Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800

Ccroberts123 back from block, resuming same behaviour

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

---

After returning from a recent block by Kudpung for edit warring for persistently adding unsourced content to article Mattel and edit warring over it, user Ccroberts123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this and this edit again, as if nothing happened. - DVdm (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User notified. - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Cluckwik

Has apparently opened an account for the main (sole) purpose of declaring an edit war on me and Chongkian. I have asked him or her to cease, and the only response is to harass me on my talk page with two irrelevant, if hypocritical templates. Cluckwik has continued a short pattern commenced by an IP. FYI, this may be of interest and bears some similarities. GotR ^Talk 06:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chongkian made en masse changes about the name of Taiwan/ROC without disscusion and I was reverting them.

GotR attacked me in Edit summarys [1](shabi means "stupid cunt" in Chinese),[2]etc. so I added the NPA templates.Cluckwik (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No startup user should begin by combating established editors, period, since the edits were not unconstructive (unlike your edits). The wording here is coarse, but not at all an attack. And let me remind all that Cluckwik added the stupid templates (two of them, in fact) before the edit summary (s)he was referring to. Typical dishonesty from Taiwanese anons/edit warriors. GotR ^Talk 07:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There was another edit summary calling me "sihaizi", which means child that should die, before the templates.Cluckwik (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Another shameless attempt to dodge the subject of this thread, which is YOUR conduct. GotR ^Talk 07:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to you, who is notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles, to decide which edits are constructive.Cluckwik (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whose sock are you? You sound horribly familiar to this set of IP ranges. How else would an otherwise seemingly novice editor be so rash to jump the gun and falsely claim, with not an iota of evidence, that I am "notorious for pushing anti-Taiwan independence POV in articles"? GotR ^Talk 07:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see obvious problems about the IP range's edits and there was no consensus in that discussion. However, Hilo48's comment in the thread about the IP range proves my claim. Cluckwik (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a silent consensus by Rschen's (or whoever the blocking administrator was) to block that IP range. That you don't "see any obvious problems" is worrisome. Harassment is the most undisputed of them; WP:POINT in a clearly disruptive manner. Perhaps you yourself were the operator of that range? GotR ^Talk 08:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything about harrassing in the thread and there was no consensus about which point of view is more neutral. By the way, Rschen, with the last name Chen, seems to be Chinese. It is clear that what point of view he holds about this issue.Cluckwik (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The point of the Nov. 2012 AN/I thread was NOT to establish consensus on which POV is more neutral, which is also NOT the purpose of almost any AN/I thread. The aim was to clamp down on that clearly disruptive IP range, which may be continuing to manifest under the name of Cluckwik. The surname "Chen" implies Chinese by blood, which most people in Taiwan are. But does it imply (mainland or PRC) Chinese? No. You rebels' beloved Chen Shui-bian is a marvelous counterexample.

That you continue to (pretend) not (to) see anything harassing in the thread flies in the face of clear evidence in the form of relentlessly stalking my additions or corrections to DAB pages (links later...I'm going to bed soon). If you are indeed connected to this IP range, then your recent actions and rhetoric show that you are wholly unrepentant and deserve severe sanctions. GotR ^Talk 08:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Socking accusations belong at WP:SPI. For the record, though my ethnicity is obviously Asian, I don't really care about Asian ethnic wars; what I care about is NPOV. --Rschen7754 10:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that. But that is not the appropriate forum for the time being. This behaviour has only recently surfaced and CU use is not yet apt. GotR ^Talk 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ip user 80.255.199.135 repeated vandalism after final warning - can you block?

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

repeated vandalism after final warning. most recently to The Voice UK where incorrect and unsourced information was added, as well as irrelevant speculation on Simon Cowell's sexuality.

Diffs

• http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_UK&diff=558796880&oldid=558791480
• http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_UK&diff=558762113&oldid=558683663

Link to final warning

• User_talk:80.255.199.135
• 31.54.144.215 (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, 31.54.144.215. Unfortunately it's a dynamic IP, but I've blocked for 24 hours to begin with. For the future, please consider Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism reports. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

User:GagsGagsGags

Despite being warned for creating 3 similar hoax Beyoncé Knowles tour DVDs, User:GagsGagsGags has created another: The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (album). —JennKR | ☎ 18:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit comments over the top

I've never posted here before. Was patrolling recent edits and came across IP User 207.207.28.141 who left unnecessarily inflammatory edit comments on this diff [3]. Is this the right place to go? Should I use the ANI notice? --Godot13 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for two weeks. --RA (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we get that summary suppressed? It really shouldn't stand in the history.  davidiad { t } 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) already took care of it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama‎

A second set of eyes would be welcome here. As an involved editor, I don't want to press a revert war with an anon who obviously feels quite passionate about this topic. I may have already gone a bit beyond the pale in reverting. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP-violations by IP. Besides their disruptive editing and warring, they're adding unsourced and unreliable sourced content in violation of BLP. Some admin please look into this. Thanks, TMCk (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, then removed their talkpage access after they started using it as a soapbox. Several other editors have exceeded 3RR, but given the IP's battleground attitude and use of the article for soapboxing, the IP was the locus of disruption. Their edits after blocking confirmed my view, and I'm semi-protecting the article for a month. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That just proves you're part of the Wikipedia tree-hugging liberal pansy conspiracy, I think. (Thanks for the assist.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Geebee2 & Murder of Travis Alexander

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

---

user:Geebee2 is a WP:SPA and has serious COI, see this talk page section foe details. issues on the Murder of Travis Alexander article. Quite simply Geebee2 is engaged in advocacy as she believes the woman convicted of killing Alexander is innocent. She has used her own wiki as a source, even after being told she cannot. She uses her own wiki and her research on it to support her arguments on the talk page. She is a regular at the jodiariasisinnocent.com and has used that as a source[4] Her most recent edits show she is incalpable of following NPOV, here she says in her edit summary "Moved media interview information to Discovery and Investigation section, removed summary" What she has actually done is remove that Arias had give nthree different stories over the killings. Here she removes the section on the discovery of the body which according to GeeBee2 "it adds nothing to article" I request she be topic banned from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I will support a topic ban for the user as the user has proven it can not objectively edit material about the subject. The user is ofcourse entitled to their opinion about guilt or unguilt but it can not be the users aim to remake the article into a pro-Jodi article a Wiki article should remain neutral. The user has so far been unwilling to change even though several users has tried to reason with it and an admin has warned the user. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are very badly informed.

(1) I am male not female.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(2) I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(3) It is you who has repeatedly vandalised the work I have done.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(4) There are issues which I have probably got wrong, related to the use of primary sources. The wikipedia guidance on this is extensive and ambiguous, so I make no apology for that.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(5) My POV is certainly that the article is wrongly titled. There is nothing whatsoever notable about the death of Travis Alexander, and everything notable about the trial.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(6) Notwithstanding (1), there is a misogynistic double standard at wikipedia. See the Trayvon Martin article, which is nothing other than a defense website.Geebee2 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Per my note further down in this thread, and because of Geebee2's belligerent and uncollaborative attitude in this very discussion, I'm changing my support for a ban to a proposal for an indefinite block. Please don't let's stand by and see constructive editors worn out by trying to contain this timewasting disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC). I agree with the descriptions above by Darness Shines and BabbaQ. I'll also note that Geebee2 is clearly an overwhelming contributor to collaborate with. Apart from his large demands for detailed talkpage discussion on every point, merely reading the history of Murder of Travis Alexander is exhausting. (Unfortunately that'll probably also affect people here who try to get a grasp on the issue.) I was in fact asked to help on my page recently, but had to (whinily) decline because of time constraints.[5] The trouble is Geebee2 makes a myriad edits with extreme rapidity, most of them small but with larger removals intermixed, and that method makes it hard to pinpoint the problems. He started editing Murder of Travis Alexander two months ago and has made 468 edits to it since then, accelerating all the time. The last 36 edits were performed in the space of three hours.[6] I'm not suggesting he's being deliberately overwhelming in order to OWN the article, but it's in fact impossible to keep up with this. Darkness Shines deserves our thanks for giving diffs to some problematic edits hidden in the jungle, especially this removal of important material with a misleading edit summary. That edit alone makes me worry about GeeBee2's claim above that "I have not removed any content, other than minor tidy up with no semantic change. I have simply re-organised to make the article clearer." Incidentally there also seem to be problems of advocacy in Geebee2's editing of David Camm.[7] Possibly all BLP-related articles broadly construed should be included in the topic ban? Finally, Geebee2, please don't be so free with your accusations of WP:vandalism, here and in edit summaries; they're baseless and uncivil. You see how nobody's accusing you of vandalism? Bishonen | talk 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• I suggest the burden of proof rests on the person making the accusation. I repeat, I do not believe I have removed any significant content, certainly not within the last 24 hours. The page history is available. Please substantiate, and we can discuss what was removed, otherwise Darkness shines should withdraw his false allegation. The edit Bishonen references is because I resourced that material with proper dates today Note, one part went into the pre-trial section where it logically belongs. Geebee2 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the "burden of proof" lies with the user that makes 36 edits on a single article within the space of 3 hours and over 400 within a 2 months time span. Also you bring up discussions but from what I have seen everytime users try to discuss with you, you simply say they are wrong and you justify your edits and are not interested in discussing it further. When I contacted you, you stated that I should remove my comment. You need to realise that if you want to have discussions you have to be willing to have discussions and not see them as people "attacking you" at every given time. And all of this combined with you throwing accusations around against Bishonen and Shines who is just trying to reason with you makes me think a topic ban for you is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I said you should move the comment out of that section, as it was not relevant there. I have been subject to multiple attacks, but none of these people are contributing to the article, and generally the attacks are non-specific. I'm sure I have made mistakes, for example, yesterday someone supplied source, and asked for that to be included somehow, I went ahead, but it turned out the source was not appropriate, and the detail was not appropriate, and now I get the criticism. Other criticisms I get are completely non-specific. e.g. Darkness shines "I object to everything you do to this article". It is not possible to respond to such a vague charge. Geebee2 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• See how you edit too fast? Why would you include something somebody else requests, without even checking if the detail is appropriate and the source is appropriate? You're simply making work for others. Yes, you will "get the criticism" for edits that you do to the article, it's no good blaming the person requesting them. Don't add anything you can't take responsibility for. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

• Support. This is very difficult to sift through, but it seems to me that Geebee's only real objective in editing that article is to obfuscate any hint of criminality directed at Arias. Some of the removals performed to further that goal, such as fundamental information about the finding of the body etc. are particularly damaging. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• : Can anyone say what was actually wrong with the article when it was reverted by Darkness shines? [8]. My POV was (and is) that testimony belongs in the trial section, that was why I moved it there. There seemed to be some kind of violent objection - so I offered to move it back, but that was rejected, and 2 hours of hard work is lost. Sure I work quickly, and I make mistakes, the antiquated user interface at wikipedia is frustrating. I do make small edits, this is intended to allow people to see what I'm doing, not obfuscate. Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? And by the way, have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?Geebee2 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support a topic ban. In fact, I support an immediate block for every edit that even smells of advocacy. It is indeed hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in those many edits; the edit pointed out above I did see yesterday, but it was one of many and I wish I had looked more carefully to see what it was sourced to (I believe that edit was reverted as a BLP violation?)--that edit alone, after a week of such voluminous editing and warnings/discussion, is probably blockable already. Geebee is active on a few other articles as well and those articles and Geebee's edits are very problematic. Given the evidence of external interests I think it is established well enough that this editor is here to make a case, and it's not an encyclopedic case. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I encourage editors and admins to look at this edit I just made to Trial by media--an edit invited by this list of contributors and further explained on Talk:Trial by media. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd support Drmies's edit absolutely - the material removed was nothing but WP:OR and advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, does your account need to be blocked for being compromised? No cussword, no disagreement? :) Thanks, BTW. I pondered doing this yesterday already, and having slept over it I was sure that it needed to go. Pity there's little left right now of what could be a decent and important article. I wish we could require "only academic articles and books" as sources for some articles. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That re-insertion is a big problem, but I believe the burden of the editors to prove their accusations still remains. The ongoing edit war alone needs to be stopped as that alone is blockable.[9][10] Edits like this also show unacceptable POV pushing. But other edits seem to be acceptable, and useful.[11] Other additions to articles like Trial by Media push POV; which Drmies just took care of. [12] Over 150 revisions to that article made for one huge BLP concern. Geebee needs act within BLP policies or else should be blocked; the speed of the edits aren't the problem, its the edits and POV pushing itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see the point at "Trial by Media", I would point out that when I came across that article, it was already a list of cases, I just added some extra cases I happened to know about, and thought it would be interesting to do a comparison, looking at things like motive. Sure there is some kind of subjective selection here, the cases added are obviously cases that people for whatever reason perceive as miscarriages of justice, whether rightly or wrongly. Are there not places in wikipedia where lists get built in a collaborative way? I did ask a talk question about it a day or so in advance, and got no response. But Drmies thinks that is unacceptable, fair enough, I'm not going to argue, I think the article may as well be deleted entirely, there is nothing left except a single dodgy reference to the Bill Clinton case and an external reference to India.Geebee2 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Geebee2, this is the administrators' noticeboard. It's primarily for getting comments from uninvolved, neutral, users, so you're shooting yourself in the foot with your repeated complaints that people here haven't contributed to the article. That's the way it's supposed to work. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battleground, it's a collaborative site, and your response to the complaints about your editing methods is the last straw for me. "Where is the wikipedia policy on this? If there is one, why doesn't an experienced editor direct me to it? I want to change my "support" for a ban, above, to a proposal for an indefinite block. Over the years, it's been my invariable experience on this site that when new users are urged civilly to avoid editing in a way that inconveniences others and they respond by demanding to be directed to a policy that forces them to comply — then they're not here to write an encyclopedia, they're here to wikilawyer and get their way by tiring everybody out. Never fails. Go ahead, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I can't make possibly controversial decisions for a few weeks, you know; it hurts me in the ratings (in the court of public opinion--Trial by media, you know). I am not yet at the point that Bbb apparently is, but also I have not yet seen what I'm hoping to seefind--a commitment to encyclopedic editing and an acknowledgement that they haven't been doing that so far. And I must say, Bbb makes a convincing case in his latest post. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I support an indefinite block. I realize that jumping to an indef without any preceding blocks is unorthodox, but a review of Geebee's edits warrants the sanction. I have been reviewing his edits since I read Basilisk's support. During that time, Drmies posted his views, which largely coincide with what I found in my review. I spent a fair amount of time working on the David Camm article, which Geebee extensively edited (280 edits, or almost 75% of the total edits to the article). Putting aside sloppiness, there were a significant number of copyright violations, which I have removed from the article, and Geebee committed at least some of them (I got tired looking). This edit is a copy-and-paste from the source. this massive edit (220 consecutive edits) includes other copyright violations as well. This edit is absurd. Geebee copied text verbatim from the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion, didn't give it any attribution, and incorrectly cited the Indiana Supreme Court. I don't believe it's a copyright violation so I left it in as a long quote and attributed it properly - probably should be done differently. Then, on top of all this, you have the edit removing the death section, which has already been mentioned, and this edit, which removes negative material about Arias in the guise of summarizing. Then, there's the off-wiki blog, which was started by Geebee at roughly the same time as he started editing here again after almost five years of inactivity. If others are still uncomfortable with an indefinite block, then I propose broadening the topic ban to any pages on Wikipedia that are law-related, broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I did not remove negative material about Arias, it was either moved to another section in the article or expanded giving more detailed date information derived from CBC News timeline ( and possibly redistributed elsewhere in the article to the most logical point ). It might look that way looking at a single diff, and maybe I did it the wrong way, but that's the truth. Geebee2 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's false. It's true that some of the material you moved to other locations, but you often removed material at the same time as you moved it. Moreover, some of the moves shifted the emphasis. Thus, for example, where there had been a separate section about Alexander's death, now his death was deemphasized by being put into a much longer section about the investigation. I'm not saying that I disagree with every single edit you've made. You've made far too many for some of them not to be problematic, but the bigger picture stands out that you have a clear bias and an agenda, whether you want to admit that or not. The diff I noted above was part of another of your infamous series of consecutive edits (32 of them in this instance) and is here. Interestingly, the article was reduced by 3,410 characters - hard to say that would be an expansion, isn't it? After you removed the material, you edit warred with Taroaldo and Darkness Shines about it until you realized you were in danger of breaching WP:3RR (DS left a warning on your talk page), although you already had.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, let me describe what I believe I did. Yesterday, I found an updated timeline, which gave dates for the televised interviews. Next I added these dates, and then thought these items belonged in the discovery and investigation section, so I moved them there from the media section. I think I also added another interview with "The Republic", and did some other minor changes. The 2009 interview went into the pre-trial section. Now, as a result of these changes, the "summary" (which has a hint of OR about it I think and also differed in style from the other entries in this section), was redundant, since the information was in the adjacent paragraphs, so I removed it. As a result, the number of characters in the article was reduced, but the information was increased. I also did some other changes to the discovery section, putting things into chronological order, but with Arias and Alexander treated separately. Finally (and I admit this was probably a mistake) I thought Dr Horn's testimony belonged in the trial section and moved it there, with the result that the "Death" section had no information left in it.Geebee2 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not real keen on endless back-and-forth. However, I'll reply once more. Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everything you say in your last comment is true. You have't addressed the edit warring. You haven't addressed the self-righteousness with which you edit, either ignoring other editors' warnings or at least pushing it to just one step before you might be sanctioned. You haven't addressed the major changes you make to this and other articles without any real discussion with other editors (I've read some of your intense quibbling on the article talk page, driving most other editors crazy). You apparently plunge ahead. You haven't addressed the copyright violations in the Camm article. It appears to me that you are very biased and that those biases impel you to contribute in the fashion that you do, including occasionally apologizing so as not to appear to be a fanatic, as well as generally keeping your cool. We need neutral editors, or at least editors who try to be neutral as we all have our biases. You came here to edit in a certain way, and it's unacceptable. You eat up too many resources. You cause too much disruption. Whatever positive things you might contribute are far outweighed by the negatives. And I see no likelihood you'll change.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• On the copyright issue, at the time I wasn't properly aware of the need to reword. I hadn't noticed your post on the talk page previously, I will go and attend to that now.Geebee2 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion in this thread and a review of Geebee2's editing, I have blocked him indefinitely for tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Excuse my tardiness.[13] The thread is closed, but I want to say a few things. I originally used gender-neutral pronouns for Geebee2, but I changed to using female pronouns because I had reason to believe that Geebee2 is female.[14] Geebee2 didn't correct me on using female pronouns in the thread that Darkness Shines linked to up higher. So it's suspicious that the correction was suddenly made in this thread. And up higher, Geebee2 asked, "have any of the critics actually contributed to this article at all?" I have. I agree with the indefinite block placed on Geebee2. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Karlwhen

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

The above named user is using their main userspace to hold material that is excessive unrelated content.

• I notified the user on 16 April 2013 about this, and also provided links to WP:UPYES and WP:UPNOT.
• On the 7 June 2013 the user stated on a different talk page "Why can't I have my own material and data on MY own page? It's MY user page. I don't see how I'm breaking any rules.". To which I responded on Karlwhen's talk page explaining that his user page is property of the Wikipedia Community, and should not be used as a social media/blogger page.
• An administrator further explained to Karlwhen regarding this issue.
• Karlwhen appears to be ignoring requests to remove the content from his userpage, by doing actions such as blanking talkpages, without responding to comments or taking appropriate action to remove the content that he has been asked to remove by 2 editors.

Please could someone look into this matter, and perhaps take whatever necessary steps that needs to be taken. (All persons mentioned have been notified of this ANI). Many thanks, Wesley♦Mouse 13:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Karlwhen has now removed the excessive content that against WP:UPNOT as well as removing the ANI notification that I had sent to him. Looks like the issue is now resolved, unless of course someone feels the urge to still notify Karlwhen about userspace. Wesley♦Mouse 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the user has now understood the point. Unfortunately I have lost count of the number of users using their userspace to as free webspace to host tables for fictional online song contests, and the issue has the potential to get out of hand if not dealt with. However, most users will remove the content when asked to do so. CT Cooper · talk 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 75.114.222.69

An IP 75.114.222.69 is adding a category to John McEnroe Category:American sportspeople in doping cases and Category:Doping cases in tennis here and it was reverted by me and another editor who also reported the IP to AIV but think it has been declined and recommended taking to ANI.Being a voluntary follower of 1RR ,I do not revert it again.This appears to be a case of clear violation of WP:BLP to say John McEnroe was involved in doping when there no clear WP:RS in this.The edit needs to be reverted.This page is very highly viewed page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is quite the issue you're making it out to be. The article contains a paragraph about McEnroe taking steroids, and is referenced to a reliable source, in which McEnroe himself admits he took steroids. Whether or not the category is really necessary I don't know, but I don't think it's a clear-cut BLP issue. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.Sorry the report is about the IP as per this recommendation. Actually the IP has been blocked twice in in April and has violated the 3RR rule and has adding information in WP:BLP and edit warring in Shane Carwin in addition to John McEnroe the information is very controversial and it has been reverted both in Shane Carwin and also in John McEnroe by another editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Confession

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

---

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i want to confess about new socks that i have made but the editing filter blocked my list of users, can someone help me? 37.250.25.139 (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 6 accounts are involved in this confession 37.250.25.139 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Alarming sockpuppet

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

---

Can someone please (a) block User:Kevin R. Guidry as a blatant sockpuppet and (b) use checkuser tools to see if you can figure out who is behind that and if other accounts or IP addresses need to be blocked? I ask for these extraordinary steps because it's quite alarming that someone would register account in my own name and edit my employer's article using that account. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You should make a report at WP:SPI. _→AzaToth 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy given the obvious facts in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him for vandalism only account. _→AzaToth 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you can only have a "check user" done by doing an SPI. This might reveal what other accounts this person was using.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Mangoeater. I blocked a bunch of sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Weatherbell at Joe Bastardi

User:Weatherbell has been used to delete sourced material at Joe Bastardi. WeatherBell is the name of the company where Mr. Bastardi works. It may be Mr. Bastardi himself. . . Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he edited only twice and was reverted both times. He hasn't edited in a couple of days. I blocked him for his user name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba#Petition_the_Wikipedia_administration

At Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba#Petition_the_Wikipedia_administration there is a petition gathering signatures. I'm posting this to ANI as a good-faith attempt to put these people in touch with the closest people I can think of who count as "the Wikipedia administration". Stuartyeates (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:May122013 and issues at Rob Ford

May122013 (talk · contribs) - Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous accounts:
  • Mr.grantevans2 (talk · contribs)
  • Mr.grantevans (talk · contribs)

For clarification, I have not edited the Rob Ford article or talkpage, I was made aware of this issue via BLP/N.

The facts: in May, Gawker reported that a staffer had seen a video, allegedly of Toronto mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine, and making homophobic and racist statements. The Toronto Star picked up the story, and two of its reporters saw the same video. Since then, the story has been picked up by approximately every single news outlet there is, been discussed on talk shows (Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Stewart, if my memory is correct), and generally become Kind Of A Big Deal. The article as written at the time of this post is neutral, sourced, and reports factually on what has been said in media outlets.

User:May122013 has tried everything they can to remove this information from the article, including:

• At least a dozen outright removals of the content, all of which were reverted quickly, with multiple edit summaries telling May122013 that there was no consensus for the removal
• Many attempts on the article talk page to remove the content, starting here with an attempt to paint it as unreliable when Gawker and The Star had a minor difference in one thing that was said about the video. Then a claim that the video is a hoax. Then attempts to (mis)use policy to remove it, different attempts at BLP/N to have the material discredited, most recently claiming that Gawker and The Star are primary sources. I could go on but I'm tired of combing through diffs. Just see the user contribs and the talk page. Basically May122013 wants the material out and will use everything and the kitchen sink to try and remove it.
• And has wrapped it all up with accusing me of sockpuppetry, refusing to offer any proof of the accusation, and refusing to retract. (Including an attempt to evade responsibility by saying they only said 'possible', and they suddenly have 'time committments' until June 18 which do not allow them to address the accusation. Which is without merit, by the way. I removed the accusations after telling May122013 twice to do so. An admin has also told May122013 to provide proof or retract.)
  • User has retracted the above accusation. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In summary, May122013 is essentially an SPA, is editwarring (in slow motion), and refusing to listen to consensus. I suggest either a topicban or a block until s/he agrees to stop disrupting the article and talkpage and wasting everyone's time. — The Potato Hose 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment on the sockpuppetry accusations, I did indeed ask May122013 to retract or take to SPI, which has been backed up by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) here. GiantSnowman 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN link - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rob Ford. GiantSnowman 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had already warned the user previous that a WP:BLPBAN or block may soon follow if they continued to edit war against consensus. There is a lot of wikilawyering going on with this user, and a single-mindedness that smacks more of agenda than neutrality. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier - but some of their concerns are, indeed, BLP concerns. I find it hard to totally dismiss a person who is right on something at least -- too many are right on seemingly nothing at all. <g> Collect (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently the article is in decent shape [15] and a number of editors have ensured it is neutral and not violating BLP concerns. Then we have an editor who many times a day shows up and reverts and wikilayers attempting to expunge a neutrally reported incident. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I striked [16] the "possible sockpuppet" comment. 2 editors suggested that I do that on my talk page and I do regret saying that. I right now publicly offer my apology to User:The Potato Hose. May122013 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot more than usual work activities over the next 10 days which severely limits my access to the internet, so please allow me at least 12 hours to respond to any other matters that anyone wishes to discuss. May122013 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the delay. Having editors with different views is our strength here, but you have to know when to pull back and accept when consensus on an edit is against you. We all are sometimes on the short side of consensus, you aren't unique in this. Calling someone a sockpuppet is disruptive and looks as if you are trying to undermine their argument using ad hominem. If you think they are socking, by all means, file at WP:SPI or ask an admin for assistance. There is a fine line between spirited debate, and wikilawyering and disruptive behavior. I don't think that blocking you is a done deal here, but it is on the edge. It is up to you. You need to demonstrate a willingness to work on these issues by both your words and deeds, or you may force us to consider other actions as a last resort. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting, given the ad hominem attacks, that the user in question has repeatedly complained about them, while happily using them him/herself. Without devolving into ad hominems myself, it's useful to consider that someone who complains about others doing something, while doing the exact same thing themselves, is probably therefore not acting in good faith. — The Potato Hose 04:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support BLPBAN May1222013 has been arguing and edit-warring against consensus using poor arguments, as mentioned above. Also, in his two previous accounts he was tendentious in arguments about including rumours that the American president Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and that his autobiography was ghostwritten by a former radical left-wing terrorist. He also argued for including salacious details of allegations of sexual assault made against a former president of the World Bank. While he claims that the Toronto Star is not a reliable source for Rob Ford, he presented the far less respected Canada Free Press as rs ifor another article. He appears to apply different standards for BLPs, depending on his perception of the subject. TFD (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to TFD :TFD I want to also apologize to you for having been un polite towards you. I'd also like to address your points above, which you have caused me to think about intensely. It is reasonable for you to be saying that I apply different standards to different BLPs, as that may well be how it appears. But in actuality I apply the same 3 standards to all BLPs; which may be standards that I may have to drop in order to be more objective here on Wikipedia. Those standards are "consider the source"; "no censorship when it comes to public officials", and NPOV.

• With Ford those standards conflicted in my mind, yet I could not get above the fact that all of the "smoking crack" allegations originated with anonymous drug dealers and also the general perceived bias against Ford in the BLP ( as has been mentioned by dozens of other editors over the past 3 years ), so I thought exclusion of the crack allegations is the best path.

• With the Obama birther event, that's been about 2 years ago and please note that I even received a barnstar for my work on that subject: see User_talk:Mr.grantevans2. That event, to me, fell into the category of "no censorship" because the origination for those allegations came from several elected and high profile politicians and established business leaders like Donald Trump.

• With DSK, the head of the IMF at the time, the details of the alleged assault originated from New York City police investigators and had been published by RSs so they fit into my "no censorship" standard as well. In that case, I feel the details were important because they painted a much more of a predatorial attack than most of the mainstream press pictured. Also, DSK at that time was an employee of all of the taxpayers that contribute to the IMF, like you and me.

So, ironically, as you perceive that differing standards are my problem, I think, now that I've had the night to "sleep on it", that my main problem has been applying any of my personal standards when editing Wikipedia. So my objective, should I be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia, is to leave all of my personal standards out of my thinking about how an article can be improved. That may not be ideal, but I think that in my case its necessary. May122013 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that a good number of people take exception to your methods and for good cause. The previous warnings stand, and if there are future issues, I would still be inclined to use the BLPBAN or other methods to prevent disruption. I'm hopeful we won't have to revisit this. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 11:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I can assure you this will not have to be revisited. May122013 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly disrupted the editing of this article by reverting completely what consensus has decided, by each time simply repeating unproven "WP:BLP" arguments. [17][18][19]. His arguments are based on his own original research that Gawker editor John Cook and two Toronto Star have fraudulently reported that they witnessed a video of Rob Ford smoking crack and that the video is a "hoax." Ironically May122013 is breaking WP:BLP by making such claims with zero sources to back up such claims. His disrupted editing is based completely on his original research that is not supported by any source.

He keeps on starting new sections on the Rob Ford talk page of red herrings like the Gawker editors no longer have access tot the video somehow meaning the reporters magically never viewed the video [20], there was once a casting call for Rob Ford lookalikes [21], there's a "doppelhanger" of Rob Ford in Toronto [22] and even the graphic Gawker used in its story as reason to delete all content of this controversy. [23]

No matter how much it's explained to him that the content does not violate BLP (as he does) and that consensus is against him, he simply employs WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeats his same original research "hoax" arguments and reverts all content of other users about this allegation.

And as for his WP:NPA violations, I'll leave an example of when he was asked if he had a conflict of interest in editing this article: "No conflict at all; can you please inform us if you are under 14 years old ?"

This person has shown nothing but disruption and a lack of respect for other editors and consensus and needs to be banned from editing this article, if not all articles. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, the user has undertaken to not make this a problem in the future. I think without evidence to the contrary we should probably believe that. But probably a good idea to keep an eye on things. — The Potato Hose 04:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KfyTopal

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

This person keeps editing Fenerbahçe S.K. (football) into turkish and putting some obvious fake info into player squad. Here are some of the examples:

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]

I also belive that the same guy has made this changes with his IP:

• [28]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine time (talk • contribs)

Hasn't really edited since the warning for translating the page. I'll leave him a note on his talk page; if this carries on let me know and I'll block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Lucia Black

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

---

I'd like to propose a topic ban for Lucia Black targeting Anime, Manga and Video Games. The reason for this proposal is an ongoing pattern of behavior that has stunted growth and development of articles in these catagories.

A - Lucia Black operates as an owner of several key articles in these topics in violation of WP:OWN. Many of the user's revisions stem from his/her personal opinion rather than concensus or RS.

B - Said user often edits tenditiously and makes frequent use of personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA.

C - Said user often makes edits that contain numerous typographical, spelling and grammatical errors. Such errors require time to correct (often in addition to the time required to verify the info edited into a given article).

D - Said user may have ties to notorious sock puppet masters/trolls with whom he/she may be cooperating in order to harrass other editors.

These behaviors have a chilling effect on wikipedia and are responsible for intimidating new users from contributing in a meaningful fashion. In full disclosure, I was a registered, confirmed editor involved in cooperating on the Anime/Manga articles, but felt compelled to leave Wikipedia due to harrassment from Lucia Black. I have since abandoned that account and am nervous about disclosing who I was due to the possibility of on and off wiki harrassment in retaliation. She repeatedly reverted additions with little or no real justification and has accused me of being a troll.

I'm not sure if it is the nature of the topics, but perhaps it might be best if Lucia Black were given a break and encouraged to edit other topics.

User has been notified. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A brand new user account arrives to propose a topic ban? Quite clearly either an invalid WP:CLEANSTART or as a minimum an improper alternate account as an attempt to distract attention from their regular account. I'm sorry, I can AGF for days, but not for something like this (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you've AGF'd at all. I have never been banned or blocked. My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user. I'll assume good faith and not accuse you of being in cahoots with the above mentioned user. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- A) You need to show diffs that demonstrate this behaviour. B) Ditto. C) This problem seems to be related to Lucia Black's editing in general, not specific to anime and manga, therefore a topic ban will not solve it. D) Unsubstantiated innuendo. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to show the diffs if someone can walk me through how to use the coding involved (I've never done so before). if you bear with me, I'll post them. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Diff - take note in particular of the section 'Linking to a diff'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, you might want to check out TheSyndromeOfaDown apparently had communication with her on her/his talk page (since deleted, but the deleting admin can provide a copy Writ Keeper reverted it on 3 June 2013).Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, the thing I revdeled had nothing to do with Lucia Black. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support as proposer Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevent Diffs

[29] - example of ownership

[30] - example of tenditious editing

[31] - overt hostility

[32] - WP:HOUNDING

Also, take a look at the pervious two AN/I topics focusing her (one is at AN/I archive 798). Chibi Kusanagi (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this editor is ChrisGualtieri, I have had it with this destructive behavior of this user. The first link shows absolutely no sign of WP:OWN. The other 2, this editor is involved and has been hostile and poison the discussion. Why else would this editor need to make an alternate account out of fear?

Also, this editor isnt afraid of me because of my hostility, its because of my wrongfully ban that in which if I bring it up to the highest power in wiki, will see a bunch of inconsistencies and will get this editor blocked too for his poisoning.

Idk why some user would feel the need to be a sock just to get a third opinion known. I smell conspiracy against me. I would NEVER use a sock. And I would never need to make one just to prove my point.

I cant bring links, but I have witnesses directly involved with ChrisGualtieri who can provide links for me and verify his destructive behaviour.Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia stop being trolled. It clearly isn't me and your personal attacks are wearing thin. Admins, please check the revdel versions of my talk page.[33] I do not know their content, but I suppose it may be enlightening if the edits of User:KuroiNekoko-chan aren't.[34] Considering the last history the SPI will be obvious and I'm going to cross-post this. Not sure where the obsession comes from but Jonathan Yip made clear an effort to focus on both of us in the rev del from KuroiNekoko-chan's last talk comments. This trolling is really lame. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Close and SPI please - I have zero interest in Anime, nor familiarity with the names above but "My regular account has been defunct for at least six months. I gave up on account of harrassment from the above user." = "I created a new sock to get back at an editor, but I'm not telling you who I am"? ..... surely this ANI should closes here and next should be an SPI, shouldn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...im far too tired for this stuff. How am j suppose to know when a sock is coming up.Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I object to many instances of how she handles herself in discussions, there is no way this warranted. She does good work when she's not tied up with arguing with people. Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is at SPI. I just posted the evidence there. Sorry, I've had a rough day and I come home to this. And Lucia, don't take it seriously, that's the intent. I'm going to watch this, but work on a few things in the mean time. But just to be clear, this "topic ban" thing is nonsense, Lucia does good work at WP:ANIME and has opened up to the community; I intend to back her in her efforts; past issues are as good as forgotten. Though let's end this "topic ban" with a snow close just to make sure its not taken seriously in the future; even if the nominator is not a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Chibi Kusanagi is confirmed as a sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent copy violations from User:Gunkarta

I was checking out a series of bilateral articles created by Gunkarta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and found a persistent and serious pattern of blatant copy violations. Gunkarta is an experienced editor so there is no excuse for this blatant violation of WP rules. I would suggest a topic ban for creating bilateral articles but leave it up to the community to suggest a course of action. Below is only what I believe is the tip of copyright iceberg:

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

LibStar (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Libstar, I examined [47] for numbers 31 through 69.  The pattern I found is that articles you create with over 1000 bytes are copy and pastes that are missing attribution history.  #30 is a special case which I have addressed here.

• [48], [49]
• [50], [51], [52]
• [53], [54]
• [55], [56]

Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste#How about copying and pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I will use an edit summary in future, but I am curious why you are not commenting on the serious copyvio in my original complaint. Is there a reason why not? LibStar (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright attorney, are you?  In your edit comment you identify [57] as a "blatant" case of copyvio.  The text transformation is not cut and paste.  What criteria did you apply to determine that there was a copyvio?  What criteria did you apply to determine that it was "blatant"?  Point 4 of Copyright#Fair use mentions "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work".  Have you developed an opinion about the change in the potential market value of the copyrighted work?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your goal here? Are you looking to catch me out? The point I am making is that this user has a history of copy violations, yet all you are interested is trying to paint me as the bad one. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks Crisco for your wise words. Unscintillating has gone off on some tangent trying to pursue me for some unknown reason and ignoring the extent of user gunkarta copy violations. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Again with going off on your own vector, Unscintillating, particularly since any Wikipedia editor can (and should) report possible copyright violations - even if they are not lawyers. Yes, this is blatant copy-pasting, in violation of copyright. I note, however, that it is not uncommon for Indonesian editors (particularly those raised on the Indonesian Wikipedia, which has much more lax copyright policies), so the assumption that he understands that it is wrong may be faulty. Has Gunkarta been notified and/or adequately warned? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys.., currently I've been working on expanding articles on countries of Indonesian bilateral relations as my own personal project. I did not realize that I have caused such problems on copyright stuff. Surely I'm not a master in this laws matter (and certainly not the fan of it), and yes Crisco.., I think Indonesian wikipedians are somewhat not quite that good (or rigid) on "grasping" the idea of copyright stuff and tends to lax in this department. But one thing I know is at least the things written in wikipedia articles should be verifiable. Of course during my work, I referred to respectable trusted sources such as embassy websites, foreign relations office/ministry, and news. I did not realize that the referencing, citing and quoting I did was a copyvio (too much of them perhaps?). I think I need to work my senses to know a healthy balance between a good citing and the so called copyvio. One thing I can sure you all, that this is not my intention or some deliberate actions on my side. I'm not really familiar with this copyvio rules in articles. I only familiar in copyvio on wikimedia commons materials such as images and photographs. Let me know where did it went wrong. I think the wise decision is, to tell me which parts where there is too much quotations that could be considered as copyvio, and let me try rewrite it in my own words (despite my weaknesses in grammars, vocabularies etc). Any contributions and helps to improve the Indonesian bilateral relations articles are welcome and greatly appreciated. Thanks... Cheers.. Gunkarta (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Gunkarta, glad to see you here. The issue is with how close the wording is (close paraphrasing, if you will). Compare, for instance:

Source:

The Goethe-Institut Jakarta organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Jakarta. As the regional institute for Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Goethe-Institut Jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks that are borne of both its cultural history and the effects of globalisation, in its regional projects and current plans. ... the Goethe-Institut Jakarta has a national network of representatives who promote German as a foreign language in Indonesia ... We provide language courses, workshops and seminars for teachers in teaching German as a foreign language, not to mention a comprehensive examination programme. ... The info centre at the Goethe-Institut Jakarta provides information on current aspects of cultural, social and political life in Germany.

Article:

"It organises and supports a wide range of cultural events to present German culture abroad and foster intercultural exchange in Indonesia. It promotes German as a foreign language in Indonesia by providing German language course, also provides information on current aspects of cultural, social and political life in Germany. As the regional institute for Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, the Goethe-Institut Jakarta increasingly exploits the potential of the regional relationship networks."

Bolded elements are verbatim from the source. We need to reword it, extensively to, make this information useable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for pointing and explaining the problems. I think summarize or rewording would be good. I don't mind to reduces the information (details) from the sources as long as the points is made, which is "Goethe Institute provides German course in Indonesia and promotes their culture".Gunkarta (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Summarizing or rephrasing would be perfect. For example, "It focuses on cultural events which present German culture and language to Indonesians. Indonesians who wish to learn more can take language courses and also read about aspects of life in Germany." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

section break

I've found a few more:

• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]

LibStar (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the scope of this, perhaps it's best that a copyright investigation is opened over at WP:CCI, since we've found quite a few issues. Wizardman 23:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Gunkarta, are you still following this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gunkarta. MER-C 10:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm following this, go ahead investigate all my edits. However I can sure you, I did not breach this copyvio rules deliberately. I just did not familiar with how much citing sources could be considered as copyvio. Do what you can to repair the articles, I understand wikipedia have sets of rules to follow.Gunkarta (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

8i347g8gl

This person is intent on adding material which is obviously inappropriate, and has restored his edits each time they have been removed. He does not interact at the talk page despite several invitations. This is the old section and this is the new section. The talk page has a sample of bizarre quotes so you don't have to read it all. He appears to be doing original work, citing scientific papers while making "God" and "morphogenetic field" connections on his own. E.g. "The gravitoelectric field (God) is also known as the quantum potential." Tahknis (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for one week (edit warring, disruption, repeated OR). I suggest you try and engage him on his talkpage during the block, to see if you can at least get some sort of discussion underway. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Greg Bahnsen

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

---

This article has been vandalized for years, and been protected on-and-off for the same period of time. The vandalism is usually the same edit. Is there no better solution than the current pattern of waiting for the vandal to hit, revert, report, protect the article from anon editing for a short time, block offending IP address for a short time. Can we please just block anon editing on this article, period? --HighKing (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not worthy of this board. This is kind of lame. And, of course, it seems to all stem from a "British Isles" thing.[65] Lucky guess. Doc talk 11:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest indef block IP per WP:NOTHERE. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Doc talk 12:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The rest of that sentence doesn't belong anyway, regardless of the name. I've removed it, semi-protected the article for a month, and will watchlist it. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Editor who thinks "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" being disruptive

User:Lguipontes, who thinks "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" [66], keeps reverting in Template:World homosexuality laws map for no valid reason whatsoever. All countries in yellow enforce anti-gay laws (see ILGA map: [67]), yet the editor keeps reverting to this version [68]. I warned him already [69], but doesn't seem to work. Cavann (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Deus meu, por que tive a impressão ontem à noite de que seria HOJE de que eu iria para a AN/I?! (Oh, my God, I had the impression just yesterday at night that TODAY I would go to AN/I?!) I may only be a witch... And I thought I would never be exposed to teh dramaz since I'm lazy, slow and pacifical like that animal I put on my page and talkpage and I forgot the English name but I can't look at it in another tab because exactly in the last 10 minutes I lost my PC's mouse (I remembered!) a slot so I would solve anything with civilized talk... It only needed a small amount of irony and bad mood due to headache. If there's a God, he's laughing at me now. -.- Lguipontes (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

For those wanting to see my reasoning of why it does include countries which do not have it always enforced, please see the historic of the usage of the file on Commons. Yeah, I thought we don't depend solely on a single source to build Wikipedia consensus, I didn't even went to check this out as I thought Cavann had the perspective of one who just found out that map as it was the first time I got him passing by that area... I'd be happy to 'obey' if it was already known Ron 1982, Kwamikagami, L.tak, Chase1492, Flyer22 or any other editor to the map or person otherwise involved in discussing it or interpretations on LGBT rights changes across the world before. I'm sorry for the slow edit war and anything, I will not revert him back. See, for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, no need for reporting me to the administrator noticeboard on incidents. Sorry for the bad English, I'm too nervous, too stressed and too busy right now to revise it. Lguipontes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• • This appears to be resolved with Lguipontes' promise not to revert again. But it has to be said that if you really believe the "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" line, you might want to either reconsider your position or consider a different website to edit. Wikipedia doesn't need another editor who's clueless about the ethical and legal importance of strong sourcing, and people who act accordingly tend to find their stay on Wikipedia very short indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You better not care about me. There's an army out there to un-edit specific parts about Brazilian culture, language and whatever that are obvious to Portuguese speakers and can be found in a due search in minimal sources by ourselves, and that are silly things not demanding scholarly work, but still, they will get reverted. Still, Rio de Janeiro is the kind of article that keeps being changed to non-acceptable points by anonymous users, but no one cares. Doubtlessly, the way Wikipedia policy on sources is applied is bad.

I was scared of this thread because I don't want to find another website, and I know well how to behave here. It is just that some users take what they don't agree with or just doubt to a very exaggerated point, even if we know what we are talking about, we are productive, or they are the solely ones doubting an old consensus and other reputable, knowledgeable, working editors didn't challenge me in the first place. Just as you may see that L.tak supported me as being 'nice and civil' and that this whole AN/I thread over this minor issue was wholly unnecessary. Also needless to say that the context to which I said people "care too much about sources" here, a statement to which I agree but in various different senses (and I don't want to challenge the status quo of them all), was taken to a different context by Cavann because, well, just 2 or 3 reverts over more than 27 hours or so with good faith reasonings made him seemingly irritated. Lguipontes (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user Mhazard9 editing as IP user

User:Mhazard9 was blocked for 48 hrs yesterday for edit warring, after being blocked a few weeks ago for repeatedly removing copyright tags. Mhazard9 was also blocked twice, in 2010 and 2011, for abusing multiple accounts. They're going for the jackpot now with this edit [70] --editing while blocked, restoring an obvious NFCC violation, long-term edit warring on the article, and an abusive edit summary. The IP's edit history is limited to articles where Mhazard9 is involved in disputes, the edit summaries are distinctly in Mhazard9's style, the edits match Mhazard9's -- in short, the quacking is so deafening that no formal SPI should be necessary. Significant block extension is called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who made the AN3 complaint leading to Mhazard9's current block, I'd also like to register concern. To my knowledge, I've only intersected with Mhazard9 at one article, Pathetic fallacy, where no one has yet undone the changes inflicted by that user. (Although I wasn't anywhere near 3RR myself, I just feel weird about reverting edits other than blatant vandalism when the user who added them is blocked.) My concern stems both from the user's behavior, which included both edit warring and a refusal to communicate, and from the substance of the edits themselves, which led me to muse (to myself) about competency issues or, given the length of time the user has been around, a possible compromised account. (See my diff above. Improper capitalization is the main issue.) Without reviewing the user's earlier contributions more thoroughly, which I have no time for today, I have no idea whether these problems have been ongoing or are new. In any event, block evasion is a serious offense and merits an appropriate response. Rivertorch (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The evidence that this is block evasion is overwhelming. Even before being blocked, Mhazard9 has used the same IP (not logging in) to edit the same articles (at least once in the midst of an edit war at Edward Said), sometimes within hours of each other. I have inceased Mhazard9's block to one month, and I have blocked the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I rolled back the edit and semi'd the article for a couple of days before I read your extension of the block; I might as well leave the protection there, it's not doing any harm and will prevent any obvious IP hopping for a couple of days. I will watchlist, regardless. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at his block log, this is the third time they have been blocked for obvious socking. In light of that I personally would have indef blocked, for now I am going to decline their current unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Harassment after formal dis-invitation

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

---

• KumiokoCleanStart (talk · contribs)

User and I have previously disagreed (See also WikiProject United States scope, WikiProject United States absorbs WikiProject Texas, WikiProject United States attempts to absorb WikiProject Dallas/Fort Worth). After I commented on an ANI in which they came to my talk page and began to significantly annoy me with baseless complaints, I formally dis-invited him from my talk page (diff of dis-invitation). Today when I tried to give, what I considered a semi-friendly, nudge to remind Kumioko on how to get more positive reactions from other editors, only to have him come on to my talk page again denigrate my comments at AN and to claim that they have more investment based on their tenure and quantity of contributions. I responded somewhat intemperately as was presented to me by their intemperate initial posting. I dis-invited them again from my talk page, and they then persisted in maintaining their "Last Say" on the talk page after I exercised my rights under User Page policy (specifically WP:UP#CMT) multiple times and warned regarding harassment. After I gave a warning via edit summary that the next post would invoke a request to AN. What I want is for Kumioko to respect my wishes and leave my talk page. In addition I'd like Kumioko to be stronly suggested to that their conversational style (including insulting other users, random admins, and unregistered users) is fundamentally incompatible with standard operating procedure. Hasteur (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want admins to do? Just give this strong suggestion, or do you want something in addition? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I want the admins to remind Kumioko about the best practices regarding user pages, user talk pages, and in general making himself to be an entitled user on behalf of his quantity of edits and length of membership with the project. We're all supposed to be editors. Some have been entrusted with additional privileges based on the community evaluating their need, whereas others have been restricted in their privileges based on the failure to adhere to the standards that the community has judged. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not discluding any other options, however based on this editor's history I think the time for cautions and warnings has already passed (See also their recent POINT RfA attempt). Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur made a comment which was obvious trolling on my request for an edit above (Facepalming). I left a notice on their talk page telling them it was innapropriate trolling and to knock it off. They further insulted me and told me not to come back. Then when I opened up a verbal asswhooping they stomped their feet like an impetuious ppouting little child and reverted my comment. Hasteur made the inappropriate comment and since no one else told them it wasn't appropriate I did. The only think I did was what an admin should have done and didn't. I hurt hasteurs feelings for being a dick. That's all it was. There is nothing worthy of ANI in his request and this discussion is a waste of everyones time. I would also like to add that I am not insulting to anyone who doesn't insult me or another user first. Certainly not an unregistered one (I would like to see an example if I have). If another user or admin wants to insult me, then they should expect that I will have somethign to say to them about it. I am not a sheep and I do not act like one so to assume that they can say whatever they want about or to me just because they are an admin or whatever is an incorrect assumption. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So, you (Hasteur) made a snarky comment, you both retaliated at each other in escalating degrees of stridence, and then there's a childish edit war over whether a certain comment gets to stay on your talk page? Sounds like another day at ANI. Neither of you distinguished your respective selves here, and you both have made it quite clear that your talk pages are off-limits to the other. So let's all stop being utter jerks to each other, respect the mutual talk-age bannination, and leave it at that, shall we? (By the way, for anyone curious: I silently reverted Kumioko's post on Hasteur's page in the forlorn hope that it would somehow go unnoticed and that this dispute would die the quick, silent death it deserves, but it was not to be. If we want to play the blame game, my blameometer puts the blame on Kumioko at 70% and Hasteur at 30%; not evens, but nothing to write home about.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, it's very simple - if another editor removes your comment from their talk page then you should not re-add it. GiantSnowman 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd made the attempt to head this off by pre-emptively doing an NAC as I have previously seen that Hasteur and Kumioko don't get along, I see that failed. Quite frankly, interaction ban the two of them and move along. Blackmane (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You all can call me names all you want. The fact remains you failed to call the users attention to the inappropriate comment so I did. You don't like how I did it, next time do it so I won't have too. This also would not have happened if I could have implemented the changes I spent hours doing rather than wait a month for you admins to do it because I can't be trusted. And then have you ignore the request for edit because you don't understand it. You don't trust me, then make the changes you don't trust me to do. I should not be doing them if I cannot be trusted to implement them. Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And after waiting a couple hours for a response from Hasteur about how I am being abusive to new users as suggested above he/she can provide no examples. Because they don't exist. Their just another editor who is mad because I'm not an admin and called them out for acting inappropriately. This thread should be closed as a pointless waste of time. Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a couple hours is enough time to formulate a response. No, I've just elected to leave this tombstone on the trail of tears that you leave behind you whenever you don't get your way. I bet that true to form you won't leave this as is and instead will DEMAND the final say in the conversation so it appears that you had the upper hand in the debate. Prove me wrong. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple of hours is more than enough time to provide a couple links of how I am abusing unregistered or new users which you specifically mention above but you can't because its just madeup by you. And I'm just responding to your comments hasteur. Although your comments above are basically gibberish without any coherent meaning as usual so there isn't much I can respond to really. Someone needs to close this thread as the obvious waste of time it is. I would but someone would undoubtedly fuss about it being innappropriate. Hasteur is just wasting everyones time here and he knows it. So does everyone else. He's just spouting crap trying to get me blocked or something and doesn't have anything other than his own bad behavior to prove I did anything wrong. If he wasn't being such a child about the whole thing it would be funny, as it is its just irritating and sad. Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, please find a quiet spot in your house and read your last response out loud. Then ask yourself how successful that response is going to be at defusing this situation. It might be a baseless complaint (I don't know), but responses such as this do nothing to help prove that point. Please calm down. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see anything. The user accused me of being harassing to new/unregistered users which is patenly false. The user was being a dick and leaving snide comments in a discussion which were clearly negative in nature and of no use. No one said anything so I did. There is nothing to see here. The user submitted a baseless complaint to get my into trouble and you and others are so focused on my comments you don't even care about theirs. It should be obvious to anyone that the user is just being shitty. But no one except me seems to care. That's why I am irritated. You will let the user say anything they want and be as dickish as they want but if I say something to them about it, I am the asshole. You want me to drop it, fine. But don't get mad at me for telling the user not to be an asshole because you and your fellow admins didn't have the time or inclination to do it. And contrary to the users comment about us having a disagreement 2 years ago we don't have any "history". Their just some random user that felt compelled to snipe a worthless comment at me because they knew that no one, including you was going to do anything about it and I'm sick of it. I'm not sorry I responded only disgusted at you, yet again, singling out my comments and completely ignoring the comment from the user who I commented about. That is at least the second time you have done that to me so my suggestion to you Ultra would be to tkae a couple minutes while I find a corner in my house and look at all the facts before passing jusdgement. Its a rare thing for admins to do these days but you'll be the better for it in the end. Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Barelvi

these two users need to be blocked..i wasn't going to take this to ani but tag teaming,personal attacks & possible wp:own is getting out of hand..mezzomezzo has escalated matters from calling me a racist on another article.[71] (which i mentioned at ani before) to now a "bigot". [72] he resorts to personal attacks when he doesn't agree with my discussion.

also ever since i entered discussions at Talk:Barelvi this user georgecluster happens to jump into discussion to side with mezzo mezzo..after mezzo calls me a barelvi and POV pusher..george jumps in to claim mezzo is a good faith editor [73] george even posted on his talk page that he would support him consistently [74]

this is nothing more then tag teaming…george reverts my edit here back to mezzo's version [75]

george then completely turns down my proposal on the talk page but when mezzo makes a similar proposal he seems to agree with it. [76]

he arrives out of nowhere between me and mezzo's dispute as well to make supportive comment [77]

note also that a user has recently been banned from editing this article and these two users were involved in pushing consensus at ani for it to happen. Baboon43 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused here. Baboon43 used to primarily agree with MezzoMezzo's edits (although not always), and since the aforementioned topic ban for a user, suddenly they don't. That's rather weird. All 3 users need to calm down, stop edit warring, and stop attacking each other. Although I haven't seen that much edit-warring in my watchlist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The user MezzoMezzo recently attacked another user as well [78]. he has been warned by an admin to halt the personal attacks and continues it [79] Baboon43 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks a heck of a lot like sour grapes for the improperly-filed (yet sadly and sorely needed RFC/U) above. Tit-for-tat maneuvers rarely are successful, and usually add more kindling to the existing fire (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Incivility from User:Amd9012

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

---

I made this revert on the article for Mud, as it was unsourced and looked wrong (a score of 105.184% for a review?) and got this response from that user on my talkpage. This user doesn't make many edits, but the little they do make seem to be disrputive, as per their talkpage. This comment on my talkpage is not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should really have used an edit summary to say why you were reverting, but the response is indeed unacceptable - I have blocked for 48 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I feel I am possibly being bullied by 4 admins over SPLC material in the Men's Movement page.

