Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2 and 23 other IP addresses in the same range, apparently the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here [1], but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.

Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?

Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC

You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's benign spam that hurts no one. I don't think it's any big deal, possibly aside from the misrepresentation of some as most active. If we got to the point that we're worrying about devaluation, much less desecration of barnstars (if that's even an appropriate use of the word), they're being taken far too seriously. I've gotten two spam barnstars; they made me smile for a minute, then shrug my shoulders. Frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry around here, particularly given the recent outbreak of incivility that's lead all manner of strife. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had two 'awards' from this anon editor now. The behaviour is odd, but I was a little surprised to see that an ANI was raised. This would seem to come under WP:CIR, but seems 'mostly harmless'. I was initially a little concerned that editors who responded to the anon IP might then be targeted with further 'mundane' conversation that might lead to some form of con, but this doesn't seem to be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If an editor with a username similar to Jimbo Wales posted comments on user Talk pages about a cash prize for the top 5% of editors in return for a small down payment, that might be considered 'fraud'. I'm not sure this qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, the verdict is: let's break a butterfly upon a wheel.  Tigerboy1966  20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Methinks there was an editor some months back who was indef'd for similar activity. That might be in the ANI archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A quick survey of the archives indicates that this kind of thing comes up every so often, and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This incident, for example. (I found it completely hilarious, but then again I have a very strange sense of humour.) It ended in an indef block; a benign time-sink is still a time-sink. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's the one. 13 months ago. Wow. Fruit flies like a banana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked [[User::66.87.2.96]] since I saw it active now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else seem to think that this is someone on a cell phone? My phone's IP (not similar to this IP) comes back to the same spot northeast of Wichita, and I'm nowhere near there. Notice that the actual data does not mention the city. Perhaps the map is defaulting to that location because it is near the center of the US? Calabe1992 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be unusual, but I suppose it's possible. Geolocation services usually to err towards the nearest big settlement (ie. where a telco has a presence) rather than just sticking a pin in the middle of the map. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(I am one of the users in this IP range who made some of the good-faith edits mentioned by Qwyrxian.) Yes, this IP range is a mobile system. Use "whois" instead of "geolocate" and you'll see all 66.87.x.x IP addresses are registered to Sprint-Nextel at their corporate offices in Overland Park, Kansas. Each time a user connects, the system seems to issue a different (effectively random) IP address: blocking individual addresses will have no effect on the offending Barnstar Bandit. Blocking large ranges would block anyone using Sprint's network, a bit extreme for such cutesy vandalism. 66.87.0.37 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(Same user here) I just disconnected and re-connected and was given this IP address 66.87.2.151 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This IP 67.80.64.128 is pro active in giving such awards. This is far bigger racket then I first thought.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to plaster these few IP pages with alternative wikilove messages he or she might use ?. How about a few messages 'Hey you're doing a great job, try this cute message as well'.... Give them your favorite message, they may well pick up on it, one of the messages might take their interest, and you have a one editor welcoming/wikilove/cheersquad committee. Penyulap ☏ 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 FormerIP and +1 MelanieN. This place needs more eccentric editors, it's way to homogeneous. Penyulap ☏ 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

well, Penyulap I posted a wel come message earlier and gave cheese burger to the other one but still no reply. There are a whole range of IPs working here.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly didn't upset me, getting a WikiLoveSpam message. I just wish I had been one of the top contributors! I like the idea of showing them some alternative messages (and Penyulap is an absolute ace at creative stuff, mega-impressive mind :D ... I am perpetually astounded at the capabilities). Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky, Vyom25, spam the IP range with wikilove, if you can find anything appropriate, I had a look at what's available on the superbright whimsical skipping in the afternoon-sunshine kind of thing and thought eewww, we got nothing in the wikilove standard messages. Give it a go just the same, cut and paste wikilove so that the IP editor has a larger vocabulary than just barnstars. If he or she has never seen a wikilove message, they can't use it. Spam wikilove, it is the proper response for cases like this. Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966's comment makes me think that people are bringing guns to a foodfight, which is ill-advised, like 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. So it's more a matter of fighting butterflies with butterflies, and I would think it's bad sportsmanship to use a vacuum cleaner on all the butterflies that have been left on peoples pages. Sucking them all up causes more harm than good. Penyulap ☏ 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified one of Penyulap's:

		Good little things mean a lot
		This is in recognition of all the helpful little things you've done. Pesky (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

i am thewolfchild

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) has been grinding an axe against Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) over a minor tiff in December. TWC has since jumped into a dispute at hunting, where Rwenonah (talk · contribs) had been blocked for edit-warring (again) and agenda-pushing, in a matter in which I and BH were involved. I warned TWC that their intervention on Rwenonah's talkpage [2] was inappropriate and unlikely to help out Rwenonah. TWC has since escalated into obvious personal attacks and harassment [3] against Berean Hunter and baiting, who isn't entirely blameless (BH claims socking and has unwisely reverted TWC's comments on Rwenonah's talkpage), but to a much lesser degree. TWC has a habit of cross-posting that makes sorting out diffs rather confusing. I've issued a warning to TWC [4]. Based on their response [5] I doubt any actions on my part would resolve the matter cleanly (we passed the Godwin's Law point a while back), so I bring it here. Most of the issue can be discerned on my talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

("Are you finished? Well then allow me to retort"...)

- Yes, Acro, I read it and I must say I am somewhat disappointed with you. Your account of the 'incident' is not entirely accurate now, is it? You are missing a few facts and you have 'bent' a few others. You have shown that you cannot be neutral. You have repeatedly demonstrated a clear bias in favour BH and against Rwen and myself. It is my opinion that you have a conflict here and that you should step aside and request another party review this matter, in it's entirety.

I would suggest a panel of 3 admins. They should have absolutely no history or involvement with with you, BH, Rwen, myself, or any of the admins that were involved in previous blocks on Rwen. They should also have no prior involvement with Hunting, Zodiac, or any of our talk pages.

They should review the incidents where you claim Rwen has made repeated edit violations, as well as any administrative and/or punitive action that has been taken in response to these claims.

They should review the "minor tiff" that BH and I had in December, as well as all of BH's subsequent comments, edits and deletions. They should also review any other issues BH may have had with other users, including edit wars and personal conflicts.

There should then be a thorough review of the incidents surrounding the Hunting page, including the edit war between BH and Rwen, the subsequent actions (and inaction) on your part as well as any other admins that were involved.

Following that, they could review any comments I made as well as any and all comments made by yourself and BH.

Then, perhaps a more clear picture of what has transpired here will be revealed, and some pressing questions can be answered;

- Have you, Acroterion, conducted yourself appropriately in your position as an admin?

- Was Rwen treated failrly and with respect?

- Were his queries regarding his disposition as an editor handled promptly and properly?

- Were his previous "infractions" adjudicated fairly?

- Was/is the Hunting page up to Wikipedia standards? Or is it in need of revision? (by a neutral source)

- Were Rwen's (initial) edits in complete violation of Wikipedia policy?

- Was there a better way you could have handled Rwen's concern's about the content of the Hunting page?

- Was BH justified in arbitrarily removing Rwen's edits?

- Was BH justified in subsequently engaging in an edit war?

- Was BH's conduct and attitude towards other users in keeping with Wikipedia policy? (in both the Zodiac page incident and the Hunting page incident)

- Was BH justified in removing content from someone else's talk page? (ie: Rwen)

- Was BH justified in posting comments that contain unfounded accusations, falsehoods and personal insults?

OF course, IF this proposed review were to take place, it would have to be conducted by 3 honest, intelligent and unbiased admins.

Following that, I would hope that the Hunting page could be revised as a better document. I would hope that Rwen, with a better understanding of wiki editorial policies, would be able to continue as a contributor.

I would expect that the incident that occurred last December, between BH and I on the Zodiac page would be seen for exactly what it was; BH a little too quick to jump in, criticize and correct people and equally as quick to initiate reverts and warnings. That's perhaps why her attitude towards other users can be stand-offish and even condescending at times. That these actions on her part are from a lack of patience, which also leads to a quick temper, resulting in edit wars, complaints, personal attacks and insults, like "You're a troll!", "You're a sock puppet!", "You crawled out from under a rock!", "You're ignorant!", etc, etc. I would further expect that BH's actions during the Hunting page incident and subsequent dialogues on talk pages would also show a need for her conduct to be addressed. I believe that BH can be a positive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and that only a minimal amount of correction and/or guidance would be required to set her on the right path. I'm certainly willing to let 'by-gones be by-gones'.

I would expect that it would likely be determined that you Acro, could have administered the situation better. Beginning with your treatment of Rwen, you're handling of the Hunter page edit war incident, your unwillingness to address any of the misconduct on the part of BH and fianlly, the continued back-and-forth you have in engaged in with myself, where you have continually manipulated the dialogue to purposefully create discord. There was no "baiting" or "disruption" on my part, just simply my response to your response to my response, and so on and so on. I did not call Wikipedia a "regime" - I said I hope it doesn't become one. I did not insult any admins, including yourself - I simply said that I hoped that admins here, in general, can refrain from certain kinds of actions that would be deterimental to this site. AND, I certainly did not call anyone here a "Nazi", nor did I refer to anyone here as "Hitler". The place the 'Godwin Line' was crossed, was in your imagination. This is an accusation that you should really consider taking back. Nothing I said was deserving of such a comment.

In fact, if my conduct were to be reviewed, I believe it would be 'on the margins' sometimes, but still 'on-side'. I freely admit that I use rhetorical sarcasm as part of my debates. Any comments I make are usually gauged in response to the comments made towards me. I believe it would be shown that the December incident went down just as I said it did. Following that, I noted that another user was having similar difficulties with BH that I had. I found this on BH's talk page and decided to post a simple comment, based on my experience with BH, to let Rwen know that this was not a unique situation. BH removed that - and that's her right, but when I re-posted my comments on Rwen's talk page (for the benefit of Rwen), BH went in and removed them - That was wrong. Following that, BH and I have a a couple of exchanges that at least I can admit were not in keeping with the best of ideals. Unfortunately, hostility sometimes breeds hostility. I have since disengaged from BH. However, that is where I had looked to you, Acro, to try and direct the whole affair towards somekind of resolution. But you failed. Ultimately, I believe that any review would determine that you are a good admin, and should continue as such. You may still have a little to learn, but I believe you have alot to offer.

In closing, I'm glad that you have brought this to ANI. Whether or not the review I proposed is conducted, I believe that this entire affair bears some kind of looking into. Questions do need to be answered. Policies do need to be reviewed. Changes do need to be made. This can only benefit Wikipedia and all it's users.

If the are any questions I need to answer, or anything I need to answer for, you all know where to find me. This will all but conclude my involvement with this. I don't see any reason for any of our paths to cross again, so I will wish all of you the best, in your endeavours.

Have a nice day. - thewolfchild 03:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC) - (Love those Big Kahuna Burgers...)

My initial concern was that Thewolfchild was using Rwenonah's block for edit-warring to continue a vendetta of Thewolfchild's against Berean Hunter. Nothing above changes my mind. TWC was warned for direct personal attacks against Berean Hunter: they haven't repeated that since my warning. It does (not very concisely) illustrate TWC's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to WP, and is using Rwenonah's problems at hunting as a proxy to serve TWC's own ends. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Godwin's Law was passed with "admins who would treat it like a regime, with their self-serving, egotistical, condescending, fascist attitudes" [6]. Apparently I'm not one of those, which ought to be true in this case, since I've taken no administrative actions where Rwenonah and Thewolfchild are concerned. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Acro... you just keep going on and on about this. Your latest comments are, to put it politely, disingenuous, and only serve reinforce the need for you to step aside, as I had previously suggested.

- You claim that I have a "continuing vendetta" against Berean Hunter (BH). I would suggest that to reacquaint yourself with the definition of vendetta. In December of last year, there was a minor incident involving some edits and reverts to one article. I believe that BH had acted inappropriately and I told her as such. Following that, I dismissed the matter, and that was the extent of it. By BH's own admission, I have been "inactive" since that time (hardly qualifies as "continuing").

- Recently, I noted that BH had become involved in an edit war with Rwenonah (Rwen). I also noted that you took it upon yourself, as an admin to, to intercede in the matter. However, the actions you took seem to be prejudicially against Rwen (as by your own admission, you have a bias) and in favour of BH. Rwen has not only been blocked, but continually ignored. Compounding the issue further was that at the same time, BH's actions/violations were not being addressed. I then posted a comment to let Rwen know that his confusions and concerns with BH were justified as BH does have a history of conflict. BH responded to this, and I replied, and so on. My subsequent comments to BH were no more violative that hers. Again, there were only a few posting and then I dropped the matter with her.

- However, you once again decided to involve yourself and, once again you came in heavily in support of BH. It is not clear exactly just what the nature of the relationship is between you two, but you seem to give BH an exceptional degree of latitude when it comes to policy, to the point where you are effectively turning a blind eye and giving her a free pass for any of her transgressions.

- Now, just to be clear... you posted comments to me first, sir, not the other way around. I am fully within my right to respond, which I did, but unfortunately, you have a habit of manipulating comments, taking them out of context and then presenting them in a fashion that not at all reflects the original message that was being conveyed. You seem to do this to depict the other person as someone who is acting in a manner in need of re-dress, and of course, since you are an admin, you take it upon yourself to apply remedies. Each time you respond to me, I have every right to reply back. Especially when there is a need to clarify any items that you have deliberately distorted. Yet, following this, you accuse me of "baiting", "trolling", "disrupting", etc, once again, characterizing me as "the disease" and you as "the cure". Under a veil of authority and feigned principled superiority, you have "warned" me, threatened me and now created an ANI entry which is at best misleading, but in my opinion, largely apocryphal.

- There is a standard which admins at a minimum should be held to, but should also aspire to exceed. I'm sure you have done some good work here in the past, but your actions here in this matter have fallen short of that standard. I have been repeatedly critical of you, and justly so, but I have also been respectful. As an admin, you should be well aware that criticism comes with the territory. Perhaps you need to develop a 'thicker skin', if you are going to continue on as a admin.

- There are also some concepts you need to grasp, such as subtlety, sarcasm, hypocrisy, irony, neutrality and superfluous generalizations. You also need to learn the difference between fact and fiction.

- Fact: if an admin were to use his or her privileges to serve their own ends, they are, in fact "self-serving". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "self-serving".

- Fact: if an admin were to consistently and unreasonably hold the position that they are always right and everybody else is always wrong, they would, in fact, be considered "egotistical". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "egotistical".

- Fact: if any person were to consider that being a admin gives them some sort of moral high-ground that elevates them above their peers, and therefore look down upon other users and treat them as lessers, they would, in fact, be considered "condescending". Fiction: your claim that I called any specific admin here "condescending".

- It was my position (and still is) that any admin here should avoid any behaviour of these types if they are going to be an effective admin. Any admin acting in such a manner as prescribed above would be detrimental to Wikipedia. This statement is somewhat obvious (isn't it?) and was made as a generality. You need to recognize it as such and not take it as some kind of attack.

