Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756

Melanie and Martina Grant

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.

---

User:87.112.146.112 posted a request to my talk page asking that "sensitive and personal information regarding their children and relationship information is kept private". This was as a result of multiple unexplained removals of content on the article Melanie and Martina Grant. I removed the information but I am unsure of what to do as of right now. Thank you. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 10 June 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.

Re-opened, and dealt with: I've removed and rev-deleted the information in question in the interest of the subject's privacy, as I believe it comes under the "contact information" provision of the WP:BLP policy. It may be in the public domain -- lots of things are -- but it doesn't mean that it belongs in a biographical enyclopedia article. -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your RevisionDeletion didn't seem to do anything, as the alleged content is still visible in earlier revisions. -Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've hidden a few more revisions' text, and I think I've got it all now. -- The Anome (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good from here, thanks for helping! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 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.

Abusive language by User:Sayerslle

After I replaced some loaded language with more neutral terms in the article Siege of Homs (see diff), User:Sayerslle called it "utter lying garbage" and accused me of "censoring" the article (see diff). When I pointed out (see diff) that this is no way to interact with a fellow Wikipedia editor, he responded on my Talk page (diff) repeating his earlier words plus accusing me of propagating POV. This does not appear to be the first time, either, seeing as this user was blocked from editing in March this year for personal attacks against editors. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with User:Sayerslle here. There's nothing inherently wrong with the word "regime" in this context, and if that's the language used by the cited sources, it should stay. Additionally, although his language was sharp (and I'd advise him to moderate his tone a bit), I don't think it qualifies as abuse. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TaalVerbeteraar. Sayerslle was using a bit of hostile language and assumed bad faith. And not just against Tall but also against me too. Also, even if the sources use the word regime the word itself is derogative in this day and age, which implyes that the journalist was not totally neutral on the issue. Wikipedia, per its own policy, has to keep the proper level of neutrality. If we start using the term than we are taking a side in the conflict, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

its not 'the journalist' - its used over and over again in RS , BBC etc - the fact you want 'the word itself' to be dclared inadmissable on wp because you have decided it is unacceptable is absurd imo - i don't think neutrality means what you think it does. i think it means reflecting what is out there in RS without prejudice and pre-determned ideological preferences - reflecting also the language used, not some language you've decided in your own pov ghetto is ok. i called garbage a remark that was imo garbage - and taal denying he said something, he evidently did say 'encyclopedias cant use the word regime' - then he said ' ie. wikipedia editors' - but where was the ie? ' he added it later - pathetic. Sayerslle (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Abusive discussions don't lead anywhere. When trying to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for a change or a specific wording, polite discussion on the article talkpage is best. If consensus is against the word, the that's the reality. Abusing others, downplaying their intelligence or their edits is uncivil. Referring to their edits or actions as "pathetic" is also uncivil. Again: WP:CONSENSUS rules, and WP:CIVIL is a golden rule (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

if consensus is against 'regime' being allowed on wp I'd be surprised. youve got 'this user dgaf***' box onyour page - is that CIVIL?? - i find it kind of aggressive language on your user page. still, you think its your prerogative to lecture me? Sayerslle (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think that's not civil, better not read WP:DGAF then.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I won't comment on the actual point of contention - there are arguments either way - however, as BWilkins said, the way you've gone about the discussion is unhelpful. I suggest you try to have a full discussion with the users you have a disagreement with on the article talk page - be sure to focus on the content and not to comment on the editors involved. If you're finding it difficult to come to a resolution the dispute resolution noticeboard may be of some help (but do attempt to resolve it yourself first). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The call for civility apparently didn't work: here, Sayerslle tells EkoGraf: "i regard you as a thoroughly nasty piece of work". This happened several hours after the request for civilized discussion was issued by ItsZippy. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks from user:Toddst1

Enough trolling for one day

I was engaged in discussion with user:Bwilkins in the following thread [1], and user:Toddst1 decided to dive in and accuse me of being a sock and a troll [2] [3] [4] [5]. I then proceeded to use Template:Trout on his talk page due to infringements of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but this only led to more ranting and personal attacks [6] and now a report filed at AIV. Please can someone sort this out, I'm not here to troll or get caught up in this kind of nonsense. 94.4.117.83 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Oh, and since I'm "not welcome" at user talk:Toddst1, would someone else please notify them of this thread. Thanks, 94.4.117.83 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC) He has already noticed it, so I don't think that will be necessary. Why did you put a notice on Treasury Tag's talk page that he is forbidden to make unban requests? That information is incorrect. -- Dianna (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (doing so to TT's talkpage would clearly meet the identification as trollish behaviour, and hence being referred to possibly as a troll) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I didn't realise that at the time, and that's what led myself and Bwilkins into the discussion on his talk page. I don't see what right Toodst1 has to just turn up and attempt to sabotage the thread like that. 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) TPS'ers are welcome on my talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Why would you pop in to Treasury Tag's talk page? Why is his block/ban of interest to you? -- Dianna (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Don't think I'm new to wikipedia by any means (of course, you're not dumb, you're already aware of that), and I had been following this saga before. I just think it's ridiculous how many chances he's had, yet the absurd un-contrite attitude he's continued to display whilst others less deserving have been banned for doing far less. Imo, it's time to lock that account down and forget about it - no more timewasting. 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC) What about blocking your account and forgetting about it - no more timewasting? Egg Centric 19:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Second. - SudoGhost 19:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC) On what basis? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Dude. We are trying to run a civilised professional organisation here, and throwing people away does not really fit into that framework. If at some future time Treasury Tag is ready to re-join the community he will likely be given another chance. It's not for you to say; it will be for the community to decide, together. -- Dianna (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Whilst I don't necessarily agree in TT's case, I take your point about being "civil and professional". In which case why are there now two users in this thread baying for my blood? - and that's not forgetting to mention Toddst1 who was the cause of it's existence in the first place! 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I'm usually the first to come to someone's defense when an admin is being a bit rude or gruff, but 94.4.117.83, you are verging on proving Toddst1 right. I'm tempted to close this thread based solely on his observation, and WP:DENY it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I still don't get it, what have I done wrong??? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The talk page indicates that Treasury Tag filed an appeal, which has been declined by the ArbCom. That's his current status. Please do not engage in any further grave-dancing or tagging of his talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I gotta go out now and walk the dog. -- Dianna (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I don't intend to, nor did I have any intention of doing so without consensus. 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC) "I gotta go out now and walk the dog" - Lol is that a euphemism? 94.4.117.83 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (The following comment was added after the thread was collapsed) For the record, the party that started this thread, 94.4.117.83 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) for being a sock and a troll (SIC). The individual behind 94.4.117.83 went on to vandalize Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), Bwilkins (talk · contribs) and my user/talk pages using other dynamic ipsocks geolocating to the same UK location. Toddst1 (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Adamelliot1000 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Threat

Editor is brand new WP:SPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also reprotected the page; the fact this chap appeared instantly upon the expiration of the previous protection says something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, but couldn't this be the subject of a BLP trying to correct it (however sourced, that's a question on a different level), and being (incomprehensibly) prevented by us? Blade, he's written several comments to you on his page. Could you explain to him how to contact WP:OTRS, please, or otherwise reply to him in humanspeech? I suppose [email protected] would be the place to direct him. Best, Bishonen | talk 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC).

I wondered that myself but I would think that the subject or somebody representing the subject would be able to write better then Person being spoken about is not admin. of the page and admin. is in violation of Wiki policy. and would know that the "department of justice" couldn't do anything about this. IMHO this is a pissed off fan. However, he still might have a point. In the source used for the quote in question, it does appear to be hearsay and one could argue that it's undue weight. Might this be a case where we would need a primary source like a transcript to back up something mentioned in a secondary source? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree there's not the slightest chance that the user is the famous lawyer. But he could be, say, a great grandchild who has been tasked to get rid of it cause grandpa doesn't understand these computer thingys. Or some other circumstance. You can see where the complaint might be. Egg Centric 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the comment Ron Ritzman referenced above, I sense some significant WP:OWN issues and likely usage of threats against anyone who has un-whitewashed the article. Though, on the other hand, we are dealing with some very negative, but sourced, statements about his comments made in public on his radio show (I mean, all this stuff is in The New York Times, so Wikipedia may not be his last concern, though all eyes are upon us and this site...). In my opinion, I think Lichtman himself would have found a way to contact the WMF a while ago if this is such a pressing issue.

This wouldn't be the first time, either, as The Bushranger noted. There are many single-purpose accounts and IPs there, but I can't make out what is going on, whether it's socks or a lot of his Lichtman's followers and enemies being at odds against each other and engaging in an edit war of over 250RR (yes, about 250 straight reverts) and 4 months. Frankly, I am disappointed that this article was not full-protected (or outright deleted since any protected version will be The Wrong Version) a while ago. However, I am terrible at mindreading what exactly the community wants, and I am not going to try. --MuZemike 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Persistent reinsertion of OR at Masculinity and personal attack

The Masculinity article is a big mess and original research is rampant. On June 3rd, I removed a section which consisted entirely of original research and replaced it with a section that was based on reliable secondary sources. I explained my changes on the article talk page. Since then, an IP from Missouri has been reverting [7][8][9][10][11][12] my changes and reinserting the original research despite my attempts to explain the OR policy on the article talk page [13][14][15] and on the IP's talk page [16].

Before you say "this is a content dispute" and shoo me away, please take one minute of your time and see for yourselves that these two journal articles, for instance, that the IP keeps reinserting do not even mention masculinity, let alone a "decline" in masculinity.

• "The sperm count has been decreasing steadily for many years in Western industrialised countries: Is there an endocrine basis for this decrease?"
• "A Population-Level Decline in Serum Testosterone Levels in American Men"

Yesterday, the IP reverted my attempt to remove OR and attribute opinion with the edit summary "stop the vandalism and harrasment , sonic youth". I consider this a personal attack. I hope that someone will take the time to intervene. If not, I'll just leave the OR, remove the section I added, and move on because I've had it. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted to a likely clean version and full protected the article for one week, and left a neutral warning on the article talk page. We really can not examine the OR here at ANI, it should be filed at WP:DRN. Since his edits are not vandalism, even if they are incorrect, then WP:3RR / edit warring rules apply, so you have to use the dispute resolution channels for this. I also left a notice on the IP's talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis, I appreciate it. I understand your point, but I just don't have the energy to go through a lengthy dispute resolution process when the case seems so clear to me. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this week, others will join you on the talk page, and a consensus will form. If he is going against an obvious and clearly articulated consensus on the talk page, this would open up other avenues for admins, without needing to go to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details.

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 found wrong source' usage in German battleship Tirpitz concerning of the details of K-21 attack. The initial article text deal with unexpected locution "K-21 fired a pair of torpedoes" and with the authors conclusion "both of which missed".

My corrections are:

• [17].

User Parsecboy said that my correction is Soviet propaganda. And Parsecboy hasn't answered the questions at the talk page [[18]].

Yes, the results of the K-21 attack is disputable up to now (so the authors' conclusion is not the objective truth). But the event (K-21 attack) is in the text. If it's propaganda, so cut it of the article. But if the article consists K-21 episode, it will be correct to cite the initial source (or the others refering the one) which says about details of the attack.

The problem is that the sole initial source of the K-21 attack is the Soviet Navy documents, because the Germans haven't even observed the attack (and K-21 too) and are not able to give us any details from the other side (at least the Germans maintained that). The K-21 war log and other navy docs say that there were 4 (four) torpedoes and 2 (two) explosions heard by all the crew (not about results of the attack - hit Tirpitz or not!). Garzke & Dulin in their "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II" give us the details (about pair of torpedoes) that are rely on nothing, 'cause there are no Soviet sources with pair of torpedoes and there are no Germans at all. So this mistake must be corrected.

Unfortunately, Parsecboy (and Denniss) are not able to ground why they prefer Garzke & Dulin from the list of respected historians (see Parsecboy, 21:44, 27 March 2012[[19]]), and ignore others from the same list in spite of obvious mistake. But both of them have made undo after my correction.

So, I have to ask the community to help me with that episode. --Zh.Mike (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an ANI matter - this is a matter for the article talk page or WP:DR. And you MUST inform Parsecboy and Denniss of this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've notified by their talk pages. I haven't seen ANI-notice at the topics above and could not use the template correct (if You are able, please do it) --Zh.Mike (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this be closed. My advice is to seek an experienced person from Milhist to look at the matter and give his opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 13 June 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 editor with unsustainable PoV

Hi,

I have been doing battle since 16 May (It all started here) with Stodieck (Talk), who has a technical PoV about aircraft that he is trying to stitch into several articles, including Canard (aeronautics), Stabilizer (aircraft) and Wing configuration. He is abusive, does not listen to reason or accept the majority consensus of other editors. He has most recently taken to misinterpreting sources, which has started to confuse other editors. The main evidence of this may be found on Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft): see my posts from 5 June downwards for diffs and other links. I notice that this user has been censured before on their talk page. Please help, I am at the end of my tether. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

Stodieck is again making edits without prior discussion or consensus. Diffs:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

And also going back and editing a previous discussion comment that I had replied to, making an IP edit:

• [23]

while logging in to make new comments, e.g. these two new comments were made respectively before and :after the IP edit of the old one:

• [24]
• [25]

Please, at least tell me why nobody is responding to this request? Am I doing something wrong or missing something out? I'm not asking for a technical judgement, just a call on this editor's behviour. 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment The reason you are getting little traction here is that primarily this is a technical content dispute. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you are mostly wrong on this. A control surface ahead of the wing will act as a positive feedback mechanism for pitch instability, so calling it a stabiliser is Orwellian or lazy terminology at best. As to the behaviour of the other party, yes, it can be very annoying if one is a technical expert in something and wiki policies are repeatedly used to frustrate the clear expression of fact. So I suspect he is frustrated by your obtuseness. Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for responding. Yes of course there is a technical dispute going on, but that's not why I am asking you guys for help. My problem is the other party's behaviour - riding roughshod over etiquette as I have tried to document. We cannot resolve the technical issue until the parties involved are behaving in a civilised manner. I am carefully avoiding technical issues here and focusing on the behaviour (so I'm not going to respond to your technical comments here). Why is that not working? Do you need more diffs of bad behaviour repeated here as well as on discussions I have linked to above, like when I got insulted on my own talk page, or should I be posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I realize that you are dealing with multiple issues here, and I acknowledge that you have kept WP:COOL while attempting to get things sorted. This is just the wrong venue for most of the issues you have brought, and that's why so little traction. It helps (here at AN/I) to bring actionable items with specific requests that require administrator intervention. You may want to re-review WP:DR and (if necessary) start a thread at WP:DRN. Note that DRN has it's own guidelines for what works best, so be sure to review them. Copied from header (above):

--Tgeairn (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

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.

---

Yesterday afternoon I requested an unblock. However one user: The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who replied to the block on my talk page User:86.163.14.254 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), accused me of 'horrific attacks' against another user and used abusive language against me. Although my IP address has changed since yesterday, I would still like to request a block against this user.86.163.15.120 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on that talkpage is a violation of WP:NPA. The contributions of the linked account are very much horrific attacks. As you were blocked, and are now evading that block by editing/posting, it will be necessary to block this IP as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with BWilkins. This IP is now accusing Blade since he did not unblock him in the name of "horrific" and "Abusive" languages. Blade is calm, but when IP's like you turn to prove that you're wrongly blocked when the reason is pretty clear- Even I would be frustrated. Yet, Blade was cool. Yes, the matter is over. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It may not be a personal attack, but the response to the unblock request ("Now to give you a taste of your own medicine, kindly go fuck off.") is incredibly uncivil. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but that's a matter for WQA once the editor themself decides they have a desire to live by the policies of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But why is the administrator not equally required to "live by the policies of Wikipedia"? Malleus Fatuorum 10:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

They are. Civility is handled at WQA. NPA can be handled here if extreme. Same rules apply to both. No NPA has occurred, but some incivility. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly bollocks, but have it your own way. Malleus Fatuorum 10:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked users are not fair game for policy violations of any sort, particularly in view of their inability to petition for redress at the usual venues. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He's not really blocked. He's an IP-hopper... as he demonstrated here. And he'll be back again and again, until he gets tired of it or until a range-block is imposed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But said by an administrator, so different rules apply, none mainly. Malleus Fatuorum 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No they should not and the refered comment was uncalled for. Problem here is that the victim is in no position to redress the issue himself (whatever his own violations where in the first place is immaterial to admin conduct). We admins are the first major point of contact for new editors and outside observers, so our conduct should be exemplary. Agathoclea (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A block-evading IP-hopper who throws obscenities around ain't much of a "good faith" user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. We don't respond to personal attacks or incivility with further personal attacks or incivility. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. When you invoke the F-word towards someone, which amounts to a verbal punch in the nose, you've no right to gripe if you get that same punch thrown back at you. Such griping is the depth of hypocrisy. And an obvious sign of a bad-faith user (that, along with the block evasion). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Our civility requirements do not vanish because we are provoked; in fact, a main purpose of these requirements is to prevent escalation of bad behavior. Me, I think some users well deserve a "fuck off" quite frequently (abusive comment "harmful to the community" removed by Floquenbeam, probably against policy). But our civility policies, and the expectation of a higher standard of behavior for administrators, rightly discourage me from doing so. Incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is simple, at least in theory. If the IP really is a returning troublemaker, then Blade's outburst was a bad idea (Blade already acknowledged on their talk page it was a mistake), but certainly understandable and human, and we're being trolled by the IP (indeed, we're trolling ourselves, in fine ANI tradition). If the IP is not this person, then it was much more serious, and it is really unacceptable for an admin to say that to someone they only suspect is a returning troublemaker, and the IP is owed an apology and Blade needs to rethink his approach. So in spite of the fact that people seem to think it doesn't matter whether the target of Blade's comments is the troublemaker in question, I think it's vital to know. It's the difference between an understandable momentary slip, or casual consequence-free admin abuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's simpler than that. Cops shouldn't get to tell people to fuck off, no matter how much they deserve it. It's harmful to community. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In what way sysops are "cops"? Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• (re to J, not to D) That response is indistinguishable from a response by someone who didn't read what I wrote. Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, it's a hypocritical thing for you to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I think we should all just leave this, nothing good will come of continuing the discussion. Blade got a bit hot under the collar in response to borderline trolling, sure, but so what. The IP is a banned user, give Blade a break. It's more productive to just move on and forget about it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I know this has been archived, but to briefly sum things up from my perspective. 1. This is the latest of several incarnations of an IP-hopping editor who has repeatedly attempted to foist an Indian hagiography onto us and feels the need to denigrate China at every possible moment (this, when read in context, is demonstrative); the writing style is unmistakable if you've seen it enough 2. the now-deleted comment aimed at Elockid was absolutely horrific, and any account would be immediately indeffed (given it's an IP, obviously we have to treat the situation differently), 3. though I generally don't feel stressed out on Wikipedia, a combination of closing the PC RfC (which should be done in the next day or so) and waiting for the inevitable flood of angry comments, as well as some RL issues (a wedding and PDD-NOS aren't a good combination, if you catch my drift) really wore on me for the last couple days, and I didn't have my regular computer background with me. Given that, I wasn't feeling in a very charitable mood when I saw the unblock request, and as I said it wasn't my best moment. I know what I need to do going forward, so I'd like to leave this behind me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Go, and wiki-sin no more! But I say again, and will continue to stand by this, that when someone throws an F-bomb, they have no right to complain when it's thrown back at them. That is not an endorsement of throwing it back -- it's a condemnation of the double-standard that certain IP's, in particular, seem to think they are entitled to (an entitlement too often enabled by other users here). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more or less my personal feeling, but if it bothers this many people I can make an effort to be more tactful; I'm not going to have a 100% success rate, but if it'll lead to fewer complaints I'm more than willing to try. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Better to soar with the eagles than to waddle with the turkeys. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 14 June 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.

Alexia (condition)

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 other than me please remove the speedy deletion tag from this article? I'm in the process of fixing up a botched cut-and-paste page move, and I'm fighting off a rather dim bot that can't tell the difference between this and an article author deleting a speedy deletion tag from their own new article. I'm oh-so-tempted to just block the bot, but asking someone else to remove the tag seems like a less confrontational way to fix this. -- The Anome (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I've noticed things like this happening a bit more recently so I don't know if something changed. I rm'd the speedy notice. I wouldn't block the bot, because however annoying it is in this case it really does help in many of the more standard cases where someone makes a crap page and then reverts the CSD tags. Syrthiss (talk) 12:07, 13 June 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 disruptive editing

Subtropical-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a bold change however it was reverted by AussieLegend but was again re-added by Subtropical-man which I then reverted as it was challenged.

Subtropical-man then post's a threatening comment on AussieLegend's talk page my talk page and the talk page of the Sydney article in violation of WP:TALKNO and keeps adding it ([26], [27]) even though the talk page is for content relating to the article. They are also accusing both AussieLegend and myself of meat puppetry, which isn't the case. Bidgee (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I not accusing about using socks-puppet, I wrote it before ( description of the changes). Why user Bidgee lie?

The discussion was written in order to seek help from others users. This discussion had to solve a big problem, which lasted several years. The discussion was removed by accused. I stopped writing these discussions. Thus, the case can be closed. I founded a new topic. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly has Bidgee lied? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here: "They are also accusing both AussieLegend and myself of meat puppetry". This is lie. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on the Sydney talk page was soap boxing, the talk page isn't there for you to make uncivil and baith faith comments directed at editors and no it isn't a lie, your comments basically is accusing AussieLegend and myself of meat puppetry. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just to provide a bit of background on the relevant content to make the water a bit less muddy, an IP recently made some edits to the lead of Sydney,[28] but these were reverted by another editor.[29] They were then restored by the IP,[30] and again were reverted.[31] Curious, I had a close look at the lead and realised the lead content was disjointed, something that was originally brought about by this IP edit from April, that slotted stuff about Sydney being an "Alpha World City" in as the second sentence in the article. I then cleaned up the lead, grouping related content.[32] However, the "Alpha World City" stuff is not addressed anywhere in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead. Later that day I moved it to its own section and amended the lead appropriately.[33] Another editor did question the need for the content at all,[34] which is where Subtropical-man got the "removal of the controversial separate section" in his edit summaries. However, his resolution is to delete the section and move undiscussed content back to the lead,[35] which is not appropriate. As per MOS:LEAD, if it is not covered in the body of the article it shouldn't be addressed in the lead.

To Subtropical-man's allegations, these are baseless. Bidgee and I are both Australian editors and both have Sydney on our watchlist. He can certainly not claim that we have a monopoly on the article. There are plenty of editors, including Subtropical-man,[36][37][38][39][40] have edited the article without any opposition from either of us. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You explained one example. But, please see history of changes from today to few years back - dozens of examples. Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from Bidgee and/or AussieLegend, while Bidgee and AussieLegend do what you want, without the consent of the other users. Almost never can enter new changes to the article, because they are reverted by these two users and almost never be reverted changes by these two users - because they are reverted by these two users (we are must first discuss). Subtropical-man (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I gave FIVE examples of your own edits dating back seven months, demonstrating that what you've said is clearly not true. You haven't provided any proof of your claims. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's hoping that Subtropical-man gets the message: your behavior is considered disruptive by a number of editors, including this one. Accusations of dictatorship etc. are not conducive, and your lack of engagement in talk page discussion signals that you are not really interested in acceptable ways of conflict resolution (there is a conflict, there is a talk page--you do the math, and then the rhetoric by way of substantive discussion). Personal attacks and unfounded "last warnings" may lead to a block for disruptive editing--let this be a kind of "last warning". Bidgee, I don't see a reason for a block yet, and I'm hoping that the troublesome behavior won't continue. If it does, well, you can add diffs below. Drmies (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do I respond? For several years watching this article and I see what happens. Very rarely, another user can make changes to this article, In most cases, these editions are withdrawn by Aussielegend and Bidgee. I do not want to scream at them, I do not want to complain on they. But I have to react, explicitly say what happens. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You can start by not screwing around with other editor's comments on this page! If you do that again, I will block you temporarily. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do I respond? For several years I'm watching this article and I see what happens. Very rarely, another user can make changes to this article, in most cases these editions are reverted by Aussielegend and/or Bidgee. I do not want to scream at them, I do not want to complain on they. But I have to react, explicitly say what happens. Please do not suggest that I made the last edition in article of Sydney (before reverts by Aussielegend and Bidgee nad) and I also reports these allegations. It's not revenge. Just - I had to say stop. Today is this day. That's all. If necessary, I can call "on witnesses" other users, who have a similar opinion as me in this case (it is not threatening, this is a proposal to allow other victims to have spoken). I do not know what to do. Instead of constantly criticizing my style of discussion, please help. Please take a look at the article and history of changes (a few years back) and/or please observes this article in future, to avoid such activities. Sydney is the article in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is free encyclopedia, anyone can edit, not only two users. PS. Sorry for the bad methods my debate and my weak English (I'm still learning). I finish and greet. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, not requesting a block, I'm just wanting the editor to cease the uncivil and bad faith comments. Bidgee (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like that too. Subtropical-man, here's the deal: the evidence presented above by Bidgee suggests that you have made uncivil, bad-faith comments (those various accusations--and see WP:AGF). They should stop. No ownership is claimed or proven, and that two (or more) editors disagree with you should not be taken as evidence that there is a group actively opposing you--you should probably see it as an indication that your edits are deemed problematic by (in this case) a couple of experienced editors. Wikipedia works via consensus: it is up to you to seek such consensus; obviously the way in which you have tried to imposer your will is not helpful. Please seek a more cooperative approach, via the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Monopoly by User:Bidgee and User:AussieLegend

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 problem is serious, the problem concern the monopoly of two users:

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

For a long time, user Bidgee and AussieLegend create a monopoly in the articles about Sydney and rest of Australia. Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from Bidgee and/or AussieLegend, while Bidgee and AussieLegend do what you want, without the consent of the other users. Almost never can enter new changes to the article, because they are reverted by these two users and almost never be reverted changes by these two users - because they are reverted by these two users (we are must first discuss). They have other rights, Bidgee and AussieLegend can make new changes without discussion, and undo changes by others users without discussion. This is unacceptable and contrary to the principles and the idea of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is free encyclopedia - anyone can change it. Other users have also noticed this problem - I propose to notify about this case on the page discussion, to gather witnesses. User Bidgee do not give me no choice. I tried to get along on discussion page - User:Bidgee delete a discussion [41][42]. Therefore it is necessary to alert administrators. He overtook me - his complaining about my write in a discussion about such things, clever. However, I wrote in the discussion that someone would help me, this discussions has been removed and matter of my applications in discussions is closed. The remaining case of monopoly. Subtropical-man (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from Bidgee and/or AussieLegend" Well, that's clearly not correct.[43][44][45][46][47] Your creation of this section is a response to Bidgee raising concerns about your behaviour on our talk pages, and edit-warring in the article. On our talk pages you wrote "Soon I make changes to the article, you can not go back without discussion", which is not correct. Any changes can be reverted and, when you make a bold edit[48] and it is reverted with an appropriate edit summary,[49] you should then follow WP:BRD and the status quo generally prevails.You don't just bulldoze the edits straight back into the article.[50] I suggest you read MOS:LEAD, which will provide you with an explanation of the purpose of the lead section. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an editing dispute, in which in my opinion Subtropicalman is the one who is not following process. And, it is clear from the editing history and discussion page that Aussielegend and Bidgee are not the only ones who disagree with him. (my position on this issue is more in line with Aussielegend and bidgee than it is with Subtripicalman).

I don’t see why this should be on ANI. At best, any ANI discussion should be about Subtropicalman’s actions. --Merbabu (talk) 01:40, 14 June 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:Uhgjughfgh

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 was going to place a warning on this uer's talkpage but then I found a whole bunch of warnings already in place including two final warnings User talk:Uhgjughfgh. The user made 4 factual errors over at The Powerpuff Girls which I undid I think there enough warnings in place here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If they get to four warnings, put a report in over at WP:AIV, I've done so already. tutterMouse (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I was not sure where this went. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 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.

spam only account

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.

---

Dustmagic (talk · contribs) has just returned from an extending break to reinsert advertising. almost all their edits are advertising. this account only serves to spam despite being warned previously. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd as a spam-only account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 14 June 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.

Wikipedia:Move review for Perth and for Season 2

Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) have decided to try out the new proposed Wikipedia:Move review process, to review the closure decisions for the requested moves for "Perth" and for "Season 2".

The move review process is open to any editor but it might be particularly helpful if admins provide input, since it is usually admins who do requested move closures. The options are endorse, overturn, relist.

Background: I'm posting this here since some of you may recall a previous AN/I discussion a few days ago. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Advertising account"

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.

---

Advertising account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like it's being used for purely promotional/spam purposes. Could someone take a look at it? Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whacked. Next time, simply report them at AIV. Max Semenik (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. I hadn't realised AIV also dealt with spammers; I'll remember that for the future. Prioryman (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What an incredibly innocuous name. Well done for catching that. WilliamH (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See, I first saw that name and figured it was a friend of User:Example or something similar. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:09, 14 June 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.

Bad taste edits at 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt

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.

---

Some months ago the abovementioned article was among a small group of articles that were the subject of a series of bad taste edits by an anonymous and dynamic ip (see here for an example, as well as the histories of The Spectator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Help for Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and the activity ultimately required this and other pages to be protected [51]. Things died down for a while, but the user concerned is now up to his old tricks again. The past few days have seen several similar edits to both 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt ([52] [53] [54] [55]) and The Spectator ([56] [57]). I feel this issue needs to be investigated by Wikipedia because the comments being made have the potential to cause great distress and harm to the relatives of David Rathband, the deceased policeman who was involved in the shooting that sparked the 2010 manhunt, and sadly took his own life as a result of the injuries he sustained in the attack earlier this year. I feel that at the very least the user needs to be prevented from making edits to this particular article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an anonymous IP vandalizing the page every time, so requesting semi-protection ought to do the trick. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside, the smallest rangeblock which would contain the IPs recently used to edit 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt would be 92.0.0.0/10. That's rather big; with the current state of our tools I expect it would cause some collateral damage to other editors. Semiprotection would be a better move. bobrayner (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocking a /10 isn't actually technically possible - you'd have to block 64 separate /16 ranges. Is isn't operationally feasible here either, as you say - it's practically the entire range from one of the UKs biggest mobile providers, so the collateral would not be acceptable. All three articles are now semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Cheers. He clearly has some issue with these topics, but hopefully if he can't edit them he'll get bored and go away. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:35, 14 June 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.

WP:FS Ban lift request

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

---

I was banned from WP:FS before it became inactive. I would like to engage in discussions about reviving it since I have realized that I have many sound files to create (like those found on this White House page) that could use the feedback from such a group of editors. Can I have my ban lifted so that I can initiate some discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This will probably work better on WP:AN then here. Could you give a quick link to the context of how and why that restriction was imposed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, I was banned based on some racist lies, but I don't think that is really what you are looking for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I will post my request at WP:AN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:FS_Ban_lift_request. I am not following this page so comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 14 June 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.

WP:PERSONAL

I am reporting a WP:PERSONAL attack on me by User:Soapfan2013 and 219.79.90.44 for creating personal attacks for the way I handle my talk pages. Yes, it may not unorthodox, but I will close a conversation if I feel it is not in an unhealthy discussion place, and I do not want to violate WP:PERSONAL, which Soapfan has on numerous occasions. And it's gone on long enough. I'm tired of being attacked by people on this site who do not know me or do not like me. And I want something done about it.

Refer to these edits: 01 02 03

I do not appreciate being called a baby by users for the way I use my talk page. How I edit and code my talk page, etc. is how I do it to avoid conflict and keep me somewhat WP:CIVIL, which these users are not months/weeks following the small conflict between members and it keeps me calm and helps me walk away from situations which would prove volatile. I agreed to work with Soapfan on furthering their work in editing soap opera articles following a WP:SOCK case, and that faltered due to us being unable to work together in situations, and since then, they seem to be badgering me around things, and I do not appreciate such. I've had several IPs attack me several weeks ago, and it's deterring my wanting to edit here at Wikipedia. I've progressed a lot of soap opera articles by bringing notability and WP:V to them. And situations like this are really hinging that. I realize my past my not have been the most grey, but within the past 4-6 months, I've really been working on staying out of conflict, yet it seems to want to attract to me, especially from said member. I try to remain civil headed and clearheaded, and we all get caught up in a moment, hence why we're always advised to walk away, which is what I always tend to do. But people don't want to let it die, and I'm tired of it.

I've told Soapfan to no longer post on my talk page, and they refuse to comply and at this point, it's distressing that they have such a fixation on me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 05:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked several of PJ/Soapfan2013/User:Onelifefreak2007's socks in the past. I've given him another chance with this account, because he'd been quiet for a while and seemed to be handling a return to editing well when I finally figured out that it was him editing. Posting this on Musicfreak7676 was unacceptable and I'm waiting for a response from him and am very much considering blocking him. That being said Musicfreak7676 you are constantly in violation of WP:Civil. You shouldn't have to close or archive discussions to keep yourself civil, you should just be nice. It's not like you're editing in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It's soap operas. You get angry and threaten users with "being reported" whenever they make edits you disagree with. That you've found a sympathetic admin in Daniel Case is mind-boggling, because though you are often technically right your attitude is downright awful. AniMate 06:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I have people constantly down my back, like you, coming at me and making total judgement on me, my closing off arguments and discussions is how I handle it. It's how I resolve it and close it off and feel resolved, and keeps me from going back into the discussion. Yes, I may not have the best way of addressing things, I do not deny that, but I don't calling people babies, etc. And AniMate, I truly feel like you, as well, have a personal issue against me as you've made it clear you "watch" me. I feel as if you don't WP:Assume good faith around me. And AniMate, I'm a he, not a she. I'm not trying to create another conflict, I'm trying to end it. That's all I'm trying to do, so I can go on editing articles and making articles a better contribution to the site. I'm not doing to either to seem as superior to anyone, either. And I'm not saying that's what you're saying I may or may not be doing, I'm just doing this to stop this bull. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 06:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the gender confusion. I keep an eye on all of the soap opera articles and users. I've been active there and know the socks to look out for. Musicfreak, assume good faith is a two way street. You never seem to do so. Rather than leaving polite messages for those who make edits you disagree with, you almost always threaten to report them. That is not civil. That does not assume good faith. Rarely do threats of reports lead to cooperative editing. I watch you for the same reason I watch PJ, because you both have a history of treating other editors poorly. AniMate 07:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, blocking a shared IP for 24 hours with no warnings for calling someone a baby seems a bit harsh, but whatever. I totally agree with AniMate's WP:PETARDic assessment, especially the bit where he mentions sympathetic behaviour over a sustained period by an admin who should know better. There are specific rules on how and where to request blocks and protections, and for good reasons. Neither MusicFreak nor Daniel Case were following them. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've informed Daniel Case that this thread is also discussing him. May I remind people that if you criticise others here it is only polite to tell them. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I would have, but his talk page is protected. Not a good start for a conversation, is it? 219.78.114.94 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with Daniel Case or his actions... I'm just rolling my eyes at the super friendly person he's taken under his wing. AniMate 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, no formal mentor/mentee relationship exists between us. A long time ago, Musicfreak made an AIV report to which I responded. S/He seems to have decided then that I could be trusted, which is fo course fine with me, and has continued to report further instances of vandalism to soap-opera articles to me for my impartial review. That's it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When an editor asks another to stay away from their talkpage, that's usually considered appropriate - no matter what the reason is behind it - those who continue to post there after such a warning are usually guilty of some form of harassment (except admin actions, of course). If an editor chooses to close conversations on their talkpage rather than to be baited into arguments, that's also quite fine - commendable, actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Usually. Request is a more accurate description than warning. The close boxes are fine but not actually commendable -- archiving is preferred. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine block. And there really aren't specific rules on Wikipedia -- we even have a rule that says that. Nobody Ent 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, not rules, but you know exactly what I mean. There definitely exist more appropriate channels than prodding your buddy admin, as explained in the policy of this site (here and here). This has the obvious (to me) advantage that such requests are dealt with more impartiality and fairness, and therefore situations like this are more unlikely to develop. 219.78.114.94 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've only gone to Daniel because I've been told by other members to go to Daniel, especially when it concerns soap articles. And whether I archive or close off conversations, it's how I do it. I archive every 3-4 months to keep it in my organization. I'm just irked at the fact that I've asked for PJ aka Soapfan to not post on my talk page because it's clear we cannot co-exist and work together. Our personalities do not match together. Recently I have been taking things to the vandalism report section, I have. And I've been using the warning template. And AniMate, instead of rolling your eyes, you should have come to me and told me you didn't find it appropriate that I was going to him. Simple as that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it is that you needed help understanding that your ways needed changing, too. And Daniel did not give you this help.

But that's OK, I think you eventually found it somewhere else and you are trying to better yourself. Cheers to that, and best wishes for the future. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay... well, I believe you're the IP that I originally reported hence you're obvious involvement. I didn't find anything anywhere, nor do I believe I needed help. This whole post wasn't about me learning anything, it was to stop the obvious harassment against me. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure mate, have it your way. But there must be a reason why you are getting so much shit, and i my view that is strongly related to how you treat other editors. 219.79.73.157 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the problem here. I thought the topic was simply that Musicfreak was attacked, not that his ethics were up for review. I have to say, early closure and archiving can be unorthodox and sometimes counterproductive, but that is purely on how he handles his talkpage, not why. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And at other times it can be antagonistic - given a cursory glance at SF's history, it seem quite obvious to me that MF responding then refusing to allow a reply was always going to elicit a response; I'd be minded to view it as deliberate, given SF has Aspergers. If someone constantly has people "on their back", then there's probably a reason why. If they can alter their own behaviour then there'll be less ANIs to deal with. I've often found the best way to avoid being called a baby is not acting like one - pretty simple really. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when did this become a discussion about me? As I've seen it, nothing has been discussed about the WP:PERSONAL done unto me by said users, and more of a bashing to me. I find that unfair, especially given SoapFan is a repeat offender from his previous sockpuppeted account. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So are there going to be consequences to either of the users, or was this just opened so people could discuss me? Because Soapfan has a clear history of insulting members and abusing WP:PERSONAL on his previous account. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 04:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Musicfreak7676 and PJ should avoid each other talkpages for at least the next 6 months. If they are in dispute over an article, they should discuss it on the article's talkpage or they can both seek advice from AniMate since he/she is familiar of the tension between these two editors . But Musickfreak7676 and PJ should refrain from directly communicating to each other at all costs because it is obvious they cannot co-exist.

