Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive778

AJillani

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 AJillani appears to be primarily (or solely?) editing in order to promote/ advocate issues around issues of youth and breast feeding related to Pakistan. In September 2011 they created Juvenile justice in Pakistan, they have attempted through AfC to create SPARC Child Rights Society in Pakistan‎, SPARC & Breastfeeding in Pakistan, Breastfeeding in Pakistan and SPARC and SPARC & Breastfeeding ‎ which appears to not gone through the process.

In the case of Breastfeeding in Pakistan and SPARC (which I have just reviewed) it is pretty much copy & past from SPARC & Breastfeeding.

Other than sending SPARC & Breastfeeding to WP:AFD (they have used the WHO and some newspapers a sources) and kepp declining any AfC submissions that don't stand up and advising of WP:NOTADVOCATE and other guidelines, what can we do? Should we do anything? --wintonian ^talk 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Couple of things here. The user may qualify as an expert on the subject matter. We have certified medical professionals which spend a majority of their time in WP:MEDICINE. Secondly, "Jillani, Anees. Cries Unheard, op. cit.,." and "Jillani, Anees (2001). The Sindh Children Act; The JJSO; & the Punjab Youthful Offenders Ordinance. Islamabad Pakistan: SPARC." are more then likely evidence of a COI. As the user's name is A(nees)Jillani. I doubt we are dealing with a malicious or single purpose account. but we are infact dealing with a notable individual who is a member of SPARC and is a very legitimate and notable organization whose work has recieved prolongue national recognition and plays a national role in an international body. I believe we are also dealing with a non-native english speaker and someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and a poor attempt to discuss the problem before coming to ANI seems to be obvious. This matter is best dealt with delicately and though some explainations. I may not be an admin, but it seems that there is no issue here that cannot be resolved by discussing the matter and working with the editor. Quite clearly, the topics and organization are itself notable and do meet GNG. Fixing up some COI matters and a little bit of a POV matter will make for a good article. Wikipedia is not friendly to such people, and I've had numerous cases of such individuals completely confused about how to work with our systems. I'll personally try to talk to the individual and help develope a proper article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chris (assuming his facts are right), Wikipedia shouldn't drive new editors away. Better "Wikify" them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Language shouldn't be a problem for him[1]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPARC & Breastfeeding. Normally, I would have considered deleting it as G11, but in view of the discussion here, perhaps the community should see it. Myself, I think it needs to be started over, and can not be otherwise fixed: the advocacy is pervasive. I fully appreciate the need to keep new expert editors, but we need some energetic means to impress upon them that we have some basic policies. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not too overawed by the expertise part, except that the said editor is a potential plus to the project, if he is explained various policies such as SPA, COI, RS, V etc. It is necessary to go the extra mile in order to do so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I brought it here because I didn't quite know how to approach this, to me they looked WP:POV and promotional given the duplication under different titles. Admittedly I am unlikely to spot an expert if they came hit me in the face so I am prepared to to see this as a WP:COI issue with a lack of understanding about the guidelines here - in fact it generally pleases me to assume good faith unless its blatantly obvious not in good faith. I'll write out a 'thank you for your edits - this is how you can improve your contributions - have look at these guidelines' type ditty on their talk page later. --wintonian ^talk 12:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Username issue, combined with curious edits

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

---

I've just spotted User:International Jihad. In spite of their very blockable username, they seem to have made what appears to be a complete, well constructed, sourced, article with their very first edit. With the combination of these two factors, I'm not sure what's going on here: new editors are not usually capable of this, so I suspect this is a returning experienced editor.

The name is obviously unacceptable, so I've blocked them for that, but with the option to create an account with a less provocative name. However, given the unusual circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised to see further developments soon. Can admins please keep a lookout for anything odd happening in this general topic area? -- The Anome (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with our username policy; however, is the existence of the term "jihad" in someone's username a violation of policy? As an American, I have a negative reaction towards the term; however, that may not be the case to a Muslim. At least per our article Jihad, Jihad is an important religious duty and "The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties". In those definitions I see nothing wrong. I'm happy to defer to those more experienced with our username policy though. Ryan Vesey 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll also note that the article, Abu-Zaid al Kuwaiti, displayed some close paraphrasing. I've tagged it as such, but don't have time to fix it. Ryan Vesey 05:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the name could be considered offensive, which would make it a vio of our username policy. However, I have no problem with allowing him to keep it unless anything comes up. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I caught sight of the created article earlier myself, my initial possibly prejudice thought was that it was surprisingly neutral, however I soon reminded myself how the term 'Jihad' is open to interpretation in Islam, would we block someone with a user name like 'Crusader' for instance? Which could refer to the crusades or to the model of Land Rover. Just my 2p --wintonian ^talk 05:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it open to interpretation, though? While (according to the dictionary) "jihad" might mean "personal struggle", I have a hard time accepting this interpretation in the context of "international jihad". And this isn't synonymous with "crusade". If there was a prominent social movement to revive the crusades and kill in the name of religion, I would think we would be somewhat more inclined to block crusade-related usernames. That is not the case. It is with jihad however. This is not a western-bias thing. Jihadism is bad. Swarm ^X 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here; yes, I'm well aware that jihad has multiple meanings, but for practical purposes in the English language it tends to refer to something we wouldn't allow people to advocate in a username. I seriously doubt we'd extend much good faith to someone who chose the name User:FaggotHater claiming he disliked the food of the same name; setting aside my personal taste for said dish, it's patently obvious that the username would be problematic even if that was the intent. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• This user is certainly not new.Creating article with fairly good wiki markup is good sign of banned user or someone socking--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • … or someone who has simply edited without an account. Wikipedia has been around for over a decade, now. It has even made the newspapers. The fact that people who haven't yet or have only just created accounts on it know how to write with wikimarkup should not come as a surprise. Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I edited anonymously for over a year (including some significant revisions of articles) before I created my account (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There are also legitimate reasons for a new account, such as someone who hasn't edited in a year and forgot their password and didn't have email enabled. We are old enough that this is not so uncommon. Plus cleanstarts, etc. It is all moot now, since they have been softblocked for username violations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd concur. Being a regular follower, and infrequent contributor, of dispute boards, I have said before, and will say again now, that the tangent we sometimes get onto about "length of service," "edit count," etc. are a poor benchmark to assume the intent of the OP in these kind of cases, as well as being a breach of the "good faith" policy, unless it is blaringly obvious that the account in question was created from a blocked account to continue brandishing the stick. Ditch ∝ 18:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User Earth100

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 few days ago, users Earth100 and Meow were involved in an edit war, where both users violated WP:3RR. Both users were reported (Report for Earth100; I'm unable to find the archive for Meow's report, but it's visible on this old diff: [2]). The two continued to fight on each other's talk pages (User talk:Meow#December 2012 and [3]), and I warned them that if they kept it up, I would have to take it to AN/I, since it was becoming disruptive. In the mean time, I've attempted to clean up the page at the center of the edit war, Typhoon Bopha (2012). Earth100 has opposed the changes I've made to the page, adding original research ([4]). I attempted to engage in a discussion with him to try to keep the information and properly source it, but he would not cooperate, and as I was unable to find sources for the information, I removed it. I would have tagged it with a citation needed tag, but the information seemed inaccurate, and as it was unsourced, I felt the best option was to remove it ([5]), and placed a warning on his page to document the incident ([6]). After that, I began a clean-up of the article, as many of the sources given were either misplaced or did not mention the facts they were supposed to reference. He reverted my series of edits, re-introducing grammatical errors and bad references ([7]). I again placed a warning on his page ([8]). Later in the day while I was offline while at work, he posted the comment "Inks.LWC, it would have been sooooo much better...without you." ([9]), which was removed as a personal attack by another editor. (Out of full disclosure, I disagree with labelling that a personal attack, but I wanted to post it here so as to show the full situation.) The editor who removed the comment also warned Earth100 (User talk:Earth100#December 2012). As I still have Meow's page on my watchlist, when I returned from work, I saw that it had been edited, so I went there to see what was written and found that Earth100 had continued his fight with Meow (Meow has taken my suggestion and stopped interacting with Earth100), saying that Meow is "[t]he real crappy information" ([10]), a borderline personal attack. I truly didn't want to bring this to AN/I, but Earth100 seems to be ignoring the advice from others to just walk away from the situation. I know that Earth100 needs to be told of this AN/I, but I am unsure of whether I need to (or should) also inform Meow. Like I said, he's been uninvolved in the situation since I suggested he walk away from the situation a few days ago, so I don't really consider him the "subject" of this discussion, but guidance from an admin would be appreciated. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please note the notice at the top of this page. You must notify editors when you report them here. I have done so for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I did: [11]. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Meow has been here longer than I have, and looking at their edit summaries and their attitude on their talk page is very disturbing. Summaries like "Fucking stupid dumbs" [12] and comments on their talk page like "To rude people, I have to be ruder that makes them want to kill themselves." are unacceptable. Earth100 needs to learn when to back off and stop the childish banter as well. Comments like this [13] are unhelpful, as is his instance on bludgeoning Meow's talk page. Honestly, you both are acting like 12 year olds, and I'm tempted to block you both for a month for badgering and creating a hostile environment for other editors. If you aren't mature enough to edit here, then you would be better off finding something else to do during play time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've left messages on both of their pages asking them to knock if off, since it doesn't look like they are interested in coming here. The petty stuff started with an edit war and they need to just give each other some space. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Look, i apologize for everything that happened, thank you.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 02:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Userpage violating rules

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.

---

Eric Korea (talk · contribs)

The userpage contains a full Wikipedia article copied from G-Dragon, changing the name of the person into various names like Kim Jong Un (!) and placing interwikis of the article into user namespace. I think this userpage violates our rules and also the biographies of living persons rule, as it uses the article of a living person to mock others. Please delete userpage. Thank you. 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted the page as a Blatant Hoax, it is clearly not a good faith attempt to create an article. In addition to the BLP violations mentioned above, the article also has failed to attribute where it was copied from in violation of the attribution rules for on wiki copying, though as mostly positive article, it wouldn't meat the G10 criteria, and as the attribution could be fixed it wouldn't meet G12, so G3 is what we are left with. Monty₈₄₅ 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MagicEagle67

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

---

I want ti report this users because they keep making changes against consensus regard any article related to Rangers F.C. they are pushing there own point of view and are not providing new evidence or arguments to back there case, nor are they engaging in the talk page like i have asked them to.

They also editing a medation page that is long closed now [14]

Any action against the user is at the admin discretion i dnt want to be involved in the discussions, i will post in the article talk page for other editor familiar with the subject to post and let the user knowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently repeatedly vandalising the History of Rangers [[15]] page and had this to say when warned about it, "That's fine if you get me banned. I will just create my very own page and put the record straight. If you can create and edit a page full of mistruths, myths and hearsays, I am sure someone like me who is reporting facts will do a far better job of accuracy than you."[[16]]BadSynergy (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This user is escalating in there vandelism and is trying to take wp:own and is disregarding talk and other policies like wp:truth and wp:consesnsus amongest others, please puta ban in placeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked MagicEagle67 for violating 3rr after a warning (15 or 16th revert in 24 hours), they promptly socked to continue edit warring. The edits were not vandalism, but the continued edit warring was clearly disruptive. I also advised the others involved in the war that they were violating the 3rr rule, both stopped, so this should be resolved until the block expires, or we get another sock. Monty₈₄₅ 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've semi-protected for a week to discourage additional socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Nomoskedasticity at Caroline Hoxby

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.

---

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

A week or so ago, Caroline Hoxby raised some concerns regarding her biography here on Wikipedia at this wp:blpn thread. There were real issues, although those participating in the discussion there (myself included) disagreed with her on the extent of the issues. She alleged that one editor in particular, User:Nomoskedasticity, who had long been involved with her article, had a conflict of interest and was editing her biography in a non-neutral manner. I do not think it is necessary to determine, in this case, whether he does or does not have a conflict of interest, as his efforts to include in her biography particular mention of one of her non-notable colleagues can only be described as aggressive, undue, antagonistic, and tendentious.

His most recent edit to the article was quite clearly to make a disruptive point. (Removing a non-controversial sourced fact to retaliate for the earlier removal of controversial, poorly sourced content.) I don't know that his disruption, to date, is sufficient enough to raise wp:blplog, but I don't have the stamina to prevent someone so clearly determined to tirelessly push their point of view using whatever means necessary, and I hope raising the issue here can bring appropriate attention to the article that did not materialize following Hoxby's post at wp:blpn. (For the record, I do not know any of these people in real life, had never edited the biography in question before the issues were raised at the biographies noticeboard, and actually disagree with some of the positions Hoxby's research has been used to support. Nonetheless, I believe she deserves a neutral, fair, and due biography here that doesn't simply serve as a coatrack for those who disagree with her.) jæs (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any wrongdoing by Nomoskedasticity. There may (or may not) be legitimate quibbles over some of this user's edits, but the decisions on what to include/exclude appear to me to be appropriate in the context of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. PS - I don't interpret the comment about not referring to her as a sociologist and "there's little worse one could say about an economist" as antagonistic, since Nomoskedasticity self-identifies as as sociologist and it was accompanied by a smiley face. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• • His removal of a reliably sourced, notable paper Hoxby wrote was tit-for-tat disruption, plain and simple. He had edited that very content only a couple of days before. jæs (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should have clarified my thinking on that item.

IMHO, the removal of the Reardon critique was entirely appropriate. It doesn't belong in the article, and Nomo is no longer arguing for its inclusion. However, the statement that he removed about the National Bureau of Economic Research study that she coauthored also does not belong. All it says is that she coauthored a study; the fact that there was a third-party source mentioning it does not make it noteworthy. That study can be included in the list of her selected works, but it doesn't deserve to be highlighted by inclusion in the article text. --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

while i completely disagree with the claim that third party coverage of a paper isnt something that matters when we decide what to cover (that should in fact be one of the primary factors) in this case it is not really "third party" coverage by reliable sources - it is a student newspaper (ok so its Harvard students, but still a student newspaper) putting it on the "questionable" end of the reliability scale, but it is also the harvard student newspaper covering a harvard professors paper that named harvard as the #1 school and therefore any designation as coverage by a "third party reliable source" is not suitable and I dont see any problems with the removal.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? I see minor content disputes that have apparently been mostly resolved, and talk page posts that are perhaps not entirely polite, but way below the level that requires intervention by an admin. My referring to the subject as a sociologist was an error, and I take no offense that he corrected me on it. I get annoyed when people assume I'm a theorist; I think it's a similar thing. a13ean (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

More eyes are on the article now, and I hope that will be enough to ensure its neutrality over the short and longer term. I am sorry that the project is still far too slow to recognize editors that employ subtle but real tactics that damage the neutrality of our articles and drive away good editors, especially at contentious wp:blp articles. It is what it is, I guess. jæs (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the rant jæs left on his/her talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• You almost certainly shouldn't be. The matter was dealt with, by both checkusers and bureaucrats, last month. It was all very Canadian. Which is why you didn't hear about it. It takes less than a minute to find out what it was, without need for using any administrator tools. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP launches personal attacks

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

---

94.66.183.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) attacks other users as being gay and Nazi (which I assume the unregistered user supposes to be understood as an insult)

attack in the edit summary attack on the talk page --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked a month for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ashermadan

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 was harassing this user for lying on his user page. The IP was violating numerous policies and, after being warned by myself numerous times, was blocked for it.

On December 7, Ashermadan, without any significant evidence, accused me of being a sockpuppet for this IP. Ashermadan has also accused other editors of being trolls, of operating socks, and of vandalizing. Furthermore, Ashermadan opened an SPI case against me and failed to notify me of its existence (it failed anyway considering the circumstances and how false it was). I have a zero-tolerance policy for bullshit, and this strikes me as not only arrogant that Ashermadan would translate my warnings against the IP attacking him as a sockpuppet of mine, but also incredibly disrespectful and a total lack of understanding of the WP:AGF policy. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no requirement that you notify someone if you file an SPI report on it. As a matter of fact, I strongly discourage it as it tends to add drama to what should simply be an investigation. Opinions rarely shed light on the investigations, which are based on established facts only. In the absence of bad faith, filing an SPI report is not an "offense". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong and I apologize but I didn't violate any rules. I genuinely thought thought it was you because you edited his posts moments later. And the user Zekatu you are talking about has a habit of violating Wikipedia policy. He blatantly disrespects the 3 RR rule and I have reason to quarrel with him. As for the misunderstanding with you, I apologize. Ashermadan (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:TheOldJacobite

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.

---

They appear to be reverting anyone who edits after them on film pages. I draw your attention to the work I did on the plot to The Last Detail. I added an active voice, created a narrative and removed poor punctuation. However within minutes this user reverts me and says it's unnecessary details. Yet all I did was take what was there and rewrite it into better prose. Which clearly can be seen here. Now I now I recognise my Undo marks are terse but when you compare our two versions the improvements can be seen. The plot is logical, clear and understandable. Therefore people like TheOldJacobite are not reverting because they think its wrong it's if their ownership of their "version". I thought the point of this site was to make contributions and move things forward not spend your entire day reverting things to way you like them.

Unfortunately I notice they are doing it to many, many pages see here. Now I cannot speak for the veracity of their other edits but what is the point of having positive spin i.e. join in and improve articles when you get slapped down by someone who is reverting things back to the last time/or their vision? Someone in authority needs to speak to this person and remind them of Wikipedia's higher values of WP:GOODFAITH and to WP:BEBOLD. Personally I don't think I now bother again for awhile. I know I reverted but there is nothing to stop this user doing the same to me. Or getting a friend to do it. Anyway I used to come here a lot a few years back but I thought things had changed. But they haven't.  :-( 109.149.192.65 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, yes, sure--there are good and bad things about both versions. Your edit summary, however, is unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I do know that TheOldJacobite is very meticulous on film plots to keep them trim and definitely below the 700 word limit, and thus when details that are not necessarily for understanding the film are added and make the plot exceed or near 700 words, he will revert, and generally that's fine. This specific edit is a bit questionable since the plot seems well away from 700 words and what was added wouldn't push it over, though as noted not all of the changes are necessarily great. I'm not sure if reversion is necessarily correct as it certainly wasn't all bad and broke everything, but I don't think there's anything immediately wrong with the reversion either. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• The claim of "ownership" is ridiculous, as I have made exactly 4 edits to this article. And, yes, I am vigilant when it comes to changes to film articles, especially plot summaries, as I have seen far too many of them wrecked by editors who may think they have good intentions but who are, nevertheless, terrible editors. I also make mistakes, which may be the case here. But, it is borne of the frustration of seeing article after article changed, without explanation, by editors who have no idea what they are doing. But, the accusations made here by this anon. are overly broad and mostly wrong. And I object to the fact that I was not informed of this discussion and had to discover it by chance. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you know squat about writing? Did you finish college? Questions of conscience at best which don't require an answer anyway. We should close this threat. Ent? Drmies (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This report should be closed. I see no evidence of ownership by TOJ & infact applaud his efforts. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Persecutory vandalism at Gender role

Article: Gender role. An ip-editor from various ip's of number 220.255.2.x has constantly singled out another editor (me) and attempted to revert (several times in a row) out every single contribution of that other editor (me). The persecuted editor (me) has attempted resolving the case via the discussion page and on the vandalists talk page, but the vandalist has refused to respond. example difs: [17] [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to be subject to a long-running edit war, with insufficient talk page discussion. Although some registered users have reverted changes recently, the edit war is primarily between (presumably) two unregistered users. I have therefore semi-protected the article for a week to allow things to settle down. I am not blocking any users at this time, as I note that there has been no edit warring since eldamorie's recent warnings. Please use this week to sort things out on the article talk page. I also caution both users against putting personal attacks in edit summaries. Bovlb (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I closed an edit-warring report at WP:ANEW based on your semi-protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

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

---

On a talk page of an article in question User:E4024 commented the following:

So you removed the ASALA monument pic from your TP and even began searching consensus? Congratulations! Please reserve those letters to people from Armenia. The fact that you and some other co-editors of your circle use "Armenia" as link to "ethnicity" in biographies/articles of certain people to avoid calling Turkish and Ottoman citizens as such, Istanbul, Ankara, Trabzon, Bursa etc are not cities of Armenia and have never been so.

I would like to ask to block the user for his uncivil behavior, for the following reasons:

1. a user has no right to discuss other user's userpage content, even if it doesn't quite please them
2. a user shouldn't discuss other user's userpage content in an article talk page
3. the user talks about me and my "circle", possibly referring to my ethnicity

Also, the user have been blocked numerous times.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything blockworthy here. Furthermore, if you look at the top of this page you'll see that you are supposed to try and resolve disputes directly with fellow editors rather than coming straight here. I can quite see that this is likely to be part of yet another regional dispute spilling over into Wikipedia but I don't see your opponent's action any worse than your in trying to get him/her blocked for such a relatively trivial offence. You both need to find a more collegial way of working on articles here, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So you believe that a userpage content can be discussed and to brought up to as an argument? I thought what my political views are (it be nationalism, multiculturalism, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, etc.) are not to be discussed.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 22:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Kim Dent-Brown. This is not blockworthy. It's a pretty useless comment, but if we could block people for useless comments we wouldn't have many users. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, probably I should check every users' page and comment on them. Deal! --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Making sarcastic comments like that does not strengthen your argument. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deal is a deal. Commenting on a userpage content is allowed from now on. Not to be sarcastic, but that's what this case proves.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a bit silly if we let people make userpages then insisted that they were never allowed to mention what's on it, wouldn't it? So yes, this case proves that. I'm not sure why you're surprised. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If a userpage content can be commented on, then I can call you a "geek" or a "nerd" for being a mathematician? (just an example) and also follow your userpage history and mention everything you put up and remove from there on an article talk page your involved in? I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, just want to clarify how far can one go.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 23:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If we assume the terms 'geek' or 'nerd' are insults (which I do not take them to be, I'm rather flattered you'd call me that actually!) then that is not allowed because you are insulting me. That would be a violation of WP:NPA. Simply commenting on something I have on there is not uncivil. If you don't want someone potentially commenting on something on your userpage then you shouldn't have it there, anyway. That's just sensible. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest restraint in seeking boundaries, friend, as not all admin have the same threshold and the only way to truly find the limits is to get blocked. Deskana and Kim have offered you valuable information and are likely more patient than most. I suggest you take the advice to heart, go watch a movie or read a book for a while, and ponder it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

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

2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Currently linked from the main page and being persistently vandalised. Suggest blocking User:Spannerjam (autoconfirmed) and semi-protecting, since IPs are also being used. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Gave 4im warning to spannerjam. I'll keep an eye on it. IPs blocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48hrs and User:Larrydan until he grows up or something. Spannerjam's other edits don't seem problematic, this one seems more of a political statement than just vandalism. Hopefully won't be repeated, because I will block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/João Dorminsky

Resolved

without contacting a particular admin, this AfD has gone way longer than Nov 13, can it be closed or relisted? thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins just beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram on Indic communities

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 take a look at the recent contributions of Doncram to List of Other Backward Classes and various related articles. They do not have a clue what they are doing, they are making a complete hash of things and they are doing so in a subject area that is permanently toxic anyway. There is an AfD here and there was much discussion and explanation of the difficulties in another recent Afd here. I've pointed out a couple of problems on their talk page but, really, this is going to spin out of control very fast. Whether accidental or not, of the source material are incredibly disruptive and there are not that many people who can do the inevitable and substantial cleanup.

I can't keep warring with him, obviously, but nor can the poor contributions stand: we'll have some sort of Armaggedon in the Indic sphere of WP if they do. - Sitush (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That notice sounds concerning, but I don't have the subject-matter expertise to evaluate it. I suggest that someone post a neutrally worded notice on some relevant project pages asking for some knowledgeable users to take a look at this issue. And it might be best for Doncram to temporarily put a hold on these edits until we can get more input on them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will hold for a bit, yes. Discussion can take place at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes. About one matter of there being two different groups called Koli, but only one Wikipedia article that Koli links to, I also opened discussion at Talk:Koli people. I seriously wish that Sitush and others would csuch distortionsontribute to content discussion at appropriate Talk pages like those. Sitush has outright refused, at my Talk, to respond at Talk:Koli people, and rather has proceeded with threats of ANI proceedings (now carried out) and vile language. I am truly dismayed, seriously. --doncram 23:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I would like to contribute toward solution of great difficulty in Wikipedia by strictly using available, official sources to begin to make sense of India's castes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, etc., and have started List of Other Backward Classes and List of Scheduled Castes, now both under AFD.

However, I am horrified at Sitush's vile language directly at my Talk page, at Talk:List of Other Backward Classes, and in edit summaries at List of Other Backward Classes. "crap" "fuck" "bullshit" "twaddle" are Sitush's words, within the past hour or two. This is inappropriate, entirely unprofessional badgering, IMHO. --doncram 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am losing my rag, yes, but not directly at you. All this stuff has been explained in detail by people who do know the subject area and you are not getting it. After many hours of discussion, it is no wonder if someone starts to get frustrated, even more so when they are faced with someone so clueless who is barging around. The content is crap, is twaddle etc. That you cannot even interpret the lists correctly and have been linking to incorrect communities (same name but completely different) + inserting statements on the articles for those incorrectly identified communities is particularly worrying. I really do not think you appreciate just what a timebomb you are creating here, although you have been told often enough. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those pot-kettle and a certain lack of colouring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Doncram but Sitush's tirades and personal insults seem quite outrageous, being contrary to WP:OWN and other behavioural guidelines. Warden (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• And I would add this is a very consistant form of conduct by Sitush. A little surprised there isn't some slight boomarang for his behavior on the involved articles. This seems to be something of a pattern I have noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here we go with TLDR. I spend a phenomenal amount of my time on WP dealing with caste stuff. It is a complex subject area and it is prone to POV edits, vandalism, puffery and, well, you name it. And that is just from contributors who generally appear to be located in the Indian subcontinent. I have regularly been brought here and to other venues such as DRN. Far too often for my liking but if people want to try it then that's their prerogative. What is particularly odd about this episode is that it originated with a deletion discussion (linked above) relating to List of Indian castes. That discussion appeared to attract the interest of people associated with ARS who - put bluntly - had no clue about the topic and were seemingly arguing that various guidelines could over-rule various policies. The AfD discussion was lengthy and, broadly speaking, amounted to ARS vs people who knew the subject & have had a heavy involvement in it. The list was deleted and subsequently userfied.

Doncram took part in those discussions, as did Warden. From that, they should be aware of the numerous problems surrounding such lists, although they chose not to recognise them at the time. I'd asked Doncram to stop, I'd presented some diffs, and I'd made some suggestions but, no, off he goes ... and kept going until I raised the issue here. At some point, I am going to blow up when faced with a situation such as this. As the original AfD discussion noted, there are in excess of 20,000 recognised communities in India We have articles on only a fraction of those, and there are many instances where a community called X in, say, Maharashtra is not the same as a similarly-named community in, say, Goa. Given that the subject area is so toxic that WP:GS/Caste applies, it is unbelievable that people with no obvious prior knowledge suddenly weigh-in with "this is easy, we can just transcribe a list" etc solutions. It isn't easy, and just transcribing a list can be highly problematic. Even more so if, as Doncram was doing, he then links that list and makes changes to what he thinks are the valid articles for this or that community.

It isn't as if all this stuff has not been previously explained, and when - for example - he links the Dhangar community of Goa to Dhangar and says that the source indicates they are an Other Backward Class in Goa, well, expect some fireworks. Not necessarily from me, although it was in that instance. If Doncram seriously expects me to continue what amounts to the same discussion across potentially > 20,000 articles then they have another think coming. The discussion needs to be centralised and not turned into some sort of micro-issue. It is not a micro issue: Doncram may be well-intentioned but has no clue and needs to back off. Since they were continuing to make poor edits, I brought it here and - lo and behold - in the glare of ANI they announce a willingness to do so. I'll admit to knowing that Doncram has had issues elsewhere but this report was focussed narrowly. It is difficult enough dealing with this subject area without someone starting WW3 due to their ignorance. If you want to get involved then you're more than welcome, but I'd suggest beginning with an article about a specific community rather than a top-down approach. Do a few of those and you'll begin to understand the issues. Doncram was writing "twaddle", "crap" etc and was doing so despite this having being explained. Patience runs out eventually and, believe me, there was a lot of patience shown by the numerous !vote "delete" contributors in the recent AfD. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly have to disagree. Sitush puts up with so much bullshit that I'm not so much surprised he's exasperated as amazed he's been able to deal with it so long. This is one of these situations where people who don't know what they don't know refuse to listen to someone who does. We don't expect editors to have infinite patience; and if you don't believe how rough it is in this topic area, I'll invite you to follow either of us around to see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lets face it, we all put up with a lot of bullshit. Does that mean we have a right to threaten disruption as Sitush just did by saying he is going to blow up? No. I see a lot of this as a contnet dispute and frankly I really do not care what level of expertise they claim to have. This project is for everyone, not just experts. I have real expertise, but I don't lord over others and become uncivil at the very addition of content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please correct me if I'm wrong but, iirc, somewhere in all the recent drama, Sitush indicated that his interest in the topic of Indian castes dates back about 18 months. Checking his edit history, this seems to have started in April 2011 when he switched from working upon Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) to Kaniyar Panicker. It appears from this that his knowledge and interest in the topic is quite recent and amateur. This is no bar to his working upon the matter but it does not entitle him to insult anyone else who cares to work upon the matter in a similar way. Sitush attends Manchester meetups and that group seem to have established a common way of working. This seems to include obtaining and working from good sources and then vigorously insulting anyone else who dares to challenge their opinion or work. Malleus Fatuorum is the most notorious exponent of this school and it may be that the meetups encourage others to copy his robust style. Admins should please note that their indulgence of such types may encourage such copycat behaviour. Warden (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That analysis is unconvincing, particularly the comments on expertise and the conspiracy theories about those attending Manchester meetups. Mathsci (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well.....it answers a number of questions I have had.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm from New England, not England, so I can't comment on that, although I have to agree with Mathsci. I also don't see what Malleus Fatuorum has to do with any of this. But more importantly; I've spent maybe 1/10 the amount of time in the topic area as Sitush, and here are a few samples of what's been launched at me. If these people are to be believed, I'm perpetuating ethnocide, I'm an imperialist bent on destroying all of India and reinstating colonial rule (somewhat incongruous, given my nationality...), I'm a brahmin chamcha, a gandoo, and a white supremacist chodha boy (if you really want to know what they mean, the definitions are readily available elsewhere). Sitush gets a hell of a lot more of it than I do. I spend a lot of time in a lot of the other most toxic places on Wikipedia, and the Indian caste situation isn't really like anything else; when you're under siege like that for as long as Sitush is, you're going to have occasional intemperate remarks, especially when, as here, you're dealing with uninformed and unwilling to be informed people. I'm not saying it's good, but it has to be seen in a broader picture. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This "analysis" by Warden is really, really odd. I got to see up-close how explosive these Indic issues are at James Tod; one does not need to be a Mancunian to lose one's patience. The Colonel's lack of good faith here is maybe no surprise but should be noted regardless; if Sitush is an "amateur" (that's not the pot calling the kettle: I rate Sitush higher than the Colonel when it comes to expertise), he should rather be applauded for the speed with which he has acquainted himself with the subject matter and the patience he has had in this minefield. Finally, the suggestion that a bunch of Mancunians get together with a book and a few articles and then hammer out some sort of strategy to own some caste's article--well. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Warden, I suggest you do a bit more research before making wild accusations. Malleus has attended one Manchester Wikimeet and, IIRC, I've attended either two or three. Boing! said Zebedee has apparently attended more than me and, unlike Malleus, does indeed have involvement in matters caste. The other principal contributors to the sphere are Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas and perhaps Utcursch - if any of those have ever even visited Manchester then I'd be quite surprised. Aside from Boing!, I cannot recall anyone at the Wikimeets I have attended making any edits at all to articles concerning caste. It is, of course, possible but they are certainly not frequent flyers. I think also that around 18 months - a figure that I mentioned myself & thus needed no research on your part - of pretty much day-to-day involvement, conversation and reading counts as a fair amount of experience. Certainly so when contrasted to Doncram and yourself. I'm not always right, obviously, but it was not only me who has been explaining the problems to you and Doncram etc of late. When you persist in barging around this really troublesome subject area, however well-intentioned, then you are likely to cause some fireworks - and if you think that my admittedly intemperate language (calmer now) was an example of that then you ain't seen nothing yet: wait until you get the death threats, the off-wiki harrassment etc. Off to notify various people. Sitush (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My exprience of Sitush is that he is a user with some highly specialised knowledge who dares to tread in areas (I'm talking caste in particular) where single-issue POV-warriors abound. He's likely to persist diligently in correcting errors but is also not afraid to stand up - sometimes robustly - to POV-pushing, COI-laden members of special interest groups. Doncram doesn't, I assume, fall into that group but seems to be editing in a highly specialised area that he knows little about and which has the potential to stir up unnecessary conflict and resentment if edits there are inaccurate or indefensible. I myself would not use the language that Sitush uses but it seems to express personal frustration more than personal attack. I don't know enough about caste to say as an outside expert who is right, but my instincts are to trust Sitush's judgement on this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The language was ill-advised, I admit it. It is also not very commonly used by me but temperance was getting me nowhere. Someone was lighting a series of fuses and refusing to throw away the match despite being advised by several people that playing with fireworks can be dangerous. It is possible to be uncivil without ever using phrasing that some people consider to be beyond the pale. In persisting with their poor contributions, ignoring recent consensus etc, that is what Doncram was doing and, as I said somewhere, I'm willing to bet that when the real explosion happens as a consequence of those contributions, Doncram would likely be far away and neither interested or equipped to fight the fire. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting like the mad hatter's tea party. Sitush makes a simple statement that if he's pushed hard enough he will eventually lose his temper (or 'blow up' to use his colloquialism) and another editor takes that as a threat. Do you really think he's threatening to become a suicide bomber? Then Colonel Warden comes along and decides that the Manchester meetups are a place where we sit around plotting to 'use good sources' (shocking crime!) and then tell everyone to 'fuck off' when we don't agree with their edits. I'm afraid I have to admit that I once was dragged in to one of these dens of iniquity and, although they bought me some beer, they didn't manage to persuade me to use more intemperate language than I normally do. I have to say though that I now realise I have been dragged down to their level with the promise of the wanton pleasures that come from the use of good sources - mea culpa! Ok, this is difficult but I'll say it - "My name is Richerman and I once attended a Manchester meetup". Richerman (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

... Mad as hatters

They do no more for Christés sake

Than you who are helpless in such matters.

“That this is not the judgment-hour

For some of them’s a blessed thing,

For if it were they’d have to scour

Hell’s floor for so much threatening....

— Thomas Hardy, Channel Firing

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm only going to make one comment here, and then I'm off on a Wikibreak. Sitush is absolutely right here regarding the complexity of the caste issue. The naming is horrendously confusing in itself, partly because the same names are used in different places for unrelated social groups, partly because different names are used by different sources for the same groups, and partly because the names in English are only transliterations anyway and there is no consistent standard of transliteration. It simply doesn't work to take lists of castes and link them up just by name - you need to do some proper research (ideally on one caste at a time) and *understand* the subject - which is exactly what Sitush and a few others have put a lot of work into doing. Much as I respect what the ARS does (I'm a vocal supporter), there really are times when you need to do the research and listen to the experts (rather than insulting them) ahead of a near-blind urge to simply create articles and lists about subjects you don't properly understand. You need to read that AfD properly and listen to what people are saying rather than seeing them as opponents to be beaten, and benefit from their knowledge and experience rather than ignoring them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

@Amadscientist. Going through this discussion, it transpires that Sitush has been dabbling in Caste issues for about 18 months now. During this period, sanctions have been applied to the area and the area seems to be an infamous minefield. Did the area carry the same level of notoriety in the pre-Sitush period too? I too have been subjected to vile treatment by Sitush and ascribe his behavior to a particular POV (and something else). Amadscientist, taking a stroll through my talk page may provide some more answers to you.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply. At the moment I have only the recent history of how Sitush treated me and a few others over an RS situation that I feel the editor took far too aggresive a stance with insulting comments and horrible civility issues. I try not to hold this against them and yet I cannot help but understand why some may wish to hurl the kitchen sink at them. The main reason why I cannot see Doc as the singular problem here is exactly because of the horrible way Sitush has interacted, with others...not just me. However, the fact remains that the editor filing this ANI has issues. Whether or not that ammounts to a reason to not sanction Doc remains to be seen but yes.......Sitush has issues they need to address and I belive they are a part of this current situation. I have alwasy felt this was going to catch up with them and for the moment....that time could well be now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What is my POV, in your opinion, and what is the mysterious "something else" to which you refer? - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one more comment... No, before Sitush et al started work on them, Wikipedia's caste articles were not anywhere near as controversial. But that's simply because they were mostly just horrible vanity articles, written by people glorifying their own castes with masses of ridiculous puffery, not sourced to anything even vaguely reliable. They were embarrassingly bad. To misquote someone (with apologies), if you believed all the unmitigated crap that those articles were full of, you'd be forced to conclude that everyone in India has only ever been a king or a warrior, descended directly from gods - and nobody ever worked the fields, built the roads, wove the fabrics, made the clothes, did the cooking, worked as labourers, etc. Since Sitush et all have been improving those articles, removing the puffery, adding material supported by reliable sources, etc, they have been victims of a lot of abuse from those same caste warriors, Hindu nationalists, etc, who can't bear to see those caste articles written in a sourced encyclopedic way, rather than continuing to exist as caste-glorification puffery. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue we have here is much larger than the rudeness of single editor .The issue really is when several editors join to browbeat and overpower other editors , drive them to the brink and get them blocked banned with active support of an admin and in this case it is Boing! said Zebedee . Several really good editors have been lost due to this . The uneven application of civility by the admin Boing! said Zebedee in favor of Sitush Vis a vis other editors is dreadful .These are the editors that work together Utcarsh ,Sitush, MatthewVanitas , Qwyrxian , JanetteDoe ,Fowler and Fowler , and the admin Boing Said Zebdee . The recent decision to Ban Apostle Von Colorado was unbelievable on the article Caste .The discretionary powers to ban editors have become a tool to be misused . I have had to face the combined and different combination of this dexterous team of editors continuously . See my talk page , talk pages of various articles where I have contributed , edits to articles continuously deleted , rude comments . Here is one specific example ,of the cynical combination ,of collaboration , that I posted on the admin BSD,s page. [Section-Misuse of Admin Powers to ban me repeateadly]. Broad brushing all editors as POV Nationalist warriors , calling the topic toxic ?? when you have made it toxic yourself . If Boing said Zebdee would stop giving unfair cover to Sitush , I believe Sitush's own actions would change . In the larger context though collaboration is best , but the cynical collaboration of this team has been really dreadful . The mother article on caste and what has taken place after the banning of Apostle is emblematic . Puffery is bad but so is lacerating articles. Painting all editors and edits that do not agree with your viewpoint as unreliable (and then having the presumption to use the very same sources elsewhere is atrocious .Intothefire (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good timing, Intothefire. You have been advised repeatedly that if you have any complaints about Boing's actions then you should raise them here and you have consistently failed to do so. Then, within minutes of Boing! posting his wikibreak message, here you are. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hereunder an editor has been blocked for profanity,[19] I had brought the issue up some time ago but it was rubbished and closed[20]. Blade of the Northern Lights has shared the expletives he had had to endure. I just ask him to share a few examples of editors who used these abusive words in relation to him and are yet editing Wikipedia. The incivility matter needs to be looked at by those who do not belong to the "I scratch my back and you scratch mine" club. Civility is one of the project's pillars.[21] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

BSZ appears to say that the trouble on caste articles is due to repeated attempts to insert unsourced puffery. Do you think that is correct?OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oranges, is the above intended to be a response to my query timed at 12:43 today, above? Or are you asking Yogesh something and, if so, what relevance does your question have to either Doncram or the various lists of Indian communities that are or have been at AfD? - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oranges I'd pass that if the question was for me, I've a topic ban which is wide. I'm here as civility issues are discussed here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right Yogesh--"widely construed" means what it means. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have independent knowledge of the complexities of the "castes" situation. However, because I dipped my toe into this situation by opening an AfD calling for two of Doncram's list-articles to be moved to user space, I should provide my perspectives. My experience with Wikipedia articles about topics related to the Indian subcontinent (mainly from reviewing DYK nominations) has made me very aware that reliable sources about the subcontinent are scarce, that even seemingly reliable sources can be biased or self-serving, that (largely due to the biases embedded in various sources) different reliable sources may be wildly contradictory, that there often can be multiple transliterated spellings of the same word, and that many Wikipedia articles about the subcontinent are poorly written and of doubtful factual quality. Furthermore, I became acquainted with Sitush (and watchlisted his talk page) some time ago in connection with a query he made about a fascinating U.S. sidebar to a Manchester history topic he was researching, and I have been impressed with the quality of his research and his tenacious devotion to verifiability -- and, indeed, factual accuracy. With that background, and knowing that Sitush has been extensively involved here with improving articles on topics related to India, I am inclined to trust his judgment regarding the intricacies of the topic of castes. Furthermore, having followed the AfD discussion that concluded with the userfication of List of Indian castes, I was convinced that it is foolhardy for an American who is (much like me) not thoroughly informed about India to attempt to create and defend articles like List of Scheduled Castes -- and that the conclusion of that AfD on the master list of castes should also apply to these lists.
  I see this as one of those occasions when a wise person needs to be willing to acknowledge their ignorance. Neither Doncram nor Colonel Warden nor I knows nearly enough about the contentious topic of caste to constructively edit articles on the topic. This is a time to acknowledge our ignorance and refrain from creating articles about topics we don't understand, particularly when those topics are as explosive as this one is. Sitush has been immoderate in some of his comments, but I've seen enough of the negative comments people leave on his talk page to believe that he has very good reason to be very upset about when people who fail to recognize their own ignorance become involved in such an explosive topic. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to those in support of Sitush, who I found to be very balanced and knowledgeable during the always-difficult process of FAC for the James Tod biography. If Sitush is flustered then that indicates a serious problem with the behavior of others. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be problems with doncram's approach. "Sourced eventually" n the caste articles?. And the reluctance to allow a centralized discussion.[22][23]. That, in conjunction with the attitude demonstrated in the diffs provided by Nytrend and Ryan Vesey, give the appearance of a combative editor who would rather do things his or her way and who tends to take content objections personally. I don't see a 1RR restriction as solving this problem because the editor will likely just keep moving on leaving a trail of problems and it doesn't look like there is much support for a preventative six month block but, hopefully, doncram will take note of the concerns expressed here and will try to take a less combative approach and will try to see what his/her edits look like from the point of view of others. --regentspark (comment) 01:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Point of information: RegentsPark and maybe Sitush had it completely backwards: it was editor Sitush, not I, who added unsourced information to the List of OBCs article, which I removed from an "Official names" column to a new "Notes" column. The info was subjective comments meant in good faith by Sitush to be clarifying, I presume, but which in fact deviated away from official language in the government source, and could arguably be exactly the type of wp:OR and worse that Sitush is saying will launch Armeggadon(sp?). I asked Sitush at the Talk page a) to obey a rule to use only the official language in the column labelled "Official names", and b) to provide sources, either immediately or eventually, for what Sitush cared to add in any different lnaguage. Sitush did not reply there but rather opened this ANI about 6 minutes later. Then 10 hours later Sitush replied there, chastising me as if I was adding unsourced information: "Sourced eventually? No chance: you source such claims immediately or make no claim", and RegentsPark picked up on that, I guess. Oops? Never mind?

And, I don't get RegentsPark asserting "reluctance to allow a centralized discussion" by me...with links to central discussions that I opened and sought Sitush to comment at.

And, I don't get Sitush's assertion that "I am losing my rag, yes, but not directly at (me)" This ANI proceeding, with yet another provocative title giving my accountname, and comments elsewhere seem like pretty clearly targeting me. Perhaps Sitush perceived me to be a weak and/or incompetent editor, subject to past ANI proceedings, and that it would be okay to blow up at me? Also I don't get people suggesting Sitush merely threatened to blow up. Sitush did blow up, here, and in edit summaries at articles, at me.

