low as it was, and I see no reason to change that convention here. The hypocrisy is of course glaring and profoundly distasteful--I was disgusted already with some of the responses to Eric's comments in that thread on Jimmy Wales's talk page, and this makes it so much worse. (What the hell kind of world is this, with websites like that?) As far as I'm concerned Kaldari is persona non grata, and he'll remain that way for a lot of editors here. I don't know if the WMF is still associated with him, but they should cut those ties immediately. Maybe they already have. But we've already wasted enough words on this matter, and I'm going to wash my hands and brush my teeth, cause this is dirty. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't typically block for one act of socking That's absurd, Drmies. (This was an ADMINISTRATOR, for how many years? A decade? I thought you admins used "discretion"??? Discretion in this case should tell you, it isn't a newish user learning the boundaries and reacting emotionally by making a sock to harrass. It was an Admin who knew exactly the nature of the transgression he deliberated and executed. And you are using the same yardstick -- "POLICY" (precedent) -- to make an assessment "we don't typically block for one act of socking"??? How "typical", Drmies, is an Admin socking??? Please inform us what the sanctions where when other Admins have socked in the past. Is there any bad-ass-acting Admin that you have NEVER backed up??? (Toddst1 "A find Admin", Kevin Gorman "One of the good guys"). This is Admin preferential treatment for other Admins. Oh I'm so shocked to see that from you -- I'm in tears I'm so shocked.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari was socking because he want to avoid getting screamed at by people like you. What he did was wrong, but your recent behavior has helped show why he did what he did. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That post doesn't meet minimum IQ standards, Northern. False blame. Inappropriate blame. Attempting to shame me for a deliberate undermine of WP Policy voluntarily executed by an Admin of 10 years or more. Your bullshit response blame makes about as much sense as "The devil made me do it!" Apparently you have no pride, making such flat-out bogus arguments like that. (Wow.) But this is the ANI Cesspool of Irresponsibility -- I forget. (You belong on The Jerry Springer Show.) Go away badgering troll. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both of you have gotten your last words in; congratulations. That my impartiality is questioned by the two of you makes me feel quite impartial: we know who you are and where you stand. Now basta. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (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.

How?

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.

---

If Kaldari (talk · contribs) is no longer an admin, how was he able to protect his own talk page? Thrub (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's because he still has the editinterface permission (see meta:editinterface). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is using it in a (very mild) personal dispute on his own talk page not an abuse of that right? Thrub (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(I should add the IP on his talk page was me - I lost my connection and got logged out a couple of times this morning) Thrub (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally he should've asked someone else to do it, or asked at WP:RFPP. But asking for one's own talkpage to be temporarily semi-protected is absolutely non-controversial if there's new accounts posting there that one doesn't want posting there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When he didn't even bother to ask the other person not to post there first, and there was no record of any persistent problem? I'd have been happy to oblige and not post there if he'd asked me (even in an edit summary). I think he abused his permissions here - editinterface is not granted for use in closing personal disputes. Thrub (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? There was an IP edit-warring on his talk page to re-insert something described by another editor as "a personal attack", one minute before Kaldari semi-protected it. I don't see any posts from you there at all...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See above, where I said "(I should add the IP on his talk page was me - I lost my connection and got logged out a couple of times this morning)". And I wasn't edit-warring and was not reinserting the same thing - I made two distinct comments, that's all, and would have been quite happy to stop posting there had he simply said so. Thrub (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So you made three edits to his talk page while logged out, as two different IPs. Your first comment he removed. So you added a second, different comment. Which he also removed. You should've started getting the hint at that point, but instead, yes, you edit-warred to re-add the same comment. One minute later he semi-protected the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The last one was to reinsert a comment that had been inappropriately removed by a third party (the one who went on to make an incorrect accusation of personal attack) - I would not have reinserted it had Kaldari himself removed it, and I *did not* edit war with Kaldari over it (and he's the only one who can decide whether he wants a comment that does not break any rules on his talk page). And this does not answer my question anyway - whether it is proper for a ex-admin to use alternative permissions to continue to perform admin actions. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Thrub (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not proper if it's controversial. But I don't see anyone other than you making the case that it's controversial for someone to semi-protect their own talk page when there are two different IPs posting material they don't want there, one of them edit-warring to re-add it. If you think it's inappropriate for the page to be semi-protected, you could make that case at WP:RFPP, but it's unlikely to be well received. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I thank your for your opinion, and will wait to see if there are any others - I personally consider it improper to use alternative permissions to continue to perform admin functions after one has lost one's admin bit (and *that* is the issue - not whether the page should have been protected at all). And whether or not there's only me who thinks so is currently moot, as we really haven't had much time for many other opinions yet. Thrub (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(Oh, and just because someone else labels something a "personal attack" doesn't mean it is one - have a look yourself and you'll see it was just a couple of factual observations Thrub (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Actually, it seems apparent to me that editinterface is not intended to be used for admin actions at all (only those granted admin status should perform admin actions), it's essentially for coding and technical use. So using it in this way does seem like abuse. Thrub (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (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.

Why?

It appears that Kaldari (talk · contribs) was caught socking by a CheckUser check, and was then offered the chance to resign the admin bit as faux-honorably as he chose (and it's ironic that he chooses to retain praise on his talk page for doing so, while removing statements that point out that inconvenient fact - but that's a digression). My question is why should an admin be afforded such a courtesy when non-admins who sock are routinely blocked on sight? Thrub (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually in some cases the non-admins are merely the subject of an arbcom ruling that the shared IP template should be added to their userpage; but if the non-admin makes enough of a fuss that subsequently doesn't happen anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well, technically, this is the discussion to decide that. However, simply creating another account is not "socking" - the WP:SOCK policy lays out many legitimate reasons to do so. It is necessary to show that in its four edits, the other account actually worked with Kaldari's main account to give him undue influence over the conversation, which is far from cleart. I would rather see all Wikipedians be free to start fresh accounts or do IP postings to raise administrative issues without the inevitable death-match "boomerang" aspect of it, provided we are willing to streamline the process by which repeated and unreasonable allegations by such people are discounted so that they aren't used as a method of harassment. Wnt (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to see *all* Wikipedians given the same appropriate consideration when caught misusing an alternative account (and this *was* misusing the account, otherwise there would not have been a CheckUser check), rather than just admins - it only reinforces the image of those in power helping cover each others' backs. Thrub (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (modified to "appropriate" Thrub (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC))

Is there some "case law" here? What is the usual penalty when an editor in good standing registers a new account solely trying to file an administrative issue of this type without backsplatter? Wnt (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know - interesting question. It just seems corrupt for a misbehaving admin to be allowed to dishonestly claim to be confessing honorably when what had happened was that he'd actually been caught. Thrub (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if there's no set of precedents to prove otherwise, I'm going to assume that this experience has likely soured Kaldari on the whole starting a different account thing for a long time coming, and so there is no need for a preventative block. You can say that he was "actually caught", but that is a bit of a stretch -- if he'd wanted to stonewall he could have had people debating for weeks whether it was a visitor/spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/cyber-cafe/"borrowed my laptop while we were scanning Wikipedia images at the library", whatever. The way he phrased it may have been self-serving, but he deserves some credit for sparing us that. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree there's no reason for a block now and I'm certainly not calling for one - and I'm as sure as I can be that Kaldari won't do it again. But I'm not actually talking about him here - my issue is with the CheckUser (and whoever else in power was part of this) who appears to have given preferential treatment to one of their own. That appearance might not be true, of course, and I might be wrong - I'd welcome an assurance from those responsible that they would treat non-admins in exactly the same way (and I'd further welcome evidence of their having done so in the past). Thrub (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Malleus was also contacted privately in just the same way, so that's an example of their having done so in the past. One wonders how friendly a response they got. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I'd have to research for details in my history, but I know I've encountered this case before. For a first socking offense, I would treat it as I do pretty much any first socking offense: indefinite block for the sock, two weeks for the master. There's no question that this is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT as being done to avoid scrutiny and being an edit to project space.—Kww(talk) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is a violation because it was done to avoid scrutiny. Administrators are supposed to be (and should be) held to higher standards than other editors, that is part of the admin policy. It's also mentioned in that policy that failure to maintain that higher standard can lead to a loss of the administrator tools, which has already happened in this case. What we're now left with is a judgment of this editor's actions as an editor, not as an administrator. I concur that for a first-time socking offense, especially from a productive editor, a block of the sockpuppet(s) and either a warning or short-term block is appropriate. I take many things into account when determining an appropriate sanction; did the editor come clean at any point (and at what point), how extensive was the use of the sock(s), how many socks, what kind of disruption was done with them, and so on. It's handled on a case-by-case basis. If a regular editor, not an administrator or someone who was employed by WMF, if they got caught using a sockpuppet in a limited way and admitted it then I'd probably let them off with a warning, and block the sockpuppet. Contrary to what Thrub is suggesting, the fact that the editor in this case was an administrator and had extra privileges even in addition to that makes me feel less lenient. If a block were also made in this case I'm not sure that I'd protest too heavily. -- Atama頭 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased by your moral stance, Atama - it's a shame that the CheckUser who tipped him off does not apparently share it. Thrub (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of post

I've received a good faith user talk query about the thought process behind my removal of thread [269]. At the time I did not know (or care) who the actual poster was. There have been numerous prior WQA / ANI discussions regarding Eric and an arbcom case, none of which have led towards any convergence to consensus on addressing alleged disruption of Wikipedia by either Eric or those engaging with him. They have led to acrimonious exchanges by many valuable mainspace contributors who sincerely believe they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia by being either "pro-Eric" or "anti-Eric." In that context, I consider opening yet another pointless ANI thread about it simply trolling, and, as a former unmoderated alt-usenet contributor, know the way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, and policy e.g. wp:3rr supports removal of such content. I'm not sure how / when this stupid trend of "look at me censoring this content" by putting a gaudy hat around it started, but it is not a good idea, as hats are mostly just neon signs saying "click here for drama!" (It's WP:RBI, not WP:HBI).