Also, I agree that Musickfreak7676 will have to learn to control his temper and to show a little bit of more patience with other editors. I have nothing against his practice of reporting to Daniel Case. On the contrary, I recently even encouraged Musicfreak7676 to have Daniel Case blocked an obvious sockpuppet. However, I have also seen Musicfreak7676 and Daniel Case taking administrative actions against inexperienced IP editors for minor violations that weren't even vandalism. Remember, we were all new on Wikipedia at one time. Unless someone is a vandal and/or a sockpuppet, a final warning should not be used over a first offense. Go for a Level 2 warning instead. Farine (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Camoka4

Camoka4 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring on Schengen Area, and the talk page's consensus is against her changes. Their first edit after being unblocked was to make the same exact edit yet again, and when reverted, resorted to personal attacks on my talk page, which isn't the first uncivil thing the editor said to me, before they were blocked for edit warring they asked me if I know how to speak English, and if I was hired by another editor, and then after being unblocked, commenting that if I see that as a personal attack, I must need to see a doctor. Perhaps I'm a bit biased here, but I don't think this is appropriate, or that this editor is here to edit collaboratively. - SudoGhost 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

in response to opening this discussion, the user posted this on my talk page, asking me if I was autistic, but that they also weren't personally attacking me. - SudoGhost 23:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm involved in the dispute on Schengen Area and share SudoGhost's concerns. In addition to the edit warring and personal attacks, edit's such as this one in response to near-unanimous opposition to the changes being proposed by the user demonstrate at best a clear lack of sufficient communication skills to work in a collaborative project but more likely an attempt to be disruptive. TDL (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And now further edit warring, apparently to make a WP:POINT about something they said on my talk page. - SudoGhost 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. I proposed something with arguments on talk page. No-one replied to my topic. and I changed the article accordingly. It's not a major edit anyway. If you still have any disagreements, why don't you write them on talk page rather than here? Obviously you don't have to say anything except your obsessions about me.--Camoka4 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is already a days old consensus against your edit. You started a new talk page section and then reverted against consensus, knowing full well consensus is against it. 20 minutes is not enough time to decide that nobody will respond to a discussion that duplicates an existing one. However, this is not about disagreements about the content of the article, it is about your increasingly disruptive behavior. None of your edits since your block expired have been constructive, and your only two article space edits were to make the same exact revert that got you blocked in the first place. - SudoGhost 00:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am involved as well (in fact I am the one starting the revert war last week (when doing the R in BRD), not responding (I was asleep), not speaking English (well, that's partly true...)) and think there is a competence issue. Today (mind you, after coming back from a 3RR block), he first makes his change (the one he got blocked for before) at 1:08 at Schengen Area, then starts a new discussion at Schengen area (1:46), after which he admits he had been too fast in reading consensus last time. Then, at at 2:12, he makes the change again! I am not sure if I am capable of explaining him that we can not find consensus in 30 minutes, after discussing the issue (including policies) at length before, and after his own admission he understood the issue...... L.tak (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now the user is making yet more personal attacks, this time directed against User:L.tak because L.tak wouldn't give Camoka their Skype account name. This user is not here to edit constructively, and has made nothing but disruptive and incivil edits since coming off of a block. - SudoGhost 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Last and final warning issued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP issue

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 Talk:Luka Magnotta is having issues as well as the article. I boldly added a bolded statement to the top of the talk page. Many statements have been made that may be against wp policies and guidelines. I think they have all been reverted though. Admin may wish too look over the talk and article pages and possibly erase some of the history. This may be the wrong venue, if so just resolve/move/erase etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• For now, unless there are specific diffs or editors you wish to single out, it's probably not a matter for this board, but thank you for pointing attention to it. A note on WP:BLPN might be more helpful. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will bring it up at BLPN (again, I think). I will tag this section resolved.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

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.

Mistaken IPv6 block needs to be undone

• 2001:718:1E03:5184:8CA3:8DDA:38D5:6D2B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IPv6 address was blocked because an admin thought it was an account with a deliberately confusing name. Apparently not the first instance of something like this. We may need a watchlist notice directing everyone to IPv6 info. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:35, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, that is really quite funny...and interesting. I'm sure there must have been a community discussion(s) somewhere about these IPv6 addresses and how they will affect the project. Anyone want to drop a link for those of us not in-the-know :) Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 23:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps until this is a bit more common knowledge, the "This is the contributions page for an IP user" box at the bottom of the page should be moved to the top of the contribs page (and maybe a colored box that doesn't blend in with everything else), to make it more obvious (if this is technically possible)? - SudoGhost 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But first the account needs to be unblocked. The admins who were so bent out of shape this morning, about an IP having the F-bomb thrown back at them, on the grounds that it makes wikipedia look bad - this is far worse. It makes wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked, but I suggest we leave this open for a bit. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How about having a bot leave a message on the talk pages of anyone with the administrator bit explaining the intro to IPv6 and what it means from an admin perspective? Resolute 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is one discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#IPV6 blocking and here is another Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#IPv6 schoolblock question and I know that I saw one more a week or so ago but I can't remember where at the moment. There are probably more detailed ones as well. If anyone wants to add links to those that would be helpful. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

meta:User:Jonathan_de_Boyne_Pollard/Guide_to_blocking_IP_version_6_addresses is pretty handy. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There should definitely be some centralized place for specifically Wikipedia related FAQ and discussion, so that when the inevitable questions arise, we can simply say "see ongoing discussion [[here]]." We have a page WP:IPv6, and it seems like the talk page there should be the place to centralize discussion, but very little is currently happening there. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 00:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:WikiProject IPv6 Readiness and User:Jasper Deng/IPv6. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:29, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

...and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-June/060896.html. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:31, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a watchlist notice here. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:48, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

... don't forget the current conversation at the Admin's Noticeboard - all admins should be monitoring that board for announcements - that is what its real purpose is, after all (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What's currently the most accessible general introduction/help page about IPv6, not just for admins but also for other editors? (I've seen normal contributors getting irritated because they thought a bunch of IPv6's were some kind of sinister sock pattern.) Can we get WP:IPv6 redirected to such a general help page? Currently it redirects to the wikiproject, but that's perhaps not optimal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I need consensus to move my documentation pages to a project subpage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• If one doesn't already exist, it may be useful to have some type of database report on IPv6 blocks for awhile to allow review and watch out for mistakes. Monty₈₄₅ 20:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This shows you IPv6 blocks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone's made a basic change that will reduce the chances of this specific incident happening again — if you go to the contributions page for an IPv6 (example), you'll see a big warning saying that it's not an account with a crazy name. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about WP:BAN

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft has been reopened again due to more WP:BAN evasion by Daft. A site ban applies. Are users authorised to remove any edit by Daft no matter where it is, including other users' talk pages, without seeking prior permission? Obviously, WP:BAN evasion would have to quoted in the edit summary. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• You shouldn't remove any edits until there is a definite link made and until after any potential sockpupppet is blocked and tagged specifically for being a sockpuppet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean from other people's talk pages, of course? Obviously, edits can be reverted if they are vandalism. What about vandalism of another person's talk page? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism can always be reverted, that isn't tied to WP:BAN, and no other rationale is needed. Treat the same as you would any other vandalism edit. I'm referring to any edit that could possibly be construed as constructive. Possibly constructive edits shouldn't be reverted simply because if you wrong, then the revert was disruptive. I should have made that more clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a substantial discussion going on right now over at AN about this very topic. The general consensus seems to be to delete bad edits, and leave clearly positive ones alone. If in doubt, revert, as I don't think there's many admins who'd block a user for following policy in that regard. But as said above, you should wait until the socks are confirmed: if they're not socks, then you've just blindly reverted all of the edits of a new user, and that's not very nice. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that that Elektrik Shoos's summary of the WP:AN discussion doesn't accurately represent years of policy or even the summary of that particular discussion. In general, all edits of banned editors can and should be reverted, regardless of whether they are positive or not.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that this is the consensus. There is debate as to the wisdom of this, but it is the current consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Account that should be blocked

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

---

Resolved

Someone created the account Answers for Tryptofish (talk · contribs) to leave a message on my talk (that I reverted) that, presumably would have gotten them blocked if they had left it under their regular user name. I'd suggest that the sham account should be blocked. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Notified: [58]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the very quick response, Future Perf! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 14 June 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:Irvi Hyka for the third time in recent weeks

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.

---

Irvi Hyka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently was the subject of an ANI report where it was agreed upon that his behavior warranted a warning of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions [59], is back at it again. He has reached 3RR at Durres [60] [61] [62] (these are reverts of this removal [63]), has 2 reverts at Bujar Nishani [64], 2 reverts at Black and Red Alliance [65] (describing an ultranationalist party as "patriotic" and edit-warring over it is highly tendentious), 2 reverts at Illyrians [66], and two undiscussed unilateral page moves performed without so much as an edit summary [67] (of which he has a long history of, and which was one of the reasons he was previously reported to ANI). This is disruption of a high order and needs to stop. At a minimum, a formal warning of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions is in order this time. Athenean (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous! You accused me because I defend the truth. Bujar Nishani's article, I don't understand why the IP removes the fact that Nishani is sick. He can not move hand and leg. Tis is a fact. [68] [69] This is evident. Durrës, like or unlike Prof. Kastrati is notable academic. His explanation is very accurate. I'm not the only user that protect this fact, user:Mesfushori is he who has written this and both are defending this assessmente Etymologic city name. Black and Red Alliance's article is this party nationalist or not is not subjective judgment. Mr Spahiu was accused by by other parties but in a interview for Voice of America that I published in the article Spahaiu said that AK is patriotic and not nationalist movement.[70] Albanian might have descended from a southern Illyrian dialect. the references from Encyclopædia Britannica Albanians refer to themselves as shqiptarë, meaning “sons of eagles,” and to their country as Shqipëria. They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who lived in central Europe and migrated southward to the territory of Albania at the beginning of the Bronze Age, about 2000 bce. like or unlike Greeks Encyclopædia Britannica writes that. Please, Athenean you're judging me unjustly! Irvi Hyka (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You are defending the WP:TRUTH? No, you are just edit-warring and being disruptive. Athenean (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You want the truth? Wikipedia does not handle the truth! *ahem* Seriously though, Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. Information must be from reliable sources, and you are not allowed to use your own material if it hasn't been published by a RS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See the ref user:The Bushranger that I published after comment. All the information is based on academic sources. Irvi Hyka (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And now you have just broken 3RR, for which you have been reported here [71]. Not that it matters at this point, but your "academic source" doesn't have a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Athenean (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems Bwilkins is wielding the ARBMAC hammer now. About the content issue, I've added some stuff to the article talk page that should help resolve the matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 15 June 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:Orangemarlin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That was fun --Jayron32 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Please remove all the rights of this user as he/she has been blocked indefinitely. Thanks in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you've made the required notification for someone under discussion here, but what would make you think that? Dru of Id (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked on December 11 and hasn't been heard from since.[72] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't belong at ANI and removing userrights would be as pointless as this thread, the user has been blocked for 6 months already. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, as you have said, my request is unnecessary and I withdraw it. I'm fairly new to en.wiki so I don't know much about this--Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What in particular drew your attention to that user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, see here; this is an established user, known to the WMF, who simply hasn't edited much at en:wp. Not a malicious sockpuppet. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 15 June 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.

Discussion review, please

Does anyone have the time/inclination to attempt an assessment of consensus at Wikipedia_talk:INB#Photo_montages_in_infoboxes_of_caste.2Fcommunity_articles? There have been several admins involved in the discussion and it really needs closing off by someone who is uninvolved, primarily because one person disputes the assessment by RegentsPark. Sorry about this as I realise ANI is not a perfect venue: I just cannot figure out which noticeboard would be in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need a formal summary for this discussion since it's output could be used as a 'local-policy' in the India related articles. --AshLey ^Msg 13:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Diff by 24.101.170.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Will notify IP immediately after this. Jim1138 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• That IP happens to be an open proxy (port #3246). Jes' sayin' .. - Alison ^❤ 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is blocked, but I didn't know it was an open proxy. Extend the block as necessary, I'm not actually familiar with proxy-blocks. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd as a proxyblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 14 June 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.

Troublesome User Edit Warring at Dennis Merzel

Hello, as seen here, the user Ttbakiatwoam has been constantly edit warring and provides no reason for the reverts despite several warnings on his talkpage. He keeps adding content that messes up the formatting of the page. He will not listen to his fellow editors telling him otherwise, so some administrator intervention is requested. Thank you. AlexB531 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Enso 83 (talk · contribs) is either a sock or meat puppet of the above and has been blocked indefinitely. Ttbakiatwoam has been blocked for a week and 24.10.251.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be auto-blocked. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User engaging in a move war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A move discussion has been created, it is pointless to continue discussing it here Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

---

StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a move war over Field hockey at the Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which he claims shall be only "Hockey at the Commonwealth Games". In addition to the first instance of faulty logic – assuming that people already know the facts they search for, i.e. that field hockey is the only hockey that is played at the Commonwealth Games – he is now, while move-reverting another editor once and me twice, with move summary "Move made without consensus - referred to just as "hockey" in this context", displaying another instance of poor logic by telling him and me that there is no consensus...

Move diff 1, 2 and 3.

User notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a really really lame issue to move-war over. I almost said "exceptionally lame", but that wouldn't be true, because there are many lame move-wars, but this one is still really really lame. Does it make any difference what the page title is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Did you consider discussing it on the talk page rather than coming here? The first move made without consensus was made by Intoronto1125. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, revert-warring on Template:International field hockey is even lamer. You are aware, I hope, that it makes absolutely no difference to the user whether a piped link goes to a page through a redirect or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious: when you move warred with the edit summary "please don't move war", did you do it tongue in cheek, or did the irony go right over your head? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Like Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the question is for me, but if it is, then, no. Because I didn't move war: I reverted StAnselm's move once. My first move wasn't a revert, it was "stand-alone". Summary: I move-reverted once, StAnselm move-reverted 3 times, on 2 users. Maybe he has realized the full meaning of the word consensus, considering he has move-reverted two users three times. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol. I take it that it was the latter, then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the answer? HandsomeFella (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that two editors make a move against consensus doesn't create consensus. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

One editor move-reverting two other editors three times is even less a consensus HandsomeFella (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I find it hilarious that you told him to take a page to WP:RM to achieve consensus for it to remain the same [73]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Allright, maybe it was a mistake, but let's focus on StAnselms 3 reverts instead of my sole one. HandsomeFella (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This probably is a lame issue to Move War over, but StAnselm has a point. In every country in the Commonwealth, apart from Canada, the common name for the sport in question IS simply Hockey. It is hardly ever called Field Hockey. The sport the Canadians play is called Ice Hockey, not Hockey. Common names are important in Wikipedia. Whether that's the common name among those the topic is about (The Commonwealth nations), or whether North Americans should have a say, is really the question here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with HiLo here, I've never heard of it being called Field Hockey either, I mean "Field Hockeyroos" wouldn't that be a ridiculous name for our women's national team.Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not the RM page, this is about StAnselm,s 3 move-reverts. Go to WP:RM to express your views on the article naming. HandsomeFella (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I already have, but I would suggest that your attitude to the change and ignorance of language usage differences around the world is part of the problem here. What I have posted above highlights that your reasons for reverting the move may have been based on ignorance. That's always a potential cause of confrontation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to apply common sense and consisitency. According to your logic, it would be "Hockey at the XXXX Summer Olympics" (and at the XXXX Commonwealth Games), because that's the only type of hockey that's played there, and "Hockey at the XXXX Winter Olympics", because that's the only type of hockey that's played there. Then we would have "hockey" at both Summer Games and Winter Games. HandsomeFella (talk) 00:33, 16 June 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.

Strange IP behaviour

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

---

user:71.136.245.38 is continually removing the blocked editor tag from User:Primetime He also added a blocked template to my user page[74] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:16, 16 June 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.

Why does it need an uninvolved Admin to give someone an ArbCom warning, & how do I get one?

There's a new editor (with whom I'm in dispute) that I think should have, if only for their own sake so they understand what they are involved in, an ArbCom warning (the article is under probation). {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps}} says "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system." That seems a bit odd as it is only a warning, but if that's the way it has to be, there should be some way of attracting an uninvolved Admin other than going around asking people. I've given warning myself but only when uninvolved. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN is a good place to ask for an uninvolved admin to take a look. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

June 15, 2012: the day that Wikipedia collapsed under the weight of its own senseless bureaucracy. Warned. Sheesh. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Point to note: we revised the discretionary sanctions page a while ago, and the "warnings" section no longer says anything about uninvolved admins:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. From Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

So any user can give that warning, including an "involved" admin. In fact, I think one of the reasons we changed it, back in 2010, was that it was ridiculously bureaucratic... Risker (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Risker's answer, but is it definitive? I ask because I recall a quite recent discussion somewhere - I looked, but can't find it, now - about the issuance of these notices in the I/P area. IIRC (?) the result was that only admins should be issuing them, which seemed silly to me. Again, iirc, there was some concern that non-admins might not be sufficiently aware of how to log the notice properly, or that the issuance of such a notice could be used to intimidate newcomers with whom one was involved in a content dispute. I reject both those ideas, but I would like to see this question finally resolved here.

If we all agree that non-admins can issue such notices, too, then shouldn't we also change the language of {{uw-sanctions}}, so it no longer says, "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator..."? --OhioStandard (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Try {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps|admin=no}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. It does tend to help when one actually reads the documentation. Thanks, Floquenbeam.--OhioStandard (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see how I missed it. I started at the top of Template:Uw-sanctions and worked down and found the template. It didn't occur to me that the documentation would be at the bottom. Wouldn't it be better to put that at the top? But thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't take more care it's not our fault. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

racist remarks on talk page

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

---

My next undo will be a 3RR, so I better bring it here. I keep trying to remove a racist remark from Sonny Liston's talk page. The edit summary is fun-filled too. Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. I would like to see a block of the ip and JohnsonTownship for apparent socking and introduction of racist remarks. Bgwhite, have you notified both editors? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I just notified both editors. I think Newportcub is another sock as it and the IP address used in Liston's edits are involved in, um, some edits of Jerry Sandusky. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have revieved WP:TALK and specificly WP:WTO and find nothing there that permits censoring of others talkpage contributions on the proposed justification of an allegation of 'racism'. The policy must be applied as actually written, and as contribution originator I'm exempt of 3rr. My contributions have been for the desirable purpose of clearing up a birthdate estimation query. Requesting closure of this matter.JohnsonTownship (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. I have closed it by blocking you indefinitely as a trolling-only account. Black Kite (talk) 06:54, 16 June 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.

Afternote:These kind of edits should be revdeleted and I have done so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed as banned user SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs):

• JohnsonTownship (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Habnas (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dzandzuba (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zistral (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SoapwarTicklemonster (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Topoftheheap (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vartiv (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Opknut (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alwayzgetzya (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 19:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that some of these were the accounts that prompted me to request semi protection for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Since they've all been blocked it might be ok to remove pp, unless there's a risk that new accounts will be created through a dynamic IP or proxy, etc. SÆdon^talk 23:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrol and inappropriate communications

User:LongLiveMusic incorrectly tagged nine different articles belonging to the same user, User:Rivatphil. LLM's first piece of CSD work since February, I found it problematic and approached him to seek an explanation as to how he felt the tagging was appropriate; I'd be perfectly happy with a "doh, it wasn't, I'll learn" (indeed, "I'll learn" is the ideal).

Instead, LLM removed my message, which is not in itself a problem - except he also did the same with my subsequent message seeking to verify he'd read and acknowledged the earlier issue. I'm here looking for wider consensus on what needs to be done - a restriction on patrolling? Assume he's just being uncommunicative and has acknowledged the messages, and that we should hold off unless he does it again? Only right now I'm looking at one editor who probably won't edit again and another who approaches the situation he's caused with a poker face; I don't want to see another newbie scared off before something is done. Ironholds (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be done is Ironholds need to learn Wikipedia policy: Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. The user has not performed any CSDs since the first message, and Ironholds repeated posting is uncalled for. Nobody Ent 09:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Look out for that boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but your comment came off as rather hostile :). I'm fully aware of the relevant policies, as evidenced by the fact that I linked to them in the comment you were responding to.

Both of you; my intention when bringing this here was to gauge (a) what action should be taken (and none is fine! If I wasn't fine with it I wouldn't have listed it) and (b) whether my actions or proposed ways forward were appropriate. In other words, to seek review of my actions. This is something we should encourage editors to do - jokey comments about boomerangs aside (is it a boomerang if you were intending to risk shooting yourself in the foot?) approaching such situations with blunt dismissal is likely to lead editors to refer their actions to the community less often, not more. I think we'd all agree that increasing the degree of oversight is something we should be encouraging rather than dissuading. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More disruption by Echigo mole socks

• Sansodor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I'm sorry about your trousers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.K.Nole
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matilda

The two accounts above are blatant sockpuppets of Echigo mole, a community-banned user and serial puppetmaster. Both accounts, the first of which was created today, are starting to harass Matilda. Fortunately, despite being retired, she twigged on quite soon that they were trolling socks. A checkuser Nishkid64 confirmed in private two years ago that Matilda or Maud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a likely sock of Quotient group, one of Echigo mole's sockpuppet accounts. The two accounts listed above are disrupting wikipedia with bogus SPI reports with checkuser requests (the second two SPI reports above): more precise details of that disruption are given in the SPI report on Echigo mole. Please could both accounts be indefinitely blocked by an administrator? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked User:Sansodor and User:I'm sorry about your trousers. Not comfortable with blocking User:Matilda or Maud on the basis of an email I haven't seen; either wait for the account to edit or get Nishkid64 to block. CIreland (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Two other troll socks of Echigo mole, Water marble nail and Intromission, have also been indefinitely blocked. Mathsci (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by sock while SPI is pending

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.

---

Reagavarinx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an obvious sock of Justice Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA that has been disrupting Northern Cyprus and related articles for quite some time now with inarticulate rants and POV-pushing based on unreliable websites. While an SPI has been filed [75], the backlog on the SPI page means he is still active. While I would be content for the SPI to take its due course, this user is being extremely disruptive on Northern Cyprus, having already reached 3 reverts within the last few hours. Would someone please take a look at the SPI and expedite the process? Athenean (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Makarios: "Cyprus was invaded by Greece": The Official Record of United Nations Security Council 1780th Meeting (19.07.1974):

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=S Makarios: (19.07.1974) (After 15.07.1974 Greece's coup in Cyprus; Before 20.07.1974 Turkey's Responsive Operation)
18. "I do not believe that there are people who accept the allegations of the Greek Military regime". The coup did not come about under such circumstances as to be considered an internal matter of the Greek Cypriots. IT IS CLEARLY AN INVASION FROM OUTSIDE, IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS. The so-called coup WAS THE WORK OF THE GREEK OFFICERS STAFFING AND COMMANDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.
Note: I wrote only a little bit about Makarios insults to Greece's invasion in Cyprus. The whole words of Makarios about Greece can be found in the site I specified: http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=S Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his misleading edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=497891608&oldid=497885009 ) specified in edit summary that "yes, yes, "Greece invaded Cyprus", same nonsense based on unreliable sources". Later, I provided the VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCE: United Nations Security Council Official Record ( http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/PV.1780(OR)&Lang=S ) . Even after I provided such a reliable source, Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) complained me here. Everything is clear. Who is distruptive, who works with very reliable proofs. Reagavarinx (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reagavarinx (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (re Athenean) This is not an SPI backlog issue. After Checkuser was declined, the case has remained open for patrolling admins but none have chosen to block based on behavioral evidence. They may now that you have asked for some to review the case.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• * Note: I sourced the VOICE RECORDING OF MAKARIOS at United Nations Security Council 1780th Meeting (19.07.1974): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=497836874&oldid=497563020

Athenean reverted and said "UNRELIABLE SOURCE".
Later, I provided the "The Official Record of United Nations Security Council 1780th Meeting (19.07.1974)"
Athenean reverted and said "SAME NONSENSE BASED ON URELIABLE SOURCES" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=497891608&oldid=497885009 ) .
I cannot find any word to describe the behaviour of Athenean! Reagavarinx (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you. We'll finally get some peace and quiet over there. Athenean (talk) 18:07, 16 June 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.

Sean Payton

Could someone look into the Sean Payton page? It appears to be the target of vandalism regarding the bounty scandal. If I edit this page any more, I will end up in an edit stand off. Rather than posting useful information, this page is subject to biased information for and against Sean Payton. Thank you! keystoneridin! (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was having the same issue. There was information that was wrongfully changed on numerous occasions that were obviously biased in favor of Sean Payton and disregarding the facts that had been previously reported/proven. Thank you! Saintsrguilty! (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

SteelersFan ... errr, I mean, Saintsrguilty, YOU twice reinstated non-WP:NPOV statements into the article about a living person. Don't do it again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

- Are you speaking of me? I ended up undoing edits because they had content in them such as "Sean Payton is a liar" and "Sean Payton instructs his players to hurt others so that he can win, something he normally doesn't do". Which brings me to the question of why you would be editing just Sean Payton when your user name is "SaintsrGuilty"?keystoneridin! (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I seeing double? --MuZemike 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also there may be a username issue with user:Saintsrguilty. Cardamon (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Sent to WP:UAA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

casualties of ww2

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, user Woogie10w don't answer on his talkpage, e-mail is also not possible, what can i do? i have some questions about his article "casualties of ww2". KnowledgeIsPower (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait for hinm to log on again. He has not edited since the 13th June, and there's no law to say he has to check in every day. Paul B (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus, nobody "has" an article, so any questions about the article should go on the article's talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 16 June 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.

OP has a point, though. Woogie10W created the article and has 3286 edits to it; the next closest editor has only 372 and the third only 101. Given that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to get Woogie10w's attention if one has questions about it -- although I agree the article talk page is best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Synthebot malfunction on gaita link

Synthebot apparently malfunctioned in removing the [[es:Gaita]] tag from Bagpipes. In the Spanish Wikipedia, the Gaita article is very similar to Bagpipes. Clearly the removal was an error. Frotz (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than that. The esWiki article pointed to Bagpipe instead. But the real target would be Gaida which I changed just now. BUT ... that has been tagged for possible merging into Bagpipes since ages ago. That discussion has remained inconklusive and could do with a few more eyes and hands and possibly a few interlingual editors. Maybe the interwiki issues may help to resolve that discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats from IP

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

 – IP blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

71.48.141.230 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

• Threat #1
• Threat #2
• Threat #3
• Threat #4

All of the above-listed threats could be interpreted in other ways. The totality of them is troubling.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The first one would have been enough for me, but the four together are really bad. WilliamH blocked the IP for 6 months for the legal threats. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 01:47, 17 June 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:Danceking5: Not learning.

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 the 2nd of June, following this incident discussion the user in question was blocked for 1 week.
• Not featured in that complaint was an additional accusation of "stalking" that was made in the same time frame.
• The user returned to wikipedia last night and one of his first contributions was another bad faith accusation.
• I have been patient with this user regarding the stalking allegations and encouraged him to clarify his understanding of the watch-list facility, but to no avail.
• My main issue with this user is an apparent disregard for appropriate sourcing. Essentially, he believes that life experience qualifies as content. Additionally, the user views a talk page as equivalent to a forum.
• Perhaps someone could have a quiet word? Semitransgenic _talk. 12:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  If you wanted to keep this quiet, posting it to ANI was not really the best choice. Is it possible you could just ignore him for a few days, and see if perhaps the user was just still pissed off about the block, and needed to get it off his chest? Maybe he'll go away if you just ignore him and don't respond. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 14:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Not to be a total dick here, but if you are neither familiar with the backstory nor interested in educating yourself, you really shouldn't be commenting. This sort of accusation and nonsense from this user has been going on for over a year now. → ROUX ₪ 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say I told you so, but--wait, no I really don't. I told you so. I was slightly off on the timeframe, but here we are again, 14 days later. The bottom line here is that Danceking5 is simply utterly incompetent to edit Wikipedia, and an indefinite block is required until he demonstrates that he actually understands how Wikipedia works. → ROUX ₪ 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, you seem to revel in saying "I told you so". As to the links provided above, this is not a justification to indef block someone. Just as I said on my talk page when asked prior to this (I had blocked Danceking5 last go around), this looks like normal heated conversation to me. I understand you are both frustrated, but I'm personally not willing to block someone indefinitely for this. I think giving it a few days and seeing what happens is prudent, as Quinn has wisely suggested. I've also notified Danceking5, as this conversation is already 6 hours in and no one was kind enough to do so, and it is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  That would be precisely why I said "wait, no I really don't." This is emphatically not 'normal heated conversation.' Danceking5 is incompetent and/or unwilling to listen. → ROUX ₪ 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  apologies, I should have left notification on Dancekings talk page when I opened the discussion. At the very least someone in an administrative position might perhaps take the time to set a few things straight regarding AGF etc. implying that other editors are "stalkers" (when they are simply using a watch-list) is inappropriate and should not continue, but I agree an indef block is unwarranted at this stage. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Danceking5 has been told multiple times by both admins and non-admins (Qwyrixian, Dennis Brown, me, others) that accusations of stalking are completely unacceptable. He is either unwilling to listen to or unable to comprehend what he is being told. → ROUX ₪ 19:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I see his recent comment that was "RE:stalking" and he gave an opinion, in reply to earlier comments by others. I see recently Danceking was called a tool and told he sounded like a clown, and he took that rather well. Then DK says "By the way, if you stop bugging me, i'll stop annoying you.", which I took as a very good proposal. Then I see a pretty reasonable thread where everyone is talking about a name change. What I see is normal spirited debate, followed by a real and seemingly productive discussion. You all need to avoid each other when possible, as you do bring out the worst in each other. Danceking5 isn't getting blocked today, I suggest we all go back to writing articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to say, I will have no problem blocking this user for longer than a week if this stalking nonsense continues. Semitransgenic has already tried enough times to explain to him what a watchlist is for, last time he did so leaving a comment on his talk page he deleted it, so I will assume for now this means he's read the linked page and finally understands, but this user is close to exhausting patience of people who actually edit these articles, it's clear that his vision for how they should be written is incompatible with Wikipedia's RS policy. - filelakeshoe 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• And if behavior exceeds the limits of "spirited debate", I will block him longer than my last block, or someone else will. At the same time, when behavior is not truly over the line, it would be disruptive and unfair for me (or other admins) to interfere. WP:DRN is always the venue of choice for disagreements on content or style of the actual article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis re:"By the way, if you stop bugging me, i'll stop annoying you." You appear to be endorsing the inference that I have been "bugging" this user.

Can I ask, do you, or Danceking5, have any diffs that can be used to support this accusation?

You also seem to think it is acceptable to ignore a pattern of behaviour that multiple users have seen.You also appear to accept that inane BS should take the place of discussion relating directly to what sources say, rather than what some user thinks (and based solely on personal recollection).

Just because an article subject is unimportant doesn't mean that those editors who choose to work on such topics should have to put up with the kind of BS DK5 has to offer.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

First, no article is unimportant or it wouldn't be here. I've already blocked DK previously, I'm only looking at behavior since then and have to give him the chance. You guys are in a content dispute, which is beyond the scope of ANI. If you think his arguments are BS, form a consensus otherwise on the talk page or at WP:DRN and that is the end of it. If you have a clear consensus that can be seen at the talk page, and he were to keep reverting against this consensus, then he would get blocked for disruptive editing, period. Put the changes up to a !vote to add clarity to the situation and make it easy for all concerned if a block is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I think there are crossed wires here, this has nothing to do with a dispute over content, that's an aside. The primary issue is with the users general attitude to our guidleines on OR and VER, we are dealing with someone who is largely indifferent to best practice. This is someone who has exclaimed: "I AM THE CITATION." This is not an attitude that should be tolerated. If it's the case that reversion of non RS content is now viewed as "bugging" someone, there is a problem. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And OR and V are handled at DRN, not ANI, that is my point. I understand there are larger issues, but I'm trying to actually help you here. As it stands, I can't block him because he is supporting OR on the talk page. Get a consensus that is enforceable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, yes, you are correct, this was the wrong noticeboard to begin with. Will wait and see how things pan out.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 14:37, 17 June 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.

Possible SPA to be aware of

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.

---

Just wanted to inform people of a new account that is showing indications of being an WP:SPA. This user's only contributions include a single agenda item pasted to his talk page, user page, and a wikiproject page. I have tried to head him off at the pass with a stern reply, but I wanted to get the word out to an audience that can intervene if necessary. This matter does not merit any administrative intervention at this time. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You may notice that at the top of this page there is a notice that This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. This report clearly states that it is not appropriate for this page and seems to be here solely to intimidate and upset a new user -- this is taking biting a newcomer to the level of harassment. Perhaps User:Vanisaac should be given some time away from the project to review his own conduct? Recapitulation theory (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A user's second edit is to call for someone being blocked. There seems to be a lot of that kind of thing going on here today. Meanwhile, I'd recommend that Vanisaac keep an eye on the editor in question and see if he does anything other than use his page for self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is weird and kind of creepy that it's his second edit - ok, it's obviously a sock or alternate account. But anyway, my plan was to try to keep an eye on him, but I wanted people to know what was going on if you start getting random non-standard transliterations in articles with Sinhala/Tamil/etc. terms and proper nouns, so I guess it's out there. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, an account that was created seemingly for the express purpose of making the above edit is...well, not exactly inspiring confidence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And when you try to make a new section in WP:AN, it says "If your post is about a specific problem you have" to post to ANI, which this definitely is. I was faced with two guidelines that contradicted each other given the situation, so I chose to follow one of them and ignore the other, and I freely acknowledged the guideline I ignored. If the consensus is that my actions were overly WP:BITEy, I will happily revert or amend myself, and gladly welcome others doing so as well. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Vanisaac fails to follow his own logic. If he finds that his posting is not suitable for WP:AN or for WP:ANI then the conclusion is not that the guidelines are inconsistent, the conclusion is that he should not be making the posting at all. He is reporting User:Brmanjunath for things he thinks they might be about to do. There is no evidence that the user reported is doing anything wrong, no evidence that dispute resolution has failed, or been attempted, or even that there is any kind of dispute here at all. In fact, there is nothing at all here to say, see or do. Why is he wasting everyone's time like this? Recapitulation theory (talk) 11:40, 17 June 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 attempting to promote non-notable minority group

TheRealtalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating or editing numerous articles, seemingly in an attempt to promote a non-notable minority group of which they're a part of. Some of these edits have included replacing sourced information with unsourced and replacing the infobox of a page with non-English text. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have an article on this group, Macedonian Muslims. I notice he's also adding a pp template to them also, he's clearly a bit confused. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Has anyone tried speaking to this editor? I'm not convinced that they're editing in bad faith and all I can see on their talkpage is a wall of templates. Perhaps someone could write a personal message advising them how to improve. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Torbeši (Našinci) seems to be a pov fork, as it says in the lead "The Torbeši are Not Macedonians (ethnic group" whereas Macedonian Muslims (some of the material from that article was copied to Torbeši (Našinci)) says they are. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Zippy is spot on. I don't know enough about the topic or I would do it myself, but someone needs to step up and try to speak to him on his talk page in a personalized manner first, please. Optimally, this is done before coming to boards, as this might be a pov fork, but that doesn't mean it is bad faith. It could simply be that he doesn't understand how we prefer to do things here. Volunteers? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullying by Dominus Vobisdu

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 Dominus Vobisdu gave me a "formal warning for disruptive editing" on my talk page here, threatening me with a topic ban. This appears to be a clear violation of wp:noedit. I am certain enough of this to take the risk of reporting this incident, and may the chips fall where they may. If Dominus Vobisdu is correct in his claim that I am guilty of "disruptive editing," then I will have to learn my lesson.

I tried to talk to Dominus Vobisdu about this incident on his talk page here. His answer was simply a reaffirmation of his judgment that I was guilty of "disruptive editing," which in my mind was simply the pretext for his bullying. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dominus_Vobisdu#Stop_bullying

The relevant discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Astrology#astrology_.22the_oldest_of_the_sciences.22 I initiated this talk at the same time that I reverted Dominus Vobisdu's reversion of Polisher of Cobwebs' reversion of my initial post. At the exact moment I opened this discussion, Saedon reverted my reversion. Under the presumption that if Saedon had seen my talk he would have responded before reverting (and might have actually agreed with my basic reasoning), I reverted him and invited him to revert me if he disagreed. My intention there was to indicate to Saedon (and everybody else) that I wasn't going any further with the reverting.

For whatever it's worth, the initial discussion that preceeded all of the above starts at Talk:Astrology#NPOV_in_the_.22modern_scientific_appraisal.22_section_and_the_lede --Other Choices (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee, after 247 edits to article space and 324 edits to Talk pages, how did you get to ANI so quickly? It looks to me like more experienced editors are trying to educate you but you refuse to listen. Instead, you push the envelope in a manner that suits you but not per Wikipedia practices, standards, etc. Plus, the one edit you seem so intent on making is wrong, and you apparently have no consensus for adding it. So stop doing so, even with an invitation to revert (needless edit war). As for WP:NOEDIT, that is an essay and I don't see any "violation" of it by anyone. There's nothing to be done here except to counsel you to conduct yourself differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23: You aren't being bullied here, what you are being is disruptive. Please slow down, stop editing tendentiously, and start working better with others. Understand that, sometimes, the article is not going to say what you want it to say. --Jayron32 19:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Being warned that you may be blocked or banned is just that, a warning that actions can have consequences. DV can't block of ban you. I see someone upset that DV wrote 'fuck' in an edit summary, but that isn't bullying. The article was just out of a week's full protection and straight to edit warring, so I've protected it for another week. Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have placed a discretionary sanctions warning on the user's talk page so that s/he is aware that Astrology has a history at ARBCOM. Obviously I concur with the above sentiments by Bbb and Jayron; what we have here is a case of a user attempting to push an extremely WP:FRINGE POV. One ruling principle in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision that needs to be considered is "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." Another important facet was a quote of Jimbo used in the decision: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Understanding these two concepts, it should be fairly obvious why Other Choices cannot make the edits s/he is making. SÆdon^talk 20:14, 17 June 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.

Troubling 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.

---

• Borovv (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)
• Edit-warring topic (archived after 48h with no activity)
• Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• commons:Project:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Borovv

This is not a report that can be written concisely. Borovv has demonstrated a disturbing pattern of edit-warring, copyright violations, and cluelessness in his edits of the Moon article. Most of it is set forth in my post at WP:3RRN, where I expressed ambivalence whether I should be reporting him there or here. Given the lack of administrative comment on the report, I suppose it should be here or not at all. Hard to read people's minds.

With respect to the copyright violation, what he did was he copied a portion of a source to the Moon article and cited the source ([76]). When I reverted because of a copyright violation, he reinserted the same text, but this time cited a different source so the copyright violation was hidden ([77]).

He attacks editors, accusing them of vandalism because they disagree with him ([78]). He accused that same editor of sock puppetry, as User:JamesBWatson pointed out here. He accused me of having a conflict of interest, also merely because I disagree with him ([79]). As this last diff shows, he also mistakenly thinks I'm rolling back his edits when I am reverting them with explanations, one example of many illustrating his lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I brought him to the 3RR board because of his edit-warring, although I made it clear it was a slow edit-war, not a breach of 3RR itself. One of things he was warring about was the insertion of this text, which, among other things, cited an unreliable source. (As an aside, he writes very badly, no doubt due to poor English skills. He also has trouble with citation formats and other technical issues, which are annoying to have to clean up.)

From a content perspective, he is obviously very interested in the Moon and related articles, and he repeatedly adds tangential material to the Moon article (already way too bloated as it is with irrelevant material), such as this edit, where he was reinserting material I had removed that was malplaced, non-neutral, and about Moon's son, not about Moon. As you can see, his edit summaries continue to be problematic.

If you look at his edit history, you will see he is effectively a WP:SPA, interested only in the Moon and Moon-related articles (since about February 4, 2012). I rarely accuse editors of having an agenda, but I think I would be safe in saying he has one. His edits are too consistently non-neutral to believe otherwise.