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

---

I made an edit on the Men's movement page and included material from the SPLC. The discussion has been here [80] and was taken off the page here [81],[82]. My good faith was seriously questioned by Binkersnet [83]

The material is certainly contentious, but I should add that RSN has repeatedly discussed the reliability of the SPLC and RSN also declared fairly unanimously that articles of the SPLC are the the voice of the SPLC and not the author, (with a few dissensions). The SPLC has been used frequently in the past to criticize the Men's Rights Movement, but seems out of bounds when the larger movement is discussed. I seem to get blocked at the drop of a hat and need help here. CSDarrow (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I feel like CSDarrow is not responding well to being warned for a copyright violation, something that I feel they don't seem to be mentioning at all in this thread which should end with a block for disruption and wasting time--on this page, on Bbb23's talk page, and on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh my that is a very serious-looking matter! For what it is worth, I think it would help you if you linked to the diffs of the actual material that was reverted or removed. As far as I can tell from the chat page communiques only, it is not so much that the SPLC material is controversial but that you (according to your detractors) copied and pasted it directly from the site which is considered to by a copyright violation regardless from the source unless it is attributed in a specific and certain mannerism as detailed in WP:COPYVIO. I personally do not feel that if you are being bullied based just on those diffs but if you had the diffs of the actual edits that were reverted I could revise my opinion and stick up for you if it turns out that you were being accused unjustly of copying material from a site wholesale. DrPhen (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow's outrageous behavior in his handling of this matter warrants a block. Please see this discussion on Bbb23's talk page and this disucssion on CSDarrow's talk page for context. Thanks. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The diffs are this one with copyright violation, and this one with attributed quotes. The material that CSDarrow wishes to add is without context, difficult for the reader to understand. It makes a statement about some not-very-respected types of men who can be found in the men's movement, but it does not set a larger context about what the main types of men are, what the main demographics are of the men's movement. The CSDarrow text is not encyclopedic; it does not help the reader. I cannot tell what he was trying to communicate to the reader, and I would like to have him explain it. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail what your comment has to do with this issue. However the argument you present is beyond belief and could be used to remove anything you so pleased in Wikipedia. Similarity I am still waiting for you to withdraw your accusation of bad faith, when I fact I truly do believe these quotes to be VErY significant from a VERY significant organizationCSDarrow (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

this one this one seems like it was sourced and quoted appropriately; the other (second) one wasn't - but it was simply a matter of adding quotes around the correct sections, I don't think CSDarrow was trying to plagiarize, he just didn't quote it the second time as he should have. I think this matter is best discussed at the correct talk page, I don't see any need for admin action here, the revert was proper but could have been more gentle.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow committed a clear copyright violation (taking material from this webpage and inserting it without quotation marks or paraphrase into an article here). When he was called on the copyvio, CSDarrow responded unconstructively and cast himself in the role of victim. I don't see any bullying here. I see someone who's committing copyvios and then reacting obnoxiously when called on them. And I'm considering blocking CSDarrow until we can be sure that he understands what a copyright violation is and that he will not insert any more of them into our articles. MastCell ^Talk 03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There was essentially no discussion when all that was needed were quotes as now I know. I was simply issued with a very officious warning and 3 other Admins jumped in. The question of Binkersnet questioning my good faith I trust will be addressed. Let me be clear, I truly believe the SPLC commentary is significant, it is a VERY controversial statement made by a VERY significant organization. The material has now been removed for reasons that are also imo opinion entirely spurious.

Frankly I think the links I have presented concerning the discussion speak for themselves. I also find suggesting sanction for those who attempt to use a dispute resolution system troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSD, I warned you previously about the boomerang. You report at your own risk. Frankly, I find it absolutely outrageous that you find it inappropriate that editors would suggest you be sanctioned. Do you think that someone who reports other editors for improper behavior, especially an allegation as serious as bullying, should be immune from receiving any adverse consequences for their own inappropriate actions? I would now ask that you please provide diffs that support your claim that four editors have bullied you? If you are unable to provide such proof, then I concur with Drmies' recommendation that you be blocked. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Confidence in safety from unreasonable sanction when making a complaint to a justice system is one of the most fundamentals pillars there are. Sanction should only be used for the most egregious of incidences, else it becomes a tool of the totalitarian state, (forget who said that). Talk to those who lived in Cold War East Germany. CSDarrow (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry CSD, but this is Wikipedia noticeboard, not a court of law. We don't give immunity to anyone who feels like making an accusation against someone. Again, I clearly advised you about the boomerang effect after you continually were calling editors bullies and threatening to report them here. Do you think that falsely reporting a a crime is acceptable? Or legal? And let's be clear... leveling an allegation of bullying against four editors without any proof whatsoever is egregious. So show us the diffs that support your claim. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see why he chose not to provide that diff of the actual material. That is clear and unambiguous copy violation and I do not quite clear understand why he construed the reminders on his talkpage as bullying. this ANI report reminds me of boomeranging... DrPhen (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Obi, I appreciate your good-faith effort, but CSDarrow's edits were not positive and the aftermath is just a waste of time. Here we are again at ANI, with the MRM, and a conflict caused by too much zeal and too little know-how, coupled with a temper. The copyvio charge was not a matter for the article talk page, and why CSDarrow didn't just accept it is a mystery to me. I called for a block because of that disruption on a number of pages, accusations and all. For the record, I believe the IP likewise suffers from a high zeal content. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it very difficult to understand what CSDarrow is trying to accomplish. He seems to be getting increasingly irrational and confrontational. If I understand right, CSDarrow is sympathetic to the MRM and is frustrated at the approach to sourcing by the other editors of those articles (who emphatically are not). His perception is that sources are judged suitable or unsuitable according to whether or not they back a pre-determined political position. At the heart of the issue is that most of the sources come from feminist literature and it is true that stuff published in those kinds of journals must adhere to a particular ideology, so I can't say that CSDarrow is completely wrong; and I have no respect at all for that attitude- it is not conducive to honesty or academic integrity. However, the material CSDarrow is arguing about on Bbb23's talkpage is indisputably a copyvio, and it was not "bullying" anyone to remove it. He is putting himself in the wrong through this misbehaviour, and I urge CSDarrow to stop shrieking so much. Reyk _YO! 03:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I honestly don't think even CSDarrow himself knows what he was trying to communicate with that edit. He simply copied and pasted two sentences, verbatim, from the SPLC website and slapped them into the article. I showed the comparison of the sentences from the source vs. the article in this thread. Beyond the blatant copyright violation, the other major concern of course is CSD's use of material from the SPLC website as a reliable source. Although I'm not saying I disagree with SLPC's positions on matters, they are clearly anything but neutral. CSD was told that if a truly reliable, independent source - newspaper, magazine, etc - has encylopedic information about an SPLC position, then it could be added and sourced to them. But, as another editor told CSD, "posting an insulting quote from the SPLC, cited to the SPLC" is inappropriate.[84] In any case, I think the content issue is simply a huge distraction from the real issue at hand. We have an editor here making outrageously bogus claims of other editors bullying him, when the fact is that everyone has told him he is wrong and all he wants to do is argue with them and hurl baseless accusations. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The worth of the SPLC's word seems to vary depending on who wishes to use it, which is the deep deep root problem here. Lets not pussy foot about this. Any pejorative it cares to spew about the Men's rights Movement is the Word of God CSDarrow (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Slow down! I feel like the temperature on this is getting turned up way too high. CSDarrow, please, listen to me, as I am not an admin and didn't revert anything you did. All you have to do is apologize, and say "Ok guys, you got me, I shouldn't have copy-pasted". OTOH, everyone else, please take a chill pill, this is not the place to discuss sourcing of materials or MRM (but the IP may be interested to know that CSDarrow is absolutely right, SPLC and their blog posts are taken as highly reliable sources over at Men's rights movement.) Frankly, I think an aggressive copyvio tag (and then a bit of ganging-up) for a minor error which could have been easily corrected goes a bit too far. I would have settled it through a revert and a gentle note on the talk page explaining, rather than a direct attack on the editor who, it must be admitted, has demonstrated zeal for this material in the past (the admin in question may not be aware of the history of this material being added/removed/etc). So let's start by turning down the temperature, everyone, nothing dramatic or dangerous or terrible has happened here, mostly just a misunderstanding and hurt feelings. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think my violation of copyvio was more against the letter than the spirit of the rule. When I was aware I adjusted it, but now another reason has been found to exclude this material. CSDarrow (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Obi, it is not reliable in the context that the content was inserted. Further, the content is not even encylopedic. The fact of the matter is that the admin made a proper revert and issued a proper warning based on CSD's prior editing of the article and his recent two blocks. And the admin did so with absolutely no malice. I'm sorry, but when an editor goes around making an allegation as serious as bullying against another editor, let alone four editors, s/he better have the proof to back it up. If not, they should be blocked. Otherwise, editors could go around making baseless allegations with immunity any time they feel like making someone's life miserable. So unless CSD shows proof of the alleged bullying, or issues an apology, s/he should, as Drmies recommended, be blocked for a bit. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting into content discussions here - I was just making an aside. Yes, the revert was "proper", but then everyone got all fired up and there was a bit of a beating administered in various talk pages which was not helped by CSDarrow playing the victim. I suggest that everyone drop the pitchforks, come down out of the castle, relax, and have a beer. CSDarrow, you violated the law and the spirit, as you copy/pasted text. Yes, quote marks are small, but they matter. What Binksternet did afterwards, I wouldn't have done (e.g immediately revert) given the temperature, but whatever, *that* should be dealt with at the talk page, not here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155, Read me response to you further up. CSDarrow (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, I am still looking for your explanation of what you wanted to communicate to the reader by adding the text in question. Please provide the requested context. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely the wrong forum for this Binksternet. This should be for issues requiring admin intervention, not content discussions - temperature is way too high here right now for that. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that goes both ways. Obi, I'm clean out of good beer but there's some Pinot Grigio here if you don't mind having it with some ice cubes. If CSDArrow can swallow their pride and end this thread (basically, by dropping the "bullying" charges, I suppose) we can put this complaint to rest, as far as I'm concerned, and move on (on the talk page). For the record, I wasn't involved in the article talk page discussion and Binksternet's edits and comments, or CSDarrow's responses and comments there. But perhaps we can let bygones be bygones, for now, and start fighting over men's rights again tomorrow. Which reminds me that I'm being oppressed since my wife is out of town and now I have to feed the dog and sleep all by myself. It's just not fair. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been two hours since CSD started this report, yet we're still waiting him to provide the diffs that support his claim of being bullied. After all, that's why he came here. So, CSD, either provide the proof or apologize for your false allegation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would urge CSDarrow to drop this. Personally, I don't think he needs to apologize, as I read his talk page (IP, if you want diffs, thats where they are), and it did become rather aggressive rather quickly, with 3 separate people drubbing him within minutes, but he should say "Sorry, I shouldn't have copy/pasted", and "I will drop the charge of bullying", and then lets close this and get back to arguing about really fun stuff, like is SLPC a reliable source or not! Stay tuned!!! CSDarrow, I hope you realize that you aren't likely to get further satisfaction here, and the fact that you committed a straight-forward copy/paste does not help your case. Many people on many sides did things I would not have here, but lets let bygones be bygones, partake of some of Drmies delicious Pinot (let's ask him to chill it first, what a host!), and move on. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Any system of cooperation requires a set of rules, either codified or assumed. If that system is to have any degree of sophistication it requires points of discretionary power, that are policed by those whose judgment and good faith we trust. Ultimately it is the good faith of the system's members together with the rules and their arbiters that defines its success. Wikepedia falls short on a number of these points, and as a concept is beginning to fail. I think this exchange is a snap shot of why.

I find this all very saddening as Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, but shows that as a species we weren't designed to operate in groups of more than a few hundred. If Wikipedia is to succeed it needs to attract higher quality people with diverse sets of views, it has a long way to go. People getting their endorphin kicks, from playing the system; winning the argument at all costs; highlighting their personal views and biases; and droves of people hamstrung by confirmation bias isn't going to do it. Wikipedia is repeating the same story history as told us a thousand times not to.

What I have seen here today is a disgrace. Obi's comments do however give me hope. I have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Edit:- And no Obi the SPLC is not a reliable source on gender issues, with the same going for half the other crappy sources used. But Wikipedia will continue to consider them reliable until the issues I've outlined above are addressed.

CSDarrow (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I propose that someone close this--maybe they'll get a kick out of it, since I sure don't. There is no evidence that there was bullying and no consensus for any admin action (that's how my Pinot-infused mind reads this discussion), and I see no good coming out of any hypothetical and at this point certainly unnecessary boomerang pertaining to this particular thread. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Drmies. Our time has been wasted far more than necessary already. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations to Obi on the 7th anniversary of his first edit, June 10, 2006.[85] --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

IP editors trolling

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

---

Need to lock the page List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States -Abhishikt (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done by Soap (talk · contribs). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• In addition, protection related requests should be made at WP:RFPP. You can do it easily using WP:TWINKLE gadget. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 06:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Microsoft/Sony article lockdown might be needed

My son tells me Sony's PS-4 release has triggered a spate of trolling on Microsoft's and Sony's pages, and related pages like company officers here. He recommends Admins lock such pages for a few days, or restrict editing at least to logged on users. Apparently some juveniles are running amuck with what they think are funny changes. A higher state of scrutiny of such articles at least is suggested. // FrankB 04:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked Xbox, Xbox (console), Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 2, Sony Computer Entertainment, Jack Tretton, Microsoft Studios and a bunch of other pages. They are either semi-protected already or they don't have enough vandalism to justify semi-protection. That said, it might be good if users more familiar with the topic (the last console I owned was the PlayStation 2!) could have a poke around and report to WP:RFPP any pages they find that need protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blanking and swearing to others

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

---

User:Playstation101abc (talk) blanked the whole PlayStation 2 article, and replaced the content with vandalism. User:ClueBot NG reverted the edits, but this user undone the bot's reversion afterwards. The bot reported on the user's talk page about the reversion, but this user replied by swearing (using the f*** word) and rudeness (don't tell me what to do). After the second bot message, the user once again sweared. I propose this user and its IP address to be blocked to avoid any further vandalism and other violations. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree, this account does not appear to have edited since 3 June. Put it another way, if this report showed up at AIV I'd mark it stale. No objection to a VOA block, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Archived without resolution

Archived. As I can't edit more than 5000 characters, I continued here, which has also exceeded 5000 characters. But it may be also archived without admin decision. I request you to decide about claim of User:Rahuljain2307 over Chanakya that being Brahmin and reading Vedas does not necessarily mean being follower of Hinduism. His claim makes all sources and all existing knowledge about Hinduism irrelevent. neo (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Uninvolved non-admin: Just passing by, but if it hasnt already it might be more appropriate to have an RfC or DRN case. After which the user can then be banned for edit warring or something more specific if they continue their disruptive behaviour. -- Nbound (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately no admin has come forward to make any comment to resolve this dispute. this government website says Chanakya was brahmin. this academic website of Chanakya National Law University says that Chanakya studied Vedas. here Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is comparing Brahmin caste with Chanakya. this website of Outlook (magazine) refer Chanakya as Brahmin. as per this translation of Chanakya Niti Shastra wrote by Chanakya himself Chanakya was devotee of Vishnu. I reject extremely weird claim of reported user that being Brahmin, reading/preaching sacred religious Vedas does not mean being a Hindu. He may also claim that praying before Hindu deities does not mean being a Hindu. I reject it. As per sources I am going to make edit on Chanakya to state his religion as Hindu. If reported user resort to edit war I will come back again. neo (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That evidence alone should prevent a revert without reasons why those sources are wrong or another source stating religion or conversion. Your opening post was very unusual and difficult to read; but ANI is not really for content disputes. WP:DRN is a good spot for these, but the talk page should always be the first place to discuss things. If they don't discuss, then it is far more likely to get blocked when an editor just blindly edit wars without reason or evidence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yup ... ANI is not for content dispute resolution - especially when the original post was unclear to begin with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I failed to draft the edits in my bad Indian english. And since beginning I knew only ANI. Now I am learning. There is another dispute with reported user about moving articles to IAST spelling names without any consensus. I going through proper process to resolve dispute as you can see on Talk:Mahāvīra. First I sought 3O, now Rfc. Hope that dispute will be resolved. neo (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahuljain2307 has come up with another weird reason and has reverted my edit on Chanakya. This baffles me and if admins do not guide me, I am in total paralysis on wikipedia. neo (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, take it to WP:DRN ... stop hitting your head against the wrong wall :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't check Talk:Chanakya. He reverted my edit only because my refs are not in proper format. Should this be reason to revert edit? Can this be reason to go to DRN? He is coming up with weird arguments and you are considering it content dispute. neo (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That user is moving pages without consensus, blanking and redirecting sourced articles like this without even edit summary. It will take very long time in DRN to restore articles. Why ANI exist? OK, Bye. neo (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Carrrr

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

---

I'm not really sure what to do with this. All of this user's edits over the past few months have been to amass some sort of index on his user page. I bounced it back there a couple of months ago after he tried to turn it into a WP project page, but that's all they've been working on since then. It's pretty evident that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but I have no idea what would be an appropriate course of action here. Thanks, Deadbeef 05:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see two alternatives:

* take the page to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, or

* ignore it.

(No prizes for guessing which path I support.) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carrrr. Peacock (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

174.118.142.187 revealing personal information

Note to admins: This report is made here rather than the usual route for such complaints because the information revealed is stale and faulty so immediate remedial action to remove the information is not required. Nevertheless, the attempt is being made and I believe that the offending page should be deleted along with the edit histories.

User:174.118.142.187 is attempting to make public personal information (contrary to WP:OUTING). This is revealed at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2. Though this is his private sandbox, it is still accessible to any Wikipedia user who cares to look at it (I stumbled across it by chance, though it has been there for a week or two). I am not the only user being targetted by these outing attempts. He is attempting to reveal my IP address which was unexpectedly revealed when the Wikipedia site developed a strange fault where although I was logged in, it was recording the IP address in the edit summaries and when '~~~~' is placed at the end of a talk page post. Although he revealed the IP address that that particular post was made under, the address is stale because my ISP uses dynamic IP address allocation. He is also attempting to reveal my geographic location by geolocating IP addresses used by another user (or users) who edit using a dynamic IP address from the same ISP. The attempt is faulty because 174.118.142.187 does not appear to understand the information that the IP address geolocate tools are telling him. A fuller discussion of how the attempts are faulty can be found at User talk:174.118.142.187#ANI notice.

This appears to be part of a misguided attempt to raise an allegation of sockpuppetry (something that he actually has done in his 'analysis'). He clearly does not understand the concept, because a revelation of an IP address does not in itself constitute sockpuppetry. Further, he cites a case where I agreed with the anon user mentioned above, but he is clearly selecting his evidence, because he has ignored the many occassions where disagreement has taken place. I should not need to point out that just because users tend to frequent similar articles, it is no evidence of sockpuppetry because there are groups of users who tend to share common interests (and 174.118.142.187 shares them also). I B Wright (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He has not pulished any information not publicly available on-wiki. He's made an inference about a pattern of editing similarities between several named accounts and IPs, but anyone could have done that, and no one has to believe it. This is exactly what happens hundreds of times a month at SPI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My geographic location and IP address currently in use is not publicly available either on the internet or Wikipedia. The WP:OUTING policy states that ,"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment ... whether any such information is accurate or not". I B Wright (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the IP's allegations be accurate, they're not outing. Outing requires either that you know the private information in question from an offwiki source or that you pretend to know it; something drawn from editing patterns is not outing. I note DieSwartzPunkt's concerns, but I don't comment on those. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth the admins noting that this anonymous user has a history of making trivial ANI complaints against other users who do not fully support his view on article content (presumably with the goal of getting them blocked so that they can no longer provide opposition). No complaint has yet ben upheld, but there is such a discussion going on at Talk:AC/DC (electricity)#Requested move. This work at User talk:174.118.142.187/Sandbox2 is most likely a forerunner to another such trivial complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am a random passerby - so please take my comments as something from a student trying to understand ANI --> Any WHOIS would give a geo-locate... The Geo locate are for the IP's the sandbox page shows so i dont agree that it would be a personal information of any one unless I B Wright or DieSwartzPunkt is saying that all these IP's are his? Amit (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm largely in tune with the above answers. It's widely acceptable that using geolocation, WHOIS and other technical tools to gather information IPs does not violate the outing policy (even if those tools are technically external). So the geolocation etc info, accurate or not, is not outing. So the only question here is the IP. It's accepted that if you accidentally reveal your IP you can ask for the edits to be oversighted (WP:OVERSIGHT), but this case is so long ago that I don't think your edit is likely to be oversighted. Furthermore, while the original reveal may have been accidental, it seems clear you became aware of what was happening at the time and didn't seem to mind, in fact the linkage to your account seems to have been a direct and voluntary action. While I appreciate you were trying to resolve a technical issue and may not have fully understood the implications of revealing your IP, as far as I'm aware, we don't generally allow people to later completely hide info they intentionally publicly revealed on wikipedia. This sort of thing would and has created controversies since someone may voluntarily disclose their name on wikipedia, appear fine with people knowing it, and then later when questions are raised may suddenly want it hidden. While these people may not have appreciated the risks of revealing their real name at the time, it could also be that they're trying to avoid legitimate scrutiny or want people to associate their name with the good, but not the bad. Note that this doesn't mean that anything the IP says about you or your IP is acceptable, nor that they can bring it up in every discussion. The same as with real names and whatever else, WP:NPA and other policies still apply. And you're fully entitled to ask people not to bring it up except when germane to the discussion (such as WP:SPI cases. And similarly the IP should make an SPI case or similar from the evidence they are collecting, if they can't do so in a reasonable time frame the page should likely either be deleted or at least blanked. In other words, all I'm really saying here is whatever problems may or may not exist with the page you linked to, OUTING does not appear to be one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive genre editing from Billybobhanson

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours

Hi all, Billybobhanson (talk · contribs) is continuously adding false/unnecessary to articles even when being told many times to stop (e.g. here and here). Could an admin please block him or whatever. Thanks. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right spot? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edits this might be a case of newbie confusion. Might have been better to explain that genres are agreed upon and changes should be agreed upon by consensus. Certainly doesn't seem like outright vandalism to me. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is the reason why I didn't take this to AIV. Definitely not blatant vandalism. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's some obvious vandalism: [86], which prompted my warning after Cluebot NG reverted. -- Scray (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours. We'll know if he edits afterwards more about what's going on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Robin z Sheraton

It is a sock puppet of User:Stepa (blocked indefinite on pl-wiki for vulgarity). See contribution of Robin on en-wiki: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robin_z_Sheraton (three admins from pl-wiki were attacked). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Parallel and the Energy Catalyzer article.

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

---

This new contributor, one of a long line of single-purpose accounts concerning the controversial Energy Catalyzer article, has in spite of multiple warnings persisted in using the article talk page as a soapbox, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Relevent policies concerning article content - WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS etc, as well as the WP:FRINGE guideline have repeatedly been pointed out, to no avail. When, after repeated soapboxing, Parallel was asked to confine comments on the talk page to proposals regarding article content, he chose to first copy-paste verbatim a large section from 'Engineering News' a minor South African website, [87] suggesting this as a replacement for already-agreed sourced content. After the obvious problem regarding copyright was pointed out, Parallel went on to inform us that he had "emailed for copyright permission" [88]. Informed that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by contributors, not copy-pasted from elsewhere, Parallel then made this proposal for article content:

The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source[1][2] built by inventor Andrea Rossi[3][4] with support from physicist Sergio Focardi.[5][6] An Italian patent, which received a formal but not a technical examination, describes the apparatus as a "process and equipment to obtain exothermal reactions, in particular from nickel and hydrogen".[7][8]

There are a dozen theories of how it works, but none is widely accepted. NASA is following the theory of Widom-Larsen. (ref http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory) The US Patent Office has rejected all patents on LENR since 1989, following failed attempts to replicate Fleischmann and Pons “cold fusion” paper, although this has since been replicated, so Rossi cannot reveal proprietary details.

Rossi has publicly demonstrated several different versions of the E-Cat since January 2011, culminating in the demonstration of a plant rated at 1 MW made from 106 E-Cats, that produced 436 kW of heat in October 2011. 1 MW plants are now offered for sale through Leonardo Corporation 1331 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida-33139 USA.

Independent tests, funded by Elforsk, were carried out on the E-Cat HT, a high temperature version, by seven scientists: Giuseppe Levi, of Bologna University; Evelyn Foschi, of Bologna; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér, of Upssala University, in Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology. Their 29-page report, titled ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 The test in December ran 96 hours, the test in March 116 hours. The scientists say the results indicated anomalous heat production at least an order of magnitude more than any known chemical reaction, but their paper has not yet been peer reviewed. A summary has been posted on Elforsk’s web site. They are funded to continue with a six month test starting this Summer. (sources cited by Parallel: [89][90][91], diff [92])

Given that large chunks of this are entirely unsourced (unsurprisingly, given the claims regarding LENR/cold fusion, which is currently fringe science at best), and given the blatant disregard for NPOV, I think that the description given by TenOfAllTrades - "advertorial" - [93] is entirely apt. That Parallel should think it appropriate to include the address of the supposed supplier of this as-yet-unverified device in an article is almost beyond belief.

Sadly, Parallel seems either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, or unwilling to abide by them, and is continuing to fill the article talk page with unsourced assertions about 'facts' and about the supposed 'bias' of contributors unwilling to swallow the E-Cat promoter's claims whole. Not only are we faced with endless assertions regarding a 'truth' that mainstream science has entirely failed to confirm, but we are now confronted with yet another 'truth' - that this device is apparently available to purchase! "How can the E-Cat be fringe science and nonexistent when you can buy a 1 MW plant?" [94] Needless to say, this ridiculous claim that the E-Cat is available for purchase is unverified by any remotely-credible source.

As I have shown, and as further scrutiny of Parallel's edit history [95] will confirm, this contributor seems entirely unable to work construtively within Wikipeda policy concerning the E-Cat article, and has done nothing but disrupt discussions and waste other people's time. I am of the opinion that a topic ban may be the only solution - at least until Parallel can demonstrate competence by contributing usefully in unrelated topic areas. It is to be expected that newcomers should be given a little slack, and should be given time to learn how Wikipedia works - but there have to be limits, and I think that such limits have been exceeded already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. How and why is this pseudoscience scammy bullshit still included in Wikipedia? The article in question hasn't been peer reviewed because there is nothing to peer review! The so-called 'scientists' who 'examined' this device were prohibited from examining, get this, the power source going into the device. Everything about this LENR scam is total bullshit. If it were true, the 'scientist' in charge would have been getting everyone to peer review it as often as possible. It is the kind of scientific breakthrough that eclipses Einstein. Or it would be if it were true. My solution: ban, on sight, anyone promoting this scam. It is no different than "I lost weight using this one weird trick..." — The Potato Hose 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Occasionally new things are discovered. A Chief Scientist of NASA says the evidence for LENR is now overwhelming. Possibly you know more that Dr. Bushnell? Parallel (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I started by attempting to correct a single mistake in the article, that there had not been any independent test, that was immediately deleted. As such a test has been well documented, it was later corrected by another editor.

The comments posted by AndyTheGrump above do not give the flavor, that can only be determined by reading the discussion page. I have restricted myself to facts that could be referenced, not opinion, and sought through discussion to come up with something acceptable. I opened a dispute page but the editors involved declined to participate. Hence, I floated two trial balloons in the talk page. One a direct quote from Engineering News and one that I wrote myself. I referenced the important things but not everything at that stage because I was certain much would be deleted. However I am quite prepared to reference anything I write. I gave the Leonardo Corp address because that is indeed where one can order a 1 MW plant. It is not mythical. It has safety certification. The address would not appear in the introduction to the Wiki article.

There are a number of factual errors in the article and originally half of it was a very negative comment from a blog as source. This has since been moved down the page. This was replaced by a cherry picked piece from a dated Popular Science article that resulted in a misleading conclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but the whole piece is biased in a strongly negative way. There are no offsetting positive comments from equally reliable sources such as NASA and a Nobel Laureate.

AndyTheGrump started by stating I was clueless, presumably because I disagree with his opinion, and has consistently refused to discuss the subject, so it is difficult to correct the erroneous facts or reduce the strong negative bias, including defamation of Rossi's character. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is of course yet a further example of the tendentious soapboxing that Parallel has engaged in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A typical ad hominem response. Parallel (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting your behaviour and your inability to comply with Wikipedia policies here. Pointing out that you have repeated the same pattern of behaviour is not an "ad hominem response". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Further evidence of Parallel's problematic behaviour. First, he posts on my talk page, accusing me of posting something that was in fact posted by admin Edison - a warning regarding what Edison read as harassment and a possible threat to out someone. [96], and then, After I'd expressedly asked him not to post on my talk page, Parallel does that, to ask me "what did you do before retiring?" [97] Frankly, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if a block per WP:COMPETENCE is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But you NEVER responded to the message. The very definition of ad hominem Parallel (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Parallel: you're wrong. Is that now an ad hominem? You're simply digging yourself deeper here by your gratuitous lack of understanding of whatever the heck you're talking about (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if we are being trolled... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Parallel has made only a single edit to the Energy Catalyzer article. It was a modest edit, basically replacing a {{cn}} with what they seem to have thought was a valid reference. I think Parallel was entitled to want to have the appropriateness of that reference discussed. I noticed that Parallel tried to initiate a discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72#Energy Catalyzer. I think they made some valid points there. Parallel's challengers did not choose to reply there.

  I think if Parallel actually has lapsed from some policies, but there is no reason to assume this is a sockpuppet ID , then all those lapses would be forgiveable newbie mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Flagrant and repeated POV pushing is a “forgivable newbie mistake”?

  Threatening people is a “forgivable newbie mistake”?

  Using the expression ad hominem when he obviously has no idea what it means is a “forgivable newbie mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. There is a difference between knowingly inserting bias into article space, and engaging in a talk page discussion where one defends the credibility of one's references. Parallel's sole edit to the article was to replace a {{cn}} with a reference that I accept they thought was a valid reliable source. I don't agree this is POV-pushing. Some challengers have warned him or her of WP:NOTFORUM -- but meanwhile other challengers are telling Parallel why they disagree with them. If all his challengers agree he should quit trying to defend his position, as per WP:NOTFORUM, may I suggest they should stop voicing their disagreement, so they stopped presenting temptations to which Parallel feels a need to respond? How is a newbie going to know whether to pay attention to the WP:NOTFORUM warning, or to the continued counter-arguments that invite more counter-counter-arguments?
  2. None of us are supposed to threaten other contributors. But Parallel responded to the suggestion he or she uttered a threat here, writing, in part: "Hard to believe that you are so biased you didn't recognize that was a rhetorical question to "unsigned" (how the hell would I identify him anyway) who accused Rossi of being a criminal. I therefore asked him how he would like it."

     I accept, at face value, that their comment was a rhetorical question, not a lapse from WP:THREAT.

  3. Yes, Parallel used the term ad hominem without properly understanding it, and continued to misuse the term, without understanding attempts to explain how they were using it incorrectly. Misunderstanding the term ad hominem is pretty common, and forgiveable. I knew one contributor who made over 20,000 edits over the course of their 28 months of participation, and misused the term ad hominem for that entire time. Geo Swan (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Your argument seems to be that the other editors (the ones whose intelligence Parallel insulted) need to let him get the last word. You are attempting to blame the victims for fighting back rather than blaming Parallel for starting trouble. Your argument flies in the face of logic, reason, common sense, and natural law. It is not the victim’s responsibility to submit to bulling it is the aggressor’s (Parallel’s) responsibility to back off. I find your argument insulting.

2. If Parallel had said “How would you like to be tracked down and beaten mercilessly” it would be an obvious threat of violence and not a “rhetorical question”. Just because he threatened to commit libel instead of violence does not change the fact that he made a threat.

3. The fact that he doesn’t understand what ad hominem means is a testament to Parallel’s incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. With regard to insulting people's intelligence -- "two wrongs don't make a right". Parallel should not respond in kind if they feel they are attacked. Other contributors should not respond in kind if they think Parallel attacked them. Neither Parallel or other contributors should insult anyone else simply because they disagree with them. If Parallel is a newbie, then the more experienced contributors should be setting an example of civility. And I am sorry to say I think several of the more experienced contributors fell far short of that.
2. 68.74, isn't the very first edit you made this one, where you wrote: "... his followers were allowed to have used Wikipedia as a propaganda machine to further Rossi’s criminal endeavors." Are you disputing that you, 68.74, asserted Rossi was responsible for "criminal endeavors"? Didn't you strongly imply Parallel was the follower of a criminal? Was the question you are trying to claim was a threat was "How would yo like to be made out to be a criminal, by name, on WIkipedia?" Since you had just referred to Rossi's "criminal endeavors" I think Parallel was appealing to you to put yourself in Dr. Rossi's shoes -- not making a threat. I think it is pretty clear Parallel is not just a wikipedia newbie, but is also not a world class hacker. Maybe a world class hacker could trace you, just from your IP, without having checkuser permission. I couldn't do it, wouldn't know where to start, even though I have been using computers for decades. I don't believe for a minute that either of us thinks Parallel could do so.
3. WRT misunderstanding the term "ad hominem" -- this is no big deal, and not a cause for sanctions.
4. 68.74, are the comments from Special:Contributions/68.50.128.91 above, also from you? Geo Swan (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind here is this article – Energy Catalyzer – is covered by discretionary sanctions, falling well within the subject area of cold fusion. One of the principle reasons for discretionary sanctions being imposed in this area was the presence of single-topic editors with somewhat...idiosyncratic...views on what might constitute reliable sources, neutral point of view, (un)due weight, or appropriate content for an encyclopedia article, and who wouldn't take 'no' for an answer on article talk pages. These editors adopted a tendentious approach, stonewalling and filibustering on talk pages and gradually driving off editors who advocated for neutral treatment of these topics (in line with the strictures of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE). The discretionary sanctions regime was a necessary tool to curtail otherwise interminable argument on article talk pages from a small subset of individuals who could not or would not accept or understand basic, fundamental Wikipedia content policies.

When an editor proposes that the third paragraph of an article's lede should include a mailing address to place product orders, one has to question whether or not they fully grasp the purpose or role of an encyclopedia. (We'll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that the address appears to be for an apartment building in a residential district.) This is the sort of information that doesn't appear at the top of enyclopedia articles – in Wikipedia, in Britannica, or elsewhere – even for products that verifiably exist, and that actually work.

It strikes me as reasonable that (at a minimum) Parallel should receive a formal caution under the discretionary sanctions rules that his conduct is out of bounds. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as someone familiar and interested in the technology of cold fusion; I'm surprised that our coverage in this section is actually out of date; but scientifically instances have been observed, but never as a source of power and never sustained. While the actual fringe overwhelms the actual cases; but bubble fusion and other technologies continue to be covered. Here's a recent news item.[98] I have no idea how to fix this sort of mess, but it seems that fringe editors seem to be winning over real science, or at least for right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would be the same "bubble fusion" whose chief proponent was punished for misconduct, and which has not been mentioned in respected scientific journals since except perhaps as a "fiasco"? I'm not sure how invoking that addresses the incident that has been raised, except perhaps to confirm this is an area as a whole where the WP:FRINGE guidance is particularly useful. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a general problem with fringe topics, but this isn't a general discussion. Regardless of the state of other articles, I am reporting a specific problem, with a specific contributor. I'd like to know whether something is going to be done about this particular issue. Are we going to continue to maintain the article according to policy and guidelines, or are we going to hand it over to the promoters of the device? This is the choice here - because unless it is made absolutely clear here that WP:FRINGE will be maintained in the article, and that the talk page isn't a platform for promotion of Rossi's 'products' or a place to argue that policy should be ignored, it may reach the point where those of us with any interest in maintaining standards will just walk away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan,

1. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is classic bully-talk. It is the pathetic whining of a cowardly bully who violates the rights of others, yet expects others to respect his rights. In the real world there exists the concept of justice whereby people who do evil get punished. If you don’t like that fact then you are obviously an evil doer.

2. If you aren’t even going to bother to read what I actually wrote and address it in the context in which it was said then there’s no point in discussion.

3. It is very much relevant if Parallel’s competence is in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As if further proof were needed, Parallel has now apparently decided that the article talk page is an appropriate place for the placement of free advertising. [99]. Needless to say, I have deleted this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia facilities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

While that might be a WP:FORUM violation, I would say it is not an attempt at advertising as you have insinuated. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't 'insinuating' anything. I stated as a fact that it was advertising, and I see no reason to change my mind. Given that www.e-catworld.com exists solely to promote the E-Cat, and cannot possibly be a reliable source for anything, I can see no reason why anyone with the remotest understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia talk pages should make such a post. Note that Parallel has already suggested we include the full address of the supposed supplier of this alleged device in the article. He is a WP:SPA who's sole aim on Wikipedia is to convince as many people that this implausible device is real, and he seems intent on continuing, with utter disregard for policy. He needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We waste untoward time policing this article, and Parallel is the next in a long line of time wasters. Rossi's device has never been put through a rigorous test, and signs are that it won't be. Perhaps Parallel just doesn't understand the science, but in any case his long-winded badgering is leading nowhere positive. Topic ban him now and save everyone a great deal of grief. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Parallel is just repeating all the spin thrown by Rossi to cover his tracks. Now he is claiming that Rossi went to jail because Berlusconi wanted to trip. As opposed to, you know, because he totally lied abut his company and dumped lots of contaminating chemical products. He is either delusional or a Rossi's shill. Please topic ban him under discretionary sanctions, for filling the talk page with fruitless POV-pushing. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is ample evidence here that Parallel (talk · contribs) is editing tendentiously, abusing Wikipedia as a venue for advertising and promotion, and so forth. Accordingly, I'm going to topic-ban this editor from all pages and content related to cold fusion and low-energy nuclear reactions, broadly construed and definitely including Energy Catalyzer. Wikipedia has seen a succession of these sorts of accounts in this topic area, and it makes sense to streamline their handling. I would emphasize that if Parallel (talk · contribs) has any interest in Wikipedia beyond using it as a platform to promote the Energy Catalyzer, s/he is welcome to edit in other topic areas. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Oh boy, have I made a cock up.

First things first: bot edits aren't coming through to my inbox. I depend on my eMail to tell me which of "my" pages have been edited for tags, typos or whatever. I have set my account so that it eMails everything.

But why I'm here; thanks to my sockpuppetry several years ago, I've registered my eMail address for it, so I cannot report the above! I don't know which account I used! Any chance of either disclosing the account registered to it (I'm pretty sure admins can see my eMail address, if not I'll make an edit divulging it and then it can be reverted and oversighted) or changing the address of it to something else or - and I have no idea why I am asking this because it can't be done here - just deleting it.--Launchballer 12:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators don't have access to private data such as your email address. However, you can treat this as if it was a case of having lost your user name. Go to Special:PasswordReset and enter the email address. A list of user names associated with that account together with temporary passwords for each will be emailed to the address. Hope this helps, --RA (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to log in on BugZilla, except in the process I've reset the passwords for every account I've ever had. Is it possible to revert this change?--Launchballer 14:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Just how many of these are still active? --RA (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Huge copy right violation in Iranian presidential election, 2013

Please take a rapid look at the history of this article. The article is mostly based on copy pasting text from some news websites. I started removing copyvio contents but the user (User:Tabarez) who added these materials reverted my edits.Farhikht (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you see my last comment at the page's talk, you said I also said before you that it's not good but I add in request of one user. Also I think editing is better than removing. And next this is your edit. What you doing? It's good? Tabarez (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for now. This user shows a very clear misunderstanding of our copyright policy which is so wrong I thought it best to block until they show understanding of it, especially given that it looked like an edit war may be about to break out. Dpmuk (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Block/unblock review request for Nathan Johnson

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

---

Long-time editor Nathan Johnson is currently blocked for one week for a highly uncivil remark constituting a direct personal attack. The edit for which he was blocked was highly inappropriate, and I make no attempt to defend it.

Nathan Johnson states that he was about to revert the comment and apologize for it at the time he was blocked. He has stated he will do his best not to repeat this sort of behavior. He has also described, on his talkpage, some extremely upsetting personal circumstances that, while not wiki-related, I think are relevant to the editor's level of stress at the time he made his inappropriate edit. I refer those interested to Nathan Johnson's talkpage for these comments, which I would prefer not be explicitly discussed here.

An unblock request has been made and declined. The blocking administrator has declined to unblock but has stated he would not object if another admin unblocks. One uninvolved administrator has stated she favors unblocking. I too favor reducing the block to "time served" at this stage and unblocking, with a reminder that of course this behavior must not be repeated. Because there is no open unblock request template currently posted, it is unlikely that more admins will come across the user's talkpage anytime soon, so I am bringing the case here for review.

I ask that this discussion focus on the merits of this particular unblock request and not turn into a wideranging discussion of the no personal attacks policy, the role of civility blocks and unblocks, and the like. (Editors interested in discussing the role of civility and proper responses to isolated instances of incivility are invited to read and comment on In re Snyder, a mainspace article I wrote today.) Thank you for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• This seems pretty cut and dried. If Wikipedia is still clinging to the idea that blocks are only preventative and not punitive (is it?), the user should be unblocked, given their crystal clear promise not to do this again. — The Potato Hose 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I am not in favor of someone being blocked for one such remark, especially if they realize quickly enough they shouldn't have made it. Unblocked for time served. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• It was his third block for personal attacks, so describing it as "one such remark" is a little misleading.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kevin, that was three years ago, as noted in the discussion on the talk page. If you blocked him in part for a remark made three years ago, then... Well, one week for one remark of the "fuck you" variety is a bit much anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you to Brad for bringing this here, and to Drmies for unblocking. I definitely support the unblock for all the reasons stated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support the unblock too - well done, NYB and Drmies -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User Amosangzk and article List of open-source software for mathematics

User Amosangzk (talk, contribs) has been building a page List of open-source software for mathematics,

I suspect it is a vanity project. The first part of the article is the author's essay in favor of open source software and does not even pretend to conform to Wikipedia style or standards. The rest of the article---the titular list---is redundant with existing Wikipedia articles.

However my particular brief against Amosangzk consists of:

• Clean-up templates were placed by various bots at the top of the article. Amosangzk's response has been to simply delete them all unaddressed, as in this example.
• Amosangzk also did not address or respond to my talk page suggestions. I posted a pointer on the user's talk page also.
• When I finally put a PROD delete template on the top of the article---along with a note on the user's talk page---Amosangzk simply deleted that also.

There has been no engagement by Amosangzk with other editors, and no addressing of the article's issues.

It is a little disappointing. It would be a plus if a new editor with such obvious motivation and talent would channel that energy into constructive Wikipedia editing.

But I think some sanction is warranted. M.boli (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's be helpful to try editing the article into compliance. Let's try that first.--v/r - TP 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is my usual inclination also. But I think this page may have been serving as an essay for a college class, as an article it is hopeless. Partly it is the author's own opinion piece that doesn't belong in an article with this title. The rest (the list) doesn't fit in to how this information is organized within Wikipedia. Each software package on the list is lovingly described with a few paragraphs and a screen shot. Yet each already has its own individual Wikipedia page, which is where those efforts should be placed. After deleting the opinion section and putting the screenshots into the individual pages, there really isn't anything left but a list of links. M.boli (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having a list of a subject which contains elements that have broader coverage in their own articles.--v/r - TP 15:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Righto. If you think the article can be thusly fixed up, I certainly won't disagree. M.boli (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm tweaking the format. When I'm done, I'll look for sources to satisfy WP:LISTN. If you want to AfD it after that, no problem by me.--v/r - TP 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You are fast. Also you have a much better sense than I have about using Wikipedia's elements for graphic design. And no, I wouldn't AfD it. I got involved because the article title grabbed me as potentially useful. M.boli (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The article looks good but I've added a Refimprove template since it currently shows only 1 reference. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I found three sources for the article, cleaned up the advertising tone, cut out the essay material, and reorganized the data into tables. I think I'm just about finished.--v/r - TP 18:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Smolov Squat Routine edit war of sorts

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

---

There is a low-level protracted edit war of sorts between myself and IPs (probably the same user) at Smolov Squat Routine. Every few days s/he comes back to revert the edits. I deleted the material repeatedly as I see it as too much technical detail as WP is not a manual. I do not want to use the tools on low-level issues on articles like this and much prefer to seek independent opinion on how to deal with this, assuming I am correct in the content removal decision. Can anyone take a look and advise? -- Alexf^(talk) 18:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this sounds trivial, but have you attempted to engage him in discussion? I can't see one on the talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the Smolov page back to include the percentages. I am not the one who edited the page before. I feel that the sets, reps, and intensity shown are necessary to define the program. The linked sites seem to be broken or contain different numbers so it would be nice to have the "official" percentages, sets, and reps posted here. I do not think it has enough detail on how to do the program to be considered a manual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.93.125 (talk • contribs)

• Content discussion requiring no intervention (though an explanation on the talk page would be helpful). FWIW, I agree with Alexf on the issue and have reverted. I'll take the IP at their word. Best way to prevent this, besides protection, is to improve the article. Alex, mind leaving a note? Move to close, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:Hello71/Archive 1#"Less than neutral" link?