I'll note that a prior arbcom has suggested that editors with good faith concerns regarding his behavior should be creating the still red-linked after all these years Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Eric Corbett. I cannot in good faith suggest anyone do so, because a) they will get a tedious set of ad hominem attacks back them and b) more importantly Eric isn't the real problem. The real problem is English Wikipedia does not have a functional civility policy; I essayed as much three years ago at Notes on civility; more recent evidence is the the arbcom case and the technically open but moribund civility enforcement RFC. NE Ent 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've previously commented at the talk page for WP:Civility that it is bloated up with an incredible amount of unicorns-and-rainbows blather about what would be nice in a perfect world. The policy should be combined with WP:Disruptive editing and perhaps others, and limited only to such things as are actually policed, and those should be reduced as much as possible, because the more civility is enforced the nastier Wikipedia gets. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that *at the time* DENY was a perfectly reasonable action; however due to the unfolding issues related to said thread, it may be advisable in hindsight to just add the thread in question to the most recent ANI archive so it can be linked to. Rgrds. --64.85.216.160 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As a point of order, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum existed at one point, but has been deleted 3 different times, most recently as a result of an arbcom situation. I have no idea a) why the prior RFCs were created in the first place nor b) why they all were deleted. But Eric/Malleus has been the subject to RFCUs in the past. --Jayron32 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't. The RFC was deleted because nobody ratified it, therefore it didn't happen. I believe it's common practice in that circumstance to delete the proposal. Eric Corbett 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. There was only one attempt at an RFC, the one that gathered no support, so your "all" is rather misleading, hopefully not deliberately so. Eric Corbett 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove edit-interface right?

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.

---

It seems to me that resigning as an admin while retaining the edit-interface right is a relatively symbolic act, as it means that Kaldari retains the right to change article protections and edit through protection. I can't see any reason that he should retain those privileges.—Kww(talk) 15:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Seems sensible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I wondered how he was able to do that too. I didn't know this was possible. It shouldn't be. --John (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Just solve the problem by some other admin taking over the protection, which was justified. Risker (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The protection itself was dubious (we don't grant the same free reign to protecting user talk pages as we do user pages), and the fact it was done after the bit was resigned makes it a deliberate attempt at gaming the system. Again. Another reason why Kaldari should be blocked as a preventative measure (not punitive, despite how several people have tried to wing it). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The protection was not dubious, the page was being trolled and the action would of been taken by another admin. This would be a punitive measure, as no abuse of this tool has taken place nor is there evidence it will.Blethering Scot 16:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• This tool is not supposed to be used for protecting one's user talk page, as someone directly commented. So yes, it is a blatant abuse of the tools. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Page protection in this situation was tool abuse. "You abuse it, you lose it." should be our motto. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm the one accused of trolling his talk page (while accidentally logged out), but I wasn't. I expressed two fact-based comments - I think it is perfectly reasonable to question praise given to an admin based on ignorance of the actual circumstances, and then to question his removal of it while retaining the undeserved praise. And Kaldari was entitled to remove it (but the other editor was not). I'm also the one who raised the question about Kaldari's protection of his own page, in a section just above here. But a clarification of his use of editinterface was all I wanted, and it seems he was indeed wrong to use it to protect his own talk page - if he is told clearly that he must not abuse the right again and he does not do so, then I think that's all that's needed Thrub (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Kaldari has accepted his mistake and unprotected the page - that seems like a satisfactory outcome to me. Thrub (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warn, but preserve. This all seems like too much over too little. I don't deny that it was a misuse of editinterface to use it in this way as people have said above; but he was an admin just the day before and I'd allow for a chance of confusion. One ANI posting under a pseudonym, one page protection that an admin probably would have done anyway... it's not enough for us to purge a developer over. The warm fuzzy glow of knowing that the next person won't try to report an incident just isn't worth having an upload or thumbnail feature left broken for hours or days more on the entire encyclopedia while we're waiting for someone else to work on it. Therefore I'd say get clarity on this, and if you absolutely must wave your rod around then suspend it for a brief and defined duration, but don't disrupt the encyclopedia just to make a point. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• "upload or thumbnail feature left broken for hours or days" - that's what usually happens anyway. Look at VisualEditor, and several other debacles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ask arbcom for a motion It should probably go without saying, but perhaps a general motion from arbcom stating that WMF toolkits should only be used for "office" actions would be helpful if retaining some appearance of "community-led governance" is desirable. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 18:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• The editinterface right is a global right, and cannot be removed through voting here. With that being said, per WP:GRP a bureaucrat can tell someone with this right to stop using it here, and if they violate that, it's grounds for a block. --Rschen7754 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  I was about to write the same, also, for a long-standing sysop is a pretty common mistake (there are no difference in user interface), I'd suggest evaluating if Kaldari still needs that right and maybe hide the relevant buttons via css. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2014 (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.

Prohibition of Kaldari's local usage of global editinterface rights

• As an enwiki bureaucrat, and in the interest of drama avoidance if nothing else, I've asked Kaldari, under WP:GRP, to cease from taking administrator actions as a volunteer editor using his global groups per discussion here and at the crats' noticeboard. If no crat objects, the situation will be just as if he had been desysoped for cause for the time being. Obviously this is a bit unprecedented in a few ways, but from the perspective of drama avoidance alone, it makes sense and I'm willing to stand behind it. Pakaran 19:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Does that mean that if Kaldari pulls another stunt like this he'll be blocked? Eric Corbett 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  That's even more moot than before. Pakaran 21:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  Problem solved then. Eric Corbett 22:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Dispute over use of a celebrities' talk page

So many of you recall the conversation that was here regarding photos (an aerial photo I took) of the range. Well the user and I had some harsh words and it escalated rather quickly, then resolved itself as quickly as it started but it seemed to gain me WPPilot a new stalker Hijiri88 Talk:Daniel_Catullo#COI_editing and I do not know what to do now. I simply went back to uploading my many years of photos and it would seem that Hijiri88 did not like something about a story I contributed photos to in 2010 and 2012 for Producer Daniel Catullo and he has turned this mans talk page into a personal war upon me. I have tried to take this personal conversation and his attack to his talk page, as it has no business on Catullo page, but he seems dead set on pushing this into yet another fight. I can understand it for the life of me. He discovered that his discovery was something that was already well known and he scaled up his use of this personal talk page to attack me. I have tried to be nice and explain in detail but I can no longer continue, this has gone on for a week now over my donating a Aerial photo of a mountain range and it seems this user Hijiri88 is going to continue regardless of what anyone says. I am at a loss of what to do. This user has already been banned once before and seems to be, based upon his editorial history to be simply picking a fight and he is determined to do it on the talk page of a celebrity. WPPilot talk WPPilot 07:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that I merely questioned whether the article read like a promotional piece. User:ChrisGualtieri agreed.[270] I had my comments deleted from the page (with some "charming" edit summaries), received this somewhat threatening message, and now I am getting called a "stalker". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: bit of a note: Dc3director = Daniel Catullo. The connection was already revealed prior and the fact that Daniel Catullo is the Dc3 Director is self-noted. With that being said, I tried to fix the issues, but I ran into this mess. Personally, I'm not even a native Japanese speaker but "良い一日を" is probably more sarcastic/rude in Japanese than it is in English. WPPilot means well, but its not the photos that are the problem - never was. You don't see me tooting my own horn for getting a spot in Guinness, but I think some of the claims here are quite stretched to the limits on clever wording or technicalities. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a far cry from what he says above. .WPPilot talk