I'm not sure what the right sanction is. A topic ban seems right to me, but I suppose that would mean I should go to WP:AN. I also think, practically speaking, it would be the equivalent of an indefinite block because he doesn't seem interested in anything else. A block of some duration is another route. He has no previous blocks, which makes me reluctant to propose an indefinite block (or even a topic ban for the reason I just stated), despite his defensiveness, his apparent inability to understand policy, and his slyness.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Borovv just added a Moon image to the article here. This is an image Borovv uploaded and claims is his own work. Borovv has a long history of uploading images, many of which are Moon-related, some of which have been deleted as copyright violations. Since I've become more concerned about Borovv's editing, I've nominated two images for deletions at Commons (including this one). If Borovv is misrepresenting images as his own work, that's disturbing. If, on the other hand, these images are his own work, that is also a problem because for him to have been able to take the image reflects a probable conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is clearly unacceptable since it is tendentious and improperly sourced. I was going to suggest that the user be indeed banned from editing that one article, but a perusal of their other sub-par work (the writing and sourcing)--note how many of their edits are reverts--is a clear indication to me that the editor is here with an agenda, and it is not one of collaboration. (BTW, Bbb, "be a man" might well be an invitation to a bare-knuckle fist fight. Are you man enough?) I think this editor should not be editing WP at all. Drmies (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I had similar problems with this editor when I attempted to expand materials already in the infobox regarding Moon's many children by different women, starting here. Moon calls his current wife and their children his "True Family," and children from other women have been systematically censored from this article. I had not been involved in editing this BLP before, but I was struck by how it reads like a hagiography prepared by Moon's adherents. I was also intrigued that the User:Borovv username was so similar to User:Borock, an account which makes opposite edits to the Moon-related articles. I would support a topic ban of User:Borovv and would encourage uninvolved editors to take a good look at this controversial leader of a new religious movement, the same way we carefully confirm information on L. Ron Hubbard and other NRM leaders. Jokestress (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Although I stated earlier I was reluctant to support a ban, two things have changed. First, the image issue, which I find particularly disturbing. Second, the fact he has not come here to explain himself, even though he was notified and has edited since the notice. If a topic ban means he ceases editing on Wikipedia because he has no interest in other subjects, so be it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Let's not discuss a topic ban before getting an even more major concern out of the way. It's asserted that this person copies other people's work wholesale, with the images uploaded to Commons being scans of magazines and books, and the content added to Wikipedia being simple copies and pastes of other people's writing. If true, this is a non-contributor who doesn't generate original material and who is damaging both projects, and xyr editing privileges need to be revoked. What are the prose copyright problems here at Wikipedia, Bbb23? Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've only accused him of two prose copyright violations, and the diffs are in my original post above. But based on your question, I began to look painfully through his edit history at Unification Church, another article he heavily edits. Although many of the edits were wrong for a variety of reasons (some VERY wrong), I didn't find any copyright violations (as far as I looked) except for the same violation he committed in the Moon article ([80]). In looking further back in the Moon article, I did find this violation in the Others section he added. I'm not going to look any more, though, at the moment - I've already been looking for almost 30 minutes, and it's slow-going. If others believe more evidence of bad edits (not copyright violations) is required to topic ban him, I can start listing some of the edits/diffs I saw when looking at the Unification Church history and put them here, but it appeared to me that there was already sufficient support to impose a topic ban, so I don't want to go to that extra work unless it's necessary. In addition, I wanted to address your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question. Despite the fact that four editors have agreed sanctions are necessary, no action has yet been taken. If more evidence is needed, as I said above, I will provide diffs from Borovv's edits at Unification Church. Can an admin either act or express an opinion about the proposed additional evidence?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• My decision was not based on copyright issues but on the editor's behavior in the few articles they edit. It seems to me there is sufficient consensus to enact such a ban. I've never written one up, and time does not permit me to learn how to do it tonight or tomorrow--if anyone feels thusly inclined they may do so. Right now I am not in a position to comment on Uncle G's remark on copyvios: if the charge is correct that is a more serious issue, of course, but that in itself would not prevent a topic ban from being enacted for Sun Myung Moon. Unification Church was not explicitly addressed by me or the other respondents, but that could always be added. I won't be back here for maybe a day or two; if no ban is enacted at that moment, and the discussion hasn't changed significantly, I will address it then. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've spent a chunk of time collecting diffs from the Unification Church article to support the topic ban:

• [81]. This is one in a series of edits where Borovv has attempted to reinsert material that is not source-compliant and non-neutral against a barrage of removals by other editors. The only difference between Borovv's various reinsertions is the sources. The latest one, which I removed here has different sources, which do not support the material. Essentially, Borovv is attempting to indict "Christian groups" in a section called Christianity, accusing them of a concerted effort to deprogram Church members. However, the sources cited talk mainly about individual cases of deprogramming efforts by families of members and don't support the idea that "Christianity" is behind it. Note also that Borovv labels the removal as vandalism when it clearly is a content dispute. Finally, "brainwashing" is a non-neutral word in this context.
• [82]. This one is complex. Borovv removed the material with an inappropriate edit summary (this "misuse of power" mantra he has). User:Dougweller restored it and referred it to Talk. There was a perfunctory dialog (and not with Borovv), and then Borovv again removed the material. There is a pattern he has of mild edit-warring and stubbornly pushing through his edits.
• [83]. Similar to the last one, this shows another admin, User:DMacks challenging Borovv. However, Borovv immediately removes the material yet again with a sly and spurious edit summary.
• [84]. This is a particularly troubling edit with an outrageous edit summary. User:Andries, now retired, restored the original material here, and Borovv repeated his pattern by immediately changing it to his sanitized version here. To compound the problem, he then removed all of the criciticism here.
• [85]. This one is troubling on two levels. First, the material Borovv is restoring is poorly worded and the "king of the Jews" thing sourced to a religious/political website (which Borovv called a "third-party source") is incredible. Fortunately, as near as I can tell, that material is no longer in the article, but I didn't look to see when or who removed it. Then, there's the infamous edit summary issue with Borovv, accusing the editor of being pro-Jewish and a vandal.

I stopped here as this is very time-consuming. What it shows is non-neutral, disruptive edits with a user who thinks he owns the article and who is devious in his edits and edit summaries. He makes personal attacks on editors who disagree with him and engages in repeated reversions to obtain the results he wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban language

There's no real guidance at WP:BAN on how to word topic bans. I've looked at a few topic bans (the arbcom bans are usually better done) and embellished some based on my own judgment. I've also tacked on the bit about posting it on his user page, mainly because we don't do a good job of keeping track of topic bans. Here it is:

• Based on persistent non-neutral, disruptive edits, User:Borovv is topic-banned from editing Unification Church-related articles, broadly construed, including but not limited to all articles of the Sun Myung Moon family. Borovv shall post the text of the ban and a link to this discussion at the top of his user page.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 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.

Bowei Huang 2;

Resolved

 – user page protected indefinitely--Cailil ^talk 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs) What should be done, if anything, to prevent the user from blanking his unblock requests? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Revoking talk page access would be one way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly. Since he's done it twice this evening, perhaps an admin will want to take action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you need to do anything? Everything is in the history. Bielle (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking unblock requests is bad form, that is why. --Mollskman (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More preciesly, it's against the rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also apt. One of the many things he used to do to disrupt the site was to remove evidence of his own misbehaviour from talk and other pages. He's swearing up and down like a parrot that he won't misbehave again, and now he's playing the same stupid game with his own talk page. I've always felt that people who act as though they want to be banned should be banned with extra force, just to show that it's a stupid game to play. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat on Jimbo's talk page

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

---

User:Ajnem has put what is possibly a legal threat at User_talk:Jimbo Wales[86]. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Am I to understand that your putting above into your archiv not bothering to answer my post or my e-mail means that you don't think it necessary to take any action, and that you want me to take it to court?" sounded like a legal threat to me so I have indef-blocked the user until they can clarify they are not thinking of taking legal action in this case. --John (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reads as 'if you don't respond to me I will take it to court.' The user's isn't legally obligated to respond, so urging them to respond or else the matter goes to court includes elements of coersion as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:12, 18 June 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.

Unsourced additions/fringe etymological theories

The contributions of Bksatyanarayana (talk · contribs) (cf. sandbox statement) consist entirely of unusual/fringe/unsound and unsourced etymological theories. I assume they are good faith edits, but the editor continues the edits (diff), does not understand Wikipedia principles (e.g. signing contributions in article space), and appears to be unreachable via his/her user talk page. Wareh (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• User doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, in spite of proper welcome templates and messages informing them that their edits are not in compliance with the guidelines. May have to short term block if they continue after this notice to ANI, to prevent the disruptive behavior, and hopefully give them a chance to read up a bit on how to properly contribute. Good faith or not, disruption is disruption, particularly when they won't engage in discussion on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bksatyanarayana (talk · contribs) continues unsourced and fringe editing as he did this evening at Amazons. I think it is time for a block. Argos'Dad 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat in article?

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

---

This diff appears, to my eyes, to be a legal threat ("All citations and changes made on here will be registered and monitored by legal representatives and used in evidence at a later date.") It was originally added by User:86.159.104.206, which may be User:Shamdrummer editing whilst logged out. I've warned both Shamdrummer and the IP, removed the text from the article, and will now drop an ANI notice to both of them. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 18 June 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:Riyas202

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 don't mean to canvass, but I realized that Toddst1 is probably logged out after leaving the following request there)...User's Bio keeps being removed. Stated reasons for removal are a far reach from User page Guidelines of what is not allowed. Content is within norms for Bio info on a User page. Request independent look by respected non involved admin. Also any comments on civility welcomed. (Unable to notify Dave1185 as page is protected) 46.249.56.24 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Two admins besides Toddst1 have weighed in on this in support of removing that content, and so you bring this to ANI? Don't get hit too hard.

On the subject of the content, a full bio like that is a violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE - so it is a violation of the userpage policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it actually seems like something that would be acceptable if information was presented to make it clear that it isn't an article and if it wasn't the primary area of the editor's edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As pointed out there, the fact that the editor in question has made precisely three edits, in over a year of time on Wikipedia, that are not to his userpage, it's blatantly obvious that the userpage in question is intended as a WP:FAKEARTICLE for either social networking or advertising (given the rather promiment mention and links to Tata) purposes. That is why it is being removed. As Ryan points out, a well-established user can have a page like that, as it's clear that having a "Wikipedia bio page" is not the only reason they're here.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that with the treatment he has been given to date, he won't be here to edit for long. 70.174.142.77 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note that this IP's feeding trough is usually on the talk page of Baseball Bugs and he's been stalking my edits using more than 1 IP, even trouting me for no reasons whatsoever on more than 1 occasion. Other than that, all I can see is that he's just trying to stir up drama here and should be blocked for his disruptive behaviour. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Consider that he vanished for (exactly) six months, made four edits over three months, then vanished again for three more months — and the instant Dave removed the WP:FAKEARTICLE, the dynamic IP appeared to edit-war to keep it up, using personal attacks in his edit summaries [87]. I'm sorry, but this isn't a case of WP:BITE; the editor who created the userpage in question had had an account for a year, and is very likely no longer even here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting how an administrator, involved in a content dispute would revert and then page protect. Is that the best use of an admin bit? 46.249.56.24 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting how you toss out a totally false accusation, isn't it? Seeing as no page protection has been applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF BM, I am only stating my opinion that I see this [88] as an unwise action to explore. Possibly someone could modify the Bio so that it is acceptable to the community instead of supporting the hammering of newbies that don't meet your idea of how to learn the WP. 46.249.56.24 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also WP:AAGF. If we weren't AGF'ing with you here, that would mean an instant block for you, just saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Somebody who has been on Wikipedia for a year, who has made three edits to articlespace versus sixteen to his userpage, who has a userpage that is clearly pushing if not outright breaking WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTFACEBOOK (and could be argued to be WP:SPAMmy as well), and who has not posted in three months, is not a newbie we need to be concerned about WP:BITEing, but rather is quite clearly someone whos status as being here to improve the encyclopedia has to be questioned. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If he wants to contribute, then contribute, don't build a vanity userpage and then vanish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also please note that he was welcomed, and cautioned about Wikipedia not being a social network, in November [89]. He was given seven months to become productive with content or to restructure his userpage in a less vanity-article-ish fashion; that's hardly biting a newbie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to adjust the user page so that it will meet the above concerns. Please advise if this is suitable. 46.249.56.24 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

...not really, no. Adding a "this is a userpage" to the top of spam doesn't make it any less spammy. The page is still a vanity social networking vehicle that smells of promotion. Please restore it to the non-violating status, if Mr. Riyas wants to modify his userpage so that it confirms to Wikipedia policy, then he needs to do it himself (and he's already had, as mentioned above, seven months to do it in). As it is, the page is bait for a speedy deletion tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I believe I'd said my piece and made my position here clear enough, so unless someone else chimes in, I won't be commenting further. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how I'm involved here. It showed up on my talk page and my name is mentioned above. AFAIK, I've never expressed an opinion on this. Toddst1 (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My fault, I was looking for an uninvolved admin to look at the User page. It seemed that you were offline, so I came here. Possibly you could have a look see, close this thread, and leave the User page of the editor in an agreeable state. I approve of your or any other uninvolved admins decision in advance. The reverts of the involved, including me, are rather locked in their opinions. Thank you. !46.249.56.24 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is User:Riyas202, as the user posted it. WP:User page says a user page may have "limited autobiographical and personal content", which is what this Indian user's page had. User:Dave1185's block log says he was blocked for calling another user "the Indian boy". Dave1185 also says he's bitten "more than a dozen such individuals". 1185 needs to stop acting so immaturely. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, not everyone here actively edits Wikipedia on a regular basis. Many actually use it for (gasp) reading and learning, so the fact that this user had "precisely three edits, in over a year of time on Wikipedia, that are not to his userpage" should not be used as justification for removal of user content. Other things, maybe...and I am not arguing against removing the content necessarily...but the "user is not a regular contributor" argument really gets my goat b/c it's just plain wrong. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 04:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Accounts offer a watchlist which can be used as a sort of bookmarks page. I'm not seeing a valid reason to kick this user. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Riyas202 does not appear to be regular. However, things would be so much easier if we could know if that IP=Riyas202, because if not so I'm not really sure the IP should be editing that userpage. I do agree that admin action is mostly unnecessary here (I don't want it to be necessary) and that ANI is the wrong place for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is an editor retention problem. Much of it is due to hostility. The IPs on that page seem to have done nothing but restore the user's version. The admin action needful here is WP:BOOMERANG. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Boomerangs don't need admins to hit their targets.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

YMMV. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave1185 actually has a HUGE history of insulting IP editors and new editors alike. Check his history even recently and you will see a lot of this kind of activity, and he has had numerous interaction bans due to his inability to be civil. This guy really does put a big black eye on the entire project. This guy threatens, bullies and generally makes life miserable for anyone who isn't part of his cabal. Take heed, right dave? Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's funny how long-dormant accounts pop up to bash at Dave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also bizarre that such an account would give Dave a 3RR warning when no edit war was actually occurring.[90] Edit-warring warnings usually require more than one revert between editors. I'll AGF that when you blanked your talk page, you understood the tip about improper usage of warning templates.

Oh, and if you have an "Early life" section on your user page: it's probably a FAKEARTICLE. If you insist on keeping it that way after three different editors have removed it, you should move it to the main space and see if WP:NOTABILITY finds it acceptable enough to be an article. In this case the notability seems very doubtful. The blocked proxy editor who openly admitted (or was impersonating them - take your pick) that they were Riyas202[91] is wrong, as is the IP that said it was "comparable to Alison's user page"[92] when restoring it. Doc talk 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

/Funny/ how Doc9871 shows up in threads I comment in. nb: there /was/ a bit of edit warring: Diff of Kowloon Bay Diff of Kowloon Bay. I'll notify Alison and she may shed some light on the IPs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A look at that IP's (the now proxyblocked one) edit history is illuminating. If that was a registered user they'd have been indeffed for gross incivility and personal attacks a very long time ago. (Also leaving a message for Sinebot that "you're [blank]ing gay" suggests WP:CIR issues.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's problematic behaviour all over the place, here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because the blocked proxy 128.127.109.41 (talk · contribs) says they are Riyas202, doesn't mean it's true. The edits are not similar in any way -- it could be a joe job. And the IP 46.249.56.24 above geolocates to the Netherlands; Riyas says he is in India; so anyone assuming the IP 46.249.56.24 and Riyas202 are the same person is likely mistaken. Nobody has notified Riyas202 of this thread. I will do so now. -- Dianna (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I am logging off now. -- Dianna (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocked proxy IP said that he is Riyas202 multiple times. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they did that. I never said anything about 46.249.56.24 being Riyas202: I said that they were as wrong to restore the fake article as the joe job was. Doc talk 06:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocked proxy also told a bot "You fuckin' gay". Have a look at the fellow's pic and tell me he would talk to a bot that way; he's just not that kind of guy. And it defeats the whole self-promotional purpose of the userpage. It shouldn't be up to Dave1185 to unilaterally make the decision about the userpage; once his removal of the material was challenged a deletion discussion should have been opened. The userpage should be nominated at MFD and discussed there. I am gonna do that right now. -- Dianna (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Dave1185 has a long history of doing this and then threatening users who don't bow down to his purposes. He also seems to lean on a small number of admins, many of whom he asked to join this discussion (just take a look at his recent edit history), that he will then deploy to ban users who don't agree to his demands. This all sounds extreme, but it very plainly happens often if you look at his history. This is especially troubling because you'll note that many newcomers who have been subjected to this treatment do not edit again afterward. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can tell from just from looking at a picture how someone would talk to anyone else, you've got a leg up on all of us. Doc talk 06:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why they pay me the big bucks :) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riyas202 is now in session. Now I am off to bed for real; good night all. -- Dianna (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And I've restored the page with the MfD tag for clarity during the discussion. /This/ discussion needs to focus on the behaviour of Dave1185 and others going at this page as well as any issues with the IPs. I did notify Allie, and expect that to sort out. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Personal attacked removed)
  • I have removed the personal attack by Floquenbeam. -- KTC (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• While I won't go so far as Floquenbeam, I will say that the reaction here is a bit extreme. The userpage does bear a strong resemblance to wikipedia article pages, but that is not at all unusual; there are over 4000 userspace pages which contain a transclusion of {{infobox person}}; are we going to go after all of these people as well? [93] The addition of the disclaimer template at the top is more than sufficient to eliminate the concern of self-promotion, and I really think that some people here need to focus on someone who is actually harming wikipedia. The low number of edits is another factor; if this were someone who was expending an inordinate number of edits on his userpage or on other nonconstructive tasks, that would be one thing, but a total of 25 edits is hardly something that needs to be nipped in the bud. Horologium (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, Floq is /right/. This thread *is* about the harassment of a harmless user by harmful ones. It's about a toxicity that besets this project and drives good people, like Floq, away. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter even if the underlying point Floquenbeam was making regarding this thread is right, there was no need for Floquenbeam to reduce to outright personal attack. -- KTC (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"The rules!" shouted Ralph, "you're breaking the rules!". *Bollocks to the rules!* Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with breaking rules is it's so subjective. I support KTC's removal. Floq could have easily made his point in a less inflammatory manner. I don't know what it is about Wikipedia that causes people to lose all sense of professionalism (see Dianna's comments below), but I suspect it's partly because some editors are too quick to condone misbehavior when the editor's substantive point, in their view, is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia neither agrees upon nor effectively deals with low level childish (assholish) stupid behavior. While each instance is minor and not worth making a fuss about frustration builds over time, it's unfortunately easy to reach a point which a particular action becomes the last straw. Nobody Ent 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Persistent Assholery over time is behaviour that should result in an indef. It's Toxic Behaviour that discourages reasonable people. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree, but there's no way it would be consistently applied - just look at the firestorms any time certain people who fit that description, whose names I wont' mention, get blocked for five minutes before the 'DESYSOP THE ABUSING ADMIN!' lynch mob gets them unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thinking you're alluding to Mally (who is /not/ an asshole). Lynch mobs need to feel the danger of such approaches, as do genuinely abusive admins. And see below. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You said it, not me, and certain people who 'aren't' sure act as if they were. But c'est la Wiki. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The notification that this user (belatedly) received of this thread directed him to Incidents for some inexplicable reason. I've just given him the correct information. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for fixing the link. It worked properly when I tested it out in the sandbox. Dave1185, you should not be making these calls unilaterally; if you spot user pages like this in the future, you should nominate them for deletion instead of blanking them. The correct place to discuss individual user pages is at MFD; not here at ANI, and not on Bushranger's talk page, where you were directing queries. The person(s) reverting your removal were likely not the guy from India; they geolocated to Wichita, the Netherlands, and Hamilton, and one was an open proxy which has since been blocked. How did all these IPs find the userpage? It strikes me as highly unlikely that all these IPs are the guy from India; it's someone trolling Dave1185. You can avoid this kind of drama-fest in the future by simply nominating stuff for deletion using MFD. Then you have not placed yourself in the position of decider; the community decides, and if random IPs restore it, pages deleted via a deletion discussion can be deleted under a speedy deletion criterion. Normally I am not in favour of bureaucratic this-and-that, but for this type of page, it would have resulted in a lot less drama. The fellow may not have had many edits, but he may have become a contributor some day, but now we have lost him pretty much for sure as a result of the way the discussion about his user page has been mishandled.

Dave1185, you could tone down your remarks as well; referring to people as "anon garbage trucks" only brings you down to their level, and is an unprofessional thing for you to do. We are trying to run a world-class website here. I know people like you see a lot more of the seedier side of the wiki than people like me, but still -- try to rein it in and behave in a professional manner please. -- Dianna (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be good advice for Dave1185 to follow, but he doesn't listen. I warned him last week [94] to leave that page alone. That his editing at User:Riyas202, and his inflammatory remarks elsewhere were not acceptable. Desk Ref (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it's really odd how these virtual SPAs come out of the woodwork every time the topic is Dave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're prolly right about some of the IPs and accounts, but that does not change the fact that 1185 is behaving quite poorly, himself. You should not enable that. The whole "garbage trucks" theme he has going is awful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This, from an editor who was indef'd and somehow got himself a new account. Meanwhile, Desk Ref (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock who's biding his time until he gets (re-)banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 17 June 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:Dave1185 and the user namespace

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 Dave1185 has 424 edits to the user namespace, and only 27 of them are to his own. Looking at his edits to userspace, we find a lot of "tagging" with {{BannedMeansBanned}} with edit summaries such as "(you bag'em, we tag'em~!)" and "(tagged~!)". This is immature grave dancing intended to taunt people. It is /why/ the IPs are trolling him. This is a fundamentally an inappropriate approach and a failure to /deny/ recognition.

Accordingly, I believe it appropriate to ban Dave1185 from other accounts' userspace (other than talk, of course). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"(la la la la la...)". Seems Dave1185 isn't listening. ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "listening", you had best get out of here before they reinstate your indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt ;) Bugs, try intimidating someone else. your opinion matters not one whit to me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack, that's not an opinion, it's just friendly advice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not friendly (you're not my friend;). You're just trolling as usual — "over 9,000 ANI posts". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I thought that Merridew character had been banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You thought wrong. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Technically wrong, yes - Merridew was not banned, he was indef'd - and still is:[95] So how you get away with starting anew, under a different account, is hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - most of those BMB tags are the result of serial sockpuppeteers who just don't get it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that these bite-y edit summaries is unprofessional and demeaning towards the users involved. The status of the blocked user is irrelevant; Dave1185 is showing a gleeful attitude about blocking/tagging that is disrepectful and demeaning towards the people involved. It belittles people. Here are some examples and statistics about Dave1185's recent userpage edits:

• June 10, 2012: Diff of User:Riyas202: (removing unencyclopedic/rubbish content; this is not your blog/facebook/personal homepage, please read WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia)
• June 7, 2012: Diff of User:Square iNola: (you bag'em, we tag'em~!)
• May 31, 2012: Diff of User:Jason Collin: (you bag'em, we tag'em~!)
• May 31, 2012: Diff of User:Jason Collin: (Jason has left the building and is now starring in another Friday the 13th series... woot~!)
• May 20, 2012: Diff of User:Chaosname: (tagged~!)
• May 7, 2012: Diff of User:Grundle2600: (tagged~!)
• February 27, 2012: Diff of User:Cha2cuttie: (tagged~! Obviously, a very big failure on the part of "Project Outreach:ACIP"...)

• 19 x edit summary = (tagged~!) in last 50 userpage edits
• 6 x edit summary = (you bag'em, we tag'em~!) in last 50 userpage edits

• "tagged" edit summary: 99 out of 424 userpage edits
• "Bag em" edit summary: 41 times out of 424 userpage edits

The following edits look problematic to me. They date from 2010 through 2011:

• Blanked a userpage: Diff of User:Pan Am 103: edit summary: (rmv irrelevant information, please note this is English language Wikipedia!) Result: user quit editing about a week later. User was apparently Portuguese.
• Blanked a userpage: Diff of User:Overclax: edit summary: (rmv rubbish). User continued editing for some months. User self-identified as Greek. I honestly can't see anything problematic about this user page. Was there a discussion somewhere?
• Redirected a userpage: Diff of User:Prashant pardeshi: edit summary: (amended). User was a journalist from Maharashtra, India. Had not edited for a year and a half.
• Redirected a userpage: Diff of User:Pradeepbansal: edit summary: (amended). Had not edited for over a year. Why is it marked "Resolved - Troll"? I don't see any trolling. Looks to be from India; schooled in Singapore at university level.
• Redirected a userpage: Diff of User:Prabu.ravichandran: Provenance: Tamil Nadu, India. User had not edited for a year and a half.

Here are a few that were valid removal of userpage contents:

• Valid removal: Previous revision of User:Groyn88
• Valid removal: Diff of User:Cheeseguy
• Valid removal: Diff of User:Shermantankfan

-- Dianna (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Sock puppeteers are "demeaning" to the entire community. Tagging these socks is a necessary task. If someone has a sense of humor (remember when "Have Fun" was part of the greeting to all new editors) while doing so then I can live with that. These do not violate WP:CIVIL and, considering the kind of edit summaries that are par for the course nowadays these are a positive relief. As to their being "unprofessional" please remember that we are all volunteers and are unpaid. As soon as bi-weekly deposits are made to my checking account then you can demand that I follow one narrow set of guidelines. Until then IAR is just as valid a guideline as any of the numerous other ones that we have. MarnetteD | Talk 03:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Tagging the socks is not actually a necessary task, or the blocking admin would take it on when they do the block, would they not? And the tagging could be done in a more civilised manner, without the mocking jibe. It doesn't contribute to the kind of environment we should be building here, if we want to attract and retain high-quality editors. Humour should not be at other people's expense; that's just mean. -- Dianna (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose With all due respect, attracting and retaining "high-quality editors" has nothing to do with comments left on the pages of banned editors. Dave1185 is a good faith editor, banned editors are not. With all of the problems Wikipedia has with actual working editors being civil to each other (and the ensuing mess whenever someone is blocked, then rapidly unblocked for civility violations), one editor being questionably rude to banned sockmasters and disruption kings is invisible in the grand scheme of things.

It appears in this section that other Wikipedia editors aren't even in agreement as to whether or not what Dave1185 has done is a policy violation. It doesn't appear he's ever been warned about the matter before, so a topic ban seems unnecessarily harsh. I'd suggest closing this section, and opening an RfC to see if there's actually a problem here. If so, we can suggest to Dave1185 that he should be nicer. Until all of that happens and Dave1185 continues a behavior community consensus finds objectionable, there's no need to try and "fix" his editing patterns. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

He's actually been warned and banned for his treatment of users. Check his edit history and ban log. He's a repeat offender. It actually goes well beyond these "you bag em" edit summaries. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything said by Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs) aka "Edewlweiss" should be disregarded, and his history shows why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, protip: he's never been banned, and there's no such thing as a "ban log". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No surprise that you two, being his go-to accomplices, would be dismissive and rude when I point out the fact (just compare their edit histories to his). Obviously I meant "block log", as he's been blocked for this. Not that it needs defending, but by edit history doesn't show anything that would necessitate blocking my factual statements. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but speaking very honestly, your edit history looks very much like that which would be expected of a "bad hand" sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. This is off-topic from the discussion anyway, so I'll let it rest. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to decide whether your own behavior is on or off topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do try your best to keep things civil. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You said your own behavior was off-topic. That's not for you to decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I said this topic, brought up by The Bushranger, is off topic from the discussion on Dave1185's edits. There's no "deciding" since it very clearly is, and no need for anyone to "decide"-and certainly not you. I can only imagine you are making these comments to create tension or troll, and I'll ask again that you cease. Please try to stay on topic. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And I say again, you don't get to decide what the topic is. Your behavior and that of several other red-links here is very suspicious. So you are indeed part of the topic, whether you like it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The topic is actually set at the top, so please do try looking at it again. It's "User:Dave1185 and the user namespace". So you're not in any position to say who does or does not to get to decide anything. Again, please stop trolling so that we can get back to the discussion. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. Everyone's behavior here comes under scrutiny, regardless of what someone happened to put in a section header. Dave's, mine, yours, and your fellow red-links. Everyone's. You don't get to decide what the topic is. And, in fact, to me it looks like it's YOU that's doing the trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity: Bugs is right. Any participant in an AN/I discussion, regardless of its topic, is open for scrutiny, especially when they become significantly active on one (any) side of an issue. This happens to everyone, and happens all the time at AN/I; sometimes WP:BOOMERANGs fly in surprising directions. And, to be completely honest, repeated insistence that you should not be scrutinized makes you look more suspicious. If you really are a good-faith editor, then the best thing to do is to good-faith edit, scrutiny will find nothing. And now I should sleep before the clowns get me.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Socking is far meaner and far more damaging to the community. Tagging them is necessary if you want to keep track of the persistent ones and not doing so only lets them get away with more down the road. Some blocking admins add the tag and others don't. That is another example of what volunteers do and don't do. An inherent part of humor is that much of it comes at other people's expense. In this case I see no "mocking jibe" in the edit summaries just a statement of fact. Moreover I can't understand why people who have violated the communities trust and been blocked for it should be treated with kid gloves. They have already torn down the structure of the kind of environment we might build here and they have proved they have no desire to do so. I admire your idealism and more power to you for having it but I can tell you this - the way the "Five Pillars" are set up they practically preclude a collegial environment. MarnetteD | Talk 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary I object to is "you bag'em, we tag'em~!" It's dehumanising; treats real people like they are targets in a video game. Civility is actually one of the five pillars, and that doesn't look civil to me.-- Dianna (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So is anonymity and as long as that is one of the pillars you will always have socking and incivility. I do not find the words dehumanizing. BTW the socks put the target on themselves by violating the communities trust and you have yet to address why they should be treated better than they have treated us. MarnetteD | Talk 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus, I wouldn't put fake / sock accounts of humans that do not represent their own self (or even the anonymous image of themselves) precisely in the human category. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Socks, the banned, vandals, and trolls are still human. Assholes, idiots, paedophiles, racists, rapists, murders, and those who comment genocide are still human. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, socks are mere imitation of an alternate behaviour. Dealing with the sock master would be different than dealing with a sock as sock accounts do not actually represent that individual (read human). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks being "human" is only technically true. From the wikipedia standpoint, they are indeed garbage. All they accomplish is to waste editors' time and further diminish the public perception of wikipedia's unreliability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

STFU, Bugs. Prolly time to revisit banning you from ANI. You and 1185 calling people "garbage" is toxix-wiki-shit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Or "prolly" time to revisit your slippery escape from indefinite block, Jack - as well as your typically egregious muck-wallowing vulgarity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See previous. You're just trying to change the subject off your low calibre friend's poor behaviour. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's time for you to get blocked for making personal attacks on this very thread. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

don't make me laugh. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Dave1185 not only rudely comments in his edit summaries, but is also over-the-top disrespectful to new users and IP users alike. He constantly refers to them in derogatory manners on the talk pages of other users and admins. He bullies and threatens and is a huge detriment to the project. I don't support banning him outright since he makes some good contributions to articles, but he should dfintiely be kept far away from users. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your entire edit history fits on less than a page, so you're in no position to know anything about who or what is a "detriment to the project". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • This is exactly the kind of rash judgement regarding new users that is very unhelpful. Please try to refrain from making ad hominem attacks for which you have no justifiable rational other than your own bias. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The classic non-denial denial, typically uttered by bad-faith users. True, good-faith newbies don't get attacked. Only the ones who invite it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have ever heard such overdeterministic bull before. No one ever gets attacked who doesn't deserve it? Seriously? Read that crap back to yourself a few times. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You've only been a registered user since December, so you really don't know what you're talking about. If you're still here 5 years from now, you might go, "Oh, yeh. Now I get it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • That's a false dichotomy, and very convenient for you since you're the one attacking a new user simply for disagreeing with your position. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • If you're a newbie, I'm the man in the moon. Newbies don't appear out of nowhere and start calling for the banning of other editors. Good-faith newbies focus on improving article content, and that includes defending articles against bad-faith users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I would advise Dave to temper his enthusiasm when a bad-faith, useless editor is sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per [[ MarnetteD ]]. When did we start asking for and getting blocks or bans for that very small amount of incivility (and I don't even agree with you that it violates WP:CIVIL)? Half the dramamongers/"content creators" who get dragged here on a regular basis for incivility far exceeding this often times don't get so much as a trout for their behavior and yet you want a formal community ban for this user? Is this whole thing drawn along party lines from a larger discussion that the rest of us are unaware of?Heiro 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a brief editing history, placed their support comment in the middle of IP's 74.192.253.69 post as can be seen here [96] thus it looks like part of the IPs comment was written by La. Also La you need to look up the difference between being blocked and being banned. MarnetteD | Talk 05:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean blocked. Sorry for the mix-up with terminology and thanks for correcting the formatting. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the misaligned comments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2 @Heironymous Row, the proposal was to restrict him from posting on other people's user pages, not for a formal community ban. And there is no hidden agenda here or party lines, not to my knowledge. Note I have not actually supported or opposed the proposal at this point, just presented information. -- Dianna (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fully support ban from userspace This sort of thing is utterly unacceptable. Dave has clearly shown that he cannot properly edit in other people's userspace and this has nothing to do with sock-puppeteers. He is completely out of line. Silverseren^C 05:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So, writing foreign language gibberish on one's user page IS acceptable??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Gibberish to you, perhaps, but it clearly had some point to the editor in question and it also certainly broke none of the rules in WP:UPNOT and Dave had no right to remove it. I know you like to defend your friends, Bugs, but maybe both you and Dave should go and actually write some articles. Silverseren^C 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Edelweiss has been here since December and has worked on like 3 articles, so direct your lectures to more appropriate targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One can very easily find much more egregious violations of civility than even this in Dave1185's edit history. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a clearly unacceptable edit. It's also almost a year old, and isn't necessarily malevolent, it may very well just be uninformed. Was he warned for that edit? Was he informed as to the policy, and did he continue to edit against it? You can't show us a year-old edit and use that as evidence for a topic ban. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per MarnetteD. Socks are certainly people, but it doesn't mean that we have to bend over backwards to be nice to them, since their behavior is inherently disruptive and disrepectful to the community. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "editor retention" which is starting to feellike Wikipedia's version of "Think of the children." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't the socks, but the other users Dave has likely driven away and the incivility toward users who were not sockpuppets, but are gone and he has no reason to be messing with their user pages. Silverseren^C 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Good-faith users will focus on article content, and need not fear being banned or otherwise driven away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment/Semi-Support On the one hand one can say that it's only socks getting what they deserve and "real" editors aren't generall affected. In some ways I sympathise with that. But the issue, I think, is that this sort of pointlessly agressive adolescent bahaviour ispretty typical of a significant part of WP culture - and that's what drives away "real" editors. What's disappointing, but not surprising, in many of the oppose comments is that they don't say yes his behaviour is not what we want but he should just be warned and told to stop it. There's clearly no consensus that his behaviour is frankly childish. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The adolescent nonsense is mostly just annoying (although it can get out of hand); it's the rather more viscious adult misbehavior which creates the toxic atmosphere. That, I think, is much more of a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you be sure that all take as robust a view as you of "just annoying" adolescent beaviour? Really, my main point about WP culture (and how this thread is indicative of a poor aspect of it) is that most of the opposers appear to find nothing wrong with his behaviour - not that they find something wrong with it but it's not serious enough for sanctions. I think that's a problem. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave's behavior at its worst is better than the typical sock or vandal's behavior at its best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's beyond irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So you think vandals should be kissed up to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

sigh...you must have time on your hands.DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course you should. I think we should have a vandalism barnstar and "vandal of the month" competition. Why would you possibly think otherwise. Surely all right minded Wikipedians support vandalism. Goes without saying doesn't it. You really know how to shine a light on a subject. Excellent. well done. Standing on the shoulders of giants, penetrating intellect. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Merridew is allowed to continue his typical behavior here, after a long block and a promise to reform so that the arbcom would let him edit again, equates to that barnstar you're talking about. Another goes to the multitude of single-purpose accounts that have popped up here like mushrooms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I wish to express my annoyance at people who go around antagonising vandals, sockpuppets, good-faith contributors, and others through mindlessly bureaucratic userspace edits, baiting, and snarky remarks. It is disruptive, it drives away good editors, and it does cause vandalism. It subsequently unnecessarily wastes a lot of admin time. Most of the long term vandals around here are people that people like Dave have pissed off. Particularly Dave should ignore his assertion that "BITE applies only to article edits". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Wait, did Dave seriously make that statement? Seriously? Silverseren^C 09:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: all he's doing is tagging banned users. How about you first go and get a consensus against such tags? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  He's not just tagging banned users. Read again. Silverseren^C 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you, I've read the discussion already (in context to the basis of the proposal) and it didn't change my opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor is doing unnecessary work in a mean-spirited way. Per broken windows, what we allow experienced editors to do to "unworthy" others models acceptable behavior in general and affects the overall tone of Wikipedia. The fact that worse behavior exists unsanctioned is lame other stuff rhetoric. Their is no downside to Dave1185 ceasing to tag banned user accounts and there is always an upside in increasing the net civility of Wikipedia.Nobody Ent 11:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah right, so we presume good faith on the part of disruptive editors, whilst at the same time presuming a productive long term experienced editor is acting in a "mean spiritied way". I think you have forgotten the presumption of good faith aka WP:AGF completely. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs don't lie; Diannaa has laid the case out quite clearly above. Nobody Ent 15:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support We need to treat everybody with dignity and respect, even people who are breaking the rules. It's not the tagging that's the problem; it's the way he's doing it; it's the hostile edit summaries. This kind of low-level hostility percolates throughout the wiki and does cost us long-term valuable content contributors and administrators. This notion that sockpuppets or banned users need not be treated with dignity is just plain wrong; it's not the kind of culture we should be striving for; blanking people's user pages because they are in a foreign language is wrong; this is not rubbish -- Dianna (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to treating long term editors with dignity and respect? If perhaps there was something done about long term abusive editors there would be less hostility. Instead we have a long term disruptive editor given a break, in order to make a mean spirited motion and getting support from people who should know better. And yet we wonder why we have a problem in retaining productive editors who can't be arsed with the drama boards. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I try to treat everybody with dignity and respect, Wee Curry Monster. Dave does not. -- Dianna (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, there is a difference between being forthright and being mean spirited. Did you look at the talk page of the editor you just referenced above? I take it you didn't as there are numerous polite warnings from Dave about that editor before they were blocked. Could you also explain how you came to the conclusion the page you reference was blanked for it being in a foreign language? I just don't see it. Finally, to be brutally frank, I don't see you treating Dave with respect in your concern for the sensitivities of editors who are a poison to wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit summary: (rmv irrelevant information, please note this is English language Wikipedia!) The user page translates to "Portuguese - Interested in airplanes - Intelligent" -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And? BTW the link in your comment above is not the same one. What exactly is the issue here? I do however note you appear to have a long term editing relationship with User:Jack Merridew aka User:Br'er Rabbit and if we take a random selection of editors whose diffs you posted above and look at the talk pages, you'll find a track record in each case of Dave making polite comments long before any of those editors were banned or left. Did you also check out their contribution histories, I did and they were no loss to the project. Someone here said "diffs don't lie", perhaps not, but they can certainly mislead when they're taken out of context - and the full context is certainly lacking here. I certainly don't see you out to treat Dave with either dignity or respect. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dave is being treated with respect. He's engaging in unproductive behavior and we're proposing a limited, specific remedy that will in no way interfere with his ability to contribute to the the project. Saying "It's okay to be incivil to those editors" isn't respect, it's pandering. To save you the trouble, here's my relationship with BR. Nobody Ent 16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite noticable that a majority of those coming out in support have a relationship with that editor. And no, I don't see respect here, quite the opposite. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also an odd coincidence that so many of these attack accounts began in December or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose A suggestion made in bad faith by an editor with a long history of problematic editing and out to settle old scores. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That's out of line. N419BH 19:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Of course it is. This whole thread is awash with out-of-line editors seeking to draw a line in the sand that over-the-line behaviour be tolerated. It shouldn't be; that's the issue. If one out-of-line editor is restrained, it will make it easier to rein in the others (and they don't want that;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support In total agreement with above comments by Dianna, Nobody Ent and others People should understand the limits of civility and act accordingly. Such disgusting edit summaries are neither of any help to the community nor the blocked users. In fact such comments add a sense of grudge which leads the blocked person to do more wikisins thereby hampering the Project. This also sets a bad example by an experienced editor. Besides Dave has a history of pushing the limits of civility while dealing with other editors. This seems to be a good proposal, which of course can be removed later on , if there are signs of improvement.--DBigXray 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your one valid point is the risk that bad-faith users will use a funny/sarcastic comment as an excuse for further damage to wikipedia. In fact, when I revert a redlink or an IP's vandalism on one of the hundreds of articles I watch, generally I do it with minimal or no comment, for exactly that reason. If they keep doing it, then I warn and/or report them. There's no reason why established editors should cower before one-shot, bad-faith users. But sometimes it seems necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What we see here is not some one who is cowering but someone who is making ridiculous and unhelpful edit summaries--DBigXray 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • That's precisely the point. Enablers of socks and vandals expect established editors to cower before them rather than standing up to them. Maybe that's the European way. It's not the American way, nor the way of much of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Wee Curry Monster got much of it right, editors don't really like to disclose everything when an apparent old score seems to have been there. DBigXray has received a few (quite civil) conduct warnings by Dave too. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• The person who is about to be blocked/banned on Thread#1 and whose block log explains everything is trying to "mislead the discussion", what else can be expected. Topic is Dave not me, some people cant really make out what the subject is. --DBigXray 17:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not even remotely decided. Your comment is further indicative of WP:BATTLE while I pointed out a mere relationship. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously, edit-warring is not good and has to be dealt with. Now, has he been blocked for sockpuppetry at any point? Or has he stood firm with his user identity, for better or worse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose give him a warning - some editors he has had to deal with are bad faith editors who do not listen well and can test one's patience.Mugginsx (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, would someone please strike through or indent the "semi-support" as a comment? It is not a vote but a comment. Also comments are usually shown indented with two astericks.Mugginsx (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Oh, for pity's sake. I can name any number of editors who are habitually uncivil to productive and active editors, some who are even mentioned here ... but few can be exercised to give a damn. I certainly can't be exercised to give a damn about someone's alleged rudeness to indef blocked/banned vandals. "Immature grave dancing?" Seriously? With all the trolls, vandals, brawlers and edit warriors on Wikipedia, this is what you choose to get hot under the collar over? Seriously? Ravenswing 17:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• CommentWhy did several editors mess with this comment before it got deleted? I don't see the problem with the users remark? 91.121.86.69 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  Because it was a sock vandal, as evident from the contribs. And I've also blocked your open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - As per Dianna's reasoning. This remedy stops nothing except the unprofessional behaviour. I'm not sure why others think it's ok for someone to act that way, or why stopping someone from doing something that's obviously demeaning is a problem for us. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How does kissing up to vandals remedy anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am not particularly supportive of Dave's way to deal with things (which can be seen as rude), but I really do not care much for what he writes on the user pages of people who actually have been found as knowingly breaking the rules (ie, creating puppet accounts). Along those lines, I find it absurd that certain "puppeteers" get second chances while others do not; this multiple-account business should be handled with a strong indefinite ban for all perpetrators. However, this second point is beyond the concept of the current discussion. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Dave1185's got a grand total of one block in over 4 years and over 23,000 edits. One would expect someone as purportedly toxic as Dave to have fared far worse than that, right? To lay at his feet the vast and intangible editor retention issue is really a bit much. And topic banning him from user pages when that is less than 2% of his overall contributions will not make any difference whatsoever in preventing editors from leaving. Nothing preventative in this to protect the wiki, and I agree with those below that it's time to close this thing. Doc talk 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know about anyone else, but, to me, this discussion on Dave has a bad smell to it. A one month old editor (or, in the alternative, a sock) commenting like he thinks he knows what he is talking about; a long time banned user (I think a banned former administrator) trying to oust him; others participating that are themselves under scruity; examples given for his misconduct are, in some cases, almost too silly to mention anywhere, much less here, that is how it appears to this veteran editor. I think a Senior Administrator should be brought in to investigate and/or close this. It seems to me to be a witch hunt by some people and that there really are more important things to do like (edit conflict) fighting vandalism which is rampant on Wikipedia. Mugginsx (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, shut it down. It's a series of single-purpose attack editors, probably one or more escapees from Wide Receiver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed close it now, has anyone else noticed that the discussion about a disruptive editor has been hijacked into a witch hunt against a productive editor. Pls close this drama fest and deal with the real problem! Wee Curry Monster talk 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Please close this. Nothing's coming of it except more drama. Using an edit summary of "bag em and tag em" against a banned editor isn't any more rude or dismissive than using one of "Bzzzt" against an editor in good standing. If we're not going to ask for or enforce civility against actual editors, trying to punish an editor for being quasi-rude to editor who've been banned is just splitting hairs. 70.249.242.135 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• And, in what really is not a surprising development, it's been admitted by an IP that the whole thing was a setup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  It rather validates that 1185 is doing a lot of troll feeding. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  The discussion is about whether gravedancing over the accounts of people blocked as SPs is acceptable to the community. I strive to stay clear of discussions here (not always successfully) because the first time I posted here an SPI was opened. One duck call from an administrator and I would have been blocked indefinitely. I would probably have been tagged with some bullshit comment as someone I wasn't by some hanger-on and I would have been pissed. Back to the point of user:The Bushranger, I wonder which wp:duck you figure that IPv6 is, because none of them have been really active in this discussion. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to take a closer look at your own role in this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nah; I don't have anything to do with those IPs; they're 1185's work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Yeh, we feed the trolls. Specifically, we feed them to the lions. Or sometimes we bake them inside Troll House Cookies. Yum! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