Can't see the contribs, and being a (semi-)active vandal-fighter, I have no clue what this editor is referring to. Could someone sort this out? ⁓ Hello71 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Found it by checking contributions by the IP whose address is included in the message — the diff is here. All of the user's contributions are to Fred Eiseman and John Burroughs School, and the IP reverted all of them. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:65.123.151.60 blanking page at supposed request of page subject

User:65.123.151.60 is repeatedly blanking Jessica Yee. After I warned him, he stated "This is not disruptive editing. It is at the request of Jessica herself who has advised there is false information here and personal details that are causing her harassment and potential assault. Please keep this page to a minimum"1 . I am wondering what action should be taken here. Beerest355 Talk 00:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the IP was removing unsourced information, that'd be fine. However, the IP's removing sourced information, has a conflict of interest in doing so, and is edit warring. A small block should catch their attention and let them know that's not how things are done around here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I shot an email to the powers that be due to a recent message that is disappointing whether or not I AGF (moreso if I do AGF). I've emailed emergency about it (better safe than sorry), and until I get more evidence that this IP is a troll, I'm waiting a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz

AfricaTanz seems to be unable to engage in any constructive and respectful way with other users. I've been the subject of one of his frivolous 'edit warring' reports, along with another user on the same day, as he creates edit warring reports very liberally (diff, diff). In neither case were provisions taken against the users he reported, and in one case he ended up being himself warned. He later described the result as "a useful exercise", which seems to suggest that ending the imaginary edit war was not the objective for him.

Other users were treated in a similar manner: he refuses to engage in (seemingly benign) discussions, threatens with ANI reports (which adds to the impression that he uses it as a weapon, rather than to solve disputes), alters messages on other people's talk pages, and makes accusations of uncivil behaviour as well as unsubstantiated accusations of edit warring.

A dispute resolution has been opened on the matter that lead to his original accusations of edit warring towards me, but I feel that his conduct is by far the bigger issue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Long term, persistent personal attacks, uncivil behavior and battleground mentality by User:Baboon43

User:Baboon43 has consistently displayed uncivil behavior with other editors. This is the second run-in I've had with him and he appears to be trying to instigate some sort of an argument - almost by his own admission. For the sake of brevity, I will not include much about his various edit warring and personal attacks on Talk:Al-Ahbash and other pages, or the various conspiracy theories he tries to promote on various articles. Regardless, this will be long and I am sorry for that - but this is ongoing and there's no way to even partially grasp what editing with Baboon43 is like without quite a bit of detail (and this is still only a small glimpse).

If you don't want to read all the long subcategories

Baboon43 has a long history of combative behavior on talk pages, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and has engaged in clear personal attacks on numerous occasions. He deserves a clear warning from the community.

Past infractions - multiple accounts, edit warring

While it isn't directly relevant to Baboon's harassment of me specifically, it is relevant to note his history of infractions. He was blocked for the first time for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts in March 2012. Then in April that same year, Baboon43 reported two other editors at the noticeboard here and here; the result was that it boomeranged back onto him and HE was blocked, along with one of the editors he reported. Finally, Baboon43 attempted to once again report another user on the 3RR noticeboard here this March (just three months ago) which resulted in another boomerang with a final warning for Baboon43 and the others involved. The point of this isn't to throw mud on the wall; it's to demonstrate that the user does have a history of combative behavior with others, so this isn't out of the ordinary.

Prejudice/bigoted remarks

Back in February, Baboon43 opposed inclusion of Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding as a source in Wahhabi movement because a Saudi prince donated to it. According to Baboon43, the prince is a wahhabi merely because, as it appears, he's Saudi. When I expressed my shock at such comments, Baboon43 accused me of being either a Wahhabi or misinformed.

During the course of our most recent exchange, Baboon43 attempted to claim Wahhabism (a Saudi Arabian movement) and Deobandism (an Indian movement) are one and the same, using the actual expression "they are guilty by association." While he obviously isn't trying to be intentionally inflammatory, the comments are quite prejudiced as Baboon43 has expressed many times his belief that all Wahhabi people are inherently violent, which in and of itself is pretty bad. Now he's saying that these two movements are one and the same based on guilt by association. I don't think much elaboration is needed here; it isn't block-worthy by any means, but it does deserve a reprimand from the community and it also demonstrates the difficulties many editors face when working alongside Baboon43. Please read on, though.

Aggressive/rude edit summaries

When I edited an article to better reflect what was in the given source back in January, Baboon43 reacted by reverting my edit without explanation and against the source and accusing me of hounding him. When I explained to him on his talk page that such language is unacceptable as is edit warring against what's available in the given source, he erased my comment saying "take your own advice." It's his right to erase what he wants on his talk page but the comment shows that Baboon43 was absolutely unwilling to work things out.

Uncivil tone when discussing editing disputes

Starting again in January, Baboon43 attempted to use what we later realized was a Wikipedia fork to prove a point (which was ultimately found to be contrary to the actual reliable sources). That's alright, but in the course of discussion his responses began including battle ground-type remarks such as "your whole argument has been debunked...regardless of what you think" and accusing me of belonging to some relgious reform movement in India because I disagreed with him that the movement (Deobandi) are all "wahhabis" as he describes them.

Seeming to try and provoke others

Most recently, Baboon43 appears to be trying to provoke me into some sort of a flame war on Talk:Barelvi. After making some edits, explaining my rationale preemptively and requesting community feedback, he expressed a difference of opinion in a polite manner; I was delighted, actually. As the discussion progressed, Baboon43 made the aforementioned bigoted comment regarding two religious movements and I expressed my confusion; aside from being a bad thing to say, he didn't seem to be making any suggestions about editing the article and I reminded him that talk pages aren't for chatting. With no escalation, he attacked me personally, accusing me of false rambling and POV pushing without stating why. This upset me because he's harassed me and others like this before, so I told him point blank: if he doesn't either support his accusations or take them back, I would go to ANI. His reaction was to simply accuse me of POV pushing again without proof and that I should "halt the ignorance." I then surmised that a user banned with sockpuppetry who was close with Baboon43 but is now topic banned from commenting on the article's talk space may have asked him to "monitor" my edits; paranoid, but I believe the admin and other users involved can testify that my paranoia is at least partially justified. Baboon43 then accused me of spreading misinformation in a seemingly pointless comment as it didn't relate to article content, at which point I very directly asked him for diffs to prove my misinformation and POV pushing before we come to ANI. Once again, he just accused me of POV pushing without any actual evidence and hence I am here at ANI.

Proposed solution: final warning for personal attacks

As mentioned above, Baboon43 is already on a final warning because of edit warring and 3RR violations. I propose that he also receive a final warning for personal attacks, as this behavior has repeated itself. I also think that the final warning should be placed on his talk page. He's obviously free to archive or remove it, but it will still be in the talk page history. I also invite others who have dealt with this before to chime in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as the one making the suggestion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support but after such final warnings, something other than warnings ought to be done. Faizan 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This sounds like an attemtped RFC/U on ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. You're trying to have a big discussion here, which is appropriate for a request for comment, but it doesn't work well here. Anyone can give a final warning, but ANI is meant for requesting solid action, whether imposing blocks or informal bans or other sanctions. Please add a request for a specific action (beyond this warning) that can be taken, or please take this to a user request for comment if you'd like discussion to continue. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Well, a block may be warranted, I'm not sure without reviewing the diffs MM has provided...but Baboon43 just came to my talk page to request a block of MM (whom I previously warned as part of a group warning about NPAs). Baboon43's concern was that MM had called his statement bigoted...but if you look at the relevant section, Talk:Barelvi#Fatwa_against_Terrorism_-_deleted_section, you can see that Baboon43's statements, in fact, are bigoted, are using the talk page as a forum, and simply don't belong there. I've told Baboon43 that MM is not the one that should be blocked here...but I haven't decided yet if Baboon43 should be blocked instead. It may be correct that an RfC/U is needed due to the complexity of the issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• I apologize, since it seems that I failed to understand the distinction between an ANI thread and an RFC. I understand now that my proposal isn't definite enough for an ANI thread, but considering that I seem to have misunderstood the difference I'm reluctant to decide whether to make a definite proposal here or start an RFC instead; I don't want to bungle again so soon. I've now also seen a comment that a block may be warranted though not for sure. I would prefer to wait for a bit and see if a few more comments are put here regarding what should be done before I act next in order to resolve the situation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at some of the diffs that MezzoMezzo has provided, given the somewhat recent change in behavior, as well as acknowledged off-wiki contact, that Baboon43 may be in violation of WP:PROXYING. So, let me ask Baboon43 directly: have you been corresponding with Msoamu via email or otherwise? Have you been taking his advice, pursuing lines of argument that he suggests, or otherwise attempting to help him continue to edit Wikipedia indirectly? Or is your sudden vehemence against MezzoMezzo's reliably sourced, neutral contributions entirely from your own desires? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The change was kind of weird. This April, Baboon43 asked me to function as a 3rd party mediator between him and another user in a content/civility dispute. I was happy at the time, hence my getting so upset (probably more than I should have) yesterday at the sudden change. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

there's no recent change in behavior..i had several disputes with mezzo before i met msaomu as clearly shown at ani [100] mezzo reported me for calling him a wahabi leaving out the fact that he himself called me a barelvi..my first comment on Talk:Barelvi turned into a heated dispute with Mezzo [101] from which he began to hound me several days later by appearing on talk pages..i don't have any interactions with anyone with my wiki affiliated mail..where do i say I'm against mezzo's RS or contributions? if you read the thread I'm making a point that deobandis are mostly affiliated with terrorism unlike barelvis..thats not my own saying its from reliable sources. Baboon43 (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Qwyrxian and MezzoMezzo about the change in Baboon43. They were usually supportive of MezzoMezzo, but since Msoamu's topic ban, they've suddenly begun acting like Msoamu... Very odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

i never supported mezzo i just didnt bother entering into content dispute that he had with the editors over at barelvi but i have consistently replied to his statements in the talk pages on a wide range of articles..taking my abstention as support is a mistake on your part. Baboon43 (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Baboon43 is saying he isn't proxying, I don't know of any way to prove him wrong. He's wrong on saying he never supported me because for a period we got along well enough on the talk pages for Wahhabi movement, Al-Ahbash, Saladin and Sufi-Salafi relations but I guess it's neither here nor there. I clearly made an error as I thought RFCs were only for articles, so what should I do to move foreward? Will we continue here and measure community support for a block, or should I take it somewhere else? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFC is for articles. WP:RFC/U is for users (the /U stands for User) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I reviewed the minimum requirements and I don't think an RFC of this type would have met the requirement of at least two outside editors establishing talk page contact and then failing to resolve it. An RFC/U has, however, been suggested by several editors now including an admin. Just to be sure I don't improperly file something again I would like to check for sure one last time before doing this whether or not it will fly and if not, what the next step would be - I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black and her continual personal attacks towards other editors

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

---

Hi. Recently, it was brought to my attention that Lucia Black has continued personal attacks, as shown here and here. She is also on the border of hounding at User talk:PBASH607 by giving him a no-edit rule. I'd appreciate some input, as she was here only a few weeks ago with User:ChrisGualtieri. Thanks guys. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 02:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggested she take a wikibreak for a week or so, everyone gets upset stopping for a cooldown always helps you think and feel better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the right to kick any editor out of my talkpage. I have the right to remove content. ALSO, there is no personal attack. This supposed "threat" is a warning or else that editor.

Also the ANI process is incredibly inconsistent, and im going to question this entire process at village pump. personal attacks? Providing links doesnt provide anything, all you have to prove with those links is how incredibly ANGRY I am. And when I ask them to prove where the personal attack. They get fed up and want to bring to ANI.

This isnt about serious issue, these are editors not knowing what NPA even is. All these claims of NPA, and not ecery single one has actually quoted NPA. Not once. Meaning these are empty claims even if they provide links to my comments. It proves NOTHING.Lucia Black (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I recently tried to help solved the situation, but Lucia wanted "Justice" on Chris and threatened me and Chris as seen on my talk page and her talk page (Removed). After that to make matters worse, I was threatened on my talk page. WP:NPA should be read more carefully before you question an editor. -PrabashWhat? 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you are questioned you better make sure, to prove it. My threat was a warning. And we are all allowed tk make warnings, and you persistently came back toy talkpage. And I gave you a final warning. I shouldve just put you in ANI without a third warning.

Dont try to turn NPA, into something it isnt. Dont twist this into something else. You still came in to my talkpage and got involved into something you shouldve let died down. But you werent there to calm down, you made everything worst. This is all on you.Lucia Black 02:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they've been incorrectly blocked, do commonly tend to rant about justice and such things, and indeed to be very angry. Dealing with such a person by the equivalent of repeatedly whacking them over the head with a foam mallet, is not necessarily very constructive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• WorldTraveller, you're going to need to provide some diffs (see WP:DIFF) because the above links to talk pages don't produce any glaring instances of personal attacks that I can see. You should also re-read some of the advice from Dennis on your talk page, as right now you seem to be ignoring it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 this is an example of the personal attacks [102] --PrabashWhat? 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Prabash; I'd read that one, and I include it under "not a glaring instance of a personal attack" and also under "very angry". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you are questioned you better make sure, to prove it. My threat was a warning. And we are all allowed tk make warnings, and you persistently came back toy talkpage. And I gave you a final warning. I shouldve just put you in ANI without a third warning.

Dont try to turn NPA, into something it isnt. Dont twist this into something else. You still came in to my talkpage and got involved into something you shouldve let died down. But you werent there to calm down, you made everything worst. This is all on you.02:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm on my phone currently, but you can still see the attacks. And DB's advice didn't mean I can't report a problematic user like common protocol. Thanks, D. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also tried to work out a diplomatic solution to the issue, as seen here: [103] This started off nice but ended up with certain threats against me and other users, the discussion was then moved to my talk page. --PrabashWhat? 02:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Dennis is still in Vegas, so you and he can discuss that interpretation when he gets back, if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If I were him I'd stay there. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is getting tiresome--the claims of "bias admins", oh the injustice of it, and of being blocked over a "frocking accident". Note that Lucia Black blamed her cell phone for the edits in which she repeatedly changed other user's comments--she was blocked specifically for this one. How does it happen that a freak accident changes the meaning of her opponent's comment to the exact opposite? When some Yip or Technoquat or Mango or whoever impersonates someone she jumps to the conclusion that it must have been ChrisGualtieri, and poor abused admins like me have to read the long, grammatically challenged rants according to which everything is someone else's fault. Demiurge is probably right that this is not a "glaring instance", but sheesh, enough already. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Lucia, you took to assuming a troll was me and attacked me at ANI.[104] Then lied to an admin (Drmies) claiming the troll said it was me;[105] to deflect accusations of the personal attacks. Check the history for proof.[106] Also prior to the revert of Lucia's talk page, the discussion showed numerous personal attacks, a warning and my attempts to make peace.[107] Again Lucia seems to be trying to continue her destructive "stubs must be deleted" campaign.[108] Did the 10+ pages of discussion at the VPP not mean anything to you?[109] The community soundly rejected that very idea! I don't know about anyone else; but the constant personal attacks and WP:IDHT have worn thin. Even during Lucia's block for altering editors comments you actually altered my comment in the very request.[110] But its all "my fault". Lucia Black, you are responsible for your own actions and your own words; your hostile reaction to every editor you interact with shows you are more concerned about revenge and "justice". That is the true problem here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• PBASH607, you were asked, angrily, [111], to stay off Lucia's talk page at 00:34. You retaliated by posting on her talk page again at 00:46 [112], and then again (after she blanked your message as she has every right to do) at 01:23 [113], and then at 01:24 you reverted her on her own talk page (ignoring WP:BLANKING which says she is permitted to blank warnings) [114]. What on earth did you think you were doing? And what did WorldTraveller think he was doing a few minutes later, re-adding the warning that she'd blanked multiple times? [115] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah I kind of hinted that on her talkpage Lucia has every right to blank comments on her talkpage from others (Does not include blocks) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That was not a retaliation but just a caution that we don't attack each other, I gave her a second warning after my talk page was updated, then I restored the blanked content, because it fits under WP:RTP --PrabashWhat? 03:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not correctly understand WP:RTP. Stay off her talk page, please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy shit, what? You gave her a caution, she told you to stay away, and then you gave her another chance at understanding what she didn't want to hear from you in the first place? Yes, stay off. The blind are leading the blind here. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I read WP:BLANKING as you instructed and I clarified myself, you're correct and I left Lucia's talk page as soon as I was threatened several times, I am constantly sweating and wasting energy and time for this issue. Look closely at all the help i tried to do with Lucia, but she never listened. --PrabashWhat? 03:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also gave her a kitten in apology, but the poor kitten too was rejected by her. I would apologize to her but I'm not allowed on her talk page, I've been wasting precious time and Internet for the smallest issue ever, I tried a diplomatic solution and I was very nice to her and I got yelled at instead, before I enter a coma, I want to see Lucia be happy with Chris for once. --PrabashWhat? 03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When someone asks you not to comment on their talkpage though that means it is off limits as going on can be seen as harassment even if the intention was good. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I am wrong in this instance, have you read the conversation I had with her? I was ignored to the fullest and I tried to be really nice to her, but she wanted Justice and revenge, which she has been trying to do even before her block (sources in Chris's comment), this is my final comment here in this discussion. Before my brain tissue rots, I think Lucias actions before and during her block are unjustified, and so were my actions in refusing her request. --PrabashWhat? 03:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And you shouldn't need a policy for that--common courtesy should be enough. Yes, final comment. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Article Vera Renczi continuously vandalized.

User:86.41.71.194 and User:143.239.66.44 keep making disrupting edits to the article of Vera Renczi. The user(s) keeps inserting his own personal opinion that the she did not exist - contrary to anything I can find on the internet. User keeps removing all of the categories and inserting his own opinion (in a very sarcastic manner) into the article. Although I am unsure of who the editor is, I have noticed that this has been a pattern (see the Vera Renczi talk page). One of the users who kept questioning the validity of the article is User:Shylocksboy, who is branded a sockpuppet. While I would like to assume good faith, I am becoming convinced that the same user(s) on the talk page are the same individual, as I have never encountered any information that speculates that Vera Renczi was fictitious - if I had, from a reliable source, I would have included it in the article. I request help from someone, as I have been dealing with these disruptive edits for several months now. Thank you. ExRat (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

ExRat, the only user that page needs being protected from is you. Yes, I have added some sarcastic, un-encyclopedic remarks in a desperate attempt to knock some sense into you. No, I have nothing to do with any previous users. If senior Wiki staff is reading this, please be aware of ExRat's behavior, who persistently tries to pass unverifiable information as fact. Some aspects to consider:

• • For a person who (allegedly) lived within living memory and murdered 35 people, it is unthinkable that Madame Renczi doesn't even have a birth/death place and time. I would like to ask distinguished Wiki admin to name ONE, just ONE other real person who lived in the last 100 years, is featured on wikipedia, and whose page is lacking even these basic biographical details. Is this the standard Wikipedia wishes to promote?
  • The imaginary town/village/settlement where she supposedly spent most of her adult life (Berkerekul) and perpetrated her crimes doesn't exist in either Romania, Serbia, the rest of former Yugoslavia, or indeed anywhere in Europe. This has been pointed out to user ExRat repeatedly (please see talk page). Furthermore please note Serbian is a digraphic language (i.e. uses both cyrillic and latin alphabets) thus minimizing the possibility of multiple 'character translations'. Even so, alternative spellings also do not turn any matches.
  • The so-called internet sources user ExRat is quoting have not done - to the best of my knowledge - any independent research/investigation into to this case. They are merely quoting one original (problematic) source, or do not quote any source at all. Thus they cannot be counted as independent, reliable references. These internet websites also, for most part, do not represent official bodies, institutions, government agencies, police force, etc who would be in a position to confirm the existence and crime record of the person. They are merely sensationalist, fictional online publications, personal blogs, unofficial 'crime libraries'. Furthermore none of these sources provides any piece of verifiable, traceable information.
  • Sources glaringly contradict themselves. She is either Madame Renczi and Madame Renici, she was born in Hungary and Bucharest, her first marriage was to both a "wealthy Bucharest businessman" and an austrian banker named Karl Schich (this last change shamelessly made by ExRat less than 24h ago in reaction to my comments, probably in an effort to lend more credibility to the story). Her son was either 10 years old when she murdered him, or an adult. The scene of her debauchery was either Bucharest or Berkerekul (sometimes even Vienna?). She died anytime between "shortly afterwards", "before the outbreak of WWII or sometimes in the 50s.
  • The chronology of Madame Renczi's life doesn't stand up to even most basic scrutiny: according to some of the sources she was born in 1903 and apprehended in 1925. How could a person in a span of 22 years get married twice (few years apart), give birth to a son who was either 10 years old or a young adult (thus making her 0 to 12 years old at the time she conceived Lorenzo), and date and murder a string of 32 lovers? 143.239.65.254 (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So, now you have yet another IP address? We have been over this numerous times. Your "investigation" into Vera Renczi is WP:OR. If I had found even one article that claimed she did not exist, or even speculated that she might not exist, I would have included it. However, I have found a multitude of reliable articles that state she is not a fictitious person. The article needs protected from me? You have systematically inserted snarky comments and your own musings into the article and continually deleted the categories. That is not how own edits a Wikipedia page and clearly shows you do not work in good faith when you flat out vandalize articles. "she was born in Hungary and Bucharest, her first marriage was to both a "wealthy Bucharest businessman" and an austrian banker named Karl Schich (this last change shamelessly made by ExRat less than 24h ago in reaction to my comments" That was not a "shameless" edit. It was an edit that I made when I found a reliable source from a Romanian crime news site and I was able to correct it, with reliable sourcing. A "shameless" edit, in my opinion, would be to vandalize articles by deleting categories and continually inserting insulting, disruptive and sarcastic comments into the article. I have never found any reliable source in both literature or on the internet that claims, or even speculates that she is a fictional character. Had I done so, I would have included it in article in the first place. One needs only to look at your behavior to know you are clearly not working within Wikipedia guidleines. I would also like to point out that I have not used any personal blog as a reference, which you have claimed I have. ExRat (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The text above is in bold for one reason. Have a look at it. Until you have addressed my contentions head-on (no birth/death time and place, lived in an imaginary town, lack of original sources, lack of verifiable accounts, no mugshot, no police or court records, conflicting accounts, impossible cronology) I have no further comments to you. Or perhaps there is one: as long as you're ignoring these facts and continue to claim the article is factual, it is you who mocks Wikipedia, not me! 143.239.65.254 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Adevărul writes that she existed. Then again the article, as it stands, appears to claim the BBC still has editorial control over h2g2, and it appears some of those crime site are more for entertainment that particularly reliable sources. Perhaps it's not quite a black and white as it has been painted here?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That Adevărul article is entirely sourced to a site called descopera.ro, of which I've never head of before today. Romanian journalism doesn't have very high standards to begin with, but that Adevărul article is scraping the bottom of the barrel even by their standards... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

She must have had a really big apartment with room for 35 zinc coffins [116]! REAL serial murders in an apartment in Romania are more like: Chinese triad kills 1-2 people and chops them into pieces, then dumps them in a river (if they are smart) or tries to flush them down the toiled (if they are dumb). And even then the justice system finds them innocent [117]. Oh, and the Guiness Book of World Records says: "A claim that Vera Renczi murdered 35 persons in Rumania, in this century, lacks authority." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The source you cited says the coffins were found in her basement, not her apartment.--Auric talk 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure that it's not a hoax? The first online cite referenced in the article takes me to h2g2.com which appears to a Wiki related to the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There seems to be some relationship between this site and the BBC, although I'm not entirely sure what it is. Anyway, I've placed a {{RS}} tag on this cite[118] (which is used 5 times in the article). I tried independently to search for some reliable sources on Vera Renczi and came up empty. Supposedly, she's covered in Season 1, Episode 1 of Deadly Women. Does anyone have access to this episode to see if she's really mentioned in it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - h2g2 was originally part of the BBC website - here's the original BBC webpage. Definitely a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I clicked on "the original BBC webpage", linked to immediately above, and there skimread a page full of material reminiscent of Readers' Digest or similar and also read Add your Opinion! There are tens of thousands of h2g2 Guide Entries, written by our Researchers. If you want to be able to add your own opinions to the Guide, simply become a member as an h2g2 Researcher. Aside from its surprising temporary sponsorship by the BBC, how is this different from today's content farms (helium.com and the like)? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This all looks highly dubious. The discussion above shows no reliable source. h2g2 was not 'originally part of the BBC website.' It was an independent website which was later bought by the BBC as part of its ill-advised strategy of expansion into internet activities. (see h2g2). As an early contributor to the h2g2 site myself (long before the BBC took it on) I can testify that there were no standards of reference or citation for the content in its early days. Shouldn't we just do an AfD for the article and see if there is any real defence for it?--Smerus (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

... and according to an older edition of Guinness Book of World Records, " the claim that Vera Renczi murdered 35 persons in Rumania, in this century, lacks authority." Oops, someone's beaten me to it. As I mentioned before, it's not an "either all of it's true or none of it is true" situation.

* It appears that it is very likely a fact that there was someone born in the early C20 in Bucharest called Vera Renczi or something very similar to that, and quite likely that she was involved in some murders.

* Then as now, spouses are most often murdered by the other member of the couple, so it would seem quite likely that a victim or victims would have been a husband or lover.

* It's quite plausible that she may have lived in Hungary or Yugoslavia, but certainly not in a place called "Berkerekul", because that place has never existed.

* It would seem unlikely that she could kill so many people in such as short time and remain undetected, and the whole "35 zinc-lined coffins" or whatever seems ludicrous.

But that's simply my opinion. As always: go with what the reliable sources say.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Article easily passes WP:GNG. The question is what it should say. It's more balanced now because I've added one critical and one barely critical source. But on practically any detail you'll find two "reliable" sources (your typical "true crime" books) contradicting each other. The scant academic sources are hardly any better. And the coverage in Deadly Women is plain rubbish; the experts are there to tell us about the effects of arsenic or what a zinc coffin does etc., while the story is presented by voice-over with gaffes like saying the crimes occurred in "Bucharest, Hungary", etc.; it's also very short, most of the episode covers the other two topics. (Elizabeth Báthory is covered in a perhaps even more abysmal manner in Deadly Women. The voice over says she drank the blood of her victims as the primary reason for killing them, etc.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Shirt58, nobody's disputing the existence of a weirdo in 1920's in Bucharest who poisoned 1-2 people out of jealousy. Throughout history there probably have been countless such cases all over the world, many of which were never brought to trial. That's not the interesting 'fact' about Vera Renczi, nor it is the reason why she 'earned' an entry on wikipedia. To be able to seduce and kill 32 men in a relative short period (son and husbands not counting), without accomplices and without getting caught until the very end would have been truly remarkable. Not to mention the pièce de résistance: 35 hermetically sealed, custom made, labelled coffins carefully arranged in her wine cellar, in what one source rightfully describes as "a tableaux right out of an Edgar Allan Poe tale". Belle Gunness probably scored more hits, but even she didn't take macabre to that level. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and for Vera there's almost none. That's all. Anyway, thanks everybody for their support and contributions, the article looks so much better and unbiased now! 143.239.66.106 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Alarming off wikipedia (but wiki-related) conduct of Administrator Alison

Obvious troll is obvious. Blocked; DFTT. Ishdarian 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The administrator Alison has contacted me off wikipedia with all manner of unspeakable suggestions and comments. Many of these violate the very fibre of wikipedia. The Admin has behaved in a manner similar to a dangerous predator. Here's an exerpt: XXXXX@yahoo Listin up, you scumbag. I've had all I can stomache of you and your s**t. If you keep it up, you'll be hurting for real. I'm not afraid of you or the law - I'm abso-f******-lutely mad. MAD. I have half a mind to snap your pencil neck, you geek. Bugger off you whiny s***, or you'll land in trauma! P*** off. Can someone help? Kevin Guidry (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC) No real evidence of such accusations, and it'd be near impossible to do so without violating WP:OUTING. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC) This is awesome . My spelling is *waaay* better than that, so please try harder next time. Please feel free to post the entire message, including headers and routing information, when you fire up your next sock account. Needless to say, I didn't send anything of the sort and I'm offended by the low-grade insults cited. I think I could do better than that - Alison ❤ 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL , yeah, pretty dumb trolling. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Abortion 1RR violations

Could a neutral admin take a look at Jimjilin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They appear to be violating the Abortion general sanctions, even after several warnings yesterday. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have logged a warning to User:Jimjilin under the WP:ARBAB case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

IP User 99.90.197.87

This IP, which appears to be static, has been blocked before (see their talk page [119]) but has gone back to the same behaviour. This user adds nonsense and poorly written prose to articles [120] [121] are a couple of recent examples, just look at the contribs for more. Recently he/she has taken to breaking a redirect without any discussion [122]. The contributions are almost all useless as they are poorly written or dubiously sourced. People have over the years, tried to work with the IP to no avail. A recent Six month block expired and he/she is right back at it. I hope an admin can do something here. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, we don't sanction people for making spelling errors or including unsourced things on talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that However, we do sanction people for disruptive editing (Here is another example [123]). It is exactly the same sort of edits as before, which lead to 3 and then 6 month blocks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. Some of the edits are reasonable, some not so much - but the Michelle Obama monkey thing did it for me. Comments about "Natenyahoo" did not help. Happy to consider an unblock if something worthwhile will come of it, but I don't see a whole lot of willingness to adjust their behavior from this IP. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 91.155.236.125 edit warring with a clear Finnish nationalistic agenda on multiple articles

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

---

• 91.155.236.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The IP has for some time been edit warring on Runes (page history), Ancient kings of Finland (page history), Kings of Kvenland (page history),Sitones(page history), Finnish language (page history) and probably a few more, adding massive chunks of very tendentious fringe theories (which among other things claim that the Scandinavian languages aren't Germanic but have a Finnish origin, and also claims that runes have a Finnish origin), with no sources at all, dubious sources or perhaps deliberately misinterpreted sources. The user is clearly not interested in discussing his/her edits and is not willing to add his/her fringe theories as separate sections in the articles while keeping the rest of the article and not giving his/her fringe theories undue weight, in spite of being told to do so. So he/she is clearly not here to collaborate on this project but to push a nationalistic agenda. Thomas.W (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Obvious case of persistent tendentious editing. If they continue, escalating blocks should quickly be re-imposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:200.104.70.140 ignoring advice

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

---

IP 200.104.70.140 is posting a youtube video to every tornado related article they can find despite several editors telling them they cannot do this. I think a temporary block on anonymous edits may be in order. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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

• IP is active. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But not disruptive. They seem to be adding pictures of tornadoes and tornado damage to the articles about the places the tornadoes struck. All the copyright info seems in order, and I'm not seeing any YouTube video being added. Howicus (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Something Strange in your neighborhood

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

---

I wont gos o far as to say its meatpuppetry or socking, but somethingw ierd is going on with WorldTraveller101. S/he seems to be inserting him/herself into all kinds of drama - most recenty involvong Lucia Black which can be seen above in an earlier AN/I. It seemed to start with WorldTraveller101's friend PBASH607, aprapos of nothing, posting a kitten on Lucia Black's talkpage on behalf of ChrisGualtieri. When Ms. Black didnt react kindly to it and deleted it, Both PBASH and WT warned her and opened an AN/I. The diffs can be found on Lucia Black taakpage. This morning another friend of WT left cookies on her page and another user Goodraise hasd emonstrated hostility on overlapping projects.

Befor that, WorldTraveller101 warned and provoked Lucia Black in response to the ongoing conflict between her and ChrisGualtieri. A conflit he wasnt involved in.

Im not sure if WT is an administrator or what his status is, but hes making things worse by restarting and involving himslef in conflicts of others. I also dont know if its a case of group WP:HOUNDING or Meatpuppets or worse.

Could an Admin have a look? I dont have a dog in this fight, I just like anime and manga.

CaptnBeefheart (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Wow, that archiving was quick. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because a) the situation has been in the process of being dealt with, b) the OP has never tried to resolve the issues directly with the editor, and c) there's no need for dramah while discussion is underway - I think my explanation in the close was pretty clear (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had come in anticipating that it would be archived anyway, so my comment was going to be "in before it gets archived"... in other words, just an acknowledgement that the archiving was pretty quick in this case. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone whose first edit on Wikipedia is to ANI should expect to get their thread shut down very quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:NacomaStrickland repeatedly creating page about himself

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

---

A newly created article, Nacoma R. Strickland, created for self-promotion by User:NacomaStrickland, was speedily deleted yesterday for non-notability (A7), but has been recreated today, by the same user. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion but I wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the distinguished ladies and gentlemen on ANI, both to speed up the process and to suggest that the article name be salted to prevent the user from repeating the process ad nauseam. Thomas.W (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, they claim on MaterialScientist's talkpage that they simply chose the name, and are not the subject. The "article" has been deleted a second time and salted. Some people's concept of notable is lacking (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that. I posted about something else on Materialscientist's talk page when my eyes fell on NacomaStrickland's personal attack there, caused by the first deletion of his self-promotion project, an attack that lead to me cautioning him. And when looking at his edit history (which I have a habit of doing when someone has broken the rules) I noticed that his sandbox was loaded and ready, with a completely recreated "article", so I added the article name to my watchlist to see if, or rather when, he would try to recreate it. So when he did the article was tagged for speedy deletion before the virtual ink had dried on it. Thomas.W (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:Youreallycan Ban lift