I have been challenged for over a week now and it has worn thin. For the most part I try to contribute photos and not be bothered here, I don't care to post on Ani boards and I NEVER pick fights with people, I don't understand this guy. He decided to challenge me and picked me out on the talk page of a celebrity and has been waging a war upon me all day. I have been more then cordial and more then once provided detailed perspective that he only ignores and picks a fight regarding the words that he feels are in need of being posted upon on Catullos Talk page. He has in fact a hand full of accounts and has a history of confrontation with other users. WPPilot talk 07:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

over a week I commented in your,earlier ANI thread once, less than two days ago. When my comment was followed by a rather strange one from an SPA, both myself and (I think) User:The Bushranger noticed. I found that SPAs other edits were all to a very poorly-written and poorly-sourced BLP article that read like a promotional piece and had a disproportionate number of photographs. I noticed that virtually every editor of the article seemed to be connected to the subject. This was last night (16 or 17 hours ago). I can't help but feel like I'm getting peripheral anger that was meant for User:Beyond My Ken or someone else. The title of this thread, a reference to a dispute in which I was barely involved, seems to verify this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User :ChrisGualtieri never did anything of the sort, in fact he told this guy to chill out and that I was well meaning, yet he just continues to attack me, publicly on the talk page of a Oscar nominated producer. I KNOW Catullo's is going to freak out when he sees this. WPPilot talk 07:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I also posted a request from him asking what is was he was trying to do, he simply removed it. Placing things that have already ben resolved upon the talk page of a celebrity is simply not the way to communicate with someone. He has simply pointed out that a ID was traced back to Mr Catullo, and that was made clear to him by the user he seems to think was supporting his attack on me. These type of conversations belong on user talk pages, not on project pages.WPPilot talk 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris agreed with me that the article has severe problems, and that you mean well. I have never said that you didn't mean well. Please point to one instance, one instance where I impugned your good faith or attacked Mr. Catullo. You will not be able to find one, because it doesn't exist. Chris didn't tell me to chill out, but I think someone really needs to tell you to chill out.

(And what do the Academy Awards have to do with any of this?)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

You are attacking me & my words with assumptions regarding your perceptions of what you thought the words meant to you, on a celebrity talk page. I asked you over and over what you were trying to accomplish and you removed my remarks and went back on attacking my words on Dan's talk page: you were badgering me about 1) The use of the name Dan 2) You did not like me calling you sir (out of respect) 3) in spite of the fact that you signature has Japanese character's in it, when I told you to have a nice day, (in Japanese) you claimed I was being rude as Japanese is not native to me?????. What on earth does that have to do with Daniel Catullo and WHY do you think it belongs on the talk page about him? This has nothing to do with anyone other the YOU, sir. You have yet to respond in any way to what I posted in reply to your "Discovery, DC3director=Daniel Catullo" that you started by calling me out for taking some pics of this guy. You pointed out some users that, years ago seem to be in your view connected and you digressed the conversation, on the talk page about HIM, to a battle over the words I use out of respect for others. Why is it that you feel the need to air a dispute that had NOTHING to do with Mr Catullo, on Mr Catullos talk page? What are you trying to accomplish. Lastly "what do the Academy Awards have to do with any of this"? Well if I was a Oscar nominated producer and some stranger from Japan decided to wage a war upon another editor on my page just after the awards I would be livid, as I am sure he will be when he sees your comments and personal attacks upon me for using words that you decided were designed to be inflammatory in some way......... You should have use my or your own talk pages, not on Dans page.

talk WPPilot 14:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Will the both of you stop this and let other people respond? At this point, its just two well-meaning editors bumping heads. I don't think WPPilot was making a legal threat, but the response was not great and Hijiri88 sees the SPAs and the COI. The page was a mess and I abandoned last year because of the theatrics over trying to fix it. It was even more promotional in the past, but Catullo likely meets the notability barrier. While I personally do not think that the notability is really his own; the fact that an award is given to the crew stands. I don't know where is the best place to resolve the page's actual issues, but it used to be a big puff piece. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot, I don't know where to start. The fact that you refer to the subject of Daniel Catullo as "Mr Catullo" or "Dan" demonstrates to me that you feel some closeness to the subject. This opinion is reinforced when I see the messages you've posted to User talk:Daniel Catullo where you are very deferential to him and so you are likely protective of article on him. Also, Talk:Daniel Catullo is not "Dans page", it is Wikipedia's page. As long as editors abide by WP:BLP, WP:NOTCENSORED holds and I think Catullo's opinion of a talk page discussion is irrelevant until the moment he wants to participate in it.

I think it's clear that you acting overly protective of this article (would you behave the same about an article on a different person?) but I don't know that it's a COI that would totally prevent you for editing the article. But you should at least acknowledge to yourself that you are not approaching editing this article as you would if you had never met the man. You need some detachment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• At what point does detachment come for someone in my shoes. Under the threshold you establish (use of the name of a person in a personal manner) that makes me attached to someone, then I guess I am attached to everyone... In regards to this article the user starts out in his post regarding COI with my name WPPilot and then goes on the hammer my use of the English language. I have not edited the Daniel Catullo page for a while, I just watch it along with the other 200 or so places that my pictures sit upon. As I have mentioned before I as a "Professional Photographer" have been to a lot of places, and was lucky enough to meet many people. For example just in the last few days I have loaded photos for many notable people, whom, without "Knowing" these people, I would have never been able to get near them. As far as Catullo, over a year ago, as the result of the questioning of his reference about the World Record & him having some award, I went up took photos at his studio and did meet him. Did we drink beers and shoot pool, no. Did he give me squat for driving up to his place spending my money on gas and such, yes I got nada, zilch nothing well, I think I might have had one of his redbulls. Does that make us buddies? I took his pictures, he showed me his awards, his studio and introduced me to his staff. Paul Allen did the same thing at the launch of SpaceShipOne. He even invited me into his Jet for Coffee, so, do I know him? No. My problem here was that a user was using Mr. Catullo's page to attack my words, do you think that is the proper place for the user to express his incorrectly implied thoughts about what I really meant in the use of words that are a normal part of my vocabulary. Catullo is a nice guy and, when we spoke, at his ofice he was clearly concerned about the propensity of Wikipedia to be subject to vandals that post unsavory things about him. With that in mind his talk page was not the place for the current conversation. I did tell Catullo that I would "place a watch" on his page. I did that and about a month ago on my way back from the Bahamas I got a number of them on a lay over in Dallas, Texas. I looked at the page, the allegations words were disturbing so I fixed it and moved on to the stuff I am working on now. NASCAR the lead photo is my photo, I was close to the race track as you can see, and I have posted it on the race tracks page. Would it be OK for another user to come and start attacking my use of English, in that if I use on format or the other of a persons name I know him, or if I am nice to them and call them sir, its perfectly ok to attack the word sir, in the discussion on the NASCAR talk page, or does it go to our own talk pages? I thought that it was funny really that the user from Japan got mad at me for using Japanese. I have "by the invitation of the Imperial Household Agency in Tokyo", been into the Inner grounds of the Imperial palace, and those photos were the first photos I ever loaded to Wikipedia over 4 years ago. To have the user get mad at me for being nice in what looks to be HIS native language was just outright silly, was it not? The user for whatever reason uses Japanese in his own sig, yet if a non native speaker uses it, attack him about how you think. weird to me. I am going back to uploading more photos. This is Hollywood and, well, as you have pointed out, I am friends with everyone, Cheers! talkWPPilot 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a disclaimer before I begin... I'm not Japanese by nationality or ethnicity (I was raised in the Pacific Northwest of the US) but I include a Kanji symbol in my username just to explain the context of my username (it's Japanese for "head"). In any case, any discussion of WPPilot's potential COI should also take into account WP:EXPERT, which is a long-standing essay that explains the value of contributions from subject matter experts. While contributing photos is different from, say, a scientist editing a science-related article, the project still benefits by receiving images that are unavailable from other sources. I only mention this because it is common for a person's special access to images or information to be turned against the editor for COI reasons, when that special access is also benefiting the project. Conflicts of interest don't exist when an editor's interests and the best interests of Wikipedia happen to coincide. -- Atama頭 17:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Atama, but, from what I read, this no longer has to do with use of photos and instead it's about wanting to keep article discussion off a talk page because the subject of article would be displeased. The article already had issues with being too promotional in the past. As long as WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL is observed, a talk page discussion shouldn't be censored due to the imagined feelings of the article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I was just making a point about COI in general. I haven't taken the time to visit the actual article talk page yet, but I will shortly. I think seeing the actual discussion will be more informative than what's being said about it on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've created a new thread at the article talk page here. I'd like for any further discussion on this subject to take place there, as I believe that solving any content disputes should also resolve the personal disputes on display at this noticeboard, and this noticeboard is the incorrect venue to resolve content disputes. Anyone who has an interest in improving that article (whether resolving the current issues or improving its overall quality) is free to participate. -- Atama頭 18:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Orestes1984