    If I was flabbergasted before, I'm incredulous now. Boy, do I hate the eternal "He has an agenda!!!!" nonsense that goes around, but Br'er Rabbit is sailing into the vendetta zone at flank speed. What the hell? An IP admits that the whole thing was a setup, and Br'er's response is "it validates that he's doing a lot of troll feeding???" Talk about blame-the-victim. This ought to be shut down at once, and frankly, I'd look very favorably on Rabbit getting slapped with an interaction ban to 1185. Ravenswing 05:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • 1185 throws petrol on things. like that's helpful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • When you abandoned your indef'd account Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) (and various socks) and reincarnated under this Uncle Remus character, you asked for "no drama". Then you started a rant against another user. So how's that "no drama" thing workin' for ya? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment gaming. Penyulap ☏ 04:24, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not really familiar with Merridew except for the peripheral knowledge that he was constantly in trouble. Does "gaming the system" fit within the realm of his normal behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  no, you just make up the jokes and bad faith as you go. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  On your user page, you claim to be the still-indef'd user Merridew. Are you actually not Merridew, but just an impersonator? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• • actually, I'm Jimmy's good-hand accounts ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, just don't jimmy up the works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support...as one who was a hair's-breadth away from being treated to "You bag 'em. We tag 'em". I've got zero FA, GA, DYK but I still do stuff here and elsewhere. Bag and tag me if you want, but it won't help the encyclopedia. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You complained Dave's talk page was "unfriendly". In addition to lacking a sense of humor, you're also yet another of those complainants that's only been here since December. Wait till you run into user pages that advocate Neo-Nazism or violence against women or the destruction of [fill in hated ethnic group here]. Then you'll start to get some perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe his talk page is unfriendly because messages he doesn't want to be associated with are reverted rather than archived (see mine, for instance). BTW, I've been here since November, but if you don't believe Wikipedia needs any users users who registered a name in November, 2011, please let me know. I might give a crap. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:48, 18 June 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.

COMMENT: This discussion was closed on June 17 by an uninvolved Administrator and modified after that CLOSURE I am reporting all those who had the audacity to comment and vote after it was closed and asked that they be blocked. Mugginsx (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep your pantyhose on (The Abyss, dir James Cameron). If a number of editors revert a close, maybe the close was a bit early?? In any case, no-one is going to get blocked at this point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More precisely, it was unclosed here then reclosed here. Only one post was made when it was closed, and that was a clear edit conflict with the closing, so nothing to see here folks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New User:8HGasma might need a warning

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.

---

New June 9 user 8HGasma (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) I met when they started an edit war ([97] [98]). es's are not inviting. I contacted [99], but got rebuked without remorse [100]. Same user behaved similar in other edits, unrelated to me: [101] including the es: Before making controversial editions, take a break and discuss it on the talk page, and touching or maybe grabbing 3RR. I propose this user receives the standard ARBPIA warning first. According to another revert in another page, 8HGasma might be eligible for a sockpuppet check [102]. Notified [103] -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I left a notice that he was on the cusp of 3RR on his and your talkpage, and also left him a notice about this ANI, since you neglected to do so. Please note that at the top of this page it clearly says you must notify the other party, and please do so in the future. My mistake, glasses in other room... I suggest you both stop reverting and take it to the talk page and discuss it more than you already have first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel addressed by this botlike contribution. If you cannot add a base for your remark on my talkpage, I'll throw it away. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• • I addressed it evenly because you have reverted twice, him 3x, and my goal isn't blocking anyone or interfere in the discussion, but instead to get both parties to go to the talk page and hammer it out, making any action unneeded. I could have chosen to protect the page, but feel you are likely to work it out without protection being necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The diffs please for me doing even a 2RR. And note that my question here is ignored. -DePiep (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why has no admin done the Warning yet? -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected myself on your talk page, you were not close to 3RR and it was a silly mistake on my part, but it is still a slow edit war that needs to be dealt with with fewer reverts. I see there is a conversation on the talk page, which should continue until a resolution is found or if one can't be, taken to WP:DRN. If you think they are sockpuppeting, then WP:SPI is the proper venue to take it to. ANI is not equipped to handle sockpuppets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone who cares should file an SPI report or deal with it directly without the SPI red tape. The sockmaster is AndresHerutJaim. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive. AndresHerutJaim is a dedicated advocate for the State of Israel and he promised here to not stop socking.

Stalker results

• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Jabotito48&user2=8HGasma
• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Tutangamon&user2=8HGasma
• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Sebinisra91&user2=8HGasma
• http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=AndresHerutJaim&user2=8HGasma

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK suggests sockpuppet. Compare this by Jabotito48 to this edit today by the named editor. I think his comment on the talkpage clarifies his POV intentions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser does too. Sock blocked, not much more to do here I'd say. Relist this at SPI if it resurfaces. WilliamH (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Closeable. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 18 June 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.

New Page Patrol and inappropriate communications

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:LongLiveMusic incorrectly tagged nine different articles belonging to the same user, User:Rivatphil. LLM's first piece of CSD work since February, I found it problematic and approached him to seek an explanation as to how he felt the tagging was appropriate; I'd be perfectly happy with a "doh, it wasn't, I'll learn" (indeed, "I'll learn" is the ideal). Instead, LLM removed my message, which is not in itself a problem - except he also did the same with my subsequent message seeking to verify he'd read and acknowledged the earlier issue. I'm here looking for wider consensus on what needs to be done - a restriction on patrolling? Assume he's just being uncommunicative and has acknowledged the messages, and that we should hold off unless he does it again? Only right now I'm looking at one editor who probably won't edit again and another who approaches the situation he's caused with a poker face; I don't want to see another newbie scared off before something is done. Ironholds (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What needs to be done is Ironholds need to learn Wikipedia policy: Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. The user has not performed any CSDs since the first message, and Ironholds repeated posting is uncalled for. Nobody Ent 09:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Look out for that boomerang. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but your comment came off as rather hostile :). I'm fully aware of the relevant policies, as evidenced by the fact that I linked to them in the comment you were responding to.

Both of you; my intention when bringing this here was to gauge (a) what action should be taken (and none is fine! If I wasn't fine with it I wouldn't have listed it) and (b) whether my actions or proposed ways forward were appropriate. In other words, to seek review of my actions. This is something we should encourage editors to do - jokey comments about boomerangs aside (is it a boomerang if you were intending to risk shooting yourself in the foot?) approaching such situations with blunt dismissal is likely to lead editors to refer their actions to the community less often, not more. I think we'd all agree that increasing the degree of oversight is something we should be encouraging rather than dissuading. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Non sequitur. If you're familiar with policy, why would you leave a second message in the absence of continuing behavior by the editor?

2. I agree with you about "boomerang." I consider it rude and incivil; however prudence dictates understanding mine is a minority view and it's not something I'm going to fix. Nobody Ent 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fact remains, LLM tagged highly inappropriately. That is not the way to keep prospective new content contributors. The blanking is within policy, of course, but does not bode well. To top it off, they left the hapless new editor a warning--that is also inappropriate. I de-archived this, by the way, since I don't think we were done here. Drmies (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Editor screws up. Admin deals with by leaving message, user acknowledges by removing message (per standard Wikipedia practice), user hasn't CSD'd again. What's left to do? Nobody Ent 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, Ironholds. If "none" is a fine answer to the question of what action should be taken, then good. None is what action should be taken if LLM didn't make any more CSD tags after the first message was removed. On your side, you get a minnow - not even a trout - for making the extra posts on LLM's talk page, but good on you for bringing your actions for review. We all good here? Good. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Close. However, I'm fine with Ironholds second post on LLM's talk page requesting a dialog with LLM, and that is where it should have ended regarding LLM. This AN post elevated things too much since we were asked to look at LLM's actions even though LLM has not performed any CSDs since Ironholds first message on Ironholds talk page. Ironholds, you might want to clarify the situation for User:Rivatphil, which is something I recently did here regarding a similar situation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:53, 18 June 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.

American Third Position Party (again)

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

---

User:Malv currently edit-warring against sourced information (the classification of the party as "White supremacist"). Already violated 3RR. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He made an attempt to discuss it on the talk page after the second revert. You must notify the user that they're involved, as it says multiple times here. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 22:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to notify him when your warning template showed up on my talk page (no worries about that, by the way; I see you took note of the sources -- the user has been notified now). To be honest, I see no good reason to engage in talk page discussion on this topic any longer. It has been beat into a pinkish-brown, horse-shaped grease stain on the ground dozens of times before, and the tactics of the disputative editors are always the same -- to claim that "Jewish" organizations like the ADL, etc. are not reliable sources because some of their members happen to be Jews -- presumably the very same insidious Jews running Wikipedia's anti-American, anti-white cabal, but that's beside the point. Forgive me if I don't think that's much of a constructive and intellectually honest kind of dialogue.

In addition, I'm really confused as to why this article isn't semi-protected. I can't identify the last constructive IP edit, but every time I put in an RPP it gets shot down. If an admin thinks I did something wrong, then you can strip me of my rollback powers. I won't complain, but I just want to remind everyone that "assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism. I'm giving him a final warning. Please feel free to block him the next time he makes a nonconstructive edit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More vandalism. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24 hours as he repeatedly removes WP:RSes and replaces them with the party's own site. It takes two to edit-war, though; you're yourself well above WP:3RR on the article. Not everyone may see it as vandalism vs. a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thing, he's blocked, but I guess I'll have to plan on being here 24 hours from now. Am I mistaken, or doesn't WP:NOT3RR definitely apply here? Is blanking sources without an edit summary ever not vandalism? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the WP:IDHT replacement of secondary with primary sources is vandalism. Just cautioning that it's conceivable others may not be so lenient; technically he was including a source in his edits, albiet a WP:PRIMARY one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the help. I think we can mark this one as --

:::::::::

Resolved

(At least for the next 23 hours and 50 minutes, anyway.) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Hope you don't mind me de-resolving this, but perhaps it's time for a more long-term solution. It looks like this has been a long-term thing, so dealing with it whenever it happens seems kind of stupid. I was thinking that maybe a ban on changing that wording without proper consensus (doing so results in a block of x hours), or 1RR. Just an idea. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Evanh2008, your rollback flag has been removed due to using it in a content dispute. WilliamH (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition, it looks to me like Evanh2008 should also be blocked for edit warring - I invite another administrator to take a look. WilliamH (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to slap him on the wrist verbally and not block, considering he was protecting the integrity of the article and did come here. He should have sought assistance earlier but the edits are arguably borderline vandalism when knowingly removing good sources to put in primary sources, so I would choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. I had closed this, but unclosed once I saw WilliamH's concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Edit-warring third-party sources out of an article and replacing them with primary ones in order to advance a POV is IMO disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Dennis and BK. I'll go along with whatever, but that seems highly unnecessary. I also don't think my use of rollback was in violation of anything. WP:ROLLBACK states that it is to be used "To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear". Some of Malv's edits were clearly vandalism, or at least borderline, as acknowledged above, and, given the nature of the article in question and the various disputes that it's seen in the past, not to mention the obvious removal of secondary sources and the material they sourced, I think my reason for reverting was "absolutely clear" on all counts. Am I really being sanctioned for upholding sourced material in accordance with both Rollback and WP:3RR policy? (I said I wouldn't complain, but disputing it isn't quite "complaining", is it?) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Assuming they don't take away eventually give you back your rollback privilege, consider this situation a warning and an important lesson. Use your rollback privilege extremely sparingly. And don't let yourself get sucked into an edit war. Edit wars are futile, especially when dealing with the type of editor who repeatedly uses the term "pejorative" but has no clue how to spell it. Just turn the disruptive user in, and let the admins deal with it in their own special way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This same situation pops up about once a month on this article, usually either SPAs or single purpose IPs whose only argument so far is "We dont like dem dirty Jews calling us White Supremacists". If you look at thecontribs of the lastest editor, their entire history consists of this little action today, and a flurry of edits 3 years ago to Holocaust denial and its talkpage. A 1RR or other restriction on the page would hopefully help with the continued disruption there by the POV pushing of the true believers.Heiro 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As to your rollback rights being removed, I suggest giving WilliamH a day, then ask again. If that doesn't work, try 30 days. We all have differences of opinion and each is valid for its own reasons, and I don't want to tread on his opinions simply because my opinion is different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits were made by someone who believed they were improving the article/project. As far as I see, rollback should never be used against such edits. WilliamH (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Belief that they are improving the project =/= improving the project. And this was a case of a blatant WP:POV pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you are a much more generous man than I am, WilliamH. I took the edits as pushing a POV. I had thought that if was truly in good faith, he would have left the original source and just refuted it with the primary source. At least after the first few times, anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how misguided they were, you discuss why they were misguided, you do not unilaterally reject them with virtually no explanation. WilliamH (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I did some talk about it on the talk page, and in the archives, and at NPOVN[104], although the consensus is a bit muddy yet leaning in the direction of his edits. The problem is old, even if the current revert fest is new. Granted, he could have been more timely with the talking this time, which is why I said a verbal slap on the wrist was warranted. Even if it was POV pushing (and it was), I agree he pushed it over the line without seeking outside assistance, so we agree to a small degree. We just disagree on how to apply mitigating evidence here, and me being the forever optimist, I can't help but to lean a little in the direction of assuming he will be more careful in the future, and have faith he won't make the same mistake twice. I don't question your actions or the authority to make them, I'm just inclined to think other options are better suited to the situation, based on my experiences. I'm not complaining, only offering a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, those Nazified edits aren't really "vandalism", they're just garden variety POV-pushing. THIS is vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Having had the article in question on my watchlist for over three months now, by my count I've reverted edits at the article exactly six times (excluding the most recent spate of reverts): here, here, here, here, here, and here.

All the above reverts were unambiguously either POV-pushing, or outright vandalism. Others reverted such edits many more times than I did. It isn't until now that I, or anyone else has actually faced opposition for reverting said edits.

As a side note, on 6 & 7 March, I might have "violated" 3RR. As a show of good faith, I promptly came to AN/I and told everybody about it, specifically asking if I had done anything against policy. Certainly the edits in question were far less tendentious than the ones we're discussing, so it does seem odd to me that no one talked about blocking me in that situation; in fact, they specifically thanked me and told me that I had done a good job (by reverting edits more than three times in a 24-hour period), and stated that admin intervention was not needed. I find it hard to believe that said edits did not violate policy, but these somehow do. I would appreciate some clarification in that regard. Did I violate 3RR before? Did I violate 3RR today?

Back on topic, I've brought disputes regarding American Third Position Party to AN/I twice now.This was the first time. A few days ago, after User:Slaja and his socks attacked the article, I put in an RPP for it and was told that there was "not enough recent activity" to justify protection. I'm not trying to act as though I'm an all-seeing arbiter of anything, but given the several months of experience I've had with this article, I do think my opinion deserves more weight than it's gotten. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR isn't as bright of a line as it sounds on paper. When I run across it, I try to warn first, even if it has gone into 4 or 5 or more reverts. As long as they stop, I don't block. Other admins block on the 4th, no questions asked. It's no secret that I have opinions on this, but both methods are currently acceptable ways to deal with 3RR and within policy. Same here with removing your widget, it is an admin call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Evanh2008, whose actions were protective of the article's integrity, and strongly disagree with WillianH's removal of Evan's rollback right, which seems like an overly bureaucratic response to the situation. On one side you've got a good faith editor in good standing, and on the other you've got a racist POV-pushing probable sock. Common sense says that you deal harsh justice to the POV-pusher who's attempting to harm the encyclopedia, and you offer the good guy some advice about using rollback, and perhaps trout him if necessary. The removal of rollback is an out-of-scale response to the specific circumstances, and WilliamH should revert his action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Evanh2008 was correct to use rollback ... but I am sure that he genuinely believed that he was right to do so, and several editors here have backed his view. I agree with Beyond My Ken that as a good faith editor in good standing, Evan shoukd not have had his rollback removed so hastily. Maybe a little trouting might be in order, but not this sort of revocation. WilliamH should restore rollback rights for Evanh2008. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with bureaucracy or anything as conflated as that. Common sense says that if you unlilaterally revert someone who does not believe they're harming Wikipedia (irrespective of how misguided they are) without giving them any explanation why, then they think it's fair game to revert you. That's why rollback must not be used in content disputes (which Evanh2008 here indicated this was), and that's what creates an edit war. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. WilliamH (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When they are an extremely blatant POV pusher, which is what this was, they should be reverted using any and all tools available. Yes, there should have been more discussion, but this editor is, so far, giving no signs of being here to improve the encyclopedia; revoking Evan's rollback seems to me to be very much overreacting. Seafood, perhaps, scarlet letter in the permissions log, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I knew I was imagining this edit, where in I explained why I was reverting! Probably those warning templates were all in my head, too. Alas, I don't know whether or not you had the courtesy to imagine any correspondence with me regarding my use of rollback before revoking my privileges, as required by policy:

Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user).

Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're willing to withdraw your graceless sarcasm, I'm willing to reconsider my actions. WilliamH (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You should be willing instead to be judging the issue on its merits rather than making a graceless attempt at extracting penance for your hurt feelings. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Calton here. Evan's comment may have been innapropriate, and you were correct in pointing that out. But to refuse to reconsider the merits of the case on that basis is not supported by WP policies. Most particularly the very policy you cited. While WP administrators are to be addressed with all due respect, they cannot invoke "majesty of the court" as a court judge can. If you feel that you cannot impartically reconsider the merits of the case due to bruised feelings, you should turn the matter over to another uninvolved administrator for consideration. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to extend all due respect and civility to WilliamH once he has done the same for me. As of now, he has yet to do that. He revoked my rollback rights without the due process required by policy, and repeatedly made the false accusation that I did not attempt contact with User:Malv or explain why the edits were construed as nonconstructive. Could I have put it better? Probably. Was I wrong? Absolutely not. I've been a very active RC patroller in the past (easily one-third of all my edits have been either vandal reversions, warnings, or reports to AIV), but I've now been effectively neutered because I upheld the longstanding agreed-upon state of affairs at a highly sensitive article. If I can be punished for following policy properly and then effectively get blackmailed into sucking up to the person responsible for said punishment, I'm starting to wonder if all my contributions haven't been for naught. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WilliamH and EvanH: you should both be extending civility to each other, and neither of you should make that conditional on reciprocation. Right now we have a who-apologises-first row, which reflects badly on both of you.

WilliamH, the spat between you and EvanH at ANI is a separate issue to the removal of Evan's rollback flag. Please don't conflate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BHG here, which is why I was trying to politely persuade, rather than bludgeon WilliamH. Getting angry or pissy about it isn't going to fix the problem and only make things worse. Attaching conditions, in either direction, isn't particularly helpful either. Discussion is a good thing, drama is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's AWESOME that an encyclopedia is being edited by real live racists to disguise their real live racism under codewords. I think it's even AWESOMER that people trying to prevent this are being slapped around by administrators for using the wrong button. I think it's AWESOMIST that said slapper has decided that they will revisit their defense of real life racists only if the slappee stops being gracelessly sarcastic. Wait, no it's not. Can someone explain to me why WilliamH hasn't lost his admin tools for violating WP:ROLLBACK the way Evanh2008 lost his rollback tools for doing the same? Wait, hold that - it's because admins can do no wrong, even if they are obviously in the wrong, defending the most odious racists. Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I see nothing in WilliamH's actions to justify your accusation that he acted in "defense of real life racists". His position has been procedural: he did not believe that this was an appropriate use of the rollback tool. Please redact that comment, because it only impedes the likelihood of both editors climbing down off their high horses and sorting this out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again I agree. Adding more drama to the situation isn't shedding more light on the subject, and only makes matters worse. Good people can disagree about the proper response to a situation, and should be able to without the conversation degrading into questions of good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand the above attempts to politicise the Golden Rule. There are two ways of responding to something. One can take the option most editors take, which is what basically everyone does if my talk page archives are anything to go by, and is something along the lines of: "Actually, I very much feel that you have overlooked XYZ. Could you revisit it? Thanks.", or one can wallow in sanctimonious sarcasm. I would never argue that I am immune from making mistakes, but if people can't be graceful when pointing it out, I really can't be bothered to entertain them. WilliamH (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• William, regardless of your hard line on EvanH's incivility (which I think is mistaken), several of your fellow admins have politely asked you to review your action. You appear to be saying that you won't entertain our requests, and that is not a good place for an admin to be in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to wind this up

I propose that we:

1. WP:TROUT Evanh2008 (talk · contribs) for using rollback in a marginal situation
2. WP:TROUT WilliamH (talk · contribs) for removing rollback privileges because of their use in a marginal situation
3. WP:TROUT both WilliamH (talk · contribs) and Evanh2008 (talk · contribs) for mutual incivility and mutual unwillingness to take the first step in moving on from an easily-solved problem
4. Restore rollback privileges for Evanh2008 (talk · contribs).

Then close this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've previously left a message on Evan's talk page and talked with WH, and I personally think this just needs to cool down for a day. It has become a bit personal, in both directions, and I think that our continuing to hammer the issue is not likely to produce results, whereas a little time and patience will. Others may disagree, but I would suggest closing the discussion and handing it on talk pages instead. I would be happy to be a go-between in the issue if Evan would like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• No I'm not. I'm saying that I see no incentive to entertain his request. If he can't bring himself to be courteous with me, he should ask someone else. WilliamH (talk) 13:21, 19 June 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.

Continued harassment from User:Rinpoche

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.

---

Ever since he has been banned, he's returned under numerous occasions to come out and out against me, and now he's under the IP address 78.129.156.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to reveal my real name, and tells me that I'm someone that is completely not true. Yes, I've again filed another WP:SPI case against this for admins to take a good look. Now I don't know, but this continued harassment is using up my own goodwill and patience. This continued harassment against me constitutes long term cyber-bullying, and I would like this to be dealt with because it's apparent that this harassment is not stopping, and I feel this may seem to require a serious effort on the part of wikipedia sysops and higher authorities to track this individual and send the police there because this has gone on too far. I have stayed away from him as much as I can, but this, this is just unacceptable conduct. He's still shows no sign of understanding. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP at SPI, not sure what else we can do about Rinpoche, as we block on site when we find his socks. I had him blocked literally 2 minutes after it was filed, everything is revdel'ed. What else can we do? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Well, first of all, he's harassing my educational institution, and me on this website repeatedly and I'm sick of it. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Send the police there? Would that be a first here? Do you have other suggestions that admins could actually do? --Mollskman (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sincere, not trying to be snide, there just isn't anything much we could do. If we had a way to guarantee a puppetmaster couldn't come back, I could leave SPI and write more articles, but there is no way. I completely understand your frustration. We see the same cases over and over at SPI, and it is like a bad game of whack-a-mole. IPs are cheap, so are new accounts, it can't be prevented, only contained after the fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so I guess I over-reacted a bit, and I'm sorry about that. All I can say is that if he's continuing to play the dumbest feud in the world with me, I'm not interested. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I would try not to feed the troll since that is what they are after. I know its easier said than done. Good luck. --Mollskman (talk) 01:58, 19 June 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.

Removal of "disputed" tag from a disputed article

The neutrality of article Occupation of Baltic states is currently disputed by at least three users.

The Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV says: that an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert the "disputed" tag at the top of the article to display. The tag says:

'"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"

According this tag it should not be removed until the dispute is over. At the same time the other party conducts edit-war to remove the tag.

That way there is a need for administrator's intervention to keep the tag until the dispute is resolved.--UUNC (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

...and normally one follows WP:DR, which may include what I have done: protect the page so that you all discuss it on the article talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, my understanding was that one was permitted to re-add dispute tags through protection - that the default position was disputed if there was any dispute at all. Is that understanding not accurate? You'll want to contact ArbCom if my understanding is wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Igny was reported at AE after his 38th insertion of a pov-title tag on the article (and after he came off a lengthy topic ban thereon) (including his actual moves of the article). UUNC is a very new user with a preternatural grasp of Wikipedia noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Igny seems to be not experienced enough at Wikipedia battling unlike his opponents and thinks that he can be bold at reverting edits that obviously breach the rules. I hope he will take into account that there are other ways of enforcement.--UUNC (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Daren420c

I'm bringing this to ANI as history demonstrates Daren420c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will not respond to attempts to open discussion or correct his poor comprehension of policies.

The individual insists on inserting unverified info on Kane (wrestler) ([105], [106]) in violation of BLP as he believes a fansite, IMDb and a fan-made Twitter account are reliable sources for personal information on a subject.

Has a history of failing to understand Wikipedia policies - there have been numerous attempts made by various editors, including myself, to addess this individual on his talkpage over various issues, including reliable sourcing, ([107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]) but his preferred response is to delete messages and ignore concerns.

I have nonetheless tried to explain clearly why IMDb is not reliable for BLP info (I felt it self-explanatory why fake Twitter accounts created by fans are not reliable sources). The editor's response was to delete my message and revert me on the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

LouisPhilippeCharles operating sockpuppets on other language Wikipedias

• LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • sockpuppet HammyDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • sockpuppet Templatier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See the section "Locked talk page" All access by this account was locked across all Wikipedias at 23:29, 23 December 2010 (see lock log).

I am going through the 225 page moves instigated by two of the sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles that have been active this year. (See User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Moves made by two known sockpuppets)

I have recently reverted a move that was made by user:HammyDoo, a known sock puppet of LouisPhilippeCharles, to the page Claire Clémence de Maillé and came across evidence that LouisPhilippeCharles has been using sockpuppets on other language Wikipedias in violation of his lock across all Wikipedias.

HammyDoo moved Claire-Clémence de Maillé-Brézé to Claire Clémence de Maillé at 15:12 on 18 March 2012. At hour later at 16:19 (18 March 2012), EmausBot modified the same page (Robot: Modifying ca:Clara Clementina de Maillé, it:Claire-Clémence de Maillé, sv:Claire-Clémence de Maillé) this is a clear indication that LouisPhilippeCharles is also operating sockpuppets on other Wikipedia:

• ca:Clara Clementina de Maillé moved by HammyDoo
• it:Claire-Clémence de Maillé moved by HammyDoo
• sv:Claire-Clémence de Maillé move by HammyDoo

Could editors who are also active on other language Wikiepdias please inform administrators of those Wikipeidas that LouisPhilippeCharles is operating sockpuppets on those other Wikiepdias? A list of his know and suspected English language sockpuppets are available:

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles

--PBS (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that there is a contributor called fr:user:HammyDoo on the French wikipedia and I suspect he is the same one... 82.237.218.242 (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles ban

LouisPhilippeCharles has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia since 7 January 2011 an alteration to a one month ban imposed on 28 December 2010. It has been explained to LouisPhilippeCharles that if (s)he refrained from editing Wikiepdia for six months the block would probably been lifted. However since that time LouisPhilippeCharles has repeatedly used sock puppets, and has made thousands of edits (At the moment I am working through a back log of over 200 article moves by just two of his/her sockpuppets on the English Wikipedia).

I suggest that given his/her widespread use of sockpuppets both on this Wikipedia and on other language Wikiepdia that (s)he is incorrigible and that this indefinite block this is turned into a ban -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question What is he using his sockpuppets to do? Is it malicious, the requested moves, or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of the socks is irrelevant - block evasion is block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If the one random sock I looked up was representative, he is using them for pretty much the same thing he got originally blocked for: making large numbers of questionable, undiscussed page moves. So yes, the socks are disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See history of Azzo VI of Este it contains a classic example of LPC edit-warring over a page move. Notice the double move at 16:37 and two minutes later 16:39, 16 April 2012, this prevents an ordinary user move the page back to the original name and is a tactic the LPC has employed before. In this case a request was made to an administrator to get the move reverted. It was for behaviour like this that LPC was originally blocked several times with longer blocks each time, until the block was long enough that he started to use sockpuppets leading to an indefinite block. -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (a non-admin, who came here becasue I was asked to). LPC decided to anglicise French noble titles. I suggested on the page that PBS points to that we needed a policy on this, as it needs to be decided at more than the whim of a few editors (or just one - LPC - the subject of this discussion). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have informed most (all?) the administrators who have been involved in block/unblock requests for LPC and his/her confirmed sockpuppets that this ban discussion is being held. -- PBS (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• For what it is worth I do support a full site ban and a global ban since they are now operating on several projects. They are clearly unable to work cooperatively. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support a global ban here. This user is clearly not prepared to adhere to wikipedia guidelines or policy.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Siteban. Clearly causing more headaches than they're worth. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet more Echigo mole socks

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.

---

• G.W.Zinbiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• South Jutland County (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

The last set of sockpuppets, blocked by Cireland, led to an SPI request and a subsequent checkuser report by AGK, who unearthed four other possible sockpuppets. I added remarks about the edits those four sockpuppets. Now two of them, listed above, evidently the same user and almost without doubt socks of the community-banned editor Echigo mole, have been editing in concert. In the SPI report I mentioned that the second account had deleted a reference to Guillaume W. Zibniel.[116] The second account had created a redirect as Zinbiel algebra; I mentioned that (as it was unsourced) it should be deleted. A few hours after posting my report, G.W.Zinbiel, having discovered the French stub on Zinbiel algebra, replaced the redirect with an English translation. (Zibniel is a pseudonym of Jean-Louis Loday).South Jutland County then, with no prior contact with Zinbiel, posted a message on wikiproject mathematics about the new stub. His posting contains an oblique reference to my statement about deleting the redirect; he did not link to the SPI report and so his posting confused editors there.[117] He repeated that statement on the talk page of an editor who follows WikiProject Mathematics[118] and then posted a welcome message on User talk:G.W.Zinbiel.[119] (AGK has already indicated as checkuser that the two accounts are almost certainly operated by the same person.) There is no objection to the translated stub (even if it has very little content). However, given the chain of editing of the two socks following the checkuser report (including the pretence of a user from a UK IP being French-see G.W.Zinbiel's edit summaries), this unfortunately is Echigo mole. South Jutland County made the mistake of twice making references (oblique but trolling) to my statement in the SPI report about deleting the redirect ("Some doubt has been cast over the validity of this redirect Zinbiel algebra"). Please could both these accounts be blocked indefinitely? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there is an SPI case against these users, it is unclear why this needs to be brought up again here. However, since it has been raised in a second forum, some comments seem in order. Firstly we note that checkuser on the accounts named came up as "possible" -- this is very different from "almost certainly operated by the same person" and it is hard to see this as other than a misquotation. Another cause for concern is the description of the article Zinbiel algebra. This was originally described as a "trolling redirect which should be deleted". Now apparently this is reinterpreted as "as it was unsourced". Apart from the fact that redirects are rarely sourced, and now sources were requested at the redirect talk page, this second statement is in itself incorrect. The redirect pointed to Leibniz algebra which contained multiple sources for the term Zinbiel. It seems that Mathsci did not bother to either follow the redirect or to look the term up in any source: indeed, it seems that he was unaware of the existence of the corresponding article on the French wiki until he discovered it from the expansion of the redirect into an article which has been undertaken by multiple indeoendent editors. It would seem rather peculiar that he feels the need to edit the history of this little incident by giving a second and different account in this forum, since it might appear supremely irrelevant to the issue of the identity of the editors in question, were it not for the fact that Mathsci has characterised Echigo mole as almost completely ignorant of mathematics. That being so, in order to sustain his case against G.W.Zinbiel, he needs to demonstrate, to his own satisfaction at least, that Zinbiel is equally incapable of writing articles on mathematics. It seems that the consensus is against him on that. Recapitulation theory (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC) striking through trolling reply by another account identified by AGK as a probable sockpuppet of Echigo mole

And the above user created his account two days ago, his first edit was to create his user page, and 2nd and 3rd edits are to ANI and show good understanding of the website [120][121]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I'll just assume good faith and think that you editing experience as an IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You were right in your first reaction. This is a sockpuppet of Echigo mole that AGK had already idenitified in the SPI report, except they had not yet made any strange edits. Since this posting, as G.W.Zinbiel, they copy-pasted content from one article to another [122] as an attempt to display ability in graduate-level mathematics and then trolled here about it with the second account. Echigo mole's fingerprints are everywhere. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Trolling here by another CU-identified sockpuppet of Echigo mole

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

This editor, who has just left trolling comments above, was one of the four possible sockpuppet accounts of Echigo mole identified by checkuser (AGK) in the current Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. (Those four accounts were South Jutland County, Recapitulation theory, G.W.Zinbiel and C.D. Tondela.) That he appears here unprompted taking up the arguments of South Jutland County in the manner of Echigo mole is  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Please could the four accounts be indefinitely blocked? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 20 June 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.