I assume Sitush and RegentsPark may have genuinely misread what happened, perhaps from too-quick reading and their projecting what I would do if I were stupid and obtuse. Sitush alludes to previous criticism of me and NRHP articles at ANI, and I recall Sitush joining in once before with what I perceived as uninformed comments in that area, and I think from that and other past ANI proceedings they can have a negative impression of me. I appreciate that Sitush backed down slightly in condemnation of me, here. I don't expect it, but your seeing your way to an actual apology would be appreciated. And how about turning to actual development of the OBC and SC articles, which Sitush has stated support for, and calling for end of the AFD, ongoing. I do believe that Sitush could do a better job of setting links to caste/OBC/SC articles than I can. Why not just develop the lists of OBCs and SCs, using official language exactly, and proceeding. --doncram 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram at lists of various churches

Taking Doncram's comments in mind and the direction of the above discussion, I've moved this into a subsection Ryan Vesey 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unrelated to Indic communities, there have been a number of other disruptive edits by the user. He has been displaying a lot of ownership at Talk:List of Methodist churches including telling Orlady, an editor who nominated the article for deletion, not to edit the article or to reply on the talk page. Later, he continued to edit war to restore red links (which are now blue) to the see also section and to add an out of process note to the bottom of a section that duplicated the see also message. He refers to any edits he disagrees with on the article page as disruptive "If any more editors want to claim credit for identifying some small criticism of this new article, please do claim credit here on the Talk page, or somewhere else, rather than disrupting the article itself". He furthered that with

Another editor, apparently also attracted to causing disruption, has repeatedly removed links from See Also. This editor, Nyttend, hasn't even bothered to check the contents, and has deleted bluelinks as well, e.g. in this edit which i have reverted. The point I take from this is that a few editors are dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on. If you are not part of developing this article, please go away. And, either if you are dedicated to disruption, or if you seriously think you have a legitimate issue, be civil and discuss it here, at the Talk page of the article. Repeated disruptive edits by administrators. without any explanation and demonstrating ignorance of what is blue vs. red, seem more to be about exerting control and bureaucracy and hatred, than anything else. If you are a real communicating person, Christian or otherwise, or at least Human / humane, use your words, please

In this, he attempts to depict Nyttend as not being human, which was furthered with an edit summary where he referred to Nyttend as an "idiotic non-person". On another page, List of Methodist churches in the United States, Nyttend removed empty coordinates which caused an error message on the page. Rather than thanking Nyttend for the help, Doncram accused Nyttend of disruption and pointiness on the talk page. Nothing individually has been beyond the pale, but Doncram has become disruptive in his claims that any edits he doesn't like are disruptive and his misuse of Wikipedia policies. Combining this with edit warring and the personal attack I mentioned has become disruptive enough that some type of discussion is needed on the issue. During all of this, Doncram has still been very productive in improving the encyclopedia. I'd like a solution that can change some of the behavior without discouraging content production. I think the best option would be to limit Doncram to a 1 revert rule and possibly find a mentor who can help him deal with disputes but who would also be free to impose sanctions for violations of 1RR or any further personal attacks. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with several characterizations by Ryan Vesey here. Can we/you keep this ANI to be about concerns about Indic community characterizations. If you or someone wish to raise a lot of what you admit are unrelated issues, there are other forums for that, and ANI is highly unsuitable for a full discussion. --doncram 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say they were unrelated to the topic of your acitons, I said they were unrelated to the Indic communities-showing that there have been problems in more than one area. Considering your block log, it seems that edit warring is an important part of the problem and that mentoring and a 1RR should help. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are some complicated interactions here that I can't explicate all at once, and which are not suited for ANI, anyhow. I have to sign off now due to other obligations, can't comment further. Addressing Ryan Vesey's immediate interest in pressing on matters, though, see recent additions at Talk:List of Methodist churches. Maybe that will address some of Ryan Vesey's concern, anyhow. --doncram 23:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

{Edit conflict} Ryan Vesey has made some very good suggestions for preventing this situation from spiraling out of control and leading to another block. However, as I see it the pattern of edit warring is only one of the issues needing to be addressed.

After years of being a target of personal attacks by Doncram, I see his habit of personalizing content disputes as a problematic behavior that he needs to reverse for his benefit and that of Wikipedia. The recent comments that Ryan Vesey cites above are good examples of the pattern of Doncram blaming his own ill-advised behavior on others (for example, he created those problematic church lists as a proactive measure to prevent me from doing something to prevent their creation; Nyttend is driving him into edit-warring over red links in "See also" sectoons; and now it's somehow due to Sitush that he's creating these problematic Indic lists). I'd like for him to be required to expunge/revise any future talk page comments in which he blames other editors for his own foolishness, particularly but not only when he describes other users with terms like "evil," "hateful," and "dedicated to disruption". A focus on the substance of the content debates, rather than the personalities of the other participants, would be a big improvement. --Orlady (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This may well be true, but I don't see this an excuse for any editor to threaten to blow up and expect others to take their side. Sitush is a well respected editor and should not behave the way he is and has no matter what the excuse is. We need civility more when things get heated, not less.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sitush was not involved in this conflict, which is why I split the section. Ryan Vesey 03:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make no further comment in this section then Ryan. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Don, I've been watching this closely after being asked to. You need to step back, friend. You are taking a minor scuffle and turning it into a war, taking this all too personal. Others may have been blunt, but you are the only one that insists on getting close and closer to the edge of this cliff and it isn't necessary or helpful. It is fine to be pissed off, we all get our feathers ruffled from time to time, but being you keep ramping it up and won't leave well enough alone. Again, for your own sake, you need to step back a little, let others have their opinions and not turn every disagreement into a personal battle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

[Written before Dennis came along] Besides the personal attacks noted above (is it ever appropriate to say that someone's pattern of editing amounts to "long term harassment, bullying, evil"?), Doncram's accusations are demonstrably based on factual errors. See the Baptist, Congregational, Lutheran, and Catholic page histories; none of them existed in mainspace when I removed them, but Doncram still maintains that I'm doing this in "ignorance of what is blue vs. red", and when told that these links were red at the time, the "response is "No, I do not know that...i did not look up what time Nyttend edited vs. what times the various linked articles have been moved in and out of mainspace", but my edits remain "shoring up some kind of ridiculous disruption". It's bad enough to say that someone is "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on", or that he's only editing to "interrupt, to harass, frankly, and to cobble up a situation of contention", but when you repeatedly restore technical errors (even reverting a bot when it dates a maintenance template), it's quite different. The same is true with edit warring to retain links that are at variance with a basic guideline; I don't know about other elements of this discussion, but editwarring to force guideline violations is not a new thing, as can be seen in the histories of this page and this page, where Doncram defends his edit warring by saying that the guideline page to which I referred was nonexistent and by admitting to following me around, which makes it quite curious that he objects at the Methodist list to Orlady following him around. Finally, I must question whether Doncram see this as a collaborative project or as a battleground; when you defend your actions with "that is only a temporary result of my not being able to fight battles with disruptive editors on every front at once", are you attempting to be working with others, or are you simply seeing this as a fight? Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a relatively long (for me) break from Wikipedia of about two months after being fed up with Doncram's editing. Although I haven't edited since then until now, I have been occasionally checking back in on things. It's no surprise to me to see Doncram's name popping up here again. I mean, his name shows up in 64 different archives of this page for Christ's sake! Shouldn't there be some sort of limit to that? Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice 64 times, I have a mental disorder. If there have been 64 different incidents involving Doncram that have required attention from other people, that should tell you something. Sure, several of them may be Doncram reporting other people, or they may have been very minor things (Being 64 of them, there was no way I was going to check them all), but the sheer fact that there are so many of them and Doncram is still allowed to edit here is ludicrous. As I said in my "resignation letter" I linked above, there isn't one single event that one can point to and say "there, that's it.. you're blocked for that." Well, to me, these 64 incidents taken as a whole are more than enough to support a block. Why is this guy still here?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your metric does not seem helpful because, if we use it with other distinctive usernames, we get even larger scores:

Sitush = 89

Orlady = 90

Nyttend = 208

Newyorkbrad = 514

Warden (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Only 64? My name appears in 201, which surprises me a little; I thought it would have been 'way more than that. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Orlady and Newyorkbrad and I are admins, so we're responding to lots of things and appear in the archives because we signed our comments; for example, any time that I block someone in response to a report at WP:AN3, that results in my name appearing there. A better standard of analysis would be how many times our names appear in headers: for me that's 8 of my 208 (including 3 times that I was processing AN3 by reporting someone or mentioned there as levying a block), Orlady 4 of her 90 (none processing AN3), and Sitush 32 of his 89 (21 times processing AN3), and I didn't look through Newyorkbreak's appearances because there are so many. In contrast, Doncram gets 35 of his 64 appearances with 12 processing AN3, one of which resulted in his being blocked. In other words, about 1/8 of Sitush's appearances are potentially problems with him, 1/20 of Orlady's are potentially problems with her, etc., while more than a third of Doncram's are potentially problems with him. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Could this possibly be handled more efficiently by a request at WP:AE under the July motion allowing discretionary sanctions for articles related to India? I am not sure of the scope of the those sanctions, but might it not be worth a try to avoid the chaos here? Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Solutions

I do think that don is causing enough frustration that we can't just walk away this time. This is a long time pattern. I don't think don realizes the damage he causes. It has even become an editor retention issue. This kind of editing is much more damaging that other crimes du jure like incivility and I'm not willing for us to keep paying the price. His last block was for 6 months[24], is a repeat needed? I can't see 1RR helping, as his talk page edits are as damaging as his warring. Who has a solution? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram happened, but nobody really appears to have paid attention to it. That being said, the issues at that page, nearly three years ago, were virtually identical to what's going on now. Before the 6-month editwarring block, he had a 3-month block for general disruption; see here for the discussion at WP:ANI. This incident was sparked by the fact that he was driving out Elkman in a manner comparable to what Dudemanfellabra is talking about. Note the concluding statements in the page that I link: "I think the only thing that has a chance of changing anything going forward will be a full ArbCom case" and "I he comes back after a three-month block and does this again, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom". Unless we impose a yet longer block right here and now, I'd say OK, straight to ArbCom. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for ArbCom, as this is a problem we can deal with at the community level. It may be best if a solution was proposed and voted upon, then acted upon here at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are too many editors commenting with vested interests and agendas for any realistic outcome to occur here. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a 6 month block for a continuing pattern of various disruptive behaviors that is detrimental to the project.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Arbcom is the way to go as past blocks/RfC are argued to have failed. Disclosure, my account has had recent brief productive dealings in Wiki process with both DonCram's account and Orlady's account, so this is all unfortunate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For ArbCom to take it, it has to be shown all other venues have been exhausted. His last block was last year, so I tend to think they would be reluctant to the be "last resort" when there are other options. I would hope they would, anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

They may or may not take it, but the basis for this proposal is long-term ongoing behavior issues, that have allegedly not been reformed by community action. The lack of Due Process on AN/I where it almost always becomes an !vote, is what we should all hope AN/I Users take into serious account, when asked to act in such matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have seen enough of Sitush's extreme behavior, including the starting comment on this thread, to think that Don's behavior could be the problem here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? LadyofShalott 06:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY
Question Block for who? No, seriously, you need to spell it out here. Thoughnot (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• As this is a subsection of solutions which are specifically related to Doncram, it's a block for Doncram. Ryan Vesey 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't like the idea because it would put a stop to the helpful work Doncram has been doing on the lists of various churches articles and would leave us with the lists in their unfinished forms, but I'd support if nothing better can be offered. I understand that just a 1RR rule won't fix the problems on the talk page (although mentorship might), and I also don't think this needs to go all the way to ArbCom. I'm interested in seeing of Doncram can think of a solution. Ryan Vesey 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question: For whom is the block proposed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Oranges above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since now I know a little more about the case, I strongly oppose his blocking, details are as discussed by me in the next sub-section.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• But the rationale of OrangesRyellow makes no sense. They seem to be saying it is down to me and are opposing the proposal, but saying Doncram's behaviour is the problem. Eh?- Sitush (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Doncram already came off one six-month block this year and went back to his old behavior. Is there a reason to think another six-month block now will fix anything? Is it worth considering a one-year block or an indef (open-ended)? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. After a previous ANI last summer, I undertook to review all of doncram's comments for a month. During that time, I saw a significant improvement in the quality of his work and in his interactions with others. The reason I undertook that task was because I believe doncram is one of the most dedicated and hard-working editors we have. Doncram clearly rubs some (many?) people the wrong way, but the project benefits from his contributions. Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Sitush's complaint is a blatant violation of WP:OWN. And the objections to lists of churches seem equally weak. As it happens, I was in the Methodist Central Hall Westminster recently and the idea that we shouldn't have a list of such outstanding buildings seems absurd. Lists are perfectly valid Wikipedia content and it is the editors who disrupt their construction who should be warned off. Warden (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing in this is related to the idea that we shouldn't have lists of these. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local Methodist churches, for example. That was nominated for deletion by Orlady but was closed as Keep. The relationship seems clear and, in that case, Doncram seems to have been on the side of the angels. Warden (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems there is a very complicated history of mutual misconduct and I would be remiss to support sanctioning one editor on the say-so of an opposing disputant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a 1 year one revert restriction as well as mentorship from a willing administrator who is given latitude to invoke any sanctions deemed necessary without bringing the issue to ANI. This would leave open the potential of a 6 month block at the mentor's discretion, but would allow for the possibility of mentorship combined with 1RR having a positive effect.

• Support: As nominator. Ryan Vesey 17:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too harsh and targets only one party of the dispute. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do you not see that this is related to an entirely separate dispute? Ryan Vesey 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• If problems in a narrow spectrum are being addressed why a block? Also why not wait for the original ANI to close before discussing another issue? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• My proposal is specifically not a block and was made as an alternative to the block above. If you read the section about Doncram at lists of various churches, it is obvious that a problem exists. Is there an alternative that you would like to suggest? Ryan Vesey 18:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  What about chopping off Doncram's bollocks and burning them in front of him? Slightly more seriously, is there no way that an editor can have a pending-changes like sanction? As in every edit has to be approved before it goes public? Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any technical implementation available for that. Could do something in a special sandbox somewhere, but it would be pretty unwieldy. Monty₈₄₅ 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing reviewer rights would do that, if we were using Pending Changes in all articles like a handful of other Wikipedias are. As it stands, I think Monty's correct that there is no technical means of doing that currently. Jafeluv (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• • "List of churches" is a tiny part of English Wikipedia, why discuss the issue when an AN/I is on for an unrelated subject? Do you suggest 1R for the "lists" where you say there is an "obvious ... problem"? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons noted above. If there were to be a consensus for something along the lines of what Ryan is proposing, the designated mentor should IMO be given the discretion to impose blocks for incivility, etc., of no more than 1-7 days at a time, unless that person returns to an appropriate forum to gain consensus for a longer block. Cbl62 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It takes two to tango and, from what I've seen, Doncram is as much sinned against as sinning. Warden (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I do support mentorship in general but not sure how much good that may have in this instance. The one year revert restriction also seems a bit harsh for this. I wonder if the best way to discourage any problems in this situation would be a simple short term topic ban.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I find it astonishing that others find Doncram innocent in calling me a non-human, in edit-warring to force violations of our page layout standards, and in various forms of personal attacks. We will be back here before long unless we impose extensive sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that it may be impossible to find an administrator who has enough time available to take on the assignment of mentoring a user as prolific as Doncram. I don't like the idea of issuing another long-term block against Doncram, because he has good intentions and he can be very productive, and because history indicates that blocking him won't cure the problem. However, something needs to be done (1) to convince him that his work is not entitled to an exemption from Wikipedia policy and guidelines and (2) to prevent him from driving away other productive users and persistently attacking other users (such as Nyttend and me) who have so far tenaciously refused to be driven away. When users are blocked or banned for using words like "fuck" that are merely dirty, Wikipedia should not blandly tolerate Doncram's persistent use of hurtful terminology like "evil", "hateful", "nasty", "non-human", and "malicious" to describe other users. The mentorship effort that Cbl62 undertook had positive results, but they didn't last. The temporary success of that effort does, however, lead me to think that a new period of restrictions and mentorship is worth trying. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Of all the comments thus far, this is the only one that has got me reconsidering my oppose of Ryan Vesey's proposal. Well worded and with a good deal of thought. Yes, something needs to be done to discourage some behavior but, I wonder if we are taking a one sided approach to this.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reason I give above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't understand. How are any of the issues that I detailed a kind of mutual misconduct? How is anything that Dudemanfellabra mentioned a kind of mutual misconduct? Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was thinking more of what I saw when looking into the discussions Doncram has had with Sitush and Orlady.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• That still doesn't explain why we should give Doncram a pass for calling Nyttend an "idiotic non-person" and for edit warring to violate MOS:SEEALSO. It seems like editors are ignoring the actions of Doncram because they dislike the actions of Sitush. Ryan Vesey 22:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• My comment is not to suggest he should be given a pass. Rather, I just think that ANI is not the place to hash out a complicated conduct dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no doubt that incivility is hurting the project, more so because standards are not applied evenly. Why is the proposal silent on the other side's abuse? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support for one year of 1RR under mentorship with very long block the next step. I prefer indefinite block to six months. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I think we are only solving part of the problem here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support (see my rationale somewhere above.) I"m not sure this will work because the editor tends to move around but if it helps manage the problem and helps doncram 'see the light' so to speak, then yes. --regentspark (comment) 01:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It is ignoring greater problems with another user's constantly extreme behavior. Don is ignoring to defend themselves. The thread was originally started for another reason and discussing other issues in the same thread can lead to a situation where the user being discussed becomes overwhelmed and ignores defending themselves simply because they cannot find the time and energy to engage in multiple issues. I don't think it is fair to apply sanctions in this way.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The current disputes are just the latest examples of a pattern of behavior that has existed for years. One of the reasons it persists is that almost every time a specific issue gets raised, it looks like an incredibly petty dispute between a couple of editors. The only RFC/U about Doncram that I recall was attempted nearly 3 years ago, but failed to get traction, mostly because it was very narrowly framed. Doncram gets involved with complex and acrimonious wars about extremely trivial matters, such as whether he should be allowed to include redlinks in the "See also" section of an article, or whether Poquetanuck, Connecticut should be treated as a place or as a historic district, or whether the fact that a property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places database justifies the creation of a stub article with text that reads something like "The Jones House is or was a house in Anytown, Pennsylvania, that was built or has other significance in 1857", or whether a historic district with buildings built over the span of a century can be included in a category for architecture of a particular year. If Wikipedians insist on restricting discussion to whichever of these individual "issues" happens to have come to a noticeboard most recently (none of which ought to be worth more than a paragraph of talk-page discussion, although some of them have led to multiple megabytes of acrimonious talk-page interaction elsewhere and occasionally the departure of other established editors), we will never succeed in addressing the pattern of behaviors that is actually the real problem. --Orlady (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate your concerns and I think I understand what you intend to convey, I would suggest ignoring trivial fancies of constructive editors, especially if they don't hurt the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Allowing editors to ignore policies does hurt the project. We don't allow red links in the see also section for a reason (in one of the most recent examples). In addition, this is an editor retention issue and we've seen an example that Doncram's behavior has driven a user away from the project. Ryan Vesey 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You are right, but isn't something relative, to me, in view of the gross rubbish that exists on Wikipedia at many places, (I have presented one below) editors could put stylistic issues on the back burner, I for one hate red links anywhere, but I don't let my fancy bother me too much.[25] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, basically for the 1RR, since I don't believe that Doncram is the kind of person (as viewed from his on-Wiki behavior, obviously) who will be able to control his nature and follow a mentor's advice for any length of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I can't comment intelligently on Indian castes, but I can on such questions as"whether the fact that a property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places database justifies the creation of a stub article with text that reads something like 'The Jones House is or was a house in Anytown, Pennsylvania, that was built or has other significance in 1857.'" Don was defending established standards and the basic guideline at WP:STUB, that such can indeed be created and are fully justified, against the the small but active minority who disagree about stubs and try to enforce it at AfD when they know they would not be able to change the policy that allows them, a policy under which about half of Wikipedia was created. Even were this the only available content, it would be justified, but it never is, because designation on the national register is always accompanied by extensive reliable documentation, from which anyone can later expand the article. When faced with attempts to remove such content, sometimes stubborn resistance is constructive. I am very far from taking the attitude that adding articles with possibilities to Wikipedia is a extremely trivial matter. We should be glad for his involvement, and I think in this instance at least the appropriate course is to commend him. If the indian castes is a problem, perhaps a simple agreement for him to avoid the area would solve that one. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • At Indian castes articles Don was faced with abuse (as he presents above), considering the pathetic state in which Indian caste articles are, Don with his experience and Wikipedia expertise would be in my opinion an asset, especially since he is not a part of any established club in that area. We need to discourage coteries, such as the ones formed around Indian caste articles as an example. Editors like Don would break such structures, and that would be great for the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I present Koli people, a more horrible article[26] you would have difficulty finding, please see the article division history, Don's well cited addition of Kolis to OBCs is correct,[27] as some Kolis are OBCs, Sitush's reversion of his edit was wrong.[28], Don then goes to the talk page citing a source, the only wp:RS used in the article to support his edit,[29] he has not warred and is patient. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My concern with don was more with the churches and his attitude in working with others. I don't have any aversion to stubs, but I do with people who can't get along with those that agree with them. It is this digging in and battlefield mentality that is detrimental to the project, not any stub, and this isn't the first or sixth time we've had this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

(1) Sitush be reprimanded for being incivil and bringing this issue here. (2) Don should also be dealt similarly for being incivil to other editors. (2) Action could be in the form of a token small duration block, say a few hours as a matter of record, for both editors. I suggest the small block to communicate the community's displeasure with their resorting to incivility and not to deprive them of their editing privileges.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) :Per wp:BLOCK#DETERENT Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not support a block at this time for either parties. But would support a topic ban for the two for a short term. Say......one month.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There is never a situation where a block for the record is appropriate. Ryan Vesey 06:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a "punishment" block, designed solely to force the editor to wear a scarlet letter in the form of a block log. This is clearly a violation of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• No support for any blocks. Would support a t-ban for both upto three months.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kindly quote relevant policy, additionally how else do you think the community could get across its opinion that their incivility is unacceptable? I am open to changes in how the proposal is worded and implemented as long as sanctions are not severe but the message is strongly conveyed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose obvious punishment block.Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Yogesh, the issue was brought here because Doncram showed no sign of cessation. I understand his position: the lists were minimalistic in content and were up at AfD, therefore he wants to demonstrate their potential to offset the AfD challenge. That, however, is not an excuse for making the numerous poor edits which occurred. Since Doncram seemed to be continuing the list expansion despite being advised (not just by me) that such lists require some thought, and since he was beginning to insert potentially fallacious statements on related articles, I had little option but to raise the issue here. You are as aware as I am that there is a lot of rubbish in the caste articles and a lot of fighting goes on - adding more fuel to that fire was not a sensible option.

  Doncram has now agreed to postpone expansion pending clarifications etc, and I've commented both at the AfD on the article talk page since then. I was never opposed to the concept of such lists as these and had already said as much. That I lost my temper - which I've acknowledged - relates to some knowledge of how Doncram has a tendency to work in other spheres + the obvious lack of clue about this sphere. There is no need for topic bans, interaction bans, reprimands or anything else in connection specifically with the caste list issue. It is done and dusted, for now at least, and we've both acknowledged our inappropriate actions. You'll note that I have deliberately not commented in the discussion on the various proposals nor on the rights or wrongs of the NHRP-related problems. Right now I'm too close to be impartial in forming an opinion based on the facts, as indeed you are too close to form an opinion of me because of our well-known past problems that resulted in your topic ban, blocks etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and a trouting Doncram's behaviour is most certainly problematic, and it concerns me that you cannot see it. Sitush's bringing it here was the right and responsible thing to do. The rest of the stuff about "we don't do punishment blocks" has already been said, and recognized by you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with your description of Don, however another admin DGG seems to have another view, "Don was defending established standards and the basic guideline at WP:STUB, that such can indeed be created and are fully justified", I based my opinion of Don on such comments which are numerous at this discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, how shocking.</sarcasm> YogeshKhandke has taken advantage of the slimmest of opportunities to attempt to remove Sitush from the caste topic, one of literally a handful of editors capable and willing of applying WP:NPOV to this topic—a topic on which you, I might remind everyone, are indefinitely topic banned. Maybe we should look for advice from somewhere else. Mind you, sometimes I wonder why Sitush doesn't just walk away from the virulence yourself and others attempt to aim at him, but so long as he's willing to put himself on the line (both here and in real life) to face this topic, he deserves our thanks, not criticism. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No Qwyrxian, my topic ban is Indian history-broadly construed, not topics like OBCs which is a modern Indian 21st century positive discrimination category. More importantly I've made no edit in any caste article post-ban, except the one during this AN/I which was related to modern India and not its history. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose 'for bringing this issue here'? Right or wrong, there do seem to be broad concerns about doncram's approach to editing and quoting 'bringing the issue here' as a reason gives me the impression that YK has completely ignored the entire discussion above. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment: It is wrongly alleged that I have an interest in "caste articles", my contributions list will demonstrate that there isn't any, thanks to my vote against Sitush I've received warnings from an editor,[30] and a more serious one from an admin[31], I have earlier made it clear that my comments are related to behaviour and not content, even examples of Koli people were provided to enable those here to judge Don's editing behaviour at caste articles which was not known to DGG. Qwrxian you are free to idolise any one but don't create a strawman and attack me, I've not suggested Sitush or anyone for that matter be removed from caste or an other topic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  You have two respected and experienced editors telling you on your talk page that you are doing something wrong, plus others here at this ANI. Have you considered that you might be doing something wrong? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  I see this going the wrong way for me, yet I ask you, regardless of my lack of respect and experience, would someone take a little time to check whether I may, against all odds be right? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well

This is a train wreck.

1. Commentary on doncram's participation at various caste articles. This is a legitimate complaint, and a new one; however, it was quickly derailed by two prominent sets of negative responses:
   1. In response to Sitush's "blow up" comment, naively interpreted as a precursor to disruption. Sitush's block log is clean and he has a very good reputation for performing thankless work on caste articles; at worst, this should met with a request to remember that angry text inevitably inflames difficult situations around here, and that this is one reason to avoid it even if one is uncontroversially right about a given situation.
   2. Colonel Warden, because apparently something might be deleted. If you've been around here for any length of time, you'll know how many neurons to devote to this.
2. Commentary on doncram's work in an entirely different area which deals with a different set of common doncram tropes (in this case, the unpersoning of editors doncram disagrees with). This really shouldn't have been subheadered.
3. The usual Royal Rumble of tit-for-tat ban proposals.

Let's discount #3 for now as unworkable. Let's also discount #2 for the time being as it's a well-worn road. #1 is new. I can't see anything other than "I disagree with Sitush" and "Sitush has offended me" from doncram which covers the basis of the dispute in #1 (leaving aside those parts which stray into #2, namely Orlady's participation in an AfD). If we're going to move forward with that particular matter at all, this is where doncram should be justifying it. How about a temporary injunction on editing by doncram of articles under the domain of WP:GS/Caste until such point as he's responded to the substance of the dispute? if none if forthcoming, that will result in a de facto topic ban from that area, which will at least resolve the new bit of the dispute. Comments? ("Comments" meaning "this isn't a bleedin' straw poll, guys.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with #1 and only here because of the Methodist Church edits, which was something I had investigated a day before this ANI was filed, at the request of Ryan (my talk page). I don't have any desire to labor the issue, but I think that the behavior exhibited there is worth considering as part of the overall pattern of disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "The overall pattern of disruption" is a broad spectrum of behaviours that, for better or worse, ANI is terrible at dealing with (far too many people will jump in having read only 1% of the background, and the gamut of possible sanctions runs from "none" to "siteban"). This is an attempt at getting something done here given that once an ANI thread reaches the "three different ban proposals" stage the probability of any action being taken at all is nearly zero. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I sort of agree with Chris here. For anyone unfamiliar with doncram's history, it is hard to figure out whether what we have is a dedicated but tone deaf editor worth retaining or whether we have a consistently problematic editor who would be better gone from the project. ANI tends to have a short attention span and is not well suited for figuring this out. Editors here have the tendency to issue limited bans which don't address long term probles one bit, and often just make the problem worse. I see that there was an RfC on doncram a while ago, perhaps that's the best next step to gather evidence, both positive as well as negative, before pushing this up the chain. --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I'm willing to bend in any direction that has a possibility of the problem(s) being solved. What I don't want to see happen is a lot of words wasted and nothing come from it. Patience I have. A willingness to ignore, I do not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I hear you Dennis. But what Chris is saying, and looking at the discussion here I have to agree with him, is that you're not going to get it resolved here, not with this particular report anyway. The best you're going to see is a 1RR restriction that, if experience is any guide, will not do a whole lot. --regentspark (comment) 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    By all means, someone provide a better alternative and I will be happy to give it a try. Like I said, I'm open minded to any solution and not going to labor the issue if someone wants to try something else. I'm not invested here, but we are all tired of the revolving door at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    You and the others discussing this on your talk page are more familiar with doncram's issues but, looking solely at the stuff presented above, I'd suggest a targeted approach. A complete ban on creating new articles, including redirects, along with the 1RR restriction that seems to have weak support above. That would be clear enough to enforce and, I suspect, an admin sanction would be enough to get it going. --regentspark (comment) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    You're an admin. If you want to do something immediate about it, you've got the tools, and FWIW I reckon most sanctions by fiat would actually stick. But if you take the above trainwreck and call any result consensus we'll be back here tomorrow. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    It is precisely because I don't want this ignored that I'm proposing limiting the scope for now. With the present state of the thread, no general sanctions on doncram are likely. However, we can at least address that part which isn't at ANI every three weeks or so (the new forays into caste articles) pending more formal discussion of the big picture. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    I'm in and will trust you on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    Doncram seems to have heeded suggestions made by Newyorkbrad and Dennis Brown (that he "put a hold on these edits" and "step back" for a while), in that his last edit was a couple of days ago. That's good -- I expect that a little time away will reduce his aggravation level, making it easier for him to work amicably with people who don't see things the same way he does. As I indicated on Dennis Brown's talk page, an RFC/U might make sense at this point (I say that in spite of the fact that I find it difficult to work within the RFC structure), if it is broadly enough defined. The previous one (in February 2010) never really got started, probably because it was narrowly focused. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

    • • • • • • Would it be possible to simply consider this a solid, emphatic, clear warning w.r.t. caste articles (placing a clear notice to that effect on doncram's talk page is probably a good idea), and that the next piece of activity which any uninvolved admin saw as disruptive would result in a topic ban to be applied per the discretionary sanctions? This handily removes it from the A/NI circus, and also makes it clear that, at least within this topic area, we won't tolerate any problematic editing. Then, we have a whole plethora of possible positive results: doncram decides to step away from the topic; doncram decides to act more responsibly within the topic; doncram is unable/unwilling to act more responsibly, is reported by another editor to an uninvolved admin of their choice (it seems like both regentspark and Dennis Brown might be a good place to consider, given their responses here), and are immediately topic-banned. Regarding larger issues, unfortunately, we have no tool to address a wide-ranging concern about editing style other than RFC/U, since, as others have pointed out, this would likely be rejected by ArbCom due to a failure to exhaust all "options" (even though many of us believe that RFC/U isn't particularly worth exploring). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) I have seen one caste article Koli people edited by Doncram, he was right and displayed good behaviour, even when his well sourced edit was reverted. (2) Caste is an area where I have almost no edits, that makes me an uninvolved person. Doncram's statement below "I do think it is obviously helpful, in the problematic area of Wikipedia's coverage of India's caste system, to have completely sourced lists and to work back and forth about corresponding articles being categorized with the same term. Developing on the OBCs and SC lists seems like a positive way forward" is potentially a positive approach. Doncram would bring his Wikipedia expertise and experience to an area which is presently a morass or should I say Augean stable like, I see a loss to the project by keeping Doncram away from that area. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, you have repeatedly used the Koli edit as an example where Doncram made a good, sourced edit, and Sitush reverted it anyway. While Doncram's edit was in good faith and the mistake perhaps understandable, the Koli he added are a different group than the Koli of that article: the ones he added are the Kharvi, who live around Goa. The Koli people live in more Northern states, up to the Himalaya. Fram (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what I am saying, कोळी/कोली - Koli means a fisherman in Marathi, Hindi, Kokani, and is a generic term also for the occupation group. See entry no 6 in the Central govt. list for Goa, it includes Kolis in OBC.[32] Doncram's edit , "The Koli have been designated an Other Backward Class in Goa since 1996." Is factual per source cited[33] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is factual for the Kharvi, not for the Koli of the Koli people article. These are weavers, laborers, not fishermen (in origin, they probably have all kinds of occupations now). I haven't found any source indicating that the Goa Koli (better known as the Kharvi) can be equated to the "hill" Koli of Northern India. Everything so far points more in the direction of Sitush being right, and Doncram being wrong here. Fram (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression, Yogesh, that you were on the last of several final warnings to disassociate yourself from general troublemaking when it comes to Sitush. You appear to be making a significant effort here to involve yourself in a dispute with Sitush over content with which you are both self-admittedly and demonstratively not familiar. If you are under the impression that you are coming across as a disinterested third party merely keen on helping an editor improve a new area of the project, then I'm not sure who you think you're kidding. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by doncram

I'll make several comments and responses here in several edits. If you don't mind, I would appreciate some courtesy, including others not jumping in to insert comments and break this statement up.

I appreciate comments and concerns of editors above. Please take note of OrangesRyellow's statement above, about when an ANI is started for one reason, then ..."discussing other issues in the same thread can lead to a situation where the user being discussed becomes overwhelmed and ignores defending themselves simply because they cannot find the time and energy to engage in multiple issues." I am indeed a bit over-overwhelmed. It is not that I could not respond to everything above, but my doing so would provoke more commentary and disagreement. In a previous wide-ranging AFD or two, I have responded in detail to statements that I felt were false or misleading or needed to be put into context, only to receive criticism for doing so. E.g. I was criticized by one ANI-originating editor for defending myself against assertions in the ANI that were not that one person's concerns. There is NO WAY to satisfy all ANI participants. I do feel that I am capable of defending myself, in terms of explaining my motivations and reasoning for the edits I have made.

But basically, I don't think ANI is appropriate or fair for a proper discussion. I don't want to do this, but I think it is time to seek an arbcom case, towards "breaking the back" of long-running contention, chiefly between editor Orlady and myself, and also addressing Nyttend and myself which has also turned pretty sour and is unpleasant to watch.

Please note, I did not choose this time to have a big ANI discussion. The impetus for this ANI is Orlady's opening of AFD on List of Methodist churches, since closed Keep, and Orlady's opening of AFD on List of Other Backward Classes, still open. Since those AFDs opened I made edits to expand or otherwise improve those lists (though I think they are obviously needed, helpful lists to have). I have been the receiving end of a lot of jabbing edits, by Orlady and Nyttend, in the church list articles, and I feel like I have been attacked rather strongly and inappropriately by editor Sitush on the Other Backward Classes article.

There has been useful discussion on several aspects of the Methodist church list-article at its Talk page, involving editors Revmqo and Peter I. Hardy (whom I invited) and Ryan Vesey. These are about use of term "local" or not, and about scope of list to include notable congregations that are not listed on a historic register or not. This is fine discussion to have, not fully resolved...I myself am not happy that Revmqo and Peter I. Hardy are not happy about how several discussion items are left now, and I would like to get to a real consensus. There's a way forward, find notable modern Methodist churches to add to the list. And I think that, to stay parallel to other big lists of churches by denomination, that it will turn out best to keep the scope wide and with same scope asthe corresponding categories (Category:Presbyterian churches, etc.) That's the kind of stuff I want to work on, I don't want to be here at ANI.

The list of Presbyterian churches has been quietly expanded mainly by editor Altairisfar. The lists of Anglican churches, Baptist churches, Congregational churches, Lutheran churches have been mainly developed by me, and also reflect a few others' contributions.

In the church lists there have been edits that I took exception to, by Orlady and Nyttend, which I reverted in continuing their development. For example, a change at the long-stable {{coord}} template (and/or linked GeoData features) rendered the new, big church lists to show bad looking redlinks everywhere that an empty coordinate template had previously showed nothing, as intended. I sought to have the template change reversed or corrected, and was given guidance that the coord template calls needed to be commented out, and I have proceeded to implement that. Intervening, Nyttend repeatedly edited differently, stripping them all out rather than commenting them out, and I objected and asked for Nyttend's assistance instead at several Talk pages, and I reverted Nyttend's edits several times, and I continued. I think Nyttend never did reply anywhere but to chime in with this ANI, and that his position was extreme and unreasonable. In the context of medium-term and recent history with Nyttend, I don't experience their edits as helpful, but rather I experience these ones as harassing. I believe that Nyttend has made no positive contribution to any of these new list-articles; I have been the major editor.

For another example, Orlady once and Nyttend multiple times stripped See Also links from the church list-articles, while the linked articles were coming in and out of mainspace. I see at Talk:List of Methodist churches, that Orlady comments: "The two issues (multiple references to the US list and redlinks in the See also section) are unbelievably trivial -- this isn't stuff that should be worth risking a block for. When several other experienced users say you're wrong, rather than reverting them, you should think seriously about the possibility that they are correct." My feeling is, why are you, Orlady, following closely and pressing on "unbelievably trivial" matters in brand-new list-articles that I have started and was very actively developing in ways that would eliminate those issues.

This is somewhat similar to List of round barns, where editors Nyttend and Orlady tagteamed disruptively, in my view and in the view of some other editor(s) at an ANI about that.

I do not at all seek any kind of exemption from Wikipedia policies or style guidelines or anything else. I do entirely buy into Wikipedia's democratic nature, and believe that brand new editors and experienced editors can have good criticisms, and that it is basically good to have continous consensus-building processes

However, I think the long history of Orlady's following me, and to a lesser extent Nyttend's interactions, are problematic and in fact embarrassing for Wikipedia. I don't think we should condone behaviors that reasonable people can agree seem unduly aggressive and bullying in nature. I would question my own behavior, and back off, if I was causing stress and failing to communicate and not constructively adding anything, in a long running situation with another editor. If there were truly important matters to address, i would seek mediation or seek to involve other editors instead. I don't think it helps for a compromised person, Orlady, to follow me closely and to repeatedly open AFDs and to egg on others.

I don't think Wikipedia is served by blocking or banning me in any way. I do think my repetition of negative statements about Orlady and to a lesser extent about Nyttend, when they follow my edits and contend, is unpleasant. However, one-sided measures against me alone would reward arguably bad behavior (that I and reasonable others can see as truly bad behavior), and would not be fair.

I just found my way to Talk at Dennis Brown's page that includes some hurtful stuff, others talking negatively about me, including perceptions that I have been dehumanizing of other editors, as if that is what I seek to do. It's not funny at all. What I seek to do is to support new and experienced editors becoming constructive or more constructive contributors to Wikipedia, and i have done that with many editors. I have responded with negativity towards Orlady and toward Nyttend recently, and on some previous occasions towards others, but in a context of greater negativity by themselves. There are truly horrible things written by Orlady, that are not forgiveable, IMO. A long pattern of harassment has seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person. There have been awful things said against me, when basically I am just working to develop articles and communities of productive editors. How does a person deal with dehumanizing comments by others? How does one deal with long term bullying that includes dehumanization. This and other ANIs are fundamentally dehumanizing, about me. I think it takes a long arbcom look to untangle what has happened.

What really are any substantive matters here? That I sought to restore coordinate links, that I sought to develop several useful list-articles, that I objected to AFDs?

About the opening cause of this ANI, I honestly don't think Sitush has justified their statements that my edits would cause incredible harm to Wikipedia somehow, in the India articles. I don't see that happening at all. The major disruption is this ANI proceeding, isn't it? There's now a somewhat longer, completely sourced, list of OBCs, and there have been some edits back and forth at some linked articles. See Talk:Koli people for one fruit, where it seems established that there is a need for a disambiguation page since the term Koli is ambiguous. Great. I do think it is obviously helpful, in the problematic area of Wikipedia's coverage of India's caste system, to have completely sourced lists and to work back and forth about corresponding articles being categorized with the same term. Developing on the OBCs and SC lists seems like a positive way forward. I think the AFD on these has no big, valid arguments against keeping them. Anyhow, as I stated way far above, I did back off from further editing at the List of OBCs article and will wait to contribute at its Talk page, in a while.

I have major real-life obligations and cannot complete a good statement here all at one time. --doncram 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please note my account name is Doncram or doncram. Thank you.

P.P.S. Please consider doncram's request that this comment by doncram not be cut up.

Doncram, I'm sick and tired of being your punching bag -- and letting you get away with repeating accusations against me all over Wikpedia. If you are going to accuse me of "long-term bullying that includes dehumanization", please provide diffs that demonstrate the horrible behaviors you accuse me of. This ANI may not be the right place to publish your list, but since you refuse to allow me anywhere near your talk page, I feel I must insist that you not place your collection of accusations on my user talk page or anywhere in my user area. You might note that about 1-1/2 years ago I compiled an interesting collection of words and phrases that you and I had used to characterize each other (and each other's work) in one protracted WP:AN discussion. I cannot find anything dehumanizing in my comments there (examples of terms from the list: "deliberately vague", "doing things his way", "massive chip on his shoulder", "deeply resentful", "strongly held position", "convinced that ... work is practically perfect", "propensity to create drama"), but I recall being taken aback at the venom I saw when I compiled the list of things that you had said about me and my work (examples of terms from the list: "pure nastiness", "evil", "hatred", "causing contention", "lying", "inflammatory", "nasty-spirited", "vast, poisonous negativity", "obtuse", "totally unproductive", "Liar liar liar liar liar!!!!!!!!!", "obviously offensive", "absolutely 100% false", "shows a complete lack of understanding", "reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation"). The only thing I find on the list of things I said that could be considered "dehumanizing" was "dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners", but that statement was metaphorical and related to certain of your edits (full version: Similarly, the dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners could be "relatively easily cleaned up," but the world is not full of people who want to devote themselves to selflessly cleaning up after other people's dogs); it had nothing to do with you as a human person. --Orlady (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm horrified by Orlady's behavior against me. That is an wp:ATTACK PAGE, as is another page that Orlady has built up and spat up on other occasions. 21 minutes after this post, Orlady used administrative powers to eliminate one of the list of churches articles I had been developing only today, out of mainspace, in this edit. This was restored a couple minutes later by Orlady, presumably after they noticed that while i edited it only today (merging in another church list and developing), the article existed since 2009. I tend to experience Orlady's edits following me as editing with anger, editing with malice, seeking to find fault. I think here, it woulda been great, woulda been a triumph, for Orlady to use admin powers to humiliate me during this ANI by userfying my work, in full view of many.