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 review my actions here. Orestes1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been very passionate in the matter of Australian sport naming conventions. My efforts to problem-solve this area were recently discussed and broadly endorsed here. Orestes1984 continued to personalise the discussion after several warnings and coming off a previous block by User:Drmies for similar behaviour, so I gave a week's block, followed by restricting talk access when he became abusive. At that point the user logged out and began to vandalise under various IPs, saying "You can block me all you like I'm not on a fixed IP range". I therefore extended the account block to indefinite but like any admin action I take in this area I am bringing it here for the community's review. I am actually a bit uneasy at the indef and if somebody wanted to replace it with a fixed length block I would be ok with that. I am sure there is good in this editor even though they have temporarily lost their temper. I don't think though that this editor is able to edit in this area productively. I wonder what you all think? --John (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite is indefinite. If the user were to go quietly away now and come back contritely in a week, s/he'd probably get unblocked, and rightfully so. If the user continues to abuse multiple IP addresses, then who knows when the community will be ready to unblock the account. Good call on the indefinite block, I'd say. —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef - Standard offer still applies. Sad that such a long term editor would not be able to work this out in a better manner. What is an "international consensus"? Never heard of it. Does such a thing exist?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre belief that because many countries call it football, it's football around the world. For example, it's "soccer" in Canada, even though we have a pro team called "Toronto Football Club". Such nomenclature doesn't mean we call it football here. Looks like the same argument in Australia. Also, just because the BBC guys talks about "football" when he talks about the Montreal Pro club, does not mean that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does the same thing. Not rocket science - in fact, WP:ENGVAR probably applies to some degree :-) DP 23:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I thought perhaps they were claiming there was some international consensus of editors. I was going to ask where that centralized discussion would have taken place.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, last time they were blocked they put a "retired" template on their talk page yet didn't retire. I'm sure they'll be back, and I hope they will do so properly--not with an IP range, vandalizing others' user pages and messing with protected animals. Let's hope that the soccer/football thing gets resolved one way or another (hopefully John's way--that is, with the scheme and RfC he set up), and maybe that will lower the temperature of those discussions. And perhaps some more level-headed editors will, after this ANI thread, go over and check out John's efforts to help resolve it. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've commented enough about this issue so won't offer an opinion now, but the mediation efforts mentioned by Drmies are at WT:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and would benefit from occasional monitoring by uninvolved editors. There is a new Arbcom request but I don't think that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Indefinite means tomorrow, next year or whatever. I think the block is preventative and absolutely still appealable through email channels but the willingness to sock, attack others and assume bad faith shows a block extension was nec. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as well. An indef is richly called for under the circumstances. This editor didn't get their way and blew it repeatedly, and now needs to grow up in order to rejoin the community. Jusdafax 06:28, 11 March 2014 (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.

Bambifan returns?

The Bushranger: duck hunter extraordinaire. De728631 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Will someone that has more experience with WP:LTA/BF101 take a look at Moviefan45 (talk · contribs)? He/she's posting a lengthy credits section on The Fox and the Hound, which has been a target of Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) before (and has had previous problems with a gigantic credits list). Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Moviefan45 account was also created just one day before Bambifan's last account, MadisonGrundtvig, was blocked. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks similar enough to me, even if it's not Bambifan101 the account is essentially indistinguishable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And accordingly blocked as a WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:Beeblebrox

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 a complaint against User:Beeblebrox of a personal attack and continuing uncivility, in violation of WP:No personal attacks and the requirements of WP:Civility and WP:AGF.

This was in the course of discussion at Talk:Sports in Alaska regarding deficiencies at that article. In this edit of 24 Feb., with the edit summary of "let me go get my tinfoil hat and see if that helps me see it your way...", Beeblebrox said that my comments went "beyond absurd into the realm of utter lunacy". When I suggested (here) that a retraction might be in order, his response was a {{minnow}} slap. When I expressly asked for a retraction and apology (here) he said (here) "your argument was a load of nonsense based on assumptions of bad faith and imaginary conspiracies, so no, I won't be retracting it no matter how many times you ask." When another editor chided him about this on his talk page, Beeblebrox only continued with his misrepresentation that I had "made up an inane theory".

While it is possible Beeblebrox's initial comments might have been merely a rash response to a misunderstanding, his perseverance in them excludes any excuse of inadvertence or non-intention. Even if his assertions (that I had assumed bad faith, etc.) were correct, his proper response should have been to complain to me and ask for remedy, not to engage in trash talk. His actual response demonstrates his own failure to assume good faith, and his own engagement in imaginary conspiracies.

Beeblebrox has attempted to exculpate himself by asserting that his comments were directed not to me "individually", but only to my argument. I hold that as my argument is the result and derivation of my intellect, and the essence of my presence on Wikipedia, his comments do amount to an ad hominem attack. On the otherhand, if remarks of "tinfoil hats" and "utter lunancy" are deemed acceptable, provided one carefully directs them to others' arguments, then I will thank you for the guidance, apologize for this lengthy complaint, and adjust my standards accordingly.

However, on the grounds that such remarks are not acceptable, I ask for the following remedy: that Beeblebrox be censured here, at Talk:Sports in Alaska, and on his user page, for his uncivil behavior in both his remarks and his refusal to retract them, the censure on his user page to remain posted for 30 days. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Even if the OP were correct, allowance for the fact that editors are human needs to be made. Beeblebrox is apparently trying to clean up a troubled article while dealing with silliness from an IP, so this comment is not helpful—sorry, but the comment just does not make sense. If you have a suggestion for what should be done, make it, but it's pointless to suggest that an unimportant introductory sentence is WP:SYNTH. It's not a contentious issue—they really do have various sports in Alaska. It's best to focus on issues, and the issue seems to be whether the page should be restored to the prose version so people can try and make a decent article from it—making charges of SYNTH about an irrelevant introductory sentence is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• The fact editors are human is precisely the reason we shouldn't be making 'let me go put on my tinfoil hat' comments. NE Ent 03:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Appears to meet the concept of "comment on the edits, not the editor". The dumbest of person can make smart edits, likewise the smartest of editors can make the dumbest edits. Note: I'm not commenting on the intellectual ability of anyone specific - just a general commentary. Someone's taking comments about their possibly poor edits very personally - something that would be wise to stop doing. This discussion was already held on Beeb's talkpage, there's not good reason for it to have come here - it just appears they they don't like the answer/policy/shape of the tinfoil DP 01:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Sarcasm isn't always effective in these situations, but is short of actual abuse or a personal attack. I don't think Beeblebrox was the one misunderstanding the situation here and yes, these comments were directed at the content not the contributor. My only criticism here is that they did seem to assume bad faith a little quicker than may have been good, but everyone has their own limits He wasn't assuming bad faith, he accused the editor of assuming bad faith.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Grossly inappropriate edit summaries for a long-time Wikipedian. Worse yet for an administrator. Unconscionable for an Arb. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am going to disagree with this vehemently as this does not fall under "grossly inappropriate". The worst this is would be sarcasm that does not fall under any sort of personal attack but refers directly to the commenst of the user and not the user themselves.

• "Tinfoil hats" are not comments on content and add nothing the discussion. The best policy, when one "does not know what to say to this" is to say nothing until one figures out what to say that doesn't require references to tin hats and lunacy. NE Ent 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't going to please you, but that comment mentions himself and not the other editor. A thicker skin is needed to keep drama to a minimum, however if any admin feels that was enough for some sort of intervention I invite them to do so and explain the basis if they could here. I won't object, but I also think this does not rise to the level of needing admin attention. I understand what was said, but I think this can quickly become a mountain from this mole hill. We are hopefully all adults and this isn't name calling. The suggestion is that Beeblebrox would need to adjust his way of thinking to understand the other editor and that it sounds odd enough that he felt it was "tinfoil hat" type stuff. Please define that as anything more than what I see it as. Horrible sarcasm, but not by definition a personal attack.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I want to go a tad further with this. The OP is asking for something that IS NOT within the scope of admin intervention. He is asking for the other editor be branded, or given a scarlet letter to wear on their Wikipedia User page. That is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard here. That is not going to happen unless Beeblebrox is outright blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've learned the hard way that glib responses are rarely well-received no matter how witty they seem to me at the time. Conversation on the internet is often sarcastic and snarky but it is a barrier to collaboration. While the comments are inappropriate, I'd advise J. Johnson (JJ) that while you may ask for a specific "remedy", editors do not set the terms of administrator actions, especially actions affecting another admin. Like being glib, making demands is also rarely well-received, especially on AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 10 March 2014 (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.