"Twitter Users" articles

Hello Admins!
There have been discussions on some "Twitter users" related articles. List of Twitter users was Afded and later kept for not reaching a consensus. It was then proposed to be merged to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. See discussion here. The articles were redirected both ways by users and it doesn't seem like it would be sorted out without some uninvolved admin's stance. Too much of "Being Bold" going on there. Would hence request someone to close it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression from the discussion and related AFDs that there is a consensus to redirect. Not to mention the title being hugely misleading and duplicating content in the prose article. Could an uninvolved admin make the appropriate decision here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The AfD closed as no consensus, not as merge or redirect. The title can be changed if required (as I think it should be changed to List of Twitter accounts personally). There is content in the list that is not covered in the "use of" article, and are not covered in the scope of celebrities and politicians (eHorse books and Fiski Mini, a point which was not refuted in the merge discussion). While I reversed the redirect, and I do believe Dr. Blofeld was acting in good faith, I would still prefer to see someone uninvolved close the discussion properly, regardless of their decision may be. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for listing this here, Animeshkulkarni, so I could vote oppose in the discussion. But...why is this an incident exactly? The merge discussion should be closed in its own good time just like any other merge discussion. There doesn't appear to be anything out of control going on there, so long as people don't try to edit war redirects while there is a discussion ongoing. Silverseren^C 11:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was moved twice (i don't remember exactly), in good or whatever faith. Merger discussion and the previous AfD aren't/weren't much fruitful. Even if there is no consensus, i see it as our failure to have two articles of one and the same thing. (Yeah yeh Kelapstick, Horse guy and Mini Fish are not politicians; you said it 6th time here. But there are already tonnes of pages to write their names on.) Further more, merger discussions are not listed on Project alert pages (Are they?!) and thus are likely to go un-noticed. Hence instead of going to an admin that i know and then be blamed for wrongful canvassing or whatever, i thought of coming here. In case you find this a procedural fault, you may move this request to some other suitable page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Gawd! This caught attention of one Admin; who went and voted there. Anyone who can resist opining and just close it? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Michigan kid (reviisited)

99.181.151.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)} has posted a few short attacks against me on user talk pages. Note that the last is to the talk page of a permanently (not just indefinitely) blocked editor. I'm not going to delete them, because (1) I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, and (2) Removing similar rants (well, not attacks against me, but attacks against Wikipedia) was one of the things he's complaining about.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no point in warning the IP; it's unlikely it will be used again, and even less likely it will be used by the same person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Its been used on Political activities of the Koch family and Anti-Mormonism. (Both edits occurred after the attacks) It appears like XB70Valyrie has already begun his workaround. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the Michigan Kid, rather than XB70Valyrie. Of course, we don't know that they aren't the same person, and I'm not sure this would be an appropriate use of CHECKUSER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it fails WP:DUCK, though: XB70 seems literate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe it is XB70. Arzel (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we do need a CHECKUSER, then. Detecting bypassing a block, even if it cannot be prevented, seems a reasonable use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like most or all of the IPs starting with 99.181 are the same person, and I also feel like there's a decent chance that person is XB70Valyrie. These 2 IPs are definitely the same because one created this section and the other replied as if he was the original poster. If you look at the history of that page, there are lots of posts by IP's in the 99.181 range and it would be a big coincidence if they were not the same person. When XB70 was having the conversation about Arthur on his own talk page, most of the posts were from IPs in that range as well, so he could very likely have been having a conversation with himself. This one is from the same poster that was on the climate change page that wanted to include negative information about the Koch's, which was a main goal of XB70. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the 99.181 editor frequently talked to himself. Maybe we do need a checkuser to look for IPs; even though the CHECKUSER wouldn't reveal which IPs are established to be XB70. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban Omarlegend1

He was vandalizing Syrian uprising to a serious amount. He also has had a history of vandalizing and putting un-sources info into pages, and has been blocked once before for 48 hours, but that din't stop him. He could possibly be a sock of ChronicalUsual. Thanks. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have notifed the editor in question properly - this was not good enough, I'm afraid. There us a template you can use in future, {{ANI-notice}}. GiantSnowman 15:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Further - there is a difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN and a WP:TOPICBAN - which of these are you proposing? You should also provide diffs to evidence the problematic behaviour. GiantSnowman 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, how was Jacob102699 notification not good enough? I would expect you to know better being an admin but I guess not? --Mollskman (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It didn't actually inform Omarlegend1 where the discussion was taking place... GiantSnowman 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But he did tell them was an ongoing discussion, just it didn't link to the right page. No biggie.--Mollskman (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, quite a biggie - what's the use in telling someone you've started a discussion about them but not actually where, meaning they can't provide their side of the story? Hardly better than not telling them anyting at all. GiantSnowman 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I sort of meant no biggie on my part. Would having said there is a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board, without link, been suffiecient in your eyes? Just curious, thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Really, {{ANI-notice}} should be used. There is a large yellow bar at the top of this edit window reminding an editor that the ANI-notice template can be used. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But that isn't required, correct? --Mollskman (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Other than the big red "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" warning sign at the top of the page? GiantSnowman 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, sorry, I was referring to being required to use the ANI notice template, which is not a requirement, correct? --Mollskman (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The message in that notification diff actually provided more information than the standard AI notice, so I would say it is perfectly acceptable. And it did include a link to this board, which is also what the standard AI notice does, it doesn't contain a link to the exact discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, my message does that - the OP's does not. But we are losing sight of why we are here - the OP has yet to clarify what he is seeking and why it should be granted. GiantSnowman 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think he does, if you interpret. He just hasn't provided any diffs. He claims that the user Omarlegend1 is disrupting pages related to the current Syrian uprising, through vandalism and unsourced claims. He also says that Omarlegend1 has been given a 48-hour block at a prior time for this sort of activity, and he's asked for a "ban" which I take to mean a topic ban. Finally, he suggests that Omarlegend1 might be a sock of ChronicalUsual. To deal with this: for disruption, Jacob needs to provide links to evidence regarding Omarlegend's behavior on the subject. For sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is thataway. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said - he asked for a "ban." That could mean a ban, or a topic ban, or maybe another block. GiantSnowman 10:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

User:128.178.244.165

User:128.178.244.165 seems very upset about the software company (Babylon (software)), they are advising starting a class action suit on the talk page, [123] which, as I understand, is not how the talk page is supposed to be used. Plus they have almost broken the 3RR. Сол-раз (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious. Would WP:NLT apply? :) DarkAudit (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't know, that's why I brought this up here. Сол-раз (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NLT applies here, as the IP is not threatening to employ litigation, but rather he's suggesting others to sue — also, they would not sue the Foundation or another editor, so, a fortiori, NLT should not apply. My suggestion would be to either ignore it or just remove it. Regarding WP:EW, we have to assume they do not know about edit warring, so just drop a {{subst:uw-ew}} and, if they continue, I'll block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have only just discovered this edit war, but I have posted a warning here. As this IP made about 4 reverts I was initially going to refer this to An3, but as this IP hasn't been warned I'll just drop a note anyway. Minima© (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just semi-protected the Babylon article -- this has been going on for a while. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call, SarekOfVulcan! Сол-раз (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I was just hoping an admin would do so. now let users consider this edit war seriously. I've seen too many people giving up editing this page when they realized they were unable to make a contribution, which would slightly not be an ad for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.244.165 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong, I have no intention to do so. I was just wondering how long this situation could continue as users and customers seem to be fooled every day. This is why it was in the talk page, and lots of people mentioned the same problem as I did. Just let me expose the problem. I am just seeing that about everything which is, from near and far, not a "positive" contribution, although based on objective facts, about Babylon is constantly being removed by the same people over time. Complaints of (millions of) users, and criticism on the company's policy are not a "minor", "non-neutral", "personal", "not proved" thing, and if the article has an "awards" section, it should also be mentioned the customer reviews. Which are poor due to one main fact : the adware binded with Babylon is not (intentionally ?) properly removed when uninstalling it. (Home page and search engine constantly set to search.babylon) This would classify the software as a malware until they don't resolve this issue. In the mean time, they make money on the million people's back who lack the technical knowledge to remove it easily. There are other critisms about it but please refer to Babylon removed part for an overview. So the worst thing the page is constantly watched for anything which could soil the company's image. The entire section is removed, so please refer to (speedy deletion) on wikipedia before doing it. Сол-раз is one of the user who has removed these controversial parts. Just having a look a the Talk page of the article makes you see how hard plenty of people tried to report the "inconvenient" truth the company doesn't want on its page, leaving nothing but a promotional article. It is a shame for wikipedia users are only seeing a part of the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.244.165 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You have to provide WP:RS that says such things--Shrike (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just google it. Look on CNET reviews. Type "babylon malware" on insights. Even microsoft listed the program as a malware (which they don't anymore). You have hundreds of thousands of pages, even million which explain how annoying and intrusive the software is after uninstalling it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.244.165 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Many google hits do not count. Reliable sources do. If they're present, add them to the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://blog.yoocare.com/hijacked-by-search-babylon-com-remove-search-babylon-com-virus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.244.165 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI harassment

Towards the end of April, I filed an AE regarding user:Oncenawhile. On the 23 May, Oncenawhile opened an SPI against me with the suspected puppet being 74.198.87.103. This was found to be unrelated. He was advised of a sockpuppeteer that was consistent with this IP.

Despite this, on 11 June, he opened another SPI against me and amongst the farrago of suspects, he once again sought to link me with this very IP. In addition he listed two accounts (Tutangamon and Jabotito48) that had already been identified in a previous SPI case as belonging to another sockpuppeteer and had already been blocked at the time of his report. Finally, he listed an IP (91.180.72.97) that I had previously tried to take SPI proceedings against, as part of the Belgian IP range which he also included. The clerk Dennis Brown stated that it "looks like fishing to me."

I do not wish to have to defend myself against petty, tenuous SPI cases that are patently groundless and ignore previous findings. Please advise.Ankh.Morpork 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would have to recuse myself and offer no comment on this ANI discussion as I'm involved in the last SPI investigation as a clerk trainee, but will verify my statement above and note that I just closed the last SPI due to a lack of connectability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant of whether CheckUser is requested, it is expected at SPI that when you file a case, you use diffs to explain i) how the accounts/ip addresses belong to one individual and ii) how they are being used abusively. In light of the facts that Oncenawhile does not appear to have done that, and that in the wider context, there does not appear to be any grounds for an SPI to be filed, I suggest to Oncenawhile that he refrains from filing frivolous cases if he wants to keep his ability to edit Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankh misstates the case when he writes that Once "opened another SPI against [him]". What Once wrote, quite correctly, was that he didn't know who the sockmaster was, but that there were a lot of IPs and obvious socks (e.g. Kipa Aduma, Esq.) at an article that's normally pretty quiet, with fewer than 100 edits in three years, with focus on supporting Ankh's position.

I'd have felt frustrated, too. Kipa Aduma, Esq. is certainly someone's newly-created sock, and Jabotito48 and Tutangamon were only blocked as socks recently, while most or all of the IPs are probably banned users. Of course Once should have checked the accounts and IPs he listed for existing blocks more carefully; I assume he just felt exasperated by the high level of socking going on at that article, and was thus less thorough than he should have been.

That carelessness was poor practice, but since probably 20% or more of the accounts and anons active in the I/P area at any given time are socks, I think it's also just very poor practice to discourage anyone from filing an SPI if they feel they have the grounds to do so. Such requests are the only resource we have to try to deal with a problem that's nearly swamping the topic area, and until the Foundation comes up with some serious way to address the problem, we should all file more rather than fewer SPIs. Given the current situation re socking, it's my opinion that it's just not helpful to the project for anyone to take offence at being mentioned in an SPI; YMMV. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile appears to have a personal vendetta against AnkhMorpork that borders on obsessive. It started with this inquisitive and rather nebulous question on Ankh’s Talk page and quickly escalated barely a month later to his first SPI against AnkhMorpork. That SPI resulted in  Unrelated[124] But oncenawhile was unsatisfied and continued with his badgering by filing the instant spurious SPI.

There are three elements in Oncenawhile’s SPI that evidence bad faith in the extreme and classic BATTLEGROUND behavior. First, of the the noted IPs in the instant SPI, some geolocate to Belgium while others to Toronto. Two other named puppets, Jabotito48 and Tutangamon, edit from Argentina. Unless, Ankh is the host of Globe Trekker it is ludicrous to assume that he is the master. Second, Oncenawhile had already been unequivocally told that IP 74.198.87.103 has nothing to do with AnkhMorpork [125] yet he included it again in the instant report. Third, one of the accounts that Oncenawhile included as Ankh’s puppet is 91.180.72.97. The absurdity of this is that Ankhmorpork actually brought a case against that particular IP for socking [126] and Oncenawhile, who obsessively watches Ankh was aware of this.

This behavior should not be tolerated in any forum. It amounts fishing and harassment. It is disruptive in the extreme and wastes everyone’s time. The accused is required to devote time to defend against it and administrators whose thankless job it is to patrol these boards are required to expend needless time to investigate, respond and close.

Oncenawhile has done this once. The first time he gets a free pass. Now he does it again. Does he get another free pass?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The same thing happened to me recently. I had a dispute with other editors and an SPI was filed on me. I knew it would fail or I could have had closed it with an office action. It was still a pain in the butt to have to defend myself from wikidrama.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• The fact is, the page in question has seen a number of sock accounts (some now blocked) edit warring in favour of Ankhmorpork's position. This activity is highly detrimental to achieving a consensus on the page. Ankmorpork is not correct in saying that a second case was filed against him. In fact Oncenawhile filed a case listing a number of suspected accounts that had edit warred in favour of Ankh's position. He categorically said that "I do not claim to know who the puppetmaster is..." It seems to me that Oncenawhile was making an honest attempt to address a very real problem on the page in question and in the I-P topic area in general. Also I find Jiujitsuguy's righteous indignation to be a little hard to swallow, given that after several content disputes with me he filed a SPI investigation against me [127], which turned out to be entirely unfounded. Instead of accepting the decision and moving on JJG decided to start making totally unfounded allegations about me being a sock on other users talk pages. [128].Dlv999 (talk) 3:15 pm, Today (UTC 5.5)

Oh - I hadn't noticed that before but in that last diff JJG is again accusing me of being a sock despite the fact that the SPI cleared me. I thought he was just being uncivil to my face but hadn't realised that he was maligning me behind my back on other users talk pages as well. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, yes: As Dlv999 reiterates, Once did state very clearly that he wasn't making any assertion as to who the puppetmaster might be, and no one suspects it was Ankh, at this point. On the contrary, Ankh is the only editor who consistently supports Israel's current policies that I've ever seen call out an obvious pro-Israeli sock, and he's to be commended for that. I'm sure there must have have been others who have done the same, i.e. called out socks that favour their own usual POV, but I've not seen that. More usually they seem to be welcomed with open arms.

But, as was pointed out to me privately, despite his statement that the puppetmaster was unknown, Once also appended the 11 June request to the already-existing Ankhmorpork page. That was an understandable action, given that many of the socks seemed to be supporting Ankh, but it certainly wasn't the brightest idea I've ever seen, either. I wouldn't want any editor to take that as an acceptable practice, but I'm also willing to AGF to the extent of supposing that his doing so was lazy rather than anything intentionally sinister, and was probably motivated in part by the frustrating (and ridiculous/deleterious, imo) requirement that one has to name at least a pro-forma sockmaster in filing an SPI.

When a new, obvious sock shows up in a hotly contested topic area, though, there's no reason we should have to guess whose sock it is, as I see it. That requirement just stirs up drama, and is entirely unnecessary. Many of us have struggled with the problematic nature of that requirement for some time, actually, e.g. about how to deal with "throwaway" or "day use" accounts, often revived as "sleepers" months or years later. ( See this discussion, for example. ) These accounts purposely limit their editing to short bursts so their editing patterns can't be recognised and affiliated with any known sockmaster.

Really, these kinds of hard feelings and false positives are built into the current system, in that it's required to identify a likely sockmaster, a task that can take hours or days, compared to the sixty seconds or so that it takes to create a new sock. Besides, with so much off-wiki canvassing for new pro-Zionist editors ( something Jiujitsuguy can't truthfully deny having done himself, having written at least one article in an international magazine to do so, btw ) by such a wide variety of hasbara organisations, editors in the topic area are just tired of it. It's wrong to vent that at any particular editor, but it should be understandable, too, when every fourth or fifth editor that one interacts with in the topic area is a sock, whether a named account or an anon. We're supposed to assume good faith, and I support that, but when bad faith is so extremely rampant in a topic area, and the Foundation is steadfastly unwilling to address the problem, it has to be realised that these kinds of problems will keep arising.

And as for assertions that an editor mustn't suggest an IP represents an editor who's known to reside in an entirely different location, that's just gratuitous. Anyone with enough resources and motivation can create the appearance of dozens of independent users; we have some prolific sockmasters who do so regularly, and it'd be foolishly naive not to recognise that national governments do this all the time. The U.S. put up a spec on a GSA request-for-proposals website that I saw around 18 months ago for software and infrastructure to make it easier to create undetectable socks for the stated purpose of influencing public opinion in Iraq and Afghanistan. It'd be hard to maintain with a straight face that the government of Singapore didn't have around a dozen socks watching over the Wikipedia pages for candidates in its sham "elections" not long ago.

And coming back to the extremely contentious Israel/Palestine topic area, Wikimedia Israel even gives editing lessons to Israel's official government propaganda (aka "hasbara") arm, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a demonstration of utter contempt for our COI rules. It'd be completely foolish, just extremely naive to imagine that the Ministry doesn't have the motive, will, and ability to hide its participation in the topic area, or that other national governments and well-financed partisan groups don't, as well.

So, again, as things currently stand, and until the Foundation decides to get serious about the rampant problem of socking, it will remain my opinion that it's selfish and irresponsible for any established edtior to object to the minor inconvenience of having to deal with being named in an SPI. It's my opinion that doing so elevates one's own personal needs above the good of the encyclopaedia.

I'll even go further than that, actually: If anyone suspects an account or IP of socking, feel free to name me as the pro-forma sockmaster in any SPI. I'll not object in the least. If that's not sufficient, I'll even give checkusers a plausible rationale to run their tools by saying here that I run tens of thousands of sock accounts, and am responsible for almost all the socking that occurs on Wikipedia, in all topic areas. We should automatically and regularly run checkuser tests against all accounts and IPs anyway, in my opinion, and flag the possible hits for further review. That wouldn't solve the problem of technically sophisticated sockmasters, but it would certainly help overall, and help avoid these kinds of kerfuffles and the hard feelings they often give rise to, as well. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I too find JiuJitsuGuy's righteous indignation to be nothing short of comic since he was involved in claiming I was a puppet when I first started editing, hounded me on my talk page at the time, and continues to refuse to interact with me or engage with my comments other than by making veiled references to the fact that he still considers me a sock. But, hell, why just have standards when you can have double standards. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy's behavior in this regard is significantly worse than anything Oncenawhile has done. It is a reflection of the current dysfunctional state of the topic area, that he feels it is appropriate to come here and agitate against oncenawhile rather than keep a low profile in light of his own actions. Dlv999 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy isn't going around filing SPIs at his opponents, now is he. He filed one against Dlv999 for understandable reasons – Dlv999 joined the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area not that long ago, edits only in the topic area and nowhere else on Wikipedia, and appears daily at articles where his account never contributed before consistently advocating for one side of the dispute. It's not uncommon behavior for editors in the topic area and not necessarily disruptive, but when a new user appears and is as prolific an editor as Dlv is, it should come as no surprise that someone'll want to alleviate concerns he may be an incarnation of a banned editor.

BHB's story isn't that different, and an editor refusing to interact with him is not an example of misconduct. There are editors I don't have interactions with: sometimes it's just better for the topic area that way.

Oncenawhile's case is different. This is the second SPI he's filed against Ankh and it's altogether a decidedly frivolous and WP:BATTLEGROUND SPI considering the nature of the first one. There are socks in the topic area. Some of them may be commenting in this very discussion. You try once, it doesn't work, you move on and live with it. If there's something amiss, someone else'll probably pick up on it before long. You don't keep filing SPIs as a tool to eliminate an editor because you perceive him to be a threat to a POV you're trying to promote.—Biosketch (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of evidence by Biosketch, which seems to become a pattern of editors agitating for administrative action against editors they disagree with in the topic area. Jiujitsuguy filed a case against me, which proved to be unfounded, then continued to make further allegations without supplying any evidence - not in the correct forum, but on other users talk pages. It seems odd that you think it is okay for editors who you agree with to continue to make unfounded allegations on user talk pages after a failed SPI case. But for editors you disagree with you allege battleground behavior for filing an SPI case in the correct forum. Your reasons for declaring my account suspect could almost entirely be applied to User Ankhmorpork's account, which is newer than mind, and more active in the I-P topic area. In my case these reasons are grounds for legitimate suspicion, but in the case of User Ankhmorpork you are claiming that any suspicion of sock puppetry is "frivolous" and evidence of battleground behavior. The double standards displayed by those agitating against Oncenawhile are extremely galling. It is my personal opinion that this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is far more troublesome and disruptive to the topic area and the project than anything that has been alleged against Oncenawhile. Dlv999 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No User:Dlv999, what you're saying actually isn't true at all and the double standard you perceive is entirely a figment of your imagination. Ankh has contributed extensively outside the topic area. He's edited the Terry Pratchett article, Of Mice and Men, UEFA Euro 2012, and other articles altogether unrelated to the topic area. I'm more sympathetic towards editors who aren't addicted to and obsessed with the topic area and who establish that they have other reasons for being Wikipedia contributors than to further a political cause they're passionate about. When you demonstrate that you're such an editor, you'll earn the same respect as well.—Biosketch (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Editors file SPI reports because they think someone may be a sockpuppet. That is what they are supposed to do. They may not know how to do it well in which case they should be helped. Ankh says "I do not wish to have to defend myself". Editors who are the subject of an SPI report don't need to defend themselves. What should happen is that editors and admins help eachother to identify sockpuppets, prepare evidence, file SPIs/run CUs etc, so that everyone is contributing to the eradication of sockpuppetry. The editors complaining about Oncenawhile could have offered to help him. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand (and I'm not saying it's happened here) repeated filing of SPIs in which large numbers of parties are apparently randomly listed as socks without regard to previous SPIs, the requirement to provide diffs etc, can be disruptive, and the clerks are at liberty to shelve such. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean, so the advice and help I should have provided should have been something like: "Read the contradictory results of the previous SPI you just filed, see that two of the users listed are already blocked and have been identified as belonging to someone else, see that I myself have filed an SPI against the IPs that you somehow think I am connected with, and why the fuck have you decided to attach this latest investigation to my SPI page - the one that you gratuitously created"? Ankh.Morpork 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could have contacted him directly and politely ("why the fuck" is close enough to polite in my world) pointed out the errors in the report rather than coming to ANI or responding at SPI. You could work with Oncenawhile to help him make the topic area better. Apparently he is trying to do that by filing an SPI (and he got lucky because there is a sock in that report as far as I'm concerned who will hopefully be dealt with in due course). SPI harassment you say ? Well, he didn't call you a Communist-Nazi anti-Semite and threaten to kill your family etc etc (a fairly routine experience for some editors in the topic area) so I think you are overreacting a little. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There are other ways editors could help too. Sockpuppets are often attracted by aggressive editing/edit wars and like to participate. So, if you could tone down your rather aggressive style of editing it might help. For example, you made 4 edits to add an article to the see also sections in 4 articles that were reverted. You reverted the reverts with the edit summary See WP:SEEALSO Links "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article" and allow readers to "explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." rather than initating a discussion per WP:CONSENSUS. SEEALSO also says that it is "a matter of editorial judgment" and the person who reverted you is an editor who is entitled to participate in the editorial judgment just like you. Rather than being aggressive you could open a discussion at WP:IPCOLL since it involves several articles. Luckily edit warring didn't break out but these are the kind of little things that trigger it and attract sockpuppets. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. If you actually read the SPI you will observe that I did point out the glaring failings of his report and his disregard of previous findings, to which he rather pathetically responded to and still wished to proceed with the report. If somebody needs that sort of advice, that raises clear competence issues, and if somebody then selects to ignore this advice and proceed, cognisant of its failings, this is sheer harassment. This had nothing to do with "mak(ing) the topic area better"; it was a conscious attempt to remove an editor that did not align himself with the POV he was seeking to promote. Ankh.Morpork 14:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that your assumption bad faith and malicious intent Oncenawhile's actions can be justified by the facts in front of us. Dlv999 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have considerable sympathy for your position Ankh and felt much the same way when I had an SPI filed against myself rather gratuitously. At the time I certainly felt that it constituted harassment but that was mainly because I felt obliged to waste my time defending myself against the accusations. I didn't realise until afterwards that there is really very little need to say anything at all (except in response to bullshit 'duck' claims that try to avoid checkuser confirmation) and that I could have said pretty much nothing and still had the same result occur because it was determined entirely by technical data. My (possibly poorly informed) point is that whilst it certainly feels like a hostile act to be so accused you don't actually need to waste time defending yourself (as I currently understand it) and this fact takes quite a lot of the sting out of such actions.BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the report and as Elen says, clerks are at liberty to shelve malformed reports, and that is what has happened in this case. What triggers the filing of a report is perceived disruption caused by sockpuppetry, so there is going to disruption whatever happens, either in article space, at SPI, or both. Try not to lose sight of the cause, the actual problem, which is sockpuppetry, not editors like Oncenawhile who are at least trying to do something about it. It's not possible to remove an editor because of their POV using an SPI report. AE is where editors go to remove editors because of a perceived issue resulting from their POV. SPI can only remove editors who have been identified as sockpuppets. This is obvious and I think we can assume that Oncenawhile understands this. If someone suspects that one or more editors might be sockpuppets they are supposed to do something about it. There isn't a team of experienced editors/admins they can turn to for help preparing an SPI case or who could filter out unlikely cases. Support is rather disorganized which is a pity given that sockpuppetry in the I-P topic area is so bad that an editor really can randomly pick 10 accounts/IPs and they will have a very good chance of including a sock. Editors are required to specify a sockmaster even though they very often don't know or care who the sockmaster is. Why should they care ? They just want someone to check for socks and get rid of them. That is how it should work but it doesn't. Oncenawhile picked you as sockmaster but said that he didn't know whether it was you. He just wants someone to help him check for and remove socks from the topic area. Clearly he is unaware of what is required to submit requests that clerks are willing to process and extent of Wikipedia's inability to deal with sockpuppetry via SPI. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the most vicious destructive scenarios that often goes unchecked in Wikipedia is using the Wikipedia mechanisms, policies, guidelines to CONDUCT obsessive warfare. One of the nastiest forms of wiki-lawyering. The fact that it is via mis-use (not blatant violation) of those mechanisms is why it often goes unchecked. It appears that there is a possibility that this is happening to AnkhMorpork and I would suggest that that bigger picture possibility be taken seriously. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Oncenawhile

Apologies for the delay in responding.

AnkhMorpork and I have a lot in common - neither of us wish to spend time defending ourselves against apparently spurious formal complaints. Ankh believes that my SPI was spurious, and I believe that his complaint here was spurious. I am happy to agree to disagree. Having said that, I do not intend to build a case against Ankh in order to defend myself, just as I did not attempt to do so when Ankh filed a spurious AE against me. As I said on his talk page at the time (see User_talk:AnkhMorpork#Hi_Again), I don't take these things personally.

The only thing I do want to say is to confirm a point that a number of insightful users made above - the two SPIs I made were not "against" AnkhMorpork, as not a single one of my comments was directed "at" him. Nowhere did I claim that the other editors were socks of Ankh, only that they were supporting Ankh's position in the same slow-burn edit war, helping him to evade 1RR on multiple occasions. To my reading, noone here has suggested that it was spurious to suggest that the accounts and IPs I listed were socks. Just not proven socks of Ankh, which I never suggested.

Anyway, again I'd like to again confirm that I have no hard feelings towards Ankh, and Ankh, I apologise that my SPI cast unfounded suspicion on you.

Now, what is more interesting to me is the following conundrum. There is no doubt that many socks were involved at 1929 Palestine riots. What should I have done to report this appropriately? And is there any chance wikipedia can ever solve this problem?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to statement

I have a few queries on your statement that "the two SPIs I made were not "against" AnkhMorpork, as not a single one of my comments was directed "at" him. Nowhere did I claim that the other editors were socks of Ankh, only that they were supporting Ankh's position in the same slow-burn edit war."

1. Why did you see fit to name me twice as the sockpuppeteer which contradicts your above statement?
2. You state in your first SPI that "Two out of three are articles which AnkhMorpork has been Edit Warring on...", how is this "not a a single one of my comments was directed "at" him" and do you accept that this could be interpreted as personally motivated?
3. When I was visibly disturbed by the filing of the second report in my name and detailed the absurdity of my involvement, why did you not clarify then that "Nowhere did I claim that the other editors were socks of Ankh" and the SPI in my name was accidental, and instead refer to "Anonymizers"?
4. Do you agree in the future to avoid mentioning my name in connection with socking? Ankh.Morpork 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ankh, answers to your questions below:

1. As I said above, the incidents were related, as the 1RR evasions related to the same edit war on the same article. I tried to make my comments clear so that readers would understand that I was not directly accusing you.
2. By comments, I was referring to comments relating to the SPI. The edit war is a separate issue - you have been edit warring (it seems you do not understand how wp:consensus works)
3. Because whoever was behind the socks was almost certainly using anonymizers. It seems many admins are happy to conclude that because a group of editors and IPs are from different locations, that means they cannot be socks of each other. That is obviously not the case.
4. Of course not. If I think you are socking in future, I will say so.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you named me as the sockpuppeteer if you claim that"the two SPIs I made were not "against" AnkhMorpork". Even if I accept your premises that I was edit-warring, the IP were all supporting my position, and were being illicitly used to evade 1rr, why does that translate into me being named sockpuppeteer and the case being opened in my name? These are two distinct issues that do not affect one another contrary to your conflations. Ankh.Morpork 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as you said - you were (still are?) edit-warring, the SPAs were (and are still) supporting your position, and were being illicitly used to evade 1rr. I think we all accept that those SPA accounts are socks (another one involved appears to have been banned yesterday), so I had to report it. As I believe you acknowledge, my written comments were clear that I was not accusing anyone of being the sockpuppeteer. Whose name should I have put the SPI in instead then?

More importantly than our mutual hurt feelings, what do you think we should do about the SPAs and socks who continue to plague the 1929 Palestine riots page? Where should we go for help to solve the problem?

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, c'mon, now, Once: I understand that even dealing with each other might feel like a heat lamp on a sunburn at this point, for you both, that you both feel you've been treated with disrespect by the other, & etc. We've all been there, from time to time. But moving from Ankh's "Even if I accept your premises ..." to your "Exactly as you said - you were (still are?) edit-warring..." was beneath your usual standard of dignity. Can you both please just try to let it go, at this point, as hard as that feels? I don't mean to dismiss the validity of either of your concerns, but if you guys weren't personally involved, I bet you'd each recommend the same thing to two other editors interacting the way you have done, here.

As for your concern, Once, about whom to name as pro-forma puppet master in a similar circumstance in the future, that's not really a question that Ankh should be expected to calmly answer at this point, given all the strife that's gone by over this, and given that he's felt unfairly singled out, quite understandably, by your choice in that regard. I fully recognise socking is a tremendous problem, but you're more likely to get a productive dialogue going about that at WT:SPI ( the checkuser's office water cooler, as I understand ) than you are by continuing this here, imo. Suppose we all take a few deep breaths, and reconvene there in a day or two? Again, I don't mean to dismiss anyone's concerns, I just think the admittedly very important questions still outstanding could be more productively addressed there at this point, than here. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohio, thanks for your post. I agree with everything you have said, including your criticism of me which I accept without reservation.

Looking forward to helping to find a solution to the root of this at WT:SPI. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity question

Call me an idiot (you wouldn't be the first), but I'm hard pressed to understand how someone opening an SPI against someone else really amounts to "harassment", from a practical standpoint. I've had a couple filed against me, and they were laughed out of court, so to speak, because I don't do socking. But even if they filed one every day and twice on Sunday, how would it be "harassment"? You don't have to do anything. And if the checkuser takes the case, and confirms the guy's not a sock, all well and good. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear from an SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In my case the editor that filed the laughable report that failed linked it on other pages. This included the talk page of a BLP, the dispute resolution page about the BLP, and I think other pages that I couldn't be bothered to look up right now. He did get in shit for mentioning the SPI on other pages and may have had private STFU messages sent to him as well. I think he was trying to use the SPI in a way that would actually affect opinions of other editors about the BLP dispute. I did label it as harrassment for this and asked admin to examine his edits a little closer. He hasn't edited much in a few days, so maybe he did STFU.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As you see, frivolous sockpuppet claims have a way of boomeranging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally I would agree with this. However, I am somewhat concerned about SPIs that try to rely on a duck test rather than technical data. I don't know if blocks are ever handed out purely on this basis but if they are then such cases could be highly problematic as they would require an active defence. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say blocks are often handed out when they pass the duck test, as it's usually blatantly obvious when they're the same guy. If it's not obvious, then it doesn't pass the duck test, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only have users been blocked based solely on the duck test, in several cases this has been done based on secret evidence without any record of the proceedings. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it has to be done behind the scenes, so as not to tip off the sockmaster as to how the connection was made. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He is back at it again. Another newer editor (Dec 6/11) posted an opinion on the BLP talk page. I responded on the BLP talk page and the sock accuser responded on my talk page and others. It seems he my open another SPI on this editor, even though I am sure it is not a sock of the others. Good way to scare away new editors?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, a frivolous SPI is definitely harassment. Sure, one can laugh it off when it comes up repeatedly negative, but nonetheless, it stays on your record as a sign of suspicion long after the filer has been forgotten. For some reason, the mark is never removed. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What "mark" on one's record? There's an SPI report which is archived, and anyone looking at it will see that it was frivolous. There's nothing in the block log. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It would only be a "mark" if a block was issued when it shouldn't have been - but then the unblock message would typically have an, "Oops, we messed up." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You ask what is the practical standpoint involved and I agree that in isolation, a frivolous SPI does not substantially affect things in actual terms. However what is unpleasant is being the constant target of an editor's animus regardless of how bothersome his actions are. The misuse of Wikipedia policies, guidelines in an battleground manner for an improper purpose is something that should not be evaluated through using an 'extent of damage' measure but is intrinsically objectionable. Even if I was have remained unknowledgeable of the SPI filings until after their conclusions, I would still be aggrieved to later discover these actions that I consider to be unjustifiable considering their groundless and vindictive circumstances. As an illustration, most sanctionable personal attacks do not cause actual offence or harassment from a "practical standpoint", but they reveal a combative intent and an inability to operate in accordance with the required behavioural standards. In the same vein, the wiki-lawyering and misuse of the SPI mechanisms for a personal agenda should not be trivialised.Ankh.Morpork 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, the best reaction to a bogus SPI is laughter. "You filed an SPI on me? How lame can you get?" (Said in the privacy of your wiki editing location, of course.) Online, just ignoring it and depriving the editor the pleasure of knowing they're getting to you is the best "revenge." (And it's less work.) Nobody Ent 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. Perhaps we need a 3SPI rule as well as a 3Afd rule like the 3rr one. I have just seen a 4th Afd closed for the same article. All within a month, I think. The laughs do increase, but it can be considered harrassment as well when editors use SPI and Afd, etc to flame each other for things they can't say on BLP talk pages. I had a similar thing happen to me on commons when I closed 3 deletion requests that were withdrawn by the nominator. Another editor filed an ANI over there that was mostly ignored by admin, and finally closed, with me being in the right about closing the DRs. We ended up in flame and edit wars all over commons. I think he was stalking my edits to try and piss me off to the point where I might do something blockable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're being hassled relentlessly by some user, you need not deal with it all by yourself. Raise the issue here, or notify your most trusted admin (off-wiki, if necessary) and ask whether something can be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I may do that if they start up again. I think they may be using meat puppets and IP edits as well. They have been here longer and seem to have a few admin that listen to them. I will email a bureaucrat in that case, or a few higher I have dealt with at WMF.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Article on Sōka Gakkai

Could somebody please look into the history of entries in the section “perception and criticism of SGI” within the article on Soka Gakkai (please also take a look at the talk page)? I informed the other editors on the article’s talk and user's page that I will contact the Administrators' noticeboard. In my eyes the repeated deletion of referenced critical issues is close to vandalism. At this point it has an irrational quality to even try to discuss issues though. The neutrality of the article could also be disputed--Catflap08 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please help Admin Arthur Rubin

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

---

Arthur Rubin randomly deletes articles without respecting deletion policies and accused me of vandalism. Further information here: [Arthur Rubin, Abusive Admin on Wikipedia. Contact Wikipedia Directly] --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you make that video? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Having watched it, I don't see any actual evidence presented in that video, just a rant from someone who's been offended in a dispute. Since the video does nothing but encourages others to contact the WMF to complain about Arthur, is this not just an attack post? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• All I see are articles that, as Arthur Rubin rightly pointed out, should either not exist or only be categories, that Arthur Rubin deleted. For instance, how could you possibly have "List of potential Nobel Prize winners?" when they don't publish the candidate list for a given year until 50 years later? As Arthur Rubin points out, that's obviously original research. The others are all in the same vein. Don't bandy about "abusive administrators" so lightly, that's a serious accusation and you really need to back that up; I'm not seeing it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• I, for one, am not going to watch a YouTube video for something that can be explained on-wiki, with ordinary diffs. Make your case on-wiki, with ordinary diffs. And stop putting the URL of that YouTube video in edit summaries. Edit summaries are supposed to summarize edits. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Somebody needs to step up to the plate and help put an end to the harassment Arthur has been dealing with. There has been a slew of various IP's and now this garbage...MONGO 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yep, absolutely. Block Anthrophilos (talk · contribs) until at least he pulls that defamatory video from youtube. This is pure harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Struck for the time being, until Anthrophilos' involvement with the video has been clarified; see below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fut.Perf.! A rational voice among false accusations. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just a point: The video could been seen as an outing attempt, since pretty specific info is given about who he "thinks" AR is in real life, though I'm not seeing anything on the Libertarian party website to back up his claims. But still, if he is posting this video in multiple places across WP, I think some clean up is going to be required. I'm admittedly not an expert on the policy of such things, but attempts at real life outing, even if subtlefrivolous, should be removed, right? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Anthrophilos is pushing that video around Wikipedia. I've rev/del'd it from an edit summary. Because I have been involved with him today I'm not blocking him, but if he continues this harassment (particularly adding the video to edit summaries or simply to his edits, as he also did at [129] he probably should be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Another point - before anyone shoots off about the video being an outing attempt or whatever, I'm not entirely certain Anthrophilos actually made that video. It may well have been made by some other troll and Anthro fell for it hook, line and sinker. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He says he didn't, and I from the content I don't think he did, it talks about going to arbitration. He's also at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion where the video has now been removed. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

True, now that I looked more closely into it, the description of the video author clearly points towards him being XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought too. Perhaps one of you guys could say something to him too? Seems like he's got just as much of a chip on his shoulder, and it's not helping anyone. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not expect being accused and even threatened to be blocked. What a community! And for those who do not know it, I did NOT post the video on Arthur Rubin on Youtube. It merely illustrates the experience I am having with him, and apparently I am not the only one. I have no problem in accepting that the "List of potential Nobel Prize in Literature winners" be deleted IF it cannot be backed up by adequate sources. What bothers me, however, is the extremely rude attitude in deleting articles prior to its PROD deadline so that the proposed deletion can neither be challenged nor factual evidence established in time. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notified XB70Valyri. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Anthrophilos used the wrong template to notify me. Do I need to comment on my actions in regard Anthrophilos's edits at this time? I decline comment on the video; anything I say would only encourage the author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthrophilos, what you say was a threat to block you was a statement that if you continued to post that video you might be blocked. You seem to have stopped now, so hopefully there will be no reason to block you. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthrophilos, there is a very well known principle at ANI called WP:BOOMERANG. Succinctly put, the behaviors of ALL contributors to ANI are up for review, and it's normal practice to examine that of any accuser. It's likewise common for accusers to react angrily when people focus attention on their own actions, but that doesn't do them much good. That being said, you have failed to provide any evidence that Arthur called you a vandal; kindly do so. (And beyond THAT, are you sure you want to go the route of inferring you had nothing to do with a video you're urging us to see?)

I did, however, find a diff of you accusing Arthur of vandalism [130]. I also see that you're canvassing XB70 [131]. Ravenswing 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Have interacted with Arthur Rubin at several articles and consider them to be the best. The title of this looks like a personal attack, labeling them as an "abusive admin". And Anthrophilos not only presented the informationless attack video as "information", but as the only information when posting this complaint. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember: 99% of the time, when someone yells "admin abuse", it is indeed the admin being abused. This one meets the 99% rule (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear that linking to your youtube video in a summary in this fashion is not acceptable, and I would be willing to block on site if I see it again, as Anthrophilos has now been adequately warned this type of soapboxing isn't appropriate, and is flatly disruptive. This isn't your personal blog or web forum, it is an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think the video on Mr Rubin is a bit odd, consider its creator's previous effort, particularly the part about "genetic programming". [132] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what video you're talking about. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Then click on the link I provided. Anybody who viewed the now-deleted youtube screed denouncing Mr Rubin will recognize the voice and probably note that it was posted on the same youtube

"channel" by the same youtube user. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I watched the video and based on the complaint against AR made by the author it was clearly XB70. The author clearly states that they went to Dispute Resolution to resolve the Koch article discussion, which is exactly what XB70 did. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• The above made me curious as to whether there are any YouTube videos with my name on them. Turns out there is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x9fI5Ov91M

-Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:XB70Valyrie

The video’s creator is user:XB70Valyrie. I was involved in the discussion over edits on the Political activities of the Koch family that he attempted to include. I want a chance to help in clearing Arthur’s name and my own because this user made numerous personal attacks and false accusations toward us and anyone else who had a different opinion than his. In XB70’s comments on the video he claims that Arthur was ‘ranting and raving.’ He also accused me, Arthur, and other editors of ‘edit warring,’ ‘changing arguments over and over,’ and ‘tag teaming,’ among other things. I encourage anyone to read the actual talk page posts to see that all of those things did occur on the talk page, but they were done by XB70Valyrie alone.