- You also need to learn what "fascism" means, in general, then compare and contrast the way in which I have used it, specifically, here in my comments. You also need to reconcile my use of the word fascism with the other comments I made regarding Wikipedia (ie: 'meritocracy', 'neutral', 'transparent'). These ideals are in keeping with democracy, fair treatment and free speech. All of these principles are the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so remarkable. Therefore, I believe it would be fair to say, in general, that if any admin were to act in a manner that was in conflict with these principles and ideals, it would only serve to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of Wikipedia. If an admin were to impose his or her own will in a manner that puts their interests above those of other users and Wikipedia, if they were to misuse, or even abuse, their privileges in the process, if they were to do so despite a lack of consensus from the Wikipedia community, and if they were to try and enforce their own personal agendas without any personal responsibility, they would then be acting in an authoritarian manner and without accountability, they would be acting in a totalitarian manner. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are two of the basic precepts of fascism. Any entity administered in such a manner would be tantamount to a regime. In these instances however, 'fascism' and 'regime' have simply been used as basic descriptors to illustrate a point and not as direct comparatives. To say that having Wikipedia run as a 'fascist regime' would be of great harm is simply a general observation that is stating the obvious and in no way proffers the opinion that Wikipedia is a fascist regime. For you to claim that I have depicted Wikipedia as a regime or any of it's admins as fascists is deceitful. This seems to be a stratagem on your part to reinforce your position while at the same time distracting from the of the concerns that have been raised about you.

- Lastly, for someone who is so enamoured with Godwin's Law, you really do seem to have a poor understanding of it. The basic theory is that is if an argument were to go on long enough, that at some point one of the belligerents would accuse the other of acting like a Nazi, or compare them with Adolf Hitler. I fail see how Godwin's Law applies to my comment. I used the term 'fascist' in the most basic and general sense, as part of an opinion, in which I stated that it was something to be avoided. You and I were not engaged in an argument and I did not call you a fascist. You seem to hold that the term fascism applies to the theory becasue Nazi Germany was a fascist state, and while that application is debatable, I certainly did not, at any time, accuse you of acting like a Nazi, nor did I compare you with Hitler. You have incorrectly, cavalierly and grossly applied this theory to our discussion. In doing so, you yourself have breached the principle behind the law. That is, you have taken a simple disagreement, on an relatively minor issue, and in trying to apply a theory (that doesn't even apply), you have attempted to draw a comparison between this and one of the darkest elements of human history. You have demeaned and trivialized the horrific, to serve your own needs with your reckless and unapologetic behaviour.

Did you have anything else to add, or are we done now?

- thewolfchild 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion handled this very well indeed, especially considering some of the weird accusations you've made. But leaving that aside -- TWC, you say, within your giant wall of text -- "I have since disengaged from BH" -- do that. I reviewed the situation and it is clear you are wikistalking BH, so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Antandrus: "Acroterion handled this very well..." - Really? Glad you think so...

Antandrus: "...the weird accusations you've made." - Like what?

Antandrus: "...giant wall of a text." - Sorry, I'll try to use more pictures and less big words next time.

Antandrus: "(you)have since disengaged from BH -- do that." - Are you saying that I should do something... that I have already done? (or did you want me to go tell her off again, and then disengage again?)

Antandrus: "...it is clear you are wikistalking..." - Really? It's "clear", huh? Then it should be easy for you to provide some proof to support this claim. Or, did you go to the Acroterion school of I'm-just-gonna-throw-out-any-baseless-accusation-I-please-without-backing-it-up?

Antandrus: "...so just stop it. Don't do it again. That will end the problem." - >yawn< ...ok, thanks for stopping by.

- thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos? Sheesh. Calm down. And you say that Acro "just keep[s] going on and on about this". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lothar von Richthofen: "Are you capable of posting responses that aren't absurd manifestos?" - Yeah, I course I am. Just see the my 3 previous posts above...

Lothar von Richthofen: "Calm down." - Um... do I seem angry or excited? Am I using any harsh, derogatory language? Have I made any threats? AM I USING ALOT OF CAPS? Am I using multiple exclamation marks!!!!!? Sheesh.

Lothar von Richthofen: "...you say that Acro keeps going on and on..." - Yes, I did say that... because he does. He keeps repeating the same bogus complaints and baseless accusations. Quite frankly, I wish he had written more, to at least back-up some of his nonsense. But as it is, I'm left to refute what he claims happened and clarify what actually happened. All the while, asking some pretty simple, yet important questions that continue to go unanswered. Don't mistake thoroughness with ranting and raving.

It's unfortunate that this discussion has left you so irritated. I hope your day gets better.

- thewolfchild 03:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What we appear to have here is an argument-only account. It's plain that anyone who attempts to engage TWC for any reason gets treated to an ever-expanding Great Wall of Text on their own and Wikipedia's iniquity with digressions into an analyses of fascism and its role in the management of Wikipedia. My original post stands: a returning edit-warrior was reported by me to AN3, was blocked, and TWC, beginning with personal attacks against Berean Hunter, is using this as a pretext for verbose denunciations of all who come into contact with TWC. However, since they appear to have agreed to leave BH alone, this may be closed. Acroterion (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sooo... that's it? How... anti-climatic. You created this oh-so-ominous ANI, only to let it die on the vine? Just what was your intention in bringing this up, anyway? Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of review, discourse, accounting and hopefully resolution? You opened with your little paragraph of artifice and pulled off the neat trick of keeping it short while at the same time touching upon multiple issues, multiple users, multiple pages, and levying multiple accusations. To think that I actually took you seriously, was willing to take part in this kangaroo court, and going to the trouble of dissecting all your obfuscation so that I could provide some factual clarity. Quite simply, Newton's Third Law is at work here. I'm sorry if my responses were too overwhelming for you and you 'friends' to digest, but regardless of their length, there are necessary and reasonable. Aside from playing janitor with your comments, I also raised some issues of concern and posed some questions that needed to be asked as much as they need to be answered. I went even further and proposed the need for a (real) review of all issues and parties involved. I was ready to take part. I stand by everything I've done and I have nothing to hide. Funny how some other people here don't want the light shining on them. It seems you got punch-drunk early, and instead of presenting further, simply hung on to the ropes. Then a couple of your 'friends' came along and took a whopping 30 seconds out of their days to dump in some random, useless detritus, and then disappeared. Bean-Hunter is nowhere to be seen, leaving you without your cheearleading squad. Then you managed to regurgitate a little more, leaving me to craft another respose to these ongoing fables of yours.

So, I can see where these ANI's can be useful tools in addressing some of the conflicts and violations that occur here on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your ANI sucked. I have shown that you were wrong, on multiple counts, both in your actions and your accusations. What did you accompish?

Now are we done...?

- thewolfchild 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC) - (I'm glad you didn't charge admission for this)

No, I'm around...just busy. There is little anyone needs to say...you're doing a fine job at what you're doing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe too fine a job, eh? - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proxy

"Just for the record, I looked at the ANI complaint( I'm commenting here only because I am still blocked and cannot edit the noticeboard) and do not consider myself an uninvolved party, having been blocked for edit warring while User:Berean Hunter has not ( especially as my questions about User:Berean Hunter's questionable actions and nonexistent response went unanswered except by User:thewolfchild) . I completely agree with User:thewolfchild about the complaint on the noticeboard. (PS-My questions still haven't been answered-I sense bias)."(--Rwenonah (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

The preceding was posted by Rwenonah on his own talk page. I have re-posted it here, for obvious reasons. - thewolfchild 04:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I remain concerned that TWC is egging on Rwenonah to further edit-warring on release of his block through comments like this: [7]. TWC's comments on BH and myself are in character, and he has elaborated on our alleged sins at length, but his interaction with Rwenonah remains an issue, as TWC seems to be engaged in validating Rwenonah's actions. This was the basis of my initial interaction with TWC, from which the mass above has sprung. A word with Rwenonah would be beneficial, not least to him, to try to keep him out of further difficulty. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

TWC and Civility

After seeing this section on ANI, I took a peek at TWC's talk page, with these three edits in particular. Acroterion warned him and TWC's response was a simple "Whatever...". TWC needs to understand that civility is not optional. We just had an Arbcom case on this, didn't we? People make snide remarks from time to time, but these types of personal attacks are certainly beyond the pale. Ishdarian 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a bit sympathetic to TWC's plight here. He sounds frustrated and angry, and this being at AN/I can't be helping anything. Just because there was an Arbcom case which involved Civility doesn't give license to run around looking for editors who we can thwack over the head with the civility policy.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohm, as your response appears unbiased and somewhat reasonable, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no insult with your "frustrated and angry" comment. (You will note that I have already addressed that issue) I can tell you that I am neither "angry", nor "frustrated". I'm just not emotionally invested enough here for that. I haven't experienced anything other than mild annoyance and amusement. There are people here that seem to live and breath Wikipedia twenty-four hours a day but, when I log off, I don't give this site a second thought. I read some articles, correct the odd mistake and enjoy a litte rhetoric. Other than that, I simply don't care. Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not calling for him to be blocked, but a nice reminder from somebody outside of the current discussion could surely to no harm. Ishdarian 03:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear, Ishdarian. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to offer your insight to this issue. Wikipedia just wouldn't be what it is without the selfless efforts of people like yourself. One can only hope that you will be able to find a remedy for your selective tunnel-vision. Good Luck, All the best and Take Care. (see? I can be nice...) - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (btw - my wife "reminds" me to be civil every gawd-damn day)

I'm not calling for TWC to be blocked: I after all could have blocked TWC myself. I'm concerned about the hair-trigger rhetoric and his use of Wikipedia as a battleground in which to pursue grudges, dragging in otherwise uninvolved parties such as Rwenonah. At the time of my original posting he was using Rwenonah's troubles to further TWC's own ends against BH, which was what caught my attention in the first place. At the original time of posting I wasn't sure where this was headed, and I wasn't going to be active on WP. TWC has avoided further incident since then. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Lather, Rinse, Repeat" - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO - of all of the wp:boomerang and wp:duck results seen here, this one escapes? Have any of the admins actually looked at the contributions from start to finish? There are some absolutely ridiculous thoughts in this thread. C'mon, I was mistaken for a sock on my first appearance here, why would anyone allow TWC to survive AN/I without scrutiny? - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

UError - Not surprised you're laughing, I've been laughing myself since the beginning of this farce. I asked for scrutiny too, but... (sigh) oh well. Anyways, there's already enough players here in this dog's breakfast, we really don't need you dragging in your sock baggage. It's old news, move on. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to something specific? I just looked though every single diff in TWC's history, and I don't see anything that is immediately obvious which even approaches being disruptive. I didn't look at any of his talk page comments, but his content contributions seem fine (and that's what's important, after all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohm - you won't find anything in my history (I have better things to do than edit war and vandalize). My talk page... well, that's a different story, but (if I may quote FDR), "They started it!". But, seriously, I've already stated that's I've made some sarcastic comments that were more colourful that needed. BUT, I've also had some insults hurled at me, have been accused of all kinds of nonsense, have been deliberately misquoted and mischaracterized - all done with seeming impunity, and at the same time have have many questions go unanswered. My understanding was that the (mis)conduct of any party of an ANI could be examined. But, instead of any scrutiny, there's just repetition of same baseless drivel. Cheers. - thewolfchild 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad script

• User:Keymanweb/keymanweb.js
• [8] - Documentation page pre-blanking

This old script was listed at the user scripts list. It appears to attempt to write in code posted at an outside website, and seems to have been created by a single-purpose account to promote a company. I tested it before checking the code, and it blanked all pages to prevent viewing and editing. I had to disable Javascript to get rid of it. I doubt it was intended as malicious, but perhaps the script should be deleted regardless. It seems to be advertised outside of Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:23, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The script has not changed since October 30, 2009‎ (the day of its creation). User:Enawga installed it on May 14, 2011‎ in his/her monobook.js and has edited productively since – although not much.  --Lambiam 21:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The problems could just be in Vector, where I tested. Still... Equazcion ^(talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason it blanks the page is probably that mentioned in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 97#document.write is not longer working. Anomie⚔ 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that would just mean the script wouldn't work, not blank the page. Regardless, I'd think importing code from an outside website == bad, since they can change it at any point, to whatever they want, without any indication showing on the wiki. That and the single-purpose account. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:51, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I think that thing ought to be deleted, since it lets the vendor take control of the user's editing, through their control off the offsite script. It's therefore similar to a user sharing their password, which is not allowed. Even if the company doesn't do something malicious like that, it still lets them track all of the user's activity through their http logs, which may be the actual main purpose. The onscreen keyboard functionality does look sort of useful and maybe something like it can be added to existing wiki scripts like AWB if enough people want it. (I think the WMF has also been working on an in-browser wysiwyg wiki editor that might eventually subsume the usefulness of such a script though). (expanded twice) 67.117.147.20 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There could possibly be some good-faith intention behind the script, but it is fishy enough to be deleted. I've left a note for User:Enawga, though he edits so seldom we probably won't get a response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ronz behaviour

Many have commented on his behavior in the past. [9] Even Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, warned him last month. [10] He removed Jimbo's message with edit summary "harassment". He claims everyone is harassing him, he post messages threatening to have them blocked, he argues nonstop and distorts things such as at the Talk:Alicia_Silverstone where he claims "overwhelming consensus" when no one else has stated an agreement with him. He insist that a reliable source is valid when linking to an article there that says what he wants to quote from, but dismisses other articles on that same reliable source that say something he wishes to ignore. [11] Dream Focus 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an RFC/U might be an order more so than ANI. I might be missing it but I don't see anything blockable in the above SÆdon^talk 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Dream Focus left alerted eight editors about this thread who have had conflicts with Ronz in the past but aren't involved in this specific issue. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Looks like canvassing to me. AniMate 23:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was showing a pattern of behavior, he having conflicts of the same type with many people. A long term problem editor should be banned for his constant problems. Jimbo Wales himself commenting on him. "Your recent reverts to this article were in line with your past POV pushing behavior. This has to stop. The statements you removed were neither promotional nor inaccurate, and were both uncontroversial and easily sourced." I thought that and what others have said was relevant to this. And when you bring someone to ANI or wherever don't you usually ask for others to come and participate? He was warned about this behavior, and on the Alicia Silverstone article he removed things which were also "uncontroversial and easily sourced". If someone complains about your past behavior and warns them to stop, but they keep doing it anyway, I thought that'd get him banned. Dream Focus 23:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He also didn't inform Ronz of the discussion SÆdon^talk 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I did too. He just hit undo on the edit. Check his talk page history. [20] Dream Focus 23:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies DF. I went to his page right after you posted this and so didn't think he'd have had time to revert it and I wrongly assumed that you forgot. SÆdon^talk 23:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DF, you didn't show a pattern of behavior. You didn't hunt up diffs to show that this is a problem. You left messages recruiting others who had conflicts with him to come here. That's canvassing. AniMate 23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I still think an RFC/U is the best venue for this. If it's true that he's had this much conflict then it should not be difficult to find a second certification. SÆdon^talk 23:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely a problematic pattern of behavior from Ronz. Dream Focus just didn't present it. The editors he "canvassed" are probably the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who have had run ins with Ronz and his peculiar style of tendentious editing. An RfC/U would probably be good, but if he's at it again I don't see why people should have to deal with the hassle of that.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn right about this being just the tip of the iceberg. This seems to be a continuation of the behavior detailed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. In that mess as documented by User:Griswaldo 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Ronz was

• Removing talk page comments he doesn't like, then collapsing them after being reverted and edit warring to keep them collapsed, and then finally after being reverted again putting his own subject headings over the comments.
• Issuing BLP warnings to editors who in good faith are trying to evaluate the reliability of Barrett as a source - Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and Griswaldo
• Unilaterally deleting talk page comments, claiming that they are BLP violations - [21],[22]

On 22:08, June 19, 2011 I informed User:Will Beback ([23]) about Ronz apparent continuation of spamming user pages with templates.

On 1:00, August 24, 2011 I told User:Elen of the Roads ([24]) of Ronz's apparent continuation of spamming user pages with templates.