Follow-up question

• What advice is given to the community here?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would suggest reopening it. the personal incivility here is beyond the margin of acceptability, and there is something we admins can and should consider doing, which is a block. NPA is a pillar, and it's time we upheld it. Upheld it, no matter who it is who may be destroying it. In a normal cade with a new editor, that tin foil hat comment would justify a block, and it should here equally. The more experienced the editor, the better they should know to avoid this sort of contempt for their colleagues. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I commend DGG's defense of our five pillars.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Two heads are better than one? Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• What is the procedure to remove an editor from the oversight committee?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would also ask that the thread be re-opened. Sweeping admin misbehavior under the rug can lead to division and resentment. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• I too thought the thread was archived over-hastily. It seems Beeblebrox was too brusque on article talk a couple of weeks ago. That certainly doesn't merit a block but it'd be ok to leave it open for another day or two, if it will give him useful feedback short of a block. The "tin-foil hat" comment was ill-judged, and it's true we should (and do) expect better-than-usual decorum from those of us who administer and arbitrate here. An acknowledgement of what he has learned would be fine here. We certainly don't do censures or 30-day badges of shame here. --John (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if asking for a specific remedy was improper. My inexperience on how to deal with matters like this is such that I will accept any result and/or guidance as may be deemed suitable. Though, of course, I would be quite disappointed if the behavior complained about was given a totally free pass. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but are there any messages in the discussion so far that warrant your attention? Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that I am aware of this (despite none of the parties in either discussion actually letting me know I was under discussion here) and have absolutely nothing to add. This is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. There was no admin misbehavior, just a very minor content dispute that is over, or would be if the other parties involved would just move on already. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I notified Breeblebox on his talk page with this edit, which he has since deleted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Which means Beeblebrox was aware of the this ANI discussion. "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents."--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, here is the edit in which Beeblebrox removes the ANI notice.  In this edit, he removes without comment an attempt from a presumably uninvolved editor to mediate the dispute.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I am not aware of a duty of notification for starting a sub-discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you really think there was no misbehavior, perhaps this issue should be left open until you will acknowledge that the 'tin-foil hat' insult is unbecoming of an admin/arb. Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No admin misbehavior however, civility does appear to be an issue with Beeblebrox as an editor. As one who reverted an attempt to re-open the thread after an admin had closed it, I also agree that this may need to be further discussed. One on one with Beeblebrox was certainly unsuccessful.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't technically admin misbehavior in the sense that admin tools were not used. Still, admins should be held to a higher standard, so his admin (and arb) status is definitely relevant. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could hold the editor to at least the same standard.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox put some effort into improving that list article. For his efforts he was accused of something that is demonstrably false and borderline bad faith ("In fact, the article itself is nothing but an attempt to validate the assertion by means of demonstration; that is, to show that there is a "number" of "sports teams and events" in Alaska by listing them.") I agree that that statement is ridiculous and if it were me in Beeblebrox's place, I might be tempted to snarl back as well. What is to be gained now, six days after Beeblebrox withdrew from the discussion, from complaining to ANI of hurt feelings? Reyk _YO! 03:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Reyk makes some good points. If Beeblebrox, having been duly notified here, is not minded to acknowledge he was in the wrong, short of a block which I don't think is warranted, the community has no power to compel him to do so. While arbitrators (and administrators) should set a good example of how to behave, there is no suggestion here that advanced permissions were involved and we can perhaps move on. Editors are human, everyone is entitled to an off-day or two here, and this discussion serves as an aide-memoire that the incident occurred. In the unlikely event it is repeated we will treat it more seriously the next time. For now, this is as good as you will get, User:J. Johnson. --John (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Then let it also serve as a reminder to you (J. Johnson) not to go wantonly slinging assumptions of bad faith at people, as this is the sort of reaction it is likely to generate in the future. Next time, maybe spend a few seconds reviewing the page history before you go making baseless accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, as the indentation suggests, or to J. Johnson? --John (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I need some coffee this morning, I misread the link at the end as a sig. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw the userbox on your page and thought that might be the case. Blame my parents for giving me such a common name, and me for finishing my post of 07:08 in a hard-to-parse way. --John (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can this section just be included with the archived section above? It seems like this conversation has reached an end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

•   Reyk says that Beeblebrox "was accused [by me] of something that is demonstrably false and borderline bad faith". That is wholly incorrect. I was commenting on content, and particularly on a possible problem on how the article could be read in a previous version. In fact, Beeblebrox was revising the article, which I fully supported. I did say: "The problem arose because in converting from an article to a list you retained the summarization of the article. (So fix it.)" Perhaps that came across as snarky, but that was not intended. I was simply pointing out something that had been left undone. There was no "accusation", false or otherwise, and I am quite amazed at how Reyk comes up with any suggestion of bad faith.

  Several comments here have suggested the Beeblebrox was being "only sarcastic". I would not object to that, even to snarkiness, as sometimes that is a useful way of getting someone's attention. But when it becomes patently offensive and prevents collaborative effort, it needs to be retracted. Refusal to do so demonstrates malice, and crosses the line from possibly humorous to hurtful. If the supposed sarcasm does not in itself amount to a personal attack, fine, but those comments are certainly demeaning, and uncivil. And if they are not such a big deal, then why has Beeblebrox so adamantly refused to retract and apologize?

  The answer to that may be due to a deeper issue. Beeblebrox accuses me of "assumptions of bad faith and imaginary conspiracies". In fact that assertion demonstrates his failure to assume good faith, and his imaginary conspiracies. (At the least he should consider the same medicine he hands out to others: I wasn't commenting on you personally, only on what you wrote.) I suspect (and as it is pertinent to the issue I hope that in this case I may be excused for commenting on the editor) his refusal to retract is because he has assumed my comments were made in bad faith, and apparently presumed malice on my part. This is the very kind of behavioral lockjaw that I believe WP:AGF is intended to prevent.

  For my part, I have not, and do not, make any assumptions, or assertions, of bad faith. I attribute his remarks, his misunderstanding of my remarks, his continuing assertion of bad faith and refusal to retract, as arising primarily from his own assumption of bad faith. That was an error. Which I am willing to forgive, but he needs to retract his past remarks, and desist in his continuing ("wantonly slinging ...") uncivil behavior.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• You might find it relevant that there are exactly two editors on Wikipedia who have banished me from their talk pages, those being Beeblebrox and Reyk.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the only relevancy we should take from that is that we all are like children still learning to play well, and sometimes just can't come up with any better resolution. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here's the deal: anybody who has been at WP more than six months should know that making snarky comments about other editors in the edit summary is very much NOT okay. That somebody can get elected to ArbCom and still be pulling this kind of shit is frankly baffling. Just. Don't. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• IMO, your comment would have been stronger had you stopped with the first sentence.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories

In February, a handful of editors has vandalized Category:Fiction by topic with unnecessary categorizations. Please salt the following pages:

• Category:Chains in fiction
• Category:Ice in fiction
• Category:Kingdoms in fiction
• Category:Rivers in fiction
• Category:Snow in fiction
• Category:Trees in fiction
• Category:War and politics in fiction

Also salt any other deleted, unnecessary categories like these. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. WP:SALT is to prevent repeatedly-recreated, problematic pages from being recreated. Every one of those deleted pages you linked to was created once and then deleted. If you come across pages that have been repeatedly recreated, and deleted each time as inappropriate, then they can be salted. My personal preference is to salt a page if it has been recreated 3 times and is unlikely to be a valuable page any time soon. I'll sometimes salt after 2 deletions if both deletions occurred within a short time span of each other (at least less than a week apart), had the same problem, and if the page is likely to be recreated soon (such as an editor stating that they will recreate the page again). But of course none of that applies to any of those page, not even close. -- Atama頭 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, a couple of other things important to mention here, those categories were deleted via CfD discussions; they were deleted as being unhelpful, but not for being disruptive. They also weren't speedily-deleted as being clearly inappropriate categories. There was no suggestion at any of the CfD discussions that the editors were being disruptive in creating those categories. There were only two editors creating these categories, those editors were:

• Player017 (talk · contribs)
• Kanghuitari (talk · contribs)

Calling two editors a "handful" is probably a bit of hyperbole. I'd like to mention that neither editor has received so much as a warning for disruption from what I've seen, let alone a block (Player017 even received a barnstar for their contributions). These categories were all created over a somewhat lengthy span of time (earliest was October 2013, most recent was January 2014) so it's not like they were created in one big mass. These editors most definitely do not deserve to have their efforts labeled as "vandalism", as they were clearly good-faith efforts from productive editors that were found to be unnecessary by consensus from other editors, nothing more or less. -- Atama頭 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole? Well, what if one has really small hands? Atama, you'd do well to not overexaggerate so incredibly enormously. Besides that I agree with you one thousand percent, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

True, hence why I said "probably". ;) -- Atama頭 20:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say that I do share the OP's concern. Periodically, there will be new editors who create dozens of categories in a short space of time, as if there was a burning need to get these categories created ASAP. Lately they have been in "Fictional X" or "X in fiction". Ones that are noticed are proposed at CfD and almost always deleted but when these editors get on a roll, they can create a lot of categories in just one day and arguing each, case by case, can be time-consuming. But the approach is to instruct the editor and get them involved in the deletion discussions, not salt the particular categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not the case here, though, these categories were created over a long(-ish) period of time. Only the deletion of these categories was done in a short period of time. Your conclusion is correct though, in both the hypothetical situation you described and what happened in this case, where the best solution is to inform the editor(s) creating those categories. In this case especially we're dealing with constructive editors who should be receptive to such suggestions. -- Atama頭 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

76.105.96.92

This user has either some major WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE issues, followed with very WP:POINTed edits and RFCs when responded to.