After seeing the video that he posted and observing his actions and comments, it is very clear that his goal is in no way to improve Wikipedia. (It looks like he removed the video shortly after this thread started). He is motivated by a political bias and wants to damage the reputation of the subjects of the article. He is not mispronouncing the name by accident (it rhymes with Coke not rock). He reverted multiple editors multiple times and posted on their pages saying they were edit warring, while he was the only editor involved who actually was edit warring. The other editors removed his addition of a Controversy section asking that it be discussed first since the source may not be reliable. He continued to revert those editors and made personal attacks and long angry rants on the talk page.

XB70 has been an editor here for a while and has not improved at all on the principles of being civil or assuming good faith, which he has had problems with throughout his time editing. Based on XB70’s actions and comments throughout the dispute, and from the youtube video he created, it’s clear that he has strong biases, a short tempter, and has failed to act civilly on several occasions with editors who disagree with him. Because he is too strongly motivated by bias, he should be, at the very least, blocked from editing the pages that he has been edit warring on. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

From his "opening statement" on that talk page alone, it's clear that he's simply not here to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

*For what it is worth I do support a full site ban and a global ban since they are now operating on several projects. They are clearly unable to work cooperatively. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support a global ban here. This user is clearly not prepared to adhere to wikipedia guidelines or policy.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC) (These remarks are struck because, while Anthony and myself did say these things, they were in reference to another thread up the page and were copied into this section. I'm going to AGF here and call it a genuine mistake since the user specifically came to our talk pages to let us know about it, apparently a bit confused as to what these edits were and where they went. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))

Look at the link. It leads to what is a deleted video. (At least NOW it's been deleted). Been up just long enough for everyone to weigh in on but me huh? Arthur. This is the last straw. Actually, it was the last straw a long time ago. Anyone looking at your record of Admin notifications since 2008 will see you have a long and frequently visited record of harassing users and abusing WP rules, here on Wikipedia. And you're supposed to be an Admin?? I've been here for 2 years and had not so much as a Kerfuffle on any notifications. Here is what IP users have been leaving on my User talk:XB70Valyrie page since I've been tangled up in editing with Aurthur Rubin.

"Thank you for your recent comments. You may find User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_16#ANI interesting, found on wp:Tea. 108.195.139.228 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"

I responded, "Wow! Have you searched his name in the Admin noticeboards archive as well?

[[133]]"

Again the IP editor says...--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"I'll look at the link you posted. This may be of interest (view 500). Look for the "Be aware" Edit Summaries, for deletion on Talk pages. Here is an example: [134]. Looking back over Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin through the years Mr. Rubin seems to be a real fountain of hate, and given that he is an Admin one might call it "judicial activism". 99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"

End--XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to paste my reply in here and it's not showing up after I hit save page. I've done it 3 times now. Instead it's showing up in the section below. Still trying. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the commentors above; given the slew of evidence that he's WP:NOTHERE, and now his apparent claim that he believes Arthur got the video taken down from Youtube(!), it's clear XB70Valyrie isn't a benifit to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the video is back http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuLuzVehKO8 62.255.248.225 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User also has serious WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. See Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Controversy_Expect_a_Fight and User_talk:Arzel#LPOV_page (ignore the first sentence there, it's about something different). SÆdon^talk 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable assessment of the situation. a13ean (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably wrong of me to suggest to tag him and bag him isn't it? (what? too soon??) . -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I gave an 'at the very least' suggestion before, I think I will upgrade it and explicitly state that I'm in agreement with the other Wikipedians here. I support a global ban as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How can I argue against a video I can't even see?? You can argue all you like Aurthur Rubin. Just remember how difficult it is to attack that which no longer exists. If your wish is granted, I'll be happy not to have to deal with you anymore on WP. But don't think that's where I just "go away". Your behavior and incessant bad faith scheming violate ever last fabric of WP intent. Your POV political pushing is obvious and your record of breaking WP rules as a means to that end is appalling. Arthur Rubin (see wikipedia article on obscure political figure. Oh but it's complete with an image. Gee must be a caring wikipedian that overseas that article). Look! Even Arthur Rubin has gotten involved with editing his own vanity article [[135]]. What happened? Did you forget to sign in as one of your multiple sock-puppets before editing your article? Arthur Rubin is an unabashed Topic sensor. He has run for office on the Libertarian ticket [[136]] also supported here [[137]] and the Libertarian party receives donations from the Koch Brothers. It can very well be concluded that Arthur Rubin and David Koch even know one another here. David H. Koch "party Libertarian (before 1984), Republican". Arthur Rubin's motives are Obvious. My recommendation to have Arthur Rubin removed as Wikipedian is currently review at Wikimedia Management.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say "blocked for personal attacks and being blatantly WP:NOTHERE", but BWilkins beat me to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Endorsed recommendation: I endorse XB70Valyrie's recommendation "to have Arthur Rubin removed as Wikipedian". Arthur is one of those "tinpot dictators" that Larry Sanger has referred to in one of his blog posts (http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=221). And I echo that "one of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the way that people really do act like each others’ editors, forming their requests as orders and in other ways competing to outdo each other in how condescending they can be". This is not exactly contributing to a productive atmosphere on Wikipedia. I am giving Wikipedia a maximum of ten years. This project is already in decline (member numbers, less edits) and if there are no major changes to resolve these issues, especially the endless edit wars and self-appointed editor-dictators then I doubt that Wikipedia has a fruitful future. But I have not yet given up my hope and will see how this project evolves. --Anthrophilos (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"I am giving Wikipedia a maximum of ten years"...too late...Wikipedia is already more than 10 years old.--MONGO 02:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I may have gotten the video removed from YouTube. I reported defamation (both of myself and of David Koch), and potential copyright violation (is a screen-shot of a Wikipedia article a derivative work which requires the same copyright notice as would an HTML or WikiFormat copy of the article?) to YouTube. They wouldn't tell me why they removed the video, although they might have told him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(bemused bystander) Arthur, I don't know when you made any request to YT, but my experience suggests that they work in a timescale of days or weeks, and not in minutes or hours. I had assumed that it was the channel owner himself who had taken down that video, not for any copyright violation, but because he was embarrassed at being linked, by another editor here, to that second video on the channel. Perhaps it's unfortunate that, whatever the editor's position is on Wikipedia, he has been personally compromised by being seen to rant about fat ladies and being linked to some kind of dating site that seems to involve consumption of large amounts of fish. I'll have you know that we in UK have to live with pretty harsh fish quotas imposed by the EU! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But I've submitted a defamation and copyright claim to YouTube AGAIN. I'm not going to watch the new video, but he's revoked "like/unlike" and "comment", this time. Anyone have a good contact for WikiMedia counsel? This video is more damaging to Wikipedia than to my reputation, even if someone believed it. (Is it allowed to discuss legal actions again YouTube, or is it in violation of WP:NLT?) (He seems to have removed the video you're talking about, also. There are only two videos left on his channel, and there were 3, before.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, I feel you may be worrying uduly. I think many viewers will watch and laugh, as I did (even before seeing the fat ladies rant). Do you consider that defamation against you personally, or against your Wikipedia persona? But you are probebly right to be concerned with the way it portrays this project. I'm still surprised that he used screen shots of him logged onto his own account. But I suppose that shows he's not prepared to be `intimidated'. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And the video (and all of the channel except a broken link) is gone, again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And it's back at another channel. I suppose I should submit another defamation report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think YT have the concept of "sockpuppets" as such, do they. I'm sure that editor is not looking for any long-term channel-following, just exposure. So you might find yourself chasing your own defamation claim tail, if you're not too careful. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, YouTube doesn't remove videos for defamation Which doesn't explain why those videos were removed.... I'm tempted to ask for the identities of the (now two) channel owners in preparation for filing a lawsuit, but I don't know if they'll go along. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the YT policy on copyright infringement seems to have been rather fluid. As far as I know, YT have in the past been obliged to pass on verified contact details, including full real name and home address, to interested third parties if a copyright claim has arisen. That policy now seems to have changed. But I'm not sure how claims for defamation are dealt with. I would have thought they would have carefully washed their hands of that with some find of snall-print clause in the user agreement. There is an informal way of reporting channel content and harassment, although I do not know whether that ever leads to any kind of action. Goodness me, Arthur, anyone would think you had some kind of close interest in the finer points of US law, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Daft and self-defeating ways to ask for help, demonstrated once again

I hope that Anthrophilos has learned from this what an incredibly daft and self-defeating way to ask for help that was. Xe almost got xyrself blocked, and everyone focussed upon XB70Valyrie. I've determined the issue on my own, given that my request for diffs above went unanswered; and, for the record, I wouldn't have done what Arthur Rubin did.

I, personally, wouldn't have applied the biographies of living persons policy quite so immediately, given how little actual content there really was there at all. That is not to say that List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature would have stood a snowball's chance of being kept at AFD, given its clear and stated purpose to act as a discussion forum for editors to exchange gossip about living people, in blatant contravention of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, rather than to be an encyclopaedia article. Anthrophilos would have received a lot of negative feedback from other people at AFD over what a completely bad idea for an article xe had had, just as is in fact happening right now at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature. It's also important to note that it wasn't Arthur Rubin that sent the article to proposed deletion.

I also wouldn't have used Twinkle's anti-vandalism tool to rollback the removal of CFD notices mid-discussion. Vandalism rollback tools such as Twinkle really should be reserved for actual vandalism, because this sort of "He called me a vandal!" outcry is what happens in response; and a far better edit summary is to point to the wording of the notice itself. But it was quite wrong of Anthrophilos to remove three CFD notices (1, 2, 3) also using a reversion tool mid-discussion in the first place.

Anthrophilos, you really did reap what you sowed, here. Try to take less completely daft, self-defeating, and hysterical approaches to dealing with other people in the future. And try to be a little less credulous with respect to pseudonymous people posting YouTube videos.

Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• This also seems like a fair summary of the whole thing, thanks for taking the time to look up the diffs, etc. a13ean (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, I appreciate your analysis of the situation. Arthur did in fact not send the article for deletion, but worse deleted it prior to its official PROD deadline. Actually, there is no point in requesting the article to be restored for it most likely would have been deleted anyway. The problem is Arthur. He is one of those "tinpot dictators" that Larry Sanger has referred to in one of his blog posts (http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=221). And I echo that "one of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the way that people really do act like each others’ editors, forming their requests as orders and in other ways competing to outdo each other in how condescending they can be". Arthur is not only randomly reverting edits violating Wikipedia's Good Faith policy, but actually systematically boosting his ego with reverting edits and thus abusing his skills and experience as a Wikipedian. Please not that in one of my edits that he reverted, he commented "oops". To be clear, this is not exactly contributing to a productive atmosphere on Wikipedia. I am giving Wikipedia a maximum of ten years. This project is already in decline (member numbers, less edits) and if there are no major changes to resolve these issues, especially the endless edit wars and self-appointed editor-dictators then I doubt that Wikipedia has a fruitful future. But I have not yet given up my hope and will see how this project evolves. And, to have XB70Valyrie blocked is the biggest mistake you admin guys have made, you were fooled by Arthur and got the wrong guy. --Anthrophilos (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Didn't you just post almost this same comment in the section above? I can't see the article since it's deleted, but the title alone indicates it was probably unencyclopedic.--MONGO 02:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If it helps, the quotation in the section title at User talk:Dougweller#"was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere." is from the introduction of the article, which sentence, in full, was:

        The following is a list of well-known and lesser known writers whose literary work has generated enough verifiable media attention in journals, newspapers and the blogosphere to be potential future Nobel Prize winners and was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere.

        In other words, the article-space page itself was intended to be a discussion forum; as can also be seen by Anthrophilos' comments on that user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

    • @Anthrophilos: Complete nonsense. Not many will bother continuing this discussion because the correct result has been achieved (the very misguided and attacking user has been indef blocked)—please do not assume that means not many people care. If you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia you need to do some learning fast. Start by asking questions and forgetting about whatever is your imagined grievance—Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or to express displeasure with other editors (other than through the normal noticeboards). Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

    • While you're on your diatribe, Anthrophilos, I note that you still haven't produced so much as a single diff indicating where and when Arthur called you a vandal, and you still haven't tendered any explanation for your conduct when you called him a vandal, never mind your tidal wave of personal attacks. Uncle G and Johnuniq gave you sound advice, and I concur that you need to do some fast learning and drop this concept you're clutching to your chest that any admin who deletes a file you created is someone who is Out To Get You. Ravenswing 02:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's be a little more blunt: Anthrophilos, stop your personal attacks now or you'll get blocked too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• I came here after Anthrophilos posted on my talk (discussion, permalink), and second the Bushranger's warning.
  Anthrophilos is a new user, and I know that learning the complex ways of wikipedia can be difficult and even frustrating, but these personal attacks are not acceptable. Ravenswing and Johnuniq are right: Anthrophilos needs to do some fast learning. He also needs to put the brakes on his responses, because at this speed he is likely to drive straight into a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like he's understood the advice given about not making personal attacks. --Calton | Talk 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Admins may wish to examine User talk:Anthrophilos where I see a number of his article starts were prodded for deletion since they lacked a single reference. He went and added a reference to each, removed the prods but the references are all in German.--MONGO 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Non-English references are acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • But not preferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

some or all of these were to support article on German writers. Though of course there should be English references added if available, the best references on German subjects are likely to be in German. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • ... beyond which I wonder if Anthrophilos understands that a single reference is insufficient to sustain an article? It seems to me that among the learning he needs to do is a review of the WP:PILLAR links, and not a cursory glance. Ravenswing 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to ban XB70Valyrie

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

---

He posted an unblock request containing more insults and threats of sockpuppetry. Thus, I've revoked his talk page acceess and would like to propose a formal ban on XB70Valyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support I made a mistake by activating that unblock request - XB70Valyrie was fiddling with the template in the block notice - and I decided to help the dude by activating his unblock request (without paying attention to the content in the unblock request). Oops! If his intention is to continue to disrupt Wikipedia, then so be it - formally banning the dude is basically common sense. (on an unrelated note, I was personally attacked by him before because I mistakenly declined his AFC submission.) →Bmusician 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, I decline comment, per WP:NLT. However, I have a question. If When he reappears, am I allowed to "bag and tag" (sorry, I mean revert and block). I am an involved admin, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Don't feed the trolls - let someone else to do it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure that Arthur Rubin has the best of intentions, but for the same admin to take more action against somebody who's already got a conspiracy theory, well, it's like throwing petrol on a fire. Caesar's wife... bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. What's the best noticeboard to report it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment and Support Also note the potential IP-sock on his user talk page. The "combination of ingredients" here is more than adequate to have a perpetual "bye-bye" to this editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think that IP is his sock. See #Michigan kid (revisted) below. XB70 didn't speak in miscellaneus] links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Especially considering the threats included in his block request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support If he's not willing to mend his ways and is persistently refusing to change them, it's indicative that he cannot take control of his attitude. Period. Wikipedia does not want editors with this bad of an attitude to other editors. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support The user is basically telling Arthur that he plans on continually harassing him both on and off wiki. This is a terrible thing and should be squashed as quickly as possible. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support and recommend he be reported to his local police as well - the unblock reaks of real-life personal threats and harassment. The online video was harassment. This needs to be stopped (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Is that legitimately possible? Using a checkuser? I would be in support of that, considered it myself but didn't think we did that sort of thing. The wording "I think by that time though you'll have another bead drawn on you. The heat is on." may have been symbolic, but that combined with the off-wiki harassment becomes a pretty big deal. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- the threat to continue harassment is clear. a13ean (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support - His kind of attitude is about as far away from useful here as it can get, ban him for at least 2 years, by then he'll be 14 and may well have a much better perspective on things. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Each time he was making piloting analogies, I was really confused. Don't you have to be older than 12 to be a pilot? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Also notice the following comment of that IP. This IP also commented on XB70's own page. I believe that XB70 is the long editing IP jumper that AR has had to deal with for some time. It all makes perfect sense now as well. XB70 is a pilot and as such likely has access to numerous different IP's based on his current location. The use of random blue linked comments in the edit tag is a dead giveaway that this is that editor. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support ban. The harassment and threats are unacceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It is obvious that XB70's obsession with a single editor has completely destroyed their ability to edit normally in any fashion. Their unblock request is also seriously disturbing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support: It's clear that he was never here with the goal of improving the project. We need to watch out for IP's that have similar patterns of editing and behavior because, based on his unblock request, he basically admitted that he will be using IP's to continue to edit and harass Arthur. We may need to do some page protections as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support based on recent obvious sock block evasion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:22, 19 June 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 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.

Mass speedy deletion requests by User:OrenBochman

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.

---

As I dared to remove an invalid request of speedy deletion for CSD A7 by User:OrenBochman (here the article, here his resentful message in my talk page), he started tagging for speedy deletion CSD A7 a bunch of articles I started (see my talk page) in about three minutes. I don't even think it is possible read all them and check their references in such a little lapse of time. Not satisfied, he then started to overtagging them ([138], [139], , [140], [141], [142]). His bad faith is patent as ie. he tagged the article about Briana Blair as it should be expanded from the related Russian article that is nothing more than an unsourced summary of the English one. Let you judge. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did you have to report this to ANI so quickly, without attempting to discuss the issue with him? This issue can be easily solved through talk page discussion →Bmusician 08:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I send him a message... without response. His response was to start overtagging the articles. Cavarrone (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't respond because all you said to him was "Are you serious?", without explaining in detail what he was doing wrong. Your next step was to report this to ANI without letting him know. →Bmusician 09:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And could you explain this edit summary? →Bmusician 09:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you assuming he has acted in good faith? Just to know... he also wrote in his talk page "First you incited this situation - next you declined to communicate - now you come here to gloat and play it for maximum effect - I will not be annoyed by this childish behaviour" that sounds like a confession that this behaviour was just vindictive and disruptive. Cavarrone (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how two wrongs would make a right either - even if he acted in bad faith, telling him to "go away" is also another bad-faith assumption, and doesn't solve the problem →Bmusician 09:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see bad-faith assumptions in removing a message, laughable on the merits (a lame accusation of violating "basic wikipedia policy") and mocking/resentful in the tones ("Dear sir..."), from my talk page. Even if it were, could be a nervous response a justification for disruption, overtagging and mass-nomination of articles? PS. I see Oren was one of the users you adopted. As your course finished, I would suggest you to give him some extra-lessons, that as you can see he still needs, especially in the field of speedy deletions. He needs more study before continuing to nominate articles for speedy deletion with invalid reasons (this is his CSD log). Cavarrone (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

in addition to what is written above... I found this statement in OrenBochman talk page, in response to one another user who pointed about his behaviour. I took a little of time to understand what he wanted to say as he uses the word media in a wrong way...: "I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual" it sounds to me like a notice of future further diruptions to my work.Cavarrone (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the retaliatory article tags. Don't see that any more needs to be done here. Nobody Ent 01:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some nominations at AfD as well.

I have some concerns with this user's use of tools. And not just for XfD. And further, not thrilled that someone doing so much reversion, and nomination, and so on, has delinked their signature. I'm not seeing a want to discuss. It does look a bit like someone using automated tools to play Wikipedia:The Game. - jc37 01:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What does delinked mean in this context? Nobody Ent 01:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Means the sig doesn't link to the userpage.... ah well, I think OB can forget about this for a while. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes exactly. This is not the sort of transparency that I think we'd expect from someone placing warning on other editors' talk pages. And a quick perusal of the individual's edit history gives me several other concerns. - jc37 02:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing it -- his (as of now ) last edit has the required links. Obviously if they persist in intentionally improperly signed talk page posts sanctions would be appropriate. Nobody Ent 02:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly they changed their signature after starting the RfA page yesterday. This edit just prior to that should show you what we were talking about.

That aside, I've been doing a more thorough looking through their edits, both here and on other wikis. commons and wikibooks in particular were enlightening.

Anyway, though I usually hope for the best, unless things change, it looks to me like we'll likely be seeing this individual here at AN/I again for disruptive actions. YMMV, of course. - jc37 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of the relatory tags. I would just recommend that someone writes to this user highlighting that such behavior is wrong and disruptive. Looking at some of his recent posts (Since I have been personally attacked on the Admin's Notice Board I tread in safety and protocols while I continue what I sincerely believe a necessary action,As my record will show I have not been involved in serious conflicts necessitating a ban or even a block. I have editing increasingly controversial subjects. These have revealed some of the less savoury tactics in use by experinced COI editors against relative new comers) he does not seem to have taken the point. And there's still that sort of menace: "I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual. However as per your suggestion - I will take care of other matter in the meanwhile so as not to appear WP:Pointy." that sounds like "I will stay quiet for a while, then I will take up my actions against this User". Cavarrone (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just note how User:OrenBochman refuses to discuss here in public but he is contacting all the editors who are involved in this discussion, one by one, in their talk pages. Cavarrone (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become the best encyclopedia the world has ever seen at the best price (free) due to the efforts of many passionate editors with a diversity of backgrounds; an unfortunate side effect is from time to time conflict occurs. As situtations are resolved its not usual for editors to say things in the heat of the moment that, given time and space to reflect, they come to realize on their own will not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. In this situations we can best help by giving them that time and space. In practical terms I'm suggesting Cavarrone simply proceed with their Wikipedia work and not be concerned with OrenBochman is doing. Nobody Ent 12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite my comments above, I'd like to echo User:Nobody Ent's comments. And at this point, if there are any other scrutiny-worthy XfD nominations, that can be dealt with as they happen. What we don't need is a climate of paranoia and/or fear of the future. (My comments above were not one of paranoia, but rather of a feeling that we've seen these kinds of patterns before at AN/I, and so the outcome is likely to be unsurprising if things do not change.)

This thread exists now, so if any gaming the system, edit stalking, or any other things that are scrutiny-worthy happen, that can be dealt with then.

As it's clear from their edits that User:OrenBochman has seen and read this page, I think for now this thread could be safely closed. - jc37 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Seen and read, perhaps... but understood?? "I plan much larger action regarding certain media uploaded by same individual". His written intent to WP:HOUND another editor require that his edits be closely watched. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for info: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brynn Tyler, [143], [144]. Cavarrone (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A quite active user for one asserting to be retired and no loner active.[145] And blanking one's talk page[146] does not mean the activity since claiming to be inactive will go unnoticed.[147] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement: Since I was made aware of this discussion after it had taken a very ugly turn I decided that I could not in good conscience take part in it. Nor did I wish to stoop to the level of my accuser. I have requested the deletion of my talk pages and have prepared my retirement. I am willing to reconsider these if my request below is met. I have however like my first mentor decided that Wikipedia is an environment where AGF is now mostly Lip service. Many participants in this discussion have "Assume Good Faith" writ large on their user page including articles on ettiquete and civility. But this is not a - but this is not a doctrine which they follow in practice. I consider this the most important aspect of Wikipedia policy. I have assumed that Cavarrone in some way believes that his personal attacks are aimed at a greater good and have taken them in stride.

Regarding the final AfD. This should not come as a surprise - it had been posted on my talk page for an extended period in response to the challenge of the validity of the CSD. Since this is a BLP it cannot wait 2 months of cooling period to see the errors expunged. I had been advised that I could pursue a matter at Afd if I thought in earnest that it will improve wikipedia. I do and I have but as I explained and quoted out of context above I also made my best effort to avoid looking pointy I had sought a third and a fourth opinion on the matter by consulting both the remover of the CSD who has explained my mistake and an uninvolved admin who has inspected my recent edit history on and off wiki.

With exception of high risk at CSD - I have not been informed that my action are to be restricted in any way w.r.t. this incident. I plan to avoid Cavarrone as best I can but our points of view are diametrically opposed on five fundamental issues such as WP:N WP:V WP:OR and WP:NPOV. All these I have found deficient in at least one of the above 5 articles. I think that tagging is considered as the reponsible form of dealing with these. I believe that the editor who has removed these may have thought he was acting in good faith but WP:Neutrality has not been observed - and the result is unprodctive. These tags had already been reviewd and edited by the CSD removers who would have rolled them back otherwise.

I have made a best effort to make it a productive one aimed at improve the articles under discussion and increasing the level of discourse. However even this is not required as long as the community does its part to upholds the rules of consensus something it is not very good at.

Request: Since this proceedings have not been initiated by Cavarrone in accordance with the instructions on this pages but in a disruptive manner; since as a result it has poisoned the Neutrality of the consensus discussion; since bad faith has been assumed in this incident and used to punish me in the area of my primary activity countervandalism depite an recent accolades in this areea; since my statement were quoted partialy and out of context instead of a revision history reference; since this discussion includes personal attacks - name calling instead of arguments from policy by many of the involved and since this is the admins notice board and admins are expected to respect uphold both policy and etiquette and protocol. I find this a travesty of justice and accordingly request that this proceedings be closed and expunged from this page's history for the exclusive use of oversighters. BO | Talk 02:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do "expunge and oversight" for things like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How many Policy violations are the norm for a single ANB debates? I thought that Wikipedia is not a Soapbox - yet this discussion has been permitted to be used as a Soapbox for a personal attack on my Character. You the participants have not observed the required decorum and in many cases have encouraged it.

Expunging as discussed in various context is precisely for this type of situation, when the system has take a record of a serious violation against an individual - such as an attack page. And to any uninvolved party this debate has been exclusivly and one sided attack on my character. Wikipedia's ettiquate requires that discussion not include name calling or personal attacks and not in a content dispute between ediors.

The folowing is directly out of WP:Attack page

An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.

While this discussion may have been initialy started in earnest by the time I was aware of it - it had denegrated into a defamatory personal attack. To reciprocate would only lend weight to such claims.

The folowing is directly out of WP:Libel

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

and Defamation is defined here as:

"...is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, ... a negative image."

I have already contacted people this debate directly about the lack the accuracy of their statements and even resolved some of these issues. Accordingly I demand that this Kangroo Court discussion be dissolved and expunged per the policy dealing with defematory and libelous statements. And in case there is any confusion - this the legal term is not a legal threat.

P.S. I believe that I am in my rights not respond to comments which I find offensive in content or tone - such as the defamatory WP:Appology request below. BO | Talk 08:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are requesting an assumption of good faith about your actions, but it is sufficent look at our edit histories to have a neutral response. I will use the standard time line: at 7:02 you sent that bitter and sneering message on my talk page, at 7:03 I deleted it, between 7:08 and 7:13 you started requesting five speedy deletions, at 7:14 I started on your talk page the section "mass speedy deletion requests" you read it and between 7:30 and 7:43 you started to overtagging all the five articles. Furthermore, later you wrote on your talk page: "First you incited this situation - next you declined to communicate - now you come here to gloat and play it for maximum effect - I will not be annoyed by this childish behaviour" that is a clear admission of disruptiveness and bad faith.

I would be content with a "Sorry, I was disruptive once, I was wrong and I learned my lesson" but you still keep on refuse the point and still mock me (and everyone) against all evidence... now you are opening idle topics on articles I started ([148]), nominating other for deletion, putting a false announce of retirement in your personal page to appear as a victim of something, then, above, this silly request... I am just curious about your next move, as it is clear you have not yet finished. Cavarrone (talk) 04:53, 21 June 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 Powerpuff Girls

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

---

This article is undergoing mass IP vandalism (An edit like every 10 secs or so) can anyone help on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. And, dang, yeah. I wonder if this is some sort of group attack or something. I guess i'd better go and start handing out warnings so we can get that bureaucracy out of the way and start blocking them as soon as possible. Silverseren^C 04:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget what I just said. It's too fast. Full protection needed immediately!!! Silverseren^C 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I would lock the page the last good edit is a ways back by Cluebot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mine is good, since I reverted all the way back to Cluebot myself. Silverseren^C 05:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the page was semi-protected at least that should help in the short term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New registered users are vandalising, too. Full PP might be a good idea. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If they're new, then they're not auto-confirmed, so they should still be locked out with semi-protection, right? Silverseren^C 05:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Other Hanna-Barbera articles

Keep an eye on them. I've got one of the vandals making an edit on Courage the Cowardly Dog. Silverseren^C 05:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Would blocks help at all for the editors involved? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at least for 24 hours. Silverseren^C 05:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is confirmed by the edits it looks like Courage the Cowardly Dog is getting hit next. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Got an edit to Samurai Jack as well now. Silverseren^C 05:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List of The Powerpuff Girls villains is undergoing one vandal IP's edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Now at List of The Powerpuff Girls characters - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to rapidly create some kind of script that could semi all the articles in some particular category? This reminds me a little bit of a problem we had with Beatles songs a year or two ago. The H-B stuff is probably rather broader in scope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So far no more vandalism on Jack or Courage, but protected the villians list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of them are wandering off into other topic areas, like List of Grand Theft Auto III characters and Zelda II. Silverseren^C 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Admins please!

Could we please get some admins to wade through these article histories and start blocking all of the IPs? That would be appreciated. Silverseren^C 05:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I second that we editors on wikipedia can only do so much we need a helping hand so this does not spread anymore than it needs to Thanks =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The IPs that hit Courage and PPGV have been blocked 24 hours. The PPG vandals are either dynamic IPs or a group of attackers; blocking any one would be pointless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks then I know what you mean anons can easily skirt around the blocks but it does slow them down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunce caps and the corner for a few more. I think we've got a lid on it now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay and thanks again, for now I dont see any new mass vandal edits but this may be something to keep an eye on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this has been discussed before, but my search didn't find it. Is an auto semi-protect technically possible for a rapidly edited article with multiple reverts? Dru of Id (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just one edit from this guy, but it's probably related to the whole thing. Caught it earlier and thought it might be a good idea to let you guys know, in case the particular IP gets lost in the shuffle and causes trouble again later. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:36, 20 June 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.

Clarificationgiven deleting 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.

---

Could someone possibly give Clarificationgiven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a clue please? Despite me explaining several times that sources don't have to be free to view per WP:PAYWALL, he insists on deleting references to The Times that require subscription. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Source isn't working, niether there's any other source related with the same information, so i guess it should be replaced with another source, and if you are unable to provide it, you are welcome to remove it. Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So you still haven't read WP:PAYWALL then? And I'll repeat what I've already said. The source is working, if you don't want to subscribe that's your problem. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that the source isn't unpopular, the information should have been included by others as well, because it isn't i heavily doubt, yes i have read, that's why not editing those anymore. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a free source, you are welcome to add it. But there no reason to remove an existing reliable source because it requires subscription. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconding that: don't remove as source because it's "unpopular", or because you "heavily doubt". Remove a source if it's wrong. There is no prohibition or discouragement of paywalled/subscription sites; also, would you remove a print source because you don't have the book and "doubt" that it's accurate? Wikipedia doesn't discourage offline sources either, nor should it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:40, 21 June 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.

Viriditas

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

---

For quite a while there is a discussion going on about a picture on Template:American cuisine. During that discussion Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is really annoying. Misbehaviours include editwarring, nagging and PAs. But his last provocation is too much for me. This has nothing to do with civility but everything of claiming ownership of the template and plain nagging. Because it is more then likely that he will target other templates with this type of behaviour, I ask a topic ban for all food-related templates for Viriditas.

At the moment "Template:American cuisine" is protected due to an editwar started by Viriditas. No matter what the outcome is, it is not right to removing a picture before the discussion is closed. He even managed to let acclaimed administrator Nihonjoe to loose his temper with his attacks and nagging.

The whole discussion (and trouble) begun on 18 May 2012, when Viriditas, without prior discussion, removed the picture of the template. During the discussion, a poll was suggested by Jerem43, what was, without prior agreement, closed by Viriditas.

In fact, Viriditas is using a lot of words, but is not engaged in discussions. Warnings for an editwar are followed up by a personal attack, a remark about the poll was followed up by a troll accusation, and comments on his behaviour disappear as de-trolling.

Seeing his moves, without prior discussion, on Template:Canadian cuisine ([149]), Template:Japanese cuisine ([150]), Template:Korean cuisine ([151]), Template:Turkish cuisine ([152], Template:Serbian cuisine ([153]), Template:Pakistani cuisine ([154]), Template:Moroccan cuisine ([155]), Template:Italian cuisine ([156]), Template:Algerian cuisine ([157]), Template:Indian cuisine ([158]), Template:Chinese cuisine ([159]), Template:British cuisine ([160]) and Template:Argentine cuisine ([161]), I don't believe that the annoying behaviour will stop just at "American cuisine", hence the afore mentioned topic ban request to prevent editwars and unrest. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone in on the same page here - a paid employee of Burger King (not a burger flipper at a franchisee, but rather at the corporate level) is engaged in an edit war with someone regarding if a picture of a hamburger should be the lead image on the template "American cuisine," and you are reporting the person they are edit warring with for being less then civil to the paid employee of Burger King? Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that was just one of the incidents. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you mean when he interpreted the poll which is current running at 3 to keep (including one editor who is employed by Burger King in what appears to be a PR capacity) vs 12 to remove/change to indicate that keeping the image was not supported by consensus? How exactly is this the straw that broke the camels back? Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This case is not about the poll, not about Jerem43 but about the disrupting and annoying behaviour of Viriditas. If you have a problem with Nihonjoe or Jerem43, open a separate case for each of them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in summary, you're certain he's doing something wrong, but you can't explain it except to note that when you flung a bunch of automated templates on his user talk page he got steamed at you, and when it's noted that we've got a paid PR agent a massively incivil admin your response is "look over there!" Got it! Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, who are you and why are you accusing me of being paid to do stuff on behalf of Burger King? At no time have I ever been paid to do anything for anyone. Your comment shows a severe lack of civility and assumption of good faith. You sir are making baseless personal attacks and I resent them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my misreading of an earlier comment. Apparently you are not employed by Burger King, and I have struck my errors. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• There has been less than optimal behavior on both sides of the debate at the RfC for Template:American cuisine. My sense of it is that (1) a topic ban for anyone involved would be a gigantic overreaction and that (2) everyone should just exercise a little patience, stop discussing one another's faults on the talk page, and wait for an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC (which should occur less than 48 hours from now). Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that. At the moment I don't see how a topic ban for anyone (and if we go that way, the behavior of some on both sides will need examining) would help Wikipedia. Hopefully it's all over including the shouting and as Rivertorch says, everyone should just wait for the RfC to be closed. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe

However, reviewing the entirety of the content, I am confused as to how Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) thinks it's acceptable to say "Stop being a jerk, Viriditas," and "I have never seen any discussion in which you participate where you have been anything but a bully and a complete jerk to anyone who disagrees with you," and "I've given up any hope you'll ever be anything other than a bully on this site," and "Please grow up and start engaging in polite debates rather than continuing as you have been." But, hey, he's an admin, so he can do no wrong! Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Then read it properly and see how he is the main victim of the nagging, unfounded accusations and provocations. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

'eye for an eye'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Between mr. N. and mr. V.? Possible but unwanted and uncivil. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Jeremy (User:Jerem43)

I wish to address my actions before anyone else falsely accuses me of actions that I did not commit.

1. I do not work for Burger King Corporation, its agencies or contractors. I am not paid by anyone to do anything on behalf of any entity anywhere. The accusations that I am some sort of PR hack are patently false and violate almost all of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I am deeply angered by the accusation made by Hipocrite, and ask that he withdraw said comment and apologize.
2. The only thing that I have asked of Veritidas is that he play by the rules, in his actions he has violated several policies and guidelines including, but not limited to, WP:BRD, WP:AGF and WP:3R. At every turn he has repeatedly acted in a manner that is inappropriate, and that is what I object to. If the discussion goes his way, I will abide by the consensus of the community. Right now the discussion is eight in favor of no image and five in favor of some sort of image, three for maintaining the current image and two for the addition of another image.
3. The Poll I established was intended solely to break free of the massive wall of text that the discussion had become. There were no other motives behind it, and to ascribe any to me is simply baseless. I was simply trying to avoid issues of TLDR.

Viriditas' behavior and how he acted during the period leading up to the discussion is what is at question here. I personally think he should be sanction some how because it appears, through my research into his past behaviors, that this is his modus operandi. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record: WP:BRD is not policy, and if you believe Viriditas has broken the three-revert rule, there is an edit-warring noticeboard. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 18:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing my error out, I clarified my statement a bit. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • BRD may not be policy, but it should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. And I question whether "hamburger" and "cuisine" even belong in the same sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the first part; WP:DRN is thataway. As for the second part, clearly you've never had a Cheeburger Cheeburger. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 21 June 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.

Michelle Fields

There has been an edit war going on at the Michelle Fields page. It involves two IP users, one of whom continuously adds the same bit of information, and the other who takes that information away. Here's what I'm talking about [162] I've tried posting on both users' talk pages, but no improvement. It looks like 69.143.14.13 may have WP:COI with this article, and 68.34.96.216 seems intent on inserting information that, while sourced, is not in keeping with WP:BLP or WP:RS. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe better to take this to WP:RFPP? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The nonsense that keeps getting added is a serious BLP violation, in addition to demeaning the English language. The "other" IP removed that violation, as did User:Torchiest. If 68.34.96.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which seems stable) adds that nonsense again they should be blocked for a long time; semi-protection can be extended if violations (with possible socking) continue. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this. I mischaracterized the nature of the problem in my first post as an edit war, I just meant to draw attention to the fact that malicious information kept being added, and that another IP address was removing it, but that didn't seem to be a reliable long term system for removing the continuously added information. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was an edit war also, so that was not a mischaracterization, but there was something else going on as well. These kinds of edit wars are easy to resolve; it's worthwhile looking in some detail to see if someone is actually right, because sometimes that's the case. Thanks for drawing our attention to it. Drmies (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 Group D

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.

---

• UEFA Euro 2012 Group D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Accused here of removing material, despite the accuser doing the removing. Received talk page messages on conduct despite not doing anything wrong, not even losing my cool. Had responses and explanations repeatedly deleted from other user's talk page. [163] [164] Had contributions called "crap" here. Plus my edit joining two paragraphs of together reverted and called "vandalism". Now being patronised about my inexperience and poor editing on my talk page. Brought this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Walter Görlitz closed it (is that allowed!) and told whoever was there to "encourage the anon to get an account and a mentor". Again pretty patronising, and assumes that anonymous users are somehow inferior to other editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• 86.40.100.107 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes. Well I've tried but I've been told I'm wrong to do that as well.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=UEFA Euro 2012 Group D}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Have tried to discuss but been treated like a child and had contributions called "crap"

• How do you think we can help?