No way that a 3:2 opposition to undoing the ban is going to turn around.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There has been about a six month ban on YouReallyCan, I think that anything that happened in the past can be forgotten about now. YouReallyCan has done great work on BLP and has been a solid contributor here on Wiki. He has had his share of civility issues but I think that at this point maybe this long of a enforced wikibreak may help these problems. I think if we lift the community ban with a caution that next time may be permanent we would make it so the encyclopedia benefits and gets this great contributor back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC) No. (and not quite 4 months isn't about 6 months) --Onorem (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Edit conflicted on correcting myself. I just looked at the last block. But I'll still say that from Jan 24 until today is not 'about six months'. --Onorem (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I can't find whether the ban were indefinite or definite, and if definite how long it was. Could you research and tell us? I'm just about to get offline and can't do it myself. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC) You really should've talked to (and waited to hear from) YRC before proposing this. @Nyttend: it was indefinite. I'll rustle up the diffs if it's necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC) The ban was enacted January 2013 it's now June 2013 so if it's not exactly 6 months it's pretty close. I believe it was an indefinite ban but indefinite is exactly that an undetermined amount of time. And Writ keeper he doesn't have talkpage access so I am raising it as a member of the community and his friend. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC) It's still two weeks away from 5 months. --Onorem (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Ok so you're upset it's not six months? Not sure what exact point you are trying to make. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Your initial statement is misleading. You seem to be using the amount of time passed as part of your argument. --Onorem (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) @HiaB: I am aware that he doesn't have page access; I've communicated with him myself (and protected his talk page from trolls) since his ban. If not a friend, I'm certainly on friendly terms with him. My point is that, TPA or not, he has to be a part of this process, and he needs to tell us that he has the time/energy/wherewithal to participate in the discussion. Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of everyone's time that will almost certainly stir up pointless drama (already begun, as you can see) and quite possibly further ill-will toward him. (AFAIK, the community is not a huge fan of unsolicited third-party requests of this kind; that's original research, though.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Would that extra time make your opinion change one way or another? @ Writ Keeper I agree that's why I have already left this [[124]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I saw that, that's how I found out about this thread. The point is that you should've waited to open this thread until after you've heard from him that he want's to try for an unban, and I personally would suggest that this thread be closed until you *have* heard from him. It is completely pointless until we know what YRC wants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I understand where you are coming from but it's a moot point if the community doesn't want him back at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC) You're putting the cart before the horse; the community (certainly in theory and quite likely in practice) needs to hear from YRC about his intentions, etc. etc. before it can decide whether it wants him back. It all starts with YRC. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not necessarily opposed to having YRC return, but I'm not prepared to support an unban without us hearing from him about what he wants, how he's changed, how he intends to move forward, etc. Without that information, it's really not possible to make any decisions here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC) It wouldn't change my opinion, but it might influence the opinions of others who would treat this as a possible WP:OFFER case. --Onorem (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Fair enough on that point, myself I don't think that the extra few weeks will do more to enforce what has already happened but I can understand your point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Just to be clear on the math: 6 months from January 24 is... July 24. (I have no strong opinion either way on the actual issue, but the bad math bugs me.) --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC) A return for YRC? I'm personally well inclined to listen to a case for a return of YRC, who under his previous (and well disclosed account (User:Off2riorob) I had good encounters. As noted, his BLP work was very strong. However I also take the same view as Fluffernutter and Writ that I'd like to see this done directly, and not by proxy. To that end I'd be pleased to allow talk page access, subject to a nod from User:Bwilkins. Also isn't WP:AN the right venue? Pedro :  Chat  17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC) That would be my fault wasn't sure what board it would need to be on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC) No probs, just thought ban / unban normally lived at WP:AN. Pretty bureaucratic anyway really on which page it goes on! Pedro :  Chat  17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Talk Page access restoral So 3 admin have opposed until we hear from YRC, ok I understand that point, so either he can email myself or WK or we can restore talkpage access. I have notified BWilkins and requested his input. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC) That's ideal, thank you, though I should confirm my preference is not email but to reinstate talk page access (which can be trivially removed again, and I can't possibly believe that this would have to be done given YRC wishes to return). Pedro :  Chat  17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC) TP access restored via his request by email I am assuming. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Unbanning YRC, continued Would it be a problem if YRC was to be unbanned first, without regard to his/her intent, and monitored closely for a while afterwards? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 17:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I personally don't think so. I think that it is an invite to come back to the encyclopedia that he could choose to come back if he wanted to, the message that the community at large or at least the people who commented at the banning thread has very little patience. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "unbanned first" Rickyab - I can't begin to think of a situation where we would remove a ban but deny the editor talk page access. Pedro :  Chat  17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC) By "unbanned first", I meant a tentative unbanning along with restoration of talk page access. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) It has been restored and he also sent emails to myself and WK. He does want to be unblocked but his email to WK gives details. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. It would be a problem. Why would we unblock a banned user without regard to his/her intent? --Onorem (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC) At this point who cares, talkpage access has been restored, let's discuss the issue at hand not the now outdated question. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) The question said nothing about talk page access. As far as the issue at hand goes...NO, YRC should not be unblocked. His statement is not yet good enough imo. --Onorem (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC) To your mind what is an acceptable statement? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC) To start with, something that admits and explains fault for the ban to begin with. Simply saying he'll avoid dramah (sic) boards doesn't inspire me on his motives. I don't know what I need to hear exactly. There might be nothing he could say. What has been said isn't enough for me. I simply do not trust that he's here to be constructive unless it's on things that everyone agrees with him on. --Onorem (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC) My last comments for the night cause it is super late in HK, is that his statement below addresses those specifically the reversion issues, civility issues and a willingness to listen to advice. Your opinion is your own so thank you for expressing it but I'm going to call it a night and check in the morning to see where things are at. (feel free to indent if it's important to you). Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. I was overly involved and attacking of other users in disputes, I am sorry for that and apologize to anyone that suffered from that editing fault and I will strongly focus on avoiding that moving forward. I will also seek to avoid editing topics I have had tensions in previously. Youreallycan 18:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC) What topics do you plan to edit? How exactly do you plan to be productive? It's not 6 months, but why not treat this like a standard offer now that we are here...--Onorem (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Do you recall what topics you had tensions in in the past? Which topics were they, and how do you propose to avoid them? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I would consider (User:Russavia) and (Russavia's) posts as a topic to avoid. Youreallycan 19:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Note: This is apparently a reference to the controversy over the Delicious Carbuncle and Fae incident. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 19:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Rickyrab, I prefer to think of this as "that time when Fæ, Russavia, and unnamed co-conspirators lied about various things", but that isn't really specific enough since that happened more than once. Perhaps we can just call it "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ" and leave my username out of it altogether? I think you know how it turned out. I would prefer not to dig this particular corpse up again, and I'm pretty sure that ArbCom would agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Well, the corpse is what it is, and we need a better way of naming particular incidents of dramah when a current incident of dramah that refers to earlier incidents of dramah occurs. In this case, Russavia apparently said something and Youreallycan opposed it. Russavia seems to have been talking about you and Fae, and this may have had something to do with calling people "gay" in an insulting manner. I wasn't party to any of this, so I wouldn't know firsthand, but a lot of that dramah had to do with anti-homosexual bias. So maybe the "Fae and Homophobia Incident"? "The Homophobia Affair of xx.xx.xxxx (where the x's refer to a date)"? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC) A lot of the drama had to do with accusations of anti-homosexual bias. In my case, those accusations are unfounded, so I would prefer not to have my username used as some kind of shorthand for "homophobic attacks on Fæ" or associated with anything Youreallycan may have said. As I have said before, I believe that Youreallycan should avoid the LGBT subject area altogether and take especial care in interacting with LGBT editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Let's call this the "Voidokilia Beach Affair"... how does that sound? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Honestly, I don't think statements matter any more. In a little over a year on this account, YRC was blocked nine or ten times. In several cases, he got an early unblock after making statements promising to change/behave better/avoid drama. Then there are the 10 blocks on his previous account (discounting the two that did not appear to be supported). So on these two accounts, YRC has been legitimately blocked 19 times since 2009. A statement on what he intends to do seems fruitless as he can't say anything now he hasn't said before. Either we unblock him and see if his actions can finally match his words, or we decide that a leopard cannot change his spots and forget about it. So with that in mind, the statement I would like to see is what he thinks the communty should do if we end up seeing him back at ANI on a 20th block for disruptive editing/harrassment/personal attacks. Resolute 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Email and initial comment from YRC I would love to be unblocked so as to contribute in a small way. I would be prepared to offer three months one revert restriction and a three month dramah board restriction and as I have been away four months I am less attached and would from that space focus on commenting only on the content and not the contributor. I am open to additional suggestions or if rejected, advice for any future unblock request. — User:Youreallycan Received today at 17:52 UTC. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Comment Three months 1RR, but plenty of WP:BRD when reverting - emphasis on discuss. Voluntary self ban on WP:ANI / WP:AN except if the case/incident indirectly involves Youreallycan, when he should be free to comment; If it directly involves YRC then it's likely the indef will come back anyway, so I see no value in bureaucratic sanctions (albeit self imposed) Pedro :  Chat  18:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 3 month 1rr sounds good. Just to clarify that it's an indefinite ban from ANI/AN with the attached caveat? Blackmane (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Indefinite in this case meaning "of no set duration", yes. YRC can always ask for that ban to be lifted as well, once he/she has a few months of solid editing in. No objection to a 3-month 1RR. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I don't think time-limited restrictions are the way to go here. There's nothing magical about 3 or 6 months or whatever that fixes things editors struggle with. I'd be much more comfortable with open-ended restrictions. My ideal would be indefinite 1RR and indefinite AN/ANI (barring threads about him) ban, with the expectation that once YRC has some new contributing time under his belt, he will be able to demonstrate to the community's satisfaction here or on AN that the restrictions are not necessary. That could be after a month of heavy editing wherein he shows us that he's completely turned around while on break, or it could be after a year of working hard onwiki to manage his coping/DR skills; the time isn't the important part so much as the being-able-to-show-us-improvement is. I vaguely recall there being some BLP issues around the time of YRC's ban, as well, but I can't remember if they involved making BLP violations, or just edit warring to remove what he though were other people's BLP violations. Depending on what that situation was, we may wish to consider some sort of BLP restriction as well? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC) My recollection (though very far from perfect) is that it was the latter. (That is, YRC went overboard in combating BLP violations, not making them.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) If YRC can live with Pedro's terms (i.e. a 1RR restriction with no loopholes or exceptions) then I think an unban is worth a try. Pedro's terms are quite reasonable, I think. 28bytes (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=559437715&oldid=559436416 Yes - I can accept Pedro's conditions Rob please Post to WP:ANI Youreallycan 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Unban per Pedro's conditions. :) John Cline (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Unban per Pedro and 28bytes. Andreas JN466 00:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unban support.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unban and I don't care about conditions, but think Pedro's suggestion is close enough to harmless that it will suffice. The poison cocktail of RfC restrictions, under severe duress as they were, were a travesty and the whole way it was exploited by his enemies was another travesty. It is time to put the whole absurd affair in the past and get on with it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) unblock – there will be an adequate supply of eyeballs watching to ensure reasonable behaviour. I don't even believe we need sanctions or restrictions above those of any new editor. The threat that blockable behaviour (by usual standards) will inevitably be noted and that reactions to it will be undoubtedly stringent should be adequate. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 1RR restriction proposal for YRC I think what YRC needs is an indefinite 1RR restriction, and also a more restrictive version of this that also applies to reverting vandalism and BLP violations (which are normally exempt from such restrictions) that will expire after 6 months. I'm not in favor of an AN/I ban, because he has to come here to communicate any problems, and we should be here to help him deal woith any such problems. If he misbehaves here, then that's an unfortunate problem we then have to deal with. It's better that he be restricted more for some time from reverting so that he has to come to the appropriate noticeboard to comminucate problems than to restrict him less and let him engage in fights with (possible) BLP violators on his own. Count Iblis (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC) This user wants me to accept an indefinite 1RR restriction, and also a more restrictive version of this that also applies to reverting vandalism and BLP violations (which are normally exempt from such restrictions) that will expire after 6 months. I am unable to accept this severe editing restriction. Youreallycan 18:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC) How come? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC) vandalism and blp - No - I am unwilling to accept any editing restrictiion to those areas - please show I have violated those areas if you request restrictions - Youreallycan 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC) YRC, note that you can still revert vandalism and BLP violations, but I think you need to learn to communicate more effectively with your fellow editors in the BLP area more, basically that you get more of a mindset that this is really a collaborative project and that there are plenty of other editors here who care just as much as you about any particular BLP. If you have that mindset, then it doesn't matter who exactly reverts what BLP violation. Once you have that mindset, you will be a lot less angry when someone reinserts a BLP violation that you reverted. That anger you had from time to time here caused you to behave in an incivil way toward other editors (not just those who inserted the alledged BLP violations in articles). Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I am heartened by YRC's comments above, including his recognition of past behaviour problems. We all live and learn. I forgive YRC unreservedly and trust that he will be a productive editor and member of the wikicommunity. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Just noting that my own vote last time we were discussing restrictions on YRC to allow him to continue editing began with exactly the same four words. That's not to say we should/shouldn't unblock, but I think worth thinking about. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Revert issues were only half of the problem. The other half of the problem was his repeated incivility, which as I recall included anti-Semitic and homophobic comments against editors and public figures. The community ban that he's currently under was triggered by a homophobic attack against another editor. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Are you forgetting that you have an interaction ban with YRC? It wasn't rendered void when he got blocked and it certainly shouldn't be considered void in a discussion of his appeal.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC) YRC history (ec) Looking at the history, in August 2012, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal reached the conclusion (supported, to his credit, by Youreallycan) that a time-limited, four-part editing restriction – violations of which would result in site ban – would hopefully address the problems with YRC's editing and allow him to contribute positively to the project. Prior to the RfC, YRC had racked up five or six blocks in 2012, most shortened after a promise of good behavior from YRC. After the RfC was closed on 16 August 2012, YRC received two additional blocks: an indefinite block over concerns about outing in October 2012, lifted after four days with yet another promise of better behavior; and a one-day block in December 2012, lifted soon after as part of a de-escalation involving unblocking all the parties to a three(?)-editor conflict. He was blocked indefinitely in January 2013 for a violation of the terms set out in the RfC. Given the ongoing conduct problems – both before and after editing restrictions were imposed in August 2012 – it is not entirely obvious that it would be to the project's benefit for YRC to return under a shorter-term, less-strict parole. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with ToAT: it's not clear that Wikipedia would benefit, and it's not clear why the restrictions should be looser than what was originally imposed. As for benefit -- in earlier discussions there were many comments about how YRC was essential for the proper functioning of BLPN, but it has functioned perfectly well without him and can continue to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Based on the information above from TOAT and my own poking around, I only have one question here: What's different this time, YRC? Promises have been made and broken before. — The Potato Hose 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Look, we should not blame YRC for everything, we made a mistake ourselves by not having imposed the right kind of restriction in the past. In the RFC I explained that the restrictions that YRC had agreed to would not work given what his problem is. Still for Wiki-political reasons we went ahead with this and it failed. So, this history of failure is not all YRC fault (given what hs problem is), it is also our own fault. Let's now finally start with doing what is likely to work. Count Iblis (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I, too, am extremely doubtful that YRC is even capable of changing his spots, despite his intentions. Nineteen blocks, countless broken promises and God only knows how many "last chances" are powerful testimony against any promise that he won't make anti-gay, anti-semetic or otherwise totally unacceptable personal attacks against his fellow editors in the future. It is reasonable to assume that, by nature, he is highly prone to fly off the handle, and it is reasonable to assume that he will do so again. I don't see any benefit to the project having such a volatile and hostile editor around. Quite the opposite- he has consumed countless hours of editor and administrator time with his outbursts and their repercussions. The best advice I can give him is to find another hobby that better suits his disposition. Wikipedia ain't it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I have to say, as someone who was leaning toward supporting an unban when this thread opened, that I find YRC's responses thus far disheartening. I'm seeing the same refusal to accept community opinion that we ran into last time around, and given that YRC is asking the community to take a leap of faith with regard to his ability to edit constructively (a "leap of faith" because we do not have any evidence to show that there won't be immediate problems if YRC is unblocked), I'm not encouraged to see things starting off with "sorry, I won't accept some or all of these restrictions." YRC, please, give some thought to whether you prefer to return to editing or to hold the line with regard to refusing restrictions - I suspect both are not available to you at this point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Commenting here, because it's the bottom I'm, sorry but multiple procedural faults (the inception of a 3rd party block appeal, leveraging a small group of editors comments into a consensus, the appeal being made at ANI instead of AN, the timing of this appeal (during North America working hours), the attempt to get the change enacted earlier than 24 hours) all suggest that there is "interest" in hearing a YRC appeal from blocking, however the discussion should be started fresh without any aspersions at the intercessor or the apeallant being cast. Even better would be to have YRC remand the appeal over to WP:BASC so as to give it the consideration they deserve. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Please, feel free to object on any number of grounds but "procedural faults" is just lame. In already mentioned it should be on WP:AN, but seriously who cares.As for time keeping ..... These things take as long as they need, and contrary to popular opinion North America is not the only country in the world. NOTBURO and all that. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I suggest that YRC not be unblocked. The facts that TenOfAllTrades and Resolute identified above make me think that we have given YRC enough chances already.--Rockfang (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I oppose lifting the ban. We've seen plenty of disruption in numerous forms from this editor and wasted enough time dealing with it on ANI, RFC and plenty of talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC) We've heard these promises before, and it always ends with YRC breaking them. I'm against lifting the ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I can't understand why anyone is considering this. An examination of http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AYoureallycan http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOff2riorob demonstrates that we are dealing with an editor that simply cannot behave himself for any extended period of time. It's a waste of everyone's time to unblock him.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC) As a matter of general interest, have you ever been in favour of lifting a block on anyone? Eric Corbett 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Yes. I've even mentored sockpuppeteers when I determined that there was a potentially good editor involved.User:TBrandley, User:Petergriffin9901, User:Wiki-11233, User:Iluvrihanna24, among others. Usually doesn't work, but I give it a shot. Editors that continually repeat the behaviour that leads to getting blocked aren't worth the effort, though. Two or three chances, maybe, but not dozens.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock. It is a trivial matter to restore the block if YRC can't stick to the caveats, and if he can do so, he is an obvious net positive to the encyclopedia. And if we do have to restore the block (and I'd be quite happy to do it myself if necessary) it should be clear that it's permanent. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Absolutely right. It's trivially easy to block someone. Eric Corbett 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock as per Black Kite. Eric Corbett 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock as Black KIte says, it is relatively easy to block again if, but hopefully not, necessary. I generally favor an unconditional unblock but with conditions is fine too. --regentspark (comment) 22:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Between you and Black Kite, an interesting idea has occurred to me: what if the user is unblocked, no conditions, on the understanding that the next block results in a community ban? Gives YRC/O2RR the opportunity to prove he really has changed, and sets a really bright line: you get blocked again, that's it. Allows him agency without chafing under restrictions, allows the community to have a simple recourse. — The Potato Hose 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Keep blocked / oppose unblock What is the obsession certain Wikipedians have with bringing back awful users for no particularly good reason? Bottom line: negligible potential for improving the encyclopedia, huge potential for dramah! No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC) The obsession is humanity. People can and do change, and if we say that some people are irredeemable write-offs, then where is the difference between us and the Nazis? We are all in this together. My bottom line is that there must be some acknowledgement of past misdeeds, a promise to do better in future, and (in this case) an explanation of why he isn't treating this time as yet another free ride. The history cycle of block-unblock-block must be addressed by YRC. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC) That's been done nineteen times before. Comparing those who have lost faith in YRC's promises and ability to change with Nazi's is ludicrous and highly insulting. Nobody has said that he is an "irredeemable write-off". Just that he has amply proven himself incompetent to be a WP editor. Hyperbole severely undermines your argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC) People aren't rocks. We learn and grow and develop, and hey, sometimes we have life-changing moments where we see things differently. If we deny the reality of our own experiences, where we change our behaviour as we mature, then maybe we might see other human beings as similarly unchanging, forced into final shape through factors of race or birth or belief. If we truly see YRC as forever "incompetent to be a WP editor" then where is the difference? I prefer to look on people as able to learn, to grow, to reprogram their behaviour. What is important to me is that there be evidence of a change and acknowledgement of past poor behaviour. Sorry if you took my comments personally - not my intention! --Pete (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Giving someone a second chance, or even a third chance, is "humanity". Giving someone 20 chances when they've wasted every previous one is just being willfully blind to reality. When 'good' editors continually enable bad ones, they become part of the problem themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Change has to come from within. It can be helped and guided, but ultimately it cannot be forced. I don't think that YRC has yet met the criteria of acknowledgement and acceptance that I mentioned above, but when he does it would be a strong indication of progress. We are all capable of change and progress, but some cannot see this in themselves, let alone others. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Uphold block. Youreallycan and his previous incarnation was always too quick to assume bad faith in others, and too prone to impose his reactionary viewpoint on BLP matters regardless of how liberal was the policy. His promises to reform have been repeatedly broken. I see no need to invest energy to watch him break another one. Instead, let's all spend the time writing the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Question? Has he made any statement to the effect of how his editing in BLPs is going to be different from how it has been before? i would be easier convinced if he showed that he understood what made his behavior problematic and what he can do to avoid such problems, and that it was not just because of the "haters" as he used to call those who didn't find his behavior. The comments I see on his page talk about avoiding specific editors, which seems again to repeat the idea that it is the others who are the problem and not his own actions. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock within a framework that precludes problems. I'm convinced that YRC can be unblocked within a system that keeps him out of trouble and allows him to do what he wants to do here. The details need to be worked out, but it has to include a (temporary) 1RR for reverting BLP violations. Now YRC has said above that he doesn't like this, but we have to make clear to him that he should collaborate with other editors on this issue. Even if he could revert more than once, he should have a convincing argument why his reverts are justified, but then he could just as well only present that argument and let others do the reverting. I think we can help YRC by proposing a system that he can accept. E.g. there are probably a few editors who he often agrees with on BLP issues who have a clean block log. If YRC makes a directory on his userpage where he posts his reverts that in his opinion were necesarry to remove BLP violations, then these other editors can look at that page every day, if some of YRCs reverts have been undone and they agree with YRC's reverts, they will then take up that issue. Count Iblis (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC) The user has exhausted patience before, and the arguments for unblock merely seem to be bald statements of "net positive, if . . .". In short, the case for unban with supporting arguments and evidence is not made at present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock. YRC's indefinite block was the culmination of years of disruptive editing and of harassment of other users. Why should we believe this promise of reform any more than any of the other promises he broke? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Addendum: While there are no conditions that would lead me to support an unblock, if community consensus favors an unblock I recommend the imposition of the a topic ban from Jewish and LGBT issues in any namespace whatsoever, including references to the ethnicity/religion or sexual orientation of any user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC) To paraphrase DGG, blocks are cheap. Unblock Rob. He's caused plenty of drama, and I wish his mother were an English teacher who could still slap him with a ruler for every crime against grammar, but he was a net positive, albeit sometimes barely so. A 1R restriction or something like it is probably a good thing to try and prevent some drama (sic). Alanscottwalker, sure, our patience was exhausted, but drip...drip...drip... that bucket of patience can slowly fill up again. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Are you sure that's not water torture you're describing? :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Comment - There are so many blocks on the log and the probability of Rob being able to adhere to a 1RR is so low that this seems tantamount to handing an alcoholic a rocks glass and letting him open a bar tab on a promise that he'll stick to Diet Pepsi. We know how this will end. I have nothing against Rob, he's an effective voice in BLP debates even though I disagree with him close to 100% of the time on such matters. Is that voice worth the edit-warring and the non-stop drama? I'm not that wise, I have no opinion. I don't wish him ill, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about how this turns out... Carrite (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) People should review my analysis of his block log on the original RfC/U's talk page. The number of blocks is quite meaningless. As I noted above, I fully support lifting his ban because it was based less on reason and more on emotion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock. Him telling me last year to fuck off with my queer agenda (and the lies that surrounded that episode) was the last straw for me. His "promises" to stay away from me (for example) are cheap, when taken into account with his actions on Commons (which got him blocked temporarily) and his continual talking of shit about myself on JW's talk page whilst I was butthurt blocked last year. Tied in with his previous harassment of myself, I've had enough of the vile character that is Off2riorob/Youreallycan, and it would be a cold day in hell before I would welcome him back. Good riddance I say. Russavia (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting you complain about a personal attacks by making personal attacks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Support unblock, with 1RR editing restriction as outlined above, because he made many good content contributions from their first account. If he only edited from the latest (2nd) account, I would not support unblock. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) From Rob's talk page: "Yes I can easily accept a blanket one revert condition. I think I misunderstood the request." Drmies (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock per Prioryman and Binksternet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblocl and keep ban in place. His statements regarding 1RR restriction are an indication of indefinite drama. No, he really can't keep disrupting Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock. When I look through the years of contributions by YRC/O2RR I see a consistent pattern of problems. Time and again he is dragged to ANI for one issue or another. Time and again, he is rude and insulting to other editors. Time and again he has promised to reform or disengage. And the cycle has repeated. Rob claims to be a champion of our BLP policy, but when he finds himself in conflict with climate change editors, he goes to William Connolley's BLP and adds unsourced negative information, which he later upgrades to very poorly-sourced negative information. And he is willing to break the 3RR to insert that information. Now this is an editor who made his name taking a hard line on BLPs who is suddenly willing to throw all that aside to settle a score. Now, I was willing to accept that as ancient history, but the thread that earned him this block starts out the same way - Maunus' initial complaint centred around the assertion that Rob was treating BLPs of Pakistani Muslims differently from BLPs. On the heels of the Qworty scandal, we don't need more editors willing to use BLPs to settle personal scores. Guettarda (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Please review my analysis of the block log that was linked to above regarding the Connolley article. The apparent 3RR violation was a clear mistake prompted by numerous edit conflicts, not deliberate edit-warring. Oh, and we all know the "negative information" he added was accurate and easily sourced.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock (with suggested restrictions). The past is no guarantee for the future, and if it turns out to be, there is a simple way of solving the problem then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC) No, it wouldn't be simple -- it would turn into yet another dramafest, a thoroughly polarized discussion where some will try to stand in the way of resolving the problem no matter how poor the behavior. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Strenuous Oppose Unblock YRC is still attempting to cut corners and dictate terms for his return, just as he has in multiple previous incidents that lead to a block. He's still short of six months blocked, shows no signs he truly has adopted a new view of how to behave here, and has a long history that suggests nothing will change if he is unblocked. He'll behave for a few weeks at most, and then the drama will begin again. He's had his last chance. --Drmargi (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock With restrictions as noted. This is not a case where someone cannot be reformed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC) oppose unblock I see a net negative and someone who had to have administrative action taken against them even after they were site banned (Feb 17th, talk page access revoked). The "I think I misunderstood the request" comment feels troubling--I've no idea what could have been misunderstood there. It just feels like we are going to go down the same path again. Is an unban something I'd be okay with in the future? Sure, I like to think people can grow. But this is too soon (<4 months after being banned from his own talk page), I'd want an indef with the same restrictions as in the RfC/U (where indefinite != infinite) and I'd certainly want it to come from the user with a statement that he clearly gets what the problems were and that they won't happen again. Oh, I'd also like to know of any editing done by this user while under the ban... Hobit (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose Unblock This editor's history of antisemitic and anti-gay comments, and of extreme rudeness to those who disagree with him, created an unpleasant atmosphere for many editing in areas where he was active. I see no sign that he recognises this, or that he will modify his behaviour in this respect. If he is unblocked, I would like to see a topic ban in any edits relating to these problematic areas, including alleged BLP violations and vandalism on relevant articles. RolandR (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose per The Gods of the Copybook Headings. Warden (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock per Roscelese, Guettarda, and RolandR. I absolutely believe that people can change, but in this case the change would have to be profound, and I see no evidence of that in YRC's comments on this page. I also am a great believer in "one more chance", but YRC has been offered many chances, only to squander them and, in the process, squander his fellow Wikipedians' time, equanimity, and patience. Anyone doubting how much drama YRC has caused over the years should consult not only his block record but the ANI archives, which contain a wealth of YRC-related threads that didn't culminate in blocking but demonstrate a conspicuous pattern of repeated misbehavior. If, say, a year were to pass and YRC were to return to make a request that does not include self-imposed conditions but does include clear indications that he understands why his behavior was a problem, I wouldn't oppose. But this thread is simply déjà vu with a slightly longer lead time than usual. (And about those self-imposed conditions: there need be no negotiations in cases like this. The community sets the standards for editor behavior, and editors either agree to them in full or shouldn't edit at all.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Support unblock, with strict initial conditions - what's the worst that can happen? If he steps out of line again then one of the many, many admins that will be keeping an eye on him will re-block, and this time probably for good. GiantSnowman 09:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) The worst that can happen is we turn him loose yet again to run his uncivil routine on a more good editors, potentially losing them while we talk in endless circles about an editor who is unwilling and unable to control his behavior. No thanks. Our first loyalty is to civil, productive editors, not YRC. --Drmargi (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock Noting that YRC was a strong defender of BLPs whose presence has been missed indeed. Also suggest that those who have been in conflict with him previously be told that seeking conflict with him will be viewed as blockable behaviour on their part (noting some posts on YRC's talk page, and some are already under interaction bans with him). I wpuld also suggest that the weight given here to such previously involved persons shouting "block forever" be noted by anyone closing this discussion. Collect (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC) So you believe his "its the haters' fault not mine" argument? He has certainly done a lot of good for BLPs - unless its a blp of a muslim or gay person or someone with whom he has been in a personal dispute. Your argument entirely shifts the burden to those who have been in conflicts with YRC, but who have not been blocked for their behavior - and means that if he comes back he can continue to behave exactly as he did before with near impunity, he would even be free to harass those with whom he has previously been in conflict because they would be assumed to be at fault. If there is a consensus top unblock him then so be it, but what you are proposing just doesn't seem acceptable to me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock subject to the conditions agreed. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC) What an absurd request. YRC was banned because he's incapable of working within the community's behavioural norms. He's made similar whole-hearted apologies and promises to behave in the past, and reneged on them every time. There are exactly two reasons one would support an out-of-the-blue unban: naivete and lulz. I'm strongly inclined to believe that the initial request falls into the latter category. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --Onorem (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock as per conditions agreed above - we should never say never, and if we don't get a net positive result another block is easy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) People keep saying another block would be easy, but just look at how long it took to get to where we are now. 20+ blocks for harassment and disruptive editing. Multiple discussions of a community ban, each with users arguing for YRC to be allowed to continue damaging Wikipedia because he just needs another chance, he's promised to be better this time, vandalizing BLPs is okay for him because he's such a strong defender of BLP, Jewish and LGBT users can suck it, etc. What makes you think that YRC's inevitable relapse will be easily corrected? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC) If he's under 1RR with editors in good standing helping him with when the BLP violations he's corrected are reinserted (see my proposal posted on his talk page), then that steers him away from engaging in battles to defend his edits toward editing articles and having to rely on his strength of argument to make his edits stick. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unblock with the agreed restrictions. Begoon talk 15:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose Unblock The number of chances given this editor is absurd. Every single promise to behave well with others has been broken and there is no reason to submit the community to the inevitable abuse that will follow an unblock. MarnetteD | Talk 15:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Unsure, but leaning towards oppose.I an also a believer in second chances. This guy has a history of asking for them, only to squander them; he has also made antisemitic comments in the past, but, who knows? "The horse could learn to sing". — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock per Roscelese, Guettarda, RolandR and Rivertorch. Sure, it would be great to get the good parts of YRC back without the bad parts, but that's not going to happen. As to how easy it is to reblock, I think it would take 10,000 words on admin boards and a discussion with 100 participants to reblock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC) That's the rub, isn't it. If unblocks are cheap in this case, then reblocks should be just as cheap. But we all know that is not going to be the case. I wonder if that is included in the "cost" of a block. Resolute 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Neither is cheap: that's the reason we ban users: to stop having our noticeboards clogged with these discussions. Some people apparently don't get that point, and think that bringing up "shouldn't we unban so-and-so" discussions are productive. They aren't. I'm wondering if we could get a consensus to have our banning policy include a ban on bringing up unban proposals for two years after the initial ban.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock Unfortunately YRC has already demonstrated that he is incapable of changing his behaviour. This has been witnessed repeatedly over the course of his editing history. Numerous blocks are applied then lifted with restrictions which he grudgingly agrees to, then fails to abide by the agreed restrictions. He is a serial offender in this respect and a season ticket holder in the Last Chance Saloon. Pursuing further metaphors, this particular leapard cannot change it's spots. If YRC is unblocked we will just revisit the exact same behaviour pattern again over the forthcoming months, with all the attendant disruption that ensues, and be back here again in another year. Groundhog Day springs to mind, ad nauseam. Time to draw a permanent line under this.--Cactus.man ✍ 19:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock enough is enough. --Rschen7754 19:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock - I'm not persuaded by the unblock arguments, which are mostly built on a weak foundation of "net positive" and "good BLP protector". With less than 14% of his edits contributing to encyclopedia articles, and given the volume of drama that he has created in the recent past, I simply can't accept these arguments. I'm also not convinced that his attitude has changed significantly in the roughly five months since he was banned, based on his participation in this discussion and his talk page posts. The desire, by some, to retain a single good contributor should not supersede the larger goal of maintaining a collaborative editing environment for everyone so that we can build an encyclopedia, together. We should be raising the bar on civility, not lowering it. That said, I believe that people can change if they really want to, so I remain open to considering an unblock for YRC sometime in the future. - MrX 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Oppose unblock - Absolutely not. He adds almost nothing to building an encyclopedia other than conflict, and even now refuses to see that. Dayewalker (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC) YRC remains blocked but can edit from his talk page I'm wondering if the following is acceptable to the people who oppose lifting the ban. YRC's main interest has been the editing of BLP articles, the removal of BLP violations in articles etc. If we were to allow him to point to BLP violations in articles on his talk page, make suggestions for edits to articles, then that would allow him to engage constructively in the editing process, while he is forced to collaborate in a constructive way. It's then almost impossible for problems to occur. If he does this for a few months, we could look again at his ban. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Perhaps so. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 16:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC) WP:PROXYING explicitly forbids what is being proposed in this subsection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, but that's the whole point of this section, we obviously have to give YRC permission to do this as editors who are banned are barred from indirectly contributing to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC) YRC unblocked but will be automatically re-blocked after 3 months unless there is a consensus to renew the unblocked status This is the only alternative I can think of to convince the people opposed to lift the block under some appropriate arangement (like the 1RR prosal I posted above). So YRC will get immediately blocked in case of violations of the conditions, but the concern is that you always have borderline violations that generate a lot of discussions without a consensus to take measures to deal with the problem. Then given that YRC is blocked now anyway, he has nothing to lose agreeing to the 1RR proposal plus the additional condition that if he fails to convince a big majority that he can continue to edit here, he'll be re-blocked. If here is a consensus that he should not be re-blocked there will be another evaluation after 3 months, unless there is a consensus that the automatic block clause will be lifted. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested in ANY "arrangement". Remember that we are talking about an editor that has been blocked NINETEEN times before, has been given God only knows how many "absolute last chances", has made God knows how many apologies and promises, has wasted staggering amounts of editor and administrator time, has driven away God only knows how many productive editors with his vicious personal attacks, and has squandered each and every opportunity to show that he can change his behavior. I think that it would best for the community, and for Rob himself, for him to wake up tomorrow morning and finally realize that Wikipedia is no longer part of his life, and never will be again. Let the grass grow on this grave already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Failure after doing 19 times the same thing suggests to me that we need to try something different. What if the community 150 years ago had decided that steam engines should never be used because they tend to explode? Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) "When nothing I do don't seem to work, it only seems to make matters worse..." --The Rolling Stones, "Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I know what we could do: let's try learning from history. The lesson that history gives us here is that YRC cannot control his behaviour to fit within community norms.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC) @Count Iblis: I agree that something new has to be done. Like not every unblocking him again. Let's give that a try. It's been almost five months since he was banned, and so far, so good. Why mess with success? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC) No. If you unblock him, unblock him. I'm not a fan, but I see no reason to treat him like a child. Guettarda (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC) New request from YRC Hi - I am not looking for any conflict at all with anyone, I am just looking to be able to make a few gnoming edits here and there. Perhaps I would slowly increase editing , but only slowly as I gain respect. I would be happy to generally aviod any topics users felt I should avoid for a few months and I will definitely avoid users I have previously been in conflict with. What if I restrict my contributing to atricles about English villages for three months? I would prefer to contribute in a small way to improve those, to nothing. Rob Youreallycan 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC) cross-posted from talk page by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC) If you just want to gnome without conflict, why not accept the 1RR restriction? --Onorem (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I am accepting a zero revert three month condition - Rob - Youreallycan 19:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)cross-posted by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC) This I'm nearly comfortable with. Editing anything else other than your own talk page and perhaps being able to use other's talk pages solely to discuss said articles, would cause the ban to return. I'd want the case to return to AN afterwards and probably some longer-term restrictions (civility, maybe 1 revert) for a bit. But I'd like to have some way for you to restore the community's faith in you and this seems darn reasonable. In any case, the exact wording would need to be crystal clear, but I think that's doable. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not comfortable with the idea that YRC is dictating terms yet again. He is a long-term, consistently problematic editor, and this is taking us down the same road as one discussion after another has. Complete waste of space, time and effort. --Drmargi (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Waste of time and space This discussion has now run to very nearly 10,000 words. By my count, 64 editors have taken part. Of these, 33 have opposed lifting the block, 19 have favoured unbanning YRC, and the others have not made their views clear. This, to my mind, is a very clear illustration of how this editor polarises opinions, and why his presence, which demands an excessive amount of time and space consumed in discussing his behaviour, is not beneficial to the project. I certainly don't see a consensus to unban arising from this discussion, and suggest that we close the matter now with no change. RolandR (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, there is no consensus to unban. Perhaps Youreallycan could ask at WP:BASC, as was suggested by a closing administrator during previous ANI discussion here, unless he already asked. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, one of the weaknesses of this project is all of the time that is wasted on situations like the one being discussed at great length here. This isn't a last-minute death penalty appeal being argued before the Supreme Court! It is an issue of one volunteer editor in an online project who, judging from the above comments, has been very disruptive over a long period of time. This person was determined to be disruptive to the project and asked to leave, after what I am sure was a lengthy process. Yet here we are, allowing this person to waste even more of editors' time from "beyond the grave (ban)". And Wikipedia wonders why so many good editors tend to get frustrated and leave the project. Taroaldo ✉ 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

S.P.B article

• S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Bbb23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Diff

The user is removing crucial info which has been present since many years from wiki and is imporatant to appear in wiki as it decribes crucial information pertaining to someone's carrer. Also user is calling me whose fan?My additions were not made by me but was earlier present in the article and since they were missing I have added them back. The additions are niether glorifying S.P.B but instead give out information about his first recording in Knananda, M.S.Viswanathan's impact on his career, his breakthrough in Malayalam. Do not revert unnecessarily. Only fan stuff should be reverted not such crucial facts. But the user Bbb23 keeps reverting and making it appear as if am adding fan crufts!!!Haleveldzc (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't notify the other editor, so I have done so for you. And I fixed your post above with links to relevant things. Stalwart111 07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23's actions are 100% correct. I cannot see a single source for ANY of your edits there, and just because information has been present in an article for years, doesn't mean that it belongs there. Also, your writing style is very, very promotional, so these edits are indeed fancruft. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• You brought this to ANI before attempting any discussion on the article's talk page and only five minutes after posting a comment on Bbb23's talk page. Five minutes is not a reasonable time to give someone to respond to a comment.

As far as the information being in the article for many years, Wikipedia is not perfect and should be expected to evolve over time. There is no "grandfathering" of data

in this project. Taroaldo ✉ 08:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is mostly a content issue and, as such, doesn't belong here, but the article has an unfortunate history of fan-like hyperbole being added to the article, particularly by newly registered accounts and IPs. It was protected once back in February. If I recall, it was at my request as I'm involved and can't do it myself. Sometimes I think about removing it from my watchlist as it's a pain in the ass. There's a lot of unsourced material in the article. My intention generally in reverting is to keep out new unsourced material, particularly promotional material. I had not idea this unsourced material ("M. S. Viswanathan used S.P.B's voice in various 1970s Tamil movies. Under his composition S.P.B sang for senior actors like M. G. Ramachandran, Sivaji Ganesan and Gemini Ganesan. He recorded numerous duets with P. Susheela, S. Janaki, Vani Jayaram and L. R. Eswari.They have been working together till 2013.") was a "crucial fact".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A surreptitious willy

Sober up, please. BencherliteTalk 00:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all, I am a drunken and foolish person. Nevertheless, I am reasonably sure that when I look at Image:Outdoor_heated_fish_tank_enclosed_by_glass_plus_reflections.jpg I do see a lizard mounting a sculpted penis in the foreground. I find it highly amusing myself, but I also have a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumungus abligation in my gut to the wiki project so I cannot allow tht sort of thing forever. Can someoen do something please? 81.131.214.109 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC) As someone who is currently sober, my judgement is that while the rock is somewhat phallic, it does not appear to be an intentional sculpture of a penis, and the lizard is only sitting on it, not attempting to mate with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC) IP81, if it is, as you seem to believe (a "sculpted penis") rather than what I believe (an eroded, water smoothed rock) then I would submit that the sculptor is incompetent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Another addition to my list of "Things that probably never happened at Encyclopedia Brittanica." Its sure been a good week for 'em..! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

user:Guy of india - personal attack and racist remarks

• user:Guy of india reporting because of lot of unreferenced edits in spite of multiple warnings and vandal edits in pages like Tiruvannamalai and Kumbakonam. The user has also resorted to racist remarks against me in an article using vernacular slang- details here - [125]. Translates to "The Iyer Arya Sanskritic Tamil traitor user:ssriram_mt belonging to Kumbakonam is trying to demean the article Tiruvannamalai. This is a because of his ill feeling towards the city." The google Tamil to English translation can be used to verify above (translates roughly, as he has wrongly typed Tamil words too - the link is too big to paste here. The user's contributions and warnings received from other users can be checked in his talk page. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that Guy of India called SSriram mt a "traitor" in Tamil after a string of ethnic and religious descriptives. That sure qualifies as a personal attack to me. Guy of India's talk page is not a place that inspires confidence that this editor is contributing productively to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin User:SemperBlotto has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

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

---

User:SemperBlotto has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy by punitively blocking my account DonThorntonJr on Wiktionary.

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

21:14, 12 June 2013 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) blocked DonThorntonJr (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spamming)

Since I am blocked completely, I am unable to resolve this issue with the admin.

From the BlockList page, it seems this admin has engaged in this type of abuse for some time.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:BlockList — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonThorntonJr (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an administrative noticeboard just for English Wikipedia. You should take this matter to the administrators over at Wiktionary.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks! please explain since I am unable to do anything at Wiktionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonThorntonJr (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin User:Pi zero has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

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

---

User:Pi zero has violated Wikipedia:Blocking policy by punitively blocking my account DonThorntonJr on Wikinews.

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

02:46, 13 June 2013 Pi zero (Talk | contribs) blocked DonThorntonJr (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 12 hours (account creation disabled) (Spamming links to external sites)

I have followed the recommendation to add { {unblock|your reason here} } to my talk page to contest the block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonThorntonJr (talk • contribs)

This is not Wikinews. This is Wikipedia. We have no control over what goes on there. --Jayron32 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Ownership issues at Template:Attached KML

For reasons discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox Australian road and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal, {{Infobox Australian road}} now uses KML data, with related KML files stored as subpages of the template. Infobox Australian road is managed by WikiProject Australian Roads, while editors at Template talk:Attached KML are trying to force a move of KML data at Infobox Australian road to subpages of Attached KML. This seems to be a clear case of editors at one template asserting ownership of all KML files, which is highly inappropriate, as is any attempt to assert ownership. Attached KML certainly has the right to use KML data but, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia, it doesn't own it, as much as it would apparently like to. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think calling this an "incident" is overstating the issue. The locus of the dispute is that up to now, all KML data has been stored in subpages of {{Attached KML}}. The Australian road editors want to include the KML links in the Australian road infobox, which is a reasonable thing to do, albeit one that I (and other editors) disagree with. What the disagreement is over is that KML data is being copied to subpages of the infobox, which several editors have agreed is a bad thing because it causes data duplication and results in data being stored in several different locations. Ultimately the whole thing will become moot when Wikidata advances to the point that this data can be moved over there. I may be wrong, and I am involved so that may be clouding my judgment, but at this point I would say this is still just a content dispute and no admin intervention is required—discussion is going on, people are making points, and certainly people's dander may be up a bit, but there's nothing close to the metaphorical Wikipedia fistfights that usually get dragged to ANI going on here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing us with the required notifications which you didn't, and thank you for explaining what admin action you are requesting which you also didn't. This is borderline forum shopping. --Rschen7754 10:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a case of one template asserting ownership over content used by another template. WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted. I haven't specifically addressed any editor, just a group, so it's not really necessary to notify particular editors and since this is the only place I've sought intervention, it's not forum shopping. Please also remember, although this directly involves {{Infobox Australian road}} there was an active move to not address the issue at that template by Scott5114 who, coincidentally, is also the creator of {{Attached KML}}. At best it's disingenuous to accuse me of forum shopping. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel that I was attempting to forum shop or slip something by you; that was not my intention at all. I was simply trying to keep there from being two discussions on the same thing occurring at the same time, and I figured that it would be better to have the discussion continue at the Attached KML talk page because that page is watched by more editors (many of which had already commented there). We could have just as well moved the discussion to WT:HWY or somewhere else, but I figured it would be simplest to just continue debate at the template talk page. I wish you hadn't opened this ANI thread, because now we have a third page where discussion on this topic is going on, and it's slowly morphing into a meatball:ForestFire.

I don't really think there are OWN issues here; you may see it that way, but I assure you that we are simply proposing what we feel is the best technical solution to the problem. It's unfortunate that you disagree with us, but disagreement is something that happens regularly on Wikipedia, and we have to rise to meet the challenge of working through it and finding a solution to that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When you posted this message at Template talk:Infobox Australian road I responed with "Since we're discussing this infobox, I don't see why we should discuss at that template".[126] To date you have made no attempt to address that. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not just discussing the infobox anymore, but rather the larger question of "how shall KML data on the English Wikipedia be administered"? That question should be answered with the involvement of all of the people who have a stake in KML data. For better or for worse, the only page that all of those people watch is Template talk:Attached KML. (Many of them are not involved in the road projects per se, but have a programming or general geography interest.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The move proposal has nothing to do with how KML data on the English Wikipedia is administered. It's aimed purely at Attached KML taking control of KML data used by another template. If you want to discuss the administration of KML data, open an RfC and then decide what to do with Infobox Australian road's KML data based on the outcome of the RfC. How KML data should be managed in the long term has already been determined - the plan is to move it to Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with AussieLegend, KML data is not owned by Attached KML or the people who watch its page, if another wikipedia group wish to use KML for their own purposes. There is nothing stopping them. The long term goal is the same anyway (migrate to wikidata). Im sure we can even discuss ways of keeping the two sets with exactly the same content (which shouldnt be a massive task given the low number of KML files) -- Nbound (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see ownership issues here. Notices of discussions were made at WikiProject Highways [127], WikiProject Australian Roads [128], and Infobox Australian road [129], with discussion occurring at Template talk:Attached KML. The discussion brought to attention here regards moving KML file subpages from one template to the other. This would not prevent anyone using the KML files in any way, and would only require a line or two of infobox template code to be changed. The KML files should really be in the File namespace, rather than template subpages, but that is not currently possible. - Evad37 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Posting some notices doesn't negate WP:OWN. The discussion is about removing content from Infobox Australian road, so the discussion should have continued at that template's talk page. It shouldn't have been moved to another template where the editor would receive a more sympathetic ear. The people at Attached KML have a vested interest in maintaining control of KML data and the instigator was that template's creator. Even the appearance of ownership is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that this is all a storm in a teacup. The WP:OWN issue is the "formal proposal" at Template talk:Attached KML. The entire discussion went from 0 to 100mph within less than a single day (since notices were posted), and noone can restrict access to wikipedia files to any other groups on wikipedia without some reasoning that consists of more than not wanting to have two copies (as there is no centralised source yet). Perhaps if instead of trying to push through the issue to a conclusion so quickly, all parties could discuss it a little further, and hopefully a bit more calmly, perhaps a compromise can be found?

I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :).... (and as I stated back there I dont even care so much how this pans out as long as the functionality works) -- Nbound (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal that has a wide margin of support. That's called consensus. Furthermore, there is no WP:OWN issue here; WP:OWN would be restricting the use of KML to the {{Attached KML}} template. I suggest that this thread be closed. Sometimes, neither side is going to budge, and straw polls have to be used to reflect where the consensus is, and we have to go with that. That's how Wikipedia works. --Rschen7754 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of binding consensus that takes place on wikipedia generally requires a bit more time to allow editors to commment. Move proposals take 7 days, RfCs take 30, (and both generally follow long discussions on the matter anyway) the more informal consensus building ways don't have to follow those guidelines, but the time so far is far too short. American editors involved may not realise it's actually a long weekend here and many editors will likely be taking a short vacation/holiday. Straw polling two sides that "wont budge" goes against the very ethos of "consensus building". Are you saying that either side is so stubborn that they are unwilling to compromise or be swayed? As Ive stated, I dont care how this turns out as long as it works, but Im still worried about how this is essentially being steamrolled through so quickly in the name of a supposed consensus. AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion. I hope that you and others would be willing to do the same. Leaving things as they are for a few more days isnt going to hurt anything or break the encyclopedia. :) -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the most recent vote seems to have highlighted a need for categorisation in their opinion also. -- Nbound (talk)

"AussieLegend has at least indicated above he is willing to return to discussions with a view that he may have to modify his opinion." Can you please point to this? I sure haven't seen it. Sometimes, when building consensus, there is going to be a minority of people who disagree. On a large site like the English Wikipedia, we can't cater to everyone, especially when the options are so binary (we can enable Pending Changes or we can disable it. There's no middle ground... for example). I'm very concerned at the stalling tactics that are being used here - I think AussieLegend is hoping that people will forget about this and that he will be allowed to continue doing whatever he wants, ignoring what the actual consensus is. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, my post stated "I would suggest we drop the "formal proposal", and get back to a discussion for at least a couple of more days, with the possibility of compromise in mind. Hopefully we can all agree with that :)", and his immediate reply was "That would seem reasonable.". -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For all we know AussieLegend might be quite happy to keep the files at Attached KML if there is some decent form of categorisation (instead of 4000 files all together, IIRC - there are already some suggestions of how by Floydian and WOSlinker)... There simply hasnt been enough discussion at this stage to start taking strawpolls in the name of consensus. -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is just a proposal. It has no effect until it is closed. That could be a week from now. That could be two weeks from now. And votes can always be changed. In fact, it's generally premature to close a proposal while discussion is going on (which it clearly is). Thus, I see no reason why starting a proposal was inappropriate. --Rschen7754 02:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The formal proposal is automatically assuming the outcome of discussions, there are likely compromise options which havent even had time to air yet, yet its already been claimed by yourself that the opinions are binary (removal vs. keeping) and there is no middleground, which appears to be untrue amongst both supporters and those currently opposed to the removal of the fork (some kind of categorisation at least for AU KML files?). The proposal is premature, delaying it by a couple of days isnt going to hurt or break anything. -- Nbound (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the KML files can be in one place or they can be in many places, so in that regard, yes, it is binary. And I am still awaiting an answer to my question of how administrative assistance is needed here. I'm obviously recused from this thread, but if I wasn't, I would be closing this thread to that effect. --Rschen7754 02:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is binary in that regard, but the discussion has bought up the possibility of more nuanced options than that. There are shades of grey/gray. Lets see if any of these alternative options bear fruit? :) -- Nbound (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. So (obviously pending AussieLegend's agreement) can we agree to close this thread? --Rschen7754 02:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The ownership issue DOES exist, despite the claims of Attached KML supporters. They are asserting control of all KML data on Wikipedia by insisting that other templates comply with Attached KML's method of storing data, i.e. storing ALL KML data on Wikipedia as 4,300+ subpages of Attached KML even though the other templates do not use Attached KML. That's the very essence of WP:OWN. Attached KML is saying "You can use our KML files, but you can't have your own set because they're ours" and quite simply, Attached KML doesn't have that right. Despite Rschen7754's assertion I have siad what intervention I'm requesting: "WP:OWN is a policy so administrator intervention to enforce a widely accepted policy is more than warranted." Administrators can close the proposed move as violation of WP:OWN and direct that discussion should take on the talk page of the relevant template (i.e. {{Infobox Australian road}}). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am just going to stop responding, as I am not going to respond to such a statement that is so far off base I don't even know where to begin. --Rschen7754 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you feel that way, because it really only helps demonstrate my concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Please note that inappropriate canvassing has taken place: [130][131][132][133][134][135] --Rschen7754 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being quite ridiculous. The move proposal instigated by {{Attached KML}} editors directly affects {{Infobox Australian road}}, which is managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads. I've merely notified the members of WikiProject Australian Roads listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads#Participants. That's more than appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That notice was barely neutral, and a more proper audience would have been notifying all the people who have posted a KML and have shown a definite interest in the integrity of the KML system. --Rschen7754 12:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The notice identified exactly what was happening in as neutral a manner as possible, and directed editors to all three related discussions. It was entirely appropriate. Attached KML doesn't have a thing to do with Infobox Australian road yet a discussion was opened at Template talk:Attached KML for the the express purpose of asserting control over data used by Infobox Australian road. By discussing the matter there you've stacked the votes in your favour. To accuse me of vote-stacking, given the ownership issues and that vote-stacking is reprehensible. I'll add that I believe you're only calling it canvassing because involvement of WP:AURD members at a template they'd normally have nothing to do with would bring some balance to a discussion that currently favours the opinions of the group of Attached KML editors who would normally have nothing to do with Infobox Australian road. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

All 0 of them. --Rschen7754 12:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, what if they agree with the proposal? If I remember correctly, Nbound (talk · contribs) did a similar "canvass/notification" (though they didn't realise the conflict between editors of the two projects) on user talk pages ([136], [137], [138], [139] [just to name/link a few) for a RfC about a proposal about the Infobox Australian road be merged/replaced with Infobox roads. I think we should deal with the "votes" as they come and hope someone not involved closes the discussion when they feel that the support is there and the concerns are addressed. I don't totally agree with AussieLegend's wording but it seems to be neutral enough.

The way it's going, this will end up being a sorry mess at ArbCom if the hostility continues. Bidgee (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not they agree with the proposal. It is still canvassing. To be completely honest, the lack of comments on this thread by uninvolved users is very surprising seeing as this is clearly a violation. TCN7JM 01:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing at all. Many AU editors are involved in multiple tasks and are too busy to watch every page. Notifying them individually of related discussions is a necessary courtesy but I do agree with you regarding the lack of uninvolved editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Break

WP:AURD has dropped KML from its roads template, I would suggest we close this discussion -- Nbound (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rschen7754 03:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that we've dropped KML there's still the WP:OWN issue, which is a big part of why we dropped it. It's simply not worth keeping the KML functionality when you're being bullied. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

When everyone "bullies" you by telling you that they don't agree with you, it's called WP:CONSENSUS. --Rschen7754 09:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN prevents a valid consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If only one user thinks WP:OWN is actually being violated, then it is valid consensus that it is not being violated. TCN7JM 16:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors at one template can't form a valid consensus to take control of files used by an unrelated template. There is no general consensus or policy that permits that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, if you still feel wronged, you should file an RFC. The total lack of any outside response at ANI should tell you how the community feels about this matter, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't need an RfC to get a policy enforced and I'm sure that, no matter how neutral the might be, members of the roads project would make some complaint. It's not me that has been wronged, it's Wikipedia, by the Attached KML editors exceeding their authority. I note that while I have explained why this is a case of WP:OWN, those on the side of Attached KML have not explained why it isn't. All we've seen is "no it's not". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic SPA

There's some problematic editing going on that the Stewart Raffill and Standing Ovation (film) articles. The account User:Rovaf123michael appeared on June 6 and began editing both articles, making significant changes. Some were ok, but others are clearly an attempt to whitewash by deleting portions of direct quotes: [140]. I placed some warnings on the account's talk page, which received no response. Another account User:Rovaf123, obviously the same user, appeared June 10 and began reinstituting the same whitewashings as the other account [141], as well as edit warring over the removal of a film poster image [142]. A couple of IPs have also been involved here and there. I'm bringing this here because it's not simple enough for AIV and because there's more at work here than plain old sockpuppetry. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The edits made by User:Rovaf123michael in the Stewart Raffill article serve as a copyright violation, using the organization's website. That said, the editor never received a copyvio warning. I would block User:Rovaf123 as a duck. As far as the Standing Ovation (film), the editor is clearly whitewashing the article. I would then indef User:Rovaf123michael to make sure he understands and is able to comply with guidelines and policies pertaining to NPOV, COI, and copyright violations. Note that while you placed one "level two" NPOV warning, you didn't escalate after the editor continued adding/removing inappropriate content. In the future, you can just offer some guidance (if amenable), then if they continue to violate policy, just escalating the warnings. If they keep going after the fourth warning, then it is a simple report to AIV. Thoughts? Cindy(talk) 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That would seem logical, except that I only report blatant vandalism to AIV because they tend to deny everything that isn't run of the mill vandalism. And especially since I've now started a thread here, they will just reject it. I note that the user has again blanked the image from the Standing Ovation article without discussing [143]. Can someone please block these accounts since they are whitewashing, adding copyvio text, engaging in slow edit wars and refusing to respond to notes on their talk page? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor continues their attempts to whitewash the Standing Ovation article, still has not responded to any notes on their talk page, and is also now editing logged out. This is blatant abusive sockpuppetry and refusal to discuss their changes. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Masem has gone mental!

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

---

For some reason they seem to be rather insistant on replacing encyclopedic images with unencyclopedic and crappy images. They seem to have no understanding of why what they are doing is wrong... at least... that is how I see things anyway... If we are supposed to replace good images with shitty ones because free then I will happily accept that! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Massem has not "gone mental"; in fact they're downright sensible in replacing trademarked non fair-use images with good-licensed versions of each console. For now until we can actually purchase the consoles, this will have to do, and they are actually fine images for what they are. Nate • (chatter) 02:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also PantherLeapord, don't remove comments you disagree with, like mine. Nate • (chatter) 02:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the Foundation's resolution - if free content of equivalent encyclopedic nature is available, non-free may not be used, and that's reflected in NFCC#1. Both consoles are out in the public and we have CC-BY-SA photos of them, just not as "professional" as the press kit ones, but you can make out the unit and controllers in both. That's "encyclopedic" given that there's no discussion on the look of the units in either article. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And note that I went out of my way to look for free images and happened upon those. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Well why don't you go and replace EVERY image for EVERY console article with a shitty version from their respective E3's. See how much that improves the encyclopedia because free! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? We have free images of those units. And when these units are more accessible (possibly when they get store displays) we can get better images. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is just another case of newbie-itis, or "I like to use pretty pictures I find on teh interwebz!". Block the disruptive accounts, restore the free-to-use image as WP:NFCC calls for, and we can all move on. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

If nobody is willing to cooperate with regards to the PlayStation 4 article, nor will the edit-warring stop, then PlayStation 4 needs to be full-protected for quite a while, preferably for 1 week. --MuZemike 05:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord is unblocked, having sworn to stop edit warring. Shrine Maiden seems to be heeding my warning. I think the problem will ease up.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I just hope someone comes up with a better usable image soon (Despite the fact the one used in the article before today easily meets every criteria for CC-BY-NC images to be used here!)! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

every criteria for CC-BY-NC images to be used here is wrong on several points. The promo pics that manufactures post are fully copyrighted, and even then the nc clause would be we cant use them. Werieth (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Robin z Sheraton

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

---

The pages User:Robin z Sheraton/Leszek and User:Popierdolony Sobkowski/Eponims should be removed (because of vulgarity and personal attacks). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please ID the personal attacks in the second and first one? DrPhen (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• First page deleted as obvious trolling. What is the issue with the second (obvious language issues here - also it was created by a different user)? Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vulgarity, in Polish. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Robin z Sheraton has also edited User:Popierdolony Sobkowski/Eponims and note the main user page User:Popierdolony Sobkowski Google translation, which appears to be an attack page on another editor User:Michał Sobkowski (an administrator on Polish Wikipedia as well as on an 83 year old Polish female scientist pl:Eugenia Sobkowska (an article which has been repeatedly vandalized with multiple revision deletions). There's more than a hint of duck here. And it wouldn't surprise me if both Robin z Sheraton and Popierdolony Sobkowski are socks of the banned user Pacynka_Sobkowskiego. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible violation of interaction ban

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

---

User:Prioryman may have violated a community-imposed interaction ban: [144]. Relevant links: [145] [146]. User:Youreallycan is currently banned and I believe his talk page access is revoked. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman has been notified of this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I'd completely forgotten about that - but does it still apply if the other party is banned? In the circumstances there's no possibility of interaction. Prioryman (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I recommend removing your comments and honoring the ban going forward. Interaction includes you talking about them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done this now. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes being banned does not make your own restrictions moot. Jehochman is offering good advice here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you just saved Prioryman from a long block. That was a very nice thing you did here. Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

While PM did violate the interaction ban, it also seems to me that given the inability of AN/I regulars to moderate themselves properly in that discussion about Yrc, AN/I is itself subject to a de-facto interaction ban with Yrc. I.e. while Yrc's ban won't be lifted by AN/I due to there not being the consensus for it, Yrc can raise the matter via BASC and then the fact that there was a big consensus against the lifting of the ban here is not going to have a big impact on the outcome, because of the way editors behave here. For AN/I to be more relevant, we have to keep our heads cooler here. Count Iblis (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that WP's administrators rarely investigate any issue to any great extent. Usually, several editors will post a strong opinion, with one or more of them saying something negative because they have an adversarial relationship with the individual (like PM with YRC), and then everyone else will pile-in with support or oppose votes based on their being influenced by the earlier postings. It's a bush league way of administering a website. Cla68 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed. Particularly as the evidence can be so easily hidden from non-administrators. Eric Corbett 13:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

2/3 COI users

I think I found two cases in which I think the COI policy is broken

The first cases relates to users: User:Cancilleriaec and User:200.6.8.4. I got they impression they are single purpose accounts created to promote the person and article of Ricardo Patiño. As can be seen in their user contributions they only edited the article of Ricardo Patiño, the Foreign Minister of Ecuador. The name of the first account stands for Cancilleria Ecuador, which is the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If agreed, then the article should probably be reverted to an earlier version, which excludes their contributions.

The second case relates to User:NIBR and the article Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, which has the acronym of NIBR in Norwegian. Same principle goes: this is the only article that user:NIBR has edited. Crispulop (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they edit neutrally it might not be a problem. I didn't see any particular problem with the NIBR article. I will also assume that NIBR was editing in good faith. They were warned about the username/COI issue, and don't seem to have edited more after that. Since this is a Norwegian institution: On Norwegian Wikipedia, we tend to be more open to people/institutions editing their own articles, so they may be used to "Norwegian rules" and get surprised by the stricter "English rules" (allthough the username policy is somewhat the same). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether you looked at the recent version of the NIBR article or at a previous version, but in the current version I already deleted most of the institute's edits as they were copying material from their website. Anyway, I'm just mentioning these examples because I read Wikipedia:Blocking policy > Common rationales for blocks > Disruption only: Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam. Crispulop (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Revdel for a copyvio

Could someone take care of this revision? Someone posted the entirety of a news report to the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I can not access my account !

Troll has been blocked ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am really User:AjaxSmack but I can not access my account, nor my e-mail, as if it has been hacked. I am an established user so I was wondering what the procedures were to get my account back? I have a new e-mail, and of course have a 'spare' account, which is this one. If need be, would my old accoint have to be closed down? Or is there a commitee/admin I could speak with to retrieve my old account somehow? Thanks guys. --AjaxPieter (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

91.155.236.125 back from block, and immediately back to pushing nationalistic fringe theories on multiple articles.