Repeated gender identity BLP issues : [271] [272] [273] [274] [275]

Strange WP:POINTed RMs [276][277] [278][279]

They will not be able to respond due to the current protection of this pageGaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Weird. I removed that crazy suggestion from Talk:Bruce Jenner: there is no place for such a BLP violation in my Wikipedia. I'm looking into others. I'm not familiar with naming conventions for court cases, but I don't see any good reason to take the Dred out of Scott. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• They were blocked before, by Alison, for socking/editing while logged out. The Bruce Jenner edits are serious BLP violations and in themselves seriously blockable. Anyway, I pinged Alison; perhaps she can shed light on this. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They're Windows7Guy100 (talk · contribs) and Conservative117 (talk · contribs). I'm linking IPs, per policy here, given that egregious BLP violations are still going on. No other accounts that I see right now, per CU. I suggest hardblock the IP if they keep up this behavior - Alison ^❤ 23:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Inadequate behavior

I need a third opinion on the behavior of AlphaOmega2211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) during my discussion with him at the Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#User:Irondomes immediate reaction on reading this, 21 hours ago. The user accuses me in lashing that individual out and dares me to take on personally. Is that behavior normal for a wikipedia editor? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a single purpose POV pushing account but I'd like some other opinions before deciding what action to take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that the etiquette to which wikipedia strives? What is the purpose of user's inquiry whether I would like to take on that person personally? And he or she has a nerve to make fun of it in an insulting kind of way. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to the article and talk page under WP:ARBEE, in case anyone is unaware.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not. Good job on tracking it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:84.127.80.114 and possible Debian edit war

I have participated in a failed case in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am trying to use the talk page again as advised. Reverters did not talk about article content in the case. They have never discussed article content and have only claimed generic policy violations through edit summaries [280] [281] [282]. I did discuss [283] [284] [285].

Since discussion in the talk page is dead, may I edit the article and add this change without getting blocked again? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Like administrators did previously, the volunteer repeated "You are allowed to make bold edits as long as you follow WP:BRD. You are not free to edit war. Feel free to ask elsewhere to confirm this.", without addressing my concern.

I know I must follow the BRD cycle. I know I am not entitled to edit war. The problem is I have never edit warred, reverters forfeited the discussion phase every time. Administrators have actively ignored the discussion component present in my actions. I have been warned and punished for violations I did not commit.

This has never been a content issue, but conduct related. Regular editors of the Debian article and involved administrators simply do not like the changes. The material does meet Wikipedia standards, that is why discussion never happened and still does not happen.

Should I consider this avenue exhausted and try to use the last and final resort for conduct? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation on user 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.

---

I think this, restoring "Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process," might violate WP:BLP.

Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

I've had some encounters with the editor, that were less than positive, so feel outside opinions might be best. In the past they have maintained a better understanding of BLP policy in various discussions, which has not always been supported. Also it's clear this is about Jimmy Wales, but I think the same statement about any living person would also be against policy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine if someone else wants to do it. I feel my involvement should remain at arms length, based on my prior interactions with this editor. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Preventing editors from mildly grousing about Jimbo on their own talk pages is not what WP:BLP was designed for. 28bytes (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well...actually it was...not just Jimbo, but each other or people you just don't like...or agree with....--Mark Miller (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you actually believed that it was a BLP violation to say that, then you wouldn't have just said it about Collect, below. Didn't Drmies close this? 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No...since it is sourced to the exact place he made the statements.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he closed it... extremely quickly. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but I'm not so sure Collect's statement is just a case of him "mildly grousing". To accuse Jimbo of not believing in common courtesy is a fairly strong attack on Jimbo's character. Keep in mind that this isn't just a comment in a discussion. It's part of the text that Collect displays at the top of his talk page. I don't think we're allowed to include personal attacks on any specific fellow editors in our talk page banners. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe expressing my conditional opinion about Mr. Wales is remotely worthy of this section -- and I am a tad amused by the posturing by some here. Cheers -- now go on and discussion something remotely of value. Collect (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) The full quote is If anyone can give me a reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, please do so, else I can honestly say that Mr. Wales does not even believe in common courtesy, much less in following process. which I submit does not remotely run afoul of any rational policy interpretation. It accuses him of nothing other than of me holding a conditional opinion about a person who fails to respond to a number of emails over a period of over six months regarding a formal proper appeal of an arbcom decision. Cheers -- now go to bed. Collect (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly Collect does not believe in common courtesy, much less in following process. I can't say that about Mr. Wales, But I can say it about this editor as sourced to their direct comments on this thread as well as their remarks on their own talkpage.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If Collect posted another sentence in their talk page header stating that "User X (it could be anyone) does not believe in common courtesy...", would that be permitted to stand? I doubt it would. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Drmies close was a good idea. Clearly this is not a matter for intervention. Anyone may remove those remarks per our BLP policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Except it is not a BLP violation. This is one of the most stupid complaints I have seen to date on this board. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Show us, using the policy, how this is not a violation. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation. Doesn't matter that it's Jimbo or anyone else. You simply do not make statements about others in this manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an editor giving their opinion on another editor, that is all it is, if jimbo edits under his real name then tough tittys. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I really doubt Collect would be permitted to make such a statement in his talk page header about anyone else, real name or not. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

He can call me a wanker on his talk page for all I care, it is still just opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You may not care, but some people would. Either way, it sets a bad precedent to sweep this under the rug. Northern Antarctica (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)And why would I care what others think? The only bad precedent on this board is a former admin getting away with socking and hosting a sick website, you opposed him being blocked right? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, with their comments about Collect, several people just violated the tougher standards that they are proposing. And, unlike Collect's page, this is a venue (ANI) where actual harm can come to people from such statements, and this is a much more serious case.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I made the comment. It was a direct result of the editor's display here and on their user page and is sourced to the exact location the comments were made...here. It is only common courtesy to discuss the content and not the contributor and did not follow procedure but became impatient and unreasonable. Anyway...I think this is best discussed at the BLP board and not here as this is not the right venue.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• [28bytes, don't you take my frigging close away from me! You RASCAL! Bring me up on charges for that, you...you...edit conflict abuser!] As before: the BLP was not designed to prevent users from mild ventilations on their own user page. If someone really cares for the BLP they wouldn't repeat the charges here, where they could be quoted out of context, perhaps, to endorse the statement made in Wikipedia's voice that "Mr. Wales does not believe in common courtesy". (Seriously: if something is a BLP violation, don't repeat it.) Since they did, they must not have thought it a serious BLP violation. Thus, there is nothing to sweep under any rug, and I am halfway inclined to state, categorically and per IAR, that there is no rug.

  Now, I personally believe that Mr. Wales does have common courtesy, despite the fact that I still haven't gotten my frigging admin t-shirt, and I strongly disagree with my dear enemy Collect. But folks, fo shizzle, who ever takes offense at a person telling you "you, YOU! you have no common courtesy!"? If Collect had added "at long last", it might be a different story, but this is mild, mild at best. If it is anything. So let's close. I'm sure there's something much better to watch on TV than this show. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Please don't imply that my posting the short statement I felt might violate BLP, as an indication of a false report. Others felt it also crossed a line but apparently BLP is flexible depending who is being character assassinated, how it's presented, and where it's done. I felt it was a problem, as did other editors, I reported it, and the concern has been dismissed. Sometimes that is the best that can be done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2014 (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.

Thargor Orlando

Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting two articles due to his strange interpretations of policies and guidelines. His strategy is the same. First he attempts to remove relevant bibliographic citations in further reading sections, erroneously claiming that they fall under WP:EL. The first time he tries this tactic, he claims that he is "trimming per WP:EL". When he's reverted, he then removes the section again, claiming that the "link can be used as reference if valid", which is simply not the case for further reading sections. When he's reverted again, he then begins adding {{external link}} templates to further reading sections, which is a misuse of the tag. You can see that he engages in the same disruptive behavior on both Dallas Buyers Club[286] [287] [288] [289] and Abby Martin (journalist)[290][291][292] Consensus on the talk page of Dallas Buyers Club was against his removal of the links and his addition of the tag at 05:04, 10 March 2014, but he continued adding the tag anyway,[293] while engaging in pure WP:IDHT tendentious behavior on the talk page. (see Talk:Dallas_Buyers_Club#Further_reading) Please note, Thargor appears to believe that editors are deliberately hiding external links in further reading sections to fool the community.[294] This is bizarre behavior to say the least.