It is blatantly obvious this editor is continuing to violate-ignore-distort wikipedia policies (first WP:BLP, then WP:BITE, and so on). WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS GUY?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to Ronz, you can't ever believe anything he says. Misuse of policies, edit warring and distortions of the truth is an understatement of epic proportions. You have to be a sociopath to commit the wrongs this guy does with the calmness of a sleeping baby. I've never met any other editor like this guy. This guy acts like he's an administrator threatening that editors will be blocked at the drop of a hat. Think I'm overstating, go ahead and read his contrabutions. He adds almost no value to any article he's involved with whatsoever (and I'm being nice). Time after time he seems to slither through fingers of countless administators, never getting banned. Far too many times, he gets the benefit of the doubt, be let go with a mere slap on the wrist. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. Ronz has IMHO become the de facto a poster child of what can go wrong with Wikipedia--an editor that appears to game Wikipedia to the point the administrators just don't get the scope or length of the violations and so continues to tarnish the community.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A user is allowed to remove coments from their own talk page. If there really is a problem here, why are editors like BruceGrubb producing diffs from 2011 and 2010? And why also is TFI using inflammatory language like "sociopath"? Please produce some recent diffs from 2012 to show what is going on now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenever Ronz comes into conflict with other editors it becomes a fiasco. It's a well known problem. I'm sure it's well known by you as well Mathsci. When I had a run in with him over Stephen Barrett I recall him claiming to quit just as things weren't looking so good for him in various community venues like this one. I don't have the diffs, nor do I have the time to find them, but someone who is more dedicated to this should dig them up, because that kind of slithering out of trouble is itself a problem.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not been directly involved in any editing where that has happened. There were problems concerning Weston Price which involved several editors commenting here. Certainly an RfC/U is in order if other editors have found systematic problems with Ronz. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You want examples from this year? Fine, I give you ones for this freaking MONTH: [25], [26]=], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] (that is NOT Ronz's talk page but another user's talk page he is messing with!); [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]] and that is NOT all of them!

Instead of handling these matters on the relevant talk page he spams user talk pages--"It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location" (Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

"On the contrary, you've been contacted on your talk page—per best practices—and asked to stop bullying and harassing users. Your response has been to ignore these requests—by multiple users—and instead to make false accusations in return. That is the kind of "unacceptable behavior" you have been engaging in for some time now, Ronz, and it needs to stop." Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time." (Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

Harassing users in October 2010 and Harassing users in April 2012. How much evidence do we freaking need that Ronz is out of control?

AGAIN, WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT RONZ?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see three editors with strong views that Ronz is disruptive, but no recent diffs of anything blockable. Please could one of you choose ONE diff (the most egregious, perhaps) from the last month and explain what the problem with it is? Most of the string of diffs above look like templated warnings and I can't immediately see why they are blockable offences. You need to present a case here, not just SHOUT DEMANDS FOR SOMETHING TO BE DONE. Please calmly give a good example of blockable behaviour with a narrative explanation of why it's a problem. Otherwise this is for RfC I think. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about what the appropriate course of action is at this time. In terms of particularly egregious edits, I would mention these two: [41] with the edit summary "rv - as with last time - undue weight, inaccurate info, promotional info, off topic", [42] with the edit summary "some info fails verification". All of those claims proved to be untrue, and the information is in the article and well-sourced today. The information removed was not inaccurate - indeed, Ronz re-introduced a blatant factual error on the date by reverting the edit. It is also worth noting the WP:OWN issues around this article, with Ronz having made 240 edits to the article, over complaints spanning a very long period of time, with the 2nd runner up making only 61 edits: [43]. What should have been a calm discussion of the issues with the article quickly degenerated into Ronz claiming harassment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the diffs you've provided, your interpretation is not completely correct. The text removed by Ronz includes a claim about being awarded a $10M contract by NASA, but as it was written the claim wasn't supported by the refs; the LA Times ref is the only one that mentions the contract and it only speculates that the contract could be worth up to $10M. Considering this, Ronz's claims that the edit includes inaccurate and promotional material is correct, at least based on the provided refs. Also, this text is not found in the article at the time of your writing the above comment, contrary to your claim that "All of those claims proved to be untrue, and the information is in the article and well-sourced today". 92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think his claim of undue weight is particularly unreasonable either. Why add info from the Moon Express article about the NASA contract rather than something directly about Naveen Jain e.g. the interview with Naveen Jain about Moon Express? If you wanted to be promotional I can see why an actual interview with the subject of the article would be ignored in favor of material describing the award of a contract. Really all that should be in the Naveen Jain article is a summary that is reflective of the lead of the Moon Express article, plus anything that directly pertains to Naveen Jain. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• On the Alicia Silverstone article he kept removing the part about her being an animal rights activist, despite she getting ample news coverage for that, and references found and added to the article to prove that, plus she doing a commercial for PETA that got ample coverage, etc. I add in sources to a magazine which interviewed her about her bestselling novel, which said she was an animal rights and environmental activist. [44] He then tags that with undue weight, and argued constantly on the talk page. He insist she be mentioned as being known only for one movie she did, Clueless, despite two other films she was in making several times the amount of money, and many news sources saying she was best known for other things as well. [45] He mentions an article in UPI which says she is best known for Clueless, and I link to another article in UPI which says she is best known for her work in the films "The Crush," "Clueless," "Blast from the Past" and "Excess Baggage," as well as the music videos for Aerosmith's hits "Cryin,'" "Amazing" and "Crazy." He then calls that "tabloid trash" claiming its not reliable. I find several other articles in UPI which state she is best known for more than one thing, and he argues against that. Originally the article did mention the other things she was well known for, not just Clueless, he removing it. I think the talk page of that article says it all. You have someone determined to keep out referenced information he doesn't like, and make it say what he does like, then claiming "overwhelming consensus" when he is the only one saying it should be there. Dream Focus 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Having read over that discussion, you are clearly in the right. He's engaging in an inappropriate synthesis by systematically excluding sources that don't support his views. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read some old posts you made on his talk page, one of which he reverted with the edit summary "harassment" as mentioned before. After that, he added in a banner at the top of his page about having recently been bullied or harassed [46] and its stay there ever since. That was in June 2011. Of course he's had the tag saying he is considering retiring for over a year now, so maybe he just forgot its there, or maybe he believes everyone is regularly abusing him. Dream Focus 20:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The retirement banner showed up just as some serious heat was coming down on him surrounding the issues I was involved in. He stopped editing and put that banner up and avoided further scrutiny. We let editors slither away from the consequences of their actions like that all the time and it really infuriates some of us.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's why he was doing it. I've seen people leave for that purpose then return soon after. I'm thinking the other banner, claiming harassment, might be against some rule, not sure which one though. Dream Focus 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The retirement banner come up during the whole Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard fiasco. "A retirement template, he has a template for everything, doesn't he? We've been duped, and made fools of here by the process." (THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

It is WAY past time to do something about this editor; his behavior is just as disruptive in April 2012 as it was in October 2010 and it is more or less the SAME behavior. I have seen editors banned for far less so why is this guy still here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I recall at least one incident last year in which Ronz goaded a long-term highly knowledgeable, highly valued contributor into a block by persistently exasperating behavior that stayed just within the margins of policy. Someone should probably take a look into the overall pattern of this editor's contributions and make a disinterested recommendation as to whether any action should be taken, whether it be an RfC or dispute resolution or something else. Of course Ronz is entitled to respond to such analysis before any action is taken, but he should also be on notice by now that several experienced editors here are concerned about his overall pattern of participation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to mention a name so we can look into that. Dream Focus 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Brad, if I recall correctly Ronz does not show up to explain his actions when they are discussed either. It's another pattern of his. He'll delete advice or warnings from his own talk page as harassment and then stay away from AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Once again he has tagged properly referenced material with "undue" tags as well as add in something which seems rather bias. Different sources say Alicia Silverstone is notable for different things, and she gets coverage for far more than just the film Clueless. Long never ending discussion on the talk page does not result in anything. Additional input would be appreciated, otherwise its just an edit war between two people. [47] Dream Focus 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I just added academic sources which discuss her environmental and animal rights works and he has tagged those as UNDUE and OR. I am not a happy about that at all. I get the feeling he has a thing for the film clueless. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a variation of the nonsense we went through with Ronz in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch.

Please note this comment from October 2010 and see how much is still happening in April 2012:

"Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:

1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?

As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing." (Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

I again ask how much evidence do we freaking need that Ronz is STILL out of control?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I can see some issues here. Has anyone approached this from a mentorship angle yet? — Ched :  ?  09:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"•Oppose on the basis of an idiotic imposition of punishment. Help him become a better editor by offering him advice on how to resolve disputes. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC) ◦I agree that it should not be punitive. I've suggested other options below that are not punitive. I think your suggestion to have people help Ronz become a better editor is fantastic, but I don't see any volunteers. Please note that mentorship is one of the options below. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ■I've gotten Ronz in touch with some people who may help through some off-wiki e-mails. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) ■Well cheers for doing that and I hope it does him some good.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

■So SA, since you've become Ronz's mentor, I assume you'll be following up to see that improvement actually take hold and grow. Good luck. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I am Ronz's mentor and am unsure why you think my post above indicates that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)"

Mentorship was apparently tried almost two years ago. When are the administrators going to get out the big hammer and do what should have been done long ago? When? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He has been around long enough to know what he should be doing, surely. Do you really think he is going to be listening to anyone? He doesn't seem to have done so thus far. Dream Focus 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at his user page. How many people spend 2/3 of their user page talking about disruptive behavior and associated policies? It seems this is all this fella thinks about. I call it projection. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ronz is far from alone in using his userpage as a soapbox; it does help other editors to know with whom they deal. pablo 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the Alicia Silverstone article for one week. There's entirely too much back and forth, bickering, changing, reverting, and disruption going on with this article. Since I've likely protected the Wrong Version, Any admin. is fully free to change, lift, modify, or extend this protection. I'm not precious about my efforts here, so I won't consider it anything confrontational in the least. — Ched :  ?  18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a mop, but that's too much IMO. Kick it down to 48 hrs, and topic ban the related parties instead pbp 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We can't topic ban at will without a wide community agreement. The one week lock is a normal first step. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban on Alicia Silverstone?

I, for one, believe that a logical first step would be to topic-ban these two editors from the Alicia Silverstone page. Thoughts? pbp 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Which two? Have you read this? Talk:Alicia_Silverstone#Undue_weight_of_animal_rights_and_environmental_activist_in_lede He changed his tune as more people showed up. How long will that last though? Dream Focus 02:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering the way BLP has been misused by Ronz before (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard for that mess) I have to wonder if it ever really applied in the first place. The more I look at Ronz's BLP claims the more they look like SAME 'because I say so' crap the community went through with regarding the use of Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price article.

"Like many animal rights activists, Ms. Silverstone is leather-averse, so it has been particularly challenging for Ms. Haze to keep her attractively shod. There are synthetic shoes, of course, but there aren't many I like looking at, she said." (BELLAFANTE, GINIA (August 19, 2003) "Front Row; Clothing the Vegan Star" New York Times)

"“Clueless” star turned animal rights activist Alicia Silverstone is passing her vegan diet along to her infant son — literally. She shot video of herself chewing food for him and then passing it directly into his mouth." (Schulz, Sam (Mar 27, 2012) "Alicia Silverstone Chews Her Son's Food for Him...and shoots video of herself feeding it to him, mouth-to-mouth" NBCUniversal, Inc)

"What about all the coverage of her book, it even on the NYT bestsellers list. Any objection towards saying Alicia Silverstone is an American actress, author, and animal rights activists. Dream Focus 21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"

How about NBC News out of freaking Chicago, Ronz?!? Or better yet the New York freaking Times article of nearly NINE years ago?!? This appears to be a variation of the same WP:CRYBLP crap the community put up with in the Weston Price article back in October 2010. Also instead of BLP warning templates he is now spamming user talks with COI warning templates (as shown above)

Again, WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT RONZ?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is going to work here. Certainly Dream Focus doesn't need one. Ronz seems to be the user behaving badly here and it doesn't seem to be an isolated incident. AniMate 09:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is what Dream Focus, Griswaldo, The Founders Intent, and myself have been saying--this is NOT isolated case and more over seems to be continuation of the behavior seen back in October 2010.

Lambanog's October 2010 comment regarding Ronz's behavior below is just as valid regarding his behavior in April 2012:

"This is not an isolated case. I had a content dispute with Ronz not even a month past and the same pattern of behavior showed up. A search of ANI archives will show lots more. WP:AGF I think is being abused and used as a shield for his behavior. I also agree with the observation of gaming the system. The way he posts on talk pages, the way he refactors comments, and the way he edit wars are technically not in outright breach of guidelines, or if breached, there is some token understandable reason. But taken all together and with its regularity I think Ronz's behavior is unsupportable and is causing a poisonous atmosphere. Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We are basicly seeing the SAME BLASTED THING. WHY in the name of sanity is this editor being allowed to continue to cause "a poisonous atmosphere"?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that since different admins are looking at this over the years, and because Ronz has not done something outright crazy (like stab someone in the eye), they are hesitant to drop the hammer on him. I've said it before that Ronz is an expert wikilawyer and policy wonk, who has perfected this behavioral technique over probably a five year period. He knows that admins are hesitant to not give lots of chances, and when they do punish it's only for 24 or 48 hours (a slap on the wrist), at which point he returns to business as usual. I can already smell it here. The talk of topic bans already lacks decisiveness, which is what we see all the time. Already talking about reducing the ban time, which is typical. Counseling or mentorship will probably suggested next, none of which will work. We have a pathologic behavior that has been demonstrated for YEARS. So many editors have attested to the exact same behavior, yet those in charge seem to still question whether there is fire beneath the smoke. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Did I call it on the counseling decision or not? Do I know this place or not? And the cheerleaders are the counselors. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To throw in my tuppence. I've seen calls for an RFC/U to be filed against Ronz as part of due process. Based on my understanding of his behaviour, Ronz would most likely refer to this as more harassment and bullying by the filer, and the certifiers, and refuse to take part in it. An RFC is only useful if both parties partake, which I don't see happening. Given that Newyorkbrad (who hasn't been seen round these parts in a while) has commented and Jimbo has warned him, this issue is definitely something that needs to be dealt with by the admins. Long term combatative and disruptive behaviour is usually solved by an indef if I'm not mistaken. Blackmane (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have run into trouble with Ronz at Talk:Animal-assisted therapy where he has inserted himself in a dispute between myself and another editor, who support AAT as legitimate alternative medicine and two editors who appear to consider AAT to be mere pseudoscience. This is a normal discussion about moving an article from being too much one POV to too much the other, but Ronz has been improperly and unilaterally interpreting MEDRS and rejecting all attempts to provide a balanced POV. This is the second time I have tangled with Ronz, I cannot at the moment locate the other time I had problems with him, but his pattern with me is similar to those above, and on the topic below, I believe his issue is not only with the celebrity in question, but with animal-related issues as well. Montanabw^(talk) 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of what happens to the editor(s) involved here, I'd suggest to User:BruceGrubb that shouting "BLOCK THIS EDITOR BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THEM" repeatedly is unlikely to forward his ideas. Stop it. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An Admin speaks up

Okay, I spent sometime reading this thread, & looking at related pages, & I'll add that I'm concerned about what I've read. To the point I'm seriously considering dusting off my Admin powers & doing something about it -- although I'd rather not; I'm far more content just reading articles & doing WikiGnome stuff. Further, it appears that Ronz has asked for help from a couple of established contributors who have been here almost as long as I have to counsel him & maybe act as a mentor. So I'm going to give both ChronieGirl & Ched some time to investigate & decide if they can make a difference here -- but not that much time. If nothing changes in at most 24 hours, I'll do something. Everyone/anyone feel free to email me until then. (P.S. To Dream Focus: Guy, you're user page is at 212K; it's time to shrink it to a much smaller size. There's a reason why people write stuff Wikipedia essays, & blog about Wikipedia, like I used to do. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid problems before he just pretended he was leaving, and now he is just pretending to cooperate. Just like when more people went to the Alicia Silverstone talk page, he started acting more civil, and tried to bring attention away from the previous talk page sections. Its all just an act. And my user page loads up fine for me. Does anyone else have problems loading it? Just look through the index at the top to find something interesting to read. I do regularly archive chunks of my talk page so it doesn't get too long. Dream Focus 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I doubt he'll be blocked for this incident. He's reaching out for a mentor. The best course of action for those of you who have been in conflict with him is to start an WP:RFCU, so should these issues come up again you'll have something to point to and a block or topic ban can quickly be issued. AniMate 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, again

I need to report a problem with User:Lecen. A pair of days ago he began a massive replacement of internal links to an article, which may be inappropiate for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War. I'm mentioning it only for context, not to duplicate it, and discussions about that issue should be discussed there, not here. The problem is Lecen's reaction to it. As I mentioned here, I noticed him and the other user I mentioned directly, and other people that may be interested at the article talk page (meaning, no canvassing of potential supporters). He replied with this message, just personal puns. He also calls me "MBelgrano", a former username I had, although he had been told not to do so (if it needs clarification, yes, I once used that username, and then requested a rename for a global account, it is not a secret at all, and I mention it at the top of my user page). Here, he accuses me of working in a tag team with MarshalN20, even when I did not canvass him into action. Even more, here he stayed neutral in a proposal I made, which proves we do not work toguether as Lecen suggests. He also said that we were "defeated", as if we were in a battleground. Here, he attacks Argentina in general, even mentioning the defeat in the Falkland War as "having their asses kicked". I'm from Argentina.