86.40.100.107 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: Seriously? You haven't even opened a discussion on the talk-page of the article. Yes, that is how we do things here... --Τασουλα (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, seriously, it's impossible to talk to this person as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.107 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

One of you could of at least opened up a discussion on the talk page. However, Walter Görlitz conduct is pretty poor and not handling the situation well at all, abusive edit summaries are not OK (I have been in trouble for this before, I speak from experience .___.) and for some reason making it seem as if your IP being from Ireland has something to do with your editing is also not OK. I can't exactly see anything anti-English in your editing. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But what damage can a user with such a provocative attitude cause? I've tried to be patient but really - I think there are others who be less patient in these circumstances. And there is certainly nothing intentionally anti-English in my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.107 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A dispute can only be resolved by discussion in a calm and orderly er, manner. What should of happened at the very beginning of this whole incident is that there should of been a discussion opened up on the talk-page of the article in question. I really don't know about the dispute and why is arose but it's just gotten out of hand, really, and this isn't the best time to discuss such things anyway - most of Western Europe are in bed now...and I shall be shortly. er, I'd wait for some more additional input on this. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am not terribly impressed with this revert by Walter. It appears to me that he has removed two reliable sources and a passage written in a neutral tone in favour of a simple sentence that could be construed as slightly POV and supported by a very unreliable source - which he himself questioned in the very next edit! It looks like he saw what was removed, but failed to note what was added. This doesn't need to be at ANI, however, as there isn't anything requiring immediate admin action. But I'd hope both 86.40 and Walter will discuss these changes on the talk page along with other interested parties. Resolute 02:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I erred when I restored the material removed. I should have simply moved the reference and in removing the newly added material. Also, when I realized my second error and tried to correct by removing the duplicated material and moving the ref, anon had already inserted their edit so I stepped back. I suppose WP:BRD would have been appropriate but I didn't want to take extra time for an anon who might be gone in fifteen minutes. Other than that, there is nothing wrong wit my edits and when anon recognizes their mistake we can call this resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"I didn't want to take extra time for an anon who might be gone in fifteen minutes" - There is that attitude again. Anons going away and never coming back. Anons being worthless. Anons being an inconvenience. Anons being inferior. You being superior. How long have you been editing wikipedia, there are probably anons who have been around for far longer. We're not all vandals, the term you've used to describe me at least once in this exchange. We're not all children. We don't all need to be guided by our account-occupying colleagues. What mistake? This one? I wonder how many others you've left with a terrible impression of the so-called "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --86.40.100.107 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely got a point there. Ravenswing 05:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not have an attitude. I have seen anon vandals and while I assumed good faith, I also assumed that this editor would be gone soon. It appears I was wrong. While anons are not all vandals, it's more often the case than not I deal with more anon vandals than registered editors who are. I am out of this discussion unless someone notifies me that I need to be here. I will also put this anon's edits into an RSS feed to monitor for additional misbehaviour which is what was displayed here. I have recognized my mistakes. Notice that anon has not and would rather blame others for messing up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While the vast majority of vandals are anonymous editors, only a minority of anonymous edits are vandalism (about 25%; see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AH#What will it take to ban unregistered editors?).  --Lambiam 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's still quite the "anons are beneath me" vibe I'm getting here, neighbor. DarkAudit (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to get over your attitude DA. No I don't think they're beneath me. I recognize that they're editors. However, I recognize that I deal with more vandals who happen to be anons than registered editors. I recognize the good edits this particular anon have made and will watch for a while so that this particular anon doesn't make mistakes that escalate into misunderstandings like the one created here. I also recognize that other anons make good edits too and have seen many of those. So if you think that equates to "anons are beneath me", it's your issue, or opinion, not mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 Group D discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

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.

Serious disruption: – User:Kwesiidun91 and various IP's (Possible socks too)

Kwesiidun91 has been engaging, for almost the entire time they have been a registered user on Wikipedia, in systemically erasing any mention of the English or England from articles as they see fit without any discussion or edit summaries. They have engaged in this activity despite having their edits being constantly reverted, and after being told that the broad community consensus that such changes are not acceptable without discussing them first. What is worse than this users activity on English BLP'S is that they has also been removing any mention of sourced English ancestry too such as here [165] which points to a blatant agenda. What's more, he/she has been changing geographical information on England-related places (This is by far the worse - on an actual English team - [166]) this has to stop.

But wait, there's more! Over time I have noticed a highly disruptive IP range editing England-related articles in a similar fashion. [167] here [168] and here [169] - this actually goes back a long way, and according to a revision of this disruptive IP here [170] this IP-hopper is in fact a banned user, but I cannot verify this. At any rate, this user appears to be "promoting" Scotland at every opportunity (most of their editing on Scotland related articles is actually fine) whilst "putting down" England-related articles, the most blatantly disruptive of which is their rational that British Citizenship only applies to people from England. I have been reverting edits from this IP range for ages and I'm tired of it, and so are a few others. These could be socks of Kwesiidun91, or meat-puppets or something, but I have doubts, thought it was worth pointing out. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin or someone who knows what I'm talking anout do something please? What the heck is it with the selective responses here to only certian things? I'm reporting serious disruption here, believe it or not.--Τασουλα (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they think this should be reported at WP:AIV and not here. (I'm just guessing – I'm not a mindreader.)  --Lambiam 16:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I should, I just want this user blocked pronto, there edits are nothing but disruptive. I don't understand why this got virtually no response here though...but thank you. Add: I have given the user a final-final warning. If this user was doing the same to Welsh or Scottish articles they'd be blocked already. Pretty aware of how little people care when it comes to England related articles... --Τασουλα (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Socks and meats

I'm thinking that the SPAs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarred Land, complete with their accusations against another editor, may be meatpuppets related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/09beemali and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine. I also like this comment [171]. These appear to be related accounts that have worked on related subjects. When the articles are nominated through AfD, they don't supply reliable sources, but attack the other editors and their motives. Eventually this grinds to an end when the AfD is decided, but in the meantime there's a week's worth of meatpuppeting and baseless charges against editors in good standing. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll confirm that these smell of a concerted ring of sock/meatpuppeteers; the first bunch (at the Bambi Magazine AfD) wound up blocked as loudly quacking meatpuppets after CU indicated they weren't socks; the new batch has precisely the same arguments... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• One of the suspects is claiming to be an admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Kennedy. On their first day? I doubt it. DarkAudit (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Sarah Kennedy AFD, the formatting and content of the keep vote of user:Pigfish23 ('Keep - Looks like another personal notice for deletion. We as admins must not make these personal assumptions) is virtually identical to that of the admin User:Davodd ('Keep - nomination to delete should cite WP policy rather than personal bias of the nominator (i.e. please define "such as this are inherently non-notable" and where in WP policies deletion is warranted.) That in itself doesn't prove anything (could be a strawman account or user:pigfish could simply have copied the formatting of the keep vote) however it's a little suspicious. Valenciano (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would find it unlikely that a user who was an admin three years before I joined would risk his adminship over such a matter. Or I'd like to hope that it would be unlikely. DarkAudit (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, though the similarity in formatting and content (accusations of personal bias) set bells ringing. Valenciano (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP that re-formatted the user's !votes on the AfD as it was also altering user comments elsewhere. Interestingly, it turns out that it is allocated to RED studios, the company of which the AfD's subject is the CEO. I have also blocked User:Pigfish23 for vandalising the Jarred Land article. Both blocks for a week, by which time the AfD will be concluded. Obviously these blocks may be superseded by the results of the SPI, but certainly the IPs don't originate from the same place (or even the same country, unless they're proxies) so it is pretty certain these are meatpuppets rather than socks. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible block of I.P Address

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.

---

• 210.212.230.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello I have noticed that the I.P. Address 210.212.230.196 has made significant vandalism edits to Bokaro (Thermal) among others. This I.P. constantly changes articles from useful information to advertisement often violating the 3RR rule on more than one occasion. This I.P appears to have been blocked for a small amount of time in April 2012 for similar edits. I don't think this I.P serves any other purpose but to harm Wikipedia which is why I am asking for it to be blocked. Thank You!keystoneridin! (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It was actually blocked in October 2011, not April 2012, because it was used as a sockpuppet by a blocked, serial copyright infringer. I don't see any sign of its breaking the 3RR rule, at least not in the past year or so. The IP belongs to a school and is not heavily used for editing. I'll grant you, there's not a lot of useful stuff coming out of there (I've spot-checked and the only evidently useful contribution I've seen in recent months is this one (this seems to be true). If the IP is being used by a mix of people, it wouldn't be good to shut off access to it by those who are legitimately trying to help out unless the vandalism/spam that we receive from some of them is so disruptive that we have to risk alienating new users. I'm not sure that's the case here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• thank you for the response!keystoneridin! (talk) 14:30, 21 June 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.

Deleted article: KHOKHAR RAJPUTS A BRIEF INFO

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 help me, why did you deleted my page, only the name was matching but the information was differnet please help me regain my page, please I beg you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Zaynab-x (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Please read Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. The first step ordinarily is talking to the administrator who deleted it, User:Mike 7. If he does not agree with you, there are other options explained there. That said, we could not use this content anyway, I'm afraid, as it was previously published at Facebook and there is nothing there to indicate it is compatibly licensed or public domain. This is in conflict with our copyright policy. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 21 June 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.

Impersonator?

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:EdwardsBot 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I run EdwardsBot. Someone apparently just registered EdwardsBot 2 and created both a user and user talk page for the account. "EdwardsBot 2" is not my account and has no affiliation with me. This seems rather strange. Can someone investigate, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page messages that were copied over from EdwardsBot page as well as material suggesting that the user account is operated by the EdwardsBot operators. I'm tempted to indef for the username violation - this is not an approved bot account - but I think there may be a deeper issue here that requires other handling. Why is this person impersonating you? :/ I'd like to hear what others think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked, pretty obvious troll.--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If, for some reason, this is (or ends up being) a legitimate bot account, it can be easily unblocked - but I doubt that's the case. Even if someone planned to run another instance (as with the multiple AIV bots, for example), how they went about it here doesn't fill me with confidence. And that's just before AGF wore out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:18, 21 June 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.

Decongestant Article Vandalism.

Note: This section was accidentally deleted due to a software bug and is now restored by me. The OP is the IP, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Someone keeps adding false information that nasal decongestant can be available as laxatives to help the digestive system. This is ridiculous.

I add this link to the NHS website for anyone unsure on what a decongestant is. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Decongestant-drugs/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Please fix it and stop them. --User:94.174.19.151 (talk)

Had to guess you were referring to our Decongestant article. Anyway, it's typical vandalism, and the person had already been warned. Nothing that needs ANI here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, something's not right, look at 94.174.19.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s contribs and the article's history. The one doing both the inserting of the unsourced material and the removal of it is the same user User:94.174.19.151. Software bug? Zad68 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Could just be test reverts, the IP hasn't been very active before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Derogative and insulting entries

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.

---

As I have already brought to attention issues regarding the article on Sōka Gakkai --- some editors have responded in support. Nevertheless the somewhat derogative and insulting style of writing by user:Naveen Reddy is just not on. My user name is Catflap not Catflop!! Maybe an editor could clarify some issues on etiquette with the user in request. Thanks.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:WQA might be a more appropriate venue to raise this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, did you try clarifying the correct spelling of your username with Naveen, if it bothers you? People do make honest mistakes. I would also concur with Hammersoft's suggestion of WQA if a polite clarification does not work, at that point it would be deliberate rudeness. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input I already posted fpr further assitance on WP:WQA--Catflap08 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 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.

Hounding by Sitush

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.

---

Yogesh Khandke's topic ban

1. I am suffering hounding by user:Sitush, I have tried to discuss the issue with him informally,[172][173]
2. He has refused to discuss the same, deleting my edits with an edit summary "go away"[174] One example of his hounding is the article Sudheendra Kulkarni, while I was attempting to discuss the issue with him, he reported me for edit warring and had me blocked, when I was the one who updated the article a BLP, which was hopelessly out of date.
3. His last edit before he set up the edit war (28 May 2012) was on 24 July, 2011.[175] I have been trying to improve the Sudheendra Kulkarni article, and this time he alleges that I have violated my topic ban[176] - "any edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history, widely construed." Kulkarni is a living person and not history.
4. I have not written about colonialism and Indian history, as far as I understand.
5. He even deleted my talk page edits at Sudheendra Kulkarni.[177]
6. I have given him no encouragement, yet he hounds me, for example
   1. Gosha woman.[178] an article I created, and he followed.
   2. Purdah[179], where he has no other edits.[180]
   3. Intrudes into a discussion about Charles Dickens,[181][182] he has made no contribution to the page[183]
   4. He alleges that I am worse with him because he is a "Brit"[184], do I seek him out for a duel? No. He is hounding me.
   5. Free Press Journal, I created, he followed, his last edit was on 4 March 2012, he never went back.[185]
   6. S. Sadanand, I created he sparred, his last edit is on 3 April, 2012, he stopped editing[186] after I left it alone because on of my topic ban.
   7. Free Press of India, I created it, he arrived to edit war,[187] and then after I stopped editing he didn't go back to the article, last edit 2012-04-03[188]
   8. The hounding isn't limited to the list above, if solicited I would be able to search more examples.
7. I request that admins ensure that user:Sitush stops hounding me, and allows me to enjoy my editing privileges. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• You violated your topic ban with your edits, and you were warned by a number of editors of this. Might want to duck that WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Could you explain which edits of mine to Sudheendra Kulkarni violate the topic ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A narrowly construed interpretation of Indian history might exclude contemporary politicians, but not a "widely construed" interpretation. Please find other areas to edit while your topic ban is in place.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a general statement, does any of my edit to Sudheendra Kulkarni cross the threshold? Would you SPhilbrick and Wildthing also look at the hounding? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to leave topics that could be considered infringing my ban alone, would you Sphilbrick help me with it, (once we are done with this hounding issue) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is 11.34 pm here. Got to go. GN. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The following edits were made by me to the article:[189] (1)In 2008, a sting operation was carried out and later televised, called the cash-for-votes scandal, it involved Kulkarni and another BJP activist. It allegedly showed a bribe of Rupees one crore being allegedly offered on behalf of the Congress led UPA government, to each of three BJP MPs to seek their support in the July 2008 confidence vote in parliament. A parliamentary panel probed the operation and asked the Delhi police to investigate some of those alleged to be involved, including Kulkarni whom they said had "facilitated the giving of bribes to members [of Parliament] (2)On 17 July 2011, two of those involved were taken into custody for questioning. Kulkarni, who had been questioned earlier by the Kishore Chandra Deo committee said that he had been interrogated by the police on the matter and that he was prepared for further interrogation by them (3)September 27, 2011. (4)He was released on bail on 17 November 2011, The Economic Times reports that "The high court - while grantig bail to Kulkarni and five other co-accused - had on Wednesday punctured the foundation of the 2008 cash-for-votes scam, arguing that had the BJP leaders wanted bribe, they would not have conducted the sting. Are they about Indian history? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments that are presently unarchived at User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ducking_and_weaving_the_topic_ban, the comments here, here and here. I recall also seeing some recent mention by you regarding your creation of (IIRC) 17 new articles since your ban was put in place. That may have been mentioned in one of your many visits to this noticeboard but, regardless, I would be interested to know how many of those articles I have contributed to.

The stuff that you are talking about consists of articles that have long been on my watchlist and in most cases are there precisely because of events that culminated (after a surprisingly long period of tolerance by the community) in your topic ban. In the specific case that you are now becoming upset about, there were discussions and you participated in them. You cannot simply drift away, then return some weeks later and try to slip the same stuff through again when the discussion had petered out, and you had previously raised issues such as the "card-carrying" phrase in other complaints that you have made without ever receiving any support. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh, you're pushing your luck here. You have got to stop trying to game your topic ban, as I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yogesh, take my advice, take a break from editing India related articles for the time being, because it seems that your editing of those specific articles are causing problems between you and other editors. Conflict at the time being isn't your greatest area. (I've had a brief look at your contributions). Don't push the goodwill of any admins. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights- (1)I am aware of "Boomerang" and everyone has every right to discuss my edits along with my complaint of hounding, however when you allege that I am gaming the system , could would you share a few examples? (2) Last time you have exercised your discretion to block me for "edit warring" when user:Sitush has had initiated the edit war, and I was foolish enough to take the bait. (3)So I have every reason to believe that you would deliver on your promise: " I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. " Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mr. Wikipediania: (1)I was under the impression that constructive editing in non-ban areas, and not keeping away was the key to have the ban narrowed, or revoked some day. (2)I have done over 500 edits since my ban early April, 2012. (3)Most of them have been India related, (but none under the topic ban area (in my opinion). (4)I have created 18 articles, got a DYK for one, had to argue to prevent RfD for a couple, a few had been tagged for one reason or the other, however I've been able to partner with those editors, to improve the articles to their satisfaction. The only time I had problems since the ban is when user:Sitush showed himself up when I updated a badly out of date BLP - Sudheendra Kulkarni a few weeks back, I received a edit warring related block, when I took the bait thrown by user:Sitush. (5)Do you believe that hounding by user:Sitush is my fault, and my topic ban be widened from "colonialism and Indian history" to India? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23- I have clearly mentioned that I have been topic banned, yet you hanged the link like a shop sign, under the sub-title, isn't that a little strange?[190] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush: Please explain "the stuff that you are talking about consists of articles that have long been on my watchlist and in most cases are there precisely because of events that culminated (after a surprisingly long period of tolerance by the community) in your topic ban." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yogesh, calm down. I can understand your frustration and I'm not interested in who's fault it is when this matter erupted. What is really concerning at the moment is the fact that you have gone into far too many scraps, and you should be careful about what you say, as your comments are not helping the Blade of the Northern Lights. Anyways, I have wasted time, and I've got to go. Good luck with the next person reviewing this. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler: In my experience, exceptionally tendentious editors, such as Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), don't reform when they are cut some slack in the form of a topic ban. They keep testing the limits of their gray zones, and of others' patience, until the inevitable realization, of the need of a permanent ban, dawns on others. I believe it is time to permanently ban Yogesh Khandke from Wikipedia. He has long outstayed his welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment:I feel that admins like The Blade of the Northern Lights should also be mentioned for saying something like I'm one of many admins who are more than willing to impose further sanctions if you keep this up. keep up what? keep up the good work of editing out of date articles? Is there any anti-YK group present which involves people like you?

Mr.Wikipediania this is how I want to interpret your advice, lets not get into conflict with few editors and lets not question their judgement as they are always right, so its better you stop editing. There are lot of India related topics which are not related to history why should YK stop editing those articles? because some editor doesn't like him(for reasons better known to him). Fowler welcome to the party, the last time when YK got his topic ban it was due to a content dispute, you are trying to do the same here. Hope no one takes you seriously. This is about Sitush hounding YK and not about YK's style of editing, if someone has a problem go report it somewhere else not here.sarvajna (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to generate a report similar to those used in SPIs, showing commonality of articles edited over a given period? I really do not see this hounding accusation as having any merit. Yes, our paths cross but there are long periods of nothing. This is not the first time that Yogesh has claimed that I have been hounding him, eg: he raised it in the topic ban discussion. Mind you, I have been looking at contributions made by him since he opened this thread, and I can see some selective pseudo-canvassing going on. Why tell AshLin, for example, that he is mentioned in a conversation that I linked to here, but not inform all the other participants in those conversation threads? Something is a little inequitable here. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

AshLin was accused of being YK's meatpuppet, 'he also could be dragged into this, fair enough for YK to warn him'. He had written "I'm the guilty party and not YK" sarvajna (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems a boomerang is in order here. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I know about WP:Boomerang, but what I wanted to say is that discussing about everything else but not about hounding would be unfair to YK.user:Saravask writes on Fowler's page '" If the FBI or MI5 or CBI instituted a program to track these users down in RL and euthanise them on the spot, let me just say that I wouldn't be phoning Amnesty International."', thank you Fowler, you don't want YK to be killed, you just want's him to be banned.sarvajna (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of hounding apart from this spurious AN/I complaint, that's why I'm suggesting a boomerang. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Fifelfoo: (1)I've given seven diffs of user:Sitush's alleged hounding, following me to articles I created (please see my statement above for diffs), Sudheendra Kulkarni is the 8th, he never bothered to go to those articles after, I stopped editing them, partly due to my topic ban. (2)He also has deleted an edit made by me on an article talk page. Do you consider that normal collegial behaviour? If he has a normal interest in those topics, why doesn't he edit them now? (3) Does he have the privilege of "stirring shit"] all around me? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I noted and read your diffs prior to offering my opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Smell bad blood huh Sarvajna? There is no anti-YK group, nor is there a pro-YK group because that would be considered canvassing, and by now you should have known that canvassing is unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. My comments are not meant to deter YK from editing India related-articles, but to take a break from them because he tends to get into conflicts too often, and it's testing the patience of the community. I'd hate another editor getting blocked from a silly matter. From how I see it, there are disagreements on both sides, and that's natural for anyone to get into a dispute, even in real life. Rather than misinterpret my actions as an assumption of bad faith and take advantage of my goodwill, stop trying to game the system. Good luck to the next person seeing this. This is the last comment I shall put here. Good luck, and have a nice day. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo. Will you make a proposal Fifelfoo? We could start with a 3-month ban. If his behaviour upon return doesn't improve, the ban could be extended and lengthened. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Three months seems counter productive. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Articles edited by each user Since this section is titled "Hounding by Sitush", I have created a list of articles edited by Sitush and Yogesh Khandke in 2012. There are 19 articles edited by both users, 218 edited by Yogesh Khandke only, and 2620 edited by Sitush only. If wanted, I could show the other pages that each edited, but it's a long list because Sitush has been extremely active with over 23,000 edits in the last six months. While the two users have interacted on a number of pages, it looks like that is because Sitush does a lot of work on a lot of pages. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that, Johnuniq. In fairness to Yogesh, although I have not edited Charles Dickens (shown as unique to him) I certainly have commented about it. Of the 19 common articles, I'd hazard that it is fairly evenly split regarding "who got there first". In any event, even if Yogesh was first at all of those, 19 out of 218 does not seem to me to support a charge of hounding. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My personal definition of hounding is that it occurs when editor A maliciously follows editor B around and makes mischievous edits to articles where editor B has been active. The purpose is disruption or revenge. In my view that is a different case to a situation where editor C notices poor editing behaviour in an edit made by editor D, and looks at editor D's contributions to see if this is a systemic problem. If it is, then in my view C is justified in repairing problems caused by D.

The actual actions (one editor checks another's watchlist, goes to articles there and edits them) are the same. The intent is different. Of course actions on WP are easy to spot; intent is not. Nevertheless I have seen enough of Sitush's edits to feel as though I can trust on his/her good faith and judgement and there's nothing here to make me doubt that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The instances of hounding that I have referred to here, are of articles created by me the "A and B example given by you". The evidence of his hounding is that he makes no other edits to the article after having warred with me. There are many other instances on talk pages such as the one I have provided regarding the above related to Charles Dickens. You write that "C is justified in repairing problems caused by D" can you provide examples of such a repair at the seven examples and Sudheendra Kulkarni I have provided. John's stats are great, now would you go into the details pl. Why would one invoke a history ban threat in relation to an article about a living person, and when all the edits are about contemporary events, like user:Sitush has done unless to make Wikipedia miserable for the other editor. Please don't rely on trust alone, peruse the evidence pl.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like Kim Dent-Brown to see this sub-Section regarding discussion related to Sudheendra Kulkarni, first Sitush argues that he didn't use the word "implicated" with reference to Kulkarni, then, when evidence is presented in for of a diff, he does a U-turn and justifies the use of "implicated", hardly amusing.[191]. He also has made dozens of edits on my talk page (when lately I made one to his page, he deleted it, with an edit summary "go away"), using expressions like " there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry...", making false socking allegations and dragging me to ANI, taunting me about my interactions with Sue Gardner, "..A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss..." making baseless allegations "...Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Wikipedia..." accusing me of being disruptive at Charles Dickens and Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar neither articles he ever edited,[192], taunting and heckling "Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Wikipedia way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions.", poisoning the mind of another editor about me "I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong.", luckily for me the concerned editor user:WickerGuy ignored him, and we collabrated into creating a new sub-page [[193]], he commended for writing the section Reconciliation. Please see the evidence, if you want more, I will look it up, but don't just assume. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 20 June 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.

Proposal

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.

---

That Yogesh Khandke be blocked for one week to prevent their disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles, and for breaches of their topic ban in relation to Indian history, broadly construed. One week is enough time to calm down from making six months stale claims from a period which resulted in their topic banning. More than one week is punative, rather than preventative. The elements of breach of ban are disturbing, but comparatively minor, and do not in my mind contribute to adding any time to a one week block; this block's period being solely BOOMERANG in relation to the disruption this plaint has and is causing; the breech of ban merely being noted in relation to the block. Yogesh Khandke should consider their editing style and alter it on their return, I really hope to never read their name here as an element of a report ever again, and in a years time to see an application for removal of the topic ban based on excellent editing on other Indian topics. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo and all: Oh my claims complaints are stale? I didn't go official because, I don't believe in puerile complaints at the drop of a hat. However user:Sitush reverted my edit at Sudheendra Kulkarni with an edit warning "breach of topic ban." That was the proverbial "last straw" for me. I have presented my edits above, do the edits reverted by user:Sitush constitute a topic ban? If so then I'm happy that this WP:BOOMERANGs on me as I deserve it. If not, I request that user:Sitush should be persuaded to stay away from me.

• Four edits I made to the article (in effect) reverted by user:Sitush with edit summary "breach of topic ban"

  (1)In 2008, a sting operation was carried out and later televised, called the cash-for-votes scandal, it involved Kulkarni and another BJP activist. It allegedly showed a bribe of Rupees one crore being allegedly offered on behalf of the Congress led UPA government, to each of three BJP MPs to seek their support in the July 2008 confidence vote in parliament. A parliamentary panel probed the operation and asked the Delhi police to investigate some of those alleged to be involved, including Kulkarni whom they said had "facilitated the giving of bribes to members [of Parliament] (2)On 17 July 2011, two of those involved were taken into custody for questioning. Kulkarni, who had been questioned earlier by the Kishore Chandra Deo committee said that he had been interrogated by the police on the matter and that he was prepared for further interrogation by them (3)September 27, 2011. (4)He was released on bail on 17 November 2011, The Economic Times reports that "The high court - while grantig bail to Kulkarni and five other co-accused - had on Wednesday punctured the foundation of the 2008 cash-for-votes scam, arguing that had the BJP leaders wanted bribe, they would not have conducted the sting.

  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support week-long ban. YK has been violating the terms of his topic ban, for example, in this edit to Krishna Desai; following it up with bizarre punctuation, as in this edit, presumably as a way of inserting unencyclopedic material by way of quotes, adding meaningless, dated, and pejorative (to Communists) phrases such as "card carrying" in this edit on Sudheendra Kulkarni, and then edit warring over it. In addition to the Boomerang referred to by Fifelfoo, this is altogether too much disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment regarding Fowler's allegations of topic ban: (1) "Card-carrying" it means a full-fledged member of an organization (as a Communist party) (Merriam Webster), nothing pejorative about it. Moreover it was in the source cited "CPI(M) card holder"[194] (2)Krishna Desai was murdered in 1970? Historical? (3)I appeal to the administrators to request Fowler&Fowler to excuse us, and leave this discussion as he has nothing constructive to share with us. Fowler has an axe to grind in my case, he on informal advice of administrators had apologised to me for incivility and for abuse of Hindu dieties[195] I have always taken the informal route, unless left with no option. (3)Yet Fowler continues being abusive his edit summary at Sudheendra Kulkarni reads this is an encyclopedia; just because someone uses a hackneyed meaningless and pejorative phrase, doesn't mean you can quote it. removing garbage,[196] isn't calling other editor's work garbage a personal attack? (4)More examples of personal attacks by F&F (edit summaries) (a)Talks about an Indian community disparagingly: "Sorry, but removing bogus history; the Mughals would have whupped the Jat butt with both hands tied and both eyes closed; Please no fantasy history"[197] (b)Insulting comments on Hindu beliefs: "clan founder lived 4 billion years ago, when there was no life; was he the first life form, a fragment of RNA? Or a tube worm in a hydrothermal vent?"[198]. (c)Calls Hindu belief's garbage "what sort of garbage is this? All humans in India originally came from Africa; Never heard of an African clan leader named Ikshavaku..."[[199]]
• Comment - Sitush's disruption(1)Sitush is acting like the proverbial "dog in the manger" he is blind to this simple punctuation mistake, which he simply keeps on inserting, In 2011, Kulkarni was remanded in judicial custody for a period and In November of that year was released on bail. It seems all he wants to do is heckle and hound me and not be a constructive contributor at least in the case of Sudheendra Kulkarni. I really fail to understand why the administrative community is turning a "blind eye" to this disruption.
• @Fifelfoo: (1)You write One week is enough time to calm down from making six months stale claims from a period which resulted in their topic banning., I request you to check the diffs, those are of articles I created and Sitush followed, hounded and followed me there. How on the earth does he know that a new article was being created by me unless he was wp:STALKING me? (2) Would you kindly explain with examples your statement prevent their disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles (3) I must thank you for reading and understanding the nuances of my statement I was under the impression that constructive editing in non-ban areas, and not keeping away was the key to have the ban narrowed, or revoked some day, your positive response is reassuring. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Explanation solicited:user:Sitush seems to be referring to off-Wiki activities, "We all know that you will likely find it difficult to be neutral when it comes to writing about Communists etc, given the events late last year that were spattered all over the newspapers/YouTube etc, as well as mentioned on Jimbo's page and at ANI."[200] Isn't bringing off-wiki activities such as You-Tube/ newspapers a serious transgression of Wiki rules? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would like user:Kim Dent-Brown/ All to (1) See the following sub-Section regarding discussion related to Sudheendra Kulkarni, first Sitush argues that he didn't use the word "implicated" with reference to Kulkarni, then, when evidence is presented in for of a diff, he does a U-turn and justifies the use of "implicated", hardly amusing.[201]. (2) He has made dozens of edits on my talk page (when lately I made one to his page, he deleted it, with an edit summary "go away"), using expressions like (a) "...there was a classic piece of Yogesh s**t-stirring pedantry...", (b) Making false socking allegations and dragging me to ANI, (c)taunting me about my interactions with Sue Gardner, "..A word in Sue Gardner's ear may not have gone amiss..." (d) Making baseless allegations "...Now, I understand that you are also proposing that the government block access to Wikipedia..." accusing me of being disruptive at Charles Dickens and Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar neither articles he ever edited,[202]. (e) Taunting and heckling "Hi Yogesh, I notice that your nationalist stance is getting you into problems again on various articles, eg: at Krushnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Charles Dickens. Is there any chance of you leaving out the Hindutva/anti-colonial style of POV and just sticking to the Wikipedia way of doing things? If not then perhaps it really is time for you to find another outlet for your opinions.". (f) Poisoning the mind of another editor about me "I know from experience that YK will not budge from his anti-British ideas and WG seems pretty adamant that YK has got it wrong.", luckily for me the concerned editor user:WickerGuy ignored him, and we collabrated into creating a new sub-page [[203]], he commended me for writing the section Reconciliation. Please see the evidence, if you want more, I will look it up, but don't just assume. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's keep cutting Mr. Khandke more slack and he'll keep delivering his flailing many-splendored diatribes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support I'm now for the week-long block. The ideas that I've given to him to stop coming around in conflicts doesn't seem to be working at all, and the persistent name calling and trying to seek support to make this point is showing that he isn't understanding. I find this edit summary here: ([204]) very uncivil. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Pl. see my interactions with user:Sitush, I've side-stepped all that was thrown at me by him, not a word in reply, it is a year's interaction, and continued attacks, that has made me bring this up. You are looking at the effect, look at the cause too. I have laboured to stay away from him, I've never sought him out, he has. I see a completely non-involved editor like you, feel the way you do, (one should not say hounded when one feels hounded, one should not say heckled when one feels heckled etc.,). I've to ignore even at an ANI when an editor who supports me at at a discussion is called my "cohort". It means that I don't understand the mechanisms here, which is my fault. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Fowler gives some diffs that do not justify that YK violated his topic ban.I would not like to agree with Fifelfoo that YK was responsible for any disruption in relation to the administration of India related articles and a lot of editors like Fowler are being very inventive in connecting everything to Indian History.sarvajna (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Like I said, compulsively tendentious editors, such as Mr. Khandke, will test the boundaries of a topic ban in order to remain in the limelight of controversy. Continue to engage him civilly here, and he (or his cohorts) will continue to post long, disjointed, incoherent posts, the additional boldfacing of which will add eye strain to the headache you already have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, please don't be plainly disingenuous. In this edit about a political murder in 1970, in which, to boot, Mr. Khandke, managed to take a swipe at his usual punching bag, the Indian National Congress, he adds, "According to the Communists, the then Indian National Congress government had an interest in the weakening of the Communists, and so it 'supported the incident'." What the heck is that about if not Indian history? It is an incident of 42 years ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fowler that depends on your definition of History, please note even yesterday is also history technically.When YK was banned it was due to the AIT/AMT which is not a 1970 incident. Do not stoop down to your old habit of making comments like he (or his cohorts) will continue to post long, disjointed, incoherent posts, the additional boldfacing of which will add eye strain to the headache you already have.(this time the fonts are not in bold, hope this will not cause more headache) you have an option, stop reading the commentssarvajna (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

His topic ban, Mr. Kulkarni, says, "Indian history widely construed." It doesn't say "Indian history before and up to 1969." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a week off. I had been undecided about this ban, concerned in particular about it possibly being punitive. However, Fowler&fowler has spotted another problematic POV pushing contribution. Someone needs the time to trawl through YK's edits since the topic ban and fix the things, without being subjected to continued, repetitive arguments in the process. I am pretty close to suggesting that the topic ban be extended to Indian politics also. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Attempting to circumvent the ban and push a POV should be dealt with quickly. Not much point in topic bans otherwise. --regentspark (comment) 23:20, 21 June 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.

Alternate Proposal

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 propose that Sitush and Fowler be banned from interacting with YK, a lot of time of everyone can be saved.sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And damage the encyclopedia in the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It would mean that YK could quite likely get away with point-y edits such as this. I spotted it in my review today and I know that YK is well aware of the Ganges/Ganga naming disputes and their outcomes. I have not reverted but I would hope that someone sees sense. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another stretching of imagination: Is GangaxGanges about Indian History? Both are contemporary names of the river, both are English names, the dispute is which name should we use when we refer to her on Wikipedia, it is an issue of wp:COMMONNAME. Moreover user:Sitush in his disruptive edit on Sudheendra Kulkarni had described my four edits there betweeen 2012-06-19-15.57 and 2012-06-19-16.14[205] as violation of my topic ban[206]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is best to not be obsessively tendentious, Mr. Khandke. The Ganges page has seen several unsuccessful page move attempts to Ganga. The consensus, thus far, has been overwhelmingly to keep the name Ganges. Having been on the losing side of the debate for your entire time on Wikipedia, you are well aware of the consensus. In spite of that, if you are casually changing "Ganges" to "Ganga," with unintelligible edit summary "gangesxganga," you are attempting to do in an everyday edit what you have been unable to do in the page move. This is not to place to redo all the arguments for that page move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

YK, I never said that it was a history issue. The alternate proposal is an interaction ban involving me & has nothing directly to do with your topic ban. Not wanting to blow my own trumpet etc, but if the iban happens then one of the more prolific editors of India-related content will likely be unable to draw attention to, comment on or revert any of your many POV-y/otherwise disruptive contributions. Given the seeming paucity of people with intelligence and a good command of English who choose to spend time on Indic subjects, and given the manner in which you are still choosing sometimes to contribute post-topic ban, that would likely be a pretty big net loss. I mean, just look at the sort of thing it descends to! - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 22 June 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.

Presidency of Barack Obama - more weirdness

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.

---

We are all sock puppets of Scjessey. You have been warned. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could someone please take a look at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama? Someone editing from a new IP address is making some very weird accusations against other editors. I've just deleted the material a second time, as it includes stuff that gets pretty personal and seems to be harassment (accusing another person of being in poor health based on their picture). I'll stand back now to see what others think. I can't tell what the problem is, their prose is so odd. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Why are you so concerned about Scjessey? I stated in my posts that they were not meant to cause insult. Let Scjessey be the one to decide if they are insulting. I suppose you take offense to the way that I ensure policy is correctly implemented. Obviously our understands of polices my differ. Any you want me to reread? I am simply driven to reveal bias. On top of that, I would like another opinion on the matter, given that the two of you seem to team up so much. I begin to wonder if there are any differences of opinion between you two regarding politics because you never seem to disagree and are constantly backing each other up. Wikidemon, you have successfully delayed my bed time by about 4 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Based on the fact that 24.163.35.69 was also obsessed with Scjessey,[207] it appears that both IPs are a single user—one is from a cable modem and the other is on a cell.[208][209] Probably best to ignore for now. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC) [ridiculously inappropriate personal attacks redacted - Wikidemon (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)] The following is a censorin gversion of the previously redacted paragraph that was labeled a personal attack. Be the judge for yourself: Ultimately, you accuse me of personal offense. Please take notice that in the places you refer to, I purposely chose my words to deviate from the most harmful language that we hear everyday. Instead I choose to use the very general and appropriate to discussion word of unhealthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC) And now, for something completely different... Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC) I have found the key bit of information that leaves me highly suspicious about if scjessey and wikidemon are the same user: Wikidemon never asked for my source about my claim that scjessey admits he is biased. That is because he wrote it himself and would not reasonable question it!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Also let me add that wikidemon did not notify scjessey about including him in the noticeboard- highly unusual. Either we must conclude that wikidemon and scjessey are the same user, or they both have lots of explaining to do which must involve some elaborate unusual occurance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Number one: The Larch. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Response You are seeing personal attacks that are nonexistent and still up for scjessey to decide! Please let me know what is bothering you and I will stop. Lets settle this so you do not have to waste any more of my time. Please do not delete this. If there is a policy you would like for me to read and we to discuss, by all means you are authorized to write on my talk page. I suggest you read the article about alarmism. This entire last 6 hours was meant to be directed at addressing concerns with bias I felt scjessey was misguided by, but you really caught my attention. Let me repeat: I am simply defening my self in almost every response I am defending my self and it just so happened to be structured in a way where you saw a personal attack which I don't even see. Everything I wrote, I wrote with particular intention to steer away from person attack, so my mind is spinning! My first of what you are calling a person attack occurred when I was flabbergasted by your dismissal(in WP:uncivial manner using the word 'dumb' etc) of my suggestion to add a widely reported phenomenon that was informative and which I found particularly valuable. I would not say that this is common knowledge, so that argument(which I am not sure you are even making, in fact you haven't done much besides say that I have been personally attack scjessey) goes out the door! The only thing you have done close to responding to my original arguments were to say that my tone is odd! By the way, I would have a better tone if there was a way to use footnotes while making talk page responses-but still have my response self contained. The only explanation I had for your opinion was maybe not interested or knowledgeable about science and health. Furthermore, I seems like scjessey may be denying prevailing mainstream view, the definition of a fringe theory. This is ultimately the reason he is more biased, but I am still waiting for more opinions on this. Yes, I admit when the idea of commenting on the image first came to mind, I was cautious. Let me be clear, from the beginning to the end of my entire through process tonight, I was not intending to harm. Now you said that you found conflicting research paper! This drives my argument for notability home. Just mention in the site of inclusion in the article that there are conflicting findings in research-but still visually deterioration of the presidents face in office! That is all I propose adding! Can someone please close this thread and start an arbitration committee request for me because I am not allowed to start a request without an account. I feel like I should have the privileges as a user when it comes to something so basic as starting a arbitration committee request thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC) If there are any questions about my behavior, please ask. Don't delete with summary "odd tone or 2strange." You are the cause of problems not me. The conclusion should be inexplicable, if not tell me. Deep down, I feel that you were taken aback with how I have matched you intensity and made some points with which you have not responded after some 5 or 6 hours of constantly claiming this I am personally attacking! I have witnessed your behavior on several high traffic pages and ways you and your gang behave on talk pages I find it outrageous. It seems you never admit you are wrong and in this case I firmly believe you are. This is an unusual position you find yourself in and don't know what to do-do ya?? But don't worry, I don't plan on making an account or doing much editing after this fiasco is over! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Look in the mirror, you are the one who is grasping at straws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing...

Hello? This IP continues their disruptive antics on the talk page. It's all very well to be amused by their absurdities, but could we please get a block as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Dianna blocked the IP for 31 hours. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 21 June 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.