He then proceeded to do the same thing over at the Abby Martin talk page as well. (see Talk:Abby_Martin_(journalist)#Further_reading). This behavior, however, is nothing new, and Thargor Orlando has been engaging in this unilateral deletion, IDHT talk page discussion, maintenance tag revert against consensus cycle for many years now.[295][296][297] In fact, it seems to be all he does on Wikipedia, as I've seen little to no article building or constructive edits of any kind from his account. To paraphrase User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper, who confronted Thargor directly when he discovered this bad behavior, Thargor Orlando ignores sources, argues for their deletion, and refuses to substantiate his opinion when confronted on the talk page. As TMCK told Thargor in 2013, "Your opinion, valued or not in general, has no bearing at all in this thread and in regards to truth and due weight of reliable sourced and attributed opinions from those you want to exclude. Policies and guidelines are back stabbing you in this matter. The way I see it, you don't even have a "use common sense" argument here since you seem to refuse to back up your claims." This is the crux of the issue and has been for some time.

To summarize the problem at hand: Thargor wastes our time removing sources for no reason other than the fact that he doesn't like it, and when confronted, he cites irrelevant guidelines (further reading is not external links). When asked to explain exactly what is wrong with the sources he seeks to exclude, he refuses to answer, but posits an evil conspiracy theory where editors are "masking" external links in fake further reading sections. Can this behavior be allowed to continue? Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy to support Thargor Orlando's stance, that an external link or further reading link be incorporated as a reference or deleted entirely. Links to a number of things can be placed in "Further reading" without a requirement that the link be deleted if it is not turned into some article text and a reference. In this case, it appears that T.O. simply does not like the linked material. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like a problem to me.[298] The editor has been sufficiently warned on their talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What about my contributions are a problem, Mark? That I have only recently had time to deal with bad references and external links? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like some of it because they're terrible sources, yes. We should be more concerned about the use of podcasts and questionable publications bringing articles down than we apparently are, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You are free, of course, to discuss the use of these "terrible", "bad" sources on the talk page. Why is it then, that no talk page contains this discussion? Is it because you refuse to discuss it? Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the circular battling and accusations as completely disruptive. I was in the process of looking through some of their past edits and also found some that were wholesale removing perfectly useful links under the guise of WP:ELNO, although technically allowed it remains disruptive. Often these links should be migrated to the Further links section, as they would be useful additions to an article. In many cases they were added by well-meaning editors who should have looked at adding the link as a source instead. It takes some work to simply check out each link, but it's not unreasonable to ask editors to thoughtfully do so, in service of improving the article. If they can't be bothered to look through these potential sources to assertion their value, a less desirable solution would be to move them to the article's talk page so other editors have the opportunity to use them.

The issues beyond disruption, is creating a battleground, and assuming bad faith, as well as WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been significantly uncontroversial nearly every time I have attempted to get these sections to conform to our guidelines in dozens, maybe hundreds, of other articles. Consider me "duly warned" on these articles, discussion has been ongoing at Dallas Buyers Club and we're closing in on a consensus on the removal at Abby Martin anyway, so this is just sour grapes from Viriditas, who is still angry that his personal attacks on me contributed to his three months block last year. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If a better example of WP:IDHT exists, I have not yet seen it. Thargor, did you understand a word anyone has said to you? Discussion is not "ongoing" anywhere. You've been told by multiple editors to cease and desist. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear it, I see it, and I disagree. I'll continue discussing at the talk page as I have been. Clearly, my motivations are misunderstood, so I'll just have to be better at communicating them. Your problems with me, however, are certainly a contributor to this situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But, you haven't discussed anything. You've simply removed sections and links for no reason against consensus. When asked on the talk page, you say "WP:EL". When asked what part of that guideline applies to the specific link and how, you don't reply. It's a disruptive little game you play. The discussion on Talk:Dallas_Buyers_Club#Further_reading is clearly over. You should not continue "discussing" there because there is a consensus that all you are doing is disrupting the article and wasting the time of editors who actually write articles. I have not expressed any "problem" with you at all here, I have expressed a concern with your editing behavior, as have other editors. It's really simple, stop wasting our time. You keep saying there are "bad" references and "bad" links, but you won't say why they are "bad". This is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You wanted to bring it here, and you did. Don't then complain that your time is being wasted because someone's calling you on your motives, your history, and your questionable edits in response. You're correct that this entire thread is ridiculous. The content issue will be decided at the talk pages, not because of some whiny, vindictive complaint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no content issue under discussion; we're discussing your disruption of multiple articles, in this case, Dallas Buyers Club and Abby Martin (journalist). In both instances you have edit warred tendentiously against consensus and you have refused to explain your reasoning, other than to say you think a link is "bad". The "content" is already decided on the talk pages, which is why we are here, as you refuse to follow discussion nor the rules of discussion, preferring to edit war and remove bibliographic citations without explanation. That's why we are here. As for wasting our time, you are continuing to do this. To date, there is still no explanation on any talk page as to why you have removed the material. To paraphrase Sportfan5000, this is a preposterous waste of our time. There is nothing whiny or vindictive about this. My motives, my history, and my edits are not under discussion here, nor should they be. The diffs are unambiguous and clear. I haven't even edited Dallas Buyers Club, yet two different editors have told you to stop disrupting it. I have joined their chorus because as it turns out, you are also disrupting the Abby Martin article with the same, exact set of edits. You established the pattern of disruption, which is why we are here discussing it. Take responsibility for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

At Dallas Buyers Club, I have two edits removing the incorrect section and two edits tagging the section for further discussion over the course of two days. At Abby Martin, I have three edits over 2 days: two tags disruptively removed by you, and one trimming of your link dump that you reverted. As I have been discussing at length at talk, the claim it's disruptive doesn't have merit, so I don't see any reason to address that much further. Your vindictive complaint is duly noted, and discussion is ongoing about the sections. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has formed on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. You've been asked to cease and desist by three editors.[299][300] On Talk:Abby Martin (journalist), you've refused to provide specific examples of problematic links while continuing to speak in generalities that nobody can address.[301][302][303] In both articles, you are continuing to waste our time and to prevent us from writing articles and improving the encyclopedia. May I ask you, when was the last time you wrote an article? Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The first two claims are untrue, as are many accusations. Writing entire articles is not the only way to build and improve the article. Since you are now wasting my time, and I've already spent more time here than I have this morning, I'm not going to continue this waste of time here. Discussion is ongoing at talk as it should be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet you are happy to waste time at individual articles arguing against consensus as well as guidelines/polices that govern tho content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Should Thargor Orlando be blocked 48 hrs for disruptive editing?