MarshalN20 suggests me to report Lecen, and (while I was offline and had not replied anything yet) Lecen goads me into doing it. Here, he opposes a proposal of Marshal with the edit summary "it seems that the Argentine editors are eager to ignore anyone else except for themselves". Needless to say, Marshal is not Argentine but Peruvian, and I had not commented on his proposal yet.

I should point as well that Lecen has already been blocked by "battleground mentality" a pair of months ago, according to this discussion, where other editors made similar complaints about his behavior. As it can be seen, I'm not involved with that case, and never said anything during it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have informed Lecen and MarshalN20 of this discussion Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What I find most bothersome in this whole matter, aside from Lecen's bad reactions to any criticism whatsoever on articles he works in (IMO a clear sign of ownership problems), is his indication that part of the reason he wants to revive "Wikiproject Brazil" is to use it as a tool for "edit wars" ([48]). I think this is a clear abuse of the purpose of WikiProjects (per WP:PJ), which is simply to have like-minded individuals work to improve articles (not to be a guild of edit warriors).

That being said, perhaps WP:PJ needs a list of what is "not" appropriate usage of Wikiprojects. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mischaracterizing his stated reasons for wanting to bring the WikiProject together. It seems legitimate that if you are involved in a dispute about a Brazilian topic, you'd want easy access to other editors interested in those topics to offer second opinions, etc. I don't think it's right to imply his motivations are canvassing or meatpuppetry. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenever more opinions are needed on a topic, we use that tool called WP:RfC (right?). That way you get the opinion of tentatively neutral editors (at least based on WP:AGF). The purpose of WikiProjects are for like-minded editors to help each other improve articles; not to serve as a tag-team in edit disputes (which breaks WP:GAMING). That is my understanding of what WP:PJ presents. If WikiProjects are going to turn into bases from which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen), then the whole purpose of them will be shifted towards a Shogunate where the strong WikiProjects impose themselves over the weaker ones (thereby breaking the whole purpose of WikiProjects).

The interesting thing is that Lecen keeps doing it right in front of our noses (although now using terms like "conflict resolutions" or "dispute resolutions"): (1) [49], (2) [50], (3) [51], etc.

Then there is also this disturbing discussion he held (or is holding) with another editor, all because he doesn't want other uninvolved editors to get into the discussion: [52]. You add all of this together, and his seemingly sarcastic comment ([53]) is no longer as funny as one might originally think.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree that we should make clear that WikiProjects should not be used for gathering soldiers. --Laser brain (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, you said "...which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen)". Nowhere I ever said that I wished to gather editors to make edit wars. In the link you provided I said that that's "felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles" and to deal with it "you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content". Laser brain was capable of understanding quite well what I meant, that is, the need for noninvolved third-parties' opinion. I wonder why you insist on fabricating things I never said or misundertanding on purpose what I said. --Lecen (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading your complete message (and other messages) provides a clear picture of what you are planning to do with the WikiProject. Let's highlight those interesting bits found in your first statement ([54]),

• "Being alive it's enough. Jokes aside, he and I are going to create a place for us to help each other. Let's say you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content, or you want us to review something you wrote, things like that. Unfortunately, despite our country's growth in the last 15 years, there are few foreign editors who seem intersted on Brazilian articles. That's more felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles. We're utterly alone and that's what we want to change."

The message here is obvious. On the good end, you are mentioning that you want WikiProject Brazil to help with reviews, article improvements, and form a good community of productive editors (nothing wrong with any of that). On the bad end, you are also advocating the usage of WikiProject Brazil as a way for Brazilians (note: "few foreign editors") to collaborate (note: "help each other") on disputes (or what you also call "edit war") against non-member editors (note: "another editor"). Seeing discussions such as Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War, and your recent dispute with a neutral bystander ([55]), places it all into context. You are promoting an erroneous foundation for WikiProject Brazil, where Brazilians will work together in "edit wars" in order to prevent non-Brazilian editors from prevailing (note: "we're utterly alone and that's what we want to change").

If we let your precedent stand, it shall set into motion more serious problems in other WikiProjects. I can already picture the formation of a counter "revival" for WikiProject Argentina (and other WikiProjects) which will turn a system meant for article improvements into a system for "edit warring". Hence, this really needs to be stopped right at the root.

Of course, that does not mean I think a revival of WikiProject Brazil would be bad (in fact, the good intentions are there); however, the bad intentions are also clearly present in your messages. Whether this means you should be warned, blocked, or clearer policies need to written at WP:PJ; I do not know for sure (that is up for the administrators to decide). That something must be done and said at this time is, nonetheless, undeniable (before a negative chain of events unfolds).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no one complained about my behavior on the move request at Cisplatine War. On the other hand, two different editors complained about your and Cambalacheiro's behavior [56][57] ("Also, with calling my comment an outright lie, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same."). And your assumption that I'm planning a mass edit war backed by countless Brazilians who behave as mindless ants makes no sense and it's quite ridiculous. Who I am? Somekind of Messiah? Lastly, Cambalachero opened this ANI as a retaliation for my oppose the move and to his FAC.[[58]] How grown up. --Lecen (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War discussions are mentioned to show that you are currently involved in disputes with editors, thereby showing that your messages of "edit war" collaborations are not abstract ideas (but rather concrete and current). No one has complained about my behavior in either of the links you present (why are you trying to mislead others?). What you try to mask off as "ridiculous" is in fact a truth that your behavior and comments validate.

The actions taken by your friend User:Alarbus may also seem "ridiculous" to anyone (who would be wild enough to create several puppet accounts? It sounds quite silly), but they were true. I am sure the administrators have also seen several "ridiculous" cases which, as it turned out, were realities. In the world of Wikipedia, anything is possible and nothing is ridiculous. In any case, my objective here is to stop the bad intentions associated with your revival of "WikiProject Brazil", and have provided evidence to justify my position. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were advised to report him to the Wikiquette board, which for all intents and purposes seems to be about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, but I felt it should be pointed out. This is where you come to get admin action, not for dispute resolution. Are you suggesting that Lecen needs to be blocked? --Laser brain (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here Lecen personally attacks Cambalachero: "No wonder you have no friends"
• Here Lecen personally attacks me: Calls me "Anti-Brazilian".
• Here Lecen goes into an offensive rant insulting Argentina: "having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it"
• Here Lecen resorts to belittle another user's self-confessed lack of knowledge ([59]), which would be an outlying incident was it not a trend for him to assault editors who disagree with him as ignorant (which I noted two months ago: "This little trend of 'you're ignorant if you don't agree with me' is a bully tactic used by Lecen throughout these discussions").
• Finally, you have the constant "MBelgrano" mentions which can also be considered personal attacks (albeit minor) on Cambalachero.

So, given that he was previously blocked for "battleground" mentality, and given that he continues to personally attack users, if I were an administrator then I would block him again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to request a block. Lecen has been requested several times, by several users (not just me, and not just now) to be more civil with users that say something he does not agree with. All such requests were received with puns and mockery. In fact, he was blocked by this very same reason just a pair of months ago. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So, is it just a coincidence that you opened a thread requesting that Lecen be blocked four hours after he cast an Oppose !vote on an article you nominated at FAC? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether coincidence or not, that in no way justifies Lecen's behavior. In fact, if Cambalachero simply posted this here in retaliation, it would hold no ground if no evidence existed to justify a block request (and plenty of evidence is there, regardless of how Lecen now tries to mask it). Would Cambalachero answering your question (either yes or no) in any way affect the outcome of this situation? I'd love to hear your response. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as someone who has contributed a bit at FAC, I do know how vexing it is when someone criticizes an article you've put a lot of work into. So I can sympathize with Cambalachero here. But, requesting a block of an oppose voter won't really help his article get promoted--so I'd advise him to try to work with oppose voters instead. Try to fix what you can in the article and discuss with the opposition why you think their criticisms are unfounded. (Assuming it's not a coincidence). Coincidences do happen though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, but wouldn't such a well-intentioned question best be asked directly on Cambalachero's talk page? Right now we're at a point in this discussion where the focus is Lecen's behavior, and (in that context) the question does not fit. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the FAC. Just see the hours and dates: Lecen insults at some place, at some other place, etc, and amid all that (and not as a start), he opposes a FAC. Seems like a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Notice as well that he made that review after I reported his massive changes at the NPOV noticeboard (see link at the begining), so if someone did something in "retaliation", it was him. Cambalachero (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to use a modified version of Mark's question: So, is it just a coincidence that Lecen cast an Oppose !vote on an article nominated by Cambalachero at FAC after he opened a thread about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard? Note: This question has no recommendation purposes for Lecen and, regardless of his answer, is suspicious enough to demonstrate a misuse of the FAC process.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Recap of Lecen's Actions

Considering this seems to have gotten lost in the discussion, and that Lecen continues his aggressive behavior:

1. Here Lecen personally attacks Cambalachero: "No wonder you have no friends"
2. Here Lecen personally attacks me: Calls me "Anti-Brazilian".
3. Here Lecen goes into an offensive rant insulting Argentina: "having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it"
4. Here Lecen resorts to belittle another user's self-confessed lack of knowledge ([60]), which would be an outlying incident was it not a trend for him to assault editors who disagree with him as ignorant (which I noted two months ago: "This little trend of 'you're ignorant if you don't agree with me' is a bully tactic used by Lecen throughout these discussions").
5. At FAC, Lecen voted against Cambalachero's nomination after Cambalachero posted a topic about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard. Coincidence?
6. Lecen constantly uses the "MBelgrano" mentions, which can also be considered personal attacks (albeit minor) on Cambalachero.
7. Here Lecen manages to insult three users at the same time (MarshalN20, Cambalachero, and Wee Curry Monster); ([61]): "As far as I know, you and your friends, Cambalachero and WeeMonstersomething, have turned War of the Pacific and Falklands War into a complete chaos."

As supported by the list of actions, Lecen continues to exhibit battleground behavior and disregard for the policy of WP:NPA. As a warning to the administrators, last time Lecen was blocked, he went through a long WP:DIVA process that may repeat itself again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like a lot of heat with very little light from my perspective. Deep breath everyone. Find peace within yourself, and you shall find peace in all you do. I'm honestly not seeing anything "admin. actionable" here. — Ched :  ?  01:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The more space that is provided to Lecen to take a "deep breath", the more he continues to insult other editors. One of his more recent comments continues to make wild accusations to Wee Curry Monster, Cambalachero, and myself: "Take a look at War of the Pacific and Falklands War: they ruined both articles". In that same link you can read his boast. The least he could do at this time is stop with the personal attacks, but that is apparently not a part of his plan. Are you to tell me that Lecen's behavior is acceptable?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please look in to blocking Truthcon from editing Bo Lozoff page