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

---

Two days ago 91.155.236.125 was blocked 48 h for tendentious editing and pushing fringe theories on multiple articles after being reported here at ANI. The blocking admin, Future Perfect, noted that If they continue, escalating blocks should quickly be re-imposed. Well, the user is back and is reverting at full speed. So a swift new block, for a suitably longer period of time, would be appreciated. Thomas.W (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week by Future Perfect. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia

Users ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia have been engaging in a long battle at Talk:India Against Corruption and attempts at moderated resolution are failing. WP:3O was unsuccessful and after posting an RFC ThinkingYouth simply started a new thread. It has gone beyond a passionate discussion and has shifted to personal polemics. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to all senior editors concerned in Talk:India Against Corruption for my editing, but let me clarify Editor ReformedArsenal RFC had no purpose/resolution regarding the ongoing dispute/edit warring . It 's not even minutely addressing the problems discussed/debated/disputed in Talk:India Against Corruption.I had no other option but to start a new section explaining the major issues of the ongoing dispute ,so that other editors can understand the ongoing dispute/editwarring,and take appropriate action accordingly . ThinkingYouth (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Revised Rfc by ReformedArsenal is now a precise summation of the concerns first raised by User:ThinkingYouth at [147]. His concerns were clarified here [148]. Therefore the Rfc is directly on the original concern raised by the other editor, ie.

"There are so many fake IAC website link to to Www.rise.net.in . Please add third party verified source to claim official website of India against corruption . Do not add fake IAC website and link to Propagandize".

NB: I thank User:ReformedArsenal for his patience and helpful approach. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As i explained , in my previous comment , this confusion or lack of understanding in the editors to understand the major issues of ongoing dispute at Talk:India Against Corruption, is the sole reason i started the new section below the WP:RFC by ReformedArsenal ,to explain myself and the ongoing dispute/edit_warring in details ,so that concern editors can take the appropriate action accordingly.Please read [149]

FYI: RFC is about "Should http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ be listed as the official website" .It is not about www.rise.net as explained by fellow editor AcorruptionfreeIndia.

NB: I thank all the concern editors and specially User:ReformedArsenal for his patience and helpful approach.ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression that AcorruptionfreeIndia is pov-pushing there and at Aam Aadmi Party, and that they probably have a COI. It's possible that ThinkingYouth has similar issues but the whole thing is a bit of a mess at the moment and it does seem to have degenerated to a sort of point-scoring situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited India Against Corruption] for over 1 week except for 1 edit where I merely restored the page to one by the blocking Admin's last edit after some cryptic deletes by Sitush. Yes, I had contributed mucho text to that article on the past, but I don't own that article. So don't quite get how I'm POV pushing. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How could,raising BLP issues in talk page of concern article become (probably)COI? Well, Thanks to admin and other editors,after their interventions and edits(deleting biased POV),i'm proved right. ThinkingYouth (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading this, I don't see anything wrong with starting an RfC after a 3O. Third opinions are merely advisory but have no real standing in terms of consensus. Why don't you publicize the RfC on WT:IN, you'll get a lot more input and won't be stuck with just two editors duking it out. --regentspark (comment) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: WT:IN is certain to escalate it to other level(s). IAC related pages are quite controversial. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Apparently, the dispute has now spread to Aam Aadmi Party. I would like to propose a 48 hour topic ban on both ThinkingYouth and AcorruptionfreeIndia for anything related to Indian Politics, as well as Category:Corruption in India ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Take my word ,I've already stopped editing these two pages. ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is poorly sourced and badly written, with most of the sources being hopelessly outdated or just plain bad (eg. Sitush restored a source which claimed Arvnd Kejriwal was with IAC in June 2013, and then he also had to delete it). I won't edit the article itself, but shall confine myself to its Talk Page (in small doses if other editors cooperate) if there are also previously uninvolved editors on that article (a 'request not demand). AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented what I did. You made so many poor edits that it was simpler to restore to an earlier version and then step through he subsequent stuff, reinstating the useful elements of what you had done. This is clear in the edit history. You've also made unfounded allegations that I am in cahoots with ThinkingYouth (for example, here) and you have made ad hominem attacks such as this and this. I'm not fussed about you sounding off - I've had a lot worse - but I am concerned about the quality and purpose of your contributions. I'm also a bit concerned that a lot of what you say on talk pages seemed to make little sense, but perhaps that is just me being a bit thick. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Saeed Naqvi piece of 6 June 2013 (which I deleted twice as a poor source) was first reverted by ThinkingYouth and the 2nd time round you also had to drop it (because you saw, like me, the huge problem for Kejriwal if it was allowed to stay on page). The "wikistalker" link was given when we were not talking. User:ThinkingYouth can now explain why in his first 400 edits he just "happened" to edit 40 pages you had previously edited including some pretty obscure ones, WP:BURDEN on him. The link does not allege anything, it is a factual result being reported to the dealing Admin who had locked the page. On the ad hominem "attacks", you're being slightly oversensitive - "Sitush, please explain WHY its wrong. Not clear to me." is an ad hominem attack? If something is incorrect (like source not matching article text) I simply delete the whole of it, as I can't deal with Cantabrigian types who nitpick grammar/style (<--- This is not NPA, just fact on how I edit). I leave it to others to fix. Is that "poor editing" ? "Its not perfect till there is nothing left to remove" - Motto of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My intended diff was this, sorry. I didn't see any "huge problem for Kejriwal" nor would such a thing usually be a reasonable rationale for removal unless there was a specific BLP issue. Finally, it would be better if you try talking before making inappropriate allegations. Even in your latest response here it seems that you are het up - walking away for a bit might be a good idea. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"WikiStalker" ;-) .. I really don't know why sitush and my edits have 40 commons! may be it's a small (edit)world out here..! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you check my supposedly WP:SPA first 400 edit against Sitush's ? Its not funny, stop winking, this is serious and I expect a serious answer from you on an ANI incident concerning you. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk)

@Sitush snarky was possibly in reply to garble. On the Saeed Naqvi article, you were wrong. It was published on 18.Nov.2012, so Ps_Nitin who inserted that "June 6 2013" date is a WP:SPA who has loaded this article with non-RS POV and deserves to be booted off Wikipedia for causing us to fight. And so to bed. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is funny ! Wikistalking ! ;-) i hope, am not getting any restraining order and that was my serious answer ..! I really don't know why we've 40 commons , do you have any brilliant reasoning about it? BTW, i don't see any point here,discussing a edit-warring, which is already resolved by admin and other editors! good nigh ThinkingYouth (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC itself

In all this din we keep avoiding 1 issue, the original Rfc itself. How is it that editors who continue to claim that "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" is a "FAKE IAC" website despite being shown its impeccable 3rd party WHOIS, are allowed to keep reinserting "www.aamaadmiparty.org" back as AAP's official website when the WHOIS for AAP is in someone else's name ? Could User:ReformedArsenal please shed some illumination on this, B'coz I'm getting quite tired of Wikipedia now and this uncle may be retiring. 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Summation

• After reviewing User:Sitush's latest version of Aam Aadmi Party I find that 68.3% of my previous edits (almost exclusively deletes) to that page have eventually not been incorporated back by him.
• Several edits which he disputed, (such as controversy over "launch date" of the party) could not be fixed by him. Hence my approach to delete was the right approach in hindsight and supported by policy.
• The bulk of the material removed by me was repeatedly POV'd in by User:Ps_nitin and User:ThinkingYouth as the page history amply records, both accounts opened as WP:SPAs for the topic.
• The article Aam Aadmi Party is still pretty poor and unbalanced.
• Accordingly I intend to keep editing these articles assuming / assuring Good Faith to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia project.
• I trust my co-editors shall respect my knowledge, competence etc. and evaluate me by my future work.
• I presume that nobody here has any objection to "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" as the Official Website for India Against Corruption.
• Finally concerning my "poor edits" (essentially amputations) as contrasted to those who have x100 my edit count, there is a famous Indian proverb which translates as "100 taps by a goldsmith cannot equal a single blow from a Blacksmith". AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And.. we shall take your version as gospel's truth .Right.? ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not understanding this process at all, are you, AcorruptionfreeIndia? Either here or in articles and their associated talk pages. I don't know how I can better explain the behavioural and content-related issues to you but there are lots of them. Hopefully, someone else can set you straight. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing editors are required to have in common at Wikipedia is respect for and adherence to Wikipedia:Five pillars. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me try again to explain a few things:

1. ANI is not the place to settle content disputes. It exists to handle "incidents" which, by and large, tend to be behavioural issues. Things such as the official website issue are not for this forum, nor your opinion that the article is currently "pretty poor and unbalanced"
2. You were within your rights to delete information that you felt was not supported by sources; I was within my rights to restore it and then rapidly resolve the problems that you felt existed, especially since the sources did support something and the problem was really one of phrasing or (in at least one instance) your own misunderstanding of how sources do things. Your edits were poorly executed and seemed to be based on a desire to trash an article whose subject you dislike but the problems with your edits were understandable because you are fairly new here. Or, at least, you do not have many contributions, even though your policy knowledge and expertise in edit summaries makes me think you have been editing as an IP or some such for some time
3. There is no deadline and effectively no "perfect" version of an article. Many articles take a while to knock into reasonable shape and then continue to develop (improve, hopefully!) as time goes by. Analysing something as you claim to have done within 24 hours of a major attempt at improvement is not a useful exercise
4. If there were POV edits at some point in the past then that is now history. If you had an issue with them then you should have raised the concerns at that time
5. You can contribute to the project in any way that complies with policy - no need to make a song-and-dance about it, just do it
6. Homilies, ad hominems and similar tend not to go down well, so perhaps best to avoid them. Some things just don't come across via a screen and keyboard in the way that they would if people were interacting face-to-face. Indeed, much of what you say above reads like the words of a smug, self-righteous, arrogant type of person ... but I am sure that the description does not fit your personality. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• • You're quite correct, the incident for this ANI was User:ThinkingYouth's hijacking of the "Rfc" after he had successfully prevented any "3O" from taking place by bloating the article's Talk Page (at one point 57.9% of the page was contributed by him - all in the space of 5 days). This ANI has also been similarly hijacked away from his behaviour into mine.
  • "smug, self-righteous, arrogant type of person", I was about to write something on the same lines for you, but I restrained myself, per WP:NPA.
  • I had twice raised my POV concerns for AAP on its talk page, giving more than adequate time to the conflicted editors to clean up their edits on their own while clearly stating I did not want to place maintenance tags at the head of the article. Not surprisingly neither did ! In future I shall edit only after placing the appropriate indication tags.
  • My deletes were as per policy. We can differ on how Wiki Policy is to be interpreted, but henceforth we shall do so on the talk pages of the concerned article(s), as I believe that, ultimately, we both desire to improve the encyclopedia. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My behavior, seriously?.....FYI: I've already apologized for creating/editing new section below RFC(&mentioned the rationale),what else do you want from me. ThinkingYouth (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism Report-Intentional deletion of information in the page- Kerala.

Hi! I have put my hard work in searching and and improving the page Kerala with adequate reference. However a user- Green Giant -intentionally deleted 191,967 bytes of my works. Which I had reverted back. Immediately another user- Ser Amantio di Nicolao -reverted the change so possibly a psudo of the same person. Warninig issued by user- DMacks.

All information has been provided adequate reference.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kerala&action=history

Administrator intervention requested reinsert my content and protect wiki from vandalism.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalidhdhd (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence that these are the same person:

• User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Green Giant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

They both made a WP:EDITSUMMARY-rational basis for undoing the edits. Third time you inserted it, I warned about the WP:3RR rule, which is a behavior concern unrelated to the content itself. After which time User:Malayalidh is created and whose first action is to complain about my edit. I indef'ed it as an obvious sock. DMacks (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, why indef Malayalidh and nothing for Malayalidhdhd? Block both or neither, I'd say; Malayalidhdhd doesn't even have a talk page note about sockpuppetry or about the other account. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that I'm not a sock of User:Green Giant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I will say that I gave my edit some consideration before making it; I looked at Green Giant's rationale, and at the edit itself, and decided that I agreed with him. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Malayalidhdhd appears to be caught in the autoblock for Malayalidh, so the message Malayalidhdhd got about that is a pretty direct notice to him (as well as being a block of him). I indef'ed the sock for being a sock, and a side-effect was that the main got a block of 24h, which is standard for ew anyway. I'm AGF for the edits themselves (the removals of them appear as a simple content-dispute), but feel free to lengthen the main one's block to account for the socking. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because they appeared to be an attempt to push a particular point of view, using flowery language, to indicate the supposed superiority of one language/culture over another. The user's very first edit is a significantly large edit to make me suspect that this user has extensively edited before, and is using a new account to get around content disputes. Indeed I would allege that the complainant is a sock puppet of User:Ram777ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who had 28 very similar edits reverted about 3 weeks ago for copy-vio reasons and received a warning about this. Green Giant (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about PantherLeapord

While he stopped the massive edit war he instigated last night over removing an image on PlayStation 4 that he believed was of insufficient quality (which also, by the way, I accidentally brought WP:NFCC into because somehow I thought he was restoring the non-free image too, when he really wasn't. It was getting late; we all get weird at night), and was unblocked on the condition that he would stop edit warring. For the record, said image has been replaced by a much better one without the poor angle that he was complaining about.

But after being unblocked, he proceeded to campaign against the previous image, grudgingly canvassing his invalid arguments (asserting that we can still use a non-free image on PlayStation 4 because the only free images available are not of "same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public"; despite the non-free image still being invalid as primary identification because the design of the console as a whole, which a non-free image would show completely, is not adequately discussed in the article)) to every possible talk page and in edit summaries (with one reading "Hopefully they see reason and stop edit warring the bad image in when a perfectly good NON-OBSTRUCTED image is available and meets ALL criteria for CC-BY-NC files to be used here!"), and also made attacks against Masem on this very page claiming he's gone "mental" for not going by his interpretation of policy.

I think he needs more discipline, personally. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've been pleased with his behaviour since being unblocked. He obviously vociferously disagrees with NFCC, but he promised not to edit war if I unblocked him and he's been sticking to that. If this keeps up at this intensity it will be disruptive, but it's only been 12 hours or so.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the "gone mental" comment probably falls a little short of NPA, and preceded the block.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Needing discipline" makes it sound like blocks are punitive, which they are not (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So... what EXACTLY is wrong with wanting an unencyclopedic image replaced? PantherLeapord (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it at all. Just like there's nothing wrong with me liking the Ferrari parked on the street yesterday. Helping myself to it, however, would be illegal - just like using non-free images when VALID free images exist. Copyright law is just that: LAW. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case then why do we even HAVE NFCC use criteria that allow us to use CC-NC and other noncommercially licensed material? The LAW does not have exceptions! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

They do. It's called fair use. But our rules are made to intentionally be stricter than fair use for legal reasons. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, making much of this discussion moot - I found another flickr user that uploaded a better shot of the hardware with a CC-BY (free) licence, and did appropriate uploading and cropping so that all the images now on PlayStation 4 are free and without the case edge in the way. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

New inexperienced user making wholesale edits to protection templates in articles

I may be a bit daft but I can't see why a new inexperienced user (PrivateMasterHD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)), with a user account that is less than one month old and a user talk page full of complaints about his/her mistakes, would make wholesale changes to protection templates in articles, including changing to templates that AFAIK don't even exist ([150],[151],[152],[153],[154],[155], and so on). I posted a question on his/her talk page earlier today, asking what he/she was doing, and by what authority, but when he/she came online again he/she just deleted my question and kept going. Am I ignorant or do we have a loose cannon onboard? Thomas.W (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor was notified, but the removed it.[156] Same as with the other notices in the past. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Loose cannon is a bit strong. There doesn't seem to be any disruption here. These templates exist as redirects so the worst that is happening here is some inefficiency in serving pages is being introduced. Hardly worthy of administrative action. I've left a note on his/her talk page with some more info. As far as your alternative to having a loose cannon onboard, well...  :) Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PrivateMasterHD's previous username, User:VGPHD, and previous user page linked it rather closely to the indef-ed account User:VideoGamePhenom. There was some discussion about this at User_talk:Amatulic#Re:_User:VGPHD. Much like the discussion here, we found it mildly annoying but in good faith and not worth blocking at the time.--Michael Greiner 04:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by blocked sockpuppeteer

Wikivigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sockpuppet of Vigilant (talk · contribs) and is currently repeatedly going after Jimbo Wales' user talk page. It's been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vigilant but frankly when it's this obvious there's no point in doing an SPI - could someone please nuke the sock? Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuking socks is a great thing to do on a cold winter day to get your feet all warm and toasty, but be sure you have the proper footwear for it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It can be helpful to post SPI reports even in obvious cases. The SPI report archive can be used as a central record of the problematic behaviour, which can help identify further socks. At least, this is what the clerks and checkuser admins tell me. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Incivility/Personal Attacks by User:AmericanDad86

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

---

I believe there's plenty of examples to work with here, but I can provide additional examples if necessary. Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's fascinating is that the post you're referencing seems like precisely the kind of thing that belongs on this very page, rather than the American Dad! talk page. What I'm saying is that AmericanDad86 seems to be in half the mind to do this very thing. I'd advise that you notify all involved parties in this dispute, such as Kww and CTF83! and call for consensus. Judging by their comments on the American Dad! talk page, this may all be a misunderstanding that simply calls for enhanced clarification. If you believe this is an issue that requires administrative intervention, I'd advise that you expand your presented case. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe AD86 needs to be told by an editor they'll actually pay attention to that their conduct isn't appropriate. In the linked discussion I asked them to tone down the personal attacks, and they proceeded on the same tack they'd been on the whole time - unfounded accusations and a significant failure to AGF. I'll notify the other editors of the discussion but am short on time to do more right now, and would welcome the input of other editors. Doniago (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Doniago, this is an administrative board where one asks for administrative intervention, not for intervention by "an editor they'll actually pay attention to". In addition, you said in your initial post that you'd provide additional examples, but when asked to do so by DarthBotto, you said you didn't have time. If you don't have the time to present this properly, then you should consider withdrawing it, irrespective of the merits of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Doniago wants an admin to talk to him, as they can block for incivility. CTF83! 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so. I meant that I didn't have time to add additional examples at the time I made my earlier reply, not in general. Additional examples of what I would consider questionable edits follow: [157], [158], [159]. Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either. As I doubt AD86 will listen to any advice I could give them regarding refraining from incivility, if you don't feel this is the appropriate place to bring it up when their incivility is disrupting discussion regarding an article, I must ask what you believe would be a more appropriate manner of addressing this. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted that they were previously blocked for exactly this sort of behavior. Doniago (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it regrettable that there has been no movement on this so far. It's my opinion that by allowing AD86 to address their fellow editors in such a manner, including personal attacks and misrepresentations, without repercussions, we are implicitly saying that such conduct is permissible. I sincerely hope that that isn't the message that the admins feel we should be sending. Doniago (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it regrettable that you have brought the issue here instead of to the more appropriate channel, WP:DR, so I'm not surprised the admins are not interested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Rahuljain2307

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

---

Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Rahul RJ Jain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Fake ID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has history of removing sourced contents, categories, infoboxes, wikitables, templates, section markers, redirecting articles, moving pages without consensus etc. Almost 90% of his edit summaries are blank. Instead of trying to be constructive to build encyclopedic articles and finding sources or tagging with 'citation needed' or refimprove tag', he blank contents with 'unreferenced' or 'unreliable sources' summary converting articles in bad, tattered state.

User:Rahuljain2307

I started checking his history from date of creation of his first account. First he did this with Syādvāda with this and this edits. Rishabha was disambig page for two separate deities but he redirected Rishabha (Jain tirthankar) to Rishabha with this edit. He also redirected Rishabha (Hinduism) to Rishabha but another user reverted it. Then he removed contents, infobox through many edits citing 'unreferenced' reason, reduced article from 34K to 14K. He even removed Category:History of Jainism from this article about founder of Jainism. He keep merging contents from this article to that article like this, this and this. If you check revision history of Jainism, he has reduced size of article from 105K to 53K claiming 'unereferenced' or with blank summary through many edits. When his peer review nomination, FAC nomination 1 and FAC nomination 2 failed, he created sockpuppet to edit GA template on talkpage of article to declare it good article. Finally too many nominations, user talkpage requests (from his both accounts) worked and some experienced editors helped him to improve article and Jainism article is good article now.

User:Rahul RJ Jain

This account looks more blatant than first account. He began with removing cats from dozens of articles which were must (eg this). He moved on to remove infoboxes(eg this), sometimes templates, wikitables, section markers etc. He stress on refs but have removed sourced contents from many articles with blank edit summaries ( eg this). He abused AFD process, have nominated more than half dozen articles for deletion. None was deleted. His most recent AFD is Deva Devali which is most important festival of Jainism, the day on which Mahavira achieved Nirvana. It is equivalent to Diwali festival of Hindus. But he claim this festival is not encyclopedic. Recently, related to Chanakya, he also claimed that Chanakya may be Brahmin, reader/preacher of hindu texts, devotee of Lord Vishnu but he was not Hindu at all. I have not checked all of his edits. Most of his edit summaries are blank. And I can't post all the diffs due to edit box 5000 chars limit. I request admins to check history of all of his three accounts. But if you need, I will create separate page to write all of his history in detail. As per WP:Vandalism, WP:GAME and WP:NOTHERE I propose indefinite ban on Rahuljain2307. neo (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh look. You're back. Again. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Anonymous209.6 is making a number of clearly POV edits

User:Anonymous209.6 has been making (at least what I would consider) some POV edits to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Those various edits can be found, here. However, a little more disturbing is that he/she is now redirecting redirects to other pages, besides this one. These are pages that clearly should be redirected to this page. His recent changes to the redirects can be found, here.

The changing of redirects is clearly an act that shows a clear intent to edit away from WP:NPOV. I would simply ask in help reversing the changes and help stopping future disruptions. Thank you for your time.Casprings (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Those redirects are correct. Every redirect he has made has been to Todd Akin, which is the primary subject of the redirect phrase. I am not sure how you can call that a POV edit. Arzel (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So a person that wants an article on Todd Akins 2012 comments or "legitimate rape", is looking for information on him? Isn't it likely they are looking for information in the current article? In my view, this was clearly done to prevent the reader from finding the article. That is clearly related to the POV if the editor.Casprings (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Akin article has links to the 2012 article. If readers are looking for information specific to Akin, then Akin's article is the correct article. Arzel (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:"clear"One would assume that if admins can be expected (as they are; see above) to simply look at a contribution history and immediately see the world as Casprings does, namely that problems are "clear", it should also be easy for Casprings to actually say, in narrative style, what logical arguments that edits are not correct (this does not mean single word adjectives, as ARE found) Casprings is talking about. While my edits are almost always scrupulously justified in edit summaries, or on Talk, as required, I can find none for Casprings. At no point have WP:BLP issues been addressed, except by me, by argument. Filing of innumerable (exagerration - there probably IS a number, it is just BIG) motions is not a SUBSTITUTE for logical argument on Talk.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• POV edit on "Democrat activist and campaign consultant Brad Bannon " Not supported by sourcing
• POV edit on Tom Smith
• Removal of sourced material for POV rational. Edits directly dealt with on talk page, here. Continues to edit war over the content, reverting multiple times. Another example is here.

I mentioned the last as edit warring. However, you have been reverting and changing the article without consensus since you started your involvement. Most of your involvement in the article is POV pushing. I could continue.Casprings (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Improper renaming The article "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy" was specifically deleted/merged, and only two named articles were proposed as targetsTodd Akin and the Todd Akin Senate race article. [[160]] Casprings immediately wikilawyered to closing admin User:MBisanz to allow some use of the to-be-deleted material in the erection of a new, different article (something which Casprings had been told to do a week earlier, but did not until after the AfD closed). After the AfD close, rather than allowing the normal WP process to proceed, Casprings intervened (not allowed by WP rules - they are an involved editor, not an admin, and the creator of the Akin controversy article) and, contrary to the ruling in the AfD, did NOT merge content of "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy", but instead simply renamed the whole article to Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, and entirely different article. This has screwed up redirects and history, and while fixing history is a huge and unrewarding task no-one has yet taken on, fixing the redirects SHOULD be simple. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "wikilawyer" anything. I created it off the discussion in this AfD and this move discussion. The article was upheld in this AFD. If you think it is a problem, bring it up at WP:AfD or WP:MR. Changing logical redirects to other pages isn't correcting anything. It is making it harder for the reader to find the material. Casprings (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also pont out that there have also been some edits that go against the conversations on the talk page.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Block review of Stenen Bijl

On 3 June, Stenen Bijl (talk · contribs) was blocked for 3 days by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) for personal attacks / harassment. That same day I increased the block to indef following threats to OUT fellow users, including Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs), DVdm (talk · contribs) and MelbourneStar (talk · contribs). Stenen Bijl then proceeded to send numerous further similar threats of OUTING etc. to Heironymous Rowe and myself via e-mail, so I removed e-mail access. It is likely that Stenen Bijl has used 24.22.208.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (currently blocked) to block evade, see the SPI. They have continued to e-mail me, now stating they simply wish to return to normal editing, "just to fix content problems the same as would an IP." To be truthful I am not wholly convinced that unblocking Stenen Bijl will be a net positive to Wikipedia, but they seem to have realised that threats/insults will get them nowhere, and collaborating with others will work well for all involved. I therefore propose (in the spirit of WP:ROPE) that we unblock Stenen Bijl, with the knowledge that a repeat of any previous behaviour will result in a swift and final re-blocking. GiantSnowman 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as my e-mail access is limited (non-existent during the day!) we might wish to consider allowing SB some talk page access so they can answer any questions/queries/concerns you might have. GiantSnowman 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should give him a 1 month block to teach the lesson and then let him remain editing. We can have an uninvolved admin watch over him to make sure he is not doing any harassment. Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, threatening to out other editors is kind of a dealbreaker for me - personally, I would not unblock under any circumstance. But that's just me though. This goes beyond a standard offer sort of situation, I think - what could this editor do to convince the community that unblocking is worthwhile? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is way too short a period after such behavior. Let them sit a month or two and then they can ask again. Gamaliel (talk)

So...Stenen Bijl is blocked for a short time for personal attacks (a block which I feel was warranted and proportional to the problem). Rather than either change his behavior or simply wait out the block, he immediately resorted to aggressive threats. And I can confirm that they were quite aggressive, though I won't confirm exactly what was stated or who I got the information from. But I will say that the threats were very clear: let me resume editing, leave me alone, I'll just do minor editing, or I will do very bad things to you, off-wiki. And now, after none of us involved caved to the threats, he's now coming back to ask nicely?

My first inclination, of course, is to even wonder why would consider this. Oddly, though, I'm tempted to restore talk page access again and see what he says. If it's just an attempt to make a quick flurry of attacks, well, we can not only re-block but also oversight the comments. But if he's willing to commit to fundamentally changing the way he interacts with both other editors and article subjects (the original problems related to some AfDs of religious leaders/mystics; some of the AfDs were legitimate, but Stenen Bijl's antipathy to subjects showed that he wasn't even considering the idea that these might be legitimate article subjects, and when editors defended the articles, he lashed out at them), then that might be acceptable. I would not accept a "Let's not talk about that, instead I just want to have the ability to gnome." Nor would I accept any sort of blame-shifting, either to the AfD participants or any of the editors involved in the blocking. Unblocking must be conditional upon an acknowledgment of past errors and commitment to change in the future. I guess I'm saying that I might be willing to turn the other cheek, but only if Stenen Bijl first confirms that he's not still holding a knife and a grudge. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then let's restore talk page access, and let SB make their own case. GiantSnowman 08:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone says otherwise, I will shortly restore talk page access. GiantSnowman 18:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access restored. GiantSnowman 20:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

Hello! I came here to bring Kazakhs and Kyrgyz_people for your attention. I am exhausted of correcting POV edits on facts about religions and races by IPs and new accounts. As you can see on [[161]], [[162]]......, somebody have been continually reverting good faith edits from different users on these pages for a long time! Could any admin decide what to do about this editor? Thank you! Chris1636 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good target for use of the pending changes option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Or semi-protection. Chris1636, please take a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you think one of the protection options described there would be useful, you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Rivertorch (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anon removing Shared IP template from own talk page

Here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.139.161.148&diff=prev&oldid=559840490 and here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.139.161.148&diff=prev&oldid=559840365. The anon has been making unconstructive edits for the past several hours and removed warnings from talk page, which is acceptable. Is it acceptable to remove the Shared IP template as well? Should I let this go? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I could say the same for Walter Görlitz. He or she is condescending my edits. 71.139.161.148 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the notice and explained why on the IP's talk page. Hopefully this will clarify that it's not just a matter of preference. I see that there may be some underlying disagreements here, but that's unrelated to the shared IP notice issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

These edits are also worth taking a look at: a personal attack in the edit summary of this one and a veiled threat of more disruption or whatever in the edit summary of this one, both apparently directed at User:Walter Görlitz. Thomas.W (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

‎196.12.178.161 spamming and 3RR

‎196.12.178.161 (talk · contribs) has broken WP:3RR at Precious metal stemming from his/her addition of spam content. —Diiscool (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Spamblocked 48 hours. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 22:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement needed of topic ban of IP editor Wickwack

A dynamic IP editor that geolocates to Perth, Western Australia and has a history of socking was recently topic banned [163] is attacking other editors at the Ref Desks again[164]. Wickwack didn't sign obviously due to his topic ban, but he has often been critical and abrasive towards StuRat such as with this [165]. --Modocc (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple question: Was the editor in question notified of the ban? Complicated answer: Through no choice of his own, he edits from rapidly changing IP addresses. (It's the policy of Telstra, Australia's biggest ISP.) So, who knows if he even knew of his ban? I'll acknowledge that he probably did, but how can we know for sure, and how do we advise him this time that he is again under discussion, and how do we "punish" him this time? Our policy allowing unregistered users to edit becomes very problematic when a user does not have a fixed IP address. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I notified his most recent IP address of this discussion [166]. He didn't sign with one of his usual aliases, and he has contributed frequently, almost daily in recent weeks. He's should be aware of his ban and its definitely him based on his current and past behavior, and bans are not to punish but to stop repeated disruption. --Modocc (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the dynamic nature of the IP addresses, and per the specific conditions of the ban, our only recourse is to simply remove the contributions and move on. Just revert and/or remove the contributions, cite Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which contains the text of the ban, and that should be it. There are no other methods of stopping this. --Jayron32 03:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Wickwack" is indeed trolling. He almost fooled me. The elaborate story he wrote (claiming that the info on Dyn-o-gel was totally bogus) is instantly dismissed by a search. Dyn-O-Mat, the start-up making it, may have gone bust in the meantime, but it was a real company at one point. (The fact that a NOAA FAQ page scores even higher than the Wikipedia article on google and dismisses Dyn-o-gel as ineffective is probably part of the reason why the company went under.) Since "Wickwack" is WP:UNBLOCKABLE, perhaps a notice should be posted to RefDesk so people ignore his replies. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Per Jayron. Radically delete his contribs as quickly as they appear at the ref desk until he gets fed up with wasting his own time and everyone else's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Threat outside Wikipedia

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

---

I saw this post in Facebook about an article called "Don Bosco Bandel". User:TheShatadruSeth has threatened to mass rollback each post by others on the article. Please take appropriate action. Here is the link. 1. Perilydona (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee, it's nice of you to create an account just to tell us about this. TheShatadruSeth has made only three edits and only one to the article, and that was a couple of weeks ago. Why don't you wait until there's an actual problem? You are also supposed to notify the user of your post here; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like a classic case of biting a newbie. Someone read a potential threat to Wikipedia, and despite not being a regular editor, went to the effort of creating an account to let us know about it. I think the better response is "thank-you".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that part of my comments was bitey; I've struck that part.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would concur with SPB there. Thanks User:TheShatadruSeth. Someone will watch it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to thank User:Perilydona? User:TheShatadruSeth was the editor s/he was reporting. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup. Imagine I had to create an account on hated FaceBook to check out on this typical immature off-Wiki socialising. Closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Nishidani

On June 9, I reverted some changes User:Nishidani made in the article Itamar and tried to explain the reasoning as best I could in the edit summary. We have since been engaging in a conversation on Talk:Itamar about what is appropriate in the article and what isn't. He/she has recently started personally attacking me. This includes insulting my command of the English language, accusing me of POV pushing without substantial evidence, and calling me "incompetent to edit on Wikipedia". Wikipedia:No personal attacks states that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" and "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks.

Here, on 10:40, 10 June 2013, Nishidani accused me of POV pushing to malign Ha'aretz. I have nothing against Ha'aretz whatsoever and have used it as a source in other articles. On realizing that some of the text could be construed as misleading regarding a Ha'aretz journalist, I altered it to specify that the journalist had made the comments described in a television interview, not the newspaper in question.

The attacks on my diction started here, on 10:38, 11 June 2013, when Nishidani told me to "Please learn to construe English correctly before either editing or engaging in a discussion" and suggested that I "can't distinguish elementary points" of the language.

I took it to his/her talk page because WP:NPA recommended doing so and asked him/her not to insult my English or to make assumptions about my motives and behavior without substantial evidence. I pointed out that some of things he/she said are defined as personal attacks according to WP:NPA and provided a link to that page.

He/she responded by saying that he/she was only "[stating] the obvious". He/she insulted me again by saying that I "do not understand English with any degree of sophistication, or choose not to" and that I "don't understand simple English, or don't care too much about what is being edited and discussed, as long as [my] view prevails". He/she also claimed that, following the first revert, the "rest of [my] editing was to prettify the settlement's image". Every edit I made afterwards was directed at adding references where there was a "citation needed", adjusting the text so there's no original research, replacing unsourced information with sourced, and altering the description of one particular incident to show the Palestinian side of what happened, as it had previously only shown the settlers' (edits shown here and here). Before that, I had only fixed red links and added a date to the lawsuit section.

There appears to have been some sort of misunderstanding, as Nishidani said that I accused him/her of "[passing off suspects to a murder, released for lack of evidence, as indeed murderers]".

Here, I explained that I only objected to this text: "Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers". I was not saying that he/she accused the suspects (Gadi Tene and Yaron Degani) in question of murder but that I didn't think it was right to say that two settlers murdered a Palestinian man when none were convicted and the only two charged were released for insufficient evidence. I apologized for not being clear enough, reminded him/her that he/she was using personal attacks according to the guidelines, and asked him/her again to not verbally attack me.

Instead, here, he/she called me "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Here he/she changed the title of the section to "Personal attacks (1ST7/ POV-pushing incompetence (Nishidani)". He/she went on to describe my explanation and apology as "Proof of [my] incompetence, carelessness with sources, indifference to verifying texts, and use of WP:OR". He/she insulted my English again, called me incompetent again, and accused me of "[ignoring] all wiki protocols".

It appears that I did remove two sources Nishidani added without realizing it; that was an accident, and I would have restored them quickly had he/she pointed it out on the talk page, but the subject never came up until this most recent response.

However, I don't see this as an excuse to insult someone personally the way Nishidani has been doing. I have asked him/her twice to stop attacking me like this and to focus complaints on the content of the article, but that has only escalated matters. This seemed to be the best place to go next. If an administrator could please help with this situation, it would be much appreciated. --1ST7 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised that "belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence" would be considered a personal attack, since, well, sometimes you have to question someone's knowledge, talent, or competence. So I looked - that line was added to the guideline merely two weeks ago without any discussion. So, let's keep that in mind, that while these may or may not rise to the level of personal attacks, let's not stick to the letter of a two-week old unilateral law on that. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I think that questioning someone's knowledge or experience might be acceptable in a situation in which a user is only being disruptive; but I don't believe it's alright for an editor to repeatedly call someone they disagree with incompetent, insult their English, or call them "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor" without any significant evidence. I think that last one would fall under "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". --1ST7 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Its completely different when an editor quesrions another editors experienced. And another editor promotes or advertise the other editors incompetence, especially if its not true.Its spreading a reputation that cant be fixed, it discourages editors to even try to build consensus. AWp:NPA should be updated.Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Itamar is an Israel-Palestine topic area, it is subject to strict discretionary sanctions as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Editor misconduct in this topic area should not be tolerated, although I am not expressing an opinion regarding misconduct in his case. I don't think that is correct to use the word "murder" when a legal case was dropped and no one was convicted of murder. Murder is a legal judgment. The article already uses terms like "lethal attacks" and "violent acts" to describe events near the settlement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "belittling" sentence has been removed from WP:NPA and, by the look of the discussion on the talk page there, is not going to go back. There are times when it is necessary to inform someone that their edits are not up to scratch, be it on account of their language skills or otherwise. Whether this is a violation of WP:NPA depends on how it is done, not merely on the fact of it being done. Zero^talk 01:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it is alright to politely explain to a user that their edits are problematic, but the manner in which this was done is hurtful and unproductive. I consider it a personal attack to directly call someone "incompetent" not once but several times. There is still the issue of making "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", which I believe Nishidani did by saying that I "ignore all wiki protocols" and am "a POV-pusher for a national interest, and a poor editor". Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state that editors should not insult others but rather "explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it". The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an understandably volatile subject, but I don't see why editors can't have polite debate. Lashing out at a user this way only causes problems and hurt feelings. --1ST7 (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani does a lot of reading (books, not just Google), and it is extremely likely that he could produce compelling evidence to support any assertion that he has made (or to quickly acknowledge an error if found to be incorrect). In fact, a quick glance at User talk:Nishidani suggests he has made a solid start on explaining his position, so why not engage with the substance of what Nishidani wrote? It looks as if he is concerned that his reliably sourced edits were blanket reverted without discussion. For example, there is a comment on Talk:Itamar at "09:28, 9 June 2013" where Nishidani started a discussion on why he removed certain text, yet it appears that nearly all his edits were reverted ten hours later without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - these charges seem to be groundless, with or without recent edits to WP:NPA. User:1ST7 appears to have a set of WP:COMPETENCE issues in regard to fundamentals such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS and even a fine cool editor like Nishidani's patience being stretched would be highly understandable, except patience has been maintained. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I explained one of many problems with the plaintiff here. This is an extremely difficult area to edit. The villages and settlements in the West Bank have been variously defined as 'Disneyland with guns', 'the Wild West'. Law itself is suspended. Huge interests are at stake in spinning stuff, even in sources. Editors who do wish to work those articles must above all (a) read what sources say (b) not remove, as did the plaintiff, impeccable, university published books introduced correctly to improve documentation by prior editors (c) engage on the talk page and, above all (d) read and represent the views of editors they disagree with by correctly construing their views. The plaintiff, in my view, waived all of these procedures. I'm pernickety about grammar, and do get grounchy when I end up dragged into an exhausting conversation in which my interlocutor appears to me to be ignoring the niceties of English. Here I was being told that I must not say a Palestinian was 'murdered'0 by settlers. Well, several good sources use that term, and, if you check, the article has the word 'murdered' appropriately used of Israeli victims. I just follow RS language. I did not intrude my own judgement here, as the plaintiff asserted. I generally like to work articles thoroughly, in rapid succession. and, against the two preceding editors' views, do make errors, esp. with IR because I can't understand it. When poor editors intervene, this gets particularly troublesome. It's the trip wire that makes articles like these, desperately in need of several cool and close editors review, particularly hazardous.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word "murder", please consider Cullen328's comments above. "Murdered" is only used to describe the Israeli victims in cases where the perpetrators were convicted. I already explained that the removal of the university published book was an accident and that I would have restored it quickly had it been pointed out on the article's talk page. --1ST7 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - If we talk about personnal attack, the first one came from 1ST7 in the comment of his global revert when he talked about "biaised wording". All this is groundless and just time consumming. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack; I said nothing against Nishidani personally. I said that the wording used in the article to describe the Nasasrah incident ("Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers") sounded biased for reasons explained above and that that was why I changed it. --1ST7 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith can sometimes be more "insulting" than not assuming good faith. Explaining poor edits with the editor's poor command of the English language is IMO a very nice way to assume good faith – and certainly no personal attack. Ajnem (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:1ST7.

This particular instance is clearly a content dispute. You might have an argument challenging ‘two settlers’, and asking that I write ‘settlers’, despite the fact that RS justify the use of two settlers. What you did was connect ‘ two settlers’ with the Israelis arrested on suspicion, and later released for want of evidence, and thinking that I was implicitly identifying the killers. I object to the WP:OR in this, but I’d quite happy to accommodate your anxiety by rewriting ‘settlers’. Let me give some background. The Dromi law allows any settler to shoot dead a Palestinian who he believes is intruding on land he or his community has seized.

Your objections to ‘murdered’ are not acceptable, because you say a court ruling, not RS, must establish that, not reports by reliable sources. That’s very convenient for your POV. Why? (a) all settlers are entitled to a fully array of impressive rifles, machine guns, and pistols. They walks about armed with high-powered rifles and machine guns etc. (b) no Palestinian in occupied areas under Israeli military jurisdiction is allowed to have weapons, even if in self-defence. (c) where ‘unnatural’ deaths occur, the investigating authority is the Israeli military administration if a Palestinian is suspected, not a neutral body. An Israeli civil court tries settlers, and almost invariably they get off the charge. The court statistics, as relayed by B’tselem, for the specific period when that man was ‘murdered’ are as follows:-

report published about four months ago by B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, documents 199 cases of manslaughter and murder of Palestinians by Israeli citizens; only six yielded murder convictions. In six cases of death, the police did not initiate an investigation, and in another 39 the cases were closed. The punishments were also minimal: The sentences of four of the Jews who were convicted of murder were reduced, five of those convicted of manslaughter were sentenced to less than four years in prison, and five of the seven Israelis convicted of negligent manslaughter did community service instead of prison time. On the other hand, in all 114 cases of murder and manslaughter of Israelis by Palestinians in the territories (up to March of this year), the cases were investigated. Thirty Palestinians were convicted of murder, 17 were killed by the security forces, 12 homes of murderers were demolished. No sentences were shortened, and of course there is no point in even mentioning a pardon.

It’s quite astute, sorry, disingenuous (as an old man I can't help note the special status of that word as the default term to sidestep WP:AGF accusations!) to plead that wiki editors override sources and rewrite them according to the verdicts, reported in the Israeli press, of an Israeli military court system in occupied enemy territory which, notoriously, regularly absolves armed Israeli settlers of ‘murder,’ while consistently handing out ‘murder’ sentences to disarmed Palestinians. What you consistently fail to see is the way your judgements appear to consistently echo settler and military-occupational biases, privileging their verdicts.

How do you resolve the problem of this ‘WP:Systemic bias when eyewitnesses remark on the presence of two settlers and the fact that as they arrived, shooting from one side began, and several people were hit, and one, well, 'just died'? To avoid the source 'murdered' is to espouse the military court system as the only adjudicator of our (neutral) terminology. The only solution is to follow RS, not the court files of the occupying power, as you ask we do.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh

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

---

There's a rainstorm of IP socks at this AfD (following blocks of various registered user socks [167], [168], [169], [170]) and they're becoming very disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

AFD now closed,article deleted and SALTed. postdlf (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Is adding this news report from San Francisco Chronicle inappropriate?

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

---

Please let me know if there's anything wrong with adding this article to the Falun Gong wiki:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php

If you feel this article is not notable, not relevant, or inappropriate, I will agree. Or how best to add this news report.

Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that Margaret Singer was a recognized expert on cults. Disclosure: I met her once. My thinking is that this is a halfway decent source, but that a claim this controversial should be backed up by a impeccable source, such as a book published by a university press, or something equivalent. And discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. They are bound to be controvesial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically personal experience counts as Original Research which cannot be used here unless backed up by a reliable third party source. PantherLeapord (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the article itself. It seems to be reliable enough... (I have notified Zujine of this discussion as they seem to be involved in this. For future referance: You are supposed to notify them.) PantherLeapord (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, PantherLeapord. There are a few issues to consider regarding inclusion of this source. One issue is that User:Bobby fletcher has a conflict of interest, but I'll start a new thread in the appropriate forum to deal with that (see here). A second is that ANI is not the place to resolve content disputes. Otherwise:

• The San Francisco Chronicle article is a reliable source for the claim that these three individuals presented their opinions at an American Family Foundation conference in Seattle in 2000. However...
• When deciding whether this should be included in the article, reliability of the source is not the only concern. The notability of this event, especially when stacked up against the mountains of academic literature on falungong, is important to take into consideration, as is the broader context. If we include a news article saying three people giving a talk at an obscure conference 13 years ago, it opens the door to include all sorts of irrelevant things.
• This article is not notable, and the views it presents are fringe views that have been discredited in more serious scholarship on falungong.
• There are tens of thousands of news articles covering a range of views on falungong, and half a dozen excellent books, as well as journal articles. In order to summarise the views of reliable sources, some level of judgement and discretion is needed. Otherwise the article would become an endless battleground with people vying to have the news article they like included above the rest. To prevent that from occurring, when dealing with contentious debates, we endeavor to use the best sources available--namely high quality books dedicated to falungong, or academic journal articles, etc.
• In the books and journal articles written on falungong, experts analysed why it was that a small number of Western anti-cultists were so eager to support the Chinese government's claims that falungong was a 'cult', and they explored the impact of that on helping to legitimise the government's human rights abuses and blunt the appeal of falungong to western audiences. That kind of secondary source analysis is worth including (and it had been included in various forms), but shouldn't be given undue weight. (An an example, Ian Johnson—who won a Pulitzer for his coverage of falungong—notes that falungong does not share the characteristics of a 'cult,' but that some members of the West's anti-cult movement had "a vested interest in attacking new groups" in order to keep their field of study relevant).
• Back to the SF Chronicle article: the field of 'anti-cult' studies is a relatively obscure and marginalised one. The conference where these people presented was not an academic conference. None of the three 'experts' cited in the article held tenured professorships; one was an undergraduate student, another a grad student. None have published books on falungong. Their names don't appear in the bibliographies of the leading academic books on falungong (there are one or two exceptions, and in those cases, they are held up only as examples of how not to do scholarship).
• Mainstream scholars and experts have thoroughly dismissed the idea that falungong is an 'authoritarian cult.' The views of Singer et al are fringe views on this subject. Mainstream views of real experts, published in academic and other high quality presses, should take precedence.—Zujine|talk 11:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, isn't it? I'm not sure how it relates to behavioral issues. The way the top scholars situate the cult argument when it comes to FG is to describe it as a propaganda tactic by the Chinese government - it is never actually taken seriously and analyzed on its own terms, largely because the term itself is disputed and vague. Bobby Fletcher appears to be using singular sources to further an argument that is roundly discredited by scholars. I'm not sure where that leaves us. "More discussion," perhaps. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this not hatted and carted off to the Reliable Sources [sic.] Noticeboard, where it belongs? Carrite (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Dodging a topic ban?

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

---

Recently user Jax 0677 received a topic ban regarding templates. Off course, he was not happy with that but now I have the nasty feeling that he is dodging the topic ban with the help of an assistant/meatpuppet, in this case User:Frietjes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Evidence (more or less a random choice):

• Involved template: Template:October Tide
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 9/6/2013 03:19
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 13:53

• Involved template: Template:Bill Medley
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: two remarks, last at 8/6/2013 22:06
• Addition to template by Frietjes: two edits, last at 9/6/2013 13:50

• Involved template: Template:D Mob
• Remark Jax to Frietjes: dd. 8/6/2013 19:11
• Addition to template by Frietjes: dd 9/6/2013 15:22

I did not check every item but due to me nominating the templates, they are on my watchlist. And suddenly I see a lot of Frietjes-edits on templates that I have recently nominated, show up. Too many to be a coincidence. Request for help from Jax to Frietjes: here, here, here, here, here and here. These request started as soon as the day after the topic ban was issued. And as far as my superficial check went, Frietjes responded in most cases.