Orlady, I don't follow your edits on list-articles about bow tie wearers and such, and I don't touch any of the numerous pages you build that discredit claims of marginal academic entities, many of which I think are not encyclopedic and should be deleted (the material is suitable for a personal blog, I think). I am also not in a position of as much power to inflict; you have won the long-term game of repeatedly dragging me down, so you not I am an administrator, and many see me as the subject of repeated ANIs. You follow me. You open AFDs and/or egg others on. In an arbcom case, you and I and a bunch of others could go through a lot of hateful past statements, and I could/would explain exactly how I think you were lying, here and there, or were really reckless with the truth, or you seemed to be delighting in composing or repeating some nasty statement, and how, in context, my responses were usually milder than what you were doing and saying. And you could repeat those hurtful statements, and argue that this is what Wikipedia is for, for you to have full license to follow and to harrass me. Is there any way to avoid that. Could there be an interaction ban, permanently, without that. --doncram 07:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess there is no love lost here. If everyone can't remain in there seperate corners I would expect an uninvolved admin to start handing out topic bans. Seriously. Other than arbcom....I see no other way. Clearly this group can't do this on their own. They are not seeing the value of the other editor at the moment and they may never see it, but I would hope that regardless of the content disputes that editors would be able to see how much harm is being done by continuing this fight. If you can't let it go...it will probably be taken away.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Says an editor who got involved in this thread in order to take potshots at the reporting editor over an unrelated dispute elsewhere that you haven't even seen fit to link to. Ahem. While this may eventually go to ArbCom, there's significant evidence in the loooong history of this conflict suggesting that both sides should not be apportioned equal blame. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of only invloving myself to take potshots at the filing editor. Wow.....no. I have my own experiance with the editor. Many on this AN/I do. Ahem.......? And you are here only to defend the filing editor I guess. They are perfect and need not be scrutinized at all even when from all evidence they are just as problematic. That is correct I have not linked to that "dispute" as it wasn't a dispute. It was an RS noticeboard discussion and they went into discussing my personal life and do not wish to draw attention to that discussion again. I don't know if the filing editor should be given equal "blame" but should be seen as equaly involved and it is my opinion that everyone here, including the filing editor is guilty of extreme bad behavior. I guess assuming good faith is not something you are willing to do except for them.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are my posts that you have labeled as "pot shots":

(1) "And I would add this is a very consistant form of conduct by Sitush. A little surprised there isn't some slight boomarang for his behavior on the involved articles. This seems to be something of a pattern I have noticed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)"

(2) "Lets face it, we all put up with a lot of bullshit. Does that mean we have a right to threaten disruption as Sitush just did by saying he is going to blow up? No. I see a lot of this as a contnet dispute and frankly I really do not care what level of expertise they claim to have. This project is for everyone, not just experts. I have real expertise, but I don't lord over others and become uncivil at the very addition of content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)"

(3) "Well.....it answers a number of questions I have had.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC) "

(4) "Thank you for this reply. At the moment I have only the recent history of how Sitush treated me and a few others over an RS situation that I feel the editor took far too aggresive a stance with insulting comments and horrible civility issues. I try not to hold this against them and yet I cannot help but understand why some may wish to hurl the kitchen sink at them. The main reason why I cannot see Doc as the singular problem here is exactly because of the horrible way Sitush has interacted, with others...not just me. However, the fact remains that the editor filing this ANI has issues. Whether or not that ammounts to a reason to not sanction Doc remains to be seen but yes.......Sitush has issues they need to address and I belive they are a part of this current situation. I have alwasy felt this was going to catch up with them and for the moment....that time could well be now.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)"

(5) "This may well be true, but I don't see this an excuse for any editor to threaten to blow up and expect others to take their side. Sitush is a well respected editor and should not behave the way he is and has no matter what the excuse is. We need civility more when things get heated, not less.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)"

(6) "I'll make no further comment in this section then Ryan. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC) "

Besides the above new commnet that you replied to the only other posts were !votes.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why you appeared here. Amadscientist, you posted something on-wiki and I mentioned it in a discussion: if you post in full view then it is disclosure. Regardless, I retracted when it was pointed out to me that, really, you'd made a mistake and there was no point in labouring it when you were clearly unhappy about it. I've not looked for the thread to check this summary but it will be the gist, I'm fairly sure. In any event, it seem to explain a lot about your motivations now. You want an apology from me for repeating your own disclosure? You've got one, for whatever it is worth. Happy? - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in your vast wisdom Sitush you may understand that even if I write something on another editors talkpage it is considered uncivil to bring it up on an unrelated discussion to try and stalk me with personal information. You also should be aware that if an editor requests that personal information not be used in discussions then it is off limits. You refused to remove the information you took from a post I made on Dennis Browns talkpage that you posted for absolutley no reason but to make a suggestion of my editing. You had to be asked by another to remove it as I had requested. You are the most disrespectful editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. You took disruption and uncivil behavior to it's own special level. I made no mistake. I take issue to anyone just running around repeating medical information about me just because you think it is fair game. It is not, but shows the level you stoop to. Review the guidelines for this. Of course I accept your apology as late as it comes and as little as it means now, but I do accept it in the manner it was given.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And I "appeared here" because I frequent this notice board and have for some time. I didn't just appear here because you made a filing. I believe that editors that are familiar with the tactics and behavior of others often comment on these AN/I filings.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to link to the thread(s). I can't recall all the details and it is several thousand edits ago, in my case at least. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't "stalking" etc and I'm pretty sure that there was some sort of relevance. I'm also pretty sure that, aside from this current thread, it is the only significant interaction between us. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And thus debuts WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. Now, having had your apology, are you done discussing a completely off-topic run-in you had with Sitush in the past on a thread that largely has nothing to do with that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is degrading quickly. Doncram thinks it should go to Arb, as do others. At this point, I would suggest this be the next course of action and would request someone simply file a case and end this this ANI thread, via Thumperward's previous insights that nothing is likely to come of this ANI except more drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Editor repeatedly removing AfD templates and warnings

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked, inevitably, for more of the same. Bencherlite^Talk 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Opn800 has removed an AfD template from Sarah-Jayne Gratton twice [34][35]. He's received a 'final warning' by bot which he's also removed from his talk page. This is on top of displaying aggressive, uncooperative behaviour to other editors. I'm not an admin so am unable to take any further action on this. Any suggestions? Sionk (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tossed them a WP:3rr warning, and directed them to explain their objection at the AfD discussion. It gets removed, I say block for edit warring, otherwise let them participate at AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 21:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for violating WP:3rr. Monty₈₄₅ 22:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Having just looked over this user's history whilst in the process of declining a disruptive unblock request at UTRS (his favourite phrase and link, repeated over and over), I'm inclined to suggest that 48 hours isn't enough. His entire edit history is one long WP:BATTLEGROUND, with taunts, abuse, threats and accusations in virtually every edit summary since August. His abuse of Sionk is particularly egrarious, and for the last month or so just about all he's done is spam the same techspot link as "evidence" of "Wikipedia elitism" - there's nothing productive coming from his corner, and plenty of disruption. I'd support upping the block to indefinite; when he's willing to edit collaboratively, he can come back again. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I will support whatever the blocking admin feels is appropriate, including any increase. I will also note that Monty is being very, very generous here. Looking at the 6 year, 272 edit history shows an SPA with two purposes, to edit a select number of articles, and to cause distress to anyone else who does. I would assume that regardless of what is done here, his next block may be his last. He doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. As to the length of the block, my instinct says it may be moot in a few weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably going to leave it alone, partly out of a faint hope they may comment productively at the AfD, but I have absolutely no objection if another admin would like to impose a longer one. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond generous. Upped to indef with talk page access revoked; enough of our time has been wasted here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Ali1512 abusing another account

First, sorry if I have put this in the wrong place, I chose ANI over SPI because this case only involves 2 users, and they are almost certainly the same person. A user called Ali1512 (talk · contribs) created 2 pages- Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani, which was flagged for speedy deletion by me, and Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani (Machrani) which was A10'd as a duplicate of the first page. The user was subsequently blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly removing speedies. He then recreated Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani (Machrani) which was moved to Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani and then prodded. Now, Sardar Muhammad Hussain Khan Nutkani (Machrani) is back up again, this time created by a user called Alizafar1514 (talk · contribs) and has been proposed for deletion again. The user's name and edits give me a strong suspicion that these 2 accounts are related. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The account names are similar alright. Rubber ducky. The subject seems to fail WP:Notability. Doc talk 11:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So, the first one stopped editing when the second one started. This looks like the user made a new account- would this still be considered alt. account abuse? Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. There is a gray area between WP:SCRUTINY and WP:CLEANSTART. It looks like the same user pushing the same non-notable subject to me, but I'm just one user looking at it. Doc talk 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, 116.48 was just me forgetting to log in. Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Having multiple accounts is not, in itself, a blockable offence. More productive editors than Ali1512 have dropped their accounts on the floor and picked up afresh. What needs to be done here is for someone to actually talk to the user and explain what's going on: so far, neither account has had anything other than templatespam in terms of communication. This didn't need to go to ANI nor SPI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, I will write him/her a personal message on their talk page. Passengerpigeon (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the "article" again under A3. (A10 doesn't apply, as the article duplicated was also deleted, and G4 doesn't apply, as it wasn't deleted under a deletion discussion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today

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

---

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is so exciting! Who gets Ohio? Will Black and Hispanic voters seize the moment, or the "religiously unaffiliated"? Will the new bossman (or woman!) appropriate power inappropriately or will the peons/people revolt? Will political parties be actual parties, with cake? Did someone write me in and will I win? Oh lord have mercy, it's too much to bear! Drmies (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Taft gets Ohio, but only because we couldn't carry him elsewhere. Most voters will remain non-corporeal manifestations on a server, although a few might spontaneously materialize and be found sitting in the server room. As non-corporeal entities, they will lack the ability to appropriate anything. There will be cake. It will be banana ripple. Congrats to voter #799, MZMcBride! MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Hono(u)red. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • This is where having an encyclopaedia around here somewhere comes in handy. What you assert about non-corporeal entities is only true if one has one particular point of view. The other holds that it is false. See non-physical entity and remember to be neutral. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and you lost. You somehow managed to get a negative vote. That's right. Someone wrote in an oppose because they hate you so much. MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Only one? Where's the negative vote from the person that the other person wanted to see blocked? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hurrah! I'm so excited I suspect I won't sleep tonight for anticipation. Have we booked Jon Snow's swingometer or will we be relying instead on reading smoke signals from Jimbo's central heating flue? Have WMUK staked out a good viewing position to report back to us the outcome? More seriously, thanks to the election committe and everyone who participated in the election for validating our curious form of non-government government for another year. Huzzah! Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, thus far, exit pools are showing that the Silly Party will triumph. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I voted a straight ticket for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • SUUUuure if you just want more of the same ol' same ol'! Why not try voting for REAL CHANGE for a change?? Zad68 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't bother voting. Infact, I've only ever voted in one election. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to evaluate candidates, at least vote a full ballot of 'oppose' votes. Remember, the election process can seat any candidate who gets at least 50% support, and we've been scraping the bottom of that barrel for a couple of years running. (Compare with the level of support required to become, for example, an administrator.) It's better to have a slightly-smaller ArbCom that has the community's confidence than a full slate of borderline competence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure white suburban women and Cuban turnout will be the key. And so will Florida. They can't do anything right. Go Phightins! 20:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Well, the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election certainly qualifies as an incident requiring administrator intervention. I say we move to indef the election.--WaltCip (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  Support indef of the elections. They've been violating Wikipedia policy for years. WP:CON in particular. If this motion doesn't pass, then perhaps an RfC is the next step (Kidding aside, I don't think an RfC to discuss bringing back CON to the process would be a bad idea...) - jc37 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  So you support the election being more of a CON job? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  ROFL - Oh, I dunno, maybe more a case of the pros weighed with cons : ) - jc37 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Any complaints from the disinfranchised yet? When can we expect the consession speeches? ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooo, if someone's going to the concession, could you grab me some popcorn and a Coke (no, Pepsi is not alright) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The popcorn has a free refill but all they had was Dr. Pepper. Sorry. I brought you some Milkduds to make up for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The polls are closed. So where's the exit-polling data? What about the partial results? I mean, if NYBrad is running behind early, that's OK if the votes aren't from New York, but if they're from his home state, then he might be in big trouble. Must have partial vote tallies and exit polls! Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of a unique spelling blunder, NYBrad is actually doing better in KY (the state, not the lubricant ... although .... ) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Breaking news! At the concession speeches, it was announced that they're out of Coke! Sprite will have to suffice! And Keilana has taken Kentucky. Go Phightins! 01:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Exit polls are completely inconclusive as taken by a certain user, as only one person willingly responded to the poll, and the rest of the responses were forced to vote for a certain candidate. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

_{Man....that "certain user" doesn't edit much. LOL! ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)}

@gwickwire, @Amadscientist: as the per the top of this page and its edit notice: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." I have notified Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as you have neglected to so do, in violation of a policy violation that must be strictly adhered to. --Officious and inflexible user who has no sense of humour whatsoever 58 (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yell at Gwick, they brought the "editor" up. I just commented. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• What election? Nobody told me about this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Most of WMF's servers are in Florida. I hope that the vote server is located somewhere else? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Florida....huh oh.....I see a Brooks Brothers riot ahead!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hanging chads? One of the scrutineers may be a crucial deciding factor. Doc talk 11:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Well, since the only reasonable result of that election is to have me named Supreme Leader and Eternal President of Wikipedia (with Newyorkbrad as my trust Consigliere), why don't we dispense with all the drama of that needless actual counting of votes and all and I'll declare my birthday to be a holiday. Yay! Parties! — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: How is the closing of the Arbcom elections an incident? GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Things like that get advertised in as many places as possible where large groups of people can view it for the most efficient method of propogation. Agreeably, the silliness factor is a bit beyond usual (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Because someone was stuffing the ballot box. I suspect Brad, the first candidate to get 150% of the vote.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, stop that! This is getting too silly! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

indefinite block of LatinoLatino/Imperium Romanum Sacrum seems to be pure censure.

I'm a portuguese writer of History, and sooner I will begin publishing on paper (for the moment I have only edited digital works). I was alerted to a discussion, here, on Wikipédia on english, about a never real existent entity called the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarves. That entity only existed on the paper, and what was real was the elevation of Brasil to a Kingdom of the portuguese throne in 1815 (we use «throne» as you use «crown», because in Portugal the cerimony of recognising someone as the country's king was always made without coronation, and was called «to elevate to king», «to ascend to king» on, first, a kind of ritual Cortes, and after in real Cortes). I looked on Joel Serrão work, Dicionário de História de Portugal, on José Mattoso work, História de Portugal, and I never found there on the indexs any reference to such a «United kingdom» as a historical reality. Well, maybe another portuguese historian can explain the thing to us. He is (was) José Hermano Saraiva, in his História de Portugal, volume 3, p. 383. 1983, Publicações Alfa, SARL, composed on Lisbon, Portugal, and printed on Toledo, Spain: «Pela Carta de Lei de 15 de Dezembro de 1815, o Brasil foi declarado reino, unido a Portugal, «de maneira a formarem um só corpo político». A nova designação não alterava a realidade das coisas (the new designation haven't altered the reality of the things), mas corresponde a uma tentativa (but correspond to a attempt of) de solução do difícil problema da associação do Brasil e Portugal. A ideia foi sugerida pelo representante francês no Congresso de Viena, Talleyrand, aos delegados portugueses, que imediatamente a transmitiram para o Rio de Janeiro. Segundo Talleyrand, o Brasil passaria a constituir um reino e seria ali a residência permanente do monarca. Da mesma dignidade gozaria o território europeu onde o trono seria ocupado pelo príncipe herdeiro. O projecto foi aceite sem hesitação; houve luminárias e tedéus e adoptou-se nova bandeira: o escudo das quinas sobreposto à esfera armilar manuelina. (Now, as a good portuguese, Saraiva is going to joke a little, saying more or less that this «United Kingdom» only existed on an inscription) Na inscrição de um fontanário construído em 1817 na cidade de Guimarães estão esculpidas essas armas, que são a remota origem da bandeira da República, e D. João VI é, nesse mesmo monumento, designado pelo título de D. João I de Portugal, Brasil e Algarves». The italics and negros are mine, and not of Saraiva. Prince Peter never came, then, and the governments of Portugal and Brasil, in the reality, were already separated. LatinoLatino only tried to explain the point of view of the historians, but he was blocked, by the other hand, a group of tittles fetishists, for whom any tittle is real and correspond to a real reality, aren't blocked and continue to write senseless things as the article «United Kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarves», From a «attempt», as Sairava said, they "built a Kingdom". I ask that the block of LatinoLatino/Imperium Romanum Sacrum will be declare a abuse and will be removed, and I ask that everyone that harassed him will be punished. If any sysop his between the harassers, he must be at once dismissed. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Immediate response: ...whut? More serious response: this noticeboard doesn't handle content disputes, and from what I can make out of your very convoluted post, you're arguing for a particular position in a content dispute. If you think a block was issued in error, you need to explain to us why the block was erroneous, not why the blocked person's POV is correct. It would also help if you could summarize your point(s) rather than writing a very large, rambling paragraph. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about content disputes, nor about a removal of a block, it's about censorship of good and care persons on Wikipédia by some people. The attempt, down, to «declare me» a sock, is more one episode to indicate that all this matter is an very serious incident of censorship, and also must be punished. Jorge alo (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hatting a divergence down a totally unneeded tangent.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's just another sock of the blocked editor-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Not seeing evidence this is a sock. As for the blocks, Imperium Romanum Sacrum is not indef blocked, and only has a one month block. Monty845 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (after EC) Possible, but not necessarily an obvious sock. The socking that resulted in the block was deemed "Likely" by checkuser. The OP of this thread does not appear to have shown up on that CU discussion, and the OP is *not* a brand new account. So unless the CU did not look around for other possible matching accounts, it's not as obvious. At a minimum, I think we need to AGF and, barring either behavioral or CU evidence, not assume that this is a sock just because they agree with a sock master. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Alright, not a sock. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC) First I was a «sock», now I'm not a «sock». Very well. This attempt to make me a sock is more one episode to indicate that all this matter is an very serious incident of censureship. This is not about content disputes, nor about a removal of a block, it's about censorship of good and care persons on Wikipédia by some people. This attempt to «declare me» a sock also must be punished. Jorge alo (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get this back on track. You need to lay out why the block was incorrect. Arguing that his POV is correct is really going to get you nowhere. He was blocked because a CheckUser found it likely that he was abusing multiple accounts. Of violating the rules of this site. His POV is really irrelevant to the situation. He violated the rules, he got blocked. And it's that issue that is what needs to be addressed if there is to be any chance of getting the block rescinded. Arguing about his POV and whether or not his positions are correct really does nothing to move forward towards a resolution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I saw the blocks and what I understood was that two accounts were blocked, one for one month and the other, without no other apparent reason than the dispute on «kingdom of Brasil, was block indefinitely. What are the violations? They are real violations? The precedent violation on the account «Sacrum imperium» was a aggravating reason for the secound and indefinitely block? All this, to me, seems at first sight very suspicious. Jorge alo (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice for abusive socking violations is to determine as best as possible who the "master" account is, block that for a shorter amount of time, and indefinitely block the socks. The idea is that they are all the same person, and that person has shown themselves to be willing/able to abuse multiple accounts. So all but one are blocked indefinitely. In theory, when the shorter block expires, they can resume editing with the one account. If they want their one account to be a different one than the one judged to be the "master", that's easy enough to change. But they have violated any trust in the ability to use multiple accounts, so that ability is to be denied to them. One account going forward. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the sock investigation that lead to the block is archived here. I highly recommend that you not go post there currently, as that's an archive, not an active discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm goin to read (only) it. I'm a ignorant of the rules but that one I know: to not write on archives. Jorge alo (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved, but to summarize what I see from the report, a user noticed similar subject matter, editing styles, and combative natures between two accounts, and opened the sock puppet investigation. A CheckUser, using the additional tools that they have available to them, checked over the edits of those two users, and also searched for other users with similar digital thumbprints. The CU found two additional accounts, for a total of four. They were pronounced "Likely" to be a match. Likely means that the match is not 100% certain, but is far more likely than not to be the same user. Using behavior, it was judged to be a Good Hand/Bad Hand situation, which is a definite abusive use of multiple accounts. The oldest of the four accounts was designated to be the master account, and received the shorter block. The other three accounts were blocked indefinitely. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

These are reasons for a month block? Citation: «They create very short articles (as already said), move articles without discussing and are very aggressive when met with any kind of opposition». Lecen was involved on disputes where is part was accused of not being of good fate, for example, on this one, and this episode of the «Johns/Joões» begun exactly with a lot of moves without discussion, and despite the warnings about it, Lecen also made other editors loose their patience, for example, here, and received such commentaries as this one, Citation: «Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight». But the one that is punished, and by Lecen proposal, was a guy that has done the "crime" of write little articles (that he has also said that he will developed) and reacted angrily, like many people do, to Lecen. For me, this is censorchip, and I can't understand how a really honest sysop can align on such punishments. I maintain the denounce of a case of censorship here, on Wikipédia. For the particular question of the removal of Sacro Imperium/LatinoLatino block (if they really are the same guy; but I think it's very probable that they are) where must I go? But I insist the question here, in this incident, is about censorship or not on Wikipédia, and nothing else. Jorge alo (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To finish for today, LatinoLatino left this on my portuguese talk page, Citation: «Unfortunatly I got block, because one of my opponents equated me with user BrasiliaBrasilia.» So, maybe he isn't user BrasiliaBrasilia, and surely, on the middle of a discussion, one of his opponents demanded the block. Here, on Wikipédia on english, I don't know how you do, but in Wikipédia on portuguese we don't block one of the opponents in the middle of a discussion, even if the discussion is ferocious. What we do it's to demand calm of the opponents, and not to censor one of the sides. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Jorge alo, I don't think it is particularly productive to drudge up past matters or making issue of editor personalities or content disputes. The blocking admin wasn't involved in any dispute, and I'm sure he considered the block on its own merits. That said, just taking a look at it now, a one month block does seem a bit excessive. This person is a relative newbie - his earliest accounts dates to late April. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how the accounts were used for illegitimate reasons, i.e. deceptive or disruptive ends. They do not overlap, edits seem to be dedicated to entirely different topics, and I wouldn't call any of them disruptive (some edits smack of newbie-ish thoughtlessness and hysteria, but that's pretty much across the board, not distinctive of any particular account). IMO, the admin jumped the gun and came down too hard on a new editor that may simply not have understood how multiple accounts might land him in trouble. I don't really see anything here that couldn't have been better handled by other forms of guidance. Walrasiad (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay Walrasiad, I apologize for speaking of questions of the past, but you know I'm portuguese (a kind of "natural" anarchists, second already the Romans), and I'm just trying to say that the proponent of the block is a very peculiar guy. By the way, it seems that «jorge» came really from England, by the name not of a person but of the saint of the dragons, «Saint George», as the «marias» came of the name «Saint Mary» (but not from her english name). Jorge alo (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I made the blocks, including determining the period of time. I'm probably not as tolerant of socks as I am with minor incivility, which I say without apology, as socking is an attempt to undermine the entire consensus model which Wikipedia is based upon. In this case, CU declared it was likely they were the same people, and a behavioral comparison of the multiple editors proved to me that this was really one person who created multiple accounts, and they did so with the intent of deceiving others and undermining the normal editing process. Because of this, I have limited them back to one account by indef blocking the newer accounts. Next, it was and is my determination that a block of 30 days was necessary in order to try to prevent the problem from happening again. With socking, blocks must be long enough to remove them from ongoing discussions, such as AfDs, RfCs and other discussions. They essentially forfeit their right to participate by their deception, and this is the only way to prevent more disruption. When I am at SPI, first time blocks are typically one or two weeks. If they have created more than one or two socks, it demonstrates a determination to manipulate the system, forcing me to use a longer period of time in order to assure they do not disrupt Wikipedia further. Here, there are three socks, showing a pattern of abuse that goes beyond a simple one time slip up, forcing me to extend the block to one month. This is within the accepted norms for this type of socking. Hopefully, this will clear things up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is here a contradiction between what CU declare and what Dennis Brown declare, Citation: «CU declared it was likely they were the same people, and a behavioral comparison of the multiple editors proved to me that this was really one person who created multiple accounts». What was «likely» to CU is «proved» to Dennis Brown. The rest are generalities that dont't demonstrate nothing against the poor concrete reasons for a 30 days block of a «likely» socker. There are not concrete deceptive or disruptive behaviours indicated for the accounts LatinoLatino and Sacrum Inperium Romanum than those indicated by Lecen. In the biginning of this discussion, I "was also a sock, likely", second one or two interveners. I think you are seing too much deceptive socks and too much desruption where I don't see and where CU saw «likely», and only about the probabilty of being the same guy, not about, second what I know, desruptives behaviours. Jorge alo (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your criteria on SPI. I still can't help wondering if it was applied too harshly in this particular case. I still don't see intention to deceive, given that the account edits don't overlap areas, nor were individual accounts dedicated to "good" vs. "bad" edits (at least as far as I can tell - again, I might be missing something, so correct me if I'm wrong). When his newbiness is considered, it seems it was more thoughtless than deceptive.

You cite "multiple accounts show a determination to manipulate". It seems to me, just looking through them, they show a determination to organize and sort his edits, so topical edits would be all in one place, as advertised by his handles - BrasiliaBrasilia for modern Brazilian topics, LatinoLatino for Latin American history, Imperium sacrum romanorum for Holy Roman Empire topics, and ChemTerm started out for chemical topics (eventually branched on to other things). It seems like a newbie mistake to me, not an attempt to jimmy the system.

Not saying a block of some sort isn't merited. But wondering if it might be scaled down a tad, or at least explained clearly to him. I am not sure he understood - or even understands now - why what he was doing was wrong (if it was wrong at all). Walrasiad (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• To Jorge, the CU's "likely" was based ONLY on technical merits, their IP, what city they live in, etc. The CU did not review behavior here, I did as clerk. I do not have access to the technical data such as their IP, only the CU does. This case was handled in the same manner as all SPI cases. There is an established procedure and it was followed to the letter. While errors can happen, a behavioral comparison is likely much more detailed than most people realize, using a variety of tools and methods that are generally not discussed (since we don't want to help any sock get better at socking). Anyone is welcome to have a CU or another SPI clerk review if you think an error was made, no offense will be taken. At this point, I have to stand behind the original conclusion and duration as no information has been offered that counters the evidence used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• I forgot to add: generally, it is the blocked person who should ask for a review if they feel it is needed. I do not see any attempt by them to deny, question or even comment on the case on the talk page of User talk:Imperium Romanum Sacrum. I did see User talk:LatinoLatino make an "enemies" list which generated a complaint on my talk page, forcing me to have to blank his page and revoke his talk page access. He can still request an unblock via the email function. In both cases, the actual blocked users should be making the requests, not third parties, as that would be presumptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay Dennis, let's say you did a good work and that all the four accounts are of the same individual, and a thing that we can real say is that you have gave us the main reason for your decision, Citation: «minor incivility, which I say without apology, as socking is an attempt to undermine the entire consensus model which Wikipedia is based upon». Second Walrasiad search, we have four accounts about four different matters. So, let's ask, the socker has a deceive propose that will allow him to make minor incivilities on instrumentalizing four different Enciclopedia matters!? Second question, the punished came to Wikipedia on portuguese, because I had left him a link on his talk page, and ask my help, Citation: «Jorge, thanks for your note on my English talk page. Unfortunatly I got block, because one of my opponents equated me with user BrasiliaBrasilia. Maybe you can have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Brazil, and provide some legal documents about the Kingdom of Brazil (Reino do Brazil). One User:GoodDay even said it never existed. But I presented several sources. If the Kingdom of Brazil never existed, then maybe also the Kingdom of the Algarve didn't exist... maybe these people would even deny the Kingdom of Portugal existed.... Usuário(a):LatinoLatino. So the guy even don't speak portuguese, and he is not worried about censure incidents, is worried with a matter of an Wikipedia article. As you, Dennis, have erased the link to my portuguese talk page on LatinoLatinos' talk page, maybe this is the reason because he don't say nothing. Now I ask, how many times the new user (April 2012) was warned on his talk page(s) (supposing all the four accounts are of him) or on the concrete discussions, by someone that not the opponents, about the necessity of being civilized in the discussions? Before LatinoLatino page have been erased, he referred only two opponents complaining about him. How many times was suggest the tutorial program to him? There is no due process, here, in such matters, to new editors. As any normal person beginning editing, they are worried about questions of content, and can loose easily their heads with such elements as Lecen and Cristiano Tomás, if, then, someone as Dennis will come on the matter, they will be quickly "promoted" to deceiver sockers with the proppose of generalize minor incivilities, and they don't know how to defend themselves. By this reason, I think in this case it's necessary a tutorial or custodial process to the new ones that are accused of such faulty behaviours. I maintain that a case of minor incivilities by one or more editors, was "transformed", without aparent enough reason, on a unrreal and a little comic case of a sock deceiver acting by the way of minor incivilities. This has the perverse result of: 1- protect very well trained editors on the arts of the dispute, here, on Wikipedia, against new editors on content disputes, and 2- the equally perverse result of throwing away people that could progress to be good or reasonable editors. All this, for me, it's what real deceiving Wikipedia means. I propose the removal of the block and the offer of a tutorial program to LatinoLatino. I propose also the creation of a due process to new editors, on such cases. This one was not a due process and the decision only has real base on «minor incivilities», not on any real deceiver socker behaviour. So, it's a wrong decision. Jorge alo (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've provided you with the information you need to get the block reviewed, namely, that the blocked accounts need to request it via WP:GAB. Further discussion by me is pointless as you don't seem willing or capable of reading my comments. The rest, I will trust to the community to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jorge, I am uninvolved in this matter (reading ANI for my own interests), so I hope you don't mind if I offer some advice. First, there is no "due process" on Wikipedia at all. We do not have a formal trial system here, nor would it be effective. Second, socking is a serious problem. That should be obvious, so stating that the rules are slanted against newbies on that topic is really not going to help. Finally, if the blocked user wants to come back sooner, they can request an unblock on their Talk page. I have a feeling if he just promises not to sock again, he'd probably be allowed back in without much fuss. But, we don't unblock based on a third-party request. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

IP vandalism on Max Keiser

Dear admins, I've observed a string of advertising / vandalism on Max Keiser promoting silver as an investment from an IP address previously associated with a financial services firm. I'm going to take an initial action by rolling back to what appears to be the last good version, however I would also request some kind of protection of this page against anonymous users. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• A sampling of previous edits shows a variety of edits so I'm not thinking action is needed, unless there are more edits of pushing silver as an investment. ie: a pattern. This was one editing session, essentially one edit and it was sourced, even if reverting was better. I don't want to jump to conclusions without more evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Understand and agree. I shall keep a hawk-like eye on this page and report back if they appear to be making more ill-judged edits. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. I completely understand the concern, and I share it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Since I last looked Max Keiser seems to be the subject of an edit-war involving the same Anon IP user and a number of Wikipedia editors attempting to revert his/her changes. Multiple warnings have been given. This user shows continued cause for concern. I suspect that some administrative action may now be warranted. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the page for now, with instructions on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Request Danjel be topic banned from Chili burger, interaction banned with me

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

---

• Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Danjel and I haven’t been getting along of late, apparently stemming from voting in opposite ways at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination). Recently, an article I created, Chili burger, was nominated for deletion. At that discussion, he made 30 edits, including ones that insinuated accusations of meatpuppetry, claimed well-respected editors were only voting because of ILIKEIT, and bringing up irrelevant AfDs in combination with ad hominem attacks. Meanwhile, he’s attempted to ban me from his talk page, but continued to post to my talk page, complain about me on other user's talk pages, call me “paranoid delusional” on other people’s talk pages, even HOUNDing me at other’s talk pages. After Chili burger was unceremoniously closed as Keep this morning (more than 3 keeps for every delete), within minutes he started a merger discussion (in two different places). That merge discussion already has a pretty clear outcome (of “not merge”), and of the more than a dozen contributions Danjel’s made there, he reiterated the preposterous accusation of voters only voting because of WP:ILIKEIT, made it seem like this is some “pistols-at-dawn” confrontation between the two of us, ignoring any consensuses, and again brought up irrelevant AfDs while accusing me of BATTLEGROUND on a discussion HE started. Several people at both Talk:Chili burger and at user talk pages have requested he withdraw it, citing WP:DEADHORSE, and WP:WINDMILL; he has refused because he doesn’t want me to “win”.

I have frankly had enough of him; as I said at the Chili burger page, he’s become a broken record. Therefore, I request the following:

• He and I be banned from interacting on each other’s talk page
• He and I be banned from talking about the other on other people’s talk pages
• He be banned from AfDs I start or participate in
• He be banned from AfDing articles I have started or significantly edited
• He be banned from Chili burger and related articles
• The Chili burger merge discussion be closed as “Speedy not merged”

pbp 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Has he received warnings from anyone besides you to stop?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he got one from Milowent earlier today, and various requests on Talk:Chili burger and various user talk pages (User talk:Dennis Brown has one) to withdraw the merger request and back away. I've personally asked him to cool off numerous times; but he's reverted everyone of them (some claiming to be vandalism) pbp 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been trying to deal with the problem already, on the various talk pages and my own talk page. Both sides of this issue could have handled things better, which is why I'm trying to just get the merge discussion put off for a month and mediate it at that time. This is premature and I recommend closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Neither of those look like warnings to me and since Dennis feels this is premature I'm going to close this (in the interests of drama reduction). --regentspark (comment) 20:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Russian Patriarchy website does not say anything about Stalin

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.

---

In [36] I was accused of being irresponsible because I have removed a reference which has to show that an icon flown at the orders of Stalin has repelled the enemies of the Soviet Union. The problem is that, as far as I can see using Google Translate, the source does not mention Stalin and it does not mention anything about an icon having repelled the Nazi invaders. Perhaps Russian speakers may kindly show me where the source says "as ordered by Stalin" or "the icon has repelled the enemy". Otherwise, the accusation itself may be flawed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is at http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/235326.html . Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Source 2 states "According to some accounts". Who? What? When? The influences of the icon looks more like an urban legend. A counter offensive and -42°C look more realistic reasons for a retreat... The Banner _talk 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course the issue is not that the icon beats the army or not but the reference attests exactly this urban belief, which is even celebrated. Can we keep it? Michael2012ro (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is whether the source mentioned above supports the urban legend or it has simply to do with a commemoration of the victory in WW2. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion that you take a content dispute to the dispute resolution board. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

promotional activities by User:Oasis08

Oasis08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Oasis08 has a history of editing to promote albums published by Domo Records and their associated artists (see extensive notifications on User talk:Oasis08). A few of the albums (and perhaps a majority of the artists) are in fact notable, but many aren't. Given the multi-cultural context (Japanese-American), they may not read English well (but English competence is not an issue in the articles). The latest is recreating articles redirected at AfD here and over writing a disambiguation page here. I'm not quite sure what the next step is, communication seems to have failed. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick request

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Would an admin please delete Zomboy? There's a CSD template, several IPs, and two brand new accounts that are just having a free-for-all. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been taken care of. Go Phightins! 03:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Range 101.113.*.*

This ip range has been repeatedly told that wikipedia is not a forum and that is how they continue to use it, admin user:Kim Dent-Brown has already fully protected the page and semi protected the talk page and had to close old discussion the ip user continues to edit to use wikipedia as forum.

It all relates to this type of post on talk or editing the article to sy similar [37] i would even go to say there associated with the user:MagicEagle67 who recently was blocked for doign the same similar thing and also created a sock puppet right after there block. i cant say for sure the two are related but they post similar types of things on all rangers related articles. They fail to accept wikipedia policies and insist there pov and there believe of the truth be told. the ip user has made it clear they will keep doing it, thye have edit under countless ip under the rangers i really think a wide ip block is needed even though it will block about 60000+ legitimate users if there any way to block them without other great otherwise there being disruptive and trying wikipedia like a forum

other examples fo them using multi ips

• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.
• Diff of Talk:Rangers F.C.

Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Range 101.113.0.0/16 (up to 65536 users would be blocked). There's plenty of good edits on all kinds of topics coming from the range, so the range should not be blocked. I have protected the talk page for two weeks. Please apply for another round of protection at WP:RFPP if the problem persists when the protection wears off. The article is already semi-protected, and will be until January 10. -- Dianna (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

IP hopper creating nonsense talkpages

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

---

It seems that an unregistered user has just cottoned on to the fact that he can freely create talkpages, even if the corresponding articles don't exist - so he's really going to town. I've just batched a whole pile of them, mostly consisting of "hi", but I'm about to go offline and more keep appearing every time I refresh the speedy deletion list. The IP is dynamic, meaning that blocking isn't going to help - any technical solution would be appreciated, especially if it can be implemented fast. No ANI notification possible due to shifting IP. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also found Goodfaithperson (talk · contribs) who has been creating G3 talk pages[38]. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've hardblocked that account as a sockpuppet of along-term abusive vandal. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sampling four of them give me four different countries on four sides of the globe, and testing those for the most commonly used ports shows no open proxies. Maybe 4Chan has a contest. Rangeblocks won't work, nor will protection. I'm open to solutions, but I think it will just be to delete them as they come along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, if you look at the page creation times, they were created over the course of several days by many different editors. Aleenf1 (talk · contribs) seems to have run a database query and obtained a list of talk pages without corresponding articles, and he went through and tagged them all. No need to panic. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that. My mistake then; implied trout willingly accepted. Nothing to see here, folks, move along... Yunshui 雲‍水 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Threats Wikipedia may "get sued"

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 see this diff here were a user invokes a legal threat to try and push forward their POV on an article. The content of their claim is irrelevant the issue being reported here is the use of a legal threat as a way of editing Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a legal threat. He's not saying that he will sue if he doesn't get his way, he's saying that wikipedia could end up getting sued if there are BLP violations in articles. That's just a statement of fact. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda like saying your legs "might" get broken if you don't pay me that money you owe me. Or am I watching too many gangster movies? GiantSnowman 13:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha. I read it more as "your legs might get broken if you jump off that bridge". And there can never be "too many" gangster movies Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You are exactly right GiantSnowman. It is the resorting to threatening legal language which I am reporting. It is not right to resort to that kind of language in Wikiepdia. it is a form of intimidation "stop do as i want or else". Sport and politics (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

How ridiculous, what a waste of Admin time. Yes of course I am merely protecting Wikipedias interests, as Basalisk confirms. I have no connection except being British. We have a duty to report accurately whatever the case, if I was the reporter the previous quote would be deemed unacceptable. Sports doesn't like the article and will do anything to subvert its meaning or remove it. I'm surprised she is confident enough to try this trick though, perhaps she expects everyone to see the word 'sue' and overeact. I expected her to gang up then edit war, but this one caught me out as usual, different anyway. --Andromedean (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A wholesale missing of the point has been done by Andromedean. Wikipedia has policies on Biographies of a living person and plagiarism and Copyright violations, citing those if they applied would have sufficed. They were not cited or referred too, instead threatening and intimidatory legal threats were resorted too. Wikipedia has clear policy outlawing legal threats. Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean would be well-advised to avoid any problematic language concerning editors or motives. [39] shows a style which is less-than collegial (" Otherwise retract your accusations, or else you will be in trouble yourself" appears uncollegial, if not an overt threat.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

• This needs an admonishment because the language can have a chilling effect, but I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to threaten action. Like others have said, you need to parse your words more carefully and insure you don't accidentally inhibit the free flow of ideas with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Very much agree with Dennis here. I don't see this as even a borderline threat, but very badly worded and certainly something needing some sort of warning. Perhaps not any outright sanctions but at the very least letting the editor know what effects his words have on others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will clarify the wording in the talk page, however the reaction is again very frustrating. Instead of helping Sports and politics create a major incident out of nothing, why not just fix the false text to protect the encyclopaedias reputation? Let's be clear here, there is no free flow of information, sport&politics doesn't wish to discuss this, and is not conforming to policy. It is a clear attempt to change the meaning of the statement, and this should be our primary concern. The correct text is:

But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."

but it has been written as

When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

obviously all implication of technology has been removed, the whole point of the article also

: All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use. is not strictly confirmed in the text, Chris Boardman said this, so should we precede the statement with -

Chris Boardman said that every single bicycle component was vetted and declared fit for use by the UCI and passed fit for use, it also clarifies we are including further statements from the British side to provide relevent balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the content of the article is for the talk page of the article. Please take it to the article talk page. Please also do not engage in reversions and re-reversions until a discussion has occurred Andromedean. Engaging in such conduct is edit warring and must be avoided. a new section on the talk page has been initiated for discussion of the content of the article section. Sport and politics (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes two, Sport, how about you check your own behavior here, huh?--v/r - TP 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I am though not the one making thinly veiled threats and engaging in behaviour such as making the changes proposed unilaterally when the knowledge of the views of others is well known and that making those changes has been previously discussed in mediation. Andromedean is also fully aware they are in a minority of one on that talk page in relation to their version of the section of the article. Changing a section back to the consensus version when a user who has caused considerable disruption to the section in question, isn't acting outside of the rules and spirit of wikipedia, making the inflammatory changes as Andromedean has done is acting outside the spirit and rules of wikipeidia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither impressed by the way you and crew at the talk page have shrugged off Andromedean's comments and called it 'no consensus' (I call it bullying) nor am I impressed that at the first vague 'legal threat' that you ran here to get a block. Nor am I impressed that in the processes of reverting, you warn Andromedean of an edit war. I see a ton of ownership and battleground behaviors coming from editors on that article. I don't know the finer details of the problem, the issues with content, but the way your handling criticism and differences of opinion is troublesome. You and HiLo48 have essentially exhausted everyone else off the page so 'consensus' is always yours.--v/r - TP 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in here but I am one of the editors involved pretty extensively in the editing of the article. I have to say that what you've observed is exactly the tactics being employed by S&P, such as:

• in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war;
• You ... have essentially exhausted everyone else off the page so 'consensus' is always yours.

This pattern of behavior is prevalent throughout the whole editing history of that piece. You can check the talk history to ascertain and verify that. I would actually suggest that certain administrative action is warranted for such behavior. Showmebeef (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there is no "crew", secondly I am not engaging in bullying. Thirdly Andormodean has resorted to personalising the discussions in the past and is mildly obsessed with ensuring that they attempt to get their version on to the article. This has been going on since August and it is now December. Fourthly the line and implication that I have "shrugged off Andromedean's comments" is not true Andormodean's comments have been given more than enough time, please take a good look at the archives and mediation. Mediation has been gone through and resulted in the current consensus version which is on the article. In contrast to your claims it is Andormodean who has exhausted everyone else off of the talk page. Hilo and myself are just the only ones left preventing them foisting the POV and synthesis riddled version all over the article. Please take a look at the archives of the talk page and please take a look at the mediation which took place. Also in regards to "at the first vague 'legal threat,'that you ran here to get a block". That is not the case I have not called for or asked for a block, it was though pointed out correctly that use of such language must be avoided due to its "chilling effect". Please look at all of the background regarding this and you will find reports by Andromedean in relation to others behaviour and they then took um-bridge when their behaviour was also bought up in the discussion. This needs resolving and the whole of the situation needs looking at and not the tine skimming of the most recent discussion imitated yet again by Andromedean on this issue. Sport and politics (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually went through the talk page history and what I see is you constantly insisting that either: 1) Consensus has already been determined, if it suits your POV, 2) Consensus needs to be determined, when something doesn't suit your POV, and 3) Wikilawyering with other editors and insisting that they have a POV. I noticed at least two editors disappeared from the talk page because of your behaviour. Just like above, when Andromedean wants to discuss, you've got a reason not to. I think you need to find a new article to work on.--v/r - TP 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst i disagree with some of your opinions I respect them, I also think it may very well be worth Andormodean finding something else to occupy their editing here at Wikipeida. There has been a large volume of Forum Shopping undertaken by that individual and the consensus we currently have is the one worked out through mediation. To make changes which go to a revision which was pre-mediation, Is going against consensus. There is also no "Wikilaywering" as you are claiming it is simply asking for things such as rules on POV and Synthesis to be upheld. If you are referring to this referral as "Wikilaywering" that's a little strange as this is a legitimate referral on an issue which has been described as having a potential "chilling effect". Anyway we have deviated from the subject originally bought on this page if you wish to continue this discussion please feel free to do so at my talk page. --Sport and politics (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What I refer to as Wikilawyering was things I read from last September and August dealing with Cla68 and some other blocked editor. Nothing recent.--v/r - TP 17:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by involved IP: Firstly, I resent the description "Sport and Politics and crew". I disagreed with her in other discussions on the article. While Sport and Politics's conduct is not flawless her initial method of resolving content disputes is civil discussion. (Unlike say HiLo48, whom I presume is also a part of the "crew".) She is hard to convince, but accepts the consensus, as well as outcomes from dispute resolutions, e.g. WP:3O when I disagreed with her (see this, note the lack of ad hominem arguments) or WP:DRN in this case. Compare this with the number of places Andromedean has brought this case up in. Almost initially, and also immediately after the DRN, Andromedean's main discussion technique has been comments with arguments (some strong, and some weak) hidden in the same comments as personal attacks. This makes the occasional valid point very hard to see as it creates animosity with the editors holding an opposing view. This has greatly prolonged the discussion. Furthermore, it is much more likely to remove editors from the discussion than anything Sport and Politics have done. It is far more unpleasant and tiresome to disagree with Andromedan than it is to disagree with Sport and Politics. I backed down from the discussion, and have almost ceased editing Wikipedia altogether because of Andromedean's repeated claims of bias and similar. To be fair to Andromedean, what was actually the last straw was that WP:ANI did not see this behaviour, going against the civility pillar, as serious enough to warrant even a warning. As I said then, I don't belong in a community where this is acceptable behaviour.
The apparent reason for Andromedean's repeated claims should be a cause for concern in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia. Andromedean seems completely incapable to comprehend that other editors may rationally disagree with him, and when he meets with disagreement the immediate conclusion is that the disagreers must be biased and have a secret agenda. There is a complete and fundamental lack of assuming good faith. Because of the perceived agenda he has no need to consider the merits of our arguments, which he almost never does. E.g. I have repeatedly told him that much of his information has a place on Wikipedia, just that he attempts to put it in the wrong place i.e. an article with a limited scope where only small parts of his information is relevant. He does not respond, and continues with the same argument, if neccessary at a different location. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the time you put into looking through that long history of the article Tparis, it's good to see someone doing their job and becoming familiar with the hard facts and pain we have been through. I fear there may be far more to Sport&Politics behaviour since she has virtually claimed ownership of the entire Controversies in the 2012 London Olympics article, attempting to reduce as much text as possible through a combination of edit warring and Wikilawyering.

This 85* (he sometimes goes by 88*) character was the other person who misled the volunteer into believing their was consensus in the Technology in track cycling DRN when there was no such thing. There were two editors completely against the version and two for. However, that should be largely irrelevant anyway because Wikipedia is only a democracy of editors supported by facts and sources, views not supported by evidence should be ignored. The two changes I recently made are as clear as they come. We have to consider the motivations behind someone wishing to subvert those basic facts. I have a right to seek advice on how to correct these misquotes. To call this forum shopping is inaccurate and offensive and I draw attention to the Wikipedia guidelines copied on the talk page in italics.

Sport and politics failed to quote a single hard fact or source since I wrote this back in August. 85* just one from I remember, yet their views were taken heavily into account, and almost completely ignoring one quality contributor. I was going to raise an incident about it but assumed it was a genuine mistake and didn't wish to get anyone into trouble.--Andromedean (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have serious issues with this edit, but I won't re-enter a debate to defend it either. "High tech warfare" seems a little unfair, even if it is a quote from the source (the text in the article is not currently a quote (nor should it be) so it does not need to match the source word for word), and "the British team's use of technology" would be preferable. In any case, if that is the only change you currently desire I hope it is resolved shortly so you and Sport and Politics can move on from this article. Your problem now is that your conduct have put off more moderate voices, as only the editors who disagree most strongly with you bother to find the time to reply to you. I hope you will consider the advice that some information from your earlier versions belongs here as adding it there would improve Wikipedia.
Re the DRN: There was an unanimous consensus to include the section, there was a 3 (+ clear volunteer advice) to 1 to include something on "home advantage" (you also seemed to accept it) and there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving a consensus to include more "background" against the British team (claimed past transgressions etc.). Thus there was a consensus to include "at least this much" and no chance for a consensus to include "more than this". I, and it seems the volunteer approved, wanted to speed up the process, because of BLP issues and one misquote in the old version which, at the time, remained in the article despite having no chance of becoming the consensus version.
By the way, the reason I haven't provided a lot of sources is that I did not argue against the facts you provided, but that they were (as I later agreed: with some exceptions) irrelevant to the 2012 Olympics. Good bye. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• RE: "High tech warfare": I don't see why this direct quote from the original reference is "a little unfair". The original author believed it's justifiled. Why would/should we inject our own view into it, being objective editors as we are, or at least while we are trying to be?
• Re the DRN: I highly dispute the notion that "there was an unanimous consensus to include the section", as the exchanges on my talk page would have suggested that it is far from the truth. You've rushed it through by taking advantage of the fact I am on a different time zone than (possibly) the rest of the editors, and by opening multiple discussion topics at the same time. And I would also like take this opportunity to point out one fact: even on the topic of "home advantage" which I was focusing, you did NOT even use the "compromised" version you yourself has offered, and sneaked in a totally different version. And this appears to be a pattern: you open multiple discussion topics, and make several suggestions, and if there is no (timely) response, you just push them through. And in the case I just cited, you did not even use the version you suggested.
• Re: Comment by involved IP: I still question your intention of refusing to register a user id, while at the same time getting so much involved in the editing and discussion of a particular Wiki article. I understand that there is Wiki policy on IP user. But why choosing to use it (or rather, abusing it)?? There is nothing we can do about the behavior of an IP user, isn't it?! Showmebeef (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RE "High tech warfare": As I said, not important for me, but the source is not an encyclopedia whereas Wikipedia is. Different word choices are not unreasonable and should be preferred when not quoting.
Re DRN: You misunderstand me. As Sport and Politics no longer advocated removing the section completely there was consensus for including it in some form. (It was also clear that you would not achieve consensus to include everything you wanted, but you seemed unable to accept that, opting instead to needlessly prolong the discussion while a flawed [as in: misquotes and BLP] version remained in the article.)
Re IP: Dynamic IPs are vulnerable to range blocks. Furthermore, I am less anonymous than you are; I simply don't like registering online, and I certainly won't register for the occasional and very limited editing that I do here. As for abusing it, I clearly disclosed that I was involved. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RE "High tech warfare": if it is "not important for" you, then why was it modified to NOT use the original quote, but instead of a leading sentence that totally changed the meaning of the quote?
Re DRN: I don't think I was "unable to accept" the notion that "you would not achieve consensus to include everything you wanted". As a matter of fact I DID make a concession while discussing "home advantage". You were the one who appeared to offer a concession but turned around and didn't honor it.
Re IP: I wasn't talking about the "anonymous" aspect of an IP user. I was talking about the "unaccountable" aspect of it. Showmebeef (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1: I haven't the foggiest, it was a volunteer version. 2: I still honour my concession, a significantly longer section than I wanted is still in the article and will not be challenged by me. 3: I responded to the unaccountability aspect; I can be blocked. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Guies, for the love of kirsty hawkshaw! I'm not going to get involved at all, but i just want to pose this to you people: This disgussion is getting us nowhere, time to move on right now and i mean it. 199.101.61.190 (talk)

Good point, I will retreat away from Wikipedia again. However, I think it is clear that this issue will continue to fester even without my involvement unless there is some administrator intervention, whether against me, Andromedean, Sport and Politics, Showmebeef or any combination thereof. I suggest topic bans (limited to the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics and its talk page) for all four, leaving the article in the hands other editors. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Farewell then, for the 3rd or 4th time! Maybe next time you join us, you would be persuaded to register a user id?! Showmebeef (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Giving input here after several months does not mean that my intent to leave you alone to sort out remaining content issues was disingenuous, nor does answering your direct question above mean that I don't intend to leave now. Please don't ask further questions directed at me as I will not answer them. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Now i think that seems a little harsh because there is no law saying you have to have a user id. i'm never going to create one because it's too damn hard what with the captchas and all, but anyway, i'm putting a notice here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

notice

you fool. i'm not making demands, i'm mearly making a suggestion. just because i'm dr. drakken doesn't mean that you have to act like that twards me. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC) An/I is not a place to go crying to when a user is making you a little bit upset. i don't care how long it's been going on. My best solution is for Sport and Politics, Hilo48 and Andromedeon to all leave each other alone, because it's only going to get heated.