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

HI. I have been out of the country for several months but when I returned I looked at the Bo Lozoff page again and it seems that Truthcon continues to take off important edits. I looked in to Truthcon's history and it seems he only edits the Bo Lozoff page. I am wondering if he is Bo Lozoff or at least a personal friend. I would like to request that he be banned from editing that page. It looks like he was already blocked from editing the page last year but it was only for a week. He is back at the editing wars. Can someone at least look in to this? Thank you. Molliegiles (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is truthcon, and I edited a very small portion of the text that claims Bo Lozoff has admitted to any allegations that he abused anyone, verbally or sexually. Lozoff was very clear in the referenced article that he never abused anyone. The word "abused" is the key conflict here. The former edit clearly suggests he admitted to many allegations of abuse. He did not. He admitted to controversial and inconventional behavior and firmly denied ever being abusive.Truthcon (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• You are both at the wrong place. You need to go to WP:3RD or WP:DRN, not here. What you are describing is a content dispute, and that is beyond the scope of this board. No one is going to get banned or blocked from what I see here. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wrong place yes but I have noticed that both editors have no article space edits aside from Bo Lozoff, both editors in the past have been blocked for actions related to this article and one of them has "truth" in his username which is usually a red flag for narrow interest accounts. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nice catch, I didn't think to check that deeply since the "dispute" was minor. In particular, Molliegiles situation is troublesome, just off an indef for edits to this article. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I was told to take it here months ago (but then I went out of the country) by JFHJR . His email said: "Hi. I saw your post at the Bo Lozoff talk page, and though I think you meant well and raise valid concerns, you should instead post at WP:ANI or at WP:BLPN because you're discussing the behavior of another editor, not particularly the subject of the article or any of its contents. I've removed your comment from the talk page, but please don't take it personally. I'll keep an eye on ANI and BLPN, in case there's a way that I can help you further. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)" Was he wrong as well? I am not actually disputing that one particular thing, just noticing a pattern of Truthcon taking out or editing things others have put up on the page. If you look in to the history of the page you can see all of the edits Truthcon has made, including trying to take off important articles that help reference the page. I am no longer editing the page, nor do I want to, but I am not sure Truthcon should either. I just would like a few people to check in to it. Thanks! Molliegiles (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Having some experience on this article and, in particular, with Truthcon, I can say that in the past his editing style has been very problematic. Previously he has simply blanked content without even attempting to engage in any discussion. The positive change in that regard is promising, and I do believe that Truthcon is capable of participating in consensus editing. That said, he has admitted to a conflict of interest concerning the article, which seems to be at least as relevant as any Molliegiles may have on the basis of her expertise concerning certain disputed content, which is as far as I can tell the sole reason for which she has been asked not to edit the article, which does not make sense to me. To me, Molliegiles has been very reasonable and compliant with admin requests, to the extent that she has understood what is going on, being new to Wikipedia. Her treatment by admins so far seems to me a significant failure of WP:Bite. I don't think that she should remain blocked if Truthcon is allowed to continue editing. Floorsheim (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• For clarity, Molliegiles isn't blocked per se [62], although the unblock was conditional on not editing the article, only the talk page. In the 3 months since being unblocked, I don't see a single edit to any article, and the few user talk page additions are about this subject. That bugs me a little via WP:HERE. They say they have been out of the country for "several months", and I believe them, but it would be easier to agree if they were actually doing something besides editing or commenting on this one article. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• And ditto for Truthcon who seems to be here to give us the "truth" about Bo Lozoff. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Nicely put, Ron Ritzman. The double standard regarding these two users is really what I object to. Thanks, Dennis Brown, for the clarification, but in effect, that means she is not permitted to edit the article. However, Truthcon is only interested in participating on this article as well, but he is treated differently. Why? --Floorsheim (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Truthcon violated WP:3RR (removing negative unsourced BLP info) and blocked for one week. Seems perfectly fine. Molliegiles was indef'ed for negative BLP info without sources after being given a few warnings. Completely different situations. Molliegiles was taken off indef and given this one restriction just two days after the block. I don't see anything inappropriate in the admin actions here, even if some might not have done the indef. If Molliegiles was editing a variety of articles and asked to be able to edit this article again after a probationary period, likely it would be approved, but that isn't the case. Having a single purpose account (or having a conflict of interest) isn't against policy here, its what you do with it that matters. You could always ask the blocking admin his thoughts on the matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Check the diffs. The content Truthcon was removing when he was blocked was sourced. As recently as Wednesday, April 11, he has done the same. Truthcon's first warning came five days before he was blocked for one week (and a year prior to the most recent removal). Molliegiles's came just over an hour before she was blocked indefinitely. Is it possible that she never saw the warning or that she didn't fully understand it? After all, she says she does have sources for the information she added. Could it be that she wasn't aware what Wikipedia's standards for viable sources are? Wouldn't a better condition on her unblocking be to point her to WP:RELIABLE and ask her not to add negative information that does not meet its standards anymore than to require her never to edit the article again? Based on her tone, it seems to me she would be happy to comply with the former. I think admins previously involved have mistaken unfamiliarity with Wikipedia on Molliegiles's part for bad faith, which is not consistent with WP:Bite or WP:Assume. If I had been treated like her, I probably wouldn't be that interested in editing any more articles, either. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Again, a topic that you could take up with the closing administrator first. If he agrees, then problem solved, if not and you feel that strongly about it, then you could initiate separate action. This is a bit outside of the scope of this discussion, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• The relevance is that it does not make sense for Molliegiles to be asked not to edit the article, under penalty of indefinite blocking, if the same does not apply to Truthcon. Will you agree to that much? --Floorsheim (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, as per his user page, the blocking admin is no longer active on Wikipedia. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Then I think that Molliegiles should open a separate request at WP:AN, rather than WP:ANI, to request the restriction be lifted. I still feel it would be better to wait until they have at least 3 months of edits in other areas first, both to show that the editor has dealt with the issues of previous BLP violations, and to offer a better chance of it actually passing, but that is just my opinion. This kind of action should be initiated by her, not tacked onto a pre-existing ANI, particularly since we would be overriding an valid action by an admin who isn't here to participate. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• In that case, in the meantime, Truthcon should not be permitted to edit the article either. His most recent violation was much more recent, and he was given much more extensive warning. The double standard is completely inappropriate. --Floorsheim (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. Please don't bother too much about me being blocked for good from this page. I understand why it was done and think that since I do have a conflict of interest it is probably best that I don't edit it. I just wanted to make people aware of Truthcon and his edits. It seems like Floorsheim has been aware and has worked with Truthcon, so perhaps he will be comply with the rules now. I just wanted some awareness is all. Thank you for that. Also, for the record, I am interested in editing other pages, however, it was this page that brought me to Wikipedia in the first place. I do love what you all do and hope to contribute to other pages. Though I must say it isn't an easy site to navigate and I seem to screw up often so that is a little intimidating. Thank you again for discussing this issue. Molliegiles (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• You might consider mentoring. This will help you get started in the right direction in regards to guidelines. Yes, it is confusing at first, but the standards are high, and I think Wikipedia is a reliable source of information because of it. I've been a small part of Wikipedia for over 5 years, and find it very rewarding, hopefully you will, too. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Your positive attitude is noted and, to me, suggests further that, now that you're more familiar with the rules, you would be a positive contributor to the Bo Lozoff article. As Dennis Brown has pointed out, single purpose editing, while not encouraged, is not actually against the rules at Wikipedia despite what others have said. What is against the rules is editing for the purpose of advocacy, etc. As long as your interest is simply to see that properly sourced information is included in the article, which as far as I can tell it is, you should be welcome to edit the article. --Floorsheim (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also, as Dennis Brown also points out, conflict of interest editing, while discouraged, is not officially against the rules, either--especially if the result of not doing in it is that properly sourced information is excluded from an article, cf. WP:IGNORE. --Floorsheim (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:New questions

I am bringing this up here as I believe it needs to be noted. I recently brought it up on the user's talk page about the notability of an article he created, Gensokyo, which describes a fictional setting. This incited him to nominate the article for deletion, and after a few days of being up against several editors expressing concern about the topic's notability, said user began nominating other setting articles in what I believe is to prove a point regarding the notability of such articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, I believe this user is doing exactly what is written at the top of the examples. So far the user has nominated these AFDs:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Atlas Shrugged
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in the Firebird series
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of A Series of Unfortunate Events locations
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of Dragon Prince

And has proded several others: List of Dragonlance locations, List of Record of Lodoss War locations, List of Doctors locations.

The user gave a comment on one of the AFDs which echos my, and others', comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gensokyo, and the rationales of the four current AFDs are given roughly the same rationale, doing to exact opposite of what it says not to do at the top of the examples. I, and another editor, User:Narutolovehinata5, asked the editor not to do this several times during the discussion: [63], [64], [65], and I believe the user will continue based on this comment. I also suggested to the user that merging in lieu of deletion reduces the number of AFD nominations. When another user contested the prod of Places of Dragon Prince with the comment "room here for a merge if nothing else", New questions nominated it for deletion, and in doing so, completely discounted the possibility for a merge into Dragon Prince and Dragon Star trilogies in order to further prove his point.--十八 11:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Those AfDs should all be merged together into a single group nomination, possibly along with future such nominations. You could note to the user WP:Summary style, which describes the way non-notable topics can become articles for logistical reasons -- they were split from articles that grew too large -- "List of locations in Atlas Shrugged" isn't notable alone, but it should be considered at part of Atlas Shrugged, the notable topic that, if merged with its sub-articles, would just be too long. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:17, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this could be my fault. I was the first one to suggest nominating articles for deletion. However, I did warn him that he should not do so to prove a point, and later told him not to nominate any further articles until the AfD is closed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that when I compared the article to other articles, concerns about notability of those other articles were expressed, and there was an opinion expressed that they would not survive AfD. I myself examined them thoroughly, and found them to be less notable than the Gensokyo article, and found them to have more problems in my own opinion, but since Juhachi did contribute to my reasoning, I duly noted that. Regarding Equazcion's suggestion that they be grouped together into a single AfD, I am not exactly sure what is the correct procedure for merging AfD nominations, although it should be noted that those AfD nominations were done on different days, so merging them will have to shift the days of some of those AfDs. In any case, I do not quite know why Juhachi is complaining about those AfD nominations since I think I already explained why those AfD nominations were done based on my own judgment rather than simply echoing what Juhachi has said.--New questions? 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• New Questions wrote in response to Narutolovehinata5 request to stop making new AfD nominations til the Gensokyo nom closes, "I shall do that if someone outside of this AfD actually complains about it, but I have heard no complaints so far. I shall stop if someone actually does complain."[66] Accordingly, I made such a request at User talk:New questions. New Questions' response was to ask for further opinions, so if anyone has some, they might want to weigh in. That response does seem a little bit like the No true Scotsman fallacy to me, but whatever. 67.117.147.20 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist spam

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

---

There is currently a watchlist notice that reads something like,

The annual Wakefield Show invites you to share your knowledge of Acorn Computers and RISC OS with Wikipedia (entrance fee £5)

except that the external link is formatted as oan internal one. I think this should be removed as advertising but it does not appear at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Anyone know where the source is located? For information, I have also started a VP thread proposing that there should be a guideline for watchilst notices. SpinningSpark 11:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...It doesn't appear on my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's a UK-only notice. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:57, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'm in the US. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a geonotice. I've removed it now, let's see if anyone complains. SpinningSpark 12:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I found this thread enlightening . The admin in question approved the request based on discussion here. As a courtesy, I've left him a notice of this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the suggestion at VP of a little guidance will fix this. There's no villainy here. It's not like it's advertising Mousecorp - it's the type of show put on by a local club at a Town Hall, with the suggestion that a bunch of editors meet up there. It's just phrased badly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal for User Bertrand101

Fellow Wikipedians, It is with pleasure to announce that I am proposing a ban for Bertrand101 (talk · contribs), as he is nothing more than a sock-puppeting troll who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to destroy it to smithereens. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, adding hoaxes, major disruptive editing and nothing more than pure troll-business. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a problematic editor and it's disappointing that such a disruptive editor was never banned in the first place. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and stop him from being such a troll and shouting trolololol. Soviet King ^{In Soviet Russia, page edit you!} 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The ban won't stop him from sockpuppeting.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So what? Most bans don't stop truly problematic users outright, they just make dealing with them quicker and easier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As noted, a ban allows for {{bannedmeansbanned}} reversions, and a community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Due to proposer of this ban and I appreciate any effort to shut this troll up. Soviet King ^{In Soviet Russia, page edit you!} 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User shows no desire to be a productive member of the community, and so the community should show him the door. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User is only here to sock and vandalize.  --Lambiam 21:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Many, many socks and a history that clearly indicates they have no desire to be a productive member of the community. Banning won't change much, but still should be done as a matter of principle. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos

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

As a result of this discussion at ANI, ClaudioSantos was topic banned for "a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects." This topic ban expired on April 12, 2012. On that very day, ClaudioSantos immediately returned to the subject area at Eugenics in the United States. In this edit he re-added a section to the article that had just been removed and for which a discussion was in progress on the article talk page. Note that this re-addition was before he joined that discussion a few minutes later. Still, the edit added information and sources, so not too terrible. Discussion proceeded on the talk page for a few hours, but no consensus was reached (leaving non-inclusion of the info as the default, since that was the state of the article prior to the start of the proto-edit war). While CS continued the discussion, rather than seeking dispute resolution when there was no sudden consensus for his version, about 1 day later he re-inserted the section (in this edit).

If this were most other editors, this would be trivial--CS didn't even violate 1RR. But the fact that his very first series of edits into the topic consisted of reverting against consensus and essentially asserting his opinion in spite of solid rationale against it on talk (see Talk:Eugenics in the United States#Tuskegee syphilis experiment). I simply don't see how this can possibly lead to anything good. This editor has been blocked numerous times before in this general topic area in addition to the six month topic ban. To me, the immediate battleground return just indicates that this editor still does not get it.

Actually, I just spotted one more thing: this discussion about possibly including this material actually began on March 17. That very same day, ClaudioSantos made edits to his user sandbox User:ClaudioSantos/Archives/Euthanazia. These edits added the references that he would later add to the Eugenics in the United States article. In other words, during his topic ban, he was still waiting and watching at least some of the articles he was banned from, and thus why the very moment the topic ban expired, he was able to jump in with a fully formed set of edits.

I don't see any sense in counseling, warning, waiting to see how he proceeds. This user clearly has a problem in this topic area. I believe that either a permanent topic ban or an indefinite block are in order. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. There's a discussion going on at the talkpage, after Night of the Big Wind removed an earlier inclusion of this information in discussion with the editor who added it. And, ignoring that, Claudio Santos goes straight in and adds his version, then re-adds it after Binksternet reverts him, claiming he has consensus for the addition on the talkpage. Which he doesn't, as far as I can see from reading the talkpage. He's the only one supporting his view. If it wasn't that he hasn't added it again, after the second revert on the 13th, I'd indefblock him now. As it is, let's see what the community opinion is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not me but User:Trilobitealive was the one who firstly included the material and brought the sources, and he always and he still supports the inclusion of the content[67]. He has always argued for the inclusion of the contents. He did not reinserted those contents because he said he could have a COI[68] so he prefered that the other users do so. I have been very cautious to not engage in any personalized discussion, I have documented each of my comments in the talk page with reliable sources (see for example [69]), and basicaly I was solely providing reliable sources to support Trilobitealive's version or edits and the own sources he brougth firstly. After the first revert by Binksternet, I have quoted the sources to explain why the contents brought by Trilobitealive should still be included and I have waited more than 24 hours but nobody refused[70], so I reinserted the material, but as I was reverted by NightOfTheBigWind, then I have keep the thing in the discussion page until now. So first notice that I am not the only one arguing for the inclusion and also notice that Trilobitealive and me, those who support the inclusion of the contents, we are the only users who have suported each one of our arguments with solid sources, while the other users who are against the inclusion, they have not provided any source to support their position and moreover one of them just keep referring to me with a sort of PA for he was blocked[71][72] and comments focused on my past ban, thus off topics comments about me, that I have not responded. Instead of responding PAs or personalized comments, I have kept in the talk page arguing to support and endorse Trilobitealive position and providing more reliable sources for that (please check the thread). I guess my previous ban, that I have respected, was for 6 months and not forever and was mainly because of reproaches about a sort of warrior approach and personalized discussion with some users for example NightOfTheBigWind here involved, I thought I was now doing the correct thing not responding his comments about my person. And let my clear it up: I have never inserted the material claiming that there was a consensus in the talk page, but if you read the thread: Binksternet who was against the inclusion nevertheless he has a doubt about what the sources really say so he asked someone to quote them[73], so I thought there was not consensus but doubts and questions, so I did verified and cited the sources brought by Trilobitealive and I have provided and quoted two new sources which supported the inclusion of the material brought by Trilobitealive and expanded the material, so I thought it could be included again, so I did (and may be I was bold). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't read every detail, but if User:ClaudioSantos was subject to a topic ban (just expired)[74], and he is still causing issue in the topic area, perhaps the real problem is that the ban wasn't long enough. Considering the editor's long history of being blocked [75] for warring and 3RR, the likelihood of future disruption is high enough that topic indef may be in order. Noting that the editor has managed to keep notes [76] regarding the topic makes me think there is an obsession with the topic that makes objectivity difficult, at best. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But you are assuming that I am causing problems without reading the thread (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) nor my explanations here!!! To be topic banned does not mean that I must also not read that topic nor investigate and check the sources brought by other users. Please read the thread I have been very cautious to not engage in any personalized discussion and I have solely supported and endorsed a position and the inclusion of a material which was brougth by another user, not by me. Why this material which was brought by another user is "causing an issue"? solely because I had a topic ban before and now I am the one who endorse another users edits by quoting his sources and providing other reliable sources that support his edits? And let me notice: Binksternet who is involved in the discussion and is against the inclusion of the material brought by Trilobitealive and Trilobitealive who is of course in favor of the inclusion like me, none of them who are the other two users involved in the talk discussion, none of them have mentioned in that dicsussion page nor they have commented in my talk page, nor they have opened at the ANI any reproach indicating that I am causing an "issue in the topic". Please read the thread. -- 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• It may be difficult to work with ClaudioSantos because maybe his views aren't popular, but is sounds like he's been obedient in abiding by the topic ban. He sounds upset above (which shouldn't be surprising, really), but he also seems to be communicative. If there's a content issue, can't it be worked out on the talkpage? Pre-emptive blocks or bans seem... less than optimal, to me. @ClaudioSantos, I'd (highly) recommend a self imposed 0RR (aside from vandalism, obviously), simply based on your history.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can deal with that and effort myself to keep an 0RR. Actually I was assuming a 1RR and as you can see most of my edits are in the talk page. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• A quick glance seems to end in this conclusion - CS is able to abide by a topic ban, but without a topic ban becomes somewhat problemnatic. Therefore would it not be logical to extend an indefinite topic ban? GiantSnowman 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I being problematic? I myself asked[77] the admin Qwyrxian (who opened this ANI thread) to check and keep an eye on the thread at Talk:Eugenics in the United States#Tuskegee syphilis experiment because I was not dispossed at all to engage in any personal discussions with any user as far as I was concerned due there was an user in that discussion basically referring to my past topic ban or referring to me, instead of he keeps discussing the topic and instead of he keeps sticked to the content dispute resolution. There was other users involved. None of these users involved in the discussion reproached any concern indicating that I was being problematic. So, I am surprised that my efforts to keeep discussing and sticked to the topic and my efforts to keep a self-impossed 1RR and my call for an admin-scrutiny of the discussion in order to avoid wars and personal discussions, ironically those efforts turns immediately into this ANI asking for a indefinite ban against me precisely asked for the admin who I called up to keep an eye in the discussion[78]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos, it's the adding it twice that's the problem. Plus the adding it the first time despite there being a request to discuss at the talk page, which you added it before joining. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Elen hits the point: had you (ClaudioSantos) just added it once, I would not have brought this here--it would have been a bold move for someone just off a topic ban, but not a real problem. It's the fact that you re-added it again as soon as you could do so under 1RR, and did so when there was obviously no consensus for your version, that was a problem--it indicates (to me) that you will use the full extent of whatever means you do have available to make the articles appear the way you want. That being said, I would be willing to consider 0RR. But you understand what that means, CS? It means you can never revert anyone on any article in the topic area (except for vandalism). Not once per day, not once per week, but never. Any time you ever want to undo the work of another person, you have to go to the talk page and get consensus. So, 0RR is probably sufficient, but any violation would mean you would immediately be indefinitely topic banned without a discussion. Furthermore, if your talk page editing became tendentious or disruptive, a future topic ban could still be sought. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