It is possible that I am overly itchy to Jax after all the trouble in the past, so I would like to hear other opinions. The Banner talk 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

seems like this was constructive comment, which is in contradiction to starting an ANI thread. The fact that you see a lot of my edits could have something to do with the comments that I am making on the respective TfDs. Yes, I do read the notes posted on my talk page, and sometimes I add links to templates and articles in response to those comments. I also express an independent opinion at TfD, and more often than not, concur with the deletion of the associated templates. of course, that hasn't stopped you from attacking me there as well. also interesting that I was only recently informed of the topic ban, and the editors invited to comment on it did not include me. Frietjes (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have both the nomination pages and the individual templates on my watchlist. And even after a clear warning you continued. The Banner talk 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry, but how is saying "this starts to look at dodging a topic ban..." issuing me a "clear warning"? I am guessing English is not your native language, and I was never informed that I or anyone else was topic banned, nor was I provided a link to any topic ban. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a good old classic to attack the messenger when you have no arguments against the message. The Banner talk 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can both of you please just drop it? This is not helping. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Circumventing the ban wouldn't surprise me in the least. IDHT is a common issue with that editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• I do agree that Jax is circumventing the topic ban by notifying another editor (a regular participant in TfDs) of articles that exist or that he has created on topics for which a template just happens to be nominated for deletion. I have no issue with Frietjes on this matter. Frietjes can do his her own due diligence on templates at TfD without Jax's sketchy attempts to manipulate their outcomes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• IMHO Jax is circumventing the topic ban by his communications to Frietjes....William 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Open and shut case. Jax is editing by proxy - Frietjes is the proxy. Jax needs blocking, Frietjes needs a strong final warning about editing on the behalf of blocked or topic-banned users. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Reply - I made no "Request for help", I have violated no terms of my topic ban, and have worked very hard to obey the ban (which places no restrictions on editing any articles). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• You made a comment to another editor who then went on to add it to a template. Your topic ban was broadly construed. This is basically an attempt to side step that ban no matter how innocent you try to make it out to be. Blackmane (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Technically, you didn't make a request for help. Instead, you dumped a load of things on Frietjes' talk page for them to put in for you. You're circumventing the topic ban, and you know damn well what you're doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply - Frietjes and I are not collaborating. Sincere apologies if that is how my communication came across. Now that multiple editors have the same issue, I will do my best to stop leaving this type of message from here on out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's allowable, but I'm in favor of a one-week block and another six months added to the topic ban. I'd like to see Jax learn some things on his own because it always takes more than multiple editors having an issue before he gets it (and, apparently, even a topic ban isn't enough). Many of us have asked Jax to take a step a back, maybe a forced break will do him good. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Star. The topic ban is broadly construed. Anything that can justifiably seen as infringing on the topic ban requires a block, and a resetting of the ban, clear and simple. I still don't buy for a second that Jax didn't know what they were doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I am "topic-banned from editing or creating" (as well as discussing) and that's all. The accusers have the burden of proof regarding "for them to put in for you", not I. I cannot control what others add to Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with what others have done, it's what you have done. Frietjes could have completely ignored your messages, but your repeated notifications to him her (and only him her) of other existing articles and articles you created which are directly related to topics that have navboxes at TfD proves your motives were to do nothing other than to sway the outcome of deletion discussions. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pssst, Frietjes is not a him but a her The Banner talk 01:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It isn't easy to tell unless an editor has a name that obviously one gender or the other.----->...William 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Just a case of doing your homework... The Banner talk 01:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I hope everyone remembers that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". From my contact with both editors, I believe they both got the message that this sort of behavior is not allowed under the topic ban. If that wasn't clear before, I would say that it is clear now. I move that we drop it and move on. I'm off to work on closing a tiny fraction of the massive number of Jax-related nominations at TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be harsh, but I don't think you are an uninvolved admin... The Banner talk 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And neither are you? I am simply expressing an opinion like the rest of the editors in this thread, most of whom are more involved than I am. Don't worry, this is the last comment you will see from me in this thread. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Frietjes will have gotten the message. Jax will pretend that they have, and revert back to their old ways within a week or two. That's what I've seen them do every time they've been informed about incorrect edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• We should keep the focus on Jax's continued disruptive behavior that needs to be deterred so he is encouraged to become a more productive and congenial editor. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I strongly agree with Plastikspork, that this should result in a written warning, not a ban extension (one additional month at a maximum, and definitely not a block). --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• How on earth does this work, since you're talking about yourself? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry, Jax, no more leniency from my side. You made a deal with Plastikspork to save your failing templates by moving them into your own userspace. Your dumped links on Frietjes talkpage with the unwritten request (but everybody can see that) to fix templates that are subject to a deletion discussion. No, Jax. The Banner talk 10:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - I have not asked Plastikspork to move anything to my userspace since the ban was enacted. Can you prove that I made an unwritten request? So far I have seen accusations with no proof. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Preventative block is required This is a gigantic load of pigshit, if you ask me. As I am the one who formally enacted the topic ban, I have been monitoring Jax's talkpage (as well as Banner's, BTW). I have found the utter level of obfuscation by Jax, combined with massive wikilawyering to be frustrating to say the least. For example, when asked a simple question about a template that Banner was searching for, Jax claimed that he would not respond without a formal representative of the WMF permitting it. However, on the other hand, we have Jax breaking the spirit of the topic ban with these interactions with Frietjes. Apparently it's fine to put roadblocks up when someone is cleaning up your crap, but on the other hand encourage someone else to try and save your crap? Violations of the spirit of the topic ban are just as serious as outright violations. Jax - your templates ARE THE PROBLEM. Do not under any circumstances attempt to "save" them, and ensure that you help people try and clean up your mess. I'm wholly in favour of a preventative block for a minimum of a month so that Banner and others can complete the process of cleaning up the shit without continued interference from Jax. This month should allow at least 75% of the problematic templates from being nominated, discussed, and likely deleted. For the very clear violation of the topic ban, I recommend a 6 month extension of the ban. As for Frietjes - I'll give the benefit of the doubt that she was unaware that her actions-by-proxy were inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• While strongly protesting the idea that Frietjes has anything to apologise for (meatpuppetry? Really?), it's pretty obvious just from Jax's replies here that circumvention was the goal, and the less said about the train wreck that was the ban-enaction thread the better. On the other hand, I don't see what a block accomplishes here. Call this a final warning to go and do something productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also AGF that Frietjes was not aware of Jax's topic ban, being a bare 2 lines in a morass of TfD noms. Otherwise I'm on the fence about a block at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It sounds a bit naive to see loads of templates being nominated and see loads of links dumped on your talkpage and then not ask the question: "Why don't you do that yourself?" The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• How many chances does someone get to change bad and disruptive behavior? From an increasing amount of his template creations being nominated a full year ago, to editors showing growing concern and offering some friendly advice on his talk page, to an RfC/U in March and a topic ban less than two months after the RfC/U opened, to multiple efforts to dodge such a ban that brings us to this AN/I, Jax has been unable or completely refuses to comprehend how he is disrupting the Wikipedia community while he continues to defend his actions as an innocent misunderstanding. I doubt at this point that a block will deter Jax's behavior as I believe he will continue to test the limits of his topic ban even after such a block is lifted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Lukeno94, I am allowed one vote like everyone else. As far as I know, the part of the topic ban about leaving messages on other people's pages was made up after the fact. This is exactly why I asked for the rules of the ban to be laid out explicitly. The Banner has referred to me as a lazy cow, and others have used profanity on my talk page. I have not interfered with anything, and IMO the evidence is circumstantial. Many of the XfD's are from my work way back in 2012. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, pure bullshit. You were not allowed to edit or discuss templates "broadly construed" which you kindly defined yourself quite properly, EXCEPT you were permitted to edit them in your personal userspace, AND request copies of deleted templates using WP:REFUND. You were further forced to actually RESPOND to someone who was cleaning up your mess because you wikilawyered-up. Just like we EXPECT assistance from people blocked for massive copyright violations, we EXPECT your help in cleaning up the massive swath of crappy templates that you were told time mand time again to either stop making or FIX the few useful ones (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - If I am not allowed to discuss something, then I am not permitted to tell people where they are until I am given permission to do so. I was simply doing my best to obey the ban in its entirety, for which I was scolded. Once I was given that permission from you, I complied with the request immediately, as I did with the second question about the same. How are you authorized to use profanity on my talk page in a non-encyclopedic manner (which IMO is not appropriate conduct for any Wikipedian, much less a WP administrator)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And, of course, you notified Frietjes about articles only because you thought she'd be interested in reading them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Yup --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember the discussion that I started on 4 April 2013? That was a request to improve some old templates. (You can find that discussion here). To my opinion, that discussion showed a plain unwillingness to maintain templates that you have created. So even when I politely asked you to improve older templates you either refused or did it quite unwillingly. The Banner talk 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Their is indeed no formal obligation to maintain the items one has created, but most editors at least feel the moral obligation to do so. I don't think I am a rare exception.

Reply - I updated Cavalera Conspiracy, and put Merge Tags on Steve "Boomstick" Wilson and A Rhyme & Reason expediently. Other than that, I am not required to keep things updated for an indefinite period of time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - can we get some action on this, please? Given Jax's last comment to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (damn, your name is too long), it's clearly evident that Jax knew exactly what they were doing, and clearly doesn't give a shit about abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines and/or his topic ban. They're beginning to look more and more WP:NOTHERE every time they post. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Which reply? Here Jax says he will abide by the restriction. On the other hand "The Banner" seems the one incapable of walking away from the WP:DEADHORSE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply - Agreed 86.121.18.17. I am trying to contribute constructively, as I have done to Pop Evil's very first articles about songs, and 5FDP's and Rob Zombie's latest singles. I keep getting hammered whenever I make an honest mistake. Lukeno94's last statement about me knowing what I am doing and WP:NOTHERE is inconclusive and unfounded, and you can not have it both ways (banning me from talking about something and obligating me to disclose article locations). Reading articles has NOTHING at all to do with my topic ban. I don't know how to make myself any clearer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not pulling a dead horse, mr. IP. The mess is still there and I am still working to clean it up. To see the clean up hampered by a back-door trick is at least not so nice. The Banner talk 11:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of wrapping up this tedious thing, do you understand this?

• If it involves creating, discussing, or editing a template, you have to stay away. If you think there is a grey area, there isn't, and stay away.
• If you are asked to assist in cleaning up your mess, by someone cleaning up after you, you are expected to respond.

Is that clear? — The Potato Hose 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply -

1. I will avoid navboxes to the extent reasonable. As I understand, I am permitted to write articles about songs, albums, musicians and musical ensembles, and I am permitted to insert infoboxes at the top of articles (containing information including but not limited to the genre, track length, recording studio, etc.), and I am permitted to mark such articles as stubs to the extent that it does not violate my topic ban. If this is not correct, please let me know.
2. I will respond to any reasonable request to assist in improving navigation boxes that I have created.

Thank you for your attention. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. Do you understand that you are not allowed to edit, discuss, or create templates? Do you understand that even thinking about pushing the boundaries is A Really Bad Idea? (Can you also please learn how to indent properly, and not preface everything with 'reply'? We know you're replying.) — The Potato Hose 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I understand that I am not allowed to edit, discuss, or create templates. I understand that even thinking about pushing the boundaries is A Really Bad Idea. I will do my best to indent properly, and I will take under consideration not prefacing everything with 'reply'. However, I think that it helps separate my posts better. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Emmanuel College (Queensland)

There's some trouble in this article on a secondary school in Queensland. Litigation of some kind is or has been happening, and it has spawned an edit war between, on the one hand, some (newly) registered accounts who keep removing the information (editing perhaps on behalf of the school) and, on the other, a couple of IPs (editing perhaps on behalf of the litigant). I've blocked two of the registered accounts (obvious socks or meats of a third) and have semi-protected the article for two weeks. I have removed the information, which relied on primary documents.

Possibly the best way forward is for some knowledgeable editors/admins to have a look and see if any of that content is valid, if sourced to secondary sources. Or perhaps the content is valid with the sourcing there is, though I have my doubts, and it's certainly not written well. Your attention, Aussie editors, is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tony1, for your help. Note, all y'all, that Tony cries out for uninvolved editors to fix the article. Here is your chance to make a difference in the world. WWJD? Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a punt at tidying the text and threw a lot of CN tags. I had a poke around on google briefly but found no news about the litigation, will have a further look Blackmane (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Very minor affair. Litigation was at the lowest level of the Federal court system, finalised in a day, judgement given ex tempore, allegations basically were thrown out of court. Nothing at all in the noospapers for those very reasons. Mention would embarrass the plaintiff, not the school.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That explains that. I had a dig through with all the search combinations I could think of. Had it been major it certainly would have featured in SMH, Brisbane Time or the Australian newspapers, but nothing notable. I believe this can be closed. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Syngmung

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

---

Section header shortened because it was messing up the display of the TOC on this page. Original title: User:Syngmung engaging in WP:SYNTH, WP:CANVAS and inserting references to rape and flawed comparisons to numerous articles — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's there in the title. I would like to propose a TBAN on "rape" for the foreseeable future. Syngmung apparently has some sort of axe to grind with the US military stationed in South Korea and the South Korean government that facilitates them. I am not a fan of either of these parties myself, but I can't condone any of the following actions:

• SYNTH on 1995 Okinawa rape incident, insisting that kidnapping and forcible rape of an elementary school student "is compared to" prostitution, citing two sources, one of which does not appear to mention Okinawa and the other of which mentions the incident but makes no such comparison.[171]
• Pretending in the article body to be citing a book but in fact giving a review of the book in the reference, implying that he/she has not in fact read the book but is inserting an out-of-context blurb in the article nonetheless.[172]
• Inserting disproportionate discussion of rape by U.S. soldiers after WW2 into an article about brothels and apparently using a hypothetical suggestion about setting up brothels as an excuse.[173]
• Canvassing numerous users with a misrepresentation of an ongoing deletion argument (accusing the delete/merge !votes of trying to "hide" something)[174][175][176][177] and canvassing numerous peripherally related WikiProjects with a misrepresentation of his/her opponents arguments/motives in an edit war.[178][179][180][181][182][183]
• Inserting links to articles on prostitution (particularly in South Korea) to the "See also" sections of unrelated/peripherally-related articles.[184][185][186]
• Adding a subsection about rape to the "Dramatizations of the invasion of Normandy" section, and then failing to get the point on being reverted numerous times.[187][188]

I know the user is going to accuse me (again) of being an SPA whose purpose is to edit war with him/her. This may be taken as true, given the circumstances, but please consider that I was editing Wikipedia (anonymously) some years ago, and came back when I noticed during my browsing that someone was adding inappropriate rape/prostitution references and comparisons to an article (the Okinawa one) that I just happened to be reading. Now that I have that out of the way can we focus on Syngmung's behavior? The user got blocked a few days ago for edit warring and when unblocked went straight back to adding the same kind of questionable material, and I just wanted to bring this to the community's attention, at least to the point that it hasn't already.

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(BTW, I know my diffs are a little bare, but in order to give a full context for this user's violations, I would need to basically cite every single edit the user has made for the last week or two. A look at the contributions page should not contradict anything that I have just said, though. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC) )

Nonsense. I have already talked some of my points according to reliabled sources. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone argued according to his OR without sources. Besides, I have already been bloked as being edit wars. It is unfair, cos Eh doesn't afraid of anyone are bringing the former issues. So, now I make great effort to talke in talk page. But Eh doesn't afraid of anyone ignore my effort to talk in talk pages and try to exclude users who dont match with his view.--Syngmung (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing material is never OR. Drawing a completely original comparison between the forcible rape of a child with prostitution is OR, even if one has two separate sources that each mention one but not the other. Please stop making personal attacks against me if you can't demonstrate with diffs -- which users have I tried to exclude? What is my "view"? I have engaged you on talk pages every chance you have given me -- remember that one not long ago where you accused me of promoting a POV by deleting your rape subsection, to which I responded immediately?[189] Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Syngmung for one week for resumption of edit warring at Rape during the liberation of France and for canvassing. The topic ban discussion can continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban As noted in the above report, Syngmung has an axe to grind on the topic US military personnel in Korea and is routinely engaging in sustained edit warring and the misrepresentation of sources to push his POV across multiple articles. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of User:Syngmung from all topics regarding U.S. military personnel. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Syngmung violates the non-neutral tone requirement (WP:NPOV) in rape articles. The false use of sources is a huge concern. The coatracking of outside topics—Syngmung's pet peeves—is evident in edits like this one in which Syngmung tacks on something about Asian comfort women at the end of the Rape in France article. This editor is not here to build the encyclopedia; instead, the narrow goal is to raise anger. Note that a topic ban will be as effective as a full ban, simply because the editor has demonstrated no other purpose. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think he is intentionally misrepresenting sources. But his poor English skills are a bad ingredient for a sensitive topic. I lolled at [190] for instance. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban coatracking, nopv violations, OR, the list goes on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban POV pushing, misquoting sources, mixing subjects on a page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edit warring by other editors on the same topic I have notified User:NorthBySouthBaranof of this discussion as well. He edit warred with "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" more than Symuyang did on that one article, at least recently [191] [192] [193], while Symuyang inserted that rape stuff in several articles. I don't think NorthBySouthBaranof or "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone" should receive any sanctions though. In the latter case sanctions would be rather ineffective anyway. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Please re-read WP:EDITWAR. If two editors have a content dispute and they resolve it peacefully by discussing it on the talk page, it's not technically an edit war. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC) After you two edit warred for a while, you indeed did compromise on the talk page. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Technically, he reverted me twice while I was trying to discuss on the talk page (I opened a section immediately on my initial deletion). BRD, man, BRD... Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Except that, as I pointed out on the talk page, you blindly reverted me twice as I was attempting to rewrite the section without commenting on the changes I made in a good faith effort to address your concerns, some of which were well-founded. You didn't say "Hey, good progress but I disagree with X Y and Z still," you just hit undo. [194] [195] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC) I did not blindly revert anything. I asked you to discuss on the talk page, as I had already posted there. The correct course of action would have been not to revert me blankly and then make a series of rapid-fire edits in order to fix the section, but to fix the section in a single edit. And, again, the first time I reverted you you hadn't fixed anything, but went straight ahead and blankly reverted me again. You also consistently set up a straw man by saying "these are reliable sources -- why are you removing them?", completely ignoring my given rationale. Anyway, this thread isn't about your behavior or mine, but Syngmung's. If you don't have an opinion on whether Syngmung should be TBANned, then please refrain from bringing up off-topic discussions (that goes for you too, 86.121.18.17). Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC) The problem with your editing, "Eh doesn't afraid of anyone", is repeated edit warring. It's very easy to get on the high horse from your SPA account that you'll likely abandon in the next few days like you did with your previous ones. I know of another editor who registered an account to simply get others blocked for edit warring. That did not end well. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Reporting long-term problems with other editors is one thing; the evidence can be judged by others on its merits, as it has been above. In contrast, trying to get several other editors into trouble by aggressively and repeatedly edit warring with your highly disposable current account is quite another issue, making you look like an agent provocateur. And discussing the behavior of all those involved in an incident is permitted at ANI, as explained at WP:Boomerang. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC) The ironic thing is, you arrived here solely to harass me, it seems. You have consistently misspelled Syngmung's username, and you seem to have totally missed the part where Syngmung (whose English is always at least comprehensible) has deliberately synthesized separate sources and/or pretended to be citing a book while in fact citing a blurb in a newspaper. And now, despite not having anything to add to this discussion, and even though NorthBySouthBaranof have not (and never have had) a significant dispute with each other over the content of the article, and the so-called "edit-war" lasted a total of two edits by me and two by NBSB, you insist on opening a separate subsection about me. Why are you doing this, may I ask?? Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, you are constantly a victim. Someone consistently pushes the undo button from your accounts & IP addresses when you're not looking. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) And speaking of harassment: what is this? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC) You two, take this somewhere else. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm willing to close this with a topic ban. Proposed wording: Syngmung (talk · contribs) is banned from making any edits pertaining to rape and US military personnel and US military bases, and the intersections of those topics. I'll let this sit here for a day or so to see if anyone wants any tweaks. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. Literal here asks for clarification of your wording. Is this what you're saying? "Syngmung (talk · contribs) is banned from making any edits pertaining to the following three topics: rape, US military personnel, and US military bases"? If that's a correct reading, why is it necessary to add "intersections of those topics"? Wouldn't any "intersection" necessarily violate the three-topic ban?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Restoring from archive to close.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent abuse of rollback tools

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

---

I'd like a sysop to take a look at persistent abuse of the rollback tool by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs). Instead of reverting simple vandalism, he uses the tool in case of legitimate edits/content disputes [196], [197]. I warned him once already, but he deleted my warning [198] and continued to violate the rules [199], [200], [201]. Today, he did it again [202]. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is just part of Miacek 2 year+ long campaign of harassment and stalking, which has included edit summaries like shut up finally your fucking shouting mouth, crybaby! (directed at me), emailing other users and asking them start arguments and disputes with me [203] (!!! How in the world that isn't blockable I have no idea) or showing up on my talk page to leave highly insulting messages despite being asked not to do so [204] (this is of course why I removed his "warning"). For longer list of diffs see this [205]. Note that there Sandstein stated "I strongly advise both of them to avoid each other as much as possible". I have not interacted with Estlandia/Miacek since then. On the other hand he seems to want to continue with this bullying.

Oh, and it's perfectly legitimate to rollback copyvios (or banned users, which is what those IPs were), especially when there's a big damn sign at the top of the edit page that says "do not insert X because it's a freakin' copyvio".Volunteer Marek 15:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not legitimate to use rollback for purposes other than reverting simple vandalism. None of the examples I brought deal with simple vandalism. As for your attempts to derail the discussion by your highly aggressive 'counter-examples' of my alleged wrongdoings, well, they just demonstrate your battleground mentality and have absolutely no connection with the issue at hand, i.e. your continued impudent violations of the rules of our community.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, pointing out that you're filing this "report" as part of a long term pattern of abuse, stalking and harassment is "battleground mentality" (which the diffs above clearly show). That's the Wikipedia way, if someone punches you in the face and you say "hey, that guy punched me!" then the attacker always accuses you of "battleground mentality" or not assuming AGF. It's a tired and frankly unimaginative old tactic.

You also need to read when to use rollback, specifically "To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit and To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia). Yawn.Volunteer Marek 17:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Marek, just undo changes/use twinkle and leave a more appropriate edit summary and we can move on. Basic rollback is supposed to be used only for vandalism to avoid precisely this sort of dispute. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't use twinkle and I probably use edit summaries more then most. However, as I point out above, the policy states it's fine to use rollback to revert banned users or "misguided edits" (which is what repeated re-insertion of copyrighted material is). If you think that rollback should be used only for simple vandalism, then go and rewrite that policy page. But whatever, sure.Volunteer Marek 17:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no obvious proof to third parties, that you were reverting banned users. I for one, whom you reverted, am not banned. Say, where is the simple vandalism or banned user here [206]? Nowhere. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:Basalisk. I don't think this is enough here. He was warned - he ignored and continued - the matter was brought up here - all he did was to blame the user who reported him. No remorse, no understanding, nothing but aggressive assaults. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I for one, whom you reverted, am not banned - you mean this diff [207]? No, you were not banned, but you were asked repeatedly to stay off my talk page because you had a habit of showing up there to insult or abuse me. Yet you kept coming back. And *that* was disruptive (not to mention extremely rude), not the fact that I rollbacked your edits from my talk.Volunteer Marek 17:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest Marek, I don't disagree with you. I just think you'll have less trouble that way. This debate pops up every now and then and it's always the same drivel: is it just for vandalism? Is the guideline really relevant now that everyone can have Twinkle? It's just easier this way.

Estlandia - what exactly are you asking for then? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Russavia's privilege to use rollback tool was revoked after the first case of misuse, I don't see why persistent and impudent violation of rules should be treated any other way. An official admin warning might be an alternative. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never bothered following the Russavia stuff and so I don't know the details of what happened there. This isn't really a clear-cut example of breaking the rules. Marek has already discussed how the wording of the guidelines endorses the use of rollback to deal with "misguided" edits and I think it's fair to say that there are problems with some of the edits he reverted. I've already told him to be more precise about he uses the tool (for his own good). Remove his rollback access? Really? On the basis of the smallest of technicalities? He could simply use the "undo" button next to the rollback one and have exactly the same effect he's had here. I don't really see the point in removing rollback access unless editors are edit warring with it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) And if you want to we can get specific about it. This supposed abuse of rollback occurred here. Of course Miacek/Estlandia doesn't link to the history of the article, which is here. Notice something? A red linked editor (probably a banned user, but nm) using two different accounts repeatedly tried reinserting a copyvio into the article. My first revert of this had an edit summary [208] which explained the reason. There's also a large orange banner on that article which appears when you try to edit it which says "For copyright concerns, please do not reproduce the list of estimated IQs from the book in this article. Pending permission from the copyright holder, it must be removed. See the talk page for more information. Thank you.". The continued reinsertion of copyvio was then reverted by two other editors, also with explanatory edit summaries "rm copyvio", "rv: remove the copyright violation (see the edit notice at the top, when editing the page); material is either unsourced, or is copied from the book; both are unacceptable". At that point, when the copyvio was reinserted yet again, after three reverts by three different people, all with descriptive edit summaries, AND a huge freakin' banner on top of the page which says not to do it... do you honestly think an edit summary is necessary and rollback cannot be used in this case?

Which is why this is a spurious nonsense report filed by a guy that's been harassing me for more than two years on here. What *I'm* asking for here is some serious WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Basilisk, you know, out of my 40,000 edits, I've probably used rollback less than 30 times. Exactly because I do try to leave edit summaries or explanation etc as much as possible. But what you've got here is Estlandia who stalks my every edit who thinks he found a couple of instances which he can mis-portray as "rollback abuse". Of course rollback doesn't matter much anyway, his purpose here is simply to annoy and try to humiliate me.Volunteer Marek 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Users Changied1, BooksWiki94, and Lovelky18881 - Multiple issues

Involved editors:

User:Lovelky18881 -- notified

User:Changied1 -- notified

User:BooksWiki94 -- not notified as user talkpage redirects to an article talk page redir cleared; notified per Thomas W.

add User:Fresitabella‎ -- notified

Admin Discospinster blocked User:Lovesexy189 [209] for abuse of multiple accounts. User:Lovesexy189 had just recreated a previously deleted page Yo soy Choncha [210].

• Since that block, the above three user accounts have been created, with most or all of their edits having to do with Yo soy Choncha and its associated AfD where all of the above user accounts have posted keep !votes [211].
• Additionally, User:BooksWiki94 moved his/her userpage in such a way as to create a double redirect. The resulting bot fix now means that User:BooksWiki94's userpage and user talkpage now redirect to Yo soy Choncha and its talk page.

Taroaldo ✉ 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Note Another brand new account has popped up [212] and, of course, its first edits are to !vote to keep Yo soy Choncha. No subtlety at all. Taroaldo ✉ 02:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Redirect of User:BooksWiki94's user talk page removed and ANI-notice added. Thomas.W (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

An SPI-case has been opened here. Thomas.W (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• All of the troublesome users have been confirmed and blocked as sockpuppets of the user who recreated the article so there is no longer any need for anyone at ANI to do anything here. Except for closing and archiving. Thomas.W (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavić

Slavić (talk · contribs) left a very profane message in Croatian at my talk page indicating he's disgusted, that we might as well remove all of his articles about Bulcsu Laszlo (and go fuck ourselves). This is just the last in a series of fairly consistently rude and intolerant messages from him. He has generally advocated a minority point of view on the matter, and in some aspects a fringe point of view; Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs) confronted them about it, and things just went from bad to worse. I got involved, trying to explain the policies, but without any real result, so I'm now asking for a fellow admin to end this silliness by enforcing WP:CIVIL on Slavić, as they're apparently unwilling to listen to reason. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

But WP:CIVIL is typically not enforced by blocks (WP:NPA is, however) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not typically, but there's no reason it can't be. Regardless, he violated both of those policies, several times. WP:NOTHERE also comes to mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in saying that Slavić is essentially a single purpose account promoting Bulcsu Laszlo? Also, am I right in guessing that Slavić's use of Croatian on our discussion pages displays the same kinds of idiosyncracies that Laszlo is known for promoting? Has he ever indicated he might have a conflict of interest with regard to that person?

I have speedied two of his stubs that were basically just plagiarized-and-translated copies of the abstracts of individual academic papers by Laszlo. If he continues to act up, WP:ARBMAC can be applied (since part of the conflict is evidently politically motivated and has to do with ethnic identity issues, that decision is pertinent here). On the other hand, I'd also like to point out that, if indeed Slavić is connected with Laszlo (or if he is Laszlo), then he may have a point in being not too happy about Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs) being active on that article, because the earlier incarnation of the article that was created by Stambuk in 2009 (and deleted per AfD in 2011) was initially a pretty blatant BLP-violating attack piece, so I'd caution Štambuk to keep some distance from the topic if possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be the same thing, yes, all that funky orthography and vocabulary. I suppose it's possible they have a direct COI, but I wouldn't go so far to assume that this minority is so minuscule that they couldn't simply be disconnected yet like-minded people. The references in the Vukopis article (that I recently deleted as it was an attack page) show that they occasionally get mentioned in Croatian mainstream publications.

I've already informed Slavić of ARBMAC - I initially gave them the benefit of the doubt and didn't go for the harsher version of the template; in retrospect, I could have done that, too. Also, I've already censured Ivan Štambuk for the recent BLP violation on the topic.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppets at talk:phyllis schlafly

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

---

User:rjensen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:schlafly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User rjensen is a sockpuppet of user sclafly aka roger sclafly her son who wants to own the article against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.54 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the IP has a bias he or she is trying to push. Doxing Liberals (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Richard Jensen is Richard Jensen and this accusation is bullshit. Man the boomerangs... Carrite (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Mikefromnyc and company articles

User:Mikefromnyc just came onto my radar through a recent edit they made to the MicroStrategy article, where they first added an advert tag (not that big of a deal, though they appear to have the opinion that any article about a company is an advert), but then removed the external links section and all of the categories. I've just delved into their editing history and this doesn't appear to be an isolated incident.

Here they add an advert tag and remove some references (of which I have no opinion on), but then remove the See also section and the categories. Here the user removes just huge chunks of well referenced section in the article, including the history section.

This just goes on and on through their contribution history. Every edit they've done (which isn't all that many) has been to remove information from what looks to be a select series of articles. I don't know what to think of it. Silverseren^C 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If this sounds snarky I don't mean it to, just the limitations of conversing in written text, but couldn't you have asked him about it? They're a month and a half old account after all(AGFing that there is nothing else sinister going on or that it's not a cleanstart account). Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that practically their every single edit from first creation has been to remove information from company articles, often information that was perfectly referenced or had no reason to be removed, it looks like they have some sort of campaign against company articles going on. I'm half of a mind to consider the edits outright vandalism. Silverseren^C 09:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Many of the edits are problematic, such as removing infoboxes, but not all are. Look at this one, which removes unsourced content that sounds like something straight out of Dilbert. I don't have time to investigate more fully, so I'll just note that we shouldn't treat this user as we would someone who's doing nothing but harm. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That problematic edit you linked is very emblematic of the problem though. He thinks that having the logo of a company in a company article is advertising. I suppose the best thing is to wait for him to comment here. I already notified him when I opened this thread, so hopefully he responds soon. Silverseren^C 19:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he did respond on his talk page. I've asked him to move his response to this thread. Silverseren^C 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike's edits are more or less defensible. There is promotional content on the pages he edited and he is right to call attention to that. Perhaps a better article would result from more selective trimming and rewording, but let's see if he D's now that he's been R'd. No idea why he removed categories and such - hopefully it was just a newbie editing accident that won't be repeated. Kilopi (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What about this edit, where he removed an infobox because he considers including a logo in it for the article subject to be advertising? Furthermore, this page's history] doesn't show much "D" going on. A lot of "R", actually. That's true for all the article's he's edited, actually. Silverseren^C 19:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an advertising platform, is it? If advertisements are permitted then Wikipedia should remove their request for donations and charge advertisers such as MicroStratey, Ciphercloud, and all the others Mikefromnyc (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from this editor's work that his view of what is advertising is very broad. His next edit removed far more than "marketing links" - the entire history and characterization of the company, and the URL of its website. Mikefromnyc, if you are reading here, please look at the criteria for notability applicable to companies and note that it is perfectly legitimate for a company to be the topic of an article, and that information on what it does, when it was founded and by whom, its website and any awards it has won are encyclopedic information that is not just traditional but necessary for proper coverage. --I've cleaned them up, including snipping out what I did consider puffery, but I don't see the articles themselves as exclusively promotional. (And if they are, AfD would seem to be a better course of action than extensive deletion of content.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• With only 33 edits to mainspace and only 6 weeks at Wikipedia, it is clear to me that Mike is editing in good faith but has clearly misunderstood Wikipedia's differences between notability for companies and policy on sly or any kind corporate promotion. If Mike is on a lone mission to change those established principles, he's going to have a hard ride. My suggestion is that he take this ANI report as a both a warning and advice, concentrate on building the encyclopedia, and familiarising himself with WP:NOTABILITY and our various methods of removal of inappropriate content (e.g. entering in discussion with the contributors), and our deletion policy for blatant cases of true advertising and spam. When he's done that, I'm sure his work - if accurate - will be a great asset.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Waited99

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

---

This user keeps removing an AFD template from Michael Collings (singer) and keeps removing warnings from his talk page. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rescind, removing content from talk pages is not against the rules. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

But the page Michael Collings (singer) is, since it's a virtually identical content fork of Michael Collings, an article that has been nominated for AfD but is having the AfD-template repeatedly removed by User:Waited99. Thomas.W (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say a) we need to block Waited for EW on the article, and b) block Citrus for EW on Waited's talkpage ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed. The relevant article is Michael Collings. He hasn't removed the tag since your final warning about doing so; given that he's blanked the AfD page, removed the tag a bunch of times, and told someone to "fuck off", he's lucky no-one has yet blocked him, and that's surely what will happen to him if he removes the tag again. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• apology from waited99: A wiki user AnemoneProjectors keeps repointing a legitimate page on Michael Collings the Britain's Got Talent singer who has gone on to releases 3 singles an EP and is working on a album, is 3rd biggest fast car on spotify, 5th biggest youtube video of 2011. tours, and has over 50 million hits on youtube on songs not related to Britain;s Got Talent.

  AnemoneProjectors has taken it upon himself to decide this Michael Collings does not deserve his own page and repoints the page daily to 1 paragraph on a BGT series page.

Michael Collings was last on national TV this week for 5 minutes on ITV2.

AnemoneProjectors has now nominated Micahel Collings for Speedy deletion and threatened to report me for undoing his re-pointing edits.

I am glad that this has now caught the attention of other WIKI members and they can decide whether AnemoneProjectors campaign against Michael Collings is legitimate or not. I apologise for not knowing all the Wiki rules. Apologies for deleting other peoples messages off my talk page. I thought it was my message board that I could delete messages once read! Now I know this is not the case. Waited99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waited99 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Waited, actually it is a message board, and this edit by Citrusbowler is completely incorrect. Wait--Citrusbowler gave you a final warning for that? That's the pits. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Waited, you can remove stuff (most stuff) from your own talk page. See WP:OWNTALK. What you may not do is remove AfD templates from articles, and if you do it again (I know you won't) I will block you: you have been warned often enough. I can't say I'm pleased with how either you or AnemoneProjectors behaved in that article's history; an earlier AfD nomination would have been better. Both of you have been edit warring there, there is no doubt about it, and you have not taken the high road. The only reason I'm not blocking you right now (though you kept removing the AfD template after a final warning) is my faith in your good sense. Don't disappoint me. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused. My last involvement with Waited99 was to give a level 4 warning. First for removing AFD template, second for telling me to "fuck off", third for removing AFD template, fourth for removing AFD template. I realise that I probably should have issued two level 1s, then a 2 and a 3, but he since received another level 2 and another level 3. The older warnings have probably been missed because of blanking, and though users are free to blank their talk pages, it's usually, in my experience, those receiving multiple warnings that do so and it could lead to those warnings being missed and users receiving softer warnings instead of being blocked. So I expected Waited99 to have been blocked by now. As for Michael Collings' article, I didn't feel there was a real edit war going on until today, as there were several days between reverts previously (and I was not the only person redirecting the page), and that's why I only decided to go to AFD today. I would like to point out to Waited99 that I did not mark the page for speedy deletion. –anemoneprojectors– 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• So am I: I don't understand the back-and-forths in the history. Someone redirects, someone objects--that's the B and the R in BRD, but there was no D, only a subsequent set of Rs. It takes two to tango, and this probably should have been brought to AfD a long time ago (I'm doing the same thing right now with two redirects that were reverted). As for blocking Waited, blocks aren't punitive. I didn't get into this until--well, you can see the time stamp, and the first thing I see is Citrusbowler bullying Waited around with invalid warnings. Besides that, they quit removing the AfD template, so the goal of stopping that disruption seems to have been accomplished. No? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• When I posted all this I had not yet seen that BWilkins and Finlay McWalter had responded above. I hope that this can be handled without any blocks for those two overzealous editors. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not excusing my reverts but a) I (wrongly) thought it was clear that Collings isn't notable outside of BGT and (wrongly) assumed that Waited99 would stop recreating the article, b) the D part of BRD is supposed to be down to the reverted person (Waited99), not the person who reverts (me). Again, not excusing my reverts, and I fully admit that on this occasion I was also out of order, and I apologise for that. But yes, it's stopped now, which is good (again, I started the AFD to stop the edit war, but it didn't stop Waited99 from removing the template, which I was fully entitled to revert). In the grand scheme of things, no real harm has been done, right? –anemoneprojectors– 12:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Zvazviri

User:Zvazviri continues to upload copyrighted images to the commons under a Creative Common' licence, and uploading and reuploading copyrighted text to Wikipedia. Administrators have failed to engage such user. 93.186.22.113 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - Any chance of any diffs of the problems? I've had a quick flick through his contributions, but can't quite see any copyrighted text. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I've got through some more and I see quite a few issues. I think Bbb23 (talk · contribs) is on the case so I'll leave it in his capable hands. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• continues to upload copyrighted images to the commons.. Commons issue should be reported to Commons ANI. I can see their only upload at Wikipedia File:Bowman-Gilfillan-Logo.jpg. That can be saved as PD-Text. --Tito☸Dutta 23:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to bed in a second, but I think there is more to it than we first thought. I've only properly checked one edit and I've found at least two copyright problems. The diff is here;

Issue one

His edit: "Led by young and vibrant team of advocates, East African Law Chambers has attracted clients from all sectors and industries, not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia, among other African countries."

From cb-lg.com: "Led by young and vibrant advocates who have achieved a strong reputation in the legal market and profession, East African Law Chambers continues to attract new clients from all sectors and industries. Our lawyers’ track records show that we have invaluable experience of not only working in Tanzania but also in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, among several other African countries."

Issue two

His edit: "founded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga Advocates has established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."

From afmpanga.co.ug: "Founded in October 2003 in Uganda, AF Mpanga, Advocates has firmly established itself as a leader in corporate and commercial transactional advice, banking and project finance, mergers and acquisitions, civil and criminal litigation, real estate and intellectual property."

If someone could take time to look at a few more of his edits and warn/block/do nothing as appropriate that would be great as I'm about to go to bed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've warned the user. At this point, I don't think more is needed. The user hasn't edited in three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bill Green (athlete)

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

---

• Bill Green (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've already requested assistance for this at the BLP noticeboard, to no avail--my guess is that lack of response there encourages and accelerates the problems: WP:BLP, WP:SPA, WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:3RR are issues for starters. Appears to be an unsourced autobiography, with long term ownership issue. I can't even make a maintenance template stick there now. Assistance would be appreciated. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• I reverted to one of your earlier versions, and scrapped some video links. I don't see any 3R issues that don't also pertain to you. Remember that boomerang throwing is not yet an Olympic sport. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Touche. Is that any way to talk to 99? I'll stay away from the article, if you can keep an eye on it instead. Thank you very much, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I recognize you from across the Mason-Dixon line. I'll keep an eye on it, and I've left the hammer thrower a note on their talk page as well. Thanks, and happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has a long history of single-purpose accounts beefing it up. The IPs contributing to that effect—Special:Contributions/71.6.126.82 for example—resolve to MEDICAL UNDERWRITERS, which seems to be related to the employment record of the subject as it was described in the article (medical malpractice litigation.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• And predictably another IP from the same company range (71.6.126.80 - 71.6.126.95) has resumed edit warring on that article [213]. This after Drmies had warned User:Hammerthrow1984 multiple times about edit warring, COI, using the talk page, etc. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. Perhaps the page needs protection. Is an SPI advised if many of the accounts are IPs? 76.248.151.159 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A WP:Range block would work for that company. WP:SPI does not publicly connect accounts to their IP addresses. And it's not really important in this case if the connection is WP:SOCK or just WP:MEAT because the accounts and IP editors which keep adding the unsourced material are all single-purpose. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Canvassing by User:Hoopes

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

---

User:Hoopes has left non-neutral messages about a dispute between him and me on a number of talk pages, including some users he knows from previous editing. Among other things, the message falsely asserts that I am trying to push my own POV - a charge I have denied more than a dozen times and repeatedly asked Hoopes to stop making. Thus, he has violated WP:CANVASS. I have replied to use message to point out the non-neutrality and the fact that I dispute his assessment on the situation. I request another editor delete the messages (and my replies) and replace them with a neutral message where appropriate (e.g. the project talk pages). Of course help mediating the actual dispute would be nice too, but to be honest I'm not sure there are many concrete points we disagree on except on whether or not I have a POV.

The canvass edits are: [214][215][216][217][218][219][220] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review the discussion on my talk page and that of User:ThaddeusB concerning this matter. The issue of whether or not User:ThaddeusB is pushing his own POV in the editing of the article La Ciudad Blanca is the one at hand. I assert that he is while he asserts that he isn't and we are at an impasse. (Extensive discussion of disagreements can be found on the talk page for that article.) It was he who first suggested having a third party review our disputes. I think that is a viable and I have tried to follow through on that by requesting assistance from qualified editors. As stated on its talk page, the article on La Ciudad Blanca falls under the scope of both Wikipedia:WikiProject_Archaeology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America. I think it also falls under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica, so I have requested assistance from editors affiliated with those WikiProjects. Hoopes (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, the problem is not with the requests but the non-neutral nature of them and selective notification of people whom he had previous positive editing experiences with. As I said, please leave the notices where they are appropriate, but edit them for neutrality. (As an aside, I have created a list of points that I think are in dispute on the talk page and encourage Hoopes to review/add to them.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I dispute the charge that I have violated WP:CANVASS. The guidelines state, "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." The notices that I posted on relevant pages have these characteristics. I really don't understand why User:ThaddeusB objects to my having contacted Wikipedia editors with whom I have have had previous positive editing experiences. Surely that is not contrary to Wikipedia policy! Hoopes (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your notices are both selective (by your own admission you contacted 2 editors who had supported your edits in the past and also contacted a personal friend off wiki) and non-neutral. If you can't see why contacting editors who agreed with the POV expressed by your editing in similar articles is a problem, I don't know what to say. All I am asking is that this error be corrected. I am certainly not asking for disciplinary action. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And I am saying that you are mistaken and that there are no errors that need to be corrected. I did not say that I had contacted editors who had supported my edits in the past. I did not say whether they had supported my edits or not. In fact, they have supported some and not supported others, which is precisely why I thought they would be good arbiters of neutrality. Hoopes (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith and refusal to stop making them by Hoopes

In particular, progress on the article has been made utterly impossible (for me) because Hoopes feels the need to accuse me of bad faith editing in every "discussion" about the subject. See Talk:La Ciudad Blanca/Archive 2#Inappropriate behavior by Hoopes and previous requests to stop: [221][222] (among many others). Even if the content dispute can't be resolved, an admin really needs to explain to him why this is not helpful. He seems to feel that the attack is justified as long as it is true. (Full disclosure: I have lost patience and responded in kind from time to time.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I do not feel the need to accuse User:ThaddeusB of bad faith because I think it will be apparent to an unbiased third party who reviews the evidence. There is abundant evidence now on the talk page of the article La Ciudad Blanca of ad hominem attacks on me (in spite of my repeated requests that he stop) and a pattern of hostile, unhelpful responses from User:ThaddeusB despite my attempts to engage in a reasoned discussion. Editing of the article has become almost impossible because my edits are being repeatedly reverted so that the POV of User:ThaddeusB prevails. It is really time for a neutral third party to step in. Hoopes (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hoopes own words he just posted contradict the last statement (which is why I posted this) - just see the linked talk page. We both have engaged in attacks in the past. We agreed to stop a few days ago. I did' he didn't. Today I lost patience and reverted to commenting on his behavior since he felt the need to justify every "discussion" by accusing my of bad faith editing in his opening comment. For the record, Hoopes has been the one repeatedly reverting to his preferred version today; I have stopped trying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have decided not to edit the article again until the situation cools off. I will also be attempting to minimize my comments on the talk page as I doubt any progress can be made without the help of multiple third party editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of making a single edit requested by User talk:ThaddeusB (the addition of a citation to a source), I have also decided not to edit the article until we have more feedback from multiple third party editors. One has responded with helpful comments. It would be good to hear from others. I will continue to monitor the talk page for La Ciudad Blanca and to use it for discussing issues relevant to improving the article. Hoopes (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No Aedmin action requested, will someone uninvolved please close this?

For the record, I came here through an automatic notification when John Hoopes mentioned me on his tak page. John made it clear there that he had contacted me. His posts as described above are not canvasssing according to WP:CANVAS. There's clearly no vote-stacking and he hasn't been " Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand." Active editors frequently contact other users when there are problems - this is, after all, a collegial project. As no Admin action has been requested by the original poster I will not comment on the issues and ask that this be closed. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for action (not blocking though, just commenting) on the repeated assumptions of bad faith. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If all you need is comments, WP:RFC/U is thataway. Admin comments do not carry any special weight, and unless you're specifically requesting that an admin use their tools, there's really no reason for this discussion to be here. --Jayron32 03:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with jayron32, not canvassing and no admin action needed MaskedHero (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

protection of deceased users' userpage

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

---

Hi, could you please protect the userpage of User:Woffie, who is deceased already in 2010 [223]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should it be protected? Are you familiar withWP:NOTMEMORIAL ? Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Because that's what Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines, the result of a looooong debate, says to do provided it's confirmed the user is deceased? – iridescent 19:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1, are you familiar with WP:NOTMEMORIAL? "Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space." postdlf (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

And this is the why. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hell, I learn stuff every day here. Toddst1 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Issues with a User and with an Articles of Deletion page

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

---

I would like to raise some issues and concerns regarding an AfD I am currently invovled in, as well as a a particular user specifically. First off, I would like to request some kind of admin to try to bring Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Beckwitt to an end. The arguments seem to be between a number of established accounts arguing delete (myself included) and a large number of anonymous (IPs) arguing keep, one of which should be banned (I'll talk about that later). The page has been kept despite all of that.

Second, there is one user in specific who seems to have demonstrated a clear Conflict of Interest. IP:98.215.9.100 has been arguing to keep the page, as well as previously added the subject, Daniel Beckwitt, to the page List of computer criminals despite him having questionable notability. IP:98.215.9.100 has also been very vocal and combative on the AfD page, debating with many of the users saying delete. These things combined lead me to believe that IP:98.215.9.100 should be banned from wikipedia, at least for a period of time, and have his comments purged from the AfD since they are all very redundant and (honestly) pretty bad (lots of rhetorical fallacies, blatant attempts to compare X to Y when they have no real connection, FE compaing Daniel Beckwitt to Yves Chaudron claiming that the two cases are identical in notability).

I am unaware how to use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to alert the other users of the AfD, but as my greivance is only with one user, who doesn't have a talk page or a way to communicate with him/her, I don't know what to do. Please feel free to edit this to alert others.

Thanks,

Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for AFDs to be protected, which removes the issue with the IPs and SPAs. Although it does look like it would merit an early closing at this point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The only reason the IP address did not have a talkpage is because nobody had yet posted there. I have dropped a {{ANI-notice}} on their talkpage to alert them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who applied the protection, it was not done due to the arguments of 98.215.9.100 (talk · contribs). Protection was applied to due a mass of other IPs and new accounts making a variety of trolling/BLP !votes. I also revdel'ed those edits because they were way out of line. As I noted in the AfD, the closing admin (or any admin, for that matter) is welcome to review the revdel'ed !votes and accept or decline as they see fit. But I seriously doubt that any of them will be accepted. The protection has expired because I set the protection to the time that the AfD would normally close. I did not expect it to be relisted. Should the trolling resume, I would have no reservation in reapplying the protection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've closed the AFD. There seemed to be no point in continuing the discussion, as it was only adding more votes that were saying the same thing, one way or the other. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits

User:151.230.165.242 (talk) made disruptive edits to three articles which have already been dealt with. However, the last person who posted on this user's talk said that this is your last warning. But he also made a disruptive edit on Xbox (console), which was reverted by another person but whom did not report it on the user's talk - so this user exceeded the limit and should now be blocked. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the last time this user edited was 4 days ago, nothing needs to be done here. GB fan 13:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is good, but if he makes disruptive edits again, I feel that we should block him from a time period of 1 week to a month depending on the edit circumstances. Leoesb1032 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo soy Choncha

Could we please get an uninvolved admin to close this AfD? It's for a promotional page (already deleted and salted on es-wiki), and a slew of sockpuppets (see here) are vandalizing and personal-attacking. Thanks, Ansh666 06:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Some of us have been dealing with this all day; I've had more than one on the go. Deletion is a foregone conclusion. Could we add salt and move on? Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 06:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the article because the outcome was so clear despite the discussion only opening yesterday. I've closed it to try put an end to the disruption; if anyone thinks this is a bad idea I'll re-open it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm as an uninvolved admin - totally agree with Basalisk's closure of this early, as the outcome was blatantly obvious but was being influenced by some fairly amateurish sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lovesexy189/Archive. Definite WP:SNOW stuff. ~ mazca ^talk 20:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP and 1RR

The article List of cancer victim hoaxes is before {{afd}}. User:AndyTheGrump's excised all information about a famous hoaxster -- asserting BLP. They initiated a thread at BLPN#List of cancer victim hoaxes - person with mental illness included on list, asking those who focus on BLP issues to endorse their excision.

At BLPN I said I thought the famous hoaxster was covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, and reminded AndyTheGrump that, at the {{afd}}, I had already provided 22 links to RS that showed that coverage of the famous hoaxster's hoax was (1) worldwide and (2) long-standing.

When the BLPN discussion seemed to have run its course, I reported back at the {{afd}}.

AndyTheGrump has subsequently disputed whether I was authorized to revert their excision:

• I am not the least surprised that you 'feel free' to selectively quote only people who agree with you to justify your actions.
• ...I see no reason to see that as an indication that my interpretation of policy is wrong.