• S&P, leave the article alone now. it's only going to cause drama and we don't need drama. there, i put my two sents in, i'm going back to my mission now. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not in the spirit of wikipedia to make demands as above and unless you have a reason and evidence for a topic ban please do not make such demands. Sport and politics (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims such as "a place to go crying to a user is making you a little bit upset", is rubbish. This is a substantive complaint about the potential "chilling effect" (other users words not mine) of the inappropriate use of language. Please do not single out individual editors involved without justification and do not make wild claims which are not in the spirit of wikipeida. Also just who do you think you are to make such sweeping and threatening demands such as "S&P, leave the article alone now", when you ave just waltzed in and attempted to throw your (tiny) weight around and clearly think you are far more important than you actually are in a making such statements. Sport and politics (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

SHEEEEEEEEEGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! listen up kid, i don't think i'm important, i'm mearly making a suggestion. i may be dr. drakken but that doesn't mean that i'm demanding, who do you think you are, Elizabeth Elanore Kayla director? now if you don't mind, i'm going back to my kirsty hawkshaw mission.199.101.61.190 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

quick note, as to just waltsing in here, i've been reading this noticeboard sinse 2005 and can say beyond the shadow of a doubt, that this disgussion is a crybaby that isn't getting her way. i'm not trying to be rude, i'm being blunt. the truth herts sports and Politics, and i'm not singling you out. i'm saying maybe don't edit the article and that will stop the drama. it is none of your business as to who i am and i suggest you remember that. i will remain anonymous because i prefer it that way, i feel more safe that way. now back to kirsty hawkshaw with me. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

199...190 has been granted two days' holiday on accounts of the above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As unwarranted as those remarks were, Sport and Politics behaviour does provoke people, please remember some of us have had to bear months on end of that sort of intolerable rhetoric. I also endorse TParis' comments, and Showmebeef's comments here requesting administrative action. Therefore, I will raise an incident for Sport and Politics which will include incidents outside the article mentioned above. It is long overdue.

I have not forgot that this incident was raised because of how one of my comments could be misinterpreted, therefore I confirm again that in future these will be either avoided or made clearer.--Andromedean (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are just some of statements made by Andromedean: Claims of "eager to censor objective information" here and "agenda to censor the essential fact" as seen here and claiming other users have a "conflict of interest". There is also this "in the absence of any coherent argument you has simply waded through the rule book and invented them. The only reason why you want it removed is for the same reason as the others which have suddenly jumped on here, because you don't like it for partisan/nationalistic reasons. Unfortunately bias is not a reason for removal, neither is it one to dilute the article with propaganda" as seen here. Sport and politics (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest close Andromedean has clarified that it was not a threat of legal action. This thread has no more purpose. Someone should close it.--v/r - TP 16:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Gayane

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.

---

What to do with the new editor who has been changing Gayane (given name)? He/she does not react to my posts on his/her talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked the sources they are adding to see if they are valid? This is more of a content issue at this point, since their edits appear to be in good faith. I only see one instance of a comment on their talk page and zero on the article talk page. I do think a greater effort should be exerted before bringing the issue here, preferably on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure the sources are valid, and the editor is reverting everything in good faith. The problem is that the material is not appropriate for this article, since every item should have its own article, and they should be referenced from the disambig page Gayane. The user apparently does not read her own talk page, probably she does not know of the existence of the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you try the article talk page, that is my point. One or two edits that are in good faith but in the wrong place doesn't warrant blocking, particularly since there has been insufficient attempts to resolve the problem before coming here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did before posting here, and since then she reverted her edits, but was reverted by a third party. I will see whether anything changes overnight, and if not, I will see what I can do tomorrow. Possibly just take her text and add split it between several articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand the frustration, really. I've been known to post giant 600x600 images of stop signs on their talk page, with polite notes asking them to discuss. Really. It often works. I'm just saying ANI is like a night court where all the judges like to give life sentences, so it is best saved as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI is nothing like Night Court; Harry Anderson never gave out life sentences! MSJapan (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The Ambivalence article and meat puppetry

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 currently involved in a silly edit war and talk page discussion going nowhere. It started with USER:Validfortravel (an spa created just for this) making this edit inserting a picture in the Ambivalence article which I felt did not adequately get across the meaning of ambivalence (holding conflicting emotions at the same toward one object) and suspecting that it might also be a joke, removed the image. Validfortravel added the image back in, an IP removed, Valid added it back, I removed, etc., and then finally I started a discussion on the talk page. The discussion there went nowhere with some editors making jokes ("I'm conflicted about whether the image belongs or not" type things) and some possibly not understanding what "ambivalence" means (there's a common connotation that it means ambiguous or uncertain or undecided, etc. but that's not the definition used in the article).

Given the number of IPs involved I began to suspect sock or meat puppetry was going on. I did some searching on the Internet and confirmed that this is a case of meat puppetry. I cannot link to the evidence directly as it would out one of the editors involved (not sure how to handle this type of situation, maybe any concerned admins could email me and I would provide the direct evidence?).

This whole thing has blown up way more than it should. When I first came across the image, as part of recent changes patrol, the situation looked like any of the numerous times I've encountered the same kind of drive-by edit and assuming it was a joke, reverted and moved on. And as the edit war started building I kept thinking it would just die off on its own as these things often do. But this disagreement has legs and while I could have handled things better the situation has deteriorated. Anyway, I'm asking for other editors (and admins) to get involved, look over the talk page discussion, and help resolve what is a silly fight. If consensus is that the image is appropriate then I'm fine with that but I don't think a reasonable discussion between me and Validfortravel and their friends is possible. I'm not looking for anyone to be blocked or the page semi-protected but some outside involvement might help end this. Thanks all. SQGibbon (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Using that photo seems to be a violation of WP:OR. I suggest you email an active Functionary, specifically a Checkuser (CU) with the information that you have, who will hold the information in confidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I contacted a CU but haven't heard back. If the problem gets resolved/goes away in the meantime, all the better. SQGibbon (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research" WP:OR#Original_images. In addition, CheckUser should never be used to "Threaten another editor in a content dispute." ValidForTrave (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

to make the assessment that the look on the photo is " ambivalence" is obviously WP:OR.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In that case any image is WP:OR as you have to assess what is in the image. Please delete all images from Wikipedia accordingly.-- ValidForTrave (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• • That photo looks like a semi-sneaky way to get one's own mug on wikipedia. There's no way to definitively characterize it as "ambivalence". My initial reaction to the expression was "spaced out". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It takes a good actor to be in control of one's face sufficiently to unambiguously and convincingly display an emotion. It takes an extremely good actor to display two contradictory emotions simultaneously. The person in the photograph in question is not an extremely good actor. That photo has no place being in a Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So if the image does not unambiguously show an emotion, it must *ambiguously* show an emotion. I have some sort of evidence that you're in a position to judge acting skills, such as a certificate.ValidForTrave (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Yup. Now, assuming the guy survives a checkuser (which is not a safe bet), he could use the pic on his user page. That's typically acceptable (if not especially wise). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Only a fool would put their picture on their user page..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, their faces are often seen in public places, jah? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's also sitting on Commons (unfortunately), and I've nominated it for deletion. MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is unambiguous that Validfortravel has been edit warring, continuing long after being warned, so I have blocked the account for three days. Also, even without checkuser evidence or the confidential evidence that SQGibbon has offered, it is abundantly clear on the basis of evidence that I have seen that three IP addresses have been used for IP sockpuppetry, so I will block those. There is clear consensus against including the image in the article. This conclusion is based not only on considering the talk page comments in relation to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also on the edit history of the article, with numerous editors reverting Validfortravel's edits, and on comments in this discussion. I will inform Validfortravel of this fact, and if the image comes back again then further action needs to be considered. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Further socking

Casiotone (talk · contribs) has reappeared after a 6-year absence. Maybe this opens the door on running a checkuser sweep of the user Validfortravel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• SPI report with CU request filed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Persian Gulf / Arabian Gulf edits

Occasionally, someone (usually an IP editor) will edit an article solely to change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf or vice-versa. I've read some of the controversy in various places here, but it's kind of scattered so it's unclear whether there was a clear consensus. Is there a policy as to what to do about these, if anything? There does not appear to be a Uw-* template on the subject; should there be?

(asked and ignored here, so I ask again. I expect it's a sore spot, so I understand, but I need to understand what to do when encountering this issue on a page on which I work. Please direct me to the right place if misplaced.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard is probably a good venue for issues like this, and it could benefit from a little more work! My first instinct would be to use the wording favoured by sources, or if that rule doesn't help, then a principle similar to WP:RETAIN might be helpful (ie. if there is no "right" answer, then staying with the status quo will at least stop the back-and-forth reverts) bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the subject has been beaten to death (lots of hits in archives), but it's difficult to understand whether there is a consensus or not without a lot of study. That's surprising, given how common the issue appears to be. I'd expect there to be a statement of the current consensus somewhere (which I think is Persian Gulf) and the reasoning, but I can't find it among all the noise. I will try posting at the suggested noticeboard, too. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article is at Persian Gulf. Even if only due to WP:BRD, Persian Gulf has consensus. CMD (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I already commented on the Geopolitical noticeboard, having seen that first, but a quick look at Persian Gulf naming dispute shows that the consensus, not among WP editors, but among national and international naming bodies, several governments, and mapmakers in general is with "Persian Gulf". I routinely revert changes to Arabian Gulf when I see them. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:MIXEDMYTHOLOGY using Wikipedia as a host

Resolved

 – User appears to have stopped editing. Page has been moved into his userspace (thanks Dennis). MfD has been started (thanks Reaper Eternal) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This newly created user has been creating what appears to be a book of some kind at User:75.80.102.57/MIXED MYTHOLOGY. This isn't his userspace of course, and I attempted to move it into his userspace. But, the move was prevented due to it being caught by the Title Blacklist. I've attempted to communicate with the user on his talk page, without success. He is ignoring such attempts, and continuing to create his book. There's no speedy deletion criteria that applies to this circumstance, otherwise I would have tagged it as such. Some assistance please. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Moved to User:MIXEDMYTHOLOGY/MIXED MYTHOLOGY. As for MfD, I will leave that to someone else to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: the user has since blanked that page, but they copied all the material themselves over to User:MIXEDMYTHOLOGY/impossible_to_delete. Same content, different page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

At MfD now, again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing uncivil comments by an editor

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

---

I'm commenting now on something that I see has been ongoing with an editor. I first took note of this editor (User:AndreaUKA) when I started taking part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. I simply removed unsourced content as well as links that would not be considered as reliable sources. In return I was called "arrogant", sniped at for my grammar, and generally talked down to when I tried to recommend that she not remove templates without actually addressing the issues they highlighted. While it always hurts to get your edits taken off, it is a fact of Wikipedia life. AndreaUK also seemed to have a sense of ownership over the article, getting angry at any changes to her version. She argued that she was going away for a week, essentially asking for the AfD to be put on hold and when I made the edits, got angry that I made them while she was away and presumably unable to approve the edits herself. If it was just this, I'd let it go, but I looked into her history and notice that she's had an ongoing history of abusive behavior to other people and a definite sense of ownership over anything she has put onto Wikipedia as in the case of User_talk:AndreaUKA#Yes.2C_I.27m_here_about_an_image.21. It also appears that every time something comes up, she brings up that she donates money and threatens to leave Wikipedia forever, as can be seen on her talk page as well as on the AfD for Bennett. There's also the stuff on Talk:The UKA Press, which generally makes me concerned because I've nominated the article for deletion. I know I'm going to be accused of various things, such as doing this as an attack and so on. (It's not- the company is simply not notable and if it was, I'd have left it alone.) Considering that her getting upset in the UKA Press AfD is a given, I think that it looks like it's long past due for an admin to step in here. If it was just the Bennett article I wouldn't particularly be concerned, but this looks like it is overdue for notice and I am fairly certain that more will only follow with the article about her company being put up for AfD since it doesn't pass current WP:CORP guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit seems very uncivil. Threats about her donations "drying up" and saying "surely you could have waited until I got back" are the only "arrogant" things that I've seen here. – Richard BB 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, please remember to notify the user in question that you've started a discussion about them here. In this instance, I've done it for you. – Richard BB 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(she did: 23 minutes before you did ... it's just not under its own header) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Another uncivil edit which is cause for concern, including editing his talk page post. Will warn. – Richard BB 10:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd added it to the page, but it looks like it didn't come up with an automatic subheading and instead came up under my AfD notice. I've differentiated it to show up better on the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, sincerest apologies! I appear to have forgotten how to use my eyes. – Richard BB 10:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Andrea certainly doesn't understand the project as a whole. WP:OWN is bad, "I'll take my donations and go away if I don't get things my way" is a threat that we don't need on this project. We have rules, processes and policies - you agreed to them when you signed up: if you don't want to follow them, the little X on the top right is always available. Otherwise, stick to the rules. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry, but I find this all a bit petty (not to mention grossly over-exaggerated by Tokyo girl:)) I'm also at a loss to understand why a 'deletion' notice has been slapped on an article (UKA Press) which has been there since 2006 (approx) and has already been voted to 'keep' years ago. And yes, I'm afraid I do think it's been done out of spite. I could point out (possibly) hundreds of other WIKI articles far, far less 'notable'...

Still, never mind, I won't argue all the points, it's not really worth it from my point of view. Just go ahead and delete whatever you want to (don't forget all the other articles I started). I won't be able to help correcting spelling mistakes if I see them on articles, though :)AndreaUKA (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because an article survived one AfD, that doesn't mean it has a right to survive them all. The community will decide whether or not the article should be deleted, so there's no need to fear it being out of spite (which seems to be an assumption of bad faith, to me. As for other articles existing, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you think there are other subjects out there less notable, please nominate them for deletion and let the community decide. – Richard BB 10:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, there's a widely held common misconception (more off-wiki than on, admittedly, but I see time and time again on WP:AfC) that articles are deleted because people don't like them, they're on a power trip, or they like stomping on kittens and clubbing baby seals to death. I can't emphasise it enough that this just isn't the case. All Wikipedia articles need to start from sources, and be based on those sources, and if they don't - they should! This essay by Uncle G has further reading which may be of interest. Unfortunately with several million on articles on Wikipedia, and writing articles from the source up being a non-obvious working method, it means some articles that should be cleaned up per our policy get left behind. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuda Bux (band) is one such example I saw only yesterday, and that got wiped into oblivion without so much as a how-do-you do. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. It just seems a bit silly to propose deletion to an article which has already been voted (by the community) as notable enough (especially one with the glaring 'notability' of Kevin Brownlow). I'm sure there are plenty of other, more fruitful things editors could be doing. As for me 'nominating for deletion' yes, I could, but I won't be trawling around looking for them :) I have seen many which are pretty feeble though...thanks Richard.AndreaUKA (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just because something passed notability guidelines years ago does not mean that it passes the current standards of notability. It's actually fairly common for articles to be nominated for deletion because they were initially AfD-ed in the earlier years of Wikipedia where notability standards were incredibly loose. Over the years these standards have been made stricter and stricter because it was very quickly realized that the previous standards were not enough to keep out the blatantly non-notable topics such as "Bob's Burger Bistro" that has only gotten 1-2 brief mentions in articles. A great example would be books that previously passed notability guidelines simply because they had ISBNs, yet did not receive any RS coverage. The same thing goes for businesses and previously surviving an AfD does not guarantee that it will be notable in the future. Again, this is fairly common. As far as other things editors could be doing, this is pretty much what editors are supposed to be doing: adding articles and culling the ones that don't pass notability guidelines. I think that recently I've been saving and adding twice as many articles as I have nominating them for deletion, so it's not like I'm a deletionist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• And considering your reaction to the edits I made on Bennett and your reaction to other people questioning the notability of various things you've added, it's quite reasonable to expect that you would react at least somewhat poorly to an article you made for a company you work for being nominated for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrea, many of your talk page comments seem to be removing other people's. While I've brought this up on your talk page, your last edit here deleted several parts of several other discussions on this page. I'm not sure of the reasons behind this -- I'm willing to assume that Andrea isn't doing this maliciously -- but it seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive (intentionally or not). Does anyone know the reason why this might be occurring? – Richard BB 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to happen from time to time -- haven't figured out the pattern. Probably an issue for WP:VPT NE Ent 12:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it to NE Ent in fact. Deleted something from an entirely different section with nary an edit conflict in sight. No idea how. I thought it might have been an issue with my mobile browser but was unable to replicate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is also taking place here. I'm curious as to how text could actually be added this way. I did a ctrl F for the added text, and found it replicated no where else. – Richard BB 12:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that a sockpuppet investigation for this user has been opened. – Richard BB 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm writing here because AndreaUKA keeps taking personal swipes at me. So far she's called me "arrogant" and "petty" as well as making several other comments that disparage my edits here on Wikipedia. She keeps getting nastier and nastier in how she is reacting. One of the latest things she's done has been to go onto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The UKA Press (2nd nomination) and make various comments about other articles I've created and edited. An admin really needs to step in here because she just keeps getting ruder and more petty with each day, making more and more personal attacks on my edits and character here on Wikipedia. Her current conduct on the AfD for UKA Press is pretty much the epitome of why I brought this up on this board. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to state that so far Andrea's recent edits are mostly comprised of her making personal attacks against my editing and other articles I've created. Other people have told her that some of her comments were way out of line, but all she has done is continue on with her activities. I'm at my breaking point: can an admin please step in and put an end to all of this? I'd say warn her, but she's been warned by people on various forums about her attitude and she's ignored them. I'm not going to say block her from editing for a few days, but considering that she has yet to take anyone's advice about ceasing her personal attacks on my edits and character, that might be the only thing that would really get her attention. All she's really doing at this point is being disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now she's accusing me of bullying in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndreaUKA. I want to state up front that at no point have I endorsed bullying, nor have I asked anyone to come onto the pages to harass her. All I have done so far is to open up an AfD and edit another article up for deletion. So far she's harassed me, insulted me, insulted my editing, and accused me of bullying. The only thing she hasn't done is call me names. I'm honestly not sure what else needs to be done for an admin to step in and take action. Nothing that I or other users have said or done seems to be sinking in with her. I'm getting rather tired of her getting away with making continual personal attacks against me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Seriously, can an admin PLEASE do something about all of this? Now she's going into my own personal userspace pages and editing them under the guise of "helping". If she wants to edit the mainspace pages then fine- go ahead. But it's pretty obvious that the only reason she's doing this is because she's angry that I edited pages that she created and put one up for AfD. This is getting really old and pardon my language, but I'm pretty damn tired of her being able to get away with this. These are not good faith edits she's doing. Just one look at her rude and condescending responses to me in the multiple AfDs and the sockpuppet investigation makes that blatantly obvious. She keeps making personal comments and other aspersions against my character. She's starting to lighten up a little, but the fact remains that she has been making personal attacks against me, editing my userspace pages without my consent (some of which are already on the mainspace, making her edits useless), and generally insulting anyone that tries to explain the current notability guidelines. Seriously guys, it's time for an admin to step in because at this point the arguments are just going around in circles and most of the arguments on the pages concern her behavior. Most of her edits lately have been to argue with people, insult me, among other things. She hasn't really been all that helpful lately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Readding to generate a more thorough discussion. – Richard BB 10:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? AndreaUKA's last non-minor edit was three days ago, and it was a post which detailed her plan to significantly scale down her participation (particularly on the articles in question). This has pretty much resolved itself IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If Tokyogirl feels that the situation is resolved, could we have an admin close? – Richard BB 11:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this was pulled out of the archives - the situation had basically calmed down, and re-introducing drama was counter-productive. Bad idea. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The only thing about her saying she'd scale down her edits is that she'd said that a number of times before coming on to argue various more points, most of which involved taking swipes at me. However I have a feeling that when the current AfD for The UKA Press closes, I probably won't hear any more from her. If possible, I'd like to keep this open until the end of the current AfD for UKA Press. That she went back to her talk page and specifically added my name to a long post on her talk page on the 10th (yesterday) suggests that she's still sort of floating around out there and that she still doesn't entirely understand why I opened this ANI or why her accusations and statements are considered unacceptable. I'd like to hope that it's over, but I'd like this to remain for just a few more days. I think that the AfD will probably close on the 12th as a delete considering that it has 7 relatively well phrased arguments and one keep that is based on older notability guidelines. So just for one more day? After the AfD closes, if Andrea were to go after me again then I'll probably just re-open a new case. It's just that I take accusations of "bullying and attempted manipulation" very seriously when it comes to myself and other editors, so that's why I'm making a bigger stink about this than usual. Her comments were far more personal than some of the other ones I've dealt with, even with the potential Jobie Hughes sockpuppet vandalizing my user page. I know that this is to be expected when you deal with fragile egoes, random articles, and deletion discussions, but I've never had one go on for this long, have posts this elaborate, and involve so many people. I mean, the girl even went into my userspace to do some rather pointed editing on article fragments that were already available in the mainspace. She just seems to have a vendetta against me. She's had people talk to her, but I don't think any of it really sank in that calling people bullies and slinging various insults at them and other users is not OK. She still sees herself as the wounded party in all of this, which is what really bothers me- especially since she has a long history of attacking Wikipedia editors she disagrees with, with no actual repercussions. If this was the first time she'd done this then that'd be different, but she's been posting rude responses to/about people since 2009.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume my name was also added to the header on her talk page yesterday, pretty clearly implying that the three named editors are "bullying and manipulating" her, because I warned her in the two AfDs that her personal attacks on Tokyogirl (and later another editor) were unaccceptable [40], [41], [42]? Having said that, she seems to have got the message and has cut it out for now. More eyes on UKA Press AfD is probably all that is required, if that. Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This crossed the line to beyond farcical a long time ago. How many words need to be spilled about this editor? I can't believe this was pulled out of the archives... just close the discussion and move on, before critical banality is reached. PhnomPencil (✉) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit rash to pull this out of the archives. I felt that Tokyogirl still considered there to be an issue, and it was probably wrong to let this go unresolved. However, I realise that the issue had died down a lot more than I thought. If anyone feels it's better to close this or just move it back to the archives, please go ahead and do so. Apologies for any drama caused. – Richard BB 08:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, if it bothers PhenomPencil that much then go ahead and close it. (Don't mean that in a snarky way, just that I want to keep as many other feathers as smooth as possible.) Like I said though, I'm just sort of thinking in terms of the end of the current AfD for UKA Press. Andrea is still posting and while she is more well-behaved now, I'm just a little skittish and I don't want to post another thing is there is anything else since it'd have to be linked back to this, yadda yadda. But like I said, it should close today and I'm going to assume that the deletion will be the end of it all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Mdp0007

This user is making threats to sue Wikipedia, and 'daring' us to sue/arrest/block/ban/etc. him. He also says "proper legal channels" on his talkpage. Could an admin please go block him until his legal attitude is cooled down? Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Someone did it even before this post, thanks.

gwickwire^talk_edits 05:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Determination of the day of the week

I first noticed a bizarre edit war in progress at this page via WP:RPP. I’m not getting involved, but since the word NAZI has already been bandied about, I thought others probably should take a look. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That user has already been blocked, and that block has already expired since this issue is from over 24 hours ago. Not sure why this needs to be discussed any further. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 02:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

RPP looked to be a standing issue, but it looks to have stopped all around now. Close away... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem's only going to come back, I predict. Take a look at this edit. The contents of the edit don't match the edit summary at all. This edit by Thumperward was amusing, by the way. I have used my amazing editorial powers to address that tag in eight keystrokes. (Without the tag, it would have been three.) It's still a quite poor article, though. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I said that it would be back, and it has duly come back, twelve hours later. So I've used my administrator powers, now, with a strongly worded note on the talk page to push editors back into writing properly, instead of creating an incoherent mess of an article and incompetently edit warring with the "undo" tool. Uncle G (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page errors

Following on this discussion at WP:AN about lack of admin intervention on main page errors, will an admin please look at whether this DYK making a medical claim on the mainpage that is not backed by any third-party, independent, MEDRS-complaint source should be pulled from the mainpage? The hook states that "people are learning to walk again" with a product in development, but the only sources used in the article are related press releases, a related company website, and a blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, not my expertise, but I'm looking. Am I correct to assume that the hook needs to appear in the article and be attributed to an RS; or rather MEDRS?--v/r - TP 17:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed it and it doesn't look like I broke the main page.--v/r - TP 17:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, TP. There were two problems: 1) the hook wasn't cited anywhere in the article, and 2) there is not a single WP:MEDRS-compliant source in the article from which medical statements can be made. Particularly not one of this nature! There is possibly a third DYK issue, but I'm not sure-- is it OK for expansion crit. to be met based only on non-third-party sources? There are no independent sources cited in the article (I'm not even sure if notability is met). Thanks for the quick action: IMO, we shouldn't leave either BLP vios, or copyvio, or faulty medical claims on the mainpage for any length of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Independent sources have now been added, including professional medical publication regarding medical facts. If there are any further issues with the article, please let me know. Can it be restored to the main page, or is it policy that removed articles cannot be reintroduced? — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the version that appeared on the mainpage; citations for medical statements have now been added (not the best, but not as bad as they were), but the hook was not and still is not cited (and it is unlikely that it can be cited). To say that "people are learning to walk again" with a product in development would require an independent, MEDRS-compliant source. The DYK review was faulty; how could the DYK be restored to the mainpage on that basis? It would require a new hook, which would require a new review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; I may repropose it with a new, properly cited hook (is that allowed?) — Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it would be better to renominate the article at DYK with a new hook and let it go through the review process. The hook isn't in the article, frankly, and that's bad because the hook comes off as promotional. The hook is so generic and makes a very assertive claim and then points the reader at a product instead of the more general subject matter.--v/r - TP 18:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors side issue

Let me make two points that are totally side issues to the above discussion.

1. I think that this is a perfect example of a proper escalation of a Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors request. DYK is the fastest turnover of the sections on the MP, and this was a high priority fix. Exactly the kind of thing that *should* be escalated when response at MP:ERRORS is not rapid.
2. Let me use this as a chance to request that any admin with at least a little available time, who has not already watchlisted Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, please do so. MP:ERRORS is for reports of errors to the Main Page. Most of the information directly on the MP is locked to admins only. Thus, reports of problems there can really only be handled by admins. The more admins watchlisting that page, the better. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I put the page on my watchlist after the discussion at AN. However, it pains me to admit that I have no clue what to do when there is a report of an error, and I'm frankly scared of doing the wrong thing. I could try looking at every edit to the page, watching the history, and see how the errors are handled. I don't suppose there's an easier way to learn about it?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

For DYK, if there is a minor error (typos and so on), correct it; if there is a more major problem, just remove the hook from the main page (or the queue), and note this action on WT:DYK. Hooks can always be readded to later queues if your removal was incorrect after all. The main page won't break from having only five DYK entries instead of six, but the damage to Wikipedia (with DYKs getting in general at least 1,000 pageviews) can be significant. WP:BRD applies here, basically. Fram (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe watch how other people do it? With a few exceptions, it's hard to do it totally "wrong". The one exception is images. Changing one or another image on the MP is sometimes required, and putting an image on the MP has several security steps that are needed to protect from vandalism. But just fixing errors? Easy enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing Science Fiction template from Science Fiction articles.

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

---

I am asking this because I really don't know the answer or what policy applies. Are these edits[43][44][45][46] correct? It doesn't feel right taking the Science Fiction infobox off of Science Fiction articles. Please advise. --Guy Macon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user? Have you posted that this discussion is going on. They also did this one. Before doing this in mass, this should be discussed it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm always suspicious when (as has happened here) someone does a bunch of similar edits without prior discussion. However, it looks like you have not tried to discuss this with Plastikspork, and even if you had, this is sort of borderline for an ANI report. A better venue might be WT:SCIFI. In particular, looking at the template, the case can be made that it's intended for larger topics within science fiction (e.g. subgenres), rather than for specific works. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified the user that this discussion is taking place. Hopefully this can be worked out before needing admin intervention. --Malerooster (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like 19 info boxes have been removed. I agree that the project talk page would be a good place to gain consensus for this action and go from there. --Malerooster (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I have not discussed this with Plastikspork is because I don't know whether it was correct. If I ask Plastikspork whether it was correct, of course he will say it was - he wouldn't have done it unless he thought that. Likewise, I don't have a lot of confidence that the fine folks at WT:SCIFI will be able to answer what is essentially a policy question; whether there is a policy against mass-removing navboxes which do not include the article, or whether there is a policy that allows or even requires mass-removing navboxes which do not include the article.

Again I am not complaining or posting a grievance, and I am certainly not asking for intervention when I haven't even talked it over with the user. I am just asking what the policy is. If this is the wrong place to ask this, let me know and I will seek the answer elsewhere, but IMO neither of the suggested alternatives are viable. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess. This is a board for asking for admin assistance, ect but no worries here. I would have at least hit his talk page. Does anybody know where the best place to ask about a policy of mass removal of nav boxes? --Malerooster (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone pointed to WT:SCIFI above, but this is an editorial decision, not an admin decision. It shouldn't be here. You don't or want admin intervention on purely editorial matters. If he shows a behavioral issue, removing against consensus, bring it here, otherwise, please use the standard editorial process and close this. ANI is a terrible place to get editing advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ask the user. No editor has ever been physically harmed by posting on a talk page. Could go something like this:

Q: Hey, I'm wondering why you're removing sf infoboxes from a bunch of articles?
A: Cause they're not supposed to be there.
Q: Is there a policy on that, or was there a recent discussion?
Then you might get:
A: Yes, it was here...
or maybe you get
A: No I just thought they didn't belong cause yada-yada-yada.
Q: Maybe you should discuss it at WT:SCIFI (or wherever)
A: Oh I didn't know that was there...
Something like that. NE Ent 02:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• Oh thanks Ent, you just had to go and prove me wrong by giving him good advice ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• What I want to know is who the hell gave anybody the right to deface multitudes of layouts with gigantic low-value sidebar templates in the first place? Make it a collapsable footer or get it the hell out of there... It's vandalism to spam those things in there in the first place, not to remove them. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nmatavka - time to indef

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.

---

In April 2011, a page in Nmatavka's user space (which was basically a gallery of porn with a litte bit of trolling thrown in) was deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp. In July 2011, a very similar page of Nmatavka's was deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance. Shortly after that, Nmatavka was topic banned from creating new pages in their user space. Nmatavka has violated that editing restriction by creating User:Nmatavka/Sci-fi ideas, but that is not why I'm here.

Thanks to someone's diligence in changing the name of a file, I discovered that a couple of weeks ago Nmatavka added a gallery of porn to what had previously been a "joke" page. If he didn't get the message after the first deletion discussion, the second one and the topic ban should have made it clear. Can someone just indef Nmatavka and be done with it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason Nmatavka got caught in the autoblock they ask about here is because User:PhuckOMatik was quite clearly the same user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Indef Nmatavka seems like an otherwise acceptable editor, but the continued obsession with creating porn galleries needs to stop. While not a violation of the topic ban per se, they have clearly violated the spirit of the ban, and should have known as much. Support blocking until such time as they can convince an unblocking admin that they understand the problem and will stop. Monty₈₄₅ 06:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure if an indef is needed, but I'd certainly support some kind of sanction to impress it on this user that this kind of behaviour won't be tolerated. BTW, I've reverted that latest incarnation of his nudity page (it was essentially identical to the one deleted in the first MfD, so topic ban or no topic ban its restoration was illegitimate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: I now notice that he also created User:Nmatavka/Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense in violation of the restriction, and it contains BLP violations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • On the technical side, you could just stick his username in the titleblacklist and prevent him from creating any more pages in his userspace. I'm not sure thats the best idea for his conduct though. Legoktm (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we could technically do that - but that doesn't address the behaviour, which is the purpose of the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I at least move that comments such as "... I've decided to make Wikipedia my own personal playground." show the maturity of the user. His userpages are not a web host or a 'porn' site, and should not be used in that manner. It may be time for another block as it seems the previous reminder isn't working. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's immature. He has not edited since December 3. He has not changed his userpage (where he makes the playground statement) since Aug 29. What immediate and current disruption is a block providing - other that the fact that he has violated his ban on creating user subpages ages ago?? WP:RFC/U time? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A block does not need to have immediate relevancy, this is not some wayward vandal at a school who is only here for an hour and poofs. If he has violated a sanction or restriction imposed upon him by the community then I think a indefinite block is valid. [47] is worked on in November. And [48] has the ban still listed as active and indefinite. I do not see why prohibited activity should require a 'time window' of discovery. If someone creates a hoax we can block the user for knowingly perpetuating one, even if the hoax isn't discovered for years. I see it the same way, he was prohibited from making such a page and did so anyways. Who cares how old it is, he was under restriction and knowingly violated it with ill-intent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who sees that this editor is clearly a troll? (And, incidentally, why does {{User la}} even exist?) — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

'cause consensus was to keep NE Ent 15:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as his actions seem clearly an attempt to sidestep the topic ban. It doesn't matter how anyone feels about the wisdom of the ban itself, it is in place and was agreed upon by the community. Indef doesn't mean forever, but I don't see how a specific period of time is going to prevent disruption, leaving us no choice but to choose an indefinite period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Their edits are suspect . Support indef. NE Ent 15:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef not here to be a constructive member of a community. GiantSnowman 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef - After looking at a bunch of this editors "contributions", I have to agree with GS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Would someone mind dealing with File:Mafiya_tattoos.jpg uploaded by Nmatavka? Although he claims it is "self-created based on own knowledge", the images of the hands appeared in a book published in 2003 (albeit as two separate images and with Russian text). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to it or can you cite the source? If true, it should be wiped out. Thief in law does not need it I think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Could be Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopedia as indicated on this blog post. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This blog post shows it as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And this. It apparently comes from Volume III. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bingo, tineye reverse got this too. [49] It should be deleted as the user lied about its origins. There is no way that it is an original, the work is essentially stolen and claimed as his own. This happens often enough in the art world, but it is despicable, few could dispute the obvious similarity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Popped it up for deletion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support indef. Userpage claim that "I've decided to make Wikipedia my own personal playground" (right under a widely-known pirated Windows XP product key) pretty much confirms Coren's hypothesis. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef Through points that are discussed above, I also do not believe Nmatavka is here to edit constructively. The comment "I've decided to make Wikipedia my own personal playground" does not sit well with me either as it seems to imply WP:NOTHERE to me along with the rest of his editing pattern (ie. creating a personal porn gallery). SassyLilNugget (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Subtropical-man

Resolved

 – Block upheld by Tparis, lifted by Kww when user finally agreed to stop canvassing—Kww(talk) 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Subtropical-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for canvassing, as he had started to repost a slightly reworded version of the canvassing problem I had just cleaned up. I'll claim the "any reasonable admin" clause in WP:INVOLVED, but I thought it best to have the block posted here in case anyone believes I have been hasty or harsh.—Kww(talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As I posted on his talk page, there's clear evidence that he was warned multiple times, acknowledged the warnings, and proceeded to do the same exact canvassing. I do think "indef" may have been a little harsh, but I think he definitely deserves a longer-term block than a little day or two length block. (He has no past history of being blocked, but it looks like he's been brought to ANI for disurptive editing sorts of issues plenty of times in the past...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm completely unfamiliar with any of this before today, but looking at the ANI, his actual comments to other users and the number of warnings he has received, I would agree that any reasonable admin would have done the same, as the user dug in and would not listen, insisting on injecting opinion in notices. I also agree that bringing it here was a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• This edit of mine says it all. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush

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

---

Hello i'm here to remove the "one of the worst president in history" line from his lead section thanks.Edge4life42 (talk 11:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well then you kinda missed the mark by a wide margin, as Talk:George W. Bush would be the place to make your case. I see some discussion over there, but no one else seems to be swayed by your arguments, and going to the article and repeatedly reverting the material without even an edit summary was an unwise idea. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

porn popping up in search

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 just noticed this on Reddit - this NSFW image pops up first when you search "Tolling bell" on Wikipedia. The animation is not used on any English articles so I think it should be deleted from enwiki or at least we should delete the words "tolling the bell" from the description to avoid it popping up in search. [50]GabrielF (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The image is on commons and can not be deleted from en-wiki --Guerillero | My Talk 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, doing a search restricted to multimedia, with a search term of tolling bell seems pretty random. Monty₈₄₅ 20:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Found the reason: it's a redirect from File:Masturbation_Techniques_-_tolling_of_the_bells_(animated).gif. Deleting the redirect (on commons) would probably keep it from appearing in search results, but I don't know what Commons' policy is about things like that. ☮Soap☮ 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

See this commons deletion request. They keep all redirect soap so I doubt it will be deleted --Guerillero | My Talk 20:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. We already have an article about this. Try searching for an obscure topic like "ball" and File:Sexual_stimulation_using_a_ball.jpg is in the first 30 or so results. By coincidence, it happens that Google has tightened up their search results today. People who are not searching for porn will end up seeing less of it in their results. People who are used to seeing a lot of porn in their search results seem to think that this is somehow a form of censorship, even though Google is happy to give you those porn results if that's what you are actually searching for. Pretty much every other major website filters results that might be offensive. We do not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Papasmurf16

User:Papasmurf16 is a vandalism-only account introducing swaths of factual errors. I reported xyr to AIV but that doesn't seem to be monitored right now. I have to leave and don't have time to keep monitoring xyr edits, could somebody do something? Thanks, Against the current (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Defamatory accusations and legal threats

Defamatory accusations are being made by two edit-warring editors at User:Yobronzino/Brando Palomino Bronzino, both in the content and in the edit summaries. Similar accusations along with a legal threat has been made by one of the editors at User talk:Yobronzino/Brando Palomino Bronzino. I've warned them both about defamatory edits and tagged the user subpage for speedy deletion G11, but while that request makes its way through the queue, for legal reasons some quick admin intervention would be a good idea. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the article. I hope that will defuse the pointless argument over it, since the question of whether this person has indeed done terrible things is secondary to the question of whether Wikipedia needs an article about him at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. Altered Walter (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a question, how many other "articles" like this are being used to promote a business as a subpage. Are there report generated about this stuff? User < 100 edits with a majority to a subpage that is over 1 year old?--v/r - TP 13:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There are literally thousands. Take this search for example. Peacock (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That search only finds 417 :P --v/r - TP 16:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Many similar searches will turn up about 417 more - each. :P Peacock (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a worthwhile report to design and run (which is easy for me to say, as I don't know how to do it, but I bet some of the VPT readers could do it). My only modification would be to drop the one year to three months. Shorter than three months, it may well be a legitimate draft in progress, but somewhere around three months, it may well be something that deserves some eyes to see if it should stick around.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

While a lovely idea, I think this has run its course. And if I might add, 3 months does seem a good marker. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I could do a report like that but I think it's better to just permanently noindex all of userspace. That there's resistance to this idea whenever it comes up makes me feel like the community itself has a COI and is unwilling to deal with these problems. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But indexing of userspaces have lead me to such projects as TypoScan and others. There is a definite usage that is good and there is a definite usage that is bad. If we had such a tool, the good will continue to outnumber the bad. Flipping the 'noindex' switch may not be hard, but it does serve to diminish legitimate uses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But am I mistaken that even with NOINDES, the material is still searchable via SPECIAL:SEARCH. It just prevents external search engines. The good of permitting them does not justify the harm for the easy accessibility to bad or deleted content. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pop it up for RFC then? I'm not an expert on the matter. The community or the foundation should have a say in it, though it is one of those things which seem to be rather esoteric, even on Wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like articles are created for Articles for Creation, and when they are rejected, the rejected drafts just... linger. Would it be inappropriate for AfC to include deleting the articles in question as part of the process of rejecting them? At least in cases of drafts that would be deletable under CSD? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

most articles at AfC are rejected 1, 2, 3 or even more times, sometimes over many months--I've seen even more than a year--, before being accepted. I've seen some rejected many times , sometimes for an incompatible variety of reasons, without anyone giving any real help, and them made into acceptable articles when someone offers some actual specific assistance instead on the canned reasons 90% of the reviews limit themselves to. It's specifically a work space, and there needs to be the opportunity for people to work on it. The rationale for AfC is that it's an improvement both on building up content on user subpage, where nobody sees it or even knows about, and also on submitting unfinished articles to mainspace, where they are likely to get deleted before the new editor has a chance to work on them. Personally, I think AfC at present is an extremely poorly designed process, where those responsible have explictly refused to make many critical improvement asked for my a number of experienced participants--I've listed them at the talk page there in the past, and will do so again tonight, as a follow up to this. Nonetheless, it has potential for being a significant improvement, and I also congratulate those responsible for getting as far as they have done with it. The solution is improving it, not doing away with the key beneficial feature.

We do need away to keep articles from staying there indefinitely, especially when they are extremely unlikely to be accepted. Several editors have recently been spotting unfinished articles there for speedy deletion criteria notably copyvio, but also extreme promotionalism, bad jokes that descend to the point of vandalism, abandoned test pages, and BLP violations severe enough to trigger G10; and I've been deleting them at CSD. notably copyvio. But we need a systematic way for removing at least those which either show nothing that could possibly be notable, or remain promotional, or simply remain there for years without being worked on. At present, we can remove these by mfd, just as we do user subpages, but the problem is finding them. This can't simply be coupled with the review, because the person needs a chance to reply & perhaps improve. But we need a way of following up. I was thinking of systematically going through the archives, instead of the random spot checking i sometimes do late at night, but I'd need assistance. Something like the unsourced BLP cleanup, perhaps. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that it shouldn't be you -- or any other editors -- cleaning it out manually. Isn't there a way to institute a timed-deletion, or a timed-tagging-for-deletion after, say 3 months or 6 months or whatever seems a reasonable time period? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AFC's often backlogged, sometimes the pile is months-deep. Timed deletion might catch a few unreviewed AFCs that might easily have passed but just didn't get picked up. I'd support an automated deletion process after x number of failed reviews - five seems reasonable. That might also encourage editors to thoroughly address the issues raised in a review before resubmitting. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I have not been removing any pages that do not meet a speedy criterion, and I almost never do it single handed: I delete those listed at CSD or tag (and I decline those listed at CSD that are somewhat promotional but not blatant promotion, or marked as BLP violations but do not meet the criteria for G10; BLP unsourced is not a reason for speedy. )

I wouldn't suggest any automatic-deletion--we have normally avoided doing this. I would support either manual tagging, or using a script. They could be listed at either MfD or Prod--I would suggest Prod, which seems simpler. Perhaps we could start very slowly, at one year, but listing not more than 10 a day till we clear the backlog, and then go by experience in deciding whether to use a shorter period. Again, slowly, so they can be properly looked at. As for automatic deletion tagging after a certain number of turn-downs, I would oppose it; I would support judicious use of either prod or MfD, on the reason used there, of never likely to become an acceptable article. But this takes judgment--if the editor is working on it however slowly and it has possibilities, I would not delete. I'd do what I do now, leave a personal message not to resubmit until the deficiencies have all been corrected. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing issues with Trillion dollar club and possibly more...

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.