0RR wouldn't be my choice of restrictions. If someone adds some info that CS wants deleted, CS can just wait until someone else makes an unrelated edit, then go in and delete that info in the next edit, so it isn't *technically* a revert (yes, yes, WP:BEANS, but it is pretty obvious). Or, if you feel deletion a few edits later is a revert and shouldn't be allowed, then *technically* CS would never be allowed to delete ANY information, only add it, because any deletion can *technically* be considered a revert. I've never been a fan of 0RR because of this conundrum, which can lead to any edit causing yet another ANI and (potentially pedantic) debate over what is and isn't a *technical* revert. If there has ever been a successful 0RR restriction with the editor still editing the article without incident, please point me to it, I would seriously love to see what one of those looks like. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to clear it up: I did wait 35 hours to revert teh second time, certainly firstly to keep my self-impossed 1RR although I do undertsand this article is not under 1RR, but secondly due I was waiting for a response to my announcement (see belove). I did not restore the version for example 25 hours as soon to be under 1RR, but I have waited some hours more, and perhaps it was not enough, but let notice that: once I was reverted the first time I have immediately responded to Binksternet and I have quoted the sources illustrating that sources do not supported Binksternet arguments used to revert me, so I have explicitly announced that I will restore the version[79], and after 35 hours there was not any response, so I assumed there was not any complaint to my explicitly announced intention to restore Trilobitealive version, so I did, then NightOfTheBigWind reverted me so I did not restore it again never again but I went into the talk page to discuss. At any rate, if certainly there were 2 editors opposed to the addition, also there were 2 who do not, and until now there was a discussion running in the talk page, that is the natural first step to resolve any content dispute, and there not emerged a complaint about me being disruptive nor tendentious from the users involved nor emerged any complaint that the discussion was being useless or problematic at any rate. Said this, I do not think I deserve any further restrictions nor a threat to be indefinite topic banned without any discussion, but in a sign of good willing I can practice a self-assumed 0RR in this topic (not to restore never an edit if it was reverted once) exactly as I was practicing a self-assumed 1RR. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you are an evil person (although your excessive use of bolding and underlining is borderline evil), but there are some legitimate questions about your self-restraint, which has been hit or miss. What concerns me is a history of edit warring and a seeming obsession with the topic that could easily lead to gaming the system. As to self-imposed 0RR, it is no different than 0RR imposed by the community, it has the same shortcomings of being difficult to interpret and enforce. That is just my opinion, which when combined with $2, will buy you a cup of coffee. I would like to hear what others think about 0RR, regardless of whether it is self or community imposed. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  I hope that this comes across as a bit of informal mentoring, because that's the way I intend it. To Claudio: the bit about bold text (and I'd include underlines and italics in that as well) is important. It's not really a policy type of thing, but more of a social... bit of advice. I mean, we all need to work with each other here, and trying to read rambling screeds (which can be said due to the length and the formatting of your posts, since bold, italic, or underlined text is often seen as a type of yelling) is tough to deal with, regardless of the issues and whether or not others may agree with your positions.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The bolds are meant as a key to read the message: you could read those parts in bold to get the main idea and a guide for the "rambling screed", take the rest as a mandatory documentation. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but it just doesn't come across that way.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Then surely I will try another approach to clear up the reading due I alway hope to be relieved of inventing reading aids to help people read and listen meticulously before taking any decision. thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• At the advice of others, I'm learning how to be concise in my statements, which reduces the need for bolding and underlining. People are more likely to read your entire statement when it is pithy. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind

On a related note, because of comments made in the article talk page discussion mentioned above, I blocked Night of the Big Wind for 72 hours for personal attacks and a continuation of his long running harassment of ClaudioSantos. He's asking for his block to be reviewed; it would help if an admin familiar with the situation (especially the backstory) take a look at the request. If I've overreacted, feel free to unblock without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me to be a personal attack; calling oneself or another person the "black sheep of the family", especially in the context of responding to someone saying they'd stepped into the middle of a domestic dispute, is vaguely clever -- certainly not in itself nasty enough to warrant blocking, nor even enough to be a last straw in a sequence of unpleasantries. Is the problem the word "black" in the context of eugenics? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If I indeed could not find inocuous the black sheep comment eventhough I can laugh about it, at any rate the comment certainly has a wide context and a long history. So let you read Qwryxian comment: [80] -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So the editor should be blocked for the right reason; this is a case of something being used as an excuse for a block rather than dealing with the larger issue. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is not the case, but I am sorry due I will not answer with a larger response due I really do not want to engage deeper in this. Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I disagree with this decision, but... well, Jpgordon has a point.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have declined NotBW's unblock request and I find no fault in the logic of the blocking admin, nor do I find any violation of WP:INVOLVED as was alleged. I did not read the black sheep comment in a racist tone at all. Rather, I considered that NotBW was blocked recently (4 months ago) for NPA and should be fully aware of what might qualify as NPA. Clearly not all admin would have blocked in this case, for this length of time, or for this exact reason. Given NotBW's reply on the page after I declined I think it was still the right choice, but if NotBW chooses to apply for unblock again for different reasons the reviewing admin can feel free to decide on their own (certainly no need to consult me).  7  06:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think jpgordon is correct in that it would have been better if I had been more clear in my original blocking message. I hope that I've clarified through my subsequent messages on NotBW's talk page. I think that perhaps the most accurate way to say it is that NotBW's comments on the article's talk page were open to interpretation--they could be seen as vague disagreement with ClaudioSantos's positions, or they could be seen as a deliberate attack. For me, the context (seen in numerous talk pages, and especially at ANI conversations in the past), NotBW has shown that he has a strong, aggressive dislike of CS, and has gone out of his way to be mean and unpleasant. It's kind of the reverse of the usual problem we have, where someone says "fuck off", and then says that, in context, it's not an insult or PA. Here, we have the black sheep family, which is fairly mild as far as insults go, but in the greater context, it's a pretty clear (to me) attack. But I think that had I said that this was more of a harassment block, for ongoing incivility towards CS, that would have left a clearer message. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kkm010

• Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a number of concerns about the above editor.

1. If their edits are reverted, they invariably simply make exactly the same change again in an attempt to impose the change. They have made their "Go * yourself" attitude quite clear on their Talk page: User talk:Kkm010#Very tedious behavior.

2. Despite having been warned about this in the past, they continue to not use edit summaries, to mark non-minor edits as minor, and to use misleading summaries e.g. [81] and User talk:Kkm010#I object to several of your "minor" edits.

3. Copying another user's signature, agreeing to change it, and then failing to do so: User talk:Kkm010#Your signature.

4. Admiting to deliberately unconstructive behaviour: User talk:Kkm010#?

Please can someone kindly ask this editor to respect the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle, to use edit summaries properly, and to generally get their act together.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can block both of you for a WP:LAME edit war if you like. And I don't believe the guy is forging BWilkins signature - it very clearly said his name, and linked to his userspace. His "crime" was lacking the courtesy to credit where he got it from, as BWilkins also told you [82].Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice. The issue of the user signature was to evidence competence issues, which this user clearly has, not an effort by the user at deception. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit of a lame argument you two are having. I agree he's not the world's most competent editor, but reporting a list of fairly trivial problems rarely goes down well here, especially when the filing party is edit warring with the listed party over whether a company that makes computer hardware can be described as being in the computer hardware business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

My timing in coming here was I agree not the brightest from a tactical perspective. However it was not motivated purely or even mainly by the immediate difference of opinion which I have with this editor regarding the ASUS article - which comes down to a subjective issue as to whether the correct industry label is 'computer hardware' or 'information technology' (and I do have good reasons for my view) - but as much by a rising level of frustration borne of my very frequently having to spend time reverting pointless, low-quality and incorrect edits made by them. Their then resorting to edit warring to impose changes (and flat out telling me that they weren't interested in discussing the change) is merely the icing on the cake. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just passing through, totally agree with Elen's comment and the other editor's classifying of ASUS as a computer hardware company, IT is way too overarching, ASUS make computer hardware, so where's the problem? Watch out for that flying piece of wood. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The company also makes mobile phones, smartphones and networking equipment. Take a read of their annual report: [83]. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm sure it represents a tiny part of their activity. They are primarily known as a computer hardware manufacturer. Open a request for comment on the talk page if you're that bothered. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So no idea or understanding of the topic, not even willing to read a source, never made a single edit to the article, but still very happy to wade in with strident and uncivil comments. And I forgot to mention that ASUS now also offer cloud services: [84]. You know I actually can't be bothered with either this discussion or the ASUS article anymore, both are a waste of my time. And increasingly I am coming to the conclusion that WP is too. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Strident and uncivil, really, where? No idea or understanding of the topic? Really you should AGF, my last job was in an IT company, and I probably built (as a hobby) at least 6 or 7 PCs using the Asus A7V8X-X. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11, your stubborn attitude is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please don't impose certain edits which you think is always correct, while other are wrong or idiots. The same stuff you did in Tata Global Beverages as well. The reason why I was so confident about the ASUS edit, because I myself been in the IT industry for 3 to 4 years.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1. You are the one repeatedly trying to impose changes to longstanding stable text, whilst refusing to engage in Talk page discussions. 2. Your edits are very frequently wrong. I don't doubt your good faith - and your enthusiasm for company articles is admirable - but I do strongly question your competence and am increasingly losing interest in being the one clearing up after your edits (and then getting dragged in edit wars as a result). This would be less of an issue if you were more willing to be corrected. Just now you have added to the lead of Ford Motor Company that the Ford family owns a majority stake in the company [85]. Infact they own a 2% stake, but have control through ownership of 40% of the voting power through a special class of stock. The source you have added even states this. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of Autoreviewer Rights

• Alexxander3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been creating more than 200 articles recently related to motorcycle racers with a speed of 1 or 2 articles per minute. most of these do not follow the notability guidelines for sports persons and does not provide wp:RS , and should have been deleted. Patrolling is needed on such articles. I propose revoking the autopatrolled/autoreviewer rights. Please guide me If this is not the correct place for reporting this. thanks and regards-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Also an admin would need to check the articles recently created by him as they have escaped from the newpage patrolling. also see [86] -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NMOTORSPORT would suggest notability, and he does provide one source. It's another situation where the question is - is it better to have a pile of stub articles, or is it better to have fewer, better articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about notability? Of course people who have competed in MotoGP are probably notable, but these mostly haven't; they have only ever ridden in the "minor" leagues of Moto2 or Moto3, which aren't fully professional. I would have thought that these don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT - anyone with more knowledge of the subject shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the source was saying they had competed in Grands Prix, but I only looked at Álvaro Molina. If they've only competed in the second division, I'd say probably not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that data, Molina has only ever competed in Moto2 and 3 (250cc and 125cc). MotoGP is 990cc. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Second-level series are a bit murky at times, but certainly don't pass the "competed in one event at the top level" standards (bit tautological there!). I'd say that MotoGP riders = notable, Moto2/Moto3 riders = possibly notable (per WP:GNG like everyone else!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Considering I got my autopatrolled rights revoked, seemingly on a whim and in the middle of a dispute, I'm curious as to why this user's rights haven't been removed yet, either... (oh, and incidentally, did anyone ask or notify Fastily (talk · contribs) about this?)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that a further look at the articles reveals poor formatting, typos, 404 links and content which is effectively completely copied from a third party website, I have removed the user's autopatrolled status. I will inform them, though they appear to use talkpages very minimally. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The user also does not seem to pay heed to so many deletion notifications on his talk page. besides with a speed of 1 to 2 articles per minute its obvious that he is creating articles for all the persons listed on that site with no second thoughts about notable or guidelines, Thanks for looking into the matter, but some one interested would want to take a look at the articles that had been created as they have not been patrolled. (is there a way to mark the articles as unpatrolled again ? )-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

@Ohm's Law - what's the link to Fastily - I'm missing something here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The connection to Fastily is that he is the one who granted the autopatrolled permission in 2011. See logs and Special:PermanentLink/434813722#User:Alexxander3000. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we be reverting the article creation, or just PRODding them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, the pilots of Moto2 and Moto3 is encyclopedic because it is a world championship, the highest level! Then, all entries have been created offline and then put together after all of wikipedia. I must say that I think is important to include the articles of these pilots, these people certainly encyclopedic. I await instructions on what to do.Alexxander3000 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And I apologize for any inconvenience that I created.