I think it is likely if I did revert the excision they would report me here for violating the special 1RR rule for BLPs. Could I request pre-approval of reversion of this excision, on the grounds that WP:WELLKNOWN means BLP never authorized the excision in the first place? Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Admins cannot make content decisions. I'd say you need to discuss this on the article Talk page and go with whatever consensus develops - and I personally would avoid risking a 1RR violation until I had a clear consensus supporting me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, what "1RR rule for BLP's"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Boing, discussions on the talk page, at BLPN, and at the {{afd}}, have already taken place. No one endorsed this excision. In the end, at BLPN, I think it is fair to say, even AndyTheGrump found his excision indefensible. Nevertheless, it seems to me he is acting like he can continue to oppose reversion. So I thought I would ask for assistance at ANI, as I see his apparent intransigence as a policy question. Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Boing"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? And what policy is it that you are claiming I have violated? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've just deleted the article, so this may be a moot point. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Spencer

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

---

An IP editor removed a small part of the lead sentence regarding what the musician Jeremy Spencer is best known for, i.e. being an early member of Fleetwood Mac.[224] The wording had been in place for seven years with no instability. I restored it, regarding it as uncontentious wording [225], and the IP again removed it [226]. I added a reliable source to verify what Spencer is best known for [227], and the wording was removed for a third time [228]. I engaged the IP on his/her talk page, which before long, became abusive [229]. I'd appreciate some admin input, please. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What he is "best known for" is a matter of pure opinion. To me, until yesterday, he was not best known for anything because I'd never heard of him. You add nothing to the article by saying "X is best known for being Y" when you can simply say "X is Y". One cannot turn opinions into facts simply by finding a source for them. Want to start deciding which of Fleetwood Mac's songs were the best, or which of their guitarists were the best? I'm sure you can find sources for such claims. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why were you editing the article of someone you've never heard of before? This is trolling, plain as day. CongerEelSolo (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I edit articles which have obvious problems. Doesn't matter if I have heard of the subject or not. Setting up a new account for the sole purpose of interfering in this dispute, now that's what I call trolling. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to an anonymous coward using an IP? Don't make me laugh. You smell of sock-puppet. CongerEelSolo (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That isn't even close to being the same thing. Why don't you bring the same abusive tone here that you used on your talk page? At least now you know who Spencer is, and what he's best known for. Apart from anything else, being in Fleetwood Mac is the only thing Spencer has ever done which is notable by Wikipedia standards, so to say he's best known for that is not (so I thought) even slightly contentious. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I know what you think he is best known for. No-one actually knows what the global population collectively thinks of him, because no-one has ever done a survey to find out from a representative sample what, if anything, they know him for. So your claim is simply an assumption which has no place in this encyclopaedia. The fact is, he played with Fleetwood Mac, and that's all you need to say. As I have said repeatedly, you add nothing to the article by saying "X is best known for being Y" when you can simply say "X is Y". You haven't explained why you believe it's necessary to apply a subjective judgement to objective facts. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. By putting that fact first in the article, we're making what you call a subjective judgement to highlight that as the most important fact. To be truly objective we'd just list bullet points of facts in chronological order, starting with his birth. There are far too many important tasks to be done on Wikipedia to waste your time and the time of other editors on this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Stating a fact is fine. Presenting an opinion as if it is fact is not fine. What's the problem, exactly, with saying "X is Y" instead of the cumbersome and subjective "X is best known for being Y"? 190.162.52.196 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I have asked a User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, user persists.

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

---

This user converted an article's citations to templates unilaterally contra WP:CITEVAR. This was an article he never did any other work on, it was IMHO a drive-by, and pursuant to CITEVAR, I reverted. Ever since, has refused to listen to anyone else's opinion contrary and badgered those who expressed such opinions and observations--and several users have informed him his actions were incorrect per CITEVAR. Regardless of that discussion (which I'd rather not get into here again because it has continued ad nauseam elsewhere...one of those discussions that will never end because of factional intransigence), I have asked this user on several occasions on my talk page to not contact me, and that I consider any further contact from this user to be harassment. User:Bender235 continues to contact me, and it draws me away from contributing to more productive work (i.e. adding information to articles) because of his badgering. Please warn or sanction him and instruct him to not contact me. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It took almost nine years on Wikipedia for me to see something as pathetic as this. As anyone can read on User talk:ColonelHenry, I conciliatorily approached ColonelHenry, and got rebuffed. Just today I pointed ColonelHenry at an open question User:PBS directed at him on WT:CITE. It is that friendly notification he considers "harassment". It is just pathetic.

Right now, I realize ColonelHenry was never willing to engage in constructive discussion—one of Wikipedia's pillars. I have no intentions to contact him anymore, just in case this was not clear. --bender235 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• When someone tells you clearly "DO NOT CONTACT ME" you don't contact them. The first time, not the twentieth. You have repeatedly ignored my clear, unambigious request. SERIOUSLY, BENDER235, DO NOT CONTACT ME EVER AGAIN. STOP STALKING ME. STOP HARASSING ME. STOP BADGERING ME. DO NOT CONTACT ME. Whether you consider it friendly or not (I DO NOT), I do not want any contact from you. It is a simple clear request. I don't care if you want to ask a question or point me to a discussion. I do not want any contact from you. What about that was not clear the first few times I requested it??? --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second; are you seriously upset that Bender235 has converted and cited sources to verify the content on sites like JSTOR because it alters the citation format? Honestly; you should owe Bender235 some thanks because he has allowed readers to personally verify the sources contained within the document through online sites. This diff shows you removing links to valid JSTOR links which verify the content and expand the "Further Reading" aspect. Your removal of these valid links is itself disruptive. Bender235 replaced the links hoping you would know how to fix them for "your" style.[230] Also, WP:NOBAN, Bender235 seems to have made good-faith and clear improvements to the article and you wiped them out. He's tried working with you and you start screaming at ANI no less. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is I've asked him to not contact me, he persists. If he hadn't relentlessly badgered me on the issue, I probably would have incorporated the JSTOR material into the format already existing. If he were willing to accept any of the mine or other users opinions that opposed his conversion from non-templates to templates, it would have been easy to work with him, but he has resisted anything other than his own opinion. His refusal to acknowledge the other people who opposed him only increased his badgering myself and other users. Other admins informed him his edits were contrary to CITEVAR regardless of their good faith intentions. But that is immaterial. I've asked this user to stop contacting me, he continues to contact me. I am here today only to get him to stop contacting me.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOBAN, If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests

How many times am I supposed to ask Bender235 to not contact me before I should expect him not to contact me?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "If he hadn't relentlessly badgered me on the issue, I probably would have incorporated the JSTOR material into the format already existing". There seems to be a serious ownership problem here too. Thomas.W (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas.W -- WP:OAS. Even User:SlimVirgin saw this wasn't ownership in discussions on the template issue. On the other hand, I do not want to be contacted by Bender235, I'd ask you to please focus on core of my reason for coming to ANI for assistance. .--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is so negative on the topic of citation template that I would suspect this falls into one of her blind spots.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

ColonelHenry refers to a discussion on Talk:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Those "other users and admins" he is referring to are actually just one: User:CBM. The debate between CBM, ColonelHenry, and me was whether the above mentioned article should use citation templates the way I implemented them. We came to no consensus.

Despite being constantly insulted by ColonelHenry, I stayed calm and polite. I "badgered" neither him, nor CBM. Anyone can re-read our discussion, if interested. --bender235 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I generally find that when one editor tells another "DO NOT CONTACT ME" that it is the person making that request that is the source of the problem. This case would appear to confirm that general rule. Which of Bender235's communications do you see as harassing? Can I see an example of the reason you are declaring your talk page off-limits?—Kww(talk) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I want him to stop contacting me, and have already established my reasons for my request. I should not need to justify my reasons beyond stating "I do not want Bender235 to contact me". --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't established any reason for your request. That's the problem. You seem to believe that the issue of citation templates is one that no editor on Wikipedia should discuss with you because you won't listen to any of their arguments, regardless of their validity or merit. That's not a reason to ask people to stay off your talk page, that's a reason to seriously contemplate your own behaviour. As I said, the general rule is that people making the "DO NOT CONTACT ME" requests are the source of the problem. Here, it's clear that it's your intransigence over citation templates that's the root of the difficulty.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Actually it is an issue. You may not like Bender235's actions, but at least he's copyedited and provided a reason for the actions. You express on your talkpage that you reject the templates because you "hate them" and don't understand them. The templates made things easier to read, verify, and standardized the information. I'd consider that "good reason" to implement the changes; but Bender235 hasn't edit warred over it with you, instead began asking why your objection exists and try and resolve it through discussion. You are simply trying to avoid the question and consensus building process by trying to force no-interaction. WP:CCC may be happening and you seem absolutely against any changes you do not want; no matter the reason given. That's a WP:OWN issue. And you also added your "warning" inbetween posts which looks like you warned him twice, when he the timestamps show otherwise.[231] Generally; the one screaming "do not contact me" is typically the one engaging in WP:DE to drive the editor away and continue to exert an their established WP:OWNership over the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along and claim that ColonelHenry's behaviour is justified by WP:CITEVAR, I will point out that it actually isn't: WP:CITEVAR discusses articles with "an established citation style" and the edits that ColonelHenry is objecting to were on an article with four or five different styles, depending on how you categorize the existing references. It specifically encourages "imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles".—Kww(talk) 15:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

ColonelHenry just tried the WP:MEAT tactic to draw User:CBM and User:SlimVirgin into this. I recently expressed my concerns of seeing an incident like this happen under the watch of administrators. --bender235 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of the reason that this little skirmish started, a) did ColonelHenry actually tell you to stay off their usertalk page, and b) did you EVER return to his user talkpage after being advised not to? That is the question. The content/formatting stuff can and should be dealt with in another manner - this is about the issue as presented (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, after I pointed him at the aforementioned open question on WT:CITE, he called this an "harassment" and asked me not to contact him anymore. I replied by reminding him a collaborative project like Wikipedia requires people to display a certain willingness to engage in dialogue. He then reacted with this AN/I.

From now on, I will not contact him anymore. It is now obvious to me that he is unwilling to engage in any type of discussion with me, or anyone. --bender235 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you really need to get the extra dig in there at the end? I can see why he wouldn't want to communicate with you if you insist on doing things like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But then again, I felt I needed to remind him that discussions aren't bug, but a feature of Wikipedia. Plus I felt deeply disturbed that ColonelHenry is of the opinion that if he patronizingly decides a topic merits no discussion, everyone else has to obey and shut up (or "back off", as he called it). Maybe I'm misguided, but I still believe I did nothing wrong when I applied the above mentioned fixes to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, saw them being reverted, and then started to debate on the article's talk page (per WP:BRD). Was that wrong? --bender235 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - discussions about improving an article belong on the article talkpage - there's no argument about that. However, as the policies/guidelines you have now seen show - of course, as does basic human kindness - when someone asks you to stop posting on their talkpage, it means one thing: stop. Period. That does not ever prevent continued discussion about improving an article on its talkpage. Accusing him of never wanting to discuss with anyone is a bit of an unwelcome personal attack, in addition to your continued harassment on his talkpage after being asked to stop. Your communication regarding the article was never removed, merely one editor who did not want to hear from you further on their talkpage. You don't get to bypass that, nor do you get to add snotty retorts (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when ColonelHenry first told me I was "harassing" him, I thought he misunderstood my question. Because all I asked was to hear the problems he had with citation templates. He replied unfriendly, and I apologized. In hindsight, I realize, it was actually his "first warning" for me to stay off his talk page, because he not only "hates" citation templates, but he also doesn't want others to asking him for the reasons. Now I know, back then I didn't. Again, I'm sorry.

Let me explain: in my nine years on Wikipedia, I never meant to "harass" anyone. So when I'm asking a sincere question, and the other person replies indignantly, my immediate thought is that I have been misunderstood and therefore have to apologize. The thought that the apology itself is regarded as further harassment, and is ostensibly prohibited by WP:NOBAN, never crossed my mind. From now on, I'll approach discussions on Wikipedia differently. --bender235 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

@BWilkins - To answer your first and second questions posited above. The first time I asked Bender235 to stop harassing me was 11 June 2013. He persisted, I told him to move on politely and forcefully. He persisted. I told him to move on several more times, increasingly agitated. He persisted (although he mentioned he would give up). Four days later and he still badgers--hence why I'm here. I've had enough of it and I want him to leave me alone--it has taken most of my energy away from contributing this week. What was wrong in this? He won't stop even if anyone (and several people have) told him why they disagree. Instead of going away, and getting back to something productive (realizing it's futile to argue when both sides have no reason to budge), he persists. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Psst...the question was not directed to you...it was actually rhetorical because I knew the answer, and wanted Bender to recognize it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with you on that one, Bwilkins. Asking people to stay off your talk page is a warning sign of misbehaviour. Certainly there are cases where it is necessary, and I won't deny that, but in a case like this it's more reasonable to focus on the reasons for the request than the infringement. Using such requests in an effort to refuse to collaborate isn't something we should be endorsing or enforcing. It's clear to me that ColonelHenry is refusing to edit collaboratively over this issue and is supporting himself with an intentional misreading of the guidelines involved.—Kww(talk) 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• ColonelHenry asked Bender235 not to post on their talk page. Bender did so anyway. Bender has now promised to stop. I don't think anyone wants to sanction Bender for the earlier refusal to honor Colonel's reqeusts. @Kevin, unless you believe that administrative action may be justified against Colonel, I would be inclined to close this as resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it specifically requires admin involvement, but I think that to effectively have given admin endorsement to ColonelHenry's behaviour was wrong. As long as your closure includes some statement to the effect that ColonelHenry is reminded that the purpose of such requests is not to stifle collaboration, I'll be quiet.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I second Kww's sentiment and note that after reading User:ColonelHenry I'm concerned about an overarching WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. And while any user certainly has the right to ask any other not to edit their talk page, when they do so without just cause and seemingly to avoid a friendly content discussion it is generally a red flag. Sædon^talk 19:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Having just read User:ColonelHenry, I realize I better had not attempted to discuss this citation template issue with him. Apparently, not all contributors appreciate the cooperative modus operandi of Wikipedia. In hindsight, I wish I had read this "warning" on his user page earlier. It would've avoided a lot of frustration. --bender235 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, take it easy while painting other contributors in the light of being cooperative or uncooperative. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Let's be careful: I'm only endorsing ColH's authority to request someone leave their talkpage alone. I was quite clear in stating that it's important to review his editing issues separately, and encouraged that ... but this was not the right location to do so (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm questioning whether that authority extends to this circumstance. I've never viewed these requests as as having much legitimacy, and this struck me as being a case where the justification was so weak that there was no need to treat the request as having any force whatsoever. The conversation certainly took a turn for worse on both editors' sides, but it was the refusal to discuss that triggered that.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It always does. You're right, however: if an editor is doing it simply because they don't like being told they're wrong (rightly), then it shows other problems. However, the protection of one's-self from perceived harassment always needs to be paramount. If it's necessary to address other behaviours through administrator assistance (who CANNOT be told to stay off) then so be it. You know, in the old days, Bender could have gone to WQA for that kinda help ... too bad such a place no longer exists (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment to esteemed administrators. I give credit where credit is due. ColonelHenry kept off my talk page [232] after I told him to. There is some material there that may be of passing relevance, including a boomerang. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC).

Wikiwide, there is not consensus about cite templates. So we all have to respect each others' opinions, and try not to "stir up" arguments that we know are likely to be intractable. To that end, Bender235 should have disengaged as soon as it was clear that anyone objected to his converting an established article from one style to another. Although there was already a conversation on the article talk page, Bender235 took it to the ColonelHenry's page, and continued prodding there after it was clear there would be little benefit. The best resolution here is for Bender235 to move on to something else and disengage from ColonelHenry's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bender235 asked multiple times which of the five citation styles used in the article was the one that should be consistently applied, and was rebuffed. He certainly got pissy towards the end of the discussion, but he started out trying to do exactly what WP:CITEVAR recommends: installing a consistent citation style across the article.—Kww(talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As CITEVAR said, he should have just used the style that was originally established. But in this case Bender235 was trumping up minor differences between citations in order to convert the entire article to use citation templates. He knows perfectly well there is no consensus to convert articles from not using template to using them, and that people are likely to object to such changes.

Now, while using a minor variation in style as a way of gaming the literal wording of CITEVAR is a brilliant idea, in fact one of the key motivations behind CITEVAR is that if an article was established without citation templates, as that one was, then that is the default style if anyone objects to their introduction (and if the was established with citation templates, that is the default if anyone objects to removing them). It is entirely unproductive for Bender235 to badger editors, or try to open discussions on each article's talk page, when the general principle has been established for years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"unproductive [to] try to open discussions on each article's talk page" why? -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not care about some site-wide consensus, but only about the consensus at T:LSJAP. Instead of switching the article back to the citation style orginally introduced in 2006, I tried citation templates. Maybe, within this article, new consensus for change would establish. Unlike you, I don't believe the lack of site-wide consensus on citation templates should be used as a blank cheque to revert citation templates introduction everywhere.

Also, if there's only "minor variation" between

• Luthy, Melvin J. The Case of Prufrock's Grammar. (1978) College English, 39, 841-853.

and

• Sorum, Eve. "Masochistic Modernisms: A Reading of Eliot and Woolf." Journal of Modern Literature. 28 (3): 25-43. Spring 2005.

then I don't know how "major variation" looks like. An interesting thing, too, is that the article's original citation style looked totally different from the one ColonelHenry imposed recently. One example:

• "On 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock'", from Blasing, Mutlu Konuk. 'American Poetry: The Rhetoric of Its Forms'. New Haven: Yale UP, 1987.

and after ColonelHenry's change:

• Blasing, Mutlu Konuk, "On 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock'", in American Poetry: The Rhetoric of Its Forms (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987).

The only thing these two styles have in common is that they don't use citation templates. Plus, in the abovementioned edit, ColonelHenry first introduced {{rp}} to the article, which of course is a citation template as well.

It baffles me to this day how an administrator, who's not favoring citation templates, can misinterpret WP:CITEVAR so bluntly. How he can allow one user to completely switch a citation style, but prohibit it to another one. And how, above all, he is entitled to cite his misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines to cut off a consensus-finding debate on an article's talk page. I see grave misbehavior on CBM's part. --bender235 (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's cool how pretty much anyone can claim ownership of an article in three easy steps: 1) Revert a change, insist on talk page discussion; 2) Wait for talk page discussion to end up as no consensus (let's face it, on any article that's not one of the top-100 "hot topics", barely anybody reads the talk page); then 3) Demand, in a petulant, childish manner designed to push as many emotional buttons as possible that the person making the change refrain from posting on your talk page. What's even cooler is how few people on this project manage to see through this garbage, and instead make sure to patronizingly tsk-tsk the "change-maker" for the most far-fetched definition of "harassment" this side of the local BPD Support Group. No wonder people troll this place to oblivion, and no wonder so few new editors bother sticking around - nobody hangs out at the reject lunch table if they can help it. Also, shout-out to Bbb23, who caught my earlier screwup, but, in his haste to slap a level 4 warning on me, neglected to restore this particular edit. I'm not going to participate in AN/I under my I.P. address, so enjoy this obvious new-accountDaret Masampullmor (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am here because that little box at the top of my window went red and linked to this page. IMHO there are in only four fundemental citation styles used on Wikipedia:

1. Harvard (with a general references section containing the full references);
2. footnotes (ref tag pairs) containing full references;
3. footnotes containing short references (with a general references section containing the full references);
4. footnotes containing full references to a source but the page numbers are displayed in-text (outside the ref tag pair) usually using {{rp}}.

With an underdeveloped article with a few references, usually number 2 is the style chosen. But once the number of citation to the same book but different page numbers increases, many editors think it appropriate to use three. As {{harv}} automatically links the short citation to the long citation, this is often an appropriate time to introduce templates. As an alternative option 4 can be used.

For reasons best known to themselves some editors are vehemently opposed to some citation templates such as {{Citation}} "I hate them. PERIOD.-- ColonelHenry", and use WP:CITEVAR to oppose the introduction of such templates (and they are often successful see Daret Masampullmor's comment immediately before this one for some of the reasons for this).

In this case ColonelHenry was vehemently opposed to an edit by Bender235 and made that very clear by using the word "UNILATERALLY" in caps. However when previously editing the article to which ColonelHenry had reverted Bender235's edit, ColonelHenry had unilaterally introduced the citation template {{rp}} and hence introduced a new style (option 4 above) to the article. When I pointed this out by asking some questions in the section Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#The point of CITEVAR, ColonelHenry chose not to answer.

User:Bender235 requested that ColonelHenry answer my questions (because on the face of it his behaviour seems hypocritical ("do what I say, not what I do")). ColonelHenry chose not to answer my questions, (which is a valid response by ColonelHenry), but it allows other neutral editors to draw their own conclusions. User Bender235 should have accepted this and let it lie.

This is a spat that should never have ended up here. User:Bender235 having been requested not to post to ColonelHenry's talk page, you should have respected that. ColonelHenry there is still time for you to reply at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#The point of CITEVAR to the questions I asked.

I suggest that User:Bender235 unequivocally states here that (s)he will now drop this specific issue (about the edits to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and the follow up sections on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources) and not contact user:ColonelHenry about it again. Given this promise no further action should be taken. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"For reasons best known to themselves some editors are vehemently opposed to some citation templates ... and use WP:CITEVAR to oppose the introduction of such templates". That is, of course, the entire purpose of CITEVAR, just like ENGVAR - to cut short a particular interminable discussions by making a firm rule that the status quo in each article should be respected. Personally, I like citation templates - but I have to remember that, apart from CITEVAR, there is nothing to prevent someone from removing all citation templates from every article they edit. The rule cuts both ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to reprimand Bender235 on account of not heeding requests to not post on a user's talk page after being asked to stop. Yes, he probably should ended it while he was ahead, but in this case, I can empathize with him for prying out an answer from a contributor who did not want to explain himself. By no means should Bender235 needle this issue any further, but I see no fault in this case. I hope that in future interactions, ColonelHenry will be more accepting to make compromises with regard to pages he collaborates on. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see a fair bit of WP:IDHT from bender235 in the Wikipedia talk:Citing sources discussion. Quoting User:WhatamIdoing's advice to bender235: "your best option is to learn WP:How to lose with a little more grace". In the same thread ColonelHenry has provided what seems to be his main reason on June 13: "The citation style generally in use before was largely Chicago, and as established it needed minor cleanup. MINOR." and later "Cite templates are a bitch to edit around, moreso IMHO than ref tags." [233]. Bender235 is free to start a new RfC on imposing what seems to be his firm belief of the universal superiority of templated citations. But trying to make a particular article a test case of overwhelming the opposition by stubbornly repeating the same arguments is a bad approach. As to the other side of the coin, ColonelHenry explained his reasoning for introducing the {{rp}} template on the article's talk page on June 14 [234] and before bender235 "needled" him [235] about that issue. Besides, anyone can see there's a big difference between full citation templates with dozens of parameters and the one-parameter {{rp}}; this seem to be in line with ColonelHenry's argument about complexity, although it does raise eyebrows with respect to WP:CITEVAR, even though ColonelHenry described himself as a "a recent major contributor" to the article. So, if anyone objects to ColonelHenry's own change in style on June 11, they can revert him too per "if there is disagreement" in WP:CITEVAR. Badgering him on his talk page instead of participating on the article's talk page seem counterproductive. Also this June 15 post by bender235 [236] saying that ColonelHenry (still) didn't explain his objections to citation templates allegedly " because he won't tell" is yet another example of IDHT. I suggest closing with a WP:TROUT to bender235. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bender235 is a long-established, productive and respected Wikipedia editor. His usage of citation templates follows Wikipedia guidelines. He has been goaded into making the very mildest of responses on ColonelHenry's talk page by the intransigence of that editor. PBS has taken the extraordinary step of suggesting to User:Bender235 on his talk page that he deserves to be blocked [237]. This is totally inappropriate. PBS should withdraw this suggestion and, if he still wants to make it, should make it on this thread, out in the open. I also see no reason why User:Bender235 should be required to "drop" the issue of citation templates on the Prufrock article as he is advocating views of the matter that are soundly based on policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

What policy? Is there a policy requiring universal use of citation templates? As to credentials, ColonelHenry wrote a couple of FAs and a few GAs, so perhaps he is not the dimmest bulb in this affair. WikiGnomes like bender235 have their role, but IDHT badgering shouldn't be one of them. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did I badger, for god's sake? All I did was apologizing on ColonelHenry's talk page and asking whether he could explain his problems with templates. How in the world is that "badgering"? What else was I supposed to do? --bender235 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe, I had missed Bender235's statement in his/her first reply in this ANI "I have no intentions to contact [ColonelHenr] anymore, just in case this was not clear". Having received that undertaking I suggest that this ANI is closed. -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

EdwardsBot

EdwardsBot has been delivering incorrectly formatted, excessively long Tech News messages, so I have blocked it. Could someone check to see what's wrong? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The bot has finished, so has been unblocked by Legoktm.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see this before unblocking, thanks for the pointer. There was a small mistake in the formatting so it didn't subst properly creating a mess. I spoke with odder in #wikimedia as soon as I noticed, and he started working on identifying the error and cleaning up. If I have some time later, I'll fix the messages on enwp. In the meantime, the bot run is finished, so I unblocked it so any other users can use it. Legoktm (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought Odder retired back in early May. Glad to see their still around. Kumioko (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess the orange notice about notifying users of discussions related to them isn't prominent enough. ;-) Thanks for cleaning up after the bot (and for the unblock!). EdwardsBot actually does double duty, serving as the bot for User:EdwardsBot/Spam and m:Global message delivery. Similar setups at both sites. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editor, refuses to engage in talk

There's this anon user that keeps making unproductive changes to the Google Nexus article. They seem unable to understand the difference between a Nexus device and a Google Experience device, so they insist on adding non-Nexus branded devices into the article. I have explained the differentiation numerous times in my edit summaries, and tried starting a discussion about it in the article's talk page, but the editor just keeps reintroducing his changes, disregarding anything else. --uKER (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No attempted discussion on their talkpage. No warning of this ANI filing. No action to be taken, yet. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but that IP traces back to AT&T's corporate offices, specifically on a network used by their security and/or legal offices. Whether that is a COI or not I will leave for others to determine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the other phones the IP wants to add are all available on AT&T's network, yet the subject of this article, the Nexus, makes no mention of it being capable of use on AT&T's network. Make of that what you will. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

repeated vandalism on page User:Jimbo_Wales

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

---

Why don't you at least semi-protect the page User:Jimbo Wales? As opposed to his talkpage, I can't see any legitimate reason why any user other than Jimbo himself and especially why any IP should change anything on his userpage.[238] --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Because IP's are human too Blackmane (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has traditionally encouraged people to edit the page, so anything other than short term protection would be a problem. It's one of those cases where having many watchers tends to work out ok, although it gets protected when things are particularly bad. - Bilby (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Turelio, I'm sure you have actually read Jimbo's userpage where it outright encourages an edit, AND warns potential vandals that its being mercilessly watched? If an IP learns that vandalism will be reverted almost on-sight, don't you think that's a learning experience for their future on the entire project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Georgia Williams

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

---

Without contacting a particular admin, could an admin close this AfD as it has gone past 7 days. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So? AFD's run at least 7 days ... they end when they end (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – WP:NLT covers this. No editors are in danger of being sued at this time. Hasteur (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth bringing to Admin attention, anyway.[239] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely and totally a legal threat, see http://aafm.us/wikimedialawsuit.html (linked in the edit summary). Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Indeffed. There's probably socking going on there too. That "lawsuit" is a joke - we've discussed that here before (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I may be a bit late to the party but this "lawsuit" is just... I have no words. PantherLeapord (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm one of the named editors in this supposed 'lawsuit' - and after reviewing my one and only edit from August 2012 - I feel reassured at knowing that this is probably just a crock. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's total b.s. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

For an educational institute, they seem to have surprisingly poor command of the English language,

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly interesting reading: http://www.visualcv.com/georgementz Peridon (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If only for the laugh, from http://aafm.us/press.html:

"May 31 2013 - AAFM Sends legal letter to Wikimedia Legal Department promoting ethics, identifying conflicts of interest, spam and defamation. Wiki editors identified as non neutral. May 30th, 2013 - AAFM Becomes financial supporter of Wikimedia Foundation and sends"

No, literally, it ends like that. Interpret how you may. --RAN1 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also one of the editors named in this and feel reassured by the comments above.Theroadislong (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Emmet Chapman

Vital historical facts under Emmet Chapman have been compromised with reference to BIAS and FRAUD. I have included historical data that absolutely is NOT bias and such information pertains to Chapman's false truth of his claims that he invented a new method. The following is the truth, that apparently he has managed to delete again and again.

To be historically correct with reference to Chapman's method of playing a fretted string instrument patent was rescinded on November 18th 1983. Document #90000469 on file in the Patent Office shows all four claims of his method were cancelled. This public knowledge is pertinent with reference to the point of origin of Chapman's Free Hands method in regard to the mention of his 14 patents that do not include the method of playing the instrument. There is only 1 method of playing a fretted string instrument on file that does not pertain to Chapman.

Now the deletion of such matter is concealment of cause of action. I will seek a remedy to this until it is resolved. Emmet Chapman is not above the law, and Wiki MUST adhere to it's policy against BIAS and FRAUD. Removing this information willfully commits these acts. So, I do not know WHO removed this history but it must return back to the article.

I AM THE INVENTOR OF THE METHOD THAT CHAPMAN IS CLAIMING THAT HE INVENTED. I AM RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE AS THE INVENTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tralian Inventor (talk • contribs) 05:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(For context, this appears to be in relation to the Emmett Chapman article.)

Hi there. You might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:SOAPBOX. In short, Wikipedia is not here for you to advocate your point of view, no matter how noble you believe your cause to be. If you think that your patents are being infringed, you can take that up in court. If you think that the historical consensus about who invented a certain method is incorrect, you may want to consult a journalist. However, under no circumstances should you be fighting these battles on Wikipedia. That's not what we're here for. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tralian Inventor. If you think there is an error in a Wikipedia web-page (called an "article" in Wikipedia jargon), the best place to take that up is on the article's "talk page", this case Talk:Emmett Chapman or Talk:Free Hands.

If there is something that needs correction, you will need to verify it with reliable secondary sources, like a reputable newspaper or magazine article that confirms that what you are asserting about rescinded patents.

I also note that, while it may not have been your intention, some of what you wrote appears to be words that suggest legal action. A "cause of action" is legal jargon for the basis of legal action, and a "remedy" in legal jargon is specifically the specific outcome someone takes legal action to get, as examples. If you are suggesting that you may take legal action, you will be blocked. from making changes (in Wikipedia jargon, "editing) for reasons set out here: Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you simply disagree with what is written in Wikipedia, please go through its dispute resolution process.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I can find only one of Chapman's patents that possibly relate: Method of playing stringed musical instrument.--Auric talk 10:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also this 2005 version of the article.--Auric talk 10:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• See also ticket:2013061710005955. I'm attempting to resolve the issue with the user. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Nightscream protected own talk page using personal attacks as justification

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

---

I tried to leave a talk page message for User:Nightscream regarding a post of his on WP:RSN, but found the page protected from all editors other than administrators. Seeking to understand why, I saw that the page protect edit was from Nightscream himself, who imposed the protection citing what is described as "persistent spamming". Three sets of comments from a single user hardly seems to meet the criteria for "persistent spamming", nor does there seem to be any justification for Nightscream's snide remarks calling the person a "whiny" editor "who doesn't understand WP policy and doesn't wish to learn". Should admins be protecting their own pages and should they be doing so with a tenuous justification based essentially on personal attacks? P.S. Can an admin notify Nightscream regarding this ANI, as I am unable to do so. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• An admin full protecting their user talk page (for multiple days) solely because "Persistent spamming: Spammed with constant whiny messages by a newbie editor who doesn't understand WP policy and doesn't wish to learn." is probably not a good idea. Actually, it is a terrible solution to an admittedly annoying problem, and arguably outside the original intent of that tool. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've removed the protection. Nightscream can deal with users they find annoying like everyone else: by ignoring them.--v/r - TP 16:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • You just beat me to it. I searched for any possible justification, but using the tools for that purpose is clearly and obviously outside of any accepted use of the tool. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I've left a message on Nightscream's talk page. Hopefully we can just call this a learning experience and close it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Disinformation at Operation Red Hat; topic ban requested

This article is plagued with massive problems of failing verifiability as noted by several participants, myself included, in the ongoing AfD. Simply stubbing article (equivalent to deleting 99.9% of the current text) does not seem enough to prevent future problems from its author, User: Johnvr4, who is basically a single-purpose account on this issue. I propose a topic ban for Johnvr4 (editing under any account or IP) to keep him away from producing similar content about chemical weapons or the US military and the intersection of these topics. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that there is any disinformation in the entry. I also disagree that I am the cause of "problems' with the article or that a ban on me or my content is required. I am writing the entry and attempting to address concerns without mass deletion prior to discussion. Some concerns are valid concerns and some are not. I am a subject matter expert on this topic who had his content attacked by two (tag teaming) editors that started with my submission on a topic unrelated to the one mentioned above. There is no need for a ban for a editor working in good faith to improve an article such as myself. I also do not appreciate the anonymous proposal. I submit that the person proposing this is exaggerating the issue or providing dis-information to you in claiming I am providing dis-information in my entry.Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are an expert, then publish your original research somewhere else. Your writing is really some kind of conspiracy theory, vastly different from how existing secondary sources [books mostly] present this Operation. After you publish your take outside, it can be included in Wikipedia with WP:DUE weight. If the publication happens to be like that Nexus (magazine) article, then the weight is probably going to approach zero. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is not conspiracy theory rather it uses sourced facts from Primary government sources and Secondary and Tertiary sources. The connection to Project 112 is not theory and there is no theory here (except in the mind of a person who's primary work is chasing and making accusations of conspiracy theories). The books about the subject were published prior to the discovery of Operation Red Hats connection to or as part of Project 112 so I do not understand a providing dis-information accusation and it is unfounded.

If there is an issue with the credibility of the entry in incorporating one source why are would an editor complain and propose a ban on me here? Nexus magazine was only of 175 sources and had the same information as the primary source itself. I have no knowledge of it's credibility other than one editors un-sourced personal opinion but in any case it is is verifiable by anyone who cares to look. The Nexus magazine source was used in one small area to provide additional support for a primary source and simply to show that the primary source had been published. The source and content being complained about about had nothing to do with the subject of the proposed ban. It had to do with using special forces in the type of mission where a specific enemy would need to be captured alive. This potential use of CW and BW agents (low dose Sarin as incapacitating agent) to capture alive is discussed in the field manuals and books referenced in the text and cited in the entry. The storage for Sarin in SE Asia was on Okinawa as Operation Red Hat is documented, referenced, and cited in the article.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I invite admins to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat and make up their own minds if Johnvr4 has misrepresented sources or not. Examples are aplenty there. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat discussion was about deleting the entire article and took place after multiple mass deletions by one of 2 or more Editors who had also previously deleted my content from another entry. Is the ban proposal over a sourcing issue or providing some type of disinformation, making it took long, too detailed etc.? Is this editor out to ban the content, me or both? Decide for yourself who is dis-informing, and not acting in or assuming good faithJohnvr4 (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What has already been deleted from the article was information which was obviously off-topic (about 100Kb). What is left (another 100Kb!), while seemingly on-topic, turns out to severely misrepresent the sources cited, starting from the lead no less. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not Obviously off topic to anyone who read the source(s) cited. The were obviously on topic for anyone who did. the collapse entry should answer to question of who is providing mis-information.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note that I've just deleted the article in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This is not Justified. This Editor's claim that I am misinforming is a lie. Below he states that it is widely understood that the Red Hat Operation took place in 1972. No source says that and The DoD denies it and has done so this year and many times in the past. The allegation is unbelievable. For some reason Administrators are accepting this persons interpretation of Operation Red Hat and other faulty opinions from similarly mis-informed administrators. note below:

Collapsed lengthy pasted text. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"*The lead itself [3] is a case of extreme misrepresentation and disinformation: it claims that in 2012 a groundbreaking discovery of documents made "Operation Red Hat" into... well... something ominous and vague, but surely different from what it referred to "Prior to the discovery". But the source cited, Japan Times, claims no such thing. It just says "Operation Red Hat, the mission to transport the weapons off the island, [...]". In other words, nothing new about what Operation Red Hat stands for has emerged in 2012; the meaning is the same and a matter of well-known public record since 1971 (at the very least) when a Department of State news letter mentioned "Operation Red Hat, the Army's removal of toxic chemical munitions from Okinawa". This is a serious case of just one Wikipedia editor on a mission of disinformation. I have requested a topic for him at ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC) And the other bullshit about this being some coverup not only fails verification in the sources cited, but is also contradicted by army documents (1977) which said [4]: "Operation RED HAT, the relocation of all chemical agent stocks stored in Okinawa to Johnston Island was conducted in 1972, again with maximum public visibility." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The Resenting and Moving at night sentence citation looks like it is pointing to the wrong source. I think this was from the film Operation Red Hat Men and a mission but I will have to check that one. I thought Phase I was mustard and during the day and Phase II was nerve gases was at night. Good find and valid point on incorrect sourcing. I don't think that whether the understanding and information from 1977 is prior to the discovery of new documents in 2012 needs to be addressed but the primary Army document source states: "The 267th Chemical Platoon had the mission of operation of Site 2, DOD Project 112." The secondary news source states: "Newly discovered documents reveal that 50 years ago this week, the Pentagon dispatched a chemical weapons platoon to Okinawa under the auspices of its infamous Project 112. Described by the U.S. Department of Defense as “biological and chemical warfare vulnerability tests,” the highly classified program subjected thousands of unwitting American service members around the globe to substances including sarin and VX nerve gases between 1962 and 1974. According to papers obtained from the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the 267th Chemical Platoon was activated on Okinawa on Dec. 1, 1962, with “the mission of operation of Site 2, DOD (Department of Defense) Project 112.” Before coming to Okinawa, the 36-member platoon had received training at Denver’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal, one of the key U.S. chemical and biological weapons (CBW) facilities. Upon its arrival on the island, the platoon was billeted just north of Okinawa City at Chibana — the site of a poison gas leak seven years later. Between December 1962 and August 1965, the 267th platoon received three classified shipments — codenamed YBA, YBB and YBF — believed to include sarin and mustard gas. For decades, the Pentagon denied the existence of Project 112. Only in 2000 did the department finally admit to having exposed its own service members to CBW tests, which it claimed were designed to enable the U.S. to better plan for potential attacks on its troops. In response to mounting evidence of serious health problems among a number of veterans subjected to these experiments, Congress forced the Pentagon in 2003 to create a list of service members exposed during Project 112. While the Department of Defense acknowledges it conducted the tests in Hawaii, Panama and aboard ships in the Pacific Ocean, this is the first time that Okinawa — then under U.S. jurisdiction — has been implicated in the project. Corroborating suspicions that Project 112 tests were conducted on Okinawa is the inclusion on the Pentagon’s list of at least one U.S. veteran..." continuesJohnvr4 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read over the AFD, and there was overwhelming consensus to delete. (And any of the keeps required a total overhaul of the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Read it again please. Any evaluation to TNT was reached only after half the entry was deleted and based only upon tag teaming and ignoring all the rules. Faulty arguments and now outright lies were used as a justification as demonstrated above and on my talk page where the discussion continues. There was also discussion on the Talk Page of the entry which is now inaccessible. Restore the Page. Please or verify the Facts.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Copied from elsewhere. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The new info discovered in 2012 is about some aspect of the umbrella Project 112, not about the disposal sub-project known as Red Hat. There was nothing new said about the latter in Japan Times. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC) You are mistaken and so is the premise of your entire argument. The Japan Times is citing the Letter about the 267th Chemical Platoon, Project 112 and OPERATION RED HAT and has a photo of the letter mentioning RED HAT, the red Hat area and what was stored there was the Project 112 items. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2012/12/04/community/were-we-marines-used-as-guinea-pigs-on-okinawa/#.Ub8_mNLCZ8F article:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2012/12/04/community/were-we-marines-used-as-guinea-pigs-on-okinawa/#.Ub8sctLCZ8EJohnvr4 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban First off, stop copying and pasting extensive discussion about Operation Red Hat here, this is not appreciated on this forum and highly annoying; this is about you editing the article and this topic in particular, Johnvr4. You obviously have a conflict of interest with the subject and considering your improper synthesizing of information on the article and claim of owning the article several times in the AFD, you are too invested in the subject to be editing about it. Specifically, I am also troubled by your claim that you were hosting the information here for someone outside of Wikipedia to look at [240]. All in all, you need to find something else on Wikipedia to do, because you spent a year fluffing this article up to the point where it was unable to be salvageable, and you need to move on to something else. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What is annoying is yet another personal attack and the second one by you about be [[User:Moe Epsilon]. The First accusation was that I'm cooking up stuff (as in Sources) in my spare time and now I am fluffing up articles? Give me a break and I am really sick of your personal attacks. So What about it is fluffed exactly? Be very specific with your new personal attack. Fluffed the entry? because I brought it from 2 reference to 175? What was being salvaged exactly? The contribution I made? Nothing was salvaged rather it was deleted. Be sure to point everyone to the incomplete discussion rather than the entire archived discussion. Would not want anyone to read that would we?Johnvr4 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1) Moe Epsilon (nor anyone else) made any personal attacks against you. 2) Read WP: IDHT. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely accurate, however I made no attack against you. Several editors on the talk page of the deleted article, on your talk page, cited above by the IP and cited in the AFD have specifically addressed concerns with your attempts at sourcing content, how it was sourced (as in, making claims that the references didn't make) and how reliable the sources were. You've failed to address them, just citing more content from the article that you've created and trying to justify with some kind of special knowledge you hold about the topic. What needed to be salvaged was the content prior to you editing it at all. You made close to 1,500 edits to that article that are deleted now. Honestly, I've never seen an article with 200 references go down to 100 in a week of removing invalid claims, then deleted. You have to admit there was some serious concerns with your writing for this to occur. Like I said, I think you're too close to the topic to be writing about it, and editors not tied to it like you could make a new article that is readable and reliable to what references actually say. For now, I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by editing about this topic anymore, because you're gaining a lot of detractors along the way. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First, the person with an IP that nominated me for a ban is mis-informing as part of this discussion. I have shown that above Project 112 is part of Red Hat and also a part of many other things. and that no source says Red hat was in 1972. The sources all say 1971. Any decision on who is providing misinformation should be based on what the correct source says. Second, Someone has made an accusation that I am Cooking up sources, and fluffing up articles, and a third person said I am abusing sources. Each of these are Personal attacks in the context in which they were used. More importantly they are not true. [User:Moe Espilon] made two of the accusations. Rather than assume good faith a typo or accident, (or welcome a new user) per wiki policy he has assumes bad faith and personally attacks me.

there was hardly anything prior to my editng which began years ago. Your history revision of the last week is shocking. You cite a mass deletion of content without any prior discussion by an editor who comes along and deletes half the content under ignore all rules because it is too long as some type of vindication of your argument that the whole thing is incorrectly sourced or because you have never seen anything deleted so fast? That is nonsense. Speak to MR IP addresses assessment of what operation red hat is which he brought up for discussion vs. what the sources say in the collapsed text.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and endorse deletion Per Moe Epsilon and the AFD. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also like to note that Johnvr4 has continued to add (as recently as June 17th) unreliable sources to Allegations of CIA drug trafficking despite being told repeatedly and in several different forums that these sources are not acceptable. See: [241]. GabrielF (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've done some recent work on Project 112, another article greatly expanded by Johnvr4. I think he has exaggerated CIA's role in that program. There are basically no citations in the body of the article supporting a leading (or even some) role of the CIA in the program and the few academic sources I've read on Project 112 don't even mention the CIA. In view of these concurring events, I think it's wise to have his ban include the CIA. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

User Huligan0 disruptive editing

User Huligan0 is constatly adding unsourced content to Mohamed Salah biography and doesn't want to stop, despite many warnings and explanations, that he should provide a reliable sources for his edits. As you can see on his talk page I gave him a final warning today[242], after he added once again unsourced statistics to the infobox[243]. Also I reply to all his complains at article talk page:Talk:Mohamed_Salah. However he ingored the last warning and my answers and reinstated unreferenced data again with ridiculous edit summary.[244]--Oleola (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tau article

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

---

After the recent RFC about the article not being a redirect anymore: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability, which failed to gain support to restore the article, a number of editors John W. Nicholson Reddwarf2956 (talk · contribs) (most of his edits are about Tau) and Joseph Lindenberg (talk · contribs) (Tau is the only topic he has edited about in the last year), and Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) have kept the argument going at Talk:Tau_(2π) and appear to be unwilling to accept the consensus and move on. This is despite numerous requests on the talk pages that they do just that. Rather they are again proposing a third RfC one month after the last one because they didn't like the results of the last one [245]. Can something be done about this situation? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, as a matter of fundamental principle, I do not accept that there can ever be a consensus on WP never again to discuss a particular subject, or even a consensus never to have any kind of article on a specific subject. So long as discussion remains civil I can see no reason at all why editors should not discuss possible ways forward in what seems to me to be a rather bizarre content dispute between pro-Tau and anti-Tau editors, of which I am neither.

I agree that something needs to be done but there really was no clear consensus and certainly not one to delete the current article which is effectively what has happened. There was a AfD which resulted in a clear 'Keep' followed by a tactical RfC on merging with Pi. The merge never happened as only three sentences of the on the subject found their way into the Pi article; deletion by stealth in my opinion. Nevertheless, the so-called merge did result in significant disruption to the Pi article as aguments raged on a serious mathematical article about a subject of extremely minor mathematical significance.

As I have said above and made clear elsewhere, I have no interest in the subject itself, it would be hard to find a less interesting area of mathematics, but I am interested in not allowing a group of editors to arbitrarily block the creation of an article or even discussion of the subject. For simply discussing the subject in a civil manner on the appropriate talk page I have been accused of disruptive editing, disruptive of what I am not sure. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

it doesn't matter one iota if you aren't Pro-Tau. The consensus was in favour of maintaining the redirect. You are still arguing about the issue, despite the consensus against it, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions on a way forward are welcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• The other side of the story needs to be told.

"Editors here, please stop telling others to stop discussing this subject. There was never a consensus to delete this article and there was only a very dubious consensus to merge, which was never done; the article was effectively deleted against consensus. Several very sensible proposals for new names for this subject have been put forward which overcome the objection that an article entitled simple 'Tau' might mislead our readers into believing that there is any significant interest in the subject by serious mathematicians. One thing is for certain, there is no clear consensus that we should have no kind if article on this subject, in fact, I am not sure that such a thing is even possible within the ethos of WP." --- Wrote by "Martin Hogbin" at "09:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)" and backed by the current writer.

In other words, the complete history of the tau (with multiple, different links which have been redirected to Pi#In_popular_culture), pi, and other related articles needs to be addressed and not just the most recent RFC. There is no acceptance of the article tau, no matter what is done, not even the suggestion of being fringe article which would put the article in a more neutral and rational light will work for them. It was even joked that even raising the dead would not be satisfactory because of their insistence and actions.

The most resent ones on the other side of this issue which really do not want to 'stop it' and want us to ignore the article as to institutionalize it as keep it from having an existence even some time in the future: IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), RAN1 (talk · contribs), JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs), David Eppstein (talk · contribs), SudoGhost (talk · contribs), Tkuvho (talk · contribs), and Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). Damage has already has happen to Tau_(2π) because of the ignoring of the article while they instituted a merge, as to delete, with pi. Clearly, it is not benefiting Wikipedia by not having information on an article, which also has a date of 6/28 (Tau day), available before hand.

Note that, for the large part, the conversation has been civil, but threats have been made like the one at User_talk:Reddwarf2956#Tau.

• I do not know the complete system here at Wikipedia, especially things like noticeboards and incidents, so I have only followed the link that IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) placed on the Talk:Tau_(2π) page about this section. If I knew who to write to and what to do, I would have done it sooner, near a year sooner, as to change the direction that this article has been following. I feel like I do not know what I am doing here, so if I do or don't something that is needed, then notice that it is not because I do not want to.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some diffs to back up your accusation, because it seems like you're just listing names of people that have disagreed with you in some form on a talk page, which is rather pointless. I'm at a loss as to why you've included my name in some supposed conspiracy; I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article, but you're welcome to try to find a single diff that shows anything beyond that. - SudoGhost 13:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the notification system for letting me know my name was mentioned. So what have I done? I participated in the formal discussions that determined that there is no need for a separate article. Since then I have mostly been repeatedly referring to them to try and get some closure on this, as a small cabal of mostly SPA editors ignore consensus and process and refuse to accept the discussion outcomes. It's difficult to provide diffs to show the problem as taken singly the edits seem quite reasonable. But it's the pattern of tendentious editing as none of them accept consensus or take any heed of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the the three previous formal discussions

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau (mathematics) – outcome keep with "a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere"
• Talk:Tau (2π)/Archive 3#Request for comment – outcome "merge to Pi"
• User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)#RFC:Article Notability – outcome "this article is not yet ready for mainspace"

Discussions since have taken place mostly at Talk:Tau_(2π).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I also do not like having my name being used here too. "it seems like you're just listing names of people that have disagreed with you in some form on a talk page" goes for IRWolfie- (talk · contribs). I have never felt the needed to complain about how I was treated on Wikipedia editing until I made edits to tau and pi.