---

Sorry for bringing this to ANI, but I wanted some guidance on how to address some sourcing issues with this article. Upon examination, I noticed that many of the entries in this list article are not sourced, or sourced with appears to be wp:synth. For example, [51] shows the Chronological order of current nations having at least US$1 trillion which has the EU listed as have acheiving this benchmark in 1971. Besides the fact that the EU didn't exist then, this is sourced to the United Nations Statistics Division which doesn't even mention the EU. This is not an isolated issue. I would have never found the TDC article if it werent for a simliar edit on List of countries by GDP (nominal). Additionally some of the sourcing appears to be Wikipedia itself. For example, a very recent edit [52]. Is it worth having TDC in mainspace while having such sourcing in place?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Many articles are not wonderful and some are full of outright lies, we should not take an article out entirely on a bad sourcing or other errors. In this case, some working is going on, tag it as needed if you cannot be bothered to fix it, but quite clearly it is active and being worked on recently. Doesn't change the fact that its assertions were wrong and comical. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not an ANI issue, but we are bored, so as an editor I will just say that often I will simply take an ax to dubious material like this, leaving the likely good material. Sometimes this leaves a stub, sometimes more, but reliable information is more important than having a large quantity of unreliable information. A stub of verifiable information is always better than a tome of lies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Not every short phrase is notable just because it gets a couple of ghits for different uses - remember Dominant group? You can find millions of different webpages which mention "Blue t-shirt" but there's a very good reason we don't have an article at Blue t-shirt. Considering that, and the other sourcing problems through the article, I boldly redirected it. If anybody can source it better - including evidence that the "trillion dollar club" is an actual thing - feel free to revert me... bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:121.44.62.235

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.

---

Several unwarranted changes to Japanese war crime related articles have been made from this IP, but they all happened within a short time frame so I am not sure whether blocking this IP makes sense. I have undone some of the changes and hope that this is the correct place to report the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.127.102 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Stale, from 20 Sept. No further edits have been made by that IP, no need to block and no need to take any action. It would be pointless now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Tariqabjotu acting against consensus

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 blurb for Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was posted to {{In the news}} by Ks0stm here after it achieved consensus with a small amount of dissidence at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Tariqabjotu cited an arbitrary subjective "minimum requirement" [53]. I brought the issue up to him on his talk page, and commented that it was his responsibility to restore the blurb to avoid wheel warring. He stated that it didn't warrant an additional reply. Clear consensus exists for posting the blurb now and I hope to get a decision to restore the blurb per consensus rather than allow Tariqabjotu to unilaterally keep the blurb from being posted. Ryan Vesey 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• As a party to this incident my judgment is biased, but my understanding of WP:ITN is that the posting of significant events is usually pushed to the front without being subject to the stringent standards of posting that other events are. Given the reaction to this event both by Wikipedia and the international community, it is clear to me that this was an event of extraordinary significance - and Tariqabjotu's unilateral pulling of the story reflected a sound lack of judgment on his part.--WaltCip (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I support a restore as it was a clear consensus to post this on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus may be to post, but the concerns (expressed by more than one person) about article quality and speculation has merit. We are not a media outlet and have no need to rush to publish. I would say rather than complaining at ANI, it would be more productive to address those concerns. Resolute 20:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerns are actively being addressed. Some of the dissenters have such changed their statements. Ryan Vesey 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And the people actually taking productive steps to improve the article should be commended... Resolute 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No idea if this was a good call or a terrible call, but I don't think it can be described as outrageous. We do need to ensure we have good article quality and that we are not passing on rumours and misinformation when the news story is something like this. In any event, this is something that can quite easily be sorted out over there - it really isn't going to benefit from an ANI post. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not have this discussion, as Tariqabjotu is a pretty valuable member of the ITN team. This article has developed quickly, and many of the "support" !votes were placed at times when the article was certainly not ready to post, suggesting the !votes were regarding notability rather than readiness. The state of the article when Tariqabjotu pulled the posting I would have probably considered ready, but it was somewhat borderline. I think the article now is however ready. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this here, but Tariqabjotu told me off and refused to take my concerns into consideration so discussion failed on his end. Ryan Vesey 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. He quite rightly told you that "he was not submitting to thinly-veiled comments insisting we put up a breaking news story immediately regardless of the article's state." Leaky Caldron 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

He also told Ryan to leave him alone. That makes discussion kind of hard. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. He said " It did not and does not meet it. Period. Until it meets it, leave me alone." Not quite the same implied intent when you see the full context. Leaky Caldron 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "No, he didn't"? Yes, he did. That prevents Ryan from further discussing it. Sure, that doesn't mean Ryan has to bring it here, but I don't exactly approve of an admin acting against consensus like that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to his second reply which he told me warranted no further reply. Since he chose to discontinue discussion I brought it here. Ryan Vesey 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Impetuously and hastily. This isn't Newscorp and the Admin. isn't editor in chief. A little time and consideration is preferable. Leaky Caldron 21:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Consensus to post is very often independent from the article's quality. Tariq's opinion was that the article was not up to standard, mostly due to lack of information. Luckily a police report clarified some things with regards to the shooting and the article was properly updated soon after. I have absolutely nothing against what Tariq did, because it's a pretty standard (and justified, in this case) reason for pulls. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is ridiculous. Almost no one comments on quality of the update at WP:ITN/C and this is no different, with one exception: some people felt that we shouldn't post this item until all the information was available. My pulling had nothing to do with those concerns, and it is completely irrelevant that some people have backed off from them. The availability of information has nothing to do with how much of that information is actually in our article. When I pulled the item, and at probably also at this point, the minimum standards, which are -- while subjective -- not arbitrary, were not met. We do not make exceptions for stories of a certain magnitude, and I am not going to be bullied into changing my mind. As an administrator involved on ITN/C (and having long been so), I am particularly impervious to the whims of people who don't understand the section's goals and guidelines. That being said, I will be signing off for a few hours, meaning I would not be able to post it even it in the near future, even if standards were to be met. So, should someone, for whatever feel compelled to restore the item, go ahead and do so. But note that I want nothing to do with, and do not want my name ascribed to, posts coming as a result of bullying. -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• The point is, an administrator had already determined that this met consensus and that it was ready to be posted. Arguments were specifically being made despite Tariqabjotu's opinion on the quality of the article. As of now, even those who supported waiting to post the blurb have supported. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, without more info than we have right now, this should NOT be on ITN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Organized edit-warring

The Syrian civil war article is currently home to a POV-pushing operation. To paraphrase Lothar [54], the vast majority of participating users agree that Kurds should form a third party in the infobox, but three users (Sopher99, Futuretrillionaire, I7laseral) continuously "filibuster" any attempt to implement the WP:CONSENSUS through coordinated edit-warring. By my own count, the three users are currently opposed in their position by twelve other participants [55]. The standard, usual excuses ("its all just votes", "its not resolved") are employed, by which the entire community might hypothetically oppose the users without them having to stop edit-warring. -- Director (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no real consensus for a third column. There was a consensus for the double dividers. You kept adding a third column without consensus. That's why you were reverted by multiple editors. I don't see why this matters needs to be brought up at ANI. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Futuretrillionaire. First off. Wikipedia is not a poll.

The first "vote" did not address better alternatives already suggested or the issue of undue weight.

A second attached discussion was created from the first in which many more users agreed to the solution of using a double line to increase the presence of separation in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if users did not like the double line, which they did like it, we would still be able to implement the alternative solution of adding a headline note about the Kurdish incidents. This solution only had one oppose. Sopher99 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me more like you three bullied people into retaining a two-column infobox, not caring much whether there's one or two lines separating the Kurds. Lothar von Richthofen introduced the double line. In his words: "FWIW, I (and most others) agree that the Kurds should indeed form a third party, but several individuals filibustered a recent discussion on it, so I threw in the double-line as a temporary fix." [56].

@Futuretrillionaire, I was reverted by you three, not "multiple editors" - and in spite of a clear consensus. That's why we're here. -- Director (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The double line was only proposed as a temporary solution, until the three or four editors (Futuretrillionaire, Sopher, Lhaseral) who disagreed on a third column could cool down. 11 users voted for a third row, including the one who proposed the double line. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Plus me, just arrived and viewing the situation in disbelief. That's 12 by my count. But its "all just votes", don't you know.. -- Director (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually Ekograf and Mor oppose the three column line. So its 5 against 12. However 3 of the 12 are ips who don't edit the page. 4 of the Top 5 editors of the article support the ouble column. And only 1 of the top 12 editors oppose the double column. Lastly there was no consensus because the vote did not adress undue weight or the alternatives Already suggested. Sopher99 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a 3RR violation? Would this not be better served by using that noticeboard and the DR/N for the content dispute?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Director added the third column 4 times, violating 3RR. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. Having read the discussion and noted the consensus on the issue, I amended the infobox. I reverted its removal three times (not four). I did not revert anyone the first time, in fact I worked hard to implement a more appropriate representation of the conflict, as recommended for some time by most participants on the talkpage. I had no idea as to whether the edit would be at all disputed. I am very careful to abide by policy, Futuretrillionaire. To be technical, if anyone it was your "group" that did post four reverts [57][58][59][60]. And in a very prompt and coordinated manner, one must note. -- Director (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your first addition counts as a revert because you well knew that the the third column has been added and removed multiple times before. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? I actually had no idea. In fact, apart from a couple fleeting edits, today is the first time I ever got seriously involved in the article - and encountered a wikiclique blocking edits by anyone who disagrees with them, be it a dozen users or more. -- Director (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue is much more difficult than it appears to be. KNC, under auspice of KSC (Kurdish Supreme Committee) agreed to join NC (main opposition group). KSC is composed of both PYD and KNC although PYD won´t have their representatives in NC (but they agreed with this solution after objections of their inclusion by pro-Turkish and pro-MB representatives). So with this in mind we would have two groups (NC and KNC) in two parts of infobox although one is part of another. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So true.......but it is still a content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not in my view. As I said on the talkpage, imo this is a textbook example of a clear user consensus, grounded in sound arguments, being blocked by WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING and edit-warring, as described at WP:NOTUNANIMITY:

"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process."

The group of three editors functions in coordination to WP:GAME the system by way of avoiding an obvious 3RR violation by a single user. In such a way, and by insisting on unanimity on the talkpage, they block beneficial changes for the apparent purpose of POV-pushing. I agree with FunkMonk [61] that the idea appears to be to inappropriately stress the Kurdish faction's alignment with the Turkish-supported rebels. -- Director (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds exactly like you are unhappy that you cannot gain a consensus and three editors still cannot live with the content. Good luck with that. You seem to be wikilawyering.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)}(edit conflict)There comes a point where "live with" is just not what happens in consensus-building. There was recently a long RM at Talk:Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) where users holding a minority viewpoint did not budge, but consensus was still judged in favour of the majority. It's nice if people can live with it. Certainly the ideal—but not the reality. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that there WAS consensus, then a little while later a bunch of IPs and other random people came it and reopened a discussion, and now you are siding with the newer people by saying there was never consensus. In this case, there WAS consensus and it was changed, and the newer people opened a new discussion where there was NO consensus to change, so it sticks with the option chosen by the previous editors. Does that make sense? Those three are entirely within their right to keep reverting, even past 3RR because the edits are going against consensus and need a talk page discussion consensus first. Hopefully that all made sense, as I am quite tired at the moment. Jeancey (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Um no. The consensus you refer to was a month old and was "wait a month and then re-discuss". A second discussion occurred, and a new consensus was formed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Then I misread things. I should sleep and take a fresh look in the morning. Jeancey (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It actually does make some sense, except the part about going past 3RR as there is no real excuse to do so. One need not edit war to get their way. If a new consensus was not gained, (and this assumes you are correct (still not sure) then that change should not be made. It sure would help if at least one person would demonstrate this through all the bickering.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

See, here's the deal. DIREKTOR is edit warring. So that assumes that he/she disagrees with whatever consensus may have been formed as well because they refuse to accept it. So there is a dispute.....a content dispute and that doesn't go here at AN/I. It goes to DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. DIREKTOR came to the page as a third party and saw that a pre-existing discussion had a consensus and enacted it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not demonstrated at all with any diffs. Not shown to respect the decenting opinions or shown any reasion that their concerns were not within reason. This is no consensus. Rememebr this is not a vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I recommend this filing be closed as having nothing that admin need intervene in. This is a clear content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, from having a quick peruse over the dispute at hand here I would suggest taking it to WP:DRN rather than this page. However, I don't see a voluntary resolution being reached so I'm not sure how valuable that might be. As far as I can tell, there seems to be a consensus to include the third column which is greatly opposed by three specific editors. In terms of the addition of the third column, I haven't read enough/know enough about the conflict to comment on that, I'm merely looking at the discussion on the recent addition and removal of that column. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That was my impression as well when I arrived on the talkpage yesterday. I dare say in an article on a current civil war, a 12:3 or 12:4 consensus is about as good as anyone can possibly hope for. I also agree that, when a dozen people disagree with you, and you continue to edit-war and block the edit - there's little hope of a voluntary resolution.

I submit that, in my opinion, the content dispute has long been concluded, but that the group of users in question are simply WP:FILIBUSTERING through WP:EW. For almost a month now, the agreed-upon, beneficial changes have been blocked by this disruption. -- Director (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it does appear to be WP:FILIBUSTERING to me in an attempt to push a minority view through. In an article such as this it is unlikely a unanimous decision is highly unlikely so a 3:1 or 4:1 consensus would be appropriate. Perhaps an admin or someone more versed on the topic/policy can weigh in to confirm a consensus and that filibustering is taking place, or vice-versa. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. The discussion is still on-going. It's actually 5 that oppose the third column. Most of the supporters made borderline !Votes.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh so you're saying, if we accept your above interpretation, the number of people who support the edit are only double? Wow. The discussion is not "on-going", its rehashing old arguments and its going in circles. This is not a proper factual dispute, as it concerns an infobox organizational question, and thus you really could just continue "disagreeing" and not accepting the consensus in perpetuity. That's called stonewalling; and the 3RR rule, which you violated, was introduced (among other reasons) specifically to prevent that. -- Director (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a consensus. What there is is a vote and an editor claiming consensus from that vote. There are still editors (I am not involved in editing this page) who disagree and have not accepted the content. That is not a filibuster (which is an individual refusing to get a point) but a lack of agreement and a clear dispute. I agree that DR/N may not lead to any agreement as the discussion seems to be blowing off a number of editors as having no say. I suggest an RFC to bring in a larger number of eyes to the dispute.

Still see no admin intervention needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Amadscientist. Mkdw^talk 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Director in that the discussion has ground to a halt. It's going round and round but, overall, the discussion has stagnated and come to an end. Sure, in terms of people commenting and arguing, it's still going, but nothing is actually being accomplished anymore. Regarding WP:NOTAVOTE, you are correct that Wikipedia is not based on simple voting, as it is not a democracy however straw polls tend to be used to gauge whether or a consensus might exist, to allow a quick "show of hands", per say, to clarify where people have come down on the discussion. After a length discussion ending with at least 2:1 - 66% (but more likely, 3:1 - 75%) of editors favouring one result, it's safe to say a consensus exists. Further, for two (possibly more) uninvolved editors to come in and come to the same conclusion that a consensus exists, I believe that lends more credibility to that point. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That just blows off the uninvolved editors that see no consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In what way? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 00:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps as much as it blows off the uninvolved editors that agree with the majority or the minority. It is disingenuous to bring up the uninvolved editors who have given no opinion in this discussion. We have given no opinion.UnbelievableError (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sdoof Noreh

Please look at this page; UK miners' strike (1984–1985): Revision history, the named user has posted a very very offensive and personal attack against me. I find this most unacceptable and inappropriate. I would be most grateful if action could be taken. This user's conduct is out of order. Thank you for your assistance. Christian1985 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this edit? SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the link. It is not so much the edit, it is the absolutely disgusting comment he wrote above with the edit referring to me as "extreme right-wing...". I think this is grossly inappropriate and abusive. I would like action taken against this user. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. Christian1985 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not civil, but its not the worst thing ever. I'd say this should go to a content review board. Also, his user contribution history shows only this edit.[62] So the 'always causing trouble' part is funny and begs for a look at what a CU will find as the user implies a familiarity with Christian without any posts prior. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice. But just for the record this is not an isolated incident. I have been the victim of such offensive name-calling before by IP users who take exception to me [correctly] challenging or reverting unconstructive edits they have made on articles so they retaliate by going on my talk page calling me "far right" "Nazi" and all sorts of other disgusting terms. I have a feeling this is an IP user who I have dealt with in the past. Christian1985 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I would go to WP:SPI and make a formal request for an investigation if you believe they are the same individual using single purpose accounts or such to harass you instead of confronting it from their main account. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have such a thing as a "content review board", ChrisGualtieri. And an SPI investigation will not link an IP to a named user, as then their geographic location is revealed, thus invading their privacy. I have hidden the edit summary so that only admins can see it. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit nit-picky and I swear we have more then a dozen 'content' related notice boards which serve to 'review' the material they are presented with and decide what would be best. Is it the proper name, no, but everyone knows should know what I meant. And seriously, tying an IP to a user is not a good idea, but it doesn't mean that the IP can't be blocked in such a way. Long-term abuse accounts typically have that exact message displayed. The numerous IP addresses used by Burgz33 comes to mind.[63] So its not outside of the realm of possibility, though it is unlikely. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. You meant a relevant notice-board; I thought you meant a group of people assigned to review stuff. Sorry. -- Dianna (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As an IP user i don't like seeing attacks on a user like this, because it ruins the rep of IP editors. i've left a message on Christian's talk page for future attackers telling them to leave him alone, as i am an anti-drama person. (meaning i don't want to see drama on wikipedia, and if i can help to stop it then damn it i will) 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Aggressive and emotive editing at BP

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

---

Could I make a plea for some more uninvolved admins to get involved in BP? There are a small number (3 or 4) of editors who have a very high degree of emotional involvement in the topic and are editing aggressively with personal attacks etc ([64] "your wish for whitewash" etc. A rather gentle attempt by a recent arrival at the article User:Martin Hogbin to try to get changes worked up from the article rather than straight in the lead was repeatedly reverted and met with a rather aggressive "I find your suggestions ... lack an unbiased perspective" [65] I tried since a few weeks ago but don't have the time or inclination and coming in as an uninvolved admin trying to help with content seemed to lead to being rapidly accused of "whitewashing" too. Someone needs to go in an force a long editing break on some of the major antogonists but I suggest without trying to get involved in the content issues first (unlike me) to ensure it is entirely uninvolved. --BozMo talk 12:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you quote is remotely close to personal attacks ... has dispute resolution been attempted? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of being biased without supporting evidence is a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see some aggressive tones on that article, but every one of those editors is experienced enough to know how and when to take the issues to WP:DRN. I would say that calling an editor biased is a borderline personal attack that depends on if it can be supported by diffs (and should have been from the start). But I'd say that it's not actionable. These editors are in a heated argument, but they are discussing and that's what matters.--v/r - TP 14:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What TP said. You have to expect a little rough and tumble in a collegiate environment. The diff you provided showed he has an opinion about your bias but it isn't particularly inflammatory. What we do not want to do as admin is micromanage the tone of discussions, only stepping in when the problem is such that it interferes with the free flow of ideas and opinion. This is not at that stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, BP is not the hot bed it once was. Its not like someone is trying to get you sanctioned for your alleged 'bias', that's when I'd take action. Though if it continues it should for to DRN just to get some more opinions and thin out the enmity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Behavior regarding User:Bwilkins

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.

---

• Bwilkins' logs
• 146.7.56.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Bwilkins#Response to block on IP 146.7.56.192
• User talk:Philipmj24#User rights removal
• 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 200 metre individual medley

This began when I was adding external links related to the 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). They were links that showed the individuals competing in the events. However, Bwilkins didn't not think they were appropriate. I asked him why and he directed me to WP:EL. He refused to answer my question and engage in any conversation.

Then Bwilkins proceeded to remove my Autopatrolled and Reviewer rights. His reasoning was, "your recently bulk creation of a number of inappropriate individual articles related to individual events from the 2012 FINA championships have shown that you unfortunately cannot be trusted with those enhanced rights, and I have removed them accordingly." I feel that I cannot engage in dialogue with this individual because he doesn't want to. He instead wants to abuse his powers to make a point. He then deleted a large number of pages I worked really hard on because he felt they were inappropriate. Can somone please tell me how they are inappropriate? What about the 2012 Summer Olympics? the 2011 World Aquatics Championships? the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)? If they have pages related to individual events, why can't the 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)? I don't see the problem. They were sourced, relevant, and notable. It was a major international event that warranted individual events. I have done these type of edits for years, have I been wrong this whole time? If Bwilkins actions are correct, that means possibly thousands of articles related to individual events in sporting (Olympics, championships, regional games) can be up for deletion. Philipmj24 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see we do have 2008 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m), 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) and other years going back several years. Spot checking some of the other events show the same thing, that your articles were consistent with historical trends here, which matters. I'm seeing that the rationale provided has to do with external links you added. Without having an opinion on the quality of those links, I'm not sure why deletion of the articles was needed. Rather than jump to conclusion, I'm interested in hearing from BWilkins, as I'm thinking there may be more to the story than what I have found, but the reason for his actions aren't obvious at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  And I did asked him about the external links because that was a concern of his. He refused to answer my question. Here is an example of an external link I was adding. I would like feedback from other editors here, is there anything wrong with that type of external link? Philipmj24 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Although I'm tied up with a major release happening later today, I wanted to say this: I reviewed previous years' FINA articles (Dennis notes them above). There appeared to be a main article, but not individual articles for every single event at the FINA championships. As such, I certainly did not touch the main 2012 championship article. The main article gives a breakdown of ALL the events and results in the pas. As such, according to past history with the championships, I removed the individual non-notable events in themselves. Philip's creation of those non-notable event-pages was therefore problematic, and inconsistent with having patrolled status. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)x2 I'm more concerned about the rights being removed than the articles. Bwilkins, from Philipmj24's perspective, it seems you were involved as an editor when you removed his external links. He then tried to engage you as an editor on why you removed them. You then used your tools as an administrator in a way that seems like retaliation. Can you clear this up? Also, editing while logged out is not blockable unless it's intentionally deceptive. Owning up to the edits while logged in to the editor reverting them makes it not deceptive.--v/r - TP 14:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • BWilkins, you are incorrect. The 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) has individual pages for all of the events. The 2011 World Aquatics Championships has individual pages for al of the events. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • BWilkins, you also say "non-notable." I would also argue against that. It is a major internatonal event with over 160 countries and almost 1000 competitors. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • The only article where I agree with the deletion is 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Schedule. The rest shouidn't have been deleted (and accordingly there was no reason to remove any rights). Fram (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Fram, I created that page in order to save space because it was originally on the main page. If you look at the Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page, I also did that there with no objections. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Pool schedule should also be deleted. The schedule in itself has zero notability, and fails WP:NOTDIR. Fram (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• We've all spotted that it wasn't in fact BWilkins that blocked 146.7.56.192, right? Uncle G (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*x - I did find 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 200 metre individual medley and saw that Philipmj24 created this article, and it is in terrible shape. I'm betting more of these minor articles exist, but WP:WAX applies, so that doesn't speak to their appropriateness. Speaking solely as an editor (taking off the admin hat...), BWilkins is correct that we are better served without the individual articles which are not likely to get filled out, are not likely within policy as a stand alone article, and just make the place messy. Putting the admin hat back on, your question seems to be "should BWilkins have taken those actions he took?". I don't see abuse, even if I am of the opinion that it was done in a very non-optimal way. I would have sent them to CSD instead of deleting them outright, for example, simply because I like two hands touching every delete that isn't vandalism/trolling/obvious. Since similar articles exist, I would call this less than obvious. The line between admin and editor are often blurred, which is why I would strongly recommend a second pair of eyes at CSD for anything like this, but policy doesn't strictly prohibit it. I don't see anything actionable, even if I recommend different methods next time. It does across as being a little gruff. As far as taking away the rights, that is within the rights of each admin to determine and it certainly doesn't look like anything other than his opinion as to the appropriateness of your having the bits. I don't no evidence of it being vindictive, with ulterior motives or being done as a punishment. Some would agree with his choice, some would disagree, but there is no misuse of the tools involved, only his judgement based upon the circumstances. You can still request another admin restore the bits and they are free to do so, so his actions are not permanent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You say, "not likely to get filled out." You don't know that. You gave one example of a page that wasn't filled out and I take responsibility for that, but stub articles are common within Wikipedia. Is that a reason to delete a page? There were also examples of pages that were fully filled out. It doesn't look good, I agree, but that's not a relevant argument in deleting a page. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I took off my admin hat while saying it. As I said, I think his actions were less than optimal, but I'm not seeing abuse. As always, I'm open to reviewing any diffs, but I can't call his actions abuse simply because I disagree with them and found them a little gruff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Dennis. I'm concerned about the removal of rights. But I've always known Bwilkins to be level headed and well reasoned so I'd like to wait to hear him address that specific part of it.--v/r - TP 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I never accused him of abuse, but his actions were wrong and needs to be reverted. Also, I find it very troubling that an admin would have this kind of power without any oversight. If it wasn't for these boards, no one probably would of questioned his actions. I love Wikipedia, but these types of actions are certainly dampening my commitment. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I did accuse him of abuse, and I would probably reword that. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Dennis' explanation is well-reasoned. A CSD or PROD tag on the articles would have left more of a "paper trail" so everyone could see why they were problematic. Since BWilkins has said he's a bit rushed for time, I think it's fair to take him at his word, realised it was just cross purposes, get Philipmj24's bits back via another admin, and for everyone to take a deep breath. Remember, every time you raise a thread here, God kills a kitten. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ritchee333 might be right, we must think of the kittens.--v/r - TP 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While I have a brief second, let's back the truck up a moment. I became aware of User:146.7.56.192 via an unblock request. User:Alexf had blocked that IP, and reverted many of their edits. I declined the unblock request, as I did not personally see that their edits had been appropriate. I do not personally recall undoing any of their edits. It turns out that the IP was User:Philipmj24 editing while logged out, which he admitted on my userpage when he asked what was wrong with the edits. I directed him to WP:EL. I see that he replied to my reply on my talkpage, but that it did not appear that he had actually reviewed what the concerns were (and I've been busy as hell) so I have not replied on my talkpage yet. This morning, I did click to see what Philip's contributions had been since our first discussion before replying to him - I wanted to ensure he had not continued the same edits that had led to his IP being blocked. I saw the rapid creation of a number of pages that appeared non-notable. I then went back to a number of previous years FINA pages, Olympics pages, and any set of articles that could have been similar to find out what the typical pattern of articles was. I noted in my quick review that individual event pages did not typically exist, and that their info was generally well-provided on the main page. To me, the event pages were not individually notable. I believed (and still do) that if the individual pages had been patrolled by someone else other than the creator, they would have been CSD'd very quickly - hence, I saw this as a potential problem with the Autopatrolled right. In short, I am most definitely NOT WP:INVOLVED with the editor or the articles as an editor. I became aware of a potential problem that became escalated as a bigger problem. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I get removing autopatrolled since that directly concerns article creation, but I have no idea why removing the reviewer rights was appropriate. That has nothing to do with article creation and in its current state concerns only vandalism and BLP violations. As to the deletions themselves, neither of the rationales given (A7 and A10) were appropriately applied. Being an event in an international sporting championship would seem to be a de-facto claim of notability and it is certainly a credible one as we often have individual articles on individual sporting events in an international competition. It certainly doesn't qualify as duplicating an existing topic as the individual events are distinct from the championship as a whole. This strikes me as being something for AfD to consider, not something subject to the discretion of a single admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I'm glad you showed up. This is very troubling because you obviously did not review the pages in-depth enough. Pages for individual swimming (and athletics) events are common! Look at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) page. The Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page. The Swimming at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships. Do you want more? I can give them to you. If you believe individual pages for these types of events are "not notable", then you could use your powers to immediately delete thousands of pages if you wish. Philipmj24 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of deleting the events, A7 doesn't apply because they weren't "persons, individual animal(s), organizations or web content". I would argue that A10 doesn't apply either. We certainly don't make the argument that A10 applies for the olympics articles and I don't think it's any different here. The main swimming page only gives the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners, any other information in the speedied pages is not a duplication. If we want to do a bulk AfD, I could understand it (of which I believe I'd !vote keep), but I can't imagine that these are CSD worthy. Ryan Vesey 15:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (TL:DR; per Ryan) To be nitpicky for a second (and CSD generally requires that we do), I'm not sure the articles would've been CSD'd. They don't fit A7, because they're not in the categories of things A7 covers. Also, note that notability isn't the bar that A7 is concerned with; rather, it's importance, which is substantially lower and something these articles arguably possessed. An argument could be made for A10 I guess, but even then, A10 doesn't cover article splits, so I don't think that it applies, either. So I don't think the outright deletions were correct per the CSD criteria. They could've been prodded, but I don't think CSD was a good option here. No comment about the other stuff, because I don't mess with user rights in general. I also don't think the deletion was abuse, unless this is part of a long-term pattern of behavior; I think it was just an overhasty decision. My 2 cents. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, A10 exists specifically for this since it clearly was covered in the parent article and arguably better since it had all events, thus context. The key is that I think he should have tagged it only and let another set of eyes look at it, who could have decided AFD or PROD was better. There was no rush. Again, not abuse, just not optimal. As for pulling reviewer rights, he was within his rights. Removing a user right does not require they abuse that right, it only requires a good faith determination that the user shouldn't have that right. And again, I wouldn't have removed the right, but it seems he pulled it because he felt the editor didn't understand what is and isn't acceptable as content, which means it was a logic based decision. We can't sit here and second guess every admin decision, we can only judge whether or not abuse happened or poor judgement took place. I can disagree with his choices without calling them bad judgement or abuse. ANI is about behavior, and other than being a little more gruff and rushed than he should be, I haven't been shown evidence of a behavioral problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If this wasn't an attempted article split, which A10 explicitly doesn't cover, then what is? :/ Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay is an A10 duplicate of 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). The article on the swimming championships doesn't give information on qualifying races, or places other than first second or third. Ryan Vesey 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Could I have tagged them as CSD, PROD or AFD, or even refer the whole thing to a wikiproject related to swimming? ... you bet I could. My judgement at the time was that because some problematic behaviour had already recently occurred (that had led to the original IP block), and based on a rather quick evaluation it appeared that problematic articles were being created, I added 2 plus 2 to get a rather large answer of 4 that stuck out like a zit on prom night, and took the actions that I did. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, you still refuse to answer my question on why the external links were bad in the first place. Can you please tell me?

This is the type link that cause all of this in the first place. Can another editor please tell me what is wrong with them? Philipmj24 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Everyone needs to have a cup of tea and a biscuit before editing! Let's not get carried away now....

I think what I was trying to get at is that BWilkins is a long standing admin who, like any other human being on the planet, might occasionally make a mistake if they're busy. If consensus is that the articles have potential merit, I suggest we undelete them and everyone have it out at WP:AfD. Then we can all go and have a nice refreshing drink before everyone goes ballistic about holding an RfC. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. Can someone please restore my pages, my rights, and place BWilkins under some kind of supervision? Thank you. Philipmj24 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

place BWilkins under some kind of supervision. Maybe we can get Bugs to watch him :) just kidding of course. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow down a bit. It has been barely two hours since you accused a long-standing, well-respected admin of abuse. While there is a pretty decent case that BWilkins may have been a little too quick on the trigger, we don't need to rush. If some of the articles deserve restoration, sobeit, but a couple more hours isn't critical. As for supervision, I would have thought someone with three years experience and over 10K edits would have a better sense of this place, there's no such thing, other than this page and other DR venues. So consider him under supervision, just like everyone else.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to clarify here that I'm not seeing anything that has my screaming ZOMG admin abuse!!!! but I am concerned that articles were deleted incorrectly and I'd prefer to see an AfD. I'm also curious as to what was wrong with the external links. Ryan Vesey 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm calm, I'm just amazed that just because BWilkins didn't feel like engaging in dialogue with me and defending his actions, he simply stripped me of my rights and deleted dozens of pages I created. To this moment, BWilkins still refuses to tell me why an external link like this is incorrect. Can another admin tell me what is wrong with this link? This type of link caused this whole mess in the first place! Philipmj24 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So sorry that Wikipedia doesn't pay my mortgage, and I have to work for a living in a job that actually has deadlines. Did you take a moment to ask the admin who originally blocked your IP what their issue was, or are you simply reserving your anger for me, even though I have clearly stated my point AND the solution above. One moment you say it's abuse, then you say it isn't, now you're calling for my testicles in a jar. This isn't personal, it was based purely on perception. If it was wrong/too fast in this specific situation, I have provided the appropriate resolution above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you were evidently too "busy as hell" to answer my question, but apparently not too busy to strip my rights and delete dozens of my pages without any warning. That is not an acceptable reason. And you still refuse to answer my question! Your still trying to redirect me to another person instead of taking responsibility. What is wrong with the external links? You made the actions based on that specific event, why can't you defend it? Anyways, your reason for deleting the pages in the first place appears to be flawed. You said you "went back to a number of previous years FINA pages, Olympics pages, and any set of articles that could have been similar to find out what the typical pattern of articles was. I noted in my quick review that individual event pages did not typically exist." So if I got this right, you deleted dozens of pages and stripped a users right based on a "quick review"? If you had actually reviewed the pages, you would of found individual pages for swimming events are common. Again, look at the Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics page. The Swimming at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships. The 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m). This isn't mutually exclusive to swimming either, take a look athletic events and winter Olympic events. Philipmj24 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, y'all. I rarely comment on the ANI drama boards, but I felt compelled to do so in this case. I regularly work on Olympic swimming articles, I am intimately familiar with the structure of our international swimming championship articles and lists and how they are interwoven, and I am a seasoned Wikipedia editor who is familiar with the CSD, AfD and notability policies that are pertinent to this discussion. Philip is a regular contributor to Wikipedia articles on competition swimming, as well as other Olympic sports. He is smart, a quick study, dedicated to improving Wikipedia, and, in my personal experience, his edits are 100% constructive. He was instrumental in the creation of many of the 2012 Olympic swimmer bios and related swimming articles, and is the primary contributor to several Good Articles on Olympic swimmers. Philip is a former active-duty U.S. Marine who used to edit from U.S. government IP addresses, and now attends college in Missouri. Accordingly, he edits about 50% of the time from college-related IP addresses, all of which are screamingly obvious because they are geolocated to the Springfield, Missouri area. Unlike many WP editors, he is less concerned about taking credit for and accruing edits to his registered account. As far as I can tell, he edits for the pure pleasure of building encyclopedia articles about swimming and swimmers.

If any of the admins participating in this discussion would actually take five minutes to review the long-established structure of Wikipedia's Olympic and FINA world championship articles on swimming, they would quickly discover that these articles that Philip was creating are 100% consistent with established practice (please see Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and the infobox linking to articles on individual Olympic swimming events). It is apparent that BWilkins, whether well intended or otherwise, is clearly not familiar with these long-established article structures. This article structure is not limited to swimming, either; a nearly identical structure exists for track and field events. If you want a second opinion from an experienced administrator who works on competition swimming articles on a regular basis, ask Courcelles----he is responsible for most of the present category structure for Olympic and FINA swimming championships.

Without assessing fault, there are several points that need to be addressed, and in fairness to Philip should be addressed in an expeditious manner:

• Philip committed no violation of policy that requires that any IP address or his main account be blocked;
• Philip has zero history of vandalism;
• Philip has never edited from IP addresses or alternative accounts in order to manipulate discussion outcomes or to engage in edit-warring;
• the rationales presented for the removal of Philip's tools are factually incorrect;
• given the long-standing precedents for articles regarding individual swimming events at the Olympics and FINA world championships (and similar articles for other sports), the appropriate venue for addressing any notability concerns with these articles would be AfD, not PRODing, and certainly not a long-time admin taking it upon himself to delete them based on extremely shaky CSD rationales that would likely derail an RfA for any aspiring admin.

If BWilkins does not have time to address these obvious errors immediately, I would respectfully request that BWilkins step aside from this matter, and permit another admin or admins to correct them. Thanks for listening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(Absolutely nothing to do with BWilkins, but realistically, all of those individual events articles - whether an Olympic or FINA - whether swimming or track or whatever - and whether we've been having these for the last several events - are problematic - basically the equivalent of NOT#STAT. If we're telling the MMA people they can't have individual articles on individual events, we would be hypocritical in keeping these individual swimming articles. I do agree that BW shouldn't have CSD'd them as created, but a larger discussion about their validity (a separate RFC?) should be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Masem, regardless of whether these articles should be consolidated or not after considered discussion, there is ample precedent for their present inclusion, the CSD rationales presented for their instant deletion look like obvious overreaches, and the admin actions taken against a long-standing constructive editor who created these articles in good faith based on existing precedent appear to be obvious errors by BWilkins. Let's fix the errors, and address the policy concerns in a proper forum using proper procedure. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with you that the CSD deletions by BW were wrong (given past precedence of having them), and a different venue is needed to discuss the appropriateness of these articles. --MASEM (t)

Thanks, Masem; I appreciate that. But let's also unblock Philip's IP address and restore his tools as quickly as possible, too. These admin actions were clearly based on misunderstandings on BW's part, and there is no reason why these obviously mistaken admin actions should stand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The humourous part of this entire escapade is that if Philip had politely come to my talkpage after I had deleted the articles, gave me one or two links to similar individual event articles from 2010 or 2008 to show me directly that I was in error in my judgement, I would have undeleted them all (except the schedule) in about 30 seconds (possibly longer, if I had been in a meeting). I also would have re-added the rights back immediately. Instead, here we are in hours of drama that could have been resolved at the lowest level. Have a fantastic Christmas, Philip - you're an inspiration. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP wasn't blocked by BWilkins. There's no rush to unblock an IP, that was used by accident. I concur with restoration of the deleted articles, followed by AfDs, to determine which should be retained and which should be retained. I lean toward restoration of rights, but don't see a rush, and would prefer to get a more formal count of yeas and nays, as overturning such an action ought to be done with due consideration.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, if you would undelete as a result of a polite request, I assume you mean that policy supports undeletion, in which case you should do so. We don't fail to follow policy simply because an editor fails to be sufficiently polite in a request.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the request wasn't "polite"; it's that the request was non-existent. Once it was brought here to ANI, I believe it's out of my hands (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have said above that someone else is quite able to undelete accordingly. I've been running in and out of meetings to try and address these concerns (my boss is wondering WTF is happening) and I have always said that people can reverse my actions without my okay. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(Undeletion shouldn't be construed as precluding a "delete" !vote at an AfD, it simply means that in light of subsequent relevant evidence, the CSD was premature, and a proper deletion discussion should follow.

(edit conflict × 6)If you're too busy to answer a simple question on your talk page, can't see that as them trying to resolve things without going to ANI, and have to require the other user give you reason to assume good faith with them, you're too busy to use admin abilities to take away rights that the user was not abusing. If you would undelete as a result of possible action, you should make sure that's not the case before deleting them. If you're too busy to do that, you're too busy to use your admin abilities to delete such pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the links meet our criteria at WP:EL. Why would anyone see as an appropriate link a download to what appears to be a timesheet? Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Doug, what you are calling "timesheets" are the official results for each event. Typically, official results are generated for each competition stage of each individual swimming event: (1) qualifying/preliminary heats, (2) semifinals, and (3) final. For swimming articles, we normally incorporate them into the footnotes. The event stages are necessary because Olympic-size 50-meter pools only have eight lanes, and two or three dozen swimmers may make the qualifying time to compete in the Olympics or world championships in a given event. While these are primary sources, they are also clearly reliable sources (arguably, the most reliable sources), and I see no reason why they cannot be included as footnotes under our linking policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems a bit overblown. Bwilkins was and is still rushed, were the actions entirely correct, probably not. Were they malicious, no. People can make mistakes, so at most I would say trout Bwilkins for being rushed and trying to fix it quickly. Ideally, I would have passed it along or just bookmarked till I can deal with it with my full attention. Was just a bad call. While Bwilkins cannot dedicate time to explaining this, I do believe that a temporary restoration, as per Bwilkins comment, would be fine. And as long as we are on the subject of page notability and stuff, I don't exactly care how many pages we have as long as the pages serve a good purpose. Some of these, like the schedule, are ripe for the chopping block. Though, I do see that some of the complex lists and records are better kept in their own articles, lest they ruin the readability of the others. And do not forget that the old Baseball articles got a massive improvement with new sources and works coming out, so they may not be undeveloped forever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Support restorations of userrights. NE Ent 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Support restorations of userrights.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support restorations of userrights. If there the links, upon examination, were fine, they were fine before the examination that should have been done by the deleting and right-removing admin before such actions were carried out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The rights were not abused, restore per AGF and the lack of discussion prior to the stripping of said rights. Whenever in a rush, I'd mark it for later, the amount of damage those rights could do are low compared to other 'rights'. Bwilkins also is not opposed and would be fine with the action according to a post above. Everyone's eyes are on this so a true abuse of the rights would easily be noticed now. I see no reason to not restore them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

• I've unilaterally restored the rights. There wasn't a conversation with BWilkins before this was brought to ANI and with all due respect, this has instead turned into a drama-fest. The easiest way to end the drama is for me to restore the rights based on BWilkins own comment that any admin can restore them, so I have. If any admin wants to restore any deleted articles so they can be worked on, reviewed or taken to AFD, just do it as permission has been granted by the deleting admin. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed. This should have been a simple request on his talk page, but started with claims of abuse and just went downhill. I think BWilkins gets the point by now that he was perhaps a little hasty (but not abusive) and driving the point further is disruptive. I suggest an uninvolved admin simply work with Philipmj24 on his talk page. Please close the thread on your way there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

FWIW, I've started a discussion on the appropriateness of these pages at the village pump. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Vandal 94.7.158.48

• 94.7.158.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2.223.63.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user was blocked yesterday for 31 hours for persistent vandalism and personal attacks. However today I have reason to suspect the user has evaded the block using another IP. I thought I would bring this to your attention. The user IP 2.223.63.122 has posted identical edits and also vandalised my talk page. They now have been blocked but I feel this should be investigated as I feel there is strong suspicion of block evasion. Thank you for your assistance. Christian1985 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have notified both IPs that there's a thread on this board. Both geolocate to the same general area in the UK, and they are both the same service provider (Sky Broadband) so yeah, it's likely the same person. Both IPs are already blocked - 94.7.158.48 for 31 hours and 2.223.63.122 for two weeks. I'm not clear what else we can do, even knowing they are the same person? -- Dianna (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi protect the Hitchens article to auto confirmed.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've set pending changes on for the article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mobile Mom spam

A series of anonymous IPs have been adding a spam link to at least three pages, multiple times on one of the pages:
207.210.65.246 to Gestational age (diff)
207.210.65.198 to Beginning of pregnancy controversy (diff)
216.171.104.122 and 66.232.112.111 and 66.232.112.99 to Pregnancy test (diff and diff and diff)
All but one of the IP addresses have just the single edit, and 216.171.104.122 has such a variety of edits I believe it's multiple people. Because of the variable IP addresses, I'm not sure where to start with invitations to the talk pages or warnings or blocks. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Lyrl^Talk _C 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess if they are acting in concert (or are the same person), we could notify the IP with the earliest linkspam addition, at least to start off.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I forget the step by step way to search for offending links, but I know such a way exists. I did the special search for the url, but nothing turned up. It is more effective to watch for the infringing link for awhile and if it persist put it on the blacklist, but blocking the IPs would probably do little to stop it and it doesn't seem to be an 'attack'. I say wait and see what happens, if it continues then we should address it, the IP hopping is easy enough to do, but so it reverting it. Oh, and maybe such a search should be noted at WP:SPAM for future reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

216.171.104.122 is the chronic spammer main IP. [66] Pick at random the contributions, they seem to be the main IP. I'll toss them a warning now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Analytics ID: UA-32139756 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

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

Accounts

207.210.65.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
207.210.65.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.232.112.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.232.112.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.171.104.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Other related (216.171.104.122)

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

Accounts

69.164.72.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.171.104.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--Hu12 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a classic case for the spam blacklist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YellowPegasus

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:YellowPegasus has identified himself as a reincarnation of User:PIPony22, who was blocked for disruptive editing in 2010. With the new YellowPegasus account, this user's only edits outside of userspace have been a series of disruptive edits to templates – rewording, renaming, replacing CSS classes with wikitables, as well as creating a bunch of new, redundant templates which are currently at TfD. Two warnings, from myself and another user, were immediately archived without comment. It was suggested at the 2010 ANI discussion (linked above) that this user has some sort of behavioural disorder, and I'm fairly sure these edits are being made in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that this is disruptive behaviour. I don't know what's the appropriate course of action here, I just felt this should be brought to the attention of the community. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART does not apply to editors who were blocked. Looks to me like this person was blocked, edited anonymously for a bit, and now came out of the closet - both of which are improper. I have indeffed advising them of such (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the users page. They did come back improperly, but they admitted the previous account, so they weren't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I think that to be fair, we have to acknowledge this and try to work with the editor and create a path for them to come back if it possible. It might not be, there may be reasons why they are not capable of contributing here, I don't know. But I do think that in cases where they are being honest, we should at least provide a more clear path for them. The rules on cleanstart (and the 1000 other rules we have) aren't always intuitive, so giving back good faith where it was given by the editor is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thought about doing something similar but the current account's contributions] really aren't very encouraging. NE Ent 15:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed that as well, but being ever the optimist, wanted to provide a path, no matter how unlikely it will be traveled. Since they did admit the prior account, I felt it was the best option. This isn't a comment on anyone else not doing so, it is just how I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thought it might be of interest to know they've already got another sock on the go, having had the YP identity link to a Meta-Wiki userpage of their creation under another identity (User:AnnaHendren) who has a lot of the same editing patterns and behaviours here on en.wiki and was active as of a few days ago. Worth considering a SPI because there might be more but I'm not about to go on a fishing expedition. tutterMouse (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AnnaHendren

I'm concerned about this editor if only because of some dubious templates and redirects created by User:AnnaHendren (talk · contribs). Rarely if ever discusses anything except to deny having any socks, but that was before YellowPegasus. See User:AnnaHendren/YellowPegasus, her talkpage archives at [67] and [68], redirects of userspace such as [69]. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PIPony22. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've endorsed for CU at that SPI case. We can probably close this and let it run its course there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Post by IP with complaint about Dan Catullo

• Dan Catullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • 64.134.220.150 (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page, diff, with a complaint about this article, can admins investigate? I'll respectfully defer to the judgment by admins about this issue. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. Yeah. If this stuff is all public knowledge and some of the links will need to be examined with logging in as the session naturally closes, but in reviewing some of them, they do seem to merit credible cases brought forth against the individual. While I'm not one for slapping a bunch of mud on an article and staining someones reputation, especially with the strict BLP concerns, this is about as reliable evidence as one can get of 'legal troubles'. Though I do believe the IP has a point about Wikipedia being used to promote the subject as everything in the article is a terrible mess from a NPOV standpoint. I'ma start the axing of the unreliable sourced material and see where I end up. I am not going to put the legal matters in, though this probably will go to AFD and stick, there is a chance it can be saved though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Offshoot Plane to Haiti is tagged for deletion now. I've also noted that many of the claims are overblown and some seem to be outright lies like the 4 Guinness world records for that Creed concert, Guinness has one and it is obvious that it was a publicity ploy. Many of the fame and awards credited on the page are not his and have nothing to do with him. Such as , "Etta James –“Etta James and the Roots Band: Burnin’ Down the House” (2002-Live Music Special/DVD & CD) (Director) - Grammy nomination in 2003 for “Best Contemporary Blues Album” [4]" I don't think much of this can be saved in fact, the only thing reliably sourced right now and deal with him specifically are these court cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with the article right now. I think requiring reliable sources for everything is about as best as we can do. IMDB is a loss, and while he does have numerous legitimate connections and 'credits', they do not seem to be a major role and they are not the focus of coverage in reliable sources. Though a small treasure trove of numerous convictions which lead to jail time and other civil cases are a small mountain. For so much wrong with it, fixing it is a big job. I may just end up redoing the article from scratch. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Simplified Technical English

We seem to have multiple IPs in the 186.227.192.xxx range all attempting to delete material on Talk:Simplified Technical English relating to 'SHUFRA' - a problematic website already raised more than once for spamming, and blacklisted - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 59#Simplified English. A range block will no doubt solve the immediate problem, but further eyes would be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Webhost range blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012)

The page generally presents very pro-rebel biased POV. I added two pieces of information recently and user Sopher99 keeps removing it, claiming that the sources I cite are not reliable. Reverts here and here.