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

---

• Support - (As suggesting editor) No other blocks on block log so 48 hour temp block to discourage further disruptive editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, if they won't desist. Talk:Dallas Buyers Club#Further reading was a preposterous waste of time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Third party observation: Sportfan5000. Having just looked in more detail at the edit history I don't think anyone would dispute your right to restore the two WP:EL removed, fair enough. But if it was a preposterous waste of time, why has 1 of the 2 external links questioned now been placed in a more sensible place in the article body? And how does the article benefit by the Zeitchik external link not been attached to any "directly related" article content? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed one of the links because it was in the article, so was redundant. The other link is obviously relevant to the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked at all of the links and they do not establish the claims of an actionable offense / actionable behavior. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? This should be interesting. Which specific actionable offense and/or behavior is not established? I think the diffs clearly and unambiguously establish exactly what is claimed. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Disruption, and to a blockworthy degree. North8000 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I believe disrupting multiple articles with the same behavior is a blockable offense. It always has been and certainly seems reasonable to believe it always will be. No one is asking for a indef block. 48 hours to discourage further disruption is typical.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This has gone beyond WP:IDHT territory. The editor has been told by four different editors on two different talk pages to stop and refuses. In this thread alone, Thargor insists that he will continue the bad behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - A brief look at the evidence shows the complaint has legs given the refusal to desist. Sources must be discussed, not dismissed by one editor. Thargor refuses to change his disruption, so a preventative block is not unreasonable, in my view. Jusdafax 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The complaint is that I'm discussing it on the talk page, and that discussion is disruptive. That's ridiculous on its face. To be clear, that's how we get a consensus here. A continuing discussion at Abby Martin, for example, is currently against Viriditas at the moment. Think that might be part of what brought this on? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. The complaint is that you have gone across multiple articles of differing subject matter on an obsessive campaign against what you believe the policy is against the consensus of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I noticed that just now. As you will note, I do agree with leaving the links but am deeply rethinking the block support here. Jusdafax 18:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A few minutes further examination shows me the main problem appears to be over at the DBC movie article. I'm out of time at present. But I am reluctant to urge a block on a longtime editor, who, as noted by In ictu oculi below, has never been previously blocked, so I am striking support for now. Jusdafax 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - we don't (or shouldn't be) give punitive blocks to people with a five-year edit history and virgin block record for talking about implementing a guideline on a Talk page. As the discussion shows, WP:EL's nutshell is that external links should be "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article", and interpretation of that guideline is open to discussion on Talk pages of the relevant article. The four external links removed but quickly restored and not edit warred but discussed on Talk don't immediately jump out as so "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". If these 4 refs are "directly relevant" they would be better as linked footnotes to inline article content. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Correction. The editor began on 4-12-2010. They are still one month shy of 4 years. At least be accurate. And Virgin blocklist or not is no excuse. Everyone is under the same standard and if there is disruption that will not cease, then yes, we certainly do block to discourage the behavior.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• We don't give punitive blocks period and there was NO suggestion ever made by myself to EVER punish an editor on Wikipedia. Sorry you missed the part about discouraging the editor but please do not accuse me of trying to punish an editor. I take offense to that accusation.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In my view in any circumstance or case a 48 hour temp block to discourage further discussion on a Talk page concerning an edit which the editor has not edit warred after peaceful reversion is straying into the territory of a form of punitive block, irrespective of terminology. In passing I also have a concern about your section heading here given that the objection concerns Talk page discussion and not "disruptive [article] editing". And the way this heading is labelled in itself gives reason for pause and thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The header clearly states this is a suggested block for disruptive editing and nothing more. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The discussion over at DBC doesn't appear to be overly long, and if the discussion is considered disruptive, then there is blame for all involved. If the consensus is clearly against TO, then there is no need to respond and add to the discussion. If he edits the article against consensus, well that's a different story. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose based only on knowledge of edits at the Abby Martin article. Thargor is currently engaged in discussion on the talk page and does not appear to be e.g. edit warring or disruptive. Meanwhile, the current article reflects the version he/she doesn't care for. I fail to see any reason for a block here. In fact, I think that Thargor is largely right. The further reading Viriditas is arguing for consists almost entirely of primary sources that would be better used in the article (interviews with Martin in podcasts, for example). There is no policy that says "don't use in further reading; use in the article," no. It's just that something may be inappropriate for further reading and yet appropriate for the article. The implication there is that if the inappropriate content is not added to the article, then it would be removed. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oh no, that is absolutely incorrect. The suggestion to give a 48 hour block was suggested due to similar edits across several articles with warnings for all of them and a persistence that seems non-collaborative. Instead of a topic ban (which would be normal for these instances) a block was suggested as the topics are too broad in range. The editor was deleting perfectly acceptable EL for no good reason (and actually giving bad reasons) against consensus with a battleground mentality.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The more you say that, don't you feel it sounds more like punishment rather than prevention at this point? DP 20:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No I don't. Why should one editor be allowed to run rough shot over multiple articles against the consensus of editors and edit war? How does that help improve the articles or the project? But I would like to hear more from you on how you feel a 48 hour block in this instance would be a punishment.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Please continue to discuss in talk. I suggest an RfC if you need help generating a clear consensus. --John (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (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 oversight on personal phone number

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 edit appears to require oversight to remove a phone number. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't post such things here; email WP:Requests for oversight instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2014 (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.

Template:FoP-USonly

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.

---

Is this really acceptable? There's no discussion of the law, just an assertion that the implied argument works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what the talk page is for. -- KTC (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2014 (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.

String of Volleyball Thailand League pages

Earlier today I was patrolling the bottom of the NPP queue and came across the first article listed below. My initial thought was CSD:A7 as a cursory google search provided links to mostly youtube videos and nothing resembling a reliable source. After viewing the history and seeing that it a new contributor had recently started editing it I decided PROPD citing WP:ORG was a better option. Then while posting a notice of my proposal to the new user's talk page I noticed several nominations for CSD for many other articles virtually identical to the one I was reviewing. Almost all of them are still active and the CSD notification is gone from the page with no information in the history. I contacted one of the original nominators (who is an admin) for clarification as to why they weren't deleted so I could understand the rationale and not make the same mistake in the future. They responded that they were unsure and thought they should still be deleted. They suggested I start a discussion here about it.

• Idea Khonkaen VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chonburi VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Udonthani VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Suansunantha VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nakhonratchasima VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sisaket VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ayutthaya VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2013-14 Women's Volleyball Thailand League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nakhonnon VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Volleyball Thailand League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Supreme Chonburi VC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of the above pages (except the first) were created by Sora2537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and from what I can tell most have been nominated for CSD:A7, but still all exist. Please help clarify the community's position on club team pages with no references or obvious notability. Thanks! C1776M^Talk 16:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note (as an admin I can look at deleted page history) the mystery you're seeing with the CSD tags, their disappearance and the lack of evidence in page history, is because the articles were deleted via CSD and recreated from scratch. Anything that happened prior to deletion (such as a CSD tag being added) won't show up again. -- Atama頭 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And FYI, the solution to this kind of behavior is WP:SALT. Since Chonburi VC has been deleted a total of 4 times now, I salted it. I'll look at the others in the list and see if they have a similar history, and take appropriate measures. -- Atama頭 19:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I was searching for some obscure policy or consensus about club sports thinking I was missing something. C1776M^Talk 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you also have specific questions about notability of volleyball clubs, the best venue is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball. -- Atama頭 19:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone believes these clubs are notable (especially with the WikiProject's support) and wants to recreate them (and expand them into real articles not subject to A7) I'll happily un-salt them. -- Atama頭 19:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Also found Kasetsart VC and Suandusit VC. Both very new, one without content. C1776M^Talk 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from WP Volleyball I have found myself this articles about three days ago, but I was too busy to mark them for deletion with the whole and appropiate process. Nakhonratchasima VC is schedule to participate in the next Asian Club Championship, qualifier for the World Championship. Idea Khonkaen VC participated last year. But neither Kathu Phuket VC nor Nakhonnon VC participated, even when they won the league, but instead Thailand Federation sent something called Chang. Today, we the volleyball enthusiasts do not understand what/how/who but Chang had success as Federbrau and Chang, but we still do not know what league they played. Since 2012 the Thailand League changed somehow and this is reflected in their results in AVC Club Volleyball Championship (no more all National Team in on squad so-called anyway, but a real winnner). I am pretty sure that the deleted Chonburi VC is the already existing Supreme Chonburi VC, but someone seems not to be aware of it.

Even if notable, we may consider all clubs playing in Continental Championship or notable league (Thailand not yet well organized, but in the way) notable. Nonetheless, content must exist and referenced. A good lead, history section well organized and referenced, because is the key section. Lets give a chance to Nakhonratchasima VC and Idea Khonkaen VC and give a notification to Sora2537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We are open for help and will this two articles to reach Wikipedia WP:MOS. Osplace 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Sora2537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recreated most of the pages, exactly as they were before they were salted yesterday. Notice of this discussion was properly placed on their talk page when it was started. But I will again place a comment there bringing their attention to it. C1776M^Talk 09:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Aggressive sock creating many accounts

Saw these names on U4AA after making a report. User appears to be making many accounts. Probably needs a CU and an IP/rangeblock.

User:Spamtester101, User:Spam_sandwich_dude, User:Spam spam spam 69, User:Spamalot 90, User:Spambot whatutalkinbout etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Although the accounts were reported at UAA simultaneously, they were created separately at various times since last April. Is there any evidence that these are likely to have been created by the same user? Peter James (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, I fear I made an assumption as to that point, based on UAA and did not look into the actual creation times. I may have wasted people's time with this :( Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's because of me. I did a search for improper usernames and came across these ones containing "Spam" that had been active over the past 9 months. I reported them all although I imagine some of them will be ignored as stale. Sorry if it misled you, Gaijin42. If you suspect some account is on an account creation spree, you can check the Special page for Users. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew_J.Kurbiko

Special:Contributions/Andrew_J.Kurbiko creating many articles on Ukranian topics that appear to be copyvios of www.encyclopediaofukraine.com. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Dianaa and Gaijin42 have now informed this user that while the original Ukrainian text may be in the public domain, the English translations used by Andrew_J.Kurbiko are copyrighted and must not be copied and pasted. Any further c&p copyright violations from www.encyclopediaofukraine.com should result in a block. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

Could I have some help at Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute? The third new account in as many days adding off-topic material/WP:OR to the article. Thanks. — goethean 18:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a hack at the material, commented in talk, and will keep it on my watchlist. There are potential WP:BLPSOURCES problems with some of the material the "new" editor was trying to add. --John (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)