When I say " the complete history of the tau (with multiple, different links which have been redirected to Pi#In_popular_culture), pi, and other related articles needs to be addressed" I do not mean one or two of the 'diffs', I mean all of them and including the talk and talk history pages, even the ones before I edited a single word on pi or tau. Listing each and every one of them would be ridiculous. If you (as a group) would recognize the 'consensus and process' and stop undermining of discussion outcomes this whole thing would not be an issue in the first place when some one tries to edit an article.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tau_(mathematics) "However, I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. This well within editorial discretion, however, I do not see agreement as to a merge target." Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80)/Archive_3 There already was an AfD. While consensus there was to merge the article somewhere, there was no consensus as to the specific course of action. That was the purpose of the RfC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Result was merge to Pi. Delete votes were discounted, as this is not an AFD (although the accompanying text for a few delete !votes clearly suggested they supported a merge to Pi), as were comments along the lines of "keep because I like it. This leaves a good majority supporting a merge to Pi." -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"I would redirect this to a section in the article pi, I don't see anything in the article that warrants having a separate article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)" "That's because Slawomir recently gutted it, and we haven't rebuilt it yet. Here's what it looked like before. [246] Slawomir also deleted all mention of this topic from the Pi article. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)"

"Merge and redirect into Pi. I defend Slawomir's removal of the blatant advocacy previously in the article and I don't feel that there's enough left to justify a stand-alone article. This can be revisited in a couple of months. Reyk YO! 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)"

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Tau_(2%CF%80)/Archive_2 "The result of the proposal was} not moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)" "The result of the move request was: Page moved. Since the original move was done without any consultation of other editors involved in the article, I've reverted it, per WP:BRD. Any eventual move should be first discussed and agreed upon here. --Waldir talk 04:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)"

And, more ....

Note the dates of the two archives and the moves and RfC. These were happening at the same time frame but the results are what is important. It was the "removal of the blatant advocacy" that is the cause of the discontent. It is debatable if the information then was "blatant advocacy" then and even more so now. Clearly, the article was notable when the Articles for deletion happen, so what happen to it?

The funny thing is I did not know what the word "cabal" meant until I started to edit pi and tau and saw how these article were treated and the word used some time back. In other words, I am not doing this for anybody else or even myself, but I am doing it for the reader and Wikipedia. But, the issue of any cabals holds a much longer standing for some of the other on the no-tau side. This is the reason I want the issue to be looked a back all the way to the start of the articles. If not, then there is a loss of actions and statements.

John W. Nicholson (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A brief aside since I haven't had the time to write up a proper response, please have a look at Wikipedia's list of cabals. Take note of the preceding notices as well...On a more serious note, WP:TINC. I'll make a full response to the ANI mention later this afternoon/evening/late night/morning. --RAN1 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reddwarf, you have completely failed to address what I asked. You appear to have simply listed people that have disagreed with your position and listed them here as if it means something relevant; it does not. I don't care that you were brought up at AN/I, if you're going to in turn bring up others in response then have a reason for doing so and back up that reasoning with diffs, or don't bring it up. Saying "I also do not like having my name being used here too" isn't an answer to that and doesn't support any allegation you made or explain why you've included my name here. A few editors that just happen to disagree with you does not a "cabal" make. I'll say this again: I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article, you are more then welcome to provide a single diff that shows that my edits related to this subject have been anything other than that, but if you are not capable of doing so then leave my name out of your nonsense. - SudoGhost 18:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank the notification system to do what lack of {{subst:ANI-notice}} can't. It's worthy of note that the IP 76.103.108.158 (talk · contribs), Reddwarf2956 (talk · contribs) (AKA Nicholson), Joseph Lindenberg (talk · contribs) and Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) have not edited the relevant section on Pi within the last week and in fact have barely made any contributions to the Popular culture section in which the current information on tau resides, which makes it really dubious as to tau's "stealth deletion" as they haven't focused so much on adding to that section while waiting for tau to become notable enough to have its own article as to continuing to argue over an RfC where the result was no consensus. In doing so the aforementioned users failed to build consensus all the while, with the IP causing disruption in 2 section creates: [247] [248] [249]. For my part, I attempted to reduce disruption by refactoring (by collapse only) and asking the users to move their discussion to their user talk pages. The result was Hogbin and Nicholson reverting the 3 attempts I made at refactor. I tried to compromise in my last attempt by collapsing out a clearly disruptive section that served no purpose but attention-seeking, but in all instances my attempts at refactoring were reverted and contested with reasons that seemed to confuse Tau (2π) the crystal ball article with Tau (2π) the redirect, and afterwards simply resorted to WP:IDHT behavior: [250] [251] [252]. After those reverts I gave up to avoid violating WP:3RR and didn't refactor the talk page at any point afterwards. To put the main point forward, the aforementioned IP's disruption, along with a failure to just move on and start improving out the information contained within Pi's Popular culture section, has proved annoyingly disruptive.

Furthermore, those users find it impossible to edit information related to Tau without a declaration of independence, viva la revolution! [253] [254] separate article for tau. I think it's also noteworthy that "Tau Day 2014" falls on June 28th, which is not-so-coincidentally in 2 weeks, which seems to be the reasoning for trying to shoehorn the creation of the article for this with disregard for process and is in fact the reasoning behind the first comment that resulted in this month's bag of worms. WP:DEADLINE seems very appropriate to consider here (although admittedly not policy, it does make a good point to this WP:CRYSTAL-related matter). Finally, I agree with Blackburne on the tendentious part, especially because the editing has been mostly WP:IDHT to literally no end as of this month. What should have been done was moving on from Tau (2π) to work on the Popular culture section in Pi, as arguing on the talk page of a redirect serves no purpose and until a new consensus has been reached it's dubious to discuss improvements to a nonexistent article on the redirect's talk page. The horse was killed, and it should have been left alone ages ago.

As an addendum, though, why was Tkuvho mentioned? His only contribs to Talk:Tau (2π) that I can see here for the most recent discussions are [255] and [256]. The first one is a clear answer to the IP's question, and the second one is harmless. Not sure what he's been mentioned here for, so it would be nice to see some reasoning as to why he's been mentioned. --RAN1 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Not to mention David Eppstein, SudoGhost, and Arthur Rubin. I also don't know why I've been mentioned here, I'll leave my point of view up above. --RAN1 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the above claim by RAN1 that those of us in favor of a separate tau article haven't recently added anything to the section about tau in the pi article. That's because we've been repeatedly told it can't have any more space there. Three sentences. That's all it's allowed. Adding more about tau to the article on pi would supposedly be disproportionate. Which is why we've tried to recreate a separate article about tau, where more than 3 sentences could be written. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

So, where is the diff for the opinion that it should only receive 3 sentences? --RAN1 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing the fact that on the Pi Talk page, we've been told again and again, ever since the tau article was merged into it, that tau could only have a couple or a very few sentences? Digging out all the diffs will take time, because there's been a lot of discussion about tau on the pi talk page over the last year. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm seriously disputing your unsupported statement in light of the fact that you have not responded to any of my points, barring only this one. As for this point: if I don't know what you're referencing, there's no way to verify or identity the context in which you were told that the subject should only receive 3 sentences. It also applies to anyone reading this noticeboard since you've provided no links to support your statement, forcing readers to take your word for it. That doesn't help anyone with trying to decide how to discuss this, as one will be forced to make assumptions that may or may not be true to interpret this. With this in mind, could you please show the diffs for the opinions that tau should only receive 3 sentences within the Pi article? --RAN1 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Beginning just 6 minutes after the merge took place last year:

[257]

[258]

I'll need time to go through and accumulate a full list. More wasted time for everyone. As I suggested before, if IRWolfie could just ignore the occasional posts on the tau talk page, instead of trying to silence anyone who breathes the word "tau", we'd all waste a lot less time arguing. Now, we're going to start a whole new round here. Great. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• The close of the RfC looks suspect. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I'd indef block that non-admin until they learn their place. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Something that needs to be understood by people not familiar with this dispute is that tau is a pretty recent phenomenon. A number of the editors who opposed creating a separate tau article now, acknowledged that it could very well continue to gain attention, and would then indeed be an appropriate subject for a full article. The votes in the last RFC were evenly divided between Support and Oppose for creating a separate tau article now. This is an issue in flux, not one that's been around for decades and won't likely change. However, I certainly agree we shouldn't have RFCs about it every few months. But there's no harm in letting people occasionally discuss the matter's current state on the Tau (2π) talk page. It's the best place for it. In fact, it shows real consideration, by keeping such discussions off the Pi Talk page, so as not to overshadow other issues there. There are no other issues to discuss on the Tau (2π) talk page. And it's where most of the discussion has happened over the last 2 years. I encourage IRWolfie to just tune it out until somebody actually opens another RFC. (Which has not happened. Somebody floating an idea on a Talk page is very different from actually bothering everyone by formally opening an RFC process. You know, kind of like opening this process here.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with that. First it's the talk page of a redirect, not an article. There currently is no Tau article. There's nothing to stop you creating a draft of one in userspace, as Tazerdog did, which would let you (and others) work on it outside of article space without being disturbed, and would also mean you were talking (on its talk page) about a concrete thing, not an abstract "if we had an article maybe this would be useful". If you were able to resolve the issues raised in the last RfC the article might then be suitable for mainspace. Second much of the discussion on Talk:Tau (2π) is not about improving any article, but is simply thread after thread disruptively re-asserting that the page should be created, i.e. ignoring the outcome of the recent RfC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, IRWolfie tried to silence people on the Talk page in Tazerdadog's user space too. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with having the discussion elsewhere. One, the history of the whole debate is getting scattered to too many places. I think it was a bad idea to have the last RFC on the Talk page of one temporarily involved editor's subpage. To examine the history of the debate on Wikipedia, you have to look through that page, the Tau (2π) talk page, the Pi talk page, the AfD page, and the WikiProject Math talk page. Let's not add yet a sixth place. The second problem is that new or returning people should be able to easily find out that the discussion is taking place. This whole debate started with the creation of Tau (2π) a little less than 2 years ago, and it's where most of the discussion has happened. It's the logical place where people would look to see if there's any new discussion. The Pi Talk page would be the other logical place, since it's where Tau (2π) now redirects, and where a lot of the discussion has already occurred. But we're being respectful of requests to avoid cluttering that page with discussions about tau. Finally, in the spirit of "Don't Feed The Trolls", I will again say, if you guys would just ignore the occasional post somebody makes that you don't like on the Tau (2π) talk page, that page would be a whole lot shorter. And we would all spend a whole lot less time arguing. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The history is that τ was coming along nicely until 2012-03-14:

http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tau_(2π)&oldid=481917070

When πists decided to wage war against τ. ¿Is not the timing interesting? The article clearly has sufficient notability and material. We even have a move-target:

http://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/tau_(mathematical_circle-constant)

The RfC had a consensus to keep and no consensus to merge. The consensus was to either merge of keep the article. The πists interpret this as only merge. The πists allow less than 1 paragraph about τ in π. I conjecture that when we pointed out to them that the radius defines the circle (see: unit circle) and that so therefore, the circle-constant is d/r, it upset πists to learn that they focused on the wrong constant.

76.103.108.158 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think you're conjecturing a pro-π conspiracy out of the mistaken belief that everyone is as emotionally invested in the issue as you. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• • As stated, it is my conjecture, but if you look at the edit history, it in an incontrovertible fact that attempts to gut, delete, or merge τ started on 2012-03-14. ¿Do you know what people call YYYY-03-14? On πDay-2012, the πists started their war against τ. ¿Do you claim that it is a coincidence? just look at what the πists did to τ in 1 day:

http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tau_%282π%29&action=historysubmit&diff=481930993&oldid=481917070

That gutting which occurred on πday-2012 was only the beginning. πists have waged war against τ ever since then. ¿Do you deny what they history clearly shows:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tau_(2π)&offset=&limit=500&action=history

76.103.108.158 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For those who claim that someone can add content to Pi#In_popular_culture here you go [[259]] [[260]]. John W. Nicholson (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For those who think the anti-tau people are are not emotionally invested when they have tried to hide writings [[261]], delete writings [[262]] "restore RfC: no you don't get to change the question mid discussion because you're losing the argument" [[263]], or simply will not stop antagonizing against τ. Or,is this just being overtly wikilawyering WP:WL on what really clearly should be a fringe article? Why are you not looking at the point of 76.103.108.158's statement "Is not the timing interesting? The article clearly has sufficient notability and material." Clearly, with the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tau_(mathematics) results it is notable. John W. Nicholson (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie's right. This is pure disruptive and tendentious behavior. If this were a call for a topic ban, I'd vote "support". Watchlisting. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So now, you and Wolfie would censor discussion about how to improve an article on its talkpage. That says something. 76.103.108.158 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Incorrect close?

As an involved admin, I'm not going to revert the closure, but I believe IRWolfe was asking for a topic ban on certain editors, which would be an administrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this close does not make sense. The issue is direct and about behaviour, something which ANI is amply suited to deal with. The editors named won't move on, I'm suggesting a topic ban on Tau discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is stop telling people to stop talking about tau, and they will stop talking about it. Somebody occasionally posts some small post, and you immediately try to hide it, or delete it, or tell them they can't talk about it. You're doing it again here. That really offends some of us, and we end up in a long drawn-out argument. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, topic ban for what?? For discussing a subject in a civil manner on its talk page?? As the closing admin suggests let us continue to discuss the subject in the proper venue, the Tau talk page. Those not interested need not join in. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no closing admin; it was a non-admin closure. And the issues of editor behaviour, as detailed above, were not examined in the closure. This really should be looked at by an administrator.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some quotes to think about:

"The close of the RfC looks suspect. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I'd indef block that non-admin until they learn their place. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)"

"No one cares about your silly squabbling. ANI is not the place to re-hash your argument. Move it back to an appropriate venue please. No administrative action needed or requested. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)"

".... The result of this RfC is that this article is not yet ready for mainspace. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)"

So, are you saying that your shopping for a closer, which has now backfired, is not good anymore? I think you do not except his close here you also can not honestly say this: User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#RFC:Article_Notability, was not a good close for the same reason that you state here plus shopping for a closing "Superuser" with:

User_talk:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant)#Closing_RFC:_suggest_creation_of_the_article

"Closures cannot be overturned simply because the closer in not an admin. This is not the correct venue for a review. See above and this RfC. (Though I do agree with that the close was more a supervote than a summary.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)"

the link "1.60.151 User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)#RFC:Article Notability" at [[264]]

It is your choosing to resurrect or to bury it.

Your arguing shows everyone that you do not want to drop it and not the pro-tau side. And, realize that by resurrecting it you have nothing to complain about with the pro-tau side trying to keep things fair and balanced by requesting someone, hopefully an administrator or a group of administrators (odd numbered as to end this), to resurrect the RfC (or starting a second one), but with a twist. The person who does the closes must be fair and balanced (and show it by doing the following). The new RfC would request a review of all of the history, including deleted statements, even back to the start of every 'tau' page and pi. All of the talk, personal pages like talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant), and edits on related pages like (as to mean 'not limited to') Circumference, Radian, Radius, and the link "1.60.151 User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)#RFC:Article Notability" located at [[265]]. Also, this RfC reviewer would look at the article notability as a fringe article as well because the first RfC was commented on many times that the was was intended to be a fringe article. Finally, if the article is closed without creating a article or restoring an article, then the closer needs to state what is needed as a fringe article to be an article without resurrecting Euler and peers. In other words, state what is lacking with all of the references stated in all of the article attempts and both in and since the attempted close of Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant) in a way that shows the fringe notability and show what happen to the notability and the article of tau since the following qoute in the AfD?

"The result was keep. An interesting discussion, with a few different points of intersection. First, the keeps have the better of it from a notability standpoint. The original nomination specifically addressed sourcing, and invoked the GNG; this was adequately rebutted, and a number of the comments acknowledged explicitly or tacitly the nontrivial coverage. Thus, the administrative action here is to close the discussion as keep. However, I see a strong consensus that the article should be renamed or merged somewhere, and given the degree of participation here I am prepared to call this a local consensus to the effect that, while notable, the topic is best addressed within another article. This well within editorial discretion, however, I do not see agreement as to a merge target. So, I am making an simple editorial decision (which anyone should feel free to revert) to move the article to Tau (2π), and there is absolutely no prejudice to further move or merge discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)" [[266]]

We (all involve in this article) don't want to waste your or my time right now (I am sure you don't too). We are all tired of all this gaming the system just to keep this one article from existing. We are tired of the Wikilawyering. We are just tired too. We can keep on, but that is up to you. John W. Nicholson (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So, I see we're back at WP:FACTIONS again. Joy. --RAN1 (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On a slightly more hilarious note, I would also like to request, in keeping with your above provisions for your "RfC with a twist", that the designated closer be a Defender of The Truth as only those who defend The Truth are fair and balanced enough for your RfC, not to mention capable of reviewing half a dozen un/semi-related articles and more than a few hundred comments across multiple talk pages, and then after all that be able to single-handedly judge the notability of a fringe topic. As if that wasn't enough, they have to crystal ball when that topic is sufficiently notable for its own article. I think the person you are looking for is one whose knowledge of The Truth is so expansive that his or her title is, to borrow (and slightly modify) a term that you used, a WikiJudge. I have never heard a more convoluted attempt to try to shoehorn an article in.....by spamming RfC conditions so consensus ends up taking the back seat. I think that's enough said for your "RfC with a twist", I'm going to sleep. Good night. --RAN1 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to go to sleep too, so I'm just going to suggest that a little time can be the wisest judge of all. Instead of empaneling two juries of Solomons (one jury to decide the issue, then to be ignored, when we appeal their decision to the second jury), let's see if the answer isn't clearer after a few more months. In the meantime, pro-tau-article-now editors please stop demonizing anti-tau-article-now editors, and anti-tau-article-now editors please stop shushing pro-tau-article-now editors. Good night. (This is beginning to sound like the Waltons.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Subpages and User:Nyttend

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

---

Back in 2009 there was a discussion that got communithy consensus to deprecate using subpages for articles to contain comments. Some fall under comments, to do and the like. As of June 2013 there are still more than 22, 000 of these uneeded pages. I have been working to eliminate these by submitting them for deletion.

I have started with the blank ones and the redirects to CSD. Others I have submitted to MFD. Multiple editors and admins have participated in deleting some and several have stated openly they agree with deleting them. Only one user, User:Nyttend has a problem and is claiming I am abusing AWB and has needlessly reverted about 100 of these submissions here. I previously asked the user to start a discussion if they disagree and they have refused intead to choose to simply accuse me of violating policy and threaten to take away AWB rights if I don't comply with his wishes. There is a clear consensus to get rid of these and Nyttend is violating consensus and policy by reverting them and threatening me. Can someone please ask him to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the 2009 discussion you're referencing? It's not clear, reading your post here, what the "subpage" issue is, or where/what consensus exists regarding that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages explains it and has a link to the original discussion. The discussion says the pages should be redirected and or blanked after any needed comments have been moved to the talk page. That has been done to these pages long ago so there is no longer a need to keep these empty pages. Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it sounds to me like the complaints you're getting on your talk page aren't over the fact that you're trying to delete these pages per consensus, but over the fact that you're using AWB to do it, because AWB is making a lot of errors, which means that in a lot of cases you're creating the pages just to insert a CSD tag. As a first step here, I'd say you should clarify with Nyttend whether his objection is to "CSDing comments subpages" or to "what he perceives as an unacceptably high error rate in tagging/creating comments subpages" - his answer to that will have a lot of impact on what the upshot of this discussion should be. If it's the latter, the issue is not the 2009 discussion, but instead what kind of error rate with AWB is unacceptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

[ec with Fluffernutter] I have multiple times warned Kumioko that these do not qualify for speedy deletion. This is not a simple case of "Nyttend is thumbing his nose at everyone else"; this is a case of Kumioko trying to get pages speedied that don't belong. I already explained the situation to him, already started (at his talk page) the discussion that he claims hasn't happened, and yet I'm being brought here for enforcing the CSD policy's wording of Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Kumioko's own words here demonstrate the absurdity of his argument: he says that the 2009 discussion decided to redirect and/or blank these pages, and he uses that as justification to get the blanked pages speedy deleted. Topping all of this, even after I explained on his talk page that these didn't qualify for speedy deletion, he used AWB to tag three hundred pages for speedy deletion, despite AWB rule 3, Do not make controversial edits with it — and after reverting them, I didn't even need to start a new section at his talk page, because people were already objecting to the way that he was using AWB to tag pages for deletion. I daresay it's controversial to tag pages for speedy deletion after an admin tells you they don't qualify. Are we now going to take admins to ANI when they call us out for tagging pages wrongly? Finally, note that Kumioko has started MFDs for some of these pages, and I've not participated because I don't particularly care; I'm interacting with Kumioko purely in the administrative role of going through CAT:CSD and deleting or untagging pages as appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've changed the header — you didn't even follow the rules given at the top of this page, New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's partly true. Fram identified a few that I accidentally recreated a few because the toolserver was behind. Not because of AWB. There were only about 8 pages out of 500+ this happened too. I also asked for a change to AWB. I already verified all these and none are missing pages. Nyttend's issues are different. He disagrees with deleting these pages at all and instead reverting about 150 of the submissions. It has nothing to do with error rate. He doesn't seem willing to follow the consensus of the discussion. I agree that the pages could be kept and they aren't technically hurting anything. But why keep blank pages for a subpage system who's use has been deprecated. Some of these pages link to a WikiProject banner and some might leave a comment there thinking they are supposed too.

I have submitted some to MFD and to CSD. In both cases all of the folks think they should be CSD'ed except Nyttend. In fact some of the MFD's I submitted were CSD'ed by the MFD folks and then Nyttend removed the CSD tags from them as well. So this is an issue of Nyttend not wanting to abide by consensus because he doesn't agree with it and doesn't like me. These pages are appropriate for CSD. I totally understand if Nyttend doesn't want to do it and he doesn't have to. But accusing me of AWB abuse and reverting them because he doesn't agree with consensus is unacceptable behavior and abuse. There is nothing controversial here except one admin not agreeing with consensus. And changing the header of this discussion to look more favorably on you is totally unacceptable. Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend. Also, most of the comments on my talk page have nothing to do with AWB and you are exaggerating what they are saying. Fram had a good issue and I addessed that. But it was an issue with the toolserver lag, not AWB and I asked for a change to AWB to mitigate that in the future. You have no valid argument. Swamping CSD isn't a big deal, there's no rush so the admins can deal with these whenever. I did all the work to identify them and submit them. All you have to do is delete them and there are about 1400 admins to spread the workload. I don't want to make work for anyone. I would rather delete them myself but I can't so you get to do it. Its not fair, but that's the way this system works and we all have to work through it. There is another comment asking for me to group the submissions together at MFD, but then at MFD they think the submissions should be CSD'ed not MFD'ed. But I can't CSD them because Nyttend will revert them. So one user, Nyttend, is causing extra work for a lot of other editors because he doesn't agree with a clear consensus. That is a violation, not me rgardless of how much some editors want to make me the villian. I'm just trying to get rid of some trash we don't need, isn't encyclopedic and is against consensus. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"why keep blank pages for a subpage system who's use has been deprecated" Because our speedy deletion policy doesn't permit it. You want a discussion, yet you try to get them deleted without discussion. You're trying to get me to violate policy, yet you complain that I'm violating it by enforcing it. Speedy deletion = no discussion, so stop objecting to an admin action and take them to MFD, which is what you're supposed to do if you want to get a page deleted after your speedy attempt gets declined. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your not even making a valid point. First, I'm not making or trying to make you do anything and I don't think I could. If you do something, its because you did it, not because I seduced you into it. Second, the discussion already happened, back in 2009. Additionally our policies clearly state that content that is blank, non encyclopedic, etc. can be submitted. It happens all the time. Third, at least a dozen admins have deleted articles I submitted with this process for these types of pages. More have commented at MFD or on my talk page that they think CSD is the right way to go. So either you don't like me being the one doing it (possible), you don't understand the policy (doubtful) or you are violating a consensus that CSD is appropriate (probable). Its also possible that there is a need to keep this trash that wasn't taken into consideration in 2009 which supercedes that decision and I need to stop submitting them. So that is why I started this discussion. To clear everything up. Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking at like a dozen it seems apparent that these were empty pages, which had previously contained a bunch of vandalism, nonsense, or BLP violations. CSD was definitely the right route to go and Nyttend's rollback of all those tags is inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Initially, some of the submitted subpages were not blank, and I declined those as speedy--the material may have been copied elsewhere but I had no easy way of telling, and I wasn't about to decide on my own whether the discussion was substantial. some purely blank ones I have deleted, and I continue to delete them-admitted, it's taking on trust that there's nothing in the history that hasn't been transferred.

The part of this I think was wrong, was not giving notice somewhere of this deletion project before it was started. It's not just the WMF that goes ahead with something substantial without adequate notice. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I submitted any yet that weren't either blank or redirects. I did submit some to MFD and the MFD folks retagged them as CSD's. Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on this? I would like to get back on cleaning these up. Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if no one else has any comments I am going to continue on with the cleanup of these comments pages. I am going to take silence as consent unless someone tells me otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think what you've said here is sufficient explanation and notice, and if you want to do the work, just continue. But it would help us at patrolling CSD if you didn't do more than about 30 in a batch because otherwise it tends to take away attention from the urgent stuff. It helps if CAT:CSD is on a single page. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok I can do that. I still think that there is no rush so they can sit there until you get the time to get to them but that's fine. I think there are only about 200 blank ones left including the ones that got reverted. Kumioko (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can some admin please take action on this. User:Nyttend has again reverted my edits, against consensus because he feels that his opinion over rules what is a clear consensus from multiple people here, on my talk page and at MFD that these blank comments pages are CSD appropriate. He just reverted another 30 and threatened to block me for reverting his reversion. Here is an example of where he is now edit warring over these CSD submissions: [267], [268] and [269]. Certainly this isn't acceptable behavior for an admin! For one of the trusted elite! Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Woah, hold them horses: this is serious copyright violation. You cannot merge comments to a talk page and then delete the page that has the contribution history. This should stop for all pages where the material has been merged (redirection is fine, deletion is not), and all speedies where this was the case should be undeleted.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no copyright violation involved. Most of these contain BLP violations, vandalism or unneeded comments like this is s a stub from before we used the WikiProject banners. Keeping them is more of a violation. Kumioko (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That logic is impossible to square. If the comments are unneeded and certainly if they're BLP violations, they should never be merged in the first place. And if we don't merge content to the talk page then there's no copyright problem in deletion. It's the comments that are being merged to the talk page whose source page histories must be kept. That's a patent copyright problem. Are you implying that you've studied each of the pages you tagged for speedy deletion and that had merged content on an individual basis, determined for each that the content that was merged should not have been, then didn't bother removing the merged BLP violating content and then tagged the source for speedy? Obviously not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Some comments are useful and need to be merged. Others are not and should not be merged. Also, even if these pages are deleted they are still available its just that an admin would need to look at it. Not that it is being lost forever. Most of these contain outdated and irrelevant information like "Article is a stub", "Article needs references" , etc. Some contain vandalism, blp violations or are just blank as I mentioned. Nearly all of them are prior to 2009 and just not needed. And there is no copyright problem copying comments from a Wikipage to another wikipage. Wikidata isn't copyrightable, its freely distributable. And actually I did look at the vaste majority. Of the 500 pages, I pulled them into AWB, then I isolated the blank pages from the roughly 22, 000 other pages. Then from that last of about 500 pages I scanned through each one and using the history tab on AWB reviewed the histories. Many didn't even have one, the page as created and that was it. So yes did review them. Although it is possible I missed one so if you do happen to notice one that isn't correct, please let me know. Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears from his talk p. that I have persuaded Kumioko to use MfD instead of speedy. ( I myself have no objections to speedy, but if someone else does, then mfd is the way to go.) That should end the matter here. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for administrative action again User:Curb Chain

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

---

This is my first time at AN/I during my time here on Wikipedia, so you'll excuse me in advance if I don't state everything the way that things are normally stated here. I was directed here by another administrator (User:postdlf) at the tail end of the recently closed AfD over the Wikipedia article List_of_American_death_metal_bands. I realize that the article in question here isn't a very high profile or "important" Wikipedia article. However, a few of us are disturbed by the actions of Curb Chain (CC) both at that AfD and in the article itself recently. Quite frankly, I've never seen the kind of behavior exibited there by anyone on Wikipedia in my 5 or so years as an editor.

Consensus in the above AfD rapidly developed that CC's initial nomination had no merit, but that unfortunately did not deter CC from repeatedly, intentionally & disruptively blanking the list that was in question at the above AfD in order to try & "win" that doomed nomination. CC unilaterally (and against current community consensus) got rid of all of the entries on the above list that were already on List_of_death_metal_bands twice. The first time was from 20:24 on June 9, 2013 to 03:10 on June 11, 2013. He was reverted by the above-mentioned administrator (after discussion of CC's disruptive edits in the above-mentioned AfD) at 10:07 on June 11, 2013, then CC simply just re-applied basically the exact same edits again at around 22:09-22:17 on June 11, 2013 using the edit summary "Everything is unsourced or not reliably sourced", which CC knew at the time wasn't the truth at all. Most, if not all, the bands that CC has twice removed from this list in question have sources both in their own individual Wikipedia articles and/or on the massive listing entitled List_of_death_metal_bands.

CC tried to deceptively describe his above edits on the list in question's talk page by saying that "I'm going to continue to remove more entries without sources after looking at the wikis' pages within the next few days", "I have added sources from the artists' wiki pages to source the ones that I found to have sources. I have not included artists that have been written to be playing this genre without a source", and "The AfD is not closed". CC did not attempt to engage in any constructive discussion about how the list in question should be edited on any talk page.

I do not engage in edit warring. So, I request that the current version of List_of_American_death_metal_bands by reverted to the version from 15:25 June 11, 2013 so that more sources for the bands that should rightfully be on the list can be added in the near future.

I have no previous experience in banning members of Wikipedia in any capacity, but I do not think that simply reverting the article in question will end this dispute between CC and other members of Wikipedia that are trying to improve articles here. Since I have no experience in this area, I'd like to leave any other decisions on other administrative action again Curb Chain to this body's collective judgment here. Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Guy linked the AfD above, so I'll just leave it here for your convenience: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_death_metal_bands. I don't intend to get involved here, though, so please try your best not to bug me about it. Ansh666 05:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the above AfD is now unfortunately at DRV here. Curb Chain also deleted my notice of this discussion here on his talk page with the edit summary "sign your post". Like I've said already, I'm newb at this whole thing here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment its a common or garden content dispute. Whats really annoying is that its on a list where every article is a blue link. I did a spot check from the last (seemingly complete) version and they all appeared valid, so its not surprising it was justifably shot down at AFD. However DRV *is* an option, and while its annoying and time wasting, its not really a reason for admin action. Suggest letting it run. Curb's changes have been reverted a couple of times with 'seek consensus' for what he wants. So if he keeps doing it, best place to take it would be at the edit-warring noticeboard. Hopefully it wont get that far because they will get the hint now and discuss it or try and work with people on the talk page. Oh and deleting talk page notifications is ok. You can take it to mean they have seen it and acknowledged it. They may choose to respond or not. That is up to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanx for the comments both above & below. I understand that DRV is technically an option. It didn't end well for Curb Chain (CC) recently, which is not surprising, and I was especially displeased to see CC misleadingly try & frame the issue there like all they were asking for was a "merge" of content from one article to another ("Formatting of the broader article is all that is needed to include the information present in List of American death metal bands so to merge with List of death metal bands"). I appreciate "Only in death's" reversion & subsequent edits to List of American death metal bands. As I said earlier today on that article's talk page, we're basically back where we need to be now, and another editor has attempted to expand & improve upon the list as well, which is good.

I will, if necessary, take this issue to "the edit-warring noticeboard" (though I've never had any experience there either) if CC's actions don't change in the future. I haven't seen any recent edits from CC on Wikipedia since very early this morning.

I've seen other Wikipedia users attempt to delete notifications before on their own talk pages, and then try & say later that they "never got them"...that's why I documented that behavior on CC's behalf above. Thanx again. Guy1890 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is actually a distinction between good faith content dispute and WP:IDHT behavior. Curb Chain is veering toward the latter by sending to DRV a SNOW kept AfD. Hopefully that DRV will be the end of this matter. If Curb Chain continues to edit war on the list itself in attempt to delete it by a backdoor, in violation of the clear consensus, then admin intervention should be swift, and I don't mean just reverting him. He did not seem to get the message though [270]. That list is not a matter of some BLP urgency to require immediate blanking of all entries without an inline citation. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• If Curb Chain were editing in good faith, he could copy the inline references from List of death metal bands, !–K etc., because that covers a superset of the list in dispute here, which is restricted to the American bands of this genre. He has edited those bigger lists most recently on June 7, so he is clearly aware of their existence. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that Curb Chain's behavior is inching toward IDHT territory. Removing entries from the list when you are aware that sources exist in another article is problematic, as is citing the fact that the entries were removed as a reason to delete when you did the removal. It's hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• They are now arguing that because a music journalist has not described a band as death metal, they cant be classed as death metal. Regardless of how the band self-identifies in primary sources. A band's website is a reliable source for non-controversial info. 'We play death metal' is such. I have explained this a few times now but its falling on deaf ears. All of curbs removals I have checked (to blue-linked articles) are sourced/linked (usually to the bands website or other sources) that they are death metal. I am not about to go through and individually revert each one when a spot check shows they are all problematic. He is now resorting to policies like WP:COI. COI? Over if a band plays death metal? I dont think Curb actually understands the policies they are quoting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yea, I've counted around 16 23 bands that Curb Chain (CC) removed from the list in question that are likely death metal bands. From what I've seen of CC's history of "justifying" their behavior, it's either that CC doesn't understand basic Wikipedia rules or CC is conducting themselves almost like a pseudo-troll. I really don't know how else to describe it. CC will go from one almost meaningless excuse for what they've done to another without skipping a beat. It's certainly frustrating. Guy1890 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Does he do any useful editing on death metal or other music genres? I'm asking because I don't have the time to investigate his long-term history myself) If he's only messing with others' work, then a topic ban may be the best way forward; otherwise, if he does do some useful editing in that area, maybe a RfC/U should be started... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell, there seems to be a "fixation" (for lack of a better term) on the part of Curb Chain (CC) with list articles. I first came across CC in April 2013 when I simply tried to add a few band names to the List of speed metal bands, only to have them removed twice by CC with the same line of "you need a citation or I'll revert you" line. Very soon after, CC showed up in a doomed AfD (CC's comment is the only, unsigned "Delete" vote there) that was trying to get rid of the entire genre of music called speed metal, after CC had been activtely editing the above speed metal list for over a year, which seemed, at best, very odd behavior. I ended up pretty quickly letting the whole issue go & walking away. I did, however, get so frustrated with CC as a result of this conflict over such a minor issue that I told him to "Stop commenting on my talk page", which he didn't comply with in the long run.
      • After doing some more checking recently, it turns out that CC's first edit to the above list was to try & AfD it in August of 2011. CC has apparently been on Wikipedia since April of 2011. I think that you'll see some similiar behavior to what I originally posted about here in these AfDs as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synthpop artists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power metal bands, which are both from August of 2011. Who knows...there might be other examples out there as well.
      • I hear exactly what "postdlf" is saying below, and I completely agree with him. This kind of behavior isn't really about enforcing some kind of "policy" on CC's part, it's really just about editing articles that way that CC (and maybe CC alone?) wants to edit them. I hate to say this, but maybe we're dealing with a child Wikipedia editor of some sort (?). I really don't know what else to say to try & explain CC's behavior here. Guy1890 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Minor observation: Curb Chain has probably been editing for a substantial amount of time before his current account. His invocation of "wp:nsr" and "flagcruft" in the first few edits points in that direction. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think Curb Chain needs some kind of sanction, but not necessarily a heavy one (a final warning or a brief block for incivility perhaps, although the latter probably would be unpopular.) Their behaviour in the AfD was evidently disruptive, as was the filing of a DRV so soon after a request for clarification. Furthermore, CC's logic escapes me, with regards to his issue with the name (I fail to see why it has to be a genre?), and it's far from the only nationality-based thing, like the List of American grunge bands list. Now, in fairness to them, they've been going through and referencing things themselves since the DRV was closed, but the systematic removal of things present on other lists yesterday was bang out of order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest mentoring if I thought Curb Chain would actually cooperate with it. I've seen this kind of editor many times before, and it's like they are so wound up on whatever self-appointed mission they have that they can't sit still long enough to either listen to others or to give a clear and focused explanation of why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, Curb Chain just rotates through rationales (which are borderline coherent to begin with) without ever developing them or without ever responding to counterarguments, like he's just saying whatever words might possibly get his way. You can't have a discussion with someone acting like that, and his blatant misunderstanding of policies and guidelines, not to mention misunderstanding of simple article content, means his edits need to be constantly watched. Is it a WP:COMPETENCE issue? There have already been a few complaints about his behavior in the ANI archives, often people concluding that he doesn't mean to be disruptive or whatever, but at the end of the day intent doesn't matter when the effect is clear. Someone who can't or won't collaborate with others should not be editing here, nor should someone who's demonstrated poor reading comprehension time and time again. Or we can all spend our time sifting through his edits (over 30 separate edits just today to the list he already failed to AFD), as he keeps trying to get his way on no matter how many other editors have told him he's doing it wrong. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at the history of List of speed metal bands (suggested by Guy1890 above) I think Curb Chain envisioned himself as some sort of wikipolice early on. Basically he was just removing or reverting any entry or addition without an inline reference. While this ANI was open however, he seem to have understood that he needs to be more constructive and he is now also contributing by adding references to such lists (to List of American death metal bands). In view of this change of attitude, I think that sanctions are not warranted at the moment. The "rotation through rationales" mentioned by Postdlf above looks like someone desperately trying not to lose face in an argument (or maybe just WP:WIN). Hopefully that won't be repeated. Curb Chain has recently demonstrated that he can change his approach. He should seek advice from more experienced editors before resorting to drastic measures like massive pruning of content or starting AfDs on obviously notable subjects in the future. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I again understand what our (recently new?) Romanian IP editor above is saying, and I do respect trying to give editors the benefit of the doubt when possible. I disagree though that this is a case for that. When one indiscriminately blanks an article during a 2011 AfD simply because some list entries were currently unsourced (although they were likely sourced within other articles) contrary to editing policy instead of removing entries that one actually believes in good faith do not belong...then one does basically the exact same thing at a 2013 AfD & tries to decepitively describe their own edits in several other forums...I don't think that one is getting "the point" over time.
    • The next time that one of my arugments isn't going well at an AfD (and I currently do not frequent AfDs that much), do I just blank the article to make it look like the proposed deletion is "really no big deal" or remove valid entries/citations from an article and then try & claim that the article should be removed because it's "not sourced properly"? Consider that last question a rhetorical one.
    • I think that something (almost anything really) needs to go on Curb Chain's record at least to document that his past editing practices are not OK with the Wikipedia community. If, at another later date, something else needs to be done because of CC's subsequent behavior, then so be it as well. Guy1890 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I think this ANI thread does qualify as record-keeping for the behavioral issue(s); it will go into the archives, which are easily searchable. You can file a WP:RfC/U if you think it necessary to assemble more long-term behavioral evidence or if you want to give more editors the opportunity to chime in on the issues because RfC/Us are open for much longer time. It doesn't look like any administrative action is forthcoming for this incident alone. And my impression is that Curb Chain has changed some of his practices as a result of it. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Block proposed. No, I don't think "It will go into the archives which are easily searchable" will work in practical terms, because people don't in fact tend to search and read up on the background. Instead, net-negative users keep falling through the same cracks over and over, certainly as long as they have a clean block log. This lack of reading back is an insoluble problem IMO: we can't be expected to spend our lives on ANI. (Shudder.) I propose a block for at least a week, preferably two, for long-time, well-demonstrated collaboration problems and using up too much time and patience, per User:Postdlf's very cogent comment above (I urge people to re-read it).[271] The user has a clean block log (incredibly), and that's the only reason I'm not suggesting indef. I searched for those previous mentions on ANI and found this 2012 proposal to ban Curb Chain for demonstrated battleground mentality by User:Tijfo098 and this 2011 request for a block for intentional disruption by User:Mike Cline. (There may be more, as there were numerous mentions in threads not named for Curb Chain, but I can't spend my life here either.) The 2012 thread was diverted over unclear sock issues and opposed because the original proposal was badly expressed, and the 2011 thread was withdrawn on the assumption that the behavior was being dealt with elsewhere (which it clearly wasn't). Going back to those older threads, it's clear that the same problems have been causing exhaustion and attrition for several years now. See for instance the pre-echoes in the earlier discussions of Postdlf's "Curb Chain just rotates through rationales (which are borderline coherent to begin with) without ever developing them or without ever responding to counterarguments, like he's just saying whatever words might possibly get his way" (Articles for deletion/List of American death metal bands is a striking illustration). In 2011: "… the actions of someone who gets an idea in his head about what is right and cannot understand the nuances of the issue. More than one editor has tried to steer him in a more constructive direction … but our suggestions fall on deaf ears. All of this, plus his increasingly incoherent statements in response to all the objections, adds up to a pattern of incompetence, not malice." And in 2012: "His reasons for deleting material vary as the wind blows, but are always spurious.". This problem shouldn't fall through the cracks again as the user keeps, apparently year after year, "trying to get his way no matter how many other editors have told him he's doing it wrong." Incompetence + stubbornness is if anything worse for the encyclopedia than malice, and causes more burnout. I'm prepared to block to protect all the editors who waste so much time cleaning up after Curb Chain and bootlessly arguing with him. If a mentor can be found, and accepted by Curb Chain, that's fine, of course. The IDHT nature of the problem suggests to me that we'd soon be back here, but we're all about trying everything before we block, aren't we, and mentoring hasn't been tried. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC).

• I'm not opposed to a block, but I don't think it's the best solution. I think it would be better if Curb Chain participates here and makes a clear statement that he understands what are the objections to his behavior and that he explains how he plans to address the concerns. Although he has not directly participated in this discussion, he did change his behavior on one aspect pertaining to the current incident (the list pruning). He also seems to understand that at least one of his arguments (that related to COI) was flawed [272], although he still seems to think that all lists need inline references. If admins think those recent developments are "too little, too late" in view of Curb Chain's long-term history, then they should resort to the tools at their disposal in order to prevent repetition of disruption. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose we all think it would be better if he participated here and made a statement that he understands the objections and so forth. That better alternative hasn't happened, though. He was informed of this discussion two and a half days ago, removed the alert with the edit summary "sign your post" (a random rationale reminiscent of those that have been complained of above) and has not taken part here. It would be better if that weren't so, but it is. I'll block unless Curb Chain turns up here to do those better things, or unless there's a specific mentoring proposal or other strong objection. I have urged CC again on his talk page to come here and address the concerns raised. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC).
    • I found a summary of the 2011 incident in another ANI thread (not titled after Curb Chain), which involved lists of biology publications. It does seem that Curb Chain is running into repeated disputes on lists, and his actions on that type of page have been found disruptive by many: "there was a consensus - among everyone but Curb Chain" (User:RockMagnetist) and "His actions are disruptive, whether intentionally so or not." (User:LadyofShalott) rings eerily familiar to latest incident. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blues rock performers the only person who agreed with Curb Chain was Qworty. Other ill-fated list nominations were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of laser articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of infrared articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plasma (physics) articles. (I guess we can count ourselves lucky that Curb Chain didn't find Lists of mathematics topics which itself links to dozens such sub-lists, albeit with "topics" instead of "articles" in the list titles, but not substantively different otherwise.) I couldn't find a list that Curb Chain successfully nominated for deletion. Perhaps topic banning Curb Chain from standalone lists is a good way forward. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• A topic ban is an interesting idea. All of the problems that have been discussed so far center on lists. When working on other kinds of articles, Curb Chain seems to get along pretty well with other editors; circumstantial evidence includes a contribution record with 72% of the edits in article space, and several barnstars (there is even one for diplomacy!). RockMagnetist (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that unilateral actions by individual editors in the face of controversy are one of the most disruptive things an editor can do on WP. Editors may not know that an action is or will be controversial, but once that is known (as is certainly the case with CC) unilateral actions ignoring the controversy are disruptive. Energy spent reversing unilateral actions and dealing with the myriad of rationales for those actions is totally wasted and diverts energy from civil resolution of whatever is on the table. Unilateral Action in face of known controversy is editor behavior that should not be tolerated. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support administrative action: Probably a short block, maybe 48 hours, just to have something on record. I don't think we need a long block at this time, as this editor's pattern is to edit intensely for a few weeks, then disappear for a few weeks, and so length of block isn't going to change behavior. A ban is premature, given the lack of a block record. However an official record needs to be established: This user's behavior here is the tip of a very large iceberg. There is a clear pattern of editing against consensus and refusing to engage in constructive dialogue. There are a minimum of two previous ANIs, both listed above, and it is worth noting that the one in archive 776 was part of a much larger storm of assorted controversy. There are more and yet more and yet more incidents, including one where it appears CC ran off another editor. There are also three sockpuppet investigations connected to this user: 1, 2, 3. Given the big picture, a short block is warranted. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's assume good faith [273] that there are two people, Curb Chain and an IP-editor from Deutsche Telecom, who repeatedly enforce the same obscure "MOS rule" about spaces [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288], and which saw some confrontations with Beyond My Ken. And let's also assume that that both the Deutsche Telecom IP range and Curb Chain edited BRIC at about the same time [289] [290] by pure coincidence. Maybe Curb Chain has a fan, you know, like Bishzilla has Little Stupid? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Someone from that Deutsche Telecom IP range clearly has a long-term agenda killing blank lines, empty sections, and HTML comments. It is best exemplified by Special:Contributions/91.10.19.237. But I'm not certain it is Curb Chain. From the Croton Aqueduct incident, it is clear to me that there are, unfortunately, a number of other editors who care deeply enough about such issues to go off the deep end pursuing their esthetic vision of Wikipedia. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Curb Chain's response doesn't entirely fill me with confidence. I'm pretty sure the fact it wasn't a content fork was quite obvious to most editors, and the assumption of bad faith seems to have been based on facts (ie, your constant changing of arguments, and your blanking) as opposed to groundless reasons (whether you were actually acting in bad faith or not.) Particularly with a worrying history presented above, (note: I'm ignoring anything to do with the Deutsche Telecom IP range here) I feel something needs to be done, even if it's not a big sanction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Response from Curb Chain

I've come here from User:Bishonen good faith request to ask for my participation in this discussion, which I thank User:Bishonen for. I understand the concerns raised by the editors in this section but have not looked through the whole thread in detail. I guess the request is for me to understand that lists are not to be deleted on the grounds that they are content forks, if I perceive them to be, otherwise I will be blocked. I am open to the idea of being mentored, but I don't know what I could learn from that.

I've kept this short because I feel that User:Guy1890 and to a lesser extent User:Postdlf have created far too much drama than is warranted and also assumed much bad faith. Take into the account that they did not discuss why it wasn't a content fork on the talk page, AfD, or deletion review. (This is by no means me trying to be disruptive, this simply is how their actions look to me. (And I'm trying to be as neutral as possible.))Curb Chain (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed as alternative to block

No, the response doesn't fill me with confidence, either. Curb Chain's interest in mentoring seems quite slight, which is perhaps as well, since nobody has offered. Curb Chain, I don't understand very well why you haven't even "looked through the whole thread in detail", or why you didn't respond to the first ping, seeing as you've been editing ever since it was posted.
Topic banning Curb Chain for six months from lists, broadly construed, seems a good alternative. Lists, their talkpages, listrelated discussion on noticeboards, etc. Anybody for, besides 86.121.18.17 and RockMagnetist above? Please comment below. If not, my first suggestion to block for one or two weeks stands, since there seems to be consensus that the user has been disruptive and wasted much time, per discussion above, especially Postdlf and Mike Cline. Montanabw makes a good point about previous ANI discussion and the lack of record, too. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

• Comments on list topic ban in lieu of block:

• Sounds about right to me; given the history of this editor, and their very mediocre response to this thread, means I support the topic ban, although I'd prefer it to be more like 3-4 months as the first iteration of such a ban. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Concur with list topic ban, broadly construed. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral on ban, support something: This editor has a pattern of just going on to another topic when things get too hot in one place, I mean this editor has edit disputes everywhere from ice luge to banofee pie (really: here and Talk:Banoffee_pie); I don't oppose a topic ban, as something is better than nothing, I just don't think it will do any good. I think a short block is better. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support list topic ban, broadly construed. postdlf (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per the evidence presented above. As Montanabw says, this specific problem is far from the only disruptive behavior CC exhibits, but it's the one under discussion at the moment. It's my hope that a sanction in this instance might convince CC to reign himself in in those other areas as well. It seems likely to me that having gotten away with a variety of things, CC may feel somewhat invulnerable to community action, and a specific well-deserved topic ban may help to pierce that feeling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as long as the broadly construed language is present. Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment about broadly construed

I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I note that you've posted this exact same comment in three separate pending ANI postings regarding three different proposed topic bans for three different users, and so this has nothing to do specifically with Curb Chain and whether any kind of topic ban is appropriate. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No not specifically and I am seriously thinking about wasting some time on an RFC to discuss the broadly construed verbiage in general but I cannot support a ban or sanction as long as it contains the broadly construed logic that all too often only proves to give people a justification for enforcing their POV. Its too open to interpretation and is counter to fostering a collaborative environment. If an editor does something wrong I support that we need to do appropriate action to remedy the situation. But giving car blanche to 1400 Admins with a wide variety of interpretations isn't appropriate. We need to be clear and if necessary revise the sanction later. Not just add fancy wording for "and other stuff". Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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