Ed Schultz‎

Nearly 24 hours ago I asked for temp. semi-protection of this article, due to continual BLP-questionable postings by IP's who continue to refuse to discuss their edit-warring. Someone, please take some action on this request. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I don't see what's wrong with the info that the IP is trying to add. Could you explain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that a claim that Schultz had a conflict of interest in money he'd received, sourced only to a blog, was definitely worth removing. Not sure about the stuff that's sourced to Huffington. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The attempts to add various negative stuff were initiated on the grounds that the article is "biased", which is POV-pushers' code for "it's not negative enough". And the IPs' argument "What's there to discuss?" in the edit summary is a promise to continue edit-warring. Semi-protect the page for awhile, and they'll be compelled to take it to the talk page. Or they'll move on to the next thing they feel like edit-warring about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I semi'd it for one day to sort it out. RxS (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. We'll see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Harrasment via English Wikipedia e-mail system

User:Velimir Ivanovic sent me today an e-mail via English Wikipedia mailing system, insulting me. He is already banned from Serbian Wikipedia bacause of insulting other users and disruptive bahavior. We all really tried to make him understand that his ways are not welcome, but he wouldn't listen, and in the end, admins had to ban him for good from Serbian Wikipedia. Now he is using his global account to continue with his disruptive behavior in other language Wikipedias. I would like to ask some admin action that would prevent him from doing this, please. Thanks. --Maduixa (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely without email access. Besides the customary block template, I copied text from sr:Template:искључивани корисник, so he would be able to know what's going on in Српски. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I do appreciate. --Maduixa (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are they any relation to this guy? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No clue; Velimir appears to be a common first name, and Ivanović (How do I type that extended character?) or Ivanovich is a common Slavic surname. Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. According to the conclusions we could draw from his behavior, he is just a primary school kid. Hope he grows up a little very soon. BTW, his sockpuppet Oliver Nedeljkovic has just been blocked at Serbian Wikipedia, so I suggest to keep an eye on User:Oliver Nedeljkovic. (BTW, to type letter Ć, you should change the keybord to Serbian Latin which you must preivouslu add to your keyboards in your Control Panel ;)).--Maduixa (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate says that the sr:block of Oliver was due to checkuser findings. Because of that, and because of log results, I believe that it's impossible for en:Oliver to be different from en:Velimir, so I've blocked . Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's right. This account on sr wiki was blocked on the basis of checkuser findings. Sorry, I forgotten to mention this detail. :)--Maduixa (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

as the meta stewards don't have the ability to globally block users (and why not, what kind of interface doesn't include that feature) I guess you're stuck requesting a block wherever he turns up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. He has a dynamic IP, so any preventive block will be in vain. If he wants, he will reappear again. This was only to show him that he cannot game the system and that he must follow the rules as anyone else, or he will be simply reduced, and then removed from the project (he was also blocked, as I see, on Croatian Wikipedia, because of vandalism). If he learns something from this, as far as I am concerned, he can open a new account and start contributing as everyone else, as long as he behaves as he is expected to. I just hope he did learn something from this today, and that he will change his behavior. He wouldn't be the first, nor the last naughty boy with too much free time and a computer in his hands who learned the lesson. At sr wikipedia we have more than one "prodigy sons" who thought a little bit after being punished, and after some time, they reappeared with a new account (or even achieved to be given another chance) and became very helpful and productive users. I just hope Velimir can be one of them. Thank you all for being so helpful and quick in response to my request. --Maduixa (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SSI

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

---

What's going on at Suspected Sockpuppets? Things have been stalled there for weeks, which, given IPs time out, is really, really bad. 86.** IP (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Response time on any number of admin issues has been seemingly stuck in the tar pits recently. Hard to figure what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think part of it is a lack of checkuser clerk activity; there are several cases that have been closed and just not archived. I know I took care of the one case needing blocks a couple days ago. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we need more active admins. Just saying, I'd never seen RFA so empty before I left. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Submitting oneself for RfA is tantamount to nominating oneself for a character assassination. The standards are so high, it's little wonder that the number of nominations is falling IMHO. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the standards are high, it's that there are no standards about who gets to attack the nominees. The one time I ran for admin (and I wouldn't take the job now at any price), a large percentage of the non-admins (and even some of the admins) who said "No, no f-ing way" have since been booted from wikipedia. Until the folks that run this joint are willing to change the process, there will be a shortage of admins - i.e. a shortage of editors who have the authority to fix problems here, i.e. to put the brakes on vandalism and edit warring. Currently, only an admin can do those things, and that's why adminship is, in fact, "a big deal." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked through some of the RfAs that happened during my absence and was kind of shocked. I don't think I'd pass RfA now, to be honest! It's a little weird. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with Basalisk Some of the comments at RFA seem to be soo harsh that even if the person might be eligible sometimes later he would think twice about the experience again.(Non-administrator comment) by the way-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The harshness there is one of the reasons I've avoided RfA. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is adminship now a big deal? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely, judging by what I've seen at RFA. I'm thankful that I was nominated five years ago; if it had been then the way it is now, I seriously doubt that I would have passed — I've never written an FA, and the first of my three GAs was long after RFA. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• You would have to ask the admins participating, but it would appear that some think it is. The complete and utter lack of people willing to run that gauntlet speaks for itself. Many of the admins there seem obsessed with "edit counts", which isn't a good indication of quality by itself. That is a common theme. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a bit of an aside on the "Response time on any number of admin issues has been seemingly stuck in the tar pits recently." comment, I'd like to point out something which may not be immediately obvious to some: It's nearly the end of the spring semester. Semester long projects, tests, and finals are coming up.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And people have obviously been unavailable over Easter - in the UK, most companies holiday period runs April to April, so folks in employment may have been clearing leave to avoid losing it. People need to take leave, see families, prepare for exams etc. I have felt a bit like I was the only checkuser these last few days though. And I would recommend Dennis Brown run for admin, unless he's like an axe murderer or something. If they let me it, they should let anyone in :) :) :)Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe now would be the time to go RfA, with no admins around to abuse the candidate. An no, that conviction was overturned on appeal, so I think I'm ok in the murder department. ;) Thanks for the vote of confidence. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I do wonder myself where the regulars are. I'm waiting for some class to be made in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes. I hope Tnxman, HelloAnnyong, and the other SPI cats are alright. Have they been red recently? Drmies (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe RFA could be reformed into a selection process where adminiship is granted unless there are really good reasons that it shouldn't be? If you're generally a good editor, have a good history of warnings, good history of tagging files for deletion, etc you'd be granted adminship unless someone can prove you'd be untrustworthy due to bad behavior? That surely would increase the number of successful adminships. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Given how hard it is to get a bad admin desysopped, I think it's no wonder people are a bit stingy about giving out the bit. If it were easier to have adminship granted AND removed, perhaps it would be "no big deal". Kcowolf (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Adminship Tiderolls 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think we should make it much, much easier to get the tools and much much easier to lose them - even something like a zero tolerance approach. Being an admin isn't supposed to be a big deal (the whole admin-editor equality principle) but in practice it is a big deal. If someone has 4-5k edits under their belt and a clean block log I say give them the chance to show they can use the tools responsibly. If they screw up, desysop and ban from RFA for 6 months and then give another shot. Personally, I love repetitive tasks and would probably thrive in an environment like WP:AIV or WP:RFPP but I haven't bothered applying for the tools because of the environment at RFA and the likelihood that I would have to spend hours explaining and defending myself. With that said, I don't think anything will change anytime soon. SÆdon^talk 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't followed every RfA the last couple of months, but I didn't think it was so easy. I can remember one from a few years back that should have been an easy promotion, but for the rest, I don't know of any major injustices. Examples? Drmies (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend not to spend too much time at RFA at all, but my impression is that the issue with the opposes at RFA is in volume (as in loudness) rather than volume (as in number). I have followed a few RFAs in the past year of people I have (or would have) supported, and most of them who have failed have merely dropped out of the process before the final decision has been made. I find this unfortunate, since I think they all would have passed had they toughed it out, its just that the opposes get nasty and unreasonable, and people would rather just not deal with the stress. For every ten people who support with a "Sure, why not, give them the tools" it only takes one asshole with an axe to grind to derail a good nomination. I have seriously seen people with 90% or better support rate drop out because of the depth and bredth of the harassment they receive from those 10% opposes. It probably feels to such candidates as though the world is against them, because the supports are fairly tame and nondescript, even if there is a lot of them, while the opposes end up being hurtful and petty. That's why (IMHO) most people who would be qualified for adminship don't bother applying and why many qualified people who do apply end up not passing or dropping out. They just can't put up with the vehemence of the minority opposition to wait it out and get their tools. --Jayron32 03:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I really believe that the main problem has to do with the difficulty in getting the sysop privileged removed, as was said above, too. There seems to be too much invested in the current system to change that, but it sure would be nice.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • RfA is often a sad popularity contest. Don't piss too many people off anytime in your "wiki-career" with your opinions, even if you're right, or you're dead meat on the chopping block. That's the standard by which all higher positions are handed out. Not. Removing admin privs? Shockingly easy in comparison. Doc talk 04:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Sock on an IP

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

---

Any chance a a short term block on this ip range?[87] It is user:Nangparbat and he is getting on my nerves. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• No. Far too large and busy a range to rangeblock. I have blocked that IP for 31h and semi-protected Talk:Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I've thought of it. You've directed enough Nangparbat socks my way. Unfortunately, the way BT organises its IPs, you'd end up blocking half of England. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just protect any pages he touches. That is the ONLY way of dealing with him. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How about contacting BT to report a problem user? Is that one possible? I have a vague feeling that in exceptional circumstances a forced-static IP may be able to be assigned ... which would then be easy to block. I could, of course, be entirely misremembering this. Pesky (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, BT could care less about the abusers here. There's been quite a few BT abusers of which the abuse hasn't been taken care of by the ISP. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And he's just annoying. He's not trafficking children or anything that might just about make BT take notice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Help with user Cyber17

Cyber17 (talk · contribs)

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

Need some help, this user is not getting it, I copyedited about half of the article yesterday, before and after.

This user has been changing reffed info back to unsourced, adding non-NPOV peacocky stuff, messing up grammar and so on. I have reached my three revert limit and despite leaving edit summaries asking them to stop, appealing to them on the talk page they just continue putting their version back. diff 1 diff 2 diff 3

Each time the edit summaries seem to imply that they're just adding to the article but they seem to be copy-pasting their text back in, removing the stuff I cited above (for example the bracketed explanation that Peixe is the club's nickname). Proof of this is apparent where this IP's vandalism, which Cyber17 removed in his next edit now appears pasted back in his last edit to the page, see diff 3 above.

I left a level 2 warning about unsourced stuff on his talk page to no effect as well and the user has been notified. I'm off for now but would appreciate some input/action on this. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's not much here for an admin to do. I've left a note on their talk page. Competence (linguistic and otherwise) is an issue here; let's see if they revert. If they do, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, saw your tp messages, I was going to bring up competence, seems like you've nailed it. I will keep you posted. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Kajicat‎

Resolved

 – Kajicat blocked 48hrs, return to AN/I if further action is warranted

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

I'm requesting administrator intervention. User:Kajicat is a single-purpose account who has repeatedly tried to add accusations of homophobia to The Video Game Critic article. No reliable sources make such claims: Kajicat simply links to VGC reviews she finds homophobic and adds these as references to make her case.

I filed a request for uninvolved editors to comment at a BLP noticeboard discussion last year when she first began edit-warring to insert this unsourced accusation of homophobia: as you might expect, the participants there agreed it did not belong in the article. Nonetheless, she has repeatedly edit-warred to re-insert it.

Yesterday I asked her again to stop edit-warring to re-insert this obvious BLP violation into the article, and her response was to change my header ("The Video Game Critic, for the third time") to "28bytes Warring With Me Over Video Game Critic, Once More..." (note: I have made exactly one revert in 2012).

Today User:Theornamentalist tried to explain to Kajicat yet again why this was an inappropriate addition, and Kajicat changed his header ("More...") with the edit summary "Theornamentalist and 28bytes Condone Unnecessary homophobic Journalism in Video Games".

Kajicat's entire contribution history since registering last year has been to try to insert this accusation into the article. In addition to the edit-warring, WP:IDHT, and WP:BLP violations, she is now accusing other editors (Theornamentalist and me) of condoning homophobia, which I very much take as a personal attack.

I've repeatedly warned her that if she continues this disruption she will face a block, but I obviously can't block her myself, so I'm requesting assistance from an uninvolved admin. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Any subsequent such edit should be grounds for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, Drmies. 28bytes (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Per canvassing guidelines, I contacted User:Cresix on their talk page about what appeared to be innapropriate canvassing, namely "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." They denied any wrongdoing. This alleged behavior took place soon after another apparent violation of guidelines which I also contacted them about on their Commons talk page, in that case posting a conclusion and innuendo without proof on my talk page. Whether or not this kind of following and posting is a form of hounding, I'm not sure, but it strikes me as disruptive and totally against AGF. Some overview would be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The canvassing isn't immediately apparent from a look at Cresix's contribs, so could you post diffs showing it? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:40, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

ugh... this looks like it's about the NFCC (which I'm not at all neutral about, personally). If that's what it is, and it were up to me, I'd tell "Cresix" where to shove it. To be more reasonable about this though: uh... what Equazcion said. Diffs covering specifics would help.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

diff from Beatles talk page.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That probably wasn't an appropriate place to post such a notice. I'd be concerned about use of invitations to that investigation in discussions with Wikiwatcher1 to undermine his side. Although Wikiwatcher1 might also consider avoiding NFCC issues until the investigation completes. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:56, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Added note: It seems the investigation was started 4 months ago. How long do these things usually last? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:59, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why I'll never upload anything here, unless it's from NASA or another US government agency. The NFCC is a hunting license for a select group of editors, now. And again... what Equazcion said. (and from what I've seen, I don't think that CCI's ever close)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty retarded. So once it's started, the user has this hanging over his head forever? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:12, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Gotta defend the Wiki, don't ya know? Anyway, this stuff is the third rail of Wikipedia. I've already said more than I'm comfortable with here (even if there's nothing that I could be hooked on, I have absolutely no desire to enter the cross-hairs of the NFCC enforcement gang, not least of all because one of them works for the WMF now...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying things people are uncomfortable with is my specialty. When an accusation == a punishment, we have a problem. I may start a VPR discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:38, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I mind this "hanging over my head." Since this investigation issue began 4 months ago, only a handful of images were removed as copyright defects. Part of that was actually because the U.S. Copyright Search website turned out to have missing information. Most of the earlier deletions last year were due to a blitz-tagging editor, which I tried complaining about. If it's really that hard to get valuable bio images uploaded and accepted, as you imply, I can't complain. There are too many embarrassingly poor lead images in bios. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with WP:NFCC, which is about the usage of media that is definitely non-free. This is about dubious claims that copyrighted media are not non-free - i.e. WP:COPYVIO. Black Kite (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Either way, I think this did qualify as canvassing -- and if such investigations truly never conclude, we should hammer home the point, in some guideline, that they shouldn't be linked during disputes in order to imply invalidity of the target user's argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:32, 16 Apr 2012 (UTC)

If canvassing is the correct issue, I would hope that User:Cresix will remove his post as I requested. But since he deleted my request from his talk page, I doubt they will, so maybe someone else can do it. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of Administrator power

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

---

Admin reverts to his favorite version before locking up the article. The POV removal of images of civilian casualties in the war of Afghanistan is outrages. An article about an war with ten's of thousands of civilian casualties without a single image of these casualties is unexceptionable. It is a joke. Locking up the article for an Administrator might be a good idea sometimes but reverting back to his personal favorite version is not ok. That leaves us now with an ridiculous biased article without a single image of casualties. Some might have even risk their live to take these images and have given them under a free license. These images and information should be immediately re-added to the article and the POV editors should be kicked. In addition this administrator removed the notable incident were US soldier allegedly urinate on Taliban fighter. Whatever country you come from - this deletion and the censorship of all images of casualties from this article is an assault on humanity and a disgrace for Wikipedia who claims to be neutral. Instead this article is controlled by a small group of system gaming POV editors. 186.49.34.123 (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This IP is likely a sock of [88] user:41.202.239.98 which was a sock of user:Afghan1974 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock of anybody. 186.49.34.123 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely a discussion of whether an article should have disturbing images of injured people can happen without the accusation of 'censorship,' and without including such images? IP, your first step is to assume that other users are also interested in creating a good article, and discuss with them, on the talk page, how that can best happen. It doesn't look like you have made any attempt to discuss the question with anyone, and this is a question that will need to be discussed and reach a good consensus before changes are made. If, as you say, this is your only ip, then you have made only three edits, none of them a discussion, all of them accusing others of 'pov editing.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor who have removed this notable content without proper reason should have done so. I am not a sock so please do not block this IP here so i do have the possibility. I brought an issue here that i have observed so why don't you read again what i said and address the issue with the administrator? I also re-add the image. This is injured victim and there is nothing wrong to show about what we are talking. Nothing shocking at all. 46.118.3.207 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"I am not a sock..." - irony at its finest. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"these are not the socks you are looking for.." Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

God (or administrators) save the dispute resolution process

I approach this group as a last-ditch appeal for assistance with the following matter of concern: In February, a content dispute re-erupted at Template:Music of Canada. The previous two times the same editor tried to make the same deletion, the matter was resolved quickly. This time, however, more editors became involved and the debate dragged on. Fair enough. However, the discussion quickly evolved into a nest of personal attacks (some quite vitriolic), assumptions of bad faith, revert warring, and defenses for those reverts based possibly on misinterpretation of policy. The dispute was going nowhere.