Of course with an ongoing armed conflict it is hard to check reliability, but definitely the criteria of removing information just because it might present Syria's government in good light is not the right one. Please note that even the "names of Fridays" in the timeline are kept along the rebel POV. --Emesik (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Names of the Friday have been a widely reported aspect of the rebellion; so they belong there. Any article on the Friday protests would've started at the time with the name given to that Friday by the rebels (naturally), and we are reproducing what RS are reporting. This seems very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SANA is certainly not a reliable source in general, but it is a reliable source on the government's POV, so in that context I think the information should've been kept.

But more importantly, this is a content dispute, take it to the talk page, WP:DRN, or WP:RFC. If the reversion continues you can report it to WP:3RR. I don't see any admin involvement necessary in here just yet. Yazan (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Buster7 article talk page disruption

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.

---

At Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Accolades, Buster7 (talk · contribs) is violating talk page guidelines with unrelated chatter not aimed at improving the article. He is reverting hatting of the unrelated chatter as well. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've already warned you about causing drama by hatting discussion. Bringing it here in the pit of ANI wasn't wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP question

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 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.

---

76.189.123.142 (talk · contribs) threatened to take me here because I mentioned the state in which his IP is registered. I did so because he first called me by user name, and since he doesn't have a user name, I called him "[x]-based-IP". That's public information. Is it a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Did someone check this IP to make sure its not a sock account? Im not jumping the gun here but the IP seems to know alot about wikipedia and is acting uncivil towards some editors to the point of being disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

His removal of my required notification of this thread,[70] labeling it "harassment", has a vaguely familiar ring to it. In any case, the IP is obsessed with the notion that the Newtown school shouldn't have the word "Elementary" in it, and he's been pursuing this in an every-widening list of forums. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• All IPs can be geolocated to one degree or another. Stating that his geolocates to Ohio or the greater Cleveland area isn't outing, it is public information that can be found on thousands of websites. This link is on his very talk page under "geolocation" [71] Same with revealing the ISP, etc. Some IPs locate to specific companies, for that matter. I wouldn't worry about threats. If a user doesn't want his location known, he should register an account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • His disruption includes both removing my [x]-based comment and also another editor who had marked the discussion as "answered". [Apparently that's allowed.] I'm becoming convinced he's de facto trolling, even if he thinks he's doing the right thing. The article is supposed to be about the shooting, not the name of the school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs failed to provide the diff of the highly-inappropriate way he addressed me on the talk page, by revealing the state of my IP. It was clearly done as a harassment technique and is clear violation of the spirit of WP:OUTING. He should be sanctioned for this. And of course I called him Bugs: that's his user name. But you do not address an IP as "California-based IP" or "London-based IP" or wherever the IP is located! That is unbelievably inappropriate. You address an IP like all other editors do it: IP, IP 76, 76, etc. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I purposely left out the diff here so as not to worsen any problem it might have caused. Since you yourself have now provided that link, and since Dennis points out that it's not outing after all, your complaint appears baseless. I checked your location because I wondered if you were somewhere near that school. You're not. So I have to figure that your obsession with this non-issue of the school's name is nothing but trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't outing. There is a link on your talk page that tells the whole world you live in the greater Cleveland area. It isn't a bug, it is a feature. IP addresses are not anonymous, on any website. The diff you provided was blunt but not a personal attack and I would argue not even incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP sock?

Looking at the IP's edit history, he started here on the 12th and immediately began a crusade about the names of things. That M.O. sounds very familiar, but an associated regstered user name is not coming to mind. Maybe I should keep a list of these things, but I don't. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't make socking claims without filing an SPI. In this case, you have no master, so there is nothing to claim, thus simply inflammatory. Rest assured, everyone at these contentious articles is being looked at carefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a claim, a question, to editors with better memories than mine. I am well aware that checkusers won't do anything with IP's. Meanwhile, he again removed my required notification to him about the ANI thread.[72] That makes at least 3 times now that he's erased my comments. I don't intend to edit-war them back into the talk pages. I am confident the admins will deal with the IP in due course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Your confidence is well placed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Mobile Mom spam

A series of anonymous IPs have been adding a spam link to at least three pages, multiple times on one of the pages:
207.210.65.246 to Gestational age (diff)
207.210.65.198 to Beginning of pregnancy controversy (diff)
216.171.104.122 and 66.232.112.111 and 66.232.112.99 to Pregnancy test (diff and diff and diff)
All but one of the IP addresses have just the single edit, and 216.171.104.122 has such a variety of edits I believe it's multiple people. Because of the variable IP addresses, I'm not sure where to start with invitations to the talk pages or warnings or blocks. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Lyrl^Talk _C 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess if they are acting in concert (or are the same person), we could notify the IP with the earliest linkspam addition, at least to start off.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I forget the step by step way to search for offending links, but I know such a way exists. I did the special search for the url, but nothing turned up. It is more effective to watch for the infringing link for awhile and if it persist put it on the blacklist, but blocking the IPs would probably do little to stop it and it doesn't seem to be an 'attack'. I say wait and see what happens, if it continues then we should address it, the IP hopping is easy enough to do, but so it reverting it. Oh, and maybe such a search should be noted at WP:SPAM for future reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

216.171.104.122 is the chronic spammer main IP. [73] Pick at random the contributions, they seem to be the main IP. I'll toss them a warning now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Analytics ID: UA-32139756 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

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

Accounts

207.210.65.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
207.210.65.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.232.112.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.232.112.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.171.104.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Other related (216.171.104.122)

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

Accounts

69.164.72.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
216.171.104.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--Hu12 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a classic case for the spam blacklist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

User:YellowPegasus

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:YellowPegasus has identified himself as a reincarnation of User:PIPony22, who was blocked for disruptive editing in 2010. With the new YellowPegasus account, this user's only edits outside of userspace have been a series of disruptive edits to templates – rewording, renaming, replacing CSS classes with wikitables, as well as creating a bunch of new, redundant templates which are currently at TfD. Two warnings, from myself and another user, were immediately archived without comment. It was suggested at the 2010 ANI discussion (linked above) that this user has some sort of behavioural disorder, and I'm fairly sure these edits are being made in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that this is disruptive behaviour. I don't know what's the appropriate course of action here, I just felt this should be brought to the attention of the community. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART does not apply to editors who were blocked. Looks to me like this person was blocked, edited anonymously for a bit, and now came out of the closet - both of which are improper. I have indeffed advising them of such (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the users page. They did come back improperly, but they admitted the previous account, so they weren't trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I think that to be fair, we have to acknowledge this and try to work with the editor and create a path for them to come back if it possible. It might not be, there may be reasons why they are not capable of contributing here, I don't know. But I do think that in cases where they are being honest, we should at least provide a more clear path for them. The rules on cleanstart (and the 1000 other rules we have) aren't always intuitive, so giving back good faith where it was given by the editor is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thought about doing something similar but the current account's contributions] really aren't very encouraging. NE Ent 15:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed that as well, but being ever the optimist, wanted to provide a path, no matter how unlikely it will be traveled. Since they did admit the prior account, I felt it was the best option. This isn't a comment on anyone else not doing so, it is just how I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thought it might be of interest to know they've already got another sock on the go, having had the YP identity link to a Meta-Wiki userpage of their creation under another identity (User:AnnaHendren) who has a lot of the same editing patterns and behaviours here on en.wiki and was active as of a few days ago. Worth considering a SPI because there might be more but I'm not about to go on a fishing expedition. tutterMouse (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AnnaHendren

I'm concerned about this editor if only because of some dubious templates and redirects created by User:AnnaHendren (talk · contribs). Rarely if ever discusses anything except to deny having any socks, but that was before YellowPegasus. See User:AnnaHendren/YellowPegasus, her talkpage archives at [74] and [75], redirects of userspace such as [76]. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PIPony22. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've endorsed for CU at that SPI case. We can probably close this and let it run its course there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Post by IP with complaint about Dan Catullo

• Dan Catullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • 64.134.220.150 (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page, diff, with a complaint about this article, can admins investigate? I'll respectfully defer to the judgment by admins about this issue. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. Yeah. If this stuff is all public knowledge and some of the links will need to be examined with logging in as the session naturally closes, but in reviewing some of them, they do seem to merit credible cases brought forth against the individual. While I'm not one for slapping a bunch of mud on an article and staining someones reputation, especially with the strict BLP concerns, this is about as reliable evidence as one can get of 'legal troubles'. Though I do believe the IP has a point about Wikipedia being used to promote the subject as everything in the article is a terrible mess from a NPOV standpoint. I'ma start the axing of the unreliable sourced material and see where I end up. I am not going to put the legal matters in, though this probably will go to AFD and stick, there is a chance it can be saved though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Offshoot Plane to Haiti is tagged for deletion now. I've also noted that many of the claims are overblown and some seem to be outright lies like the 4 Guinness world records for that Creed concert, Guinness has one and it is obvious that it was a publicity ploy. Many of the fame and awards credited on the page are not his and have nothing to do with him. Such as , "Etta James –“Etta James and the Roots Band: Burnin’ Down the House” (2002-Live Music Special/DVD & CD) (Director) - Grammy nomination in 2003 for “Best Contemporary Blues Album” [4]" I don't think much of this can be saved in fact, the only thing reliably sourced right now and deal with him specifically are these court cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with the article right now. I think requiring reliable sources for everything is about as best as we can do. IMDB is a loss, and while he does have numerous legitimate connections and 'credits', they do not seem to be a major role and they are not the focus of coverage in reliable sources. Though a small treasure trove of numerous convictions which lead to jail time and other civil cases are a small mountain. For so much wrong with it, fixing it is a big job. I may just end up redoing the article from scratch. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Simplified Technical English

We seem to have multiple IPs in the 186.227.192.xxx range all attempting to delete material on Talk:Simplified Technical English relating to 'SHUFRA' - a problematic website already raised more than once for spamming, and blacklisted - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 59#Simplified English. A range block will no doubt solve the immediate problem, but further eyes would be appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Webhost range blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012)

The page generally presents very pro-rebel biased POV. I added two pieces of information recently and user Sopher99 keeps removing it, claiming that the sources I cite are not reliable. Reverts here and here.

Of course with an ongoing armed conflict it is hard to check reliability, but definitely the criteria of removing information just because it might present Syria's government in good light is not the right one. Please note that even the "names of Fridays" in the timeline are kept along the rebel POV. --Emesik (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Names of the Friday have been a widely reported aspect of the rebellion; so they belong there. Any article on the Friday protests would've started at the time with the name given to that Friday by the rebels (naturally), and we are reproducing what RS are reporting. This seems very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SANA is certainly not a reliable source in general, but it is a reliable source on the government's POV, so in that context I think the information should've been kept.

But more importantly, this is a content dispute, take it to the talk page, WP:DRN, or WP:RFC. If the reversion continues you can report it to WP:3RR. I don't see any admin involvement necessary in here just yet. Yazan (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Buster7 article talk page disruption

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.

---

At Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Accolades, Buster7 (talk · contribs) is violating talk page guidelines with unrelated chatter not aimed at improving the article. He is reverting hatting of the unrelated chatter as well. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG: "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've already warned you about causing drama by hatting discussion. Bringing it here in the pit of ANI wasn't wise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP question

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 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.

---

76.189.123.142 (talk · contribs) threatened to take me here because I mentioned the state in which his IP is registered. I did so because he first called me by user name, and since he doesn't have a user name, I called him "[x]-based-IP". That's public information. Is it a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Did someone check this IP to make sure its not a sock account? Im not jumping the gun here but the IP seems to know alot about wikipedia and is acting uncivil towards some editors to the point of being disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

His removal of my required notification of this thread,[77] labeling it "harassment", has a vaguely familiar ring to it. In any case, the IP is obsessed with the notion that the Newtown school shouldn't have the word "Elementary" in it, and he's been pursuing this in an every-widening list of forums. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• All IPs can be geolocated to one degree or another. Stating that his geolocates to Ohio or the greater Cleveland area isn't outing, it is public information that can be found on thousands of websites. This link is on his very talk page under "geolocation" [78] Same with revealing the ISP, etc. Some IPs locate to specific companies, for that matter. I wouldn't worry about threats. If a user doesn't want his location known, he should register an account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • His disruption includes both removing my [x]-based comment and also another editor who had marked the discussion as "answered". [Apparently that's allowed.] I'm becoming convinced he's de facto trolling, even if he thinks he's doing the right thing. The article is supposed to be about the shooting, not the name of the school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs failed to provide the diff of the highly-inappropriate way he addressed me on the talk page, by revealing the state of my IP. It was clearly done as a harassment technique and is clear violation of the spirit of WP:OUTING. He should be sanctioned for this. And of course I called him Bugs: that's his user name. But you do not address an IP as "California-based IP" or "London-based IP" or wherever the IP is located! That is unbelievably inappropriate. You address an IP like all other editors do it: IP, IP 76, 76, etc. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I purposely left out the diff here so as not to worsen any problem it might have caused. Since you yourself have now provided that link, and since Dennis points out that it's not outing after all, your complaint appears baseless. I checked your location because I wondered if you were somewhere near that school. You're not. So I have to figure that your obsession with this non-issue of the school's name is nothing but trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't outing. There is a link on your talk page that tells the whole world you live in the greater Cleveland area. It isn't a bug, it is a feature. IP addresses are not anonymous, on any website. The diff you provided was blunt but not a personal attack and I would argue not even incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP sock?

Looking at the IP's edit history, he started here on the 12th and immediately began a crusade about the names of things. That M.O. sounds very familiar, but an associated regstered user name is not coming to mind. Maybe I should keep a list of these things, but I don't. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't make socking claims without filing an SPI. In this case, you have no master, so there is nothing to claim, thus simply inflammatory. Rest assured, everyone at these contentious articles is being looked at carefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not a claim, a question, to editors with better memories than mine. I am well aware that checkusers won't do anything with IP's. Meanwhile, he again removed my required notification to him about the ANI thread.[79] That makes at least 3 times now that he's erased my comments. I don't intend to edit-war them back into the talk pages. I am confident the admins will deal with the IP in due course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Your confidence is well placed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

9/11 sanctions

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.

---

J3wishVulcan (talk · contribs) appears to be convinced that government agents are controlling the September 11 attacks article and has been using its talkpage as a soapbox [80], [81], [82], and this gem on my talkpage [83]. They've been amply warned [84] and [85] and logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. I don't consider myself an uninvolved admin in this area. Agent 86, aka Acroterion (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I missed the edit summary on this diff! [86] Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, just seen it on Acroterion's talk page. As the user is getting very close to violating 3RR for their edits/reverts on Talk:September 11 attacks, I placed a warning on their talk page. - 007, aka Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I implore the "authorities" of Wikipedia to not be complicit in censorship - on what was supposed to be a an encyclopedia written by people, for people. I do not believe the suppressing comments on the 9/11 talk page by hiding them is appropriate. Any official sanctions against me will only add even more credence to my thesis about the hijacking of the 9/11 page, to an even greater extent than it has already been proven by the editors concerted effort to suppress my comments. I never expected to encounter suppression of speech on Wikipedia.--J3wishVulcan (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This guy is clearly here for soapboxing and only soapboxing. He is also slightly...um...nuts. With this edit (and the part in green), he seems to believe the clear sarcastic (and funny) response by User:A Quest For Knowledge above his. I can't see anyone who thinks we are "operatives" and "authorities" editing Wikipedia in a constructive manner. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing acceptable edits in other areas, but only going back over a year ago. Aside from this edit, all of his edits this year have been to POV-push. A topic-ban rather than a permablock might be more merciful and helpful. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• J3wishVulcan is definitely soap boxing, failing to assume good faith by accusing fellow editors as being government operatives (the CIA, I assume) and they've apparently broke 3RR. [87][88][89][90] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• User has now reverted five times on the article talk page. A report has been issued at the Edit warring noticeboard. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked them on the basis of the AN3 report, before seeing this. The 3RR issue is fairly obvious; I think this can be closed now. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was about to block the editor just after you blocked them; I was going to do it for longer, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• No big problem, I think. If they return and continue, then they can be blocked for longer. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The block needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• so fix it NE Ent 19:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Apparent university/on-job training project

Faculty Mechanical Engineering (talk · contribs) was blocked recently as a invalid username (implied shared account). They've put up an unblock request explaining that they are "intern students" (am unsure if this means a university project or on-the-job training) and requesting that they be unblocked to continue work on a page they've been instructed to work on. They requested via {{unblock-un}} and the suggested new username just appends ",UTM" to the end of it. Instructor is an IT manager, name "Mr.Zulkepli". Figured I'd give a heads-up since I will need to return to work in under 10 minutes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and declined the unblock on the grounds that it's a shared account. No firm opinion on the merit of the article they're trying to add (located here), but at a quick glance it looks like the subject is notable but the text itself is spammy/trivial and it would likely need a complete rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Hot Stop

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.

---

Hot Stop (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with using incivil language, particularly in edit summaries. The editor was blocked back in October 2011 for using "fuck off" in an edit summary by Ironholds stating "learn to behave civilly, or the next one will be a lot longer". Almost a year later, in August 2012 I put an edit warring notice on their talk page and the behavior continued, with Hot Stop telling me to "go fuck off" (in hindsight the edit warring notice probably wasn't the best thing for me to do, but I didn't realize I had interacted with this editor before, and only realized it after the "fuck off" statement). I asked them to stop, but it didn't help, and I figured the issue was just the editor having a problem with me specifically, so I just decided to back off and hoped that would solve the issue. Apparently that's not the case, however, since the editor has continued the behavior with others. When an editor asked them not to remove project tags, HotStop responded by telling the editor to "fuck off dick face", and to "take a fucking hint". The editor was told to stop this behavior, and has not done so, and this pattern of behavior apparently is not a short-term thing, and isn't going to just go away on its own. - SudoGhost 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not condoning the edit summaries. Nor am I looking at Hot Stop's history. That said, in this particular instance, Hot Stop was provoked. User:Buck Winston posted several inflammatory messages to Hot Stop's talk page (repeatedly reverted by Hot Stop), this in the middle of a dispute where Buck has been edit-warring about the addition of a cat to an article. I have been handling the edit-warring report at WP:ANEW. There are other issues here that concern me with Buck, although they don't directly relate to the reason SudoGhost brought this here. I will notify Buck of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

HotStop blocked 24h. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to notify Buck Winston, and to be fair I didn't notice that Hot Stop had already removed two less-than-civil comments by Buck Winston[91][92], but I don't think "fuck off dick face" is the best way to handle that. - SudoGhost 23:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No reason to be sorry. I'm not sure I would have notified Buck had I been you. I notified him because I mentioned him by name. And you're right, Hot Stop's comments were not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when someone will not stop posting to your talk page I believe it is your right to tell them to fuck off. I think either Buck should get a 24 hour break as well for edit warring or HotStop should be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that's just an essay, as I couldn't disagree more with it. That's neither here nor there, though, unless your point was that it's okay to call another editor "dick face" in certain situations, too. --Conti|✉--00:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree there. Not only is a statement like "fuck off dick face" inarguably a WP:CIVIL violation, I've found that a general rule, the person asking the other to stop posting is generally as much or more to blame as the person being asked to stop. When it gets to the point of "so-and-so is no longer welcome on my talk page", I find that the bulk, if not all, of the problem generally lies with the person making such demands.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right as a general rule, but not in this case. Buck was out of line.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but "I was provoked" isn't an excuse for attacking someone in my eyes. Looks like Buck was trying to carry on a content-related conversation Hot Stop didn't want to have, so yeah, bad style on Buck's part, but there's nothing anywhere in what Buck said or did that justified Hot Stop's flying off the handle the way he did. In no universe will "fuck off dick face" resolve any content or editorial dispute; the only thing that behavior does is poison the atmosphere and make the dispute so personal that it obscures the original locus of the dispute. I'd also note that Hot Stop shows no apparent evidence in his unblock request or post-request interactions that he understands that his behavior was unacceptable ("I understand what I was blocked for" and "...but I was provoked by his behavior" do not equal "I understand that I cannot speak to my fellow editors that way, even if they've annoyed me") or that he intends to avoid it in the future.

If people want, I suppose we can discuss Buck's behavior here as well, but personally, I see nothing in his behavior toward Hot Stop that deserves more than a sigh and a recommendation that he try to avoid poking bears in the future. At any rate, it has no bearing on Hot Stop's behavior whether or not the person he was railing against was perfect or totally wrong - in either case, he didn't have the right to resort to name-calling. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know not everyone sees it the same way as I do, but I find "fuck off dick face" and persistently, angrily posting to someone's talk page after they have made it clear they don't want you to to be roughly equivalent in terms of incivility. Neither excuses the other though, and adding "dick face" to the message to fuck off is kind of heaping it on a bit thick. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Buck Winston is almost certainly another sock of Otto4711. I had been waiting for a new one to pop up, it was about time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure the short duration block makes sense here, all of the incivility was in response to posts to his own talk page that were at the very least trollish. If the goal is to stop further disruption, the more rational solution would be to tell Buck Winston to stop commenting there. Instead it seems more like a punishment. Generally, I think when an editor has been goaded into making uncivil comments, particularly on their own talk page, we should look the other way. Monty₈₄₅ 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be wary of sending a message that it's not alright to respond to provocation with incivility (a notion I would generally agree with), but that it's alright to deliberately provoke editors. We'd actually have a problem if Hot Stop was responding to respectful disagreement with this kind of attitude, but this is not an example of respectful disagreement. wctaiwan (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only problem is that this wasn't some one-time thing, it's a pattern of incivility that Hot Stop has been blocked for before. While I'm certainly not suggesting that it's a "Buck did nothing wrong, Hot Stop was completely in the wrong" situation, looking the other way isn't going to prevent disruption if this behavior is just going to continue. - SudoGhost 02:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Buck Winston for edit-warring per the report at WP:ANEW. Upon further reflection and on my investigation into his edit history, I found his claim that he lost track of the number of reverts not to be credible.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok hotstop, i understand that your block will expire soon, so i'm going to offer a little advice: tone down on the swears, mmkay? i sometimes use the word "shit" in posts but i don't go overboard with it, so please sease and desist all "fuck" related dammages. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's some equally unsolicited advice for you: the pronoun 'I' is capitalised; 'cease' begins with a 'c'; and 'damages' has only one 'm', and doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, I (the anti of excelent at grammar, meaning i'm not so good at it) will try this again. I have some advice for you Hotstop: Please cease and desist all "Fuck" related insults and bashing. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Hasty page moves and edits by User:Sawol

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:Sawol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sawol has been performing bulk page moves [93] and chainging naming convention guidelines [94] without waiting for discussions to close and consensus to emerge. He has been asked to slow down by several editors [95], [96], [97] including most recently myself, but he does not seem to get it. The good-faith but hasty edits are confusing the issue and unintentionally interfering with development of articles with consistent names. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I stop some edit about your concern. But see Talk:Sinyang County. All user agree on the title name "~ County". Sawol (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That discussion is still open, there is no emerging consensus to apply that requested move to other articles than those two, and your assessment that all users agree on a name is inaccurate. This is why we wait for discussions to be closed and someone uninvolved to determine the consensus - if we are involved in the discussion, it is difficult to be neutral in our assessment of the outcome. VQuakr (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not fully understand about the policy. If one user propose a proposal, someone uninvolved can close the discussion. I have learned a lot. Sawol (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive deletion of content

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.

---

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a campaign of deleting tagged "uncited" material from pages. His contribution history is quite extensively bolded red.

The policies primarily involved here are:

• WP:V and WP:CHALLENGE in particular;
• WP:Editing policy and WP:PRESERVE in particular.

I have seen two of his edits on articles on my watchlist, All Hallows' School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anglican Church Grammar School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He removed a section from All Hallow's on Dec. 6 (diff) and from Churchie on Dec. 16 (diff). On both occasions, he removed content that could have been sourced with a very simple google search, which I have since done. The latest diff, on Churchie, shows that in his enthusiasm for deleting content, he also managed to delete cited content.

There are many other articles where he has done the same, however, most are outside of my interest area (actually a lot of the ones that I can see are on subjects that are in non-English speaking countries and are therefore subject to the WP:BIAS in favour of English language articles. I was unable to find sources for the couple that I tried, but I don't doubt that someone with an interest in those areas might be able to do better than I.

While, technically, WP:V allows uncited content to be removed, it also states that "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (in the section titled WP:CHALLENGE). This doesn't appear to be happening.

I have tried to talk out the issue with Epeefleche twice, first at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section, and then again former revision (the content has since been removed).

This is part of a pattern of behaviour which is disruptive, per the definition given at WP:DISRUPT, because, while it isn't vandalism, it is definitively deletorious towards the goals of creating a detailed encyclopedia.

It is also the latest round of Epeefleche's disruptive and tendentious approach to his work on Wikipedia, the last (in which I was involved) was his nomination of just under 200 school articles over a 3 week period over New Years 2011 to 2012, many of which were ill-considered (on at least one occasion it was because a school region was mistaken for a primary school). In that episode, questions were raised by myself and many other editors as to whether Epeefleche was aligning himself with WP:BEGIN, especially considering AfD's were being made with very small gaps of minutes/seconds.

The outcome I want from this is for Epeefleche to work towards WP:PRESERVE and seek sources for tagged content rather than delete content. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm....are you seriously complaining because an editor deleted content with no source? Really? And the other "Churchie" source was a primary source (Henley Royal Regatta - List of Entries 2012) which would require a secondary RS as well...but didn't have. WP:V: "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." So you are a mind reader as well as an editor? I don't know about this pattern you speak of from the other editor....but I am beginning to see one here. But of course if an admin wants to force Epeefleche to "work towards WP:PRESERVE and seek sources for tagged content rather than delete content", then go for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Without really looking into it, I would argue that WP:BURDEN trumps WP:PRESERVE, particularly considering that preserve says "Preserve appropriate content...should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research)" It seems to me WP:PRESERVE is more about not deleting content because it is badly written than it is about keeping unsourced content --Jac16888 ^Talk 11:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing content with no source given is not the same as removing unverifiable content. Unverifiable content should be removed, and content where nobody has bothered to give a source, but that is verifiable, should stay until it is challenged based on its contents, not based on the fact that nobody has given a source. —Kusma (t·c) 11:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". Per Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) not every word needs a source right now and (b) not everything that needs a source needs to be removed right now. It is unhelpful to go around removing things that are most likely true. —Kusma (t·c) 13:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At least this edit removed a reference too. --Cyclopia^talk 11:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I said that was a primary source and should have a secondary RS to support it.(uninvolved observation)--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

While WP:V does say that content can be removed, it also says quite clearly, that an effort should be made to seek sources as an alternative to removing content. In these cases, that material was readily available if an extremely cursory google search was conducted (as I said, the sources came up as the #2 and #1 results). If the intent of WP:V isn't to actually improve the encyclopedia by making people do the tiniest little bit of legwork, then why even state that "it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? Why have WP:PRESERVE as part of the Editing policy if it's viewed just as a guideline? It seems to me that Epeefleche has decided to ignore that part of the policy which actually involves improving the encyclopedia, which is an issue. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well WP:V doesn't require people find sources, in fact it makes it clear that ultimately it's up to people who want to keep the info to find sources. And PRESERVE may be part of policy, but it makes it clear it's not required to preserve information which fails verifiability. To be clear, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be helpful if Epeefleche changes the way they deal with unsourced or poorly sourced content, perhaps it would be I haven't looked enough to comment. I'm simply saying nothing is happening here since there's no clearcut policy violation, and ANI is way too soon anyway. (I'm not entirely sure how you even hope to achieve your desired outcome by coming to ANI. Are you asking for a block until the editor agrees to change their behaviour?) Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:V states that it is better to find sources rather than remove. That's not the same thing as saying that finding sources is "not required". Furthermore, it's not unverifiable if a google search turns up the information in 3 seconds, it's just that the sources haven't been provided. I've stated what I want in the opening. If Epeefleche can't cooperate and edit per policy, then, at that point, we can talk about how to enforce the point.

Separately, just took a quick look at Epee's last 500 edits and saw too more articles which seem to have undergone the same treatment, and are also easily fixed with a simple google search:

• [98]
• [99]

This is disruptive because it could have been done by Epee in the first place (and WP:V and WP:PRESERVE states that it should be done). So I suppose my question is, if removal is preferred to spending 3 seconds doing a google search, do we need a dedicated editor going around restoring content where Epee refuses to use google? I'm sure if I went back further than 500 edits, I'd find yet more examples, but is it my (or anyone's) job to do what Epee won't? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you may say, the point is it's not required. Someone is unlikely to be blocked solely for removing unsourced information, even if sources can be found, except in exceptional circumstances or when the community has expressed clear concern over their behaviour (such as with an RFC). Remember this is ANI, so we should nearly always approach things from an ANI POV. If you're not doing so, there's a good chance you're at the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are we seriously talking about sanctioning someone for removing unsourced content from articles? Is today opposite day? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we're talking about sanctioning (guiding someone to do the right thing, in this case, I'm not asking for a block) someone for removing unsourced content from articles which could/should have been sourced with 3 seconds on google against both WP:V and WP:PRESERVE. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not going to happen. June 2010 and 2009 is a long time, we shouldn't be leaving in unsourced material that long. And the material deleted at All Hallows about houses, home groups, etc probably didn't belong anyway, our guidelines say don't include "Trivia which is only of interest to pupils in the school (such as school timetables, bell schedules, class-by-class rules, daily lunch menus, location of the toilets, or a room-by-room description of the school facilities)". Sloppiness is another issue but sanctioning would only take place after considerable discussion with the editor and failure to change. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is the same old tired PRESERVE vs WP:V argument that has gone on since day one here. Who wins usually depends on who shows up at ANI that particular day. Removing contentious material that isn't sourced isn't the usual problem, it usually boils down to reasonableness. And primary sources are acceptable, removing them really isn't unless the fact is very contentious. Here I don't really see the sea of red, however. I did see this edit [100] where he claims in his summary he is removing uncited material when he is infact removing cited material and cite. This [101] seemed unnecessary since there is a cite that lists all the movies. The editing seems sloppy, which isn't good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so you are saying that the primary source actually supports this claim:(bolding done for emphasis) "In 2012, the Open 1st VIII participated in the Princess Elizabeth Challenge Cup at the Henley Royal Regatta, the first Churchie crew to do so."

I would argue it had to be removed as not being supported by that primary source.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And , oh my god that other article is a huge mess. Sloppy is right...but not from the deletion. The thing has an outright raw external link in the article. This is a BLP and none of that was sourced. A flmography or cite that simply lists all the films wont support all the claims being made on the biography.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see mention of Churchie being in any of the competitions before then. Should I reference all the lists of entries going back however long to prove the point, or is this a red herring? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would find a Reliable Source that actually makes the claim and not synthesize it.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's likely mentioned in the school newsletter, but I can't access it. If you know a kid at the school, you could help out here. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A school newsletter is a reliable source?! Is this Wacky Day on ANI or something? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wacky Dan on ANI? What are you talking about? Is whether or not Churchie went along to a rowing regatta a matter that is so contentious that an WP:SPS would not be acceptable? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

For schools, the school website and history books published by the school are acceptable primary sources for non-contentious material. School newsletters and such are never acceptable sources for anything, and if I saw something "cited" to one in an article I'd remove the material and leave a polite but firm message on the editor's talk page not to use them again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At least for the schools with which I work, there is no difference between the school website, publications, ASR's and anything else published by the school on the one hand and school newsletters on the other. They all have to be approved for publication by Principals (or equivalents) and usually have to follow a format set by policy. So, really... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I was on both my high school & college newspapers, and none of them needed pricipal/dean approval or had any editorial oversight aside from the editor, who was just another student volunteer and would correct typos but not verify articles. There was a teacher who supposedly gave guidance but didn't do much relating to content aside from telling us not to curse. There was no fact-checking whatsoever. Simply put, they are not reliable sources even for basic information. Additionally, anything for which a school newsletter is the ONLY extant source and has never been covered elsewhere is almost certainly too trivial to be useful in a general-interest encyclopedia anyway. That said, evaluating reliable sources is out of scope for ANI so I won't elaborate further. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

8I have always interpreted the rule about removal of sourced material as having an implied "reasonably" -- along with essentially all other WP rules. If applied literally, it would be contrary to the spirit of WP:BUTO. What Epeefleche is doing is apparently designed to show us the absurdity of taking it literally--or at least that's the basis for it. Even in BLP, unsourced non negative non judgmental uncontroversial factual material is not removed automatically or single-handedly. If Epee is absolutely convinced that this is the best course to pursue, I will consider whether I and the rest of us should start doing so also to the most prominent articles I can find. (What I think the best course is to explicitly insert the word"reasonably" where it belongs.) DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently? I don't see that. That is an assumption. I see someone trying to improve articles and being dragged through AN/I over it. Applied literally. No. I also do not see that. BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The only thing I would question is whether or not the content was contentious. But I am not sure how you would even make that determination and have always thought that wording odd.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. At this point, you're either on board with verifiability and reliable sourcing or you aren't. If you aren't, then get out of the way because you're on your way out. It doesn't matter which way the editing culture shifts (though nearly everyone seems to understand V by now) as Wikipedia could never go back to unverifiable information for legal reasons. Nobody in their right mind is going to sanction Epeefleche for doing what policy allows, encourages, and even requires them to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Schools are covered by BLP now?!? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, schools aren't living people, but ideally the same best editing practices do apply because schools, like living persons, can be harmed by inaccurate public information and, also like living persons, can sue for libel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone calling for his head on a platter. I do see a couple of people saying "You are being sloppy here". And my comment on primary links was a general one, not specific to this case. Primary links are acceptable for non-contentious facts and often the best sources. What would be nice is to see them come here and simply say "I understand your concerns, and will try to be more discriminating in my deletion of material". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That was pretty well said and kinda humbles me back a bit Dennis. Of course it would be nice if he understood the concerns and I do hope he/she will make a quick visit to at least let editors know their intentions were in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But this is ANI so unless some sort of administrative action is being asked for, it isn't really the place for discussion. As I've said above, it may very well be that there are problems with Epeefleche's behaviour but this isn't the place to bring it up. The editor who started this thread has at least brought it up with Epeefleche's behaviour on their talk page first (unlike some ANI discussions). Since that didn't work, but the sort of behaviour here isn't the kind which is going to lead to immediate sanctions, there are other avenues of dispute resolution that should be tried first like a RFC/U. Avenues which are far more likely to lead to something productive then a long ANI discussion which will lead to nothing Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Being that (a) discussions that have been had so far have mainly been of the character Epee: I'm allowed to remove unsourced content; Danjel: But the sources are there, could you spend a couple of seconds looking for them? Epee: But I'm allowed to remove unsourced content (and around and around and around and around); and (b) past attempts at getting Epee to perceive problems in his approaches to editing (i.e., in regards to the mass AfD nominations at the beginning of the year) haven't exactly been successful, an RFC/U would not likely be very effective. This needs to be noted so that, if the behaviour continues, the consideration of the issue can be escalated. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He's right though. He is allowed to remove unsourced content. In fact he's supposed to. If you can source it and re-insert it, go right ahead (no school newsletters though). Taking someone to ANI or RFC/U requires that they actually be breaking the rules in some way. I couldn't get someone arrested for wearing an ugly hat no matter how many cops I talk to. There needs to be a law broken in some way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The policies, both WP:CHALLENGE and WP:PRESERVE, say that you should look for a source. The sentence at CHALLENGE says "if instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." That simply is not happening. Considering in these cases a very cursory google search turned up ideal sources suggests that it probably should have. Therefore the rules aren't being followed. That it's happening in at least 4 cases that I can identify (and, as I said, there are plenty more articles where WP:BIAS is an issue), that suggests disruption. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Should", not "must". The original editor shouldn't have added unsourced material in the first place. If material is unsourced and doesn't seem particularly important (like the color coding of houses in a school), I can't see that anyone should be required (or even expected) to search for a source. That path leads to people having to try to document trivia lists.—Kww(talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is in all 4 cases, it wasn't just the colour coding of houses in a school that was deleted, but whole sections (including in at least one example, a citation!). While you can't see that anyopne should be required to search for a source, it is the letter of policy that says so, and in these cases, where the information could be supposed to be quite freely available, the required level of engagement necessary to find the sources was, in all likelihood, only marginally more than click-ctrl-a-delete-tab-ctrl-a-delete-tab-editsummary-return. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The letter of policy does not require that editors search for a source. It recommends that they do. That's different. It's quite reasonable for an editor to decide that the best thing to do with unsourced material is to remove it. That's been discussed many times, and is the reason that the search for sources has not been mandated.—Kww(talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We're arguing around a point that is irrelevant. Yes, it says "should" rather than "must". But the reason why it says "should" is precisely why this particular issue is a problem. Every single one of the cases that I've referred to above had content that any reasonable editor would consider very easily sourced, and, as it turned out, in every case it was easily sourced. Therefore, deciding to remove it in this case was not the "best thing" to do by any stretch of the imagination, it was the lazy thing to do (even there, only if you can say that opening google is arduous). Now if we were talking about obscure contentious claims that might require visits to local libraries and trawling through microfiche, then, yeah, fine, delete whatever. But in these cases (and as I said, I suspect others), the appropriate source was found immediately with Google and was the #1 result almost every time (#2 once). You're excusing lazy editing that does not contribute to the project but is deletorious and therefore disruptive. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm defending the notion that the removal of material from articles is a necessary and productive step. Taking the house color-coding issue as an example, that's material that has no place here. It's trivia. It's detrimental to building an encyclopedia. That it's easily verifiable is irrelevant. I could probably verify every costume change that Lady GaGa has made in concert without leaving my chair. If I encountered an unsourced list of that material in one of her tour articles, I'd remove it without looking for a source on the simple reasoning that even if sourced, the material didn't belong in the article. That's not being lazy, that's editing. Addition and removal of material need to exist in balance, and neither is inherently good nor bad.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to Epeefleche for maintaining the quality of WP. This concept that an uncited tag is some magic talisman against WP:V is simply bogus. The yeoman work taking place at the Sandy Hook article is the way WP is supposed to work, not oh I'm pretty sure this is true but I'm not motivated enough to find a citation but I'll complain if it's removed. The tag is simply a courtesy to provide interested editors time to meet WP:BURDEN -- if no one's bothered in, say, six months or so I think removal is entirely justified. I encourage editors to critically review the articles I started Charley Morgan, Print butter and Carly Foulkes and remove any uncited material. NE Ent 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for their input. Danjel complains that I deleted challenged material ... challenged as far back as 2007 ... for which no citations had been provided. Danjel tells us he has these article on his watchlist. But obviously neither he nor anyone else cared to provide ref support over the past 5 years. Now that the material is deleted, pursuant to wp:v, Danjel seeks to push the burden of finding sources for the material onto the deleter. Precisely the opposite of what wp:v calls for. It's even worse than that. When such uncited material, challenged years ago, is deleted -- Danjel re-enters the uncited material without providing any ref support whatsoever. As admitted by Danjel in his edit summary addressing one of the two above edits, the material that I deleted also contained copyvio. Seasoned editors will recognize this as a not uncommon problem with swaths of uncited material resident in articles. Finally -- the inadvertent deletion of one dead ref and adjacent text is a complete red herring -- Danjel was well aware that it was inadvertent, before he opened this thread. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To address each of your points:

• Would you like to explain how removal of text from an article, without bothering to look for sources, is the "opposite" to "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"? That's what WP:V says, after all.

• Yep, those articles are on my watchlist. But I have a life, and I work on wikipedia in the spare time that my life allows. When I feel like it, I edit and improve articles.

• Mea culpa, I did restore the edit while I was fiddling around with getting the source right. You got me. Well done.

• Yes, the Churchie article contained copyvio. But you didn't even know that because you didn't look for, nor find the material that was copied! If you had found it, then maybe you could have had an argument for removing the whole section, but as it stood, you were too lazy to actually look.

And that's the problem. Googling takes seconds. If you highlight the text, and then right click and hit google it can almost be done as quick as it takes to delete the content. Particularly for content where you've read it and come to the conclusion that a source is likely to exist, you should do it per WP:V and WP:PRESERVE (you can't cherry pick which parts of those policies you like and which parts you don't). But are you even reading it?

So, the main question is, are you ever going to make use of google (I seem to remember this point coming up in your AfD campaign also), or do we have to assign an editor who go through your work and do it for you? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing this line of argument is unlikely to be helpful. But if you insist: If any editors here need adult supervision assigned to them, it's the ones who add - or reintroduce - content which is not supported by sources. Blaming other people for removing unsourced content is missing the point.bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Already responded to above. Thanks for reading. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If Googling refs only takes "a few seconds" then why is the burden on others, and not yourself? Saying "I have a life" is not an excuse for you if it's not an excuse for others. Second, WP has always been a bit fast and loose with the rules. Hence why WP:IAR exists (though I prefer to only resort to that sparingly).

Honestly, this debate just isn't worth it. A statement which is unsourced & removed shouldn't be replaced with "find the source yourself." The burden is on those adding/retaining the information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Notes

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

Abusive IP editor

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

---

While trying to ensure an IP only used reliable sources when adding a fact to an article, they have objected to my involvement and resorted to dubious editing practices (adding 15 citations to support a piece of trivia). When I tried to explain the circumstances, particularly what a reliable source is, on their talk page, I have been told that "Your behavior on this site is offensive and demonstrates a distinct mental instability".

I have attempted to use the Template:RPA to remove this section, but my efforts have been reverted by the editor. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The IP has made no response except to remove notices of this ANI. The best current statement of his attitude is User talk:67.112.123.191, where he suggests that SchroCat has a distinct mental instability. Who knew that WP talk pages were such a good source of information on individual people's mental health? EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor is also engagin in a edit war on the article page, reverting the edits of four editors, despite being warned of the dangers of WP:3RR. (No 3RR case filed because this is in progress, unless you advise otherwise). - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody please block this disruptive editor adding pointless content, he's already violated 3RR and is now using a different computer.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Finlay McWalter. I've temporarily semi-protected the page given block evasion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This one looks like another IP sock account. He must have several computers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And yet, when a recently published book was provided as a reference - a completely legitimate source according to wiki rules - plus an actual screen grab from the movie titles itself, these were also removed and disqualified. Alas, since these sources (both legitimate under wiki rules) and the 16 other sources already provided (from a google search result of 6000+ entries supporting the same edit), all prove that both Schroderscat and Dr.Blofeld aren't the Bond experts they claim to be and that the ownership of the Bond movie pages they exert ruthlessly is dubious in the extreme, they are determined at all costs to remove any attempt to prove their editing incorrect. I hope they will both seek medical attention for their psychiatric disorders. SchrodersCat in particular has problems with reading as even though they are warned that if they continue to edit a TALK page, their comments will be removed without further discussion, they continue to post and then complain here that the warning was carried out. They also post that self edited sites are not reliable sources. Which of course makes a mockery of wikipedia in it's entirety. Well done. Doubtless, this post will be removed and a block instigated immediately. They will win at all costs. Bullies always do. It's clear to me they are sock puppets of the same editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.140.38 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I and a couple other admins have recently blocked a fair number of the IPs and recently-created harassment accounts (e.g. MrsBlofeld (talk · contribs)) that this editor has resorted to using. I've also protected the article talk page due to all the block evasion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But you won't address the issue of the legitimate sources being removed. Just boast about your blocking success. Not really working, is it? Why not try and answer the fundamental issue of the removed - correct & legitimate - sources? There's an idea! Plus, if you continue to remove all my attempts to escalate your behavior with complaints in the correct area, I'll keep coming back and posting again. So why not drop it and answer the question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.141.27 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've now semiprotected this page, and Acroterion has blocked the above IP sock. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

DOB at Tammy Duckworth article

Since 2007, a banned editor named Joehazelton has repeatedly returned to the Tammy Duckworth article to insert Duckworth's date of birth into the article. The most recent sock puppet he used to do this that I know of was Themightywind, who can be seen discussing the issue here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy Duckworth. Since then, he has returned a couple times as an IP (all of his IPs and sock puppets originate in the greater Chicago area), the most recent of which was today with edits here: 1, 2, and 3. You can see his sockpuppet investigations case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Joehazelton/Archive. Since he'll probably just keep inserting it, I'm referring the matter to ANI. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've applied pending changes to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Behavior of "Sports and Politics" warrants admin attention!

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 draw your attention to "Sports and Politics" (S&P)'s behavior and see if some administrative action is warranted. In a recent ANI post S&P created in which she tried to make some unfounded accusation of another editor (of invoking "a legal threat to try and push forward their POV on an article"), S&P has instead drawn attention to her own behavior, as observed by TP (see this, and this):
"...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war".
True to her spirit, S&P has just demonstrated yet again such a behavior.
S&P has slapped a "revert warring" warning on my talk page while she herself has reverted the same changes 3 times, when I clearly stated in my revert note that "this has been discussed in ANI and DRN. Even the version you proposed contain reference to "high-tech warfare".
Apparently, this is not the first time S&P has shown such a tendency.
If we dig a little deeper, you would notice that S&P has shown a consistent pattern of engaging such and similar tactics in the past: such as this, this, this, this and this.
Time for some administrative action against such behavior?!
Showmebeef (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is purely and simply a content dispute. I'm surprised that I haven't been mentioned here too, because I've agreed with User:Sport and politics. A waste of Administrator time. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not SIMPLY a content dispute (though it has arisen from a content dispute). This serves to demonstrate a certain "behavior pattern" of a certain editor! Showmebeef (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics behavioural problems are quite extensive and is the most disruptive and devious editor I have encountered on Wikipedia, this is just the tip of the iceberg. However, it may be better to focus on revert warring for now. --Andromedean (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe its late....but what is the behavior we are talking about here?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my reply to Kim down below--the behavior is "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war". Showmebeef (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And there we have it. The content dispute has Showmebeef and Andromedean on one side, and Sport and politics and me on the other. Sport and politics and I have firmly opposed the addition of masses of what we see as undue content, for months. The former two are forum shopping, and have been for months. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence that I have been "forum shopping"? And how do you term this kind of groundless accusation?? Showmebeef (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. You may not have been forum shopping, but the person you have aligned yourself with here certainly has. It may have been unfair of me to group you with Andromedean with regards to that particular behaviour, but when you choose your allies you indicate at least some acceptance of their overall behaviour. I don't really want to get deeply involved in this discussion. When the "Controversies" section first appeared in the London Olympics article I suggested that, just as for all previous Olympics articles, it was a bad idea. You can actually find some thoughts of mine about Criticism sections in any article on my Talk page. It pre-dates this issue by some time. I think clumping negatives together in articles is a very bad look for Wikipedia. I predicted it would lead to bad things for the London Olympics article, and it has. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because I agree with some of the viewpoints or choices of some content of an editor doesn't mean I chose to ally with that editor; nor does it indicate my acceptance of the "particular behaviour" of that editor. However, by extension of your own logic, and by your own admission that you and "Sport and Politics" are on the same side (which I take it as meaning that you two are allies), do you mean to say that you accept S&P's "particular behaviour"? Showmebeef (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist I would recommend looking through Tparis' comments first as an uninvolved admin, along with her aggressive attitude including the hidden part of the talk page which I attempted to display, and refusal to discuss as you recommended in the DRN, until the last few days when made to. However, it may be best to focus on the revert warring for the time being, since her appeal to Jimbo Wales for extended editing rights linked by showmebeef. It tells a story, along with her contribution history during August & September , but it takes time and patience to go through it all.--Andromedean (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You have provided some difs, but have not explained fully what they relate to. I also don't understand "Hidden part of the talkpage" you attempted to display. Yes, I read through TParis' comments and I fully agree with what he said, and yet he felt no need to take an action but suggest edting another article. So, OK...they have not taken that advice, but what is it that they have done since those comments that you feel another uninvolved admin (or Tparis) would step in to level sanctions over. Of course I suggested you not discuss conduct...on the DR/N as that is not the venue to discuss such issues. But if you are asking for an admin to intervene (and I am not suggesting they shouldn't or wont), you should disuss it with enough detail that even someone like myself, that is familiar with the content dispute, can clearly see are actions that cross a line. I guess I am simply saying, please don't make us go through it all just to figure out what the current issues are that you feel are a continuation of that conduct. Its ok to just tell us. (Also, while the legal threat was not an actual threat, I can at least see why they may have thought so and at least believe it was a good faith misunderstanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to say the Andromedean is the cause of a lot of the ruckus more so than S&P. If anything the collapsed section on the talk page shows more of their combatative behaviour rather than S&P's. The endless horse flogging and ad hominems. Andromedean's behaviour in the recent RFC/U for HiLo48 is also illuminating. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would ask the OP to please post some diffs demonstrating actionable behaviour by S&P please. There are several diffs but they are all from other people about her, not evidence of her own behaviour. Please be precise in the diffs and a specific request for action would be helpful as well (eg blocking, page protection etc.)

Can I also caution all who have contributed to this RfC not simply to continue that battle over here. I have already seen enough comments from the familiar names over there. It would be good to see (a) specific diffs, (b) new voices in the discussion, (c) less rehashing of well-established animosities and (d) no more personal attacks in this thread please ("disruptive", "aggressive", "devious" etc...) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Kim, for the suggestion. I'd like to say that the trigger for this post was that S&P has reverted 3 times (revert1, revert2 and revert3), and then slapped me with an "edit war" warning after I have reverted the last one. The original change was made with a note in the talk page that "88 and Showmebeef have both confirmed they accept the last change. Please don't revert and misrepresent what was actually reported by the reputable media". When I made revert to S&P's last one, I also did with an edit note that "this has been discussed in ANI and DRN. Even the version you proposed contain reference to 'high-tech warfare'". S&P made the reverts using the reason that it needs a consensus before it can be changed. However, the change referred to a direct quote from a reputable source, and it has been discussed multiple times in the talk page in the past, and then in the DRN, and most recently in an ANI. What consensus do you need? You know S&P is not going to agree to a "consensus", and that's the way she is holding this section of the article "hostage" (as observed by TP in in an earlier ANI, see this. And this "edit warring" trick came right on the heel of TP's observation (see this):

"...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war".

Some of the diff's I listed was merely trying to show a pattern of S&P's behavior as observed by other users. I could certainly come up with a list of more "diffs demonstrating actionable behaviour" of S&P. Just give me a little more time, please! Showmebeef (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be very unclear, vindictive and highly cherry picked, also none of them so far of actual editing by myself. I have looked through the diffs and they have been in some cases entirely misrepresented. For example the diff regarding edit warring here is actually about weather edit warring was any three edits or was only reverts, I was also a new editor at the time. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

S&P, not three hours before you made this post, I asked people (about three edits up from here) to avoid personal attacks. I don't know what else to call the use of the word "vindictive" and I note that in this sorry tit-for-tat you have got Showmebeef turning it back on you lower down this page. This immature exchange is typical of the poor state of relations between the two camps. If anyone from either side further lowers the tone with a personal attack, I'll block them if I catch them quickly enough. Your collective poor standards of collaboration are the issue here in your race to the bottom, behaviour-wise. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest some reading of the collapsed discussion on the talk page which clearly demonstrated there was no consensus and multiple editors took part in it. Andromodean was the only editor to actively take part in that discussion and advocate making the the changes which have now been made. So to claim there is a consensus to make those changes after reading the collapsed discussion is quite frankly a difficult conclusion to come to. In that discussion more editors favoured complete removal of the section than favoured making the changes proposed. A link to the collapsed discussion can be seen here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics' Pattern of Behavior

I have, in my opening paragraph, described the pretty blatant behavior by S&P for edit or revert warring. I believe it warrants some administrative action or at least the attention of this board--the reason being that S&P has a history of engaging such behavior. Here are some examples that serve to demonstrate such a pattern:

• In this example, an editor has observed that S&P has dished out "at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period (diff's for the 5 reverts are listed):

"Not only is this edit warring,[102][103][104][105][106] but with at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period User:Sport and politics also violated the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR, and was lucky not to be blocked. I'd strongly suggest you follow User:Cla68's advice and discuss on the article's talk page instead of continuing to edit war. Neither WP:BRD nor WP:BOLD are justification for edit warring and violating 3RR. I don't see any civility or wikiquette violation by Cla68, on the contrary, Cla68 has been extremely civil throughout, while Sports and politics has been quite uncivil. Dreadstar ☥ 21:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• In this example, S&P removed (reverted) the whole section (Technologies used for Cycling) twice when other editors noted that "version added addressing full range of issues so they can be discussed" ( this) and "don't revert good-faith contributions" (this)
  Showmebeef (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case. Having only made my first edits on 8 July and things are being paraded as "evidence" against me from 29 July, some context and rationality is needed. I think this whole case has just been shown to be without any genuine basis of fact and is purely perception on the part of the complainant. Also adding content to a wikipedia article simply for the purposes of "discussing the content " as seen in this diff here is not how Wikipeida works. That flies in the face of standard editing practices of be Bold, then Revert, then Discuss, not be Bold, then Discuss, then Revert. There was also no stopping the content being added to the talk page for discussion as opposed to it being threateningly placed in the article, in the manner it was as shown in the previous diff.

I also fail to see how these two edits here and here with comprehensive edit summaries explaining the actions violates anything, let alone act as "examples that serve to demonstrate such a pattern".

This Diff does not mention the quoted section as claimed. It in fact says "Section taken out for some reason, replaced!", when the user had full knowledge that a discussion on that section was ongoing and at the time there was consensus for complete removal of the section, which is not the same as the consensus which developed and the one we have now, but at the time that was the leading consensus.

As for the other three Diffs one is removal of an unnecessarily added word and one is the reverting poorly worded and non encyclopaedic content and the other is the removing of giving undue weight to what the BBC does as the article is not a commentary on how the BBC covers the Olympics.

Sport and politics (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

By no means are we attacking you, we just think that your behavior is breaking the rules and we're merely speeking on it, or is that a crime now? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where the above comment has come from. I am also not sure where I have said any one is "attacking" anyone. I have simply given my opinion, without calling anyone anything and have pointed out where the above "evidence" falls down. Would you please care to elaborate on your statement above 199.101? Sport and politics (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

your statement on how you started on july 8th and people started brading your edits together from july 29th. it's the one that preceids my comment, it looks like you feel that you're being attacked, but i may be mistaken. in any case, i wish for all this crap to stop as it will not help anyone at all, whether it be you or andromedean. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no feeling of being attacked, I have simply pointed out that the diffs provided do not really stand up "as a demonstration" as claimed by Showmebeef and reaching that far back in to a users edit history will show up newbie editing which is wholly different to their editing style being undertaken today. Also the "evidence" claimed has already been dealt with by the appropriate forum and the complained of behaviour has ceased. There was also an apology from me in that forum. I would actually like an apology from Andromodean for their repeated claims of being "partisan and nationalistic", having a "political agenda" and being "eager to censor". It would be nice to get one but I don't think I will get one though. Sport and politics (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am merely providing some facts here, as Kim has suggested, to establish a pattern of behavior. If you consider that as "attacks", so be it. As someone who's involved in editing an article with you, I don't think my words against yours serve as much volume as other (uninvolved) editors' comments and observations, such as this one (on your talk page and was later deleted by you):

"I am watch(list)ing the 2012 Olympics Controversy page, and your talkpage, in the interests of studying how this situation eventually plays out. I believe your editing style, the resultant aggravation and edit warring, and bad faith displayed on all sides has generated an excellent experiment in Wikipedia governance. This article, handled with the proper attitudes and compromises, would have settled down quickly. Thank you for providing a great case study in how broken the Wikipedia dispute resolution process is.→StaniStani 04:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"
Showmebeef (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am again confused by individuals saying I am thinking I am being attacked. I have specifically stated "I have no feeling of being attacked" so I am not sure where the sentiment is coming from that I am feeling that I am being attacked. I am also not sure of the relevancy of the quote provided. Sport and politics (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I misread the part about "attacks", but the rest of my reply is still highly relevant as it is (yet another) editor's keen observation. And it's not about being ""partisan and nationalistic", but about "your editing style, the resultant aggravation and edit warring, and bad faith displayed", a pattern that has been displayed over and over again, as testimonies by other editors can attest to (which I've provided links earlier). Showmebeef (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read a lot of claims by individuals, but that's all they are just claims. Can you please provide some substantive diffs which back up the continued claims which are made. Otherwise it is just unfounded speculation and individual perception. Sport and politics (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this current one?! You have reverted 3 times, and then turn around slapped me with a revert warning? And you've done it right after TP has observed that "...in the processes of reverting, you warn ... of an edit war"?! BTW. I have this question to all admins and all other more experienced editors: can any reasonable editor do that? Is it "legal" even on Wiki for an editor to engage such a behavior?? And how about some admin action just for this kind of behavior?! And now since you've asked for it--I will do my due diligence and provide some more evidence to illustrate your pattern of behavior. However, since I do have professional and family obligations to fulfill, I will ask others who are involved more patience as I come up with more evidence. Showmebeef (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the above and to the reference to the edit war. I was issued with a warning and I ceased the behaviour. Showmebeef though then continued reverting after Andromodean and myself stopped. That was therefore continuing the edit war. As was clearly made to me there is no "entitlement" to three reverts. It is in my opinion a little but rich to complain about edit warring when Showmebeef was happy to continue the edit war. The reversion in question from Showmebeef can be seen here, the warning placed against me seen here, the warning placed against Andromodean here and the warning place against Showmebeef here. ShowmeBeef has also not contributed to the discussions on the talk page since 1 September so has made no attempt at discussing the current issue(s). Whereas while Andromodean and I fundamentally disagree at least there is an open dialogue on the talk page regarding the issues at hand. Sport and politics (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage in a war of words here with you. Any interested admins/editors are welcome to check the edit history of the article (and if they can afford the time and patience--the archive for the article and talk page) for themselves, see how that has evolved and draw their own conclusions. And they are welcome to come back here and comment. Showmebeef (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I do think an apology is in order from andromedean, as long as it will stop this drama. to me, i'm not on either side, i'm just one who wants to stop the drama. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andromodean

As we are discussing here poor behaviour I think its time to lay bear the long running very poor behaviour of Andromedean. Below are a chronological list of diffs of contributions which have been made by Andromodean, mainly but not exclusively in relation to this track cycling technologies section of the controversies at the 2012 Olympics article.

reference to the use of a "strawman"
claims of conflict of interest
claims of not acting in good faith and "acting irresponsibly"
claims of "I don't believe you don't understand this!"
claims a source hasn't been read
further claims sources are not read
claims I have a "political agenda" and" An agenda to censor the essential fact"
claims of "national interest" and "censor the article"
claims I "wrecked it"
claims of "removing objective data"
claims of "censorship of hard facts"
claims of bad faith editing
claims of "really eager to censor objective information"
advocating of edit warring "better still revert to this and lock it"
demonstration of ownership
claims of conflict of interest
claims of "Petty excuses to censor the article, failure to declare any conflict of interest."
claims of disruption and bad faith and a demonstration of ownership
demonstration of no good faith assumption
claim of "how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information"
direct personal attack
claims of "blatant abuse"
demonstration of ownership
direct personal attack
claims of an agenda
claims of "you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user"
bad faith claims and indirect personal attacks
claims of bullying
veiled threat of " If they don’t I will resume editing, and expect others to respect that decision"
editing of other users comments on a talk page
bad faith claims and direct personal attacks
direct personal attack
direct personal attacks and claims of "the absence of any coherent argument you has simply waded through the rule book and invented them" and "dilute the article with propaganda."
claims of lying "you have repeated this lie" and "proves it is deliberate deception on your part"
direct personal attacks
claims of deliberate "deception"
claims of "attempt to hide discussion"
claims of "attempted to hide" discussion
claims of "following" and Misleading the community"
assumption of bad faith
claims of a "refusal to comply"
threatening use of language
claims of "Harassment"
direct threats
claim editing has been used to "subvert the meaning"

start of the forum shopping at no original research noticeboard
tea-house forum shopping
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard forum Shoping
Village Pump forum shopping
forum shopping at an RfC/U

Please can Andromodean be investigated as they have shown over a long period of time very very poor behaviour and have engaged in personal attacks, forum shopping and other unwelcome behaviours on Wikipeida. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, slinging mudd and hoping some of it sticks, I see. I read the first five diffs and nothing in those five gives me concern at all. In fact, the third one seems troubling about you should it be true. I'd ask Andromodean to substantiate it with diffs because if it is true you are ignoring some WP:RS for your preferred sources, then I would be extremely concerned.--v/r - TP 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think not. If i am to be investigated. I only think it fair, right and proper that another user who has violated the rules, policies, guidelines and required behaviour standards be investigated. One user or group of users cannot have their cake and eat it. Please also not I am admitting no liability of any kind in this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never said you had no right to investigate yourself, but the diffs you've provided are very weak. I'd suggest you trim them to the 5-10 best (or worst rather). Also, be sure you are putting your paraphrasing in context as well. Your "direct personal attack" for example is not one when the entire sentence is read.--v/r - TP 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is your opinion and I respect your right to hold that opinion. I have to disagree though as while on their own they may not be in your opinion "weak", It is the sheer volume of them and the increasing personalised nature of them and the blanket nature being applied to all who have an opposing POV. also other users have described Andoromodean as "less than collegial". I will do some trimming as you suggest as well and will post that below. Above is mainly a demonstration firstly of how drawn out this has become, secondly the nature of the dispute and thirdly that it is not a one sided situation as is being painted in the original complaint made against me. Again I am admitting to no liability in the making of this statement. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At first glance I have to admit that the reappearance of so many familiar names lining up on opposite sides makes me want to propose interaction and/or topic bans for the lot of them. I fear this AN/I is destined for a long, undignified and ultimately unsatisfactory existence. If we're going to indulge in "he said..." - "but she said..." argumentation can I appeal for less wall 'o' text from all sides? If you have complaints about a fellow editor's conduct, please pick the worst five diffs, label them neutrally and let them speak for themselves. At present I see nothing jumping out as a blockable offence anywhere. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm giving you good advice here (Sport and politics), "volume" means nothing on WP:ANI. What you're doing is throwing as much as you can at Andromodean and hoping some of it sticks. ANI treats that similarly to WP:TLDR. You're get no traction. If you want to have an impact, pick the 5-10 best and editors will pay more attention. The way you're going about it is going to turn others attention away from your point of view.--v/r - TP 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of most serious diffs:

1. [107]
   
2. [108]
   
3. [109]
   
4. [110]
   
5. [111]

Sport and politics (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

List of diffs to demonstrate forum shopping:

1. [112]
   
2. [113]
   
3. [114]
   
4. [115]
   
5. [116]

Sport and politics (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Nothing here speaks well of Andromedean's behaviour. Equally, looking at the wider context of these diffs nothing speaks well of the behaviour of her opponents either. The only diff that looks really problematic to me on its own is the third; I don't like it when one editor calls another a liar. However on its own, that diff from early last month is not about to get me to block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it is already clear that it is not on its own. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to simply point out that this ANI is NOT about Andromedean. Please don't try to turn this into one and shift the focus here. They could start whatever at an appropriate forum/platform elsewhere. This post is about S&P's behavior. If there is anything, I am surprised somebody is keeping such an extensive list. I can't help it but the word "vindictive" kept coming to mind! And it may well serve to show a pattern in S&P's behavior! Showmebeef (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:BOOMERANG, anyone relevant to the ANI can be discussed if appropriate. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Showmebeef, if you call another editor "vindictive" again in this thread or elsewhere, you will be the one having a short rest from editing. Dressing the word up in an ambiguously worded sentence is not going to make it OK. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, please take that word out of my comment. I will refrain from doing that again. Showmebeef (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I know why that word "kept coming to mind"--because S&P used it first:

"This appears to be very unclear, vindictive and highly cherry picked,.... Showmebeef (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• KDM - In ref to your comment about lying, Andromedean is actually correct that it was a lie. Cla68 expressed support for Andromedean as well as a few others that can be seen here.--v/r - TP 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

TP you are confusing two different discussions the "lie" diff refers to the most recent DRN and the track cycling section not the Hijab section you have linked to.Sport and politics (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well I've invested too much time looking through diffs already, can you point me to the other discussion?--v/r - TP 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Sport and Politics's comment was limited to the post DRN discussion on Andromedeans proposed changes of wording (the closed discussion here). At first glance the claim appears to be true (I took no part in this particular discussion). 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a lot of huff and drama. I've previously had someone edit my posts and reinterpret my posts for their own devices. If anything this should go to WP:RFC/U because its not immediate and while lasting, I don't think ANI is the proper place to carry on such minor disputes at this stage. And if they won't do that, then the both of them need to take a week or more off from editing in the same areas or stick to making new fresh content that will keep everyone out of each others hair. Distance quells anger, try it without going tit-for tat. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to see some fair action taken, that will stop all the drama and that will bennifet the encyclopedia. I don't think we need any more of this "He did this!" "she did that!" stuff, so i'll support whichever decision gets made on this matter as long as it stops or stifles the drama, because the internet has enough drama as it is, we don't need more here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is worrying that some people may be frightened of posting now allowing S&P off the hook again, and some editors are arguing based on good faith edits which conform to wikipedia policy. ; May I also point out the following policy. (The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence). I will post such evidence shortly. Also bear in mind some of us work for a living, and don't have the time to go through volumes of text. --Andromedean (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You may not have to assume good faith when you have evidence of misconduct. For this reason I asked you repeatedly to a) cease making the claims, or b) present the evidence at an appropiate forum so that we can actually defend ourselves. You did neither until I posted my zero tolerance warning on your talk page. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean - it's time for you to substantiate your accusations. Please provide diffs of article edits that contradict reliable sources that show evidence of biased editing by S&P. We've established that ya'all have equally poor behavior, but can you prove that S&P is not following editing guidelines or not? Same goes for S&P if they can.--v/r - TP 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of Misleading Statements in the DRN by Sport and Politics

This is what Sport and Politics (S&P) claimed in the technology in track cycling Dispute Resolution Notice in an attempt to sway it (my highlighting). There were four participants in total including myself, showmebeef , sport and politics and one other unregistered user.

"If Andromodean is the only hold I think its not time to ignore this person as they are just being plainly obstructive. The three of us have made sensible compromises and Andormodean has made wild statements and nonsense "straw-man" claim simply to attempt to demonstrate their POV and OR as the one which must be accepted. If Andromodean cannot compromise in anyway like the other three involved editors have then they are being obstructive and are disrupting Wikiepdia. I can agree to the version placed boldly in the article with no hesitation. Amadsceintist has pointed out their first draft was not taking BLP in to account fully and had unweighed criticism which skewed the piece. All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean."Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact S&P will have known views were equally split, and near agreement between myself and showmebeef with compromises made before and after the DRN by myself. and showmebeef was reasonably agreed with several pre DRN versions as can be viewed from the talk page. The objection was hers and the other IP editor.

"Thanks for both your inputs. Certainly showmebeef views are similar to my own and the first version of amadscientist is near to what I would agree to….."

.--Andromedean (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

In fact we were very near to a 75% agreement at this stage, with sport and Politics who was the odd one out

Moreover, I subsequently quoted the following statement by showmebeef to Sport and Politics to prove that he wasn’t in agreement with the post DRN version

"Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call." Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

however Sport and Politics just kept on misleading editors post DRN. (bear in mind that the volunteer recommended further discussion and not mediation)

"Agreement was reached leave it at that, or it will simply be seen as wholly unnecessary disruption." --Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Diff here

"There was very very strong consensus that the version before the DRN case was opened was not fit for purpose, was misleading, biased and a violation of BLP policies." Sport and politics (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Diff here

".....there is now only one editor actively attempting to make any changes, no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process. ….." Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Diff here

However, why should she have ever agreed to any version? Because the post DRN version misquoted and misrepresented the source to make it sound much less controversial. Bear in mind this section was about the controversial use of technology in cycling.

The original article I quoted, and the actual BBC source states this:

"But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."

However S&P wanted this version to remain

"When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." Reference Here

Now remember the original accusation by Sport and politics

“All the information now in the section has a reliable source which is accurately quoted and not deliberately selectively misquoted as was done by Andromodean.” diff here

Neither am I aware of any other misquotes I made.

so she is misleading people into claiming I am being obstructive and uncooperative using selectively misquoted material at the same time as supporting text which obscures the whole point of the controversy! This is only the tip of the Iceberg, but I would additionally recommend looking through the talk page from the start to examine Sport & Politics aggressive and misleading behaviour and that I was trying to be civil and reasonable. --Andromedean (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This provides objective proof of serious incivility violations quoted in the guidelines of

(d) lying;

(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;"

and in addition it unambiguously demonstrates her bad faith editing, which undermines the encyclopaedia's value.--Andromedean (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by involved IP proposing interaction bans for all involved and suggesting further sanctions for two editors

I did not want to post here, but Andromedean quoting AGF deserves a comment. His arguments where from before my responding to an RFC full of ad hominem attacks (several diffs provided above and in previous discussions). The claims where that other editors where working against the principles of Wikipedia, specifically WP:NPOV. This is a very serious personal attack in my opinion; it is an attempt to completely discredit the person you are discussing with. Unlike Kim Dent-Brown above, I see this as at least equally serious as a claim of lying. I asked him repeatedly to refrain from using such claims (or alternatively take them to an appropiate forum) as they made his genuine argument hard to see. In the end I posted this warning on his user talk. This zero tolerance policy from me had the desired effect. It was possible to discuss conduct without repeated attacks on your integrity. After he was unhappy with the outcome of the DRN he reverted to his previous conduct, if slightly more mildly phrased. I reported him (seen here), per my warning and I must say I was disappointed that no warning or admonishment was administered. Just saying that the conduct was against policy and that repeat offences could lead to bans would have defused the situation far better than "no administrator action required". As you can see he has continued with using ad hominem arguments since then. (I'll point out that my simple warning improved his conduct for over a month.)
Sport and Politics conduct is not flawless, and I don't condone all of it. She is often balancing close to WP:3RR, however she does accept consensus against her, as well as the DRN result in this case, and 3O when I disagreed with her.
Showmebeef has almost without fail remained polite. Some lapses over the cause of a content discussion that has dragged on for so long is understandable.
Interaction bans seems logical to avoid further escalation (include me and Showmebeef). An article ban for Sport and Politics and Andromedean also seems like a good idea. Frankly, I would also consider stricter sanctions against Andromedean, as I cannot see how repeated claims that all editors who disagree with him is working against WP:NPOV, a pillar, benefit Wikipedia in any way. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

85: As I only wish to speak for myself and not for others: I don't wish to take myself out of editing the article in question here (as you may have volunteered yourself, if I am not mistaken). Showmebeef (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No need. To avoid escalation I have proposed IBANs for all four (so unless you enjoy debating with Sport and Politics you should have no problem). I propose ABANs (including the talk page) for Sport and Politics and Andromedean. I also propose civility restrictions for Andromedean for his repeated lack of good faith demonstrated in a large number of diffs provided in this and previous discussions. (PS:I entered the edit window prior to the close, and didn't notice it was closed during my fixes. I did not intentionally add to the discussion after the close.) 85.167.109.64 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why I want to subject myself to an IBAN, as I have shown to be able to carry out a rather civilized conservation or a discussion, with any editor. I don't think I've lost my composure even with S&P. As I've mentioned early, please speak for yourself, and I don't wish to be spoken for. Showmebeef (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and hope you think the same of me. I have no idea if IBANs can be one way though; and I don't see why you would wish to enter a discussion with her at a later date. I'm sure the IBANs can be lifted when no longer neccessary. (Edit conflict. In response to your change: An IBAN is not voluntary, though I'll leave whether it is required for us up to the admins.)85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I want to make it clear that I don't want an IBAN. If you want it, then that's your wish. Thanks! Showmebeef (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I, but it may be in Wikipedia's best interest if we get one. However it seems IBANs can be one-way, so perhaps they won't be neccessary for all uf us. In any case that is not our call. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need of an IBAN between you and me. If there is an ABAN as you proposed, then it should take care of the things. Showmebeef (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I agree. 85.167.109.64(talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding too, as I do have to carry my credential around and I for sure don't want to carry an IBAN under my user id. Showmebeef (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor procedural point. If you folks can sort this out with voluntary, mutual agreements about not editing particular articles or interacting with one another that would be great. Voluntary, mutual agreements like this are not bans. And when bans do occur, they are not voluntary, rather they are imposed upon editors by the consensus of the community. Nobody gets to decline a community-imposed ban, which is why it'll be much better of you folks can sort this out between you. Good luck with doing that, which will be much the best outcome. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that happening for all the editors involved, but I hope they'll prove me wrong. I'll back off now as the article seems stable, and I see no benefit to adding more here. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you 85.167, i agree. it's what i've been trying to say all along. they need to stay away from each other and if that means not editing the article for a shot while, then so be it. so thank you very much, i do support. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

solution from concirned ip

Ok people, just as mentioned in the previous section, there should be an interaction ban between the users in question (ading showmebeef into it) because this is only causing more arguments and is getting a little annoying and i hate to say it, childish. i mean we're just going in circles here, nothing is going to come of this unless all of this stops. i've seen this kind of shit before, in which some people were having a feud over an article, and they kept on trying to blame each other. Once the blame was focused on them, they kept on denying some of the evidence and stuff (not saying there's denial in this even though it looks like it), then it goes in circles and gets annoying to the point where blocks are handed out. i don't want to see blocks being handed out, so i'm going to suggest an interaction ban and maybe protection on the article from now untill let's say December 22nd, (a period of 7 days) so this shit can straiten out, and we can get back to our lives again. how's that for a suggestion? i sure hope we can stop this so everyone involved can be a little bit more merry for christmas and the hollidays, mmkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

• Maybe it's time for an uninvolved admin to step in and close the thread before things get more out of hand. This whole thread is just a mess with little to no actual evidence being presented of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the most serious diffs provided can be seen as unproblematic. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

second that one. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not my fault i'ts your fault

here's the thing sports and politics, as much as i feel that both sides should be held accountable for their actions, i notice that you're trying to deny the blame for your actions. if i murdered someone then it would still be my fault even if that someone injected poison into my arm. so, in the same way, even if andromadean is as guilty as you say, you still have to except your portion of the blame and stop trying to go "It's not my fault it's your fault." because that will only draw out this disgussion more. i move for a closure of this threat and all parties concirned to except the blame for their actions, because otherwise blocks will be handed out and i don't want to see that at all. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now provided evidence to back up my assertion as the admin requested.--Andromedean (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

good man. now i think it's time that s&P owns up to her portion of the blame. 199.101.61.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Closure notice

The various complainants here have not brought sufficient clear evidence to prove the need for admin action. They may be disappointed at the lack of interest shown by admins in contributing to this thread, but I'm afraid this may be because of the way the complaints have been made - as well as a "plague on both your houses" feeling that each side is behaving about as well as the other. I will close this thread in 12 hours time as "no action required" unless anyone comes up with a better option. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think wording it as a warning that the conduct is not in line with policy and that future offences may lead to a block would be preferable to "no action required". It is the third time this has been at ANI and "no action required" hasn't worked. A warning may work, as I pointed out above it did work for a while when I did it. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, maybe "no action required" was a hasty way of putting it. What I mean is that it is not clear what action could possibly help here. Is this a conduct issue? In which case whose conduct? Is it a content dispute, in which case it doesn't belong here? Is it about page protection? It's certainly not about one single incident, which this page is meant to be about. Certainly no action has been proposed which has gained consensual support, and in that sense while action may be required, it can't be taken because the community can't make its mind up about either the problem or the solution. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that this (content) "dispute" has been going on since the London Olympic Games back in July and August. Andromodean in particular has taken it to many forums. Many words have been posted. Without making any further comment on the content, is there a way we can stop further dramas about the bikes at the Olympics? It's gone way beyond the silly stage. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that you'd suggest "a way we can stop further dramas about the bikes at the Olympics" as you've contributed to the "silly stage."--v/r - TP 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I have made very little comment on content since the early days of the discussion. I have made comment on the attempts by a very small number of editors to put more and more negative material on this topic in the article for several months since the Olympic Games all happened. I don't apologise for trying to stop the drama. HiLo48 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wouldn't ask you to apologize for trying to stop the drama. Had you done that, I'd be supportive. Instead we're left with "Don't try to convince me otherwise. Enough words have been written and enough crap thrown already." and "This is absolute nonsense" and "I do highlight ignorant bigotry and outrageous, stupid generalisations, like yours." Please spare us your self-appointed sainthood and join Sport & Politics in the corner while the uninvolved discuss fair and non-partied solutions to your mess.--v/r - TP 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are unwarranted and phraseology such as "Please spare us your self-appointed sainthood" and "join Sport & Politics in the corner while the uninvolved discuss fair and non-partied solutions" Kim clearly stated from the outset that no personal attacks would be tolerated i cannot see why the above have been allowed to slide. I was warned Showmebeef was warned at the very least TParis should be warned. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I say again, all of that was said with the goal of stopping more attempts to add more garbage (yes, I believe it was) to an article that is designed primarily to collect crap anyway. My POV was stated BEFORE any bike staff was written. It is that the article itself is a bad one. Most of its content is bad. The bike stuff is some of the worst. It's non-constructive, non-encyclopaedic soap-boxing by editors with axes to grind. HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can buy that you believe it was supposed to curb drama, but I don't think that it actually helped. What really would help is my suggestion below. Andromodean takes a break on the issue and tries again in 6 months. See below.--v/r - TP 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe my frustration was beginning to show. My frustration at the fact that it had gone on so long already. That Wikipedia allowed Andromedean to take his axe to so many forums looking for a new grinder, wasting so many other people's time along the way. There seemed to be no stopping that behaviour. That even now, he is not seen as the primary problem here. S&P may not have been an angel, but all along had better motives and was more rational than the virtually single issue, UK bike team obsessed Andromedean. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

protect the article. that's all i can say. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(RE to Kim Dent-Brown), if you're not willing to say it, I will. A plague on all the houses/groupings/alignments/coalitions/editors who are dragging along this dispute that will not end. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

again, i'm going to say it, and people, please listen this time: protect the article in question, and put an interaction ban on Sports and Politics, Showmebeef (to a lesser extent) and andromedean. simple solution, i don't know why it's taking so long for people to realize it. and no i'm not attacking anyone, i just think this is taking too damn long for a simple solution to be carried out. so interaction ban, and article protection please. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I could protect the article if necessary as a solo decision. Any ban has to be enacted by community consensus however and I'm seeing no community interest in this discussion, never mind a consensus. I'll be closing this in about 6 hours unless a viable consensus seems to be emerging. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, protecting it should work for now. let's hope that stops the drama. thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion There are two sides to this issue: On the one hand, Sports & Politics and HiLo48 have refused to participate in recent discussion citing previous discussion as non-consensus developing. I believe this non-consensus has suited these two just fine because it's helped keep their preferred version. S&P and HiLo48 argue that the article is not whitewashed, but rather that the issue of technology in cycling is broader than the Olympic games themselves and the games are broader than the topic of technology in cycling and the two should be in a separate article. On the other hand, Andromedean argues that the topic is relevant but has not been able to gain consensus or much of any support for their argument that the article is whitewashed. Article content is dynamic and there is no such thing as binding RFCs (we're all aware consensus can change). Andromedean has also taken every advantage to mention this content dispute in other forums to draw attention and has failed to do so. At this point, it's bordering tendentious editing (WP:IDHT-type behavior). My suggestion is this: Andromedean will refrain from another RFC on this matter for 6 months. In 6 months, Andromedean will propose a 1-2 paragraph change for the article to cover the content with WP:RS. S&P and HiLo48 may participate in this discussion or not, but the disruptive avoidance tactics that are being employed now may not happen at this RFC. If Andromedean continues to argue on this specific matter until then or S&P and HiLo48 continue the avoidance routines at that point, then they face a topic ban. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair. (By the way, the current version is neither side's preferred version.) 85.167.109.64 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a workable solution. I also want to second 85's suggestion that this current version is neither side's preferred version. Due to some miscommunication during the DRN on this article, it was closed without anything close to a consensus, leaving this highly contested version there. My recommendation would be to actually take the volunteer suggested draft (first version), which has received most consensus, as a replacement for the current article. This will help reduce the chances of future conflict. Showmebeef (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea, as the current version has been reasonably stable. The first draft was not close to consensus as two editors thought is was including way too much. All four editors in the DRN agreed to include at least as much as the later volunteer proposal (approximately the current version), thus there is a consensus to include at least that much and no consensus to include more, though Sport and Politics only agreed to this as a compromise and still thinks it should be removed entirely. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was "stable" because any attempt to modify it, even as simple as a direct quote from a reliable source (which eventually led to 3 reverts by S&P, and this ANI here) was blocked by S&P and HiLo48, as TP have observed. "All four editors in the DRN agreed..."--I think that's rather stretching the truth; as I have stated earlier that the version that is currently in the main article is NOT even close to what I, and I would assume Andromedean, would have agreed to. "still thinks it should be removed entirely"--there was an early decision by the volunteer that the inclusion was warranted. So let's not go there. Anyways, I think this discussion is drifting off the topic. We are deciding, or at least making proposals to the admins so that they can decide, what the appropriate actions to take to prevent further deteriorating of the situation around this particular article here. I can stress it again that I support TP's suggestion. Showmebeef (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that first version to amadscientist months ago but received no reply, and have linked it in the 'misleading comments' section on here, but received no answer again! Solutions exist, but is anyone really bothered in solving them? Didn't 85.* agree to it at one stage? However, it doesn't solve stopping the wider behavioural tactics though, which undermine the encyclopaedias integrity, so I also still support Arbcom in addition to this as below.--Andromedean (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, that is where I agreed to the second volunteer proposal amended with your suggestion immediately above my comment (very close to the current version, in fact). The volunteer, as you desired, had final say over which version was put into the article. In the page history you will notice he made a minor fix, so he knows which of his proposals was implemented by me. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I agreed to a temporary intermediate version of his choice to work to prior to closure, that is true, but this is not the place to discuss that again!--Andromedean (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In your comment above my comment linked to above you seemed to agree to a version nearly identical to the current version. With that in mind, would you agree to defer further suggestion of changes for six months per the suggestion above? 85.167.109.64 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to showmebeefs comment, and your post intervened. I have just clarified by including the word first in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tparis' suggestion sounds OK, but you just changed it a few days ago, so it is only fair to see showmebeefs comments --Andromedean (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I notified all the editors involved with a link to the diff, I asked them to revert if they disagreed in the edit summary (which also explained my reasoning), and I know all the editors have been active since then. For this reason I consider the current version stable. Glad you agree with TParis's suggestion. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have to agree with 85 and Hil48 and the proposal put forward by TParis, Andromodean has taken this everywhere and in the words of Hilo48 it has become like an "obsession" I endorse the proposal put forwards by 85 TParis. I would also like the forum shopping by Andromodeanto be investigated as that appears to be the root cause of the beheaviour. Andromodean cannot find friendly or supportive people in one forum, they move on to another after attacking those who disagree with him. I will admit I am not perfect, no user here is, but the actions of Andromodean are in my opinion by far and away the worse. I also have to dispute the claims I am a "liar" which have been put forwards by Andromodean. There has been no "lying" on my behalf, the diffs provided in an attempt to support that claim are cherrypicked, selective and do not give the full picture. The DRN was closed and then a discussion was closed by MilbourneOne with the title "Suggestions failed to gain consensus". So when a disinterested user posts that it is is not "lying" to say there was no consensus. I would also like to drw attention to this diff which shows a very agressive attitude by 191, which is a borderline attack. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Proposal

My preference would be for it to go to an Arbitration Committee; in that way I would be satisfied that any dispute that could be solved has been assessed by an experienced independent panel. Moreover their decisions would have to be abided with which should bring this process to a close.

What would they specifically investigate? The conduct and decisions of everybody who has been involved with this article, not only the editors such as myself and sport and politics, but also whether administrators have interpreted the dispute/complaints procedures correctly, have acted fairly, and have assisted these editors in reaching consensus in accordance to Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. --Andromedean (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

either way, the article still needs to be protected. Kim if you can, please do so, even if just untill the new year or something, thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban request - User:JASpencer

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.

---

JASpencer and I have had a contentious history here at Wikipedia over in the Freemasonry topic area. He makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is biased against the topic, and we've had similar issues on ANI before. However, and not for the first time), JASpencer is stalking my contribs. He has keep voted on several AfDs I started in unrelated areas (WP:Articles for deletion/Awa Santesson-Sey, WP:Articles for deletion/Tahoe-LAFS, WP:Articles for deletion/Aliya (singer), and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Is_there_such_as_a_thing_as_a_.22bad_faith_keep.22.3F, just to name a few from the last few days. In every case, he is voting or commenting to bait me, and additionally to offer some sort of personal criticism, which is generally irrelevant to the topic. I do not need to put up with this behavior, which started this last time after I posted on his talk page to ask him to stop reverting edits against consensus on the Freemasonry article. I was later asked a question by another editor on my talk page, to which JA commented and the other editor [took exception. JA has also started several threads on various noticeboards about the Continental Freemasonry article, because he simply is not satisfied with what anyone is telling him. Prior to that, he hadn't gone near my other contribs or edited the Freemasonry article for months (that I am aware of), and a user compare report should indicate that.

This situation has been going on for years, and I have had enough of it. I'm sure some of my fellow editors at Freemasonry are also tired of this behavior, but it's been targeted at me directly more so than anyone else in that area. I don't care why, but it is a fact. Therefore, I hereby request a community enforced topic ban for him not only on Freemasonry-related topics (broadly construed), but an interaction ban regarding my edits and other contribs. I have no issues staying away from other material he edits (mainly Catholicism-related items, which is why I know there's an issue when he pops up at an AfD on a Russian pop singer or a computer encryption protocol), because it's not in my areas of interest or expertise. MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Notification diff: here

• Oppose - (Note: I myself might be seen as having a POV here). MSJapan omits to mention that there can be thought to be a substantial degree of POV pushing from avowed Freemasons, such as himself, who so far as I can see constitute the bulk of the editors who regularly work with the related content, and that it is not unreasonable for one editor to follow the behavior of another if they believe that behavior to be problematic in and of itself. I can and do think that there might be at this point a basis to bring the subject of Freemasonry before the Arbitration Committee, to examine the behavior of all those who are regularly involved with the topic and perhaps impose sanctions as required. I would actually myself strongly support such steps being taken. But I can see no reason to single out only one editor from a topic that has been, basically for years, a POV nightmare. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's because I'm not worried about the POV here; that's a different issue. I'm concerned with an editor tracking me (and no one else) to unrelated pages and being disruptive because of a different topic area. Follow my editing conduct, fine, but when comments made on other pages are about the editor and not the content, that is inappropriate, and that is where it crosses the line from concern to something else. When the "other topic" is furthermore the impetus for the behavior elsewhere, then the editor shows an inability to be collegial, and should be removed from the stressor. Would you rather I retired because I felt harassed by this behavior? MSJapan (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Your personal concerns are one thing, the concerns of wikipedia as a whole are another. First, you provide, honestly, rather scant evidence to support such a ban. Second, you seem to be insisting upon a differentiation between Freemasonry material and other material which probably is not necessarily logical. If one sees problematic behavior in one topic, it is certainly reasonable to examine other actions, because it is, sometimes, impossible to tell by the article title if it is related or not. If one sees problematic behavior there as well, even if rather by accident, I certainly cannot see any just cause to not remark upon it. Do you, necessarily, know simply by the article title whether it relates to a given topic? If one does see that the editor himself, possibly independent of the topic, is problematic, and I don't know if that is the case here, then it might not be best practices, but it is certainly not unheard of for it to be mentioned. Regarding your last question, which seems to be almost of a "my way or the high way" type, an editor is by definition free to act in whatever way they see fit, including based on personal opinions, which, as we all know, are sometimes not well founded in logic. Like I already said, I think the matter of the Freemasonry content, and, possibly, related content, probably at this point merits consideration by ArbCom. Pretty much by definition, any other related matters regarding the editors involved, even in apparently unrelated content, can be produced at that time as well. John Carter (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Scanning the diffs and information MSJapan brought here, I don't see dubstantial evidence to support a topic ban. Update: JASpencer's evidence of past disputes not only reaffirms that a topic ban is not needed, but also showcases how MSJapan has a strong willingness to wipe out every user that edits Freemasonry articles and goes against their editing line, which is worrysome. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "it's been targeted at me directly more so than anyone else in that area. I don't care why, but it is a fact. Therefore....." Then back away and edit another article. If you don't care why, then niether do I.(rough, but you can't blow off your own actions and simply blame the other guy)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I am one of the few editors who is not a Freemason who semi-frequently edits Freemasonry articles, my main interests being the intersection of Freemasonry and Christianity and the tradition of "Liberal" or "Continental" Freemasonry. There is a belief by MSJapan and a few other editors who are Freemasons that Freemasonry articles should only be substantially edited by Freemasons as only they understand the allusions. I don't think that this is entirely conscious, and they would be shocked to see it stated in the terms above, but there is a MO here, for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Masonic_buildings this entry on Masonic buildings, this entry on a Masonic temple and this entry on Masonic oblgations. I've not been spared, MSJapan has had a long term campaign to try to stop me editing these articles, in the AN/I area alone he has had this entry (four years ago and on the topic of Liberal Freemasonry) and this entry. I think as I've stated before that the best way of dealing with this is to go through the content dispute processes (which is what I've been doing) rather than by blocking users. JASpencer (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Can this incident be closed now? There may be a case for taking all Freemasonry related articles to arb com, but that's not best discussed here. JASpencer (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

stagnogleys

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.

---

Accidently created above. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Remove information with reliable sources

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.