Within that context, the dispute resolution process was started:

• An appeal for outside input was made.
• An RfC was mounted, which, unfortunately, resulted in only a bare majority (7-6 favouring inclusion of the royal anthem (with an additional supporting vote given in a confusing additional straw poll at the talk page)).
• A MedCab case was opened next, but consisted of repetition of the same arguments (with the same vicious personal attacks), thereby resulting in a continued stalemate.
• A MedCom case was then started, but key participants in the dispute are refusing to participate, either by not signing on or stating their categorical refusal to take part, while they continue to revert to their preferred version, both at the template and now at other articles (see below).

Additionally, to minimise the number of distracting side issues:

• A request was made for assistance with ending the sub-dispute over Wikipedia's consensus policy and how it applies to the template, but this was dismissed.
• The personal attacks and bad faith assumptions were raised at WP:WQA, but received no attention from anyone other than those involved in the dispute.

To make matters worse, this has all now spilled over to the infobox at the Canada article, taking the same edit warring and misunderstanding of policies and guidelines with it.

I'm not right now so much concerned with the outcome of the dispute (i.e. whether the royal anthem stays or goes) as with how the dispute is being resolved (i.e. via many breaches of policies and guidelines). I therefore ask if we can get some administrative help with this matter, even if it's only some oversight and prodding here and there to keep the parties involved focused and acting within WP's rules. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal is pushing a Monarchist agenda on the template and most editors have tired of his constant shifting of venue. There would be no dispute if he were to drop the matter. As for the nation article, since there is a parameter for royal anthem, it's probably acceptable to leave it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, running off the opposition is certainly one way to reach consensus...

I don't necessarily agree with Miesianiacal here, but this justification always bothers me. It's one link to one song on a template though, so really the criticism cuts both ways in this dispute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Walter's claim that the dispute would end if I were "to drop the matter" certainly works both ways. I may well have dropped the matter if not for the fact there are currently nine editors favouring inclusion of the anthem and six opposing it, meaning there's certainly no consensus to delete the song from the template. This isn't the "Mies against the masses" scenario that Walter paints. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of observations:

1. Mediation is not possible if all parties to a dispute do not agree to participate.
2. As WP policy clearly states: "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." We would need consensus for the addition of the God Save the Queen to the Infobox (not the other way round). There is no such consensus. We do not decide things by a vote on article talk pages. At best, voting is a way to gauge support for a particular option. One can only conclude from the poll, that there is not adequate support for the proposal. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The song was there for a year and a half (since June 2010) and the last discussion about it (in December 2010) resolved to keep it. Is it not now up to those who want to delete it to find consensus to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• As usual, Miesianiacal is being economical with the truth. The inclusion of the song has been disputed for two years, and the only reason it made it into the infobox in the first place is his usual tactics of strongarming, wikilawyering, and wearing everyone else down. → ROUX ₪ 18:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the template's edit history and the talk page will show the above to be patently false. Roux here has provided an illustration of the kind of nasty attempts at character assasination that have marred this dispute almost from day one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, if you're trying to gain sympathy for your position, making personal accusations is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If you want support for this addition, you need to show there is a policy-based consensus for its inclusion. I don't see that you have done that, and I don't see that there is any admin action needed here - you have not asked for anything specific, and admins don't have the authority to override the WP:DR process. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking here for support for inclusion; that's a content matter that doesn't belong in this forum. However, whether or not a consensus for inclusion of the song existed prior to the current dispute is one of the sub-disputes that hasn't yet been resolved and continues to bog down discussion about the wider issue. I asked this above, but I'll pose the question here again: apart from two attempts to delete the song (one six months and the other a year after it was added, and both of which were quickly reverted), the song was there for a year and a half (since June 2010) and the last discussion about it (in December 2010) resolved to not delete it. Is it not now up to those who want to delete it to find consensus to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And there's more dishonesty. Two attempts? I count nine. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that's something that can only be decided by the Dispute Resolution process, and cannot be decided by admin fiat (because we have no authority for such a fiat) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mies knows that, of course; he's just forumshopping this around until we give up and let him have his way. This is not a new tactic, it's how he operates: forumshop everywhere he can, wikilawyer everything he can, and generally be obstinate and obstructive. → ROUX ₪ 18:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a fairly straightforward question: Was a consensus established for including the song that now needs to be overturned by those who want the song removed? AQFK seems to agree below with my interpetation: Yes, those who want to delete the long-standing material must find a consensus to do so and otherwise leave the status quo alone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Aw, it sucks when people come along and show your lies for what they are, doesn't it? Looking at the diffs below--even a cursory glance--shows I'm right. → ROUX ₪ 18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it shows that the song "made it into the infobox" not by "strongarming, wikilawyering, and wearing everyone else down", but with ease (no immediate dispute), and that the presence of the song was disputed on three separate occasions at six month intervals over a year and a half, not coninuously for two years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You think a great number of things, I'm sure. It's such a shame how few of them have any relation to reality. → ROUX ₪ 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't know about that. Yes, Miesianiacal was the one to add it on June 25, 2010 but that version remained stable until December 16, 2010. I would think that if the article is stable for 6 months, that is the concensus version, and it requires concensus to remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A brief (and perhaps incomplete) history of an edit-war A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article history: Added by Miesianiacal on June 25, 2010[89] Removed by UrbanNerd on December 16, 2010.[90] Added back by Miesianiacal on December 17, 2010 [91] Removed by UrbanNerd on the same day.[92] Added back by Moxy on the same day.[93] Removed by UrbanNerd on the same day.[94] Added back by Miesianiacal on the same day.[95] Removed by UrbanNerd on July 18, 2011[96] Added by Moxy on the same day.[97] Removed by UrbanNerd February 5, 2012.[98] Added back by Miesianiacal on the same day.[99] Removed by Walter Görlitz on the same day.[100] Added back by Miesianiacal on February 8, 2012.[101] Removed by UrbanNerd on the same day.[102] Added back by Miesianiacal on April 10, 2012.[103] Removed by Walter Görlitz on the same day.[104] Added back by Miesianiacal on the same day.[105] Removed by Roux on the same day.[106]

Without commenting on the behavior seen here, I think the infobox should not carry the earlier anthem; it should instead be covered in the article body, not the infobox. The infobox is for right now. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a 1RR per day rule, should be imposed on the articles-in-question. Back-and-forth reverts only make opposing editors more frustrated. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Coallty and Muhammad

• Coallty (talk · contribs)
• Muhammad

User is edit-warring to remove images at Muhammad. Before someone can says "WP:AIV is thataway", I will ask that the users (brief) history be considered. I'll omit the specific details so as to not get too WP:BEANS-ish, but one easily sees that it is the formula to bypass semi-protection. Indef for a vandalism-only account, not for simple 3RR please. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• What he is doing isn't vandalism. It is disruptive and appears to be a problem under NPOV and against consensus, however. I think his "other edits" can be discounted to zero easily, as well. Likely a sockpuppet, but I don't work in that space, so I'm not sure who the master would be. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a notice and warning for Coallty, and notified them of this discussion. There's a chance that they're a legitimate editor who just feels strongly about the issue, and who stopped editing once they were reverted (about 30 minutes ago). I pointed them to the RFC and told them that any further removals would result in an immediate block. Now, none of that stops us from blocking by consensus here, and I do find the rush to autoconfirmation troubling, but I also don't block editors with redlinked talk pages - not without at least a token nod to AGF. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No legitimate, new editor knows how to bypass semi-protection in this exacting manner; it is a tactic used by disruption-only accounts to get their way in articles they have a vested interest in. e.g. There was a years-long campaign against the Virgin Killer article where this same tactics was used to sub in the Mosaic logo for the album cover. Grundle2600 also used it to edit his pet conspiracy theories into Obama-related articles. I can't AGF on this one, have seen the act too many times before, but its upto y'all. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tempted to agree, but for the amount of time it took them to accomplish the task - one would expect someone with experience to just plow through. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ think Coallty sock slow? Coallty sock get autoconfirm fast, only take 58 minutes for 11 edits. Monster take 5 months. Coallty sock master probably smarter than Floquenbeam, that why so fast.

Also, if Coallty not sock of troublemaker, monster eat villager's hat. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Highstakes00 and Darkness Shines

User:Highstakes00 I do not know whose sock this is, I no longer care. But I will not have a sock which was created for the sole purpose of reverting and opposing my edits to stalk me. Highstakes00 first contribution to Wikipedia was to revert me on an article rarely edited[107][108][109] He has not touched that article since being unblocked for sock puppetry. He then followed me to [ here an article I had created and was bringing up to GA class. His sock User:Repitile1 First edit was to revert me[110] on an article which since being unblocked he has not touched. As Highstakes00 the majority of his edits are in areas were I edit, not really an issue except all he does on these intersecting articles is revert me [111][112][113][114] or just cast his votes against me in any RFC I may have started[115][116][117] obviously for no reason other than to just oppose me. He also stalks my contributions, turning up at articles I have created.[118][119][120][121] and most recently being a subpage he has tried to speedy[122] and has now nominated for deletion[123] I should like something done about this fellow. I forgot, the reason I suspect him of being a sock is his very first edit ws an unblock request as he had created the account using a proxy[124] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He editwar with me when I started wikipedia still I agree to stay away from this fellow and follow procedure. My sock case is complete I am not sock of any one I was unblocked because I will not create other account. He still blame me telling future to admin [125]. Then he accuse me to edit his article as if he own the article evn when I edit single article he edit before and then he follow me to article I edit before [126] [127] and then he blame meee that I follow him. He also used bad language on my talk page and be rude when I inform him that his user list is attack page. I have follow admin advice to take it to WP:MFD. I edit in Pakistan topic also and he thinks only he can comment in rfc I went to rfc from request board and I noted it because this fellow was there to prevent fight. He need to be ban from topic because he has only made pov edit and then he makes lame excuse to other edit that they follow him or calling them sock and not discuss edit. He has list with my name on it with other sock I do not wish to be on his user list because he is monitoring me and then blame me that I follow him. --Highstakes00 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan

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

---

User:Youreallycan (long blocklog), formerly known as User:Off2riorob (extra long blocklog), is repeatedly editing my signatures and comments. This user is unaware of the fact p.s. stands for post scriptum which is Latin and means: "written after" (according to our article that may be interpreted in the sense of "that which comes after the writing"). I informed him that he should stop (Warning 1 & Warning 2). In this edit he adds the unsigned template to a signed comment. I removed the second signature. He reverted me. I undid his version, removing the second signature again.

He is also breaking WP:NPA. On my talkpage he wrote: "stop actink a disruptive troll then - stay off my talkpage with your capital crap". He is also accussing another editor, Nomoskedasticity, of bullying and stalking. He is also misusing 3RR templates. Von Restorff (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly no reason to add {{unsigned}} to someone's PS after their signature, and there's especially no reason to edit-war {{unsigned}} back in after it's been removed. So YRC, please don't do that anymore. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What a strange, strange hill to die on, for either of you. It's a signature. It's signing something Von Restorff wrote, in a situation where it's not strictly necessary but not strictly prohibited, either. Why Von Restorff cares so much about it not being there, and Youreallycan cares so much about it being there are both unclear to me. Leave it be, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been nice if the user had simply signed his post at the end - I have given up attempting to have that happen. I added an unsigned termplate to the unsigned bit and left him a nice comment - but it just went downhill from there. Youreallycan 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The threat of a block was enough to make you obey the rules? Great! I learned Latin in school (a long time ago). People who are not named Von Restorff are not allowed to change my comments and/or signature. Are you going to apologize for your personal attacks and/or strike them? Von Restorff (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment, of , stop acting like a disruptive troll after you had posted in capitals on my talkpage is/was no worse than your edit summary in reference to me of, "no need to feed him" If you are so attached to your comments then be proud and sign them at the end please -The issues with User talk:Nomoskedasticity and my post on his User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Still_stalking_my_contributions are an onging and separate issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WTF...?!?? What happened here? Are you applying your own rules to yourself? Are you serious? Von Restorff (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC

• I think what 28bytes and fluffernutter are trying to say is: "will you two (Personal attack removed) stop wasting our time with this bullshit?" However, they were being polite, so the message may not have gotten through. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA. Von Restorff (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to think of a reason I shouldn't block you for making this pointy edit. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Sri Lanka

The Sri Lanka article has been locked for editing but the version that has been locked has a lot of malicious vandalism in the infobox that was re-added with this edit e.g. Motto: All hail Distributor108; King: Distributor108; Legislature: Distributor108; Currency: Distributor108. I have brought this to ANI rather than use {{editprotected}} as this is urgent.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "Motto: All hail Distributor108", but there appear to be no further occurrences of "Distributor108" in the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:Distributor108 just had a failed WP:RFA earlier today. [128]. His rationale for wanting the mop were particularly interesting. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked Distributor108, as this recent outburst, coupled with that block log, does not indicate a constructive or collegial approach to Wikipedia. Any other admin is welcome to adjust the block without needing to consult me, but I would recommend that we should need to see a convincing commitment to work collegially before unblocking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Support the block. Clear issues either of competency or plain disruptiveness. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV issue

I requested a block on an IP that has received three final warnings (one today), and has almost 50 vandalism-only edits over the course of two years. ItsZippy, who has been on WP since Aug. 2011 and has been an admin for less than a week, declined this request on AIV based on "insufficient or inappropriate warning." I obviously disagree with the action, and on broaching a discussion, here on Zippy's talk, where he feels that the block might impact beneficial users because "it might not be the same person for each warning." We are at an impasse and could use some input, and another legitimate concern I have here is WP:COMPETENCY given both the user's term of service and lack of time in as an admin. MSJapan (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

IP {{anonblock}}ed for 3 months; I'll look at the user talk page and comment on that in a minute. But my first impression is that referring to WP:COMPETENCE (have you read what you're linking to) is kind of a dick move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. It may not be "uber-nice", but I see a lack of technical understanding and inability to use tools by a new admin with very little experience who likely should not have been made an admin after a second request and eight months of service, considering there was a CSD caveat in his approval. Those sorts of things are covered in COMPETENCE. MSJapan (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're correct on the vandal issue, but dead wrong on the admin issue. No one is expected to be perfect, and new admins are allowed to ease into the role of helping out at AIV without having that link thrown in their face. This was a judgement call, he used his judgement, politely, and suggested you ask someone else if you disagreed, proactively saying any other admin could block if they felt it reasonable. He essentially did everything the right way here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there's no need to discuss this further here. I've also given some feedback over at Zippy's page (in agreement with Floquenbeam), and I think we could leave it at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)