---

TheMistAnchorite1

• [117]
• [118] - "This wiki page is about Georgia, and not about Armenian propaganda" (Shnirelman, Donald Rayfield, Stephen H. Rapp, etc. - Armenian propaganda ???)
• [119] - original research
• [120] - "the georgian alphabet was not invented by Mesrop Mashotots, this is a latter insertion made in Koryuns work. In Koryuns original work we don't find this, and our proof is armenian historian Ghazar Parpets" (original research)
• [121] - "this wiki article is according to georgian point of view wich interests us more" (????)

Please stop national activist. Divot (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

182.18.209.15

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.

---

• 182.18.209.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Blocked user abusing own talk page. – Wdchk (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Rei016

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

---

Hello, I really would like to have no part of this but unfortunately I feel a responsibility to do something. Rei016 blatantly and repeatedly violated WP:SOAPBOX in acts of borderline vandalism: see here, here. When I warned him on his talk page he lashed out and threatened legal action against Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NLT. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Widespread hoaxing by the 68.183.91.XXX range

Known IPs

• 68.183.91.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.247.204.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 208.127.147.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Attempted AfCs

• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CEC TV Independent Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trapped (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mission Catpossible 2: Grounded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Anatomy of A Scene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mission Catpossible (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Speaks (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2011 Spotlight Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CEC TV idents/logos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discussion from AfC

With the big backlog it is not surprising that it apparently went unnoticed that there was a serial hoaxer at work the last few months at AFC. I have just deleted about a dozen hoaxes perpetrated by IPs in the 68.183.91.xxx range. The telltale sign in most of them is any reference to a fictitious production company called "CEC tvfilms" (an apparent reference to the in-store programming shown at Chuck-E-Cheese restaraunts) as well as claiming long lists of celebrities in the cast, and what look like real links and refs, but are all actually either dead links or links to something other than what it appears from the text. If you see any more of these I would not bother formally reviewing them, just slap {{db-hoax}} on them. Let me know if any new ones pop up and I will investigate getting a range block in place. It really bothers me to see someone wasting AFCs time with lies and nonsense and I have already warned them that if they don't stop they will be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CEC TV Independent Pictures
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trapped (2012 film)
3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mission Catpossible 2: Grounded
4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Anatomy of A Scene
5. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mission Catpossible (franchise)
6. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Speaks (film)
7. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2011 Spotlight Awards
8. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CEC TV idents/logos

I'm looking through the range's contributions to make sure none of them got accepted. Legoktm (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you found another IP I had not noticed. Zapped em all. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's bad. Take a look at how crappy a job he did too:

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CEC TV Independent Pictures - Chuck E. Cheese
2. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trapped (2012 film) - ?
3. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mission Catpossible 2: Grounded - Mission: Impossible
4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Anatomy of A Scene - ?
5. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mission Catpossible (franchise) - Mission: Impossible
6. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martha Speaks (film) - Martha Speaks (TV series)
7. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2011 Spotlight Awards - ?
8. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CEC TV idents/logos - Chuck E. Cheese

Yeah, 'nuff said. If I were making hoaxes, I'd make better ones than that! Make sure to leave a comment at ANI or somewhere else about this one(s). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh...we might have a bigger problem than expected. Legoktm (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

...yeah, that's bad. Not sure what to do in this situation, so I have notified the proper authorities. I also Googled "Mission Catpossible" and found out that it's a series of YouTube videos. Huh. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So is this technically a hoax, or more spam/viral-marketing for someone's YouTube? Needs to be removed in either case, but just curious whether someone's just bored, or is trying to get more YT hits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I was talking to Legoktm and it appears that somehow this has a tie in to a Cat in the Hat episode. Weird. Anyway, I'm going to move this whole thing to the ANI section to clean things up. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Current discussion

Need an admin who knows about range blocking to have a look at blocking 68.183.91.xxx range. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#hoax alert for details. User has created around 20 hoax submissions at AFC as well as adding incorrect information to articles and basically vandalizing my talk page and ordering me not to delete the garbage they have been posting, along with some other problematic material which necessitated a revdel. I don't know about the rest of you but I take a very dim view of people deliberately wasting the time of the severely understaffed AFC project. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - So, we have an IP range that is going around creating massive hoaxes, generally revolving around a fake movie studio entitled CEC TV Independent Pictures (a reference to Chuck E. Cheese's in-store programming) and a movie series Mission Catpossible (discovered to actually be a YouTube video series). The hoax began as about half a dozen articles attempted to be passed through AfC and has spread to vandalism on movie related pages. A full list of known affected articles and deleted submissions can be found along with previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, edit conflict. Gone ahead and merged the two sections (I kept my header because I already posted it on the other page). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Having taken a look at these articles, it might be worth setting up an edit filter for this range, similar to the Broadway Hoaxer one. Legoktm (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Range is 68.183.0.0/16 (maybe more, that is just the first ones I found) with a lot of potential collateral damage, so a range block isn't a best option unless it can be narrowed down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: If I understand your post, that's only 16 IPs. What's wrong with that? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's 2^(32–16) addresses according to CIDR notation. DMacks (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed at The Super Mario Challenge[122]. And IP editor, 208.127.147.187 inserted the material at Dolphin Tale according to Wikiblame and this Diff.[123]. I've removed it accordingly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a rangeblock on 68.183.91.0/24. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Another [124] done by 24.247.204.241. Up the same alley as the others from the AFC page and I felt better axing it as it was dubious. That seems to be everything I can find. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

oh good grief! what is with IP editors these days, trying to ruin it for us noble IP editors? and people wonder why i'm losing faith in this genoration. sigh. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what's up. This vandalism seems scattered over several ranges. I'll start checking WHOIS data and see if I can find a pattern. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

68.183.91.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the one that tried to create the articles, they are registered to DSL Extreme, 24.247.204.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is registered to Charter Communications, and 208.127.147.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also a DSL Extreme IP. This at least shows that it is not limited to one person. If this continues, we may want to send it to WP:LTA. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Inflammatory accusations at move request

Over time, several move requests have been made at Communist Romania; the latest has just begun. Every time, to my recollection, User:DIREKTOR has charged that I and others opposing such a move are doing so not from policy-based motivations, but because we are "Romanian nationalists" bent on keeping the title for our own POV-pushing purposes. I have warned him repeatedly to stop, e.g. here. The new move request is barely a few hours old, yet Director has started again. He avers that: "I shall be blunt: the only problem here is the fact that the current name is more acceptable to Romanian nationalist sensibilities, who close ranks and WP:VOTE-down every attempt". Setting aside the fact that he has no evidence of vote tampering in the last move request, I simply find it intolerable to go through yet another move request where whatever I say is perceived as masking sinister, unstated, hidden, deeper motivations. Plus, this probably contravenes WP:ARBEE. Will someone please intervene so we can have a sane, rational, policy-based discussion this time around, free of ethnic-based mudslinging? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see how it's annoying, but I hardly see how it's actionable. 90% of his argument contains no mention of nationalist editors and of the part that does, it singles no one out. He shouldn't make broad generalizations, but that's a reason to ignore him. There is noting admins can do. If it's such an issue, WP:RFC/U would be the next step after trying to talk to him and get him to tone down the nationalist accusations.--v/r - TP 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this is about The Move, methinks. Nevertheless, I really meant no offence, and if offence was taken - I do apologize. I was not referring to anyone specifically, and I feel your characterization of the comment as an "ethnic-based attack" is highly inappropriate and offensive in itself: I do not do that sort of thing. I did candidly outline what I feel is a real problem for the article, but I certainly do not think its a unique issue. In fact, I've often commented on the deep-rooted bias and POV-pushing that plagues ex-Yugoslav articles (my home country), likely far more than any other European history subject. -- Director (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it rises to the point of ANI, as no specific editors were named. Sometimes memory of past conflict can influence how one states something or how one reacts to a statement, which are not obvious to outsiders. TFD (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Breaking my topic-ban to undo vandalism

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

---

This is just a headsup to let you know that I've just broken my topic-ban to fix some vandalism on two pages: [125], [126]. It had stood for about 45 minutes when I got there this morning and decided WP:IGNORE applied. I'm not sure whether the incident needs to be logged somewhere Just letting you know.--Thomas B (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Since these were blankings, a bot would have undone them. Please just take these articles off your watchlist instead of drawing attention to yourself to make a WP:POINT. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If a bot was going to revert them, they would have been reverted already. These were helpful edits, and an allowable exception (unless there was some language in the original topic ban that forbids even obvious repairs such as these). --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

An appeal against the topic ban was declined at WP:AE eight days ago: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Thomas_Basboll Please read the discussion there before offering contradictory advice. Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Topic ban#Exceptions to limited bans - Can't say I'm overly familiar with the situation, but I don't see a problem here. If the topic ban forbids these particular edits, please point out where. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please go and read the discussion, since this is a very special case. I'm not going to read it for you. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic-bans aside, Berguy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandals are two a penny and do not justify breaking a topic ban. WP:AIV is thataway ==> Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'll read closely, you'll notice I said "topic-bans aside", as in "no comment on OP breaking his topic-ban". AIV may be thataway, but the issue is here now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Final warning given to the Berguy1 account. As for the topic ban thing, topic bans (unlike revert limitations) normally don't come with an implicit exception for obvious vandalism repair, so doing what Thomas Basboll did here is a bit of a risk, but for now I think we can regard it as a good-faith application of IAR. I would recommend not relying on this as a precedent though. I stand corrected, see the link to Wikipedia:Topic ban#Exceptions to limited bans Bongwarrior pointed out above. So, no problem here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

174.118.142.187 and 86.145.244.183

Repeated alteration and deletion of talk page comments by User:174.118.142.187

User:174.118.142.187 has taken to repeatedly reformatting, reattributing and deleting comments made by myself at Three-phase electric power.

First reformat of my comment (emphasising a point I did not want emphasised and wrongly crediting me with imposing a deadline for discussion) [127]

My reversion to what I wanted said with warning in edit summary. ([128])

Once again 174.118.142.187 reverts, once again making it appear that I have imposed a deadline that I have no right to do. ([129]).

For the second time, I revert to what I wanted it to say. ([130])

A warning is placed on the user talk page. ([131])

But it didn't stop.

174.118.142.187 moved my comment from the section it was in to a new section and credited it as having been written by an administrator (which I am not). ([132])

174.118.142.187 has deleted my opposition comment to his desire to change the english variant in the article WP:ENGVAR. ([133])

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Inserting a section header (first diff) is not reformatting a comment, it's inserting a section header. Edit warring over the header is counterproductive. Discussion should continue on Talk:Three-phase electric power and this thread closed. NE Ent 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Last time I did something not disimilar, I got a slapped wrist from an admin. Regardless: deleting an editor's comment because he opposes you (after a warning) surely is still deleting an editor's comment. As this seeks to rig a concensus, does that not merit some action? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You should've posted this diff. Your diffs aren't really actionable, there's nothing wrong with adding a section header. In fact, that is helpful. The part about the end date however, seems to be pointless. Discussions on talk pages have no arbitrary end date as suggested by the IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Before closing this incident I want to add that I am requesting an apology on the article talk page and my user talk page from this user for posting personal attacks with this [134] for lying[135] about the number of offensive occurences, reversions to the article I did not make, and labelling me as a vandal in the edit history and my talk page history. We would appreciate collaboration and less ad hominem[136] commenting from this editor in the future. Thank you 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been going over the edit history of Three-phase_electric_power and its associated talk page to unravel what has been going on there and happened across this. I felt, I could not go without commenting given the editor's attempts to try and remove the opposition to his unexplained desire to change the spelling of color to colour throughout an article. In the case of the first diff quoted, 174.118.142.187 deleted a comment that opposed his view point (which is vandalism so I do not see what he is complaining about - the edit summary AFAICT is accurate in every particular). I thought, at first, that it may have been an error, but subsequent events have removed that possibility. He then accuses him of lying (maybe? or did he just miscount?). There were two instances (one repeat despite a warning) so what real difference does the lack of a third make?

As for the last, I cannot comment other than to observe that it is presumably yet another attempt to try and swing the pendulum his way by including something not remotely related to the matter in hand. A look at the editing history suggests that the talk page comment is unwarranted. The only (possibly) contentious comments are allegations of edit warring against a tendentious editor, but that is the subject of a work in progress RfC to which I myself have contributed evidence (of deliberate edit warring without discussion) so the alegation is probably justified (and to be fair, I and several others have also made the same allegation).

174.118.142.187 is correct on one very important point: collaboration would indeed be desireable, but from where I am standing, it certainly seems that 174.118.142.187 does not want any one else collaborating when they oppose his viewpoint. I B Wright (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the response I replied to you on my talk page, previously. The reasons haven't changed. I understand your account has been around for a few years. Have you forgotten some basic WP:Policies. You appear to be gaming WP somewhat with your WP:Battleground and nonWP:COLLAB behaviour. I surely would find it hard to believe a polished editor would not have WP at his best interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am merely supplying a third party view on the matter and calling it as I see it as I have not been involved in your dispute. You allegations above do not come as a surprise given your attitude toward other editors. Personally, at this stage, I believe you are skirting close to a block of your IP address for continued abuse and allegations, but fortunately (for you) I am not an admin. I know that an admin will see this and apply the rules they work to at at the very least comment. I B Wright (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalising by IP 86.145.244.183

Please see this vandalisation of my talk page [137]. This IP user has only made one edit and the account was obviously created for disruption only and a sock for a previously aggressive editor acting in a disuptive manner to a consensus process. He has recently launched a vandal report on this editor appearing as an article dispute resolution distraction. The IP needs a long block. Perhaps a CU could be done to verify. Details can be supplied if further info is wanted. I will not be notifying the offending IP. It would fall on deaf ears and is obviously understood by the IP. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also request that an admin remove the offending line from my edit history. Editors tend to use histories as bias to dish out future punishments and treat editor's edits with less merit. This would not be fair to this IP when no offence has actually ocurred. Thank you 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You have to notify any user you mention on this board. It's not just polite, it's required. One bit of vandalism is not block-worthy, but that it was definitely DieSwartzPunkt indicates that both of you need to back off.

A message on your talk page (which I removed) does not add to your block log

I've notified the users you were supposed to notify. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The vanadalism was not real. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Schweikart ostracized

Larry Schweikart a history professor with a non-controversial record as a business historian in recent years has written interpretive histories of the US with an explicitly conservative viewpoint. Today editor User:Binksternet has been systematically tracking and erasing citations to Schweikart's political books and to his nonpolitical books as well. He stated his motivation on my talkpage as "Certainly Schweikart has his fans, but I think we need to minimize his impact on Wikipedia, at least on topics where his opinion goes against the tide." Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rjensen). For example he deleted a passage on guitar music Rock and roll and the fall of communism that cited Schweikart. He deleted material from Conservation in the United States explaining "Delete overreliance on poorly received work" with zero evidence anywhere that the particular Schweikart works involved were "poorly received" by any RS. Perhaps "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov. Ostracizing an established historian because of his political views is pure POV, in my opinions. The NPOV rules require the inclusion of all major viewpoints. "against the tide" seems to mean against Binksternet's pov. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a fairly straightforward content dispute. I suggest discussing the matter on the articles' talk pages or at WP:RSN. I certainly don't see any need for admin intervention here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

systematic ostracism of a scholar across numerous articles on entirely different topics --all done in a matter of minutes--is not a simple content dispute. Rjensen (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI is never going to rule on whether a certain source should be used or not. That's something that has to be resolved via discussion on talk pages, WP:RSN, or an Rfc--not by administrative intervention. It appears that Bink is willing to talk this over, so reporting him here was unnecessary. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the proper place for this discussion is WP:RSN. The book A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen has been deeply criticized for its slanted counterfactuality. Historian David Hoogland Noon wrote that the book's authors "make claims that are not even remotely endorsed by the footnoted sources."[138] Law Professor Jared A. Goldstein criticizes the bias of the book, presented as counter-bias by its authors: "...those writing history have allowed their biases to distort the way American history is taught... utterly downplaying the greatness of America's patriots..." ("Tea Party Movement and the Perils of Popular Originalism", Arizona Law Review.) Law Professor Alfred Brophy uses the books A Patriot's History of the United States and A People's History of the United States as examples of the biased result of culture wars. ("Reparations Talk in College", Michigan Journal of Race & Law) Taylor & Francis editor-in-chief Roberto A. Valdeón of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, uses the two books A Patriot's History of the United States and A People's History of the United States as examples of the manipulation of history. ("Communicating the past via translation: the manipulation of history", Language and Intercultural Communication.) The books I removed from the History of the United States article are these exact two books. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet has also removed an essay on rockand roll music from 7 Events that Made America America chapter on A Steel Guitar Rocks the Iron Curtain, published by Penguin in 2010. He attacked Schweikart's article on the panic of 1857 (a widely cited scholarly article). And he announced his plan to eliminate Schweikart's role here. He deleted a passage on Robert Peary' s diary -- entirely nonpolitical and uncontroversial based on a scholarly article by Schweikart in a major journal with no evidence of any problem, except Schwikart wrote it. That is pure POV deleting. Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the ultimate rationale behind the removal of these references is that, as the author's status as a reliable source is in question (per Binksinternet's reply above), that including the author's commentary in articles assigns it undue weight, i.e. is POV pishing. You know what happens when both sides are saying "POV" at each other? That's right, kids! It's a content dispute! It's not going to be resolved here: find a more appropriate venue than ANI to discuss it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum making personal attacks

No. Just no. This won't get us anywhere. If you're that riled up, ArbCom exists. Do not unclose this thread. --Rschen7754 08:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not posting this here because I'm a gullible fool who thinks it will actually accomplish anything, but instead because Beeblebrox said that I know how to find the drama boards. Sure, he knows just as well as I do that it wouldn't do any good to bring this here, but Malleus has made several personal attacks at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012, saying that Hersfold is a horrible person and unfit to be in charge of a push bike. He's also called me a gullible fool (see above) and a misinformed one to boot. (That last attack came after Beeblebrox had bluntly told us both to shut up). Also, this whole thing had started with Malleus's seeming insinuation that the election officials are dishonest. Now, I imagine that someone will simply respond to this by rudely telling me off and saying that Malleus knows the rules and sanctioning him won't do any good, but I still want to know why he is allowed to get away with repeated attacks on editors who are simply acting in good faith. Given that this is a volunteer site and editors have no moral obligation to help out here, why should they stay to be treated like dirt by one editor who disregards the rules? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC) From reading the linked exchange, I'd say there's enough blame or whatever to go around (and not just with Malleus or AS). Tar me with the posse brush if you will, but that's how I see it. Intothatdarkness 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuorum. Huh, what do you know, still a red link... Funny how everyone is so quick to call for immediate blocks of Malleus but nobody has ever bothered to try our actual dispute resolution processes in order to actually have a discussion on the matter... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3)For real. I don't recall having anything against Malleus (and under both WP:AGF and my general attitude, I will assume I've only gotten along with him), but these threads seem a little common for there to not be an RfC/U. Not my problem either way, but dudes, if he's really a problem, there should be an RfC. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Ok, lets just block everyone who was uncivil in that exchange for the same length of time. Malleus Fatuorum for calling AutomaticStrikeout a gullible fool. AutomaticStrikeout for accusing Malleus Fatuorum of making 4,801 personal attacks this year. Hersfold for imprudently threatening blocks and causing needless drama. Did I miss anyone? Monty845 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC) They're not attacks, just mild rebukes of people who made some rather ill-informed comments. Thicken your skin, find something better to do, and kill with fire this discussion now before it balloons to the usual multi-megabytes of text walls. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Calling someone a fool is not civil, though the rest of the material does fall in "stern rebuke" territory. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Can we please just move on from this and not sap all of the new Arbcom's motivation to edit in the first week they're in office with what will eventually spiral into a case request? MBisanz talk 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Why was this thread closed when the underlying problem that caused it has not been solved? I propose an indefinite site ban for Malleus Fatuorum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) Indefinite site ban for Malleus Fatuorum Support Enough is enough. This editor has already been given (and wasted) too many chances. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Per Rschen7754's suggestion, I've filed a request for an ArbCom case.[139] I'm not sure exactly who was involved in this latest exchange. If you would like to be added to the list of parties, please let me know and I'll do so, or feel free to add yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Dagoldman

User:Dagoldman, who self-identifies as the researcher Daniel Goldman [140], appears to be largely a single-purpose account for promoting the conclusions of Goldman's research on Wikipedia. Goldman was the third author of a 2003 paper arguing that Franklin D. Roosevelt had Guillain-Barre Syndrome rather than polio, and a majority of this account's edits have been to "correct" references to FDR's polio in Wikipedia in various Wikipedia articles or insert mentions that FDR more probably had Guillain-Barre. Based only on his paper, he changed the language of Franklin D. Roosevelt to state that GBS was more likely a diagnosis than polio, and even succeeded in proposing a spinoff article titled Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, which was primarily built around his paper, mentioning no other medical research on FDR.[141] The user was blunt about the fact that outside Wikipedia Goldman's work was being ignored, writing on a talk page that "If the idea ever does get generally accepted, I think it will be largely attributable to the exposure in wikipedia." [142] Over the past few years, the "paralytic illness" talk page has also been visited by a range of combative IPs with a clear dedication to Goldman's article; one of these self-identified today as Dagoldman.[143]

In August of this year, the account returned to promote a program of Goldman's creation [144] called the STD Wizard,[145] though this time he was much more explicit in identifying it as his own work.[146] Dagoldman attempted to insert a section on this in the STD article, where it was removed by other editors.

I've now undone most of these promotional edits, leaving notes on the talk pages of each article explaining the situation and asking for uninvolved eyes to check the work. In response, the IP/Dagoldman accused me of threatening and harassing him.[147] I've previously raised this situation at WP:COI/N and a few other forums but can't seem to get other users involved.

I'd be glad to have more eyes on this. Can someone besides me speak with this user about our COI policies and sock puppetry policies? I've attempted to raise the COI/promotional issue with the user myself,[148] but he responded that he was "just trying to defend [his] right to edit, and trying to defend the integrity of the factual information concerning FDR's paralytic illness."[149] Thanks for your help, -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just file an SPI and get him blocked for socking, we should still have checkuser data for dagoldman. His comments about harassment and tracking editors doesn't apply when someone is promoting a somewhat fringe theory across multiple articles and socking to do it. Gigs (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that, then. If anybody's interested in discussing further, Gigs has suggested closing this thread and gathering further discussion at WP:COI/N, which sounds good to me, too. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)

Is it possible we can get a quick semi protect of this article, Ian Watkins (Lostprophets), after this article [150] and many others please? Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 10:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 10:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also blocked one account and two IPs, and revdel'd about 50 page histories per BLP. Bencherlite^Talk 11:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Bencherlite. Яehevkor ✉ 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

People have moved onto Lostprophets now the main article is blocked, could we get protection on that too please? Яehevkor ✉ 11:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But of course. Done. Bencherlite^Talk 11:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Bencherlite. And for the cleanup. Яehevkor ✉ 18:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

More email abuse

Another JarlaxleArtemis sock, Milesgive3030- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is continuing to abuse Wikipedia email to send obscene and racist threats, even after the account has been blocked. Please disable this account's email access, and please remember to disable email access for all such socks. RolandR (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Email access locked down for this one. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This account, like the several others which have spammed over recent weeks, had an extremely offensive, racist email address. Is there no way to prevent mail from such addresses being allowed via Wikipedia email? RolandR (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

?Racist? Are we talking about hmamail or some other? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The username on the email addresses were racist. Legoktm (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It has to be stopped at source by using law enforcement. The email content is unlawful. We cannot expect WP to filter this out since the individual words used are not, of themselves, unlawful, it is the word order that makes them unlawful and offensive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

hmamail.com is on my blocked senders list so it just goes into the pile of junk. I guess you can do the same. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is easy to do, but does not protect the less robust people who will be receiving the unpleasant emailings. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Roland poses an interesting idea. Would it be possible to manipulate the edit filter to extend, in some cases, to the email function? — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I'll file a bug in bugzilla and start working on a patch. Legoktm (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be saying it's possible, though the bug's been inactive for more than a year. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a different bug I linked and then removed. That involved having the filter being able to email an address in case a filter was tripped. I filed T45228 which is about the filter preventing emails from being sent. Legoktm (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for doing all the hard work :). If you need any help, just ask. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What? You are proposing to run the content of emails sent from Wikipedia through the edit filter and reject them if they contain certain words? You can't be serious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's to filter out the email addresses not the email content. Blackmane (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well actually I was proposing both. It's important to remember that just because a feature was written software wise, doesn't mean it will be enabled. And even if such a feature were enabled (which I hope it will eventually be), the filters would be written in such a way that the chance of false positive would be extremely low, like they currently are. Is there something especially wrong with filtering abusive emails? Legoktm (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm a fan of running emails through the edit filter. Emails are supposed to be private, and the edit filter logs for emails would reveal when people are emailing each other. Plus, there would be no way to report false positives (which would always occur, no matter how cautious we are) without revealing the potentially sensitive contents of the email. Also, the edit filter is probably too naive to effectively patrol emails; if people email each other about some random LTA's patterns (perhaps for beany reasons), the email might trigger the pattern for LTA, since it can't tell the difference. So false positives might be more common than we'd expect. Of course there's the whole Orwellian angle as well; that's kinda subjective, but still. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just don´t understand why nothing can be done about this. Firstly, why does Wikipedia enable editors, who has not made a single edit, to email others? Make a small number of edits compulsory first. Secondly; no-one has any legitimate reason to send 50-60 emails to the same person within a few minutes. Some flood-control, please! This bugzilla report seems to claim it has been fixed, but that is simply not correct. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Huldra, can you not add hmamail.com to your blocked senders list in whatever email app you use so that they are put in the junk folder ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can, but that is not the point. Being a responsible social media site is the point. We have vulnerable people editing here, too, not just the strong minded folk. You are not vulnerable, obviously. I am not either. I received circa 200 pieces of crap today, but I don't much care about that. I expect more crap over the next few days, so what? But I wish to see those who care about it and are affected by it protected from it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood but this is a charity. A lot of resources are already wasted here dealing with the ethically challenged. Microsoft/Google/Yahoo etc have money to burn and they've already solved the problem. I would rather the resources were used on finding a technical solution to astonishingly high level of dishonesty in the form of sockpuppetry because that kills two birds with one stone. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WK: True, which is what I mentioned in my bug report (link above). Currently only CheckUsers (as I understand it) have access to limited email logs so the privacy aspect is definitely something that needs to be considered. How is the edit filter too naive? The current filters are specifically designed to stop LTAs and not users. Without getting too beansy here, I am confident that if you tried discussing an LTA pattern with another user through Wikipedia email, you wouldn't be stopped. Feel free to email me for details on how that would work. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're asking about filters: you seem to be saying that we don't get false positives because we're not supposed to get false positives? That's not how it works. My point about email is that, since sensitive subjects like LTAs might be discussed more frequently through email than onwiki (that's purely anecdotal, so that might not be true), these kinds of filters will get higher rates of false positives, and false positives for email are much worse than false positives for on-wiki actions, because of the privacy issue.

As for the current email log, if I understand it right, checkusers only have access to see that an email is sent; they aren't able to see the contents of an email. My really primary point is that I don't see a way that an edit-filter type-solution would be workable without a way of handling false positives, and I don't see how handling false positives could be done without access to the contents of the email, and I don't see a way that releasing the contents of the email would be acceptable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I normally do not get much junk-mail on this account, and usually read my "junk" as it is usually from a forum I am member off. Besides the above suggestions, may I suggest that you have a trigger for certain words in the heading of the emails? Eg: "whore/nazi/death/gas/kill" Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland says this is a charity. Fortunately this means that it has to have even higher standards than some business like Micro$oft. Like it or not, users must be protected from juvenile and malevolent abusers alike. There can be no lower standard because this huge business happens to be a charity. By spending money on prevention of areas like this we are not removing money from starving kittens. INstead the money must be used correctly and wisely for all aspects of Wikipedia's work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm apparently doing a horrible job of explaining myself, so I'll just shoot you an email WK.

As for who would hypothetically be able to see such data, yes, that is an interesting question, and something that would need to be discussed with a much bigger audience if it were ever to be implemented on enwp. Legoktm (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• If it is of any use, mw:Admin tools development includes the development of a way to blacklist email addresses. I'd imagine that filters for EmailUser would have to be set only by users identified to the foundation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've never understood why the e-mail function is available to non-confirmed users. Is there a legit reason for such users to have this feature available? Tarc (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I thought that a good use for it would be for subjects of BLPs to be able to email people with concerns about their articles without having to wait for autoconfirmed. whether anyone actually does that is another question of course, but it's a nice idea... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm under the understanding that the e-mail function is here to facilitate communication between actual Wikipedia editors, though. BLP subjects are unlikely to themselves be editors, and if there is something amiss with their article, they would be better served by being steered to e-mailing (via their own e-mail channels, not our links) Arbcom or OTRS. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I was thinking more along the lines of the scenario as described in WP:DOLT, where a normal person stumbles across their Wikipedia bio, sees some bad stuff in it, and wants to do something about it, so they register and email someone about their concerns, since they don't want to attract more attention. You're probably right that Arbcom is the way to go, and that is an admittedly convoluted way for a newbie to go about talking to someone, but I don't think it's totally outside the realm of possibility. Is that rare scenario worth keeping non-autoconfirmed email rights? Perhaps not, but it's a thing we can at least consider. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Violation of interaction ban by Prioryman

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.

---

Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently subject to an interaction ban with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that, in the wording provided at the log on WP:RESTRICT, covers "discussing each other, or interacting" and Prioryman has violated this restriction. He commented at Jimbo's talk page in a thread started by DC to suggest DC could be blocked, criticizing his posting at Jimbo's page, and stating later: "I don't see any indication from either of these two interventions on Jimbo's user talk page that the proper channels have been followed. That's concerning in itself." Both "interventions" were initiated by DC so this is obviously discussion of him.

When I pointed this out, Prioryman claimed that because he spoke "generally" and didn't address DC directly that he wasn't violating the interaction ban. After this he went to another page and made further comments about DC by stating "I'm a bit uneasy that it seems to have been driven by pseudonymous posts on a malicious off-wiki website." DC had started the thread on Jimbo's by noting a blog post he had made so this was another veiled reference to DC by Prioryman.

This is blatantly inappropriate gaming of his interaction ban and the last comment was especially problematic since he knew two admins were aware of DC's posting, erasing any alleged need for further on-wiki comments about DC. Of those admins, one has declined to take action against Prioryman's violation on the basis that he has already made a bold block on another aspect of this issue, and the other has made the claim that Prioryman's actions are exempt under BLP. I do not believe WP:BLP under any interpretation should allow an editor to make veiled potshots against someone with whom they have an interaction ban. I am asking that this restriction be enforced by an uninvolved admin with a brief block for Prioryman.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a violation. NE Ent 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would note that Prioryman's claims of "speaking generally" and "didn't address DC directly" are expressly disallowed by WP:IBAN #3; "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to...make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". Tarc (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather silly claim by a Wikipediocracy member (seriously, do you guys have nothing better to do other than go after people on your hate list?). I did not suggest that anyone should be blocked. I said as a general warning to everyone who might in future become involved in that thread (there were only 2 involved at that stage) that Wikipedia's child protection policy doesn't allow paedophilia accusations to be made or discussed in project space and that doing so could result in blocks - as I put it, "This is very thin ice". [151] I addressed IanMcM to clarify his statement, and Tarc to semi-agree with his, and did not address or refer to anyone else. I flagged up the thread off-wiki to oversight to get it revdel'd or oversighted (which hasn't yet happened), notified Seraphimblade (who hatted the thread) and Scott MacDonald (who blocked the accused editor) that I had done so, and suggested to Scott that he should notify Arbcom about the block, which he did. I'm certainly not going to apologise for describing Wikipediocracy as malicious, which it is. I'm not entirely easy with the fact that the block appears to be based on pseudonymous postings on that website but it's in Arbcom's hands now, so there's nothing more to be said here on the matter. Bottom line, I did not refer to or interact with any interaction-banned individuals, even indirectly, and I acted solely to ensure that a frankly dangerous thread (there's a good reason why WP:CHILDPROTECT says that you don't make paedophile accusations in project space) was shut down quickly and shunted off to Arbcom and the oversighters. I sought to do it in a way that would be compliant with the IBAN by deliberately not referring to or commenting on the other party but addressing the issue as generally as possible and working behind the scenes to get the matter dealt with quickly. I think that's acting responsibly. Prioryman (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather silly claim by a Wikipediocracy member -- nice ad hominem.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy is basically a troll community whose members get their jollies by attacking Wikipedians. This isn't the first time people from there have tried to make trouble for me, unfortunately. I predict that what we will now see is a series of Wikipediocracy members coming here with blazing torches and a fresh "burn the witch" thread at Wikipediocracy. That's how it works. Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ian was directly addressing DC with his comments about the policy. Your mention of blocks was clearly suggesting it as a potential consequence for DC. The comment about Jimbo's page "not being a suitable forum" and "directing people" to pursue the suitable forums is clearly another reference to DC. You don't get to claim an exemption just because other people would have been included in your comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes violation. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The "proper course" for PM was to contact ArbCom and only to contact ArbCom -- the other comments are perilously close to a violation of the interaction ban. Seems pretty clear AFAICT. Collect (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my position, it is my position that Prioryman's post on my talk page was unambiguously BLP-related, as it clearly related to a request for oversight on those grounds. As I already stated to Prioryman, if there's an interaction ban in place, it would be preferable if he refrains altogether from participation in threads DC has started, even if not responding directly to DC. I don't see a flagrant violation and believe Prioryman to have had legitimate BLP concerns (which are an exception to IBANs), but in a contentious situation like that, it would still be better to let someone else handle it, especially in a forum like Jimbo's talk page which is very heavily watched. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman was trying to take that thread and turn it into an opportunity to block-shop for a sanction against DC. That's about as bad-faithed violation of an interaction ban as you can get.VolunteerMarek 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. I quoted the policy to highlight the fact that it was not something editors should be discussing in project space. It was not directed at any individual but was a general warning to anyone thinking of contributing further that the discussion should be ended and no fresh discussions should be started (this was apparently the second time it had been raised on Jimbo's talk page). I didn't and haven't asked for anyone to be blocked. Prioryman (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[[

(ec)Honestly, you sound alot like This guy. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice personal attack. Prioryman clearly deserves a block for breaking the interaction ban. DC might...but at least deserves a massive trout for posting not once, but twice, questions or accusations of pedophilia directed against a particular editor in project space. There is a process. --Onorem♠Dil 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated blanket-insertion of unsourced statements to album articles

Since September 2012 this user, as well as their sockpuppet has made a whole bunch of blanket edits stating record sales figures to many album articles, without any sources whatsoever. Granted, inserting a few figures here and there in the hope that other editors would pitch in with some help might not be a huge problem, but when it involves entire discographies and many albums from different bands, with no edit summaries or even so much as a single attempt at providing sources, as well as simply adding back the unsourced stuff that I remove, surely it becomes a more tricky issue—especially since it should not be the job of other editors to go around searching for so many of them. The user has also made several obvious vandalistic edits since joining (perhaps, at a guess, indicating their [im]maturity level), which I think further indicates their lack of desire to "get with the program" on WP: 1, 2, 3, 4 At this stage, having made four unsuccessful attempts at contacting them on their talk page, I'm unsure of what to do other than keep reverting their edits (I seem to remember they removed a few cite tags as well). Even so, it's clear that he/she/they will keep coming back with the same old routine, for the exact same articles.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, forgot to provide an example of the unsourced additions in question: one of the album articles edited most by the user, and what keeps getting added. Same line repeatedly, but no attempt at providing a source in the past four months. I realise now that I may be violating 3RR, but they ain't getting the point otherwise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have put a warning on the Necroshine95 user talk page. Please continue to revert and report the user at WP:AIV for further action if the problem continues. -- Dianna (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The user Necroshine95 has now resorted to using his sockpuppet Phantomlord95 again. On his Necroshine95 yesterday he—amazingly(!)—tried to add some sources (by simply inserting links without any attempt to format them), upon which I duly fixed tweaked them to follow WP's syntax. However, he immediately uses the aforementioned Phantomlord95 sockpuppet account to add back more sales figures which weren't anywhere in the sources. As can be seen here and here, it's turning into quite a drawn-out and repetitive edit war. Also, note the extremely childish vandalism left at this page. Do I go straight to AIV now, or keep reverting? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that it's safe to wait a bit to see if an admin takes action directly from here, IMO. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I recommend an indefinite block for both Nekroshine95 and Phantomlord95. Their recent collaboration at Horrorscope (Overkill album) to restore the same edits makes it believable that they are the same editor. Together they have 12 edits on that article since the beginning of December. They are also both triggering an edit filter that puts 'Via Mobile' in the history though I don't know the significance of that filter. If this problem of unsourced changes of numbers has been going on for four months there doesn't seem to be much need to offer a second chance. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaving it to others to determine what remedy is best, I would just comment that the insertion of un-referenced info in music articles is sometimes a significant one, that can lend itself to abuse. I do support this being addressed in some manner, as it erodes wp:v.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Necroshine95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phantomlord95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since this report was filed, the editor here has continued to contribute using both of his accounts, though 'contribute' might be too strong a word. Phantomlord95 has added to our article on the drummer Lars Ulrich that he is a 'lazy, arrogant, egomaniac...who sucked mainstreams dick..'. For some reason ClueBot found fault with that sentiment and reverted his edit. I am blocking both accounts indefinitely. Any admin who thinks this editor might be redeemed through appropriate counseling is welcome to try, or to modify my block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Travelin shuz sanitizing New Testament Christian Churches of America

This user has twice come through and removed a lot of well-sourced adverse material from this article, and has edited nothing else. Messages on his talk page have been ignored. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no one else has responded, so I just thought I would let you know I have added the article to my watch-list and will help if/when the editor returns. I think he is right that a lot of the info might be out of date, as the church is no longer in the news. Which in turn makes it difficult/impossible to freshen up the article. The historical material should not be removed, though. -- Dianna (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

IP editor 173.8.72.86

An IP editor has been making a series of unconstructive edits to Jerry Brown.

(The following diffs provided show the reverts as the editor has been making multiple edits at a time and these show the full edits that were reverted. Apologies if this is not appropriate)

[152] [153] [154] [155] [156]

They have been warned twice now but keep going undeterred. User talk:173.8.72.86--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've issued them a 3rr warning. They also appear to be starting to communicate at User talk:Mediran. I suggest waiting to see what they do next. Monty₈₄₅ 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they actually made that post when I reverted them and sought help from the editor who, when they figured out what was going on, also had to revert them. After a third editor reverted them they appear to have stopped.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential Church of Scientology IP

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

The only edit by 24.10.114.221 is a long rant that alternates between a scammy-looking "business proposal" and preachy bits that do not just simply teach Scientology, but accept it at face value. According to the IP look up tool, and Google maps, the IP is within spitting distance of a Church of Scientology. The IP could well belong to the library or Starbucks that happens to a block away from the local Church of Scientology, but given the lack of other edits, I'm having a hard time believing this is a public IP.

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Church_of_Scientology_IP_addresses_blocked, IPs of the Church of Scientology are to be blocked as open proxies. Public IPs (such as libraries) would be favorite playing grounds of people who wish to mess with us and remain anonymous, so I doubt that a single-edit account would be public. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dunno anything about the Scientology issue and how close the IP geolocates to it, but I'm surprised, Ian, that you hatted such a rant. User:Torchiest properly removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was considering it. I think seeing a few threads and problematic users fight over having such content removed in the past few days may have pushed me against it. I think he's been scared off or has given up. Still, it might be worthwhile to make sure it stays out of Scientology related articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As insane as that rant is, I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that the IP belongs to the church of scientology. Just because he mentioned L. Ron Hubbard in his rant, and the IP geolocates to a densely populated location in downtown Sacramento that happens to be near a church... isn't enough for me. I'd say, leave it alone unless he does it again. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirects to infobox settlement

Could I get an uninvolved admin to look at the edits of User:NVanMinh? I have asked him more than once to stop this mission to orphan redirects to {{infobox settlement}}, but it seems like my requests do very little. There is a related RFD which seems to explain the questionable reasoning for this behavior. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with your edits. There's absolutely no reason to change a template transclusion to a transclusion of the redirect. NVanMinh's edits are similar to changing "Colarado" to "Colorado". In this case, there's no substantive change, but if he's willing to put forth the effort, there is zero reason for him not to make the edits. Ryan Vesey 06:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I originally had no idea what you meant by "orphaning redirects" and it appears that NVanMinh did not understand as well. Ryan Vesey 06:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@Plastiksport - Yes you asked and you referred to provinces and I told you I did not change any Infobox province redirect. Please look exactly at the timeline of the events. Also for the neighborhood redirect - the one that reverted me, finally agreed. I will talk about that with Dr. Blofeld. You are asking me to stop to correct mistakes in Wikipedia, e.g. replacing "Infobox City" on village or province articles with "Infobox settlement" - a 300 000+ transclusion generic template. Almost all new articles use "Infobox settlement". What I do is clean up whilst I am changing other info. Furthermore "Infobox City" violates the naming guideline. And to orphan things like "Colarado" is not forbidden, is it? So could you please specify what the problem is? NVanMinh (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. "Colarado" should be changed to "Colorado". Your edits were similar and should be encouraged if you're willing to do the work. Ryan Vesey 06:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But in any case, I'm seeing this as a content issue. No administrative action is necessary. Unless a policy can be provided prohibiting these edits, they should be allowed to continue. Ryan Vesey 06:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I hope I can understand what the underlying problem is that Plastiksport sees. I hope he can explain it in more detail. I will have a break now. Because I think when I would go on, Plastiksport would be angry. But he really has to explain what the problem is. I will wait for him to explain this until tomorrow. NVanMinh (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to unpick this. There is currently a RFD for redirects to infobox settlement at Wikipedia:RFD#Template:Infobox_County which was started by User:NVanMinh. This followed a TFD Wikipedia:TFD#December_17 spedily closed as wrong venue. One thing frowned upon while deletion discussions are going ahead is orphaning pages, that is removing links to a page or template under discussion. In this edit [157] Plastikspork initially asks NVanMinh to refrain from orphaning, explaining why its a good idea to keep the redirect, basically to cure a persistant problem with people recreating them. That discussion was moved to Template talk:Infobox settlement/Other templates up for TfD#Orphaning of redirects, quite an obscure place. It is looking like consensus is going against NVanMinh so it might be better if NVanMinh hold off his edits until the RFD concludes.--Salix (talk): 07:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In the edit you mention Plastikspork does not explain why it is a good idea to have Infobox City on a village article. There is also no problem with "recreating". We don't keep errors, just to avoid that someone adds these errors? The place you mention is not obscure, it was mentioned on my talk for anyone to see. If you have a better venue than a sub talk page of the template in question named "Other templates up for TfD" than please tell. Also I don't see that any consensus goes against "NVanMinh" WRT removing Infobox City which violates the naming guideline from articles about villages. See talk:Infobox settlement/Other templates up for TfD&oldid=528776347#Statistics these statistics to find out that every month 3000 new pages use "Infobox settlement". The RFDs are about "deleting" redirects. Also, there is one in favor of "NVanMinh" Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 18#Template:USA City infobox, but the RFDs are not about Plastikspork's complaints. I think he should go and explain what the problem is. NVanMinh (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the redirects is a different issue to whether or not they should be used on articles. I suggest these two discussions are kept separate, but as Ryan Vesey notes, this is a content issue. RfC? CMD (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. Yes, I may have a RfC on this. Because having all "Infobox whatever" duplicated by "Infobox Whatever" seems like bloat. Especially if both are redirects to a real template. E.g. whatlinkshere will be harder to read. NVanMinh (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits made by Rrodic

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 noticed recently that a very new user called Rrodic has been engaged in a string of unusual editing. I first became aware of this at User talk:Paul Bedson, who figures in a discussion at WP:AN; he has unleashed several inappropriate AfDs. The relevant contribs are here [158]. dci | TALK 01:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am being a constructive editor. I didn't block anyone and I haven't completely deleted any article.--Rrodic (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• My concern is that you are nominating for AFD any page created by Paul Bedson. The editor's subsequent activity neither constitutes vandalism nor a rationale for anything he deleted. I would advise a tad more caution when beginning work on Wikipedia, as you appear to be a new editor. dci | TALK 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• @Rrodic: Why did you leave a "Welcome" message on DCI2026's talk page, when that editor has been here for 4 years and has over 3,400 editrs to 1000 pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson was indefinitely blocked. That's not a reason to delete articles he happened to have created, that's a reason to review them for fringe material and original research (which you would have to prove he inserted, and by doing so would provide material to fix the articles to a state that are not worth deleting). Those articles do not appear to meet WP:VANDALISM at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And welcoming an editor who has been present for over two years seems a bit eccentric. Considering this and the rather defensive "I didn't block anyone," I think we've got a returning user here to play with us. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I share your suspicion; I've noticed a familiarity with Wikipedia and he appears to have used Twinkle, not exactly a normal newcomer's province. dci | TALK 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is going on, it's pretty clear he's a bad-faith editor, as evidenced by this. I suspect a bunch of us are going to be reviewing Bedson's material, but this is plainly malicious. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, I am reviewing Bedson's material, but for different reasons. The writing voice sounds just similar enough to me to warrant investigating, looking for examples for those who didn't major in English. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. No one welcomed him in 4 years!! @Ian.thomson: I will block anyone who tries to commit vandalism. First warnings, then block--Rrodic (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not an admin, and you responded on the wrong page. I'm over at WP:ANI, this is WP:AN. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, the above two posts were moved from WP:AN. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I will become an admin--Rrodic (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Block as a troll account. I've seen enough, particularly the grave dancing, but the other non-nonsensical edits and deletion nominations contrary to policy, all add up the belief that Rrodic is not here to edit productively. I'd do it, but I've already commented on his AfD nominations. Monty₈₄₅ 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Block per nom. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Tiderolls 02:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rrodic is a  Confirmed match to a recent Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs) sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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