AJona1992's restrictions

As per my talk page notice I was told that after 6 months I can ask for a loosening of my restrictions. I had tried to do so in April 2012 though it was preferred that I get a mentor. I have tried to ask two users who were experts with image uploading and rules/guidelines however none were interested. What other options do I have now? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of possible mentors. Why stop at 2? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Those were the only ones who were recommended. I don't know any image mentors and I don't mind asking around if there were a place where I can find them? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• (AJona, do NOT take this as a suggestion to ignore your sanctions) I think somewhere there needs to be a principle that if a request is made to lift a community sanction, due notification is placed at appropriate places such that the community has a chance to respond, and there's no response from the community, the sanction is void. Otherwise, sanctions could exist in perpetuity. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the restrictions I was given. It's been more than 6 months so I want to be able to do things other can, in this situation, uploading files with appropriate non-free template. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Racist hate

See discussion above

In this edit an IP editor (who has since registered as User:One21dot216dot) apparently labels me as a member of an "extreme right wing racist hate group", as well as linking to external sources such as blogs and mail correspondence. This is wrong, defamatory, malicious, contrary to wikipolicy and I want these edits deleted entirely. Previously he had offered to email his allegations, and a look through his contributions reveals numerous comments that transgress any bounds of civil behaviour. Comments about rabid dogs being put down etc. have no place here, regardless of who they are aimed at. Bottom line, I want his WP:OUTING behaviour dealt with promptly. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC) deleted by Skyring here One21dot216dot (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you hadn't heard that the KKK supports same-sex marriage? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

lol. Instead of putting on a wedding dress - or donning jackboots, shaving my head, going out to bash Asians and gays, and trying to screw what little remains of the Aboriginal population out of what they have, for that matter - I'll reply to the latest nonsense up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_baiting_and_harassment_from_User:Skyring_.28Pete.29 since this latest entry is more evidence of that, and not respond any further in this disruptive sub-thread. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I suggest you drop the stick. Those edits are over a week old and while One21dot216dot did get off to a rocky start, he seems to be focused on commenting on content now. I suggest you do the same. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Was a post deleted? This thread makes no sense. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Skyring went on a binge of deleting his own comments from here, rendering this all very bizarre. I believe he actually editwarred to remove the comments, but of course nobody did anything about that. → ROUX ₪ 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the comments that didn't have (a) legitimate potential outing concerns or (b) edit conflicts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The offending material has now been oversighted. --Pete (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right to vanish (for a while)

Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing#What vanishing is not says

"..When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning... If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked."

Does this qualify? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Qualify for what? There's nothing wrong with a previous editor deciding to come back after a hiatus. Nobody Ent 10:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the "right to vanish" article, that's not the case. You're confusing "right to vanish" with "clean start". And if the IP has come back and then gotten into an argument in an area they were previously arguing, then they've violated whichever rule they went-away under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but (s)he's been involved in only a single article and its deletion. If (s)he starts editing more productively, it would be a good idea to unvanish them. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think this editor has previously "vanished" and not just abandoned an account, and is considering a fresh start? We have WP:CLEANSTART, WP:SOCK#LEGIT and so on - I'm not seeing the problem here. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning this IP has not edited in over a week... Worm^TT(talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no right of return after invoking the right to vanish. It's a permanent state of affairs. Otherwise, it's just another noisy form of temper tantrum, and we have enough of those.—Kww(talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that he may have misused the phrase as opposed to actually requesting and being granted a courtesy vanishing. If that's the case, no problem. If he was granted a courtesy vanishing, however, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing that says that "stop editing forever" really means "stop editing (unless you don't edit too much) forever (just kidding!)" and I see nothing that says "When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning" really means "When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is OK to return as long as you don't overdo it." --Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. But it takes effort to research and investigate what the previous account was. If (s)he just came in once and isn't doing anything else, then there's really no community payoff to all that effort. So let's just keep an eye out and actually see if this is actually a reappearance in progress or just a proverbial loch ness monster sighting. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"I invoked the right to vanish a few years ago" seems pretty specific to me.—Kww(talk) 11:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But the only "penalty" for not vanishing is putting your account back from the anonymous name to which it has been moved and linking your accounts. What is the old account name? What is the new account name? Without that information, does it matter? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, if the guy did invoke "right to vanish", then the IP so claiming should be blocked, regardless of what his previous username was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? And, if it doesn't, why? :) "Right to vanish" does not necessarily indicate that the contributor left under a cloud. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, he has to have not left under a cloud. But according to the RTV article, he's not allowed to come back. If he has come back, he's violated RTV and should be blocked. And if he's lying about RTV and is actually a blocked or banned user, then he should be blocked. However, discussion with the user would be in order, to try to discern whether they misunderstood RTV, or didn't actually do RTV, or are actually an evading sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say he's not allowed to come back and that if he does he should be blocked? Can you please quote that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't. I will say that in my experience every return from RTV has been problematic, and it would probably be best if we explicitly forbade it.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's a different issue entirely, and it's not currently our policy. There's nothing that says s/he should be blocked. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." Nothing here about not being allowed to come back, just that the vanishing will probably be reversed if one does. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Uh, it is in the policy: What vanishing is not "Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning... If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked." If they won't reveal who they were, blocking has been practice, because we can't link them back. And policy is written based on practice. It can be added to the policy if we really want to be sticklers for bureaucracy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another example pointing to the need for a comprehensive overhaul of our various related policies. Many "Vanished" accounts rethink that "forever" decision, sometimes within days.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As the editor who started the discussion on the IP editor's page I have a few comments.

1. My Comment to the user were motivated by them hauling be before the Drama Committee without any sort of contact. As the text indicates, I asked a question and suggested that they log in (or register an account) so as to pull away the veil of Anonymous IP editing. I decided to leave it at they didn't want to log in for one reason or another.
2. When I saw the IP attempt to nominate the article for deletion (but get tripped up in the intricate rules of AfD) I pro-forma nominated the article so they could make their case.

If editors want to open up something that has been done for over 10 days I really don't care. Hasteur (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If my reading and memory served me right, we do not block users if they exercised a Right To Vanish then come back, unless there is some type of abuse. They do so at the risk of having their old account linked to their new account. This may included having all their previously "vanished" edits reconnected to their old user name, which would take process and a Bureaucrat to implement. Unvanishing yourself isn't a violation of policy, but it is subject to reversing the good faith actions granted to you when you were allowed to vanish. Vanishing isn't a right, after all. I'm not sure SPI would be proper to link them unless there is some abuse involved. I'm not sure we are at the point that a discussion to unvanish someone is a good idea anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, figured I should just mention again that it was several years ago. You had a right to vanish back then, whereby you just left your old account behind, and could later create a new account. That's why I call it "Right To Vanish" and not "Courtesy Vanish" which has been created since I left. It has been about four years since then. The idea was that you could start over, and as long as you didn't cause any issues, it'd be all good. I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to come back under a new name anymore. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As recently as August 1, 2011, the page (then still at Wikipedia:Right to vanish) stated: Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind.  --Lambiam 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Under either reading, coming back isn't a violation of policy, you just risk being linked to your old account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• 70.15.136.149, I hope my question did not offend you. I was surprised when someone else brought up blocking. I was expecting either "it's OK, we need to change the wording that implies it isn't", or "It's not allowed, we will politely ask the user to not do it" or perhaps "you are misunderstanding the policy". From a policy standpoint, the interesting thing is the concept of someone who stops editing (whether by being allowed to courtesy vanish, by retiring, or even through a lifetime ban) and is at that time told that there are certain requirements concerning starting new accounts or IP editing, then later those requirements change. It would not be fair to criticize that editor for following the rules in good-faith that were in effect when he left. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So under the rules you left under, it was just a variant of RTV that was half vanish and half clean start? And we'd consider it a courtesy vanish these days? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• If you didn't have your talkpage deleted then you exercised what we would now call WP:Cleanstart. wp:RTV involves having your account renamed to something like vanished user ..... and usually the talkpage deleted. In any event, welcome back and glad to have you with us again. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Four years? It's OK, we need to change the wording that implies it isn't. Or alternatively, appear non-bureaucratic common sense. Nobody Ent 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP should own up to what his previous user ID was, and that should allay any concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not if what they're doing is just a misnamed cleanstart, they shouldn't publicly. Via e-mail to a trusted admin, perhaps? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping possible indef blocked user

On the article Walam Olum, now up to 4 IPS (166.147.120.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.147.120.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.147.120.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.147.120.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) all in one range, all making an insertion similar to one made in the past by indef blocked user Marburg72 (talk · contribs). Heiro 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And now they are at their fifth revert with 166.147.120.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Heiro 01:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess we'll see if they move on to one of their other usual targets before we request a rangeblock? Heiro 01:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Heironymous, don't worry, you did the write thing reporting this. Now can you give us a description on the perpetrator? You say it might be Marburg, but he has been blocked now for roughly 3 years 10 months and 14 days. What makes you think he's behind these shenanigans? 12.228.254.130 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Because he is an idef blocked sock puppetter who has returned several times with IPs during that three years and made almost an identical edit.

See Talk:Walam Olum/Archive 3#/* The "Real" Indigenous Chronology */ and this IP 71.81.36.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), specifically this diff Heiro 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up. It's clearly Marburg. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Constant attacks by editor

121.216.230.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has strong views on Craig Thomson affair. He's also constantly accusing others of vandalism and of inserting libel and defamation. [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216] via edit summaries and section headers. The material in question has three different sources and judged not to be libelous by an admin [217]. He was warned by me about WP:TALKNEW and personal attacks [218] and has received other warnings, [219] for example. He's still continung [220], [221]. At this point I'd like an admin to step in and make it clear to 156.* that these attacks must stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As the target of some of these attacks, may I rise in the defence of the IP editor. He is a new editor and he feels strongly about the material. He is getting good advice from more experienced editors and I trust that he'll let it sink in and become more co-operative as time passes. I feel sure that he can provide some excellent work once he becomes more familiar with the way things happen around here. I am not particularly offended by his assaults on my various sensibilities and I forgive him. I do however, echo NeilN's request that it be made clear by an admin or two that continued transgressions will make his participation difficult. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I get an admin to look at this user's behaviour since my comment above? I'd like very much for him or her to become a useful member of the project, considering their obvious research skills and intelligence, but they have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to benefit from advice, and to continue disruptive behaviour. It is increasingly difficult to WP:AGF when an editor:

• Engages in WP:OUTING behaviour here. I'll admit that I raised the possibility of this IP:editor being the subject of the biographical articles he edits, given the obvious WP:COI issues raised, also the possible vulnerability of the subject.
• Disrupts discussion on content by making personal attacks and inserting his contributions contrary to the flow of discussion. He has been repeatedly directed to WP:TALK and WP:INDENT. A good example of this behaviour is here, where I am attempting to reword an incorrect statement in the article. The content is unimportant here, but by following successive diffs, the disruption becomes apparent.
• Ignores warnings and advice. The edit history of his talk page is instructive, where various warnings placed by a variety of editors are blanked and the offending behaviour continued. An edit summary of "deleted unread" is hardly something to build confidence in this user's ability to become a cooperative editor.
• Is possibly a sock puppet, pretending to be a new editor so as not to be bitten. This possibility was raised here by another editor. While an existing editor may edit as an IP, if they engage in disruptive behaviour taking advantage of the latitude extended towards new editors, they shouldn't.

I think that I have been understanding and polite to this editor, but the disruption is becoming hard to ignore. --Pete (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can a IP check please be made on the recent edits made by User:NeilN to see if they match those of Skyring? It appears that the history of NeilN began at almost the same time as Skyring was placed on a one year ban. Noting the previous rulings, it was noted that Skyring may have created sockpuppets and kept them in reserve. I could be wrong about this, but I'm not certain. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. But yes, you're wrong. I'm glad to see you seem to have finally stopped comparing editors to rabid dogs and mislabelling edits as libelous, false, and defamatory though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, NeilN, I have made mistakes; people learn by making them when trying to do something about a serious problem, not by sitting around. But okay, I'm wrong about the sockpuppet issue. I'm glad to see non-partisan people have also seen the same problems which I saw when I first brought the bigger issue about the defamatory material to the BLP noticeboard which was, as Skyring gloats about here, previously dismissed. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

This article is the centre of edit warring, POV pushing, and the addition of blatantly false and defamatory libel. User:Skyring (alias Pete) has persistently baited other editors and myself, lied about the contents of his edits, added poorly sourced, defamatory, and opinion sources to the article, inserting blatant lies into the body text of the article, and slanted the article to become an attack page again, after edits were made to try and add some balance to the article. He was joined by User:NeilN who continued to play WP:GAME. I request that experienced editors look into the matter. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm largely with the IP editor here. It's a very sensitive topic. One that could bring down the Australian government. We've had partisan posts in the literal sense, from a member of the opposition party!). It seems to me that both Skyring/Pete and NeilN have been aiming for the article to have a particularly critical POV of the subject. The IP editor was definitely provoked by unacceptable editing practices, especially from Pete/Skyring. (His new position fascinates me.) This is not a simple case of one badly behaved editor. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have exactly one edit to the article (a revert of a "vandalism revert" by the IP). My talk page posts consist of trying to get the IP to quit with the defamation and libel accusations and trying to understand your position regarding the absence of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have exactly one edit to the article [....] Exactly. You've been concentrating on WP:GAME and finding 'better' things to do than fix the article itself - like your threats and baiting [222] on the article's talk page, running round all over Wikipedia to 'get that anon user to see how things are done here' [] and all your little games left on 'my' (this IP's) talk page. And what about your moving of my responses around on the article's talk page, and then invoking some nonsense about 'incorrect intending'? Both you and Skyring did that, and did so deliberately to bait me, NeilN. Instead of examining and fixing the serious problems then present in a BLP article - which you knew about well before this blew up ([223]) - you've been more interested in harassing me and wasting my time and that of others by playing The Wikipedia Game - e.g. [224], [225], [226], [227] etc etc. But let's get back to the article:

1. . There were defamatory and false allegations of fact previously in it and they were being used to push a POV agenda; they were altered or removed.
2. . The article was full of defamatory innuendo and in such poor shape that it prompted one editor to ask if the subject of the article had been found guilty of anything by a court upon that editor's initial examination.
3. . When Skyring alias Pete deliberately restored the innuendo and referenced a source cited by the legal system as a reckless libeler, I removed them again.
4. . What many people outside Australia may not know is that the subject of the article began defamation proceedings against a major media empire, whose publications would ordinarily be considered a reliable secondary (ie neutral reporting) source for Wikipedia purposes. What happens when these previously hereto reliable secondary sources are also the defamation defendants of the article's living person? They cannot really considered to be neutral reporters of fact in that instance, can they?
5. . The other national media source whose opinion sources Skyring liked to use is owned by Murdoch, and so that should speak for itself.
6. . For you and others to falsely describe my edits as 'vandalism' when I attempted to put some balance into an article which Skyring and his (ex?)Liberal Party of Australia chum were busy making into an attack page before HiLo48 and I came along (and before Collect cleaned it out) to try and put it right simply isn't true; what happened to your assumption of good faith?
7. . Your friend Skyring alias Pete is baiting me with nonsense after I added a comment on the AfD. And he's still at it, moving my comments around and trying to bait me. He knows perfectly well that I had already addresses that very issue right here before, when Ball couldn't cope with the fact that some people see through the smears perpetrated by the Liberal Party of Australia. For the record, (a) I am not Craig Thomson; and (b) I reiterate the fact that, unlike Ball, I have no past or present membership of any political party. So AFAIC, Skyring's comment falls into the "when did you stop bashing your wife?" category. Before choosing to ignore him, I had previously asked that editor to stop his lying and harassment, and that was redefined as "a personal attack".
8. . For the record, I assumed good faith with Skyring until he (a) inserted material which was demonstrably false and untrue (which I referred to as 'lying'; why sugar-coat a turd and call it birthday cake?) and (b) removed any material which conflicted with his POV that the subject should be presumed guilty of offences and/or torts without trial; in Australia, that is called defamation. I am not the only person who can see that a slant and bias is being added by certain editors and the article is/was in poor shape, with such descriptions as, eg bad and opinionated content creation, adding his own POV slant, and creating the page as a perfect place to hang one's prejudices.
9. . Also for the record, I assumed good faith with you until you started playing games with me - moving my responses around on the article talk page to bait me, and your making of threats to report me to ANI and so on, but it now appears to me as though you support Skyring's POV pushing and gaming the system. Then again, you're not alone in that; the sort of game playing I've experienced here (e.g. [228](reply to false accusations by Skyring maliciously deleted by User:Armbrust; [229] (semantics and games from User:Despayre when I attempted to jump through hoops to get approval for sources which had been deleted by the POV pushers) and this from User:Dennis_Brown [230](that edit was 'a legal threat'? Oh, please; can someone put the lid back on the glue?) amongst many others which I can't be bothered to cite) is both a travesty and so incestuously ridiculous, since the policies are being gamed by a handful to promote the outcomes which those policies were intended to prevent. The preceding are a few examples of the kind of circle-jerking which puts people off participating in Wikipedia. I began editing the article to fix the POV and source problems which were clearly obvious and thus enhance the integrity of the project by contributing to it - NOT to argue with recalcitrants, NOT to spend hours jumping through hoops, and NOT to play stupid games. Despite the good efforts of HiLo48, Collect, Youreallycan, and some others, this experience has certainly put me off making any further contributions - but what does that matter; I guess that won't matter since I'm 'just an IP and thus a non-citizen'. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC) PS - struck-through claims made in haste. I apologise to NeiN for the now struck-through claims. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Please provide a diff where I moved your comments. 2) Please provide a diff where I called your edits "vandalism" 3) You can repeat it all you want, but the text I was discussing ("Fair Work Australia asked lawyers to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against Thomson and others named in the report's adverse findings") was neither libelous or defamatory as it was reported by three different sources. 4) Trying to get you to calm down and make your points rationally is not baiting you. Comparing an an editor to a rabid dog who needs to be put to sleep [231] and stuff like this however, is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User:NeilN, as with your friend Skyring alias Pete, I am not wasting any more of my time playing your games any more, and I will not respond any further to your edits, "questions", and baiting. We're done here. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was a splendid example of "silly season" stuff - it used huge amounts of unneeded and irrelevant details, and a strange "timeline" which did not improve the article. As always, sufficient gist is left for the reader, but Wikipedia is a poor place for campaign pamphlets, at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

{ec}x many :Admins might also want to drop a word or two to HiLo48 about the repeated personal attacks on Pete. I've no horse in this race, but have just read through the talk page and no matter how frustrated one gets, flinging insults like this, this, this and this is pretty much beyond the pale. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You cited this, and Hilo48's reply there was hardly an insult; all HiLo48 did in the section you cited was to relocate the part I added. Look again at his(?) response - it is very civil, especially given the circumstances. As for what you called an 'insult', I call it as I saw it; lies are false statements knowingly made as statements of fact, and is defamation is the knowing dissemination of false information by person A to lower the opinion of person B in the opinion of another. Skyring repeatedly inserted both into the article and it was removed. I agree that what I wrote there wasn't a very nice way to put it - but it was done with the intent to quickly get administrator attention onto the article quickly, and in that, it succeeded in its aims. Your subsequent citations regarding HiLo48's previous responses were in response to baiting and edit-warring by Skyring. And, que surprize; here is Skyring baiting Hilo48 again, so poor little Pete is hardly an innocent party here. However, given this struck-through comment it's not surprising you're interpreting what's gone on in the way you are. I guess at least Skyring alias Pete or his friends NeilN and DDB will never complain about anything you edit, hey. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your point on that diff, must have selected the wrong one. Baiting aside, HiLo's rising to the bait is hardly the way to deal with things. My political POV is exactly the reason why I avoid editing in political articles. I would be vastly surprised if they could find anything to complain about in anything I write, since I solely focus on copy editing, but if they do my talk page is always open for criticisms and opinions. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like someone to address the behaviour from Pete that got me fired up. For a couple of days he followed an editing pattern of placing a comment on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article in line with his comment with his opinion, before anyone had responded on the Talk page. This behaviour continued despite repeated polite requests to stop. Ruder requests (yes, against Wiki rules) worked. He finally paid attention. I'm proud that I protected the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, HiLo. Could you provide an example, please? Most of your "ruder" comments came during the time the big football game was on, and I suspect you didn't check previous discussion or follow the links provided at the time, being distracted by other things. --Pete (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I've said my piece here. And I suspect that we follow different football codes anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baseball, and only very mildly - the last game I watched was the Reds whipping the Mets at Citifield, after a dinner at Mickey Mantles in 2009. But come on, you've raised my name here without the courtesy of informing me about it, do you have anything specific to say? --Pete (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was required to inform you that he mentioned you in this thread, considering you had already commented here and were presumably watching it. Doc talk 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting fired up is one thing, but verbally abusing another editor is completely unacceptable. If this "affair" brings down the Australian Government, another will take its place. Nothing ever really changes regardless of who we vote for (yes, I'm Australian) and to be honest, Gillard is a joke, but that's neither here nor there. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Edit: Striking inflammatory remark. Blackmane (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article looks solid to me. What's libelous or defamatory about it? Contrary to the article being POV or agenda laden, it seems like those fighting for it to be altered from a simple report of what is available in the media to a whitewashing have a POV agenda. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What's libelous or defamatory about it? Obotlig, do you mean before or after Collect expertly ran a broom through the article? Collect removed the nonsense, but the POV pushers are back at it again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is important. Seriously, can we get an experienced admin onto this. The Craig Thomson or Health Services Union affair is a major and ongoing political controversy in Australia. It's been front page news since 2009, the nation's leading politicians are talking about the subject, and he's been getting all sorts of abuse and possibly death threats. His Twitter account is getting some worrying messages. A lot of working people hate him, after the release of the damning report by Fair Work Australia last month into financial irregularities involving union funds dating back to 2002. The affair has huge political significance, given that the minority government depends on his vote and would fall without it. I've been working on an article about the affair over the past month since the release of the report.
A few days ago a new SPA IP editor showed up and began making edits, strongly partisan edits in favour of the subject. A very distinctive pattern, indicating somebody who knew a lot about the controversy, but preferred to use political blogs rather than mainstream media sources. He was challenged about his identity, but gave an odd and evasive answer, saying he has no political affiliation and is not being paid to edit. As Craig Thomson himself is no longer a member of any political party, i wondered about this, and had a look at his IP address and other stuff.
I take no offence at any of the many personal attacks made against me, above and elsewhere. New editors don't know the rules and usually learn quickly enough, and while Wikipedia can be a harsh playground, there is a lot of help around for those who seek it. Could I ask someone to take a closer look at this user, hold his hand, give him some guidance, and maybe get him to feel more at home. I'm concerned about the level of tension and aggression exhibited by this person, and if he is indeed the subject of the "Craig Thomson affair", trying to edit articles concerning him, then he can run into a lot of rocks, as do many BLP subjects doing the same thing. In any case, whoever he is, this editor is a fellow human being and clearly under a lot of stress. --Pete (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem, and the reason for this users stress was the opinionated POV attack content you, User:Skyring had created and are still attempting to recreate and publish using en wikipedia in relation to a living subject of one of our articles - your contributions expose you as a clear conflicted partisan. Youreallycan 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've stuck to reliable sources, and refrained from pushing my own opinion. In discussing political matters, there are always people who have a contrary and strongly-held opinion and view the thing as a football match, where they cheer on their saints and take no criticism, while damning the opposing side as demons who can do no good at all. I stand by all my edits on this matter. Regardless of anything else, even Thomson admits that union funds were spent on prostitutes through his credit card number and never repaid. The Fair Work Australia report goes into forensic detail on this, repeated by every media outlet in Australia as a major story the next day. If we are to have an article - and we already have several in various places - dealing with the matter, it is incumbent on Wikipedia to present the facts, back them up with sources, and be as fair as we can, with regard to NPOV and BLP. If there are any of my edits which represent original research or personal opinion, please point them out. --Pete (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You, User:Skyring, are a biased partisan attack content creator in this instance - others have also pointed them out. I have also had to revert and NPOV some of them. - You are also a single purpose account in regards to this subject for the last five weeks. Your contributions to this topic have been commented as POV and undue and BLP violating by multiple experienced editors as you are well aware - your content addition has been removed as violating and undue in regards to Wikipedia policy - and so on and so on - Youreallycan 07:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow. There must be lots of offending diffs with my name on, then. Perhaps you could be more specific, perhaps list three of the ones you really hate? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You will probably never recognise it, but quite possibly most of your edits are unacceptable. I have debated several with you (when you paused long enough for that to happen), and you never seemed to understand. I've encountered this before on Wikipedia, an editor who simply cannot comprehend what they're doing wrong. For the sake of the encyclopaedia, they usually still end up being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but all I'm seeing is opinion and no details. This is Wikipedia and we don't lose diffs. Pick three you say are bad and show how they violate wikipolicy. Please. --Pete (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's gaming. You know it's more complicated than that. The behaviour I first called you on (and subsequently many more times), was seeming to initiate discussion on the Talk page, then immediately changing the article before anyone had even responded. WP:Consensus means nothing to you, despite later writing an essay on how important it is. You did it many times. You really don't care what others think. (Unless they're barracking for you.) Such bad faith editing and hypocrisy is very confrontational and never helpful to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can't provide anything to support your claims - which I reject - then you put yourself in an awkward position, where the only recourse is to be disruptive. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, provide diffs please. If you can't provide evidence of your claims, this will be closed as no action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NO! PLEASE READ MY POST JUST ABOVE AGAIN! (Although you give the distinct impression that you haven't read it once yet.) Diffs alone won't show you the problem with Pete/Skyring's behaviour. It's a serious problem, but you have to look at the timing pattern between Talk page posts and article updates to see it. This editor uses a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time. Diffs form one page won't show you that. If You close this just because simple Diffs won't show the problem, you're not doing an effective job. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's something like an aura, maybe? It don't show in diffs, it's something that you just feels in your water and you knows. The hairs on the back of your neck all rise up together and a wolf howls in the lonesome distance... --Pete (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A "where wolf", maybe? Doc talk 12:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing so sophisticated; just a plain rabid mongrel. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, if "diffs from one page won't show you that", then...show diffs from multiple pages. If you can't provide diffs of your accusations, then we have to assume that the refusal to provide evidence means that there is no evidence. It's not the admins' job to go digging - it's your job to back up your accusations with actionable evidence, which is something you have, so far, singularly failed to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you assume "that there is no evidence", it would be a stupid and very incorrect assumption. I have a life outside Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not HiLo48 (or Craig Thomson for that matter!) but now I know how, I'll do that if he doesn't. Give me a couple of hours. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craig_Thomson_affair is a bit of a mess with strong "suggestions" of COI and socking being made which, IMO, do not belong in such a discussion. Might someone examine the excess verbiage? Collect (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across my name up there in the middle of that wall (just barely made the top 10! ), and thought I'd add a little clarity to the section that refers to me. My only contact with the IP was when he brought an extremely vague question to RSN, a template was posted by another editor asking for more info, and after some time he said something to the effect of "I see no one disagrees with me here", to which my response was this explaining that that would be an incorrect assumption, and tried to provide a little clarity on the issue he was having at RSN. That's pretty much it (he never responded)... *shrug*. I have now archived that section on RSN as I don't see any value in going down that road now that larger issues with that article appear to be in the forefront. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

....he brought an extremely vague question to RSN ...' I don't agree; after this happened my questions basically boiled down to

1. Can my.talk.com.au be used to source the JPG, since it is a Fairfax-owned and operated site; the JPG was used in a letter to the police; and the JPG was created by Fairfax in the first place; and

2. Can "Independent Australia" be considered as a 'reliable source'?

Those questions aren't rocket science. There wasn't any meaningful response, so I went back to state that, as there were no objections, I'd re-insert the material deleted. It wasn't until after I stated the foregoing that anyone meaningful responded.

After I'd experienced a certain recalcitrant who was willfully playing stupid while others and myself were trying to put NPOV balance in the article, it appeared to me as though I was encountering the same on RSN. I apologise if my perception of your response is mistaken, but the impression I got then was that you were playing the same sort of games. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't use political blogs as reliable sources. Not when the affair is front page news in every metropolitan daily and leading the evening news bulletins. We have many excellent sources to use on this, and they have a wide coverage. If one has to resort to a site run by one or two guys pushing their own partisan views - and the "Independent Australia" blog is about as balanced as the North Korea Daily Buggle - then one might ask, why are the big broadsheet papers not carrying the same fascinating and alarming stories? It's not just one particular outlet you scorn as a source, it's every daily newspaper in Australia! You also wanted to use an image that had been obviously tampered with and had no information as to provenance. I'm happy, more than happy, that you are participating in the Wikipedia project, and that you bring your own views and perspective, but you have to play by the rules. They aren't arbitrary policies and guidelines laid down from on high, they are procedures we have all developed together, often wrangled over and disputed, but they work, and given the amazing variety of people contributing, that is a miraculous and inspiring achievent. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N has a well established and specific format for questions. Despite the page and edit window indicating this format to you, you failed to specify the required information. Despite requests for you to specify the required information, you failed to do so. Reconsider the collegiality of your editing in relation to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. RSN required 3 things to be identified: (1) the source(s) (they were); (2) the article (which was); (3) the content (which also was, pertaining to the JPG). There was no response until after I stated that "since there were no objections..."; nor was there any request to clarify my questions prior to me posting that. If someone had asked me "what is / clarify your question" before I made the "since there's no response" post, I never would have made the latter. Having never seen the RSN before, let alone used it, I had no experience or knowledge on how to ask; I was referred there and was trying to do the right thing in order to improve the article. Although I appreciate the need for processes, it seemed to me to be a lot of hoop-jumping just to get a very simple yes or no answer to two (what seemed to me to be simple) questions. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't indicate a source or proposed edit here, "2. With regards to 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/): if this can be considered by Wikipedia as a reliable source, I intend to link to certain documents from this source in the Craig Thomson affair. I am reluctant however to reference some articles from the site itself, as some articles are clearly opinion pieces and are thus not the neutral reportage of news. Question: can IA be considered as a reliable source?"

You don't indicate a source or claim supported here, "1. With regards to mytalk.com.au: […] That said, I will restore the JPG in order to provide a balance to the article which it currently lacks."

Author, date, title, publisher. It isn't that hard. Stating a claim to be supported. It isn't that hard. Next time you enter a forum you're unfamiliar with, do bother to determine the locals customs because your current attitude is fundamentally non-collegial. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I begin to see what you're getting at, however the JPG at issue was within this PDF file (http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/audio/Brandisletter.pdf) which I'd previously linked to, as "Annexure A". I take your point though; I should have linked to the JPG itself. With regards to using IA as a source, the question I was asking was along the lines of if it was considered to be as (a) blog or personal website, or (b) as a publisher in the same way that crikey.com.au or Washingtonpost.com are considered to be internet news publishers. Or, put another way: if I wanted to link to news articles from The Washington Post website and asked you, "would that site be considered to be a reliable source?" without nominating any particular article on the site, you would most likely reply in the affirmative. I was asking the same question with regards to IA. If the site in general could not be considered to be a RS - ie it's considered as a blog or personal website - then there would be no point in specifying particular articles from it or propose edits using that source as a reference. I don't know how I can make these points any clearer or phrase the issue any other way. With regards to your comments about working in a cooperative relationship with reasonable people, I am not opposed to that and in fact that is what I am trying to achieve. The article left in the state it was at that time was a defamatory attack article, and I was trying to restore some balance to it. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Entire RSN exchange is here, any reviewing editors may want to note that the exchange is chonologically dis-ordered as there were several conversations going on at once in there. I think it speaks for itself. If others have more questions somehow, please leave me a note on my talk page. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• From the onset, I believed that edits were being done to the Thomson articles in less than good faith and/or otherwise in violation of policy, and that there has been a conflict of interest at work in negatively slanting the POV of the article for the advantage of vested political interests, [Redacted as per WP:OUTING]

After examining all of the above in detail (and other URLs which I have not mentioned above), it appears to me as though you have a clear WP:COI and WP:COATRACK issues at work here from a player who knows how to game the system. There is also an established history of similar behavior to that complained of now - why bother keeping a history if you're not going to learn by it. I note also that topic bans have been placed on editors before and that ought to be considered in this instance, but your own views may differ. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the material immediately above except to say that I hereby withdraw all contention that the IP editor is the biographical subject of the articles on which he is working. His research skills are way better! On that note, he or she should be encouraged to stick around and contribute in a positive manner. We need this passion. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I suspect that passion may sometimes get in the way of objective editing, for more than one player on this topic ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. You are very good to say so. Admitting a problem is the first step to overcoming it. Now, do you have any sober evidence to back up the emotionally intense claims made above? --Pete (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you even realise that I was talking about you (among others) in that post? There is masses of evidence, but your machine gun approach to editing makes it very hard to isolate for policemen who want it all present in point form on the back of an envelope. (Do you have any idea how many edits you have made to Craig Thomson related articles and Talk pages over the past two weeks?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered. Why not, if my edits are so outrageous, just pick three of the absolutely worstest? Admins are (hopefully) busy and committed dedicated people, and when they request your guidance, why not direct them exactly where you want them to go? --Pete (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"You bent over, I couldn't resist the target offered." this kind of language is not needed on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Skyring (Pete) topic ban

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

• Its not difficult for an administrator to have a historic read of - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring and see the outcome, - banned for a year as a result of wiki stalking and violating edits in regards to governance of Australia and see the disruption being caused here and see whats going on. - his sockpuppet page Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Skyring although appears on first investigation historic is quite interesting reading also - As a user that has been previously banned for a year for disruption in the governance of Australia topic area and has returned to it and has created a policy violating WP:NPOV article, resulting in a WP:BLP violating and WP:UNDUE content and plenty of disruption. I suggest User:Skyring be topic banned from all articles and their talkpages and content additions or removals relating to the governance of Australia. Youreallycan 05:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per above - Youreallycan 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for ongoing active disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages, given a history of disruption in relation to Australian governance related pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT diff IDHT diff Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC) IDHT PRIMARY diff Fifelfoo (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 24th contribution to a AfD discussion, badgering Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC) badgering Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is one of those more challenging problems. Skyring (Pete) is a user obsessed with Australian political dramas. He lives in the national capital, Canberra. That's far more significant than an American living in Washington DC. A high proportion of Canberra's citizens are political junkies. The difficulty is that I don't think he's aware of what's unacceptable about his approach to editing, no matter what others tell him. This makes it very difficult to discuss it with him. It's also worth noting that not discussing, while dramatically changing articles, is a standard approach of his. And I still object to the demand above to provide diffs. In this case it's like picking machine gun bullets, and their cases, scattered over several farm paddocks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of focus. Look closer at my contribution history. Most of my edits are on talk pages, the Australian political articles numbering maybe a dozen out of many hundreds on which I've contributed over the past year, most often making tiny changes, usually labelled as minor. I've put a lot of effort into Ugandan notables, a BBC radio presenter, a list of things named after the Queen, British merchant ships... It's all there, for anyone to see. I'm certainly interested in Commonwealth political drama, but hardly obsessed, and certainly not to the extent that my contributions here reflect any one focus. If there's any obsession, it's date formats. I like to organise and arrange things in their proper order, and I like to see errors identified and corrected. Wikipedia is a sweet playground for nerds like me. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I am truly reluctant to respond at this location nowhere near the end of the thread, because it will further perpetuate the massively multi-threaded, scatter gun result of your efforts (which I again emphasise makes the simple listing of Diffs fairly pointless when discussing the real problem here) but my immediate thoughts were, if so many of your article changes elsewhere have been tiny and minor, the massive changes you have attempted to make to Craig Thomson related articles surely demonstrate some sort of obsession with the man, or what his elimination from the scene will do for perhaps your preferred direction for federal politics. (I'm still trying to guess at the real motivation for your huge interest in Thomson's world.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created an article on the notable topic when Fair Work Australia presented its report and thus provided a solid source. Apart from linking the Craig Thomson and Gillard Government articles to the new article, I didn't touch any other "Craig Thomson-related articles", let alone make massive changes. The article needed to be written, I begged for coöperation on the talk page, the BLP problems were raised at the BLP Noticeboard and [[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive153#Craig Thomson affair|dismissed,]] and I have rejected and continue to reject your unsupported and erroneous allegations of political motivation. Why not stick to facts instead of making personal attacks? --Pete (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a teacher. It's part of my job (and, I might say, a professional skill I possess) to try to work out the real reasons the behaviour of some people is a long way from the norm. It's not a personal attack. It's an attempt to better understand your true motivation so that I can work better with you. As for facts, despite your massive denials, you HAVE tried to make big and significant changes to Craig Thomson related articles. That you do this while claiming that most of your edits elsewhere are minor is a real puzzle. I'm still trying to figure you out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I created Craig Thomson affair from scratch. That's a significant change, I guess. Kindly provide diffs that show I have made "massive" or "big and substantial" changes to any other Craig Thomson-related article, as per your repeated claims above. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nup. Not playing that game with you. Perhaps a better indicator would be a simple count of the total number of edits you have made to Thomson related articles and talk pages. That includes pages like this one. Have you any idea how many that would be? I don't, but it sure ain't small. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I like to think that I've learnt from my experience, years in the past. If my behaviour is a problem, where is the evidence? Where are the diffs? (ETA) And would it be too much trouble to ask that the wikipolicies I'm supposed to have breached be mentioned? Some of the diffs provided aren't mine, and those that are mine look okay to me. If the precise breaches could be pointed out, it will help whatever admins step up to work out if there has been any violation of wikipolicy. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• They are littered in the talkpage discussion and the content you created at the Craig Thomson affair - diff - see the removal of content you didn't like because it didn't attack Thompson and its removal by a policy experienced editor User:Collect and your replacement and the revert of your removal by an administrator User:Qwyrxian - there are so many similar situations it seems unnecessary to post more. Youreallycan 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the material because the source didn't support the statement. I began a discussion on the wording here where I explain why and suggest an alternate wording which is pretty much a direct quote from the source. The discussion becomes pretty choppy (as noted above) because the IP editor won't follow WP:INDENT guidelines for talk page procedure and takes it as a personal attack when indents are altered or comments moved to their correct place. But that's by the by. The statement in the article remains unsupported by the source and I'd like to fix it. As, I trust, would any editor reading both and spotting the error. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You had to be reverted twice, once by an experience policy compliant user and after you replaced the content by an administrator - Youreallycan 06:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement in our article remains unsupported by the source. I pointed out the problem and suggested a wording that kept the intent of the original statement but got the details correct. The discussion remains open and I invite you to comment there. --Pete (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Per request from The Bushranger (above in previous section), I hope this may assist to show the points which HiLo48 made there:

Skyring's original edits contained the section heading "Attempts to blame others"; that was a libelous innuendo removed by me (Revision as of 01:12, 7 June 2012 by me (article)).

With regards to points which may begin to illustrate HiLo48's point as originally posted (ie of "...us[ing] a scatter gun approach, behaving in an inflammatory way on several related pages at the same time.." please note the following:

1. . Hilo48 comments regarding Bolt (Revision as of 01:56, 8 June 2012 by Hilo48 (talk page));
2. . Skyring restores the libelous innuendo here (Revision as of 01:59, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article));
   
3. . then Skyring comes back to the talk page (Revision as of 02:05, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (talk));
   
4. . and then Skyring puts more garbage back into the article (Revision as of 02:08, 8 June 2012 by Skyring (article).
   
5. . Later, Skyring made a dishonest edit summary in the opinion of Hilo48 (with which I agree); interestingly, Hilo48 restored a Fairfax opinion piece which Skyring originally wanted to use to further defame the article's subject, but Skyring didn't like the portrayal of that article in the NPOV version and so he then ripped it out.
   
6. . If there are any doubts remaining that Skyring intends this article to be an attack page and a coatrack, the following edits may be indicative pointers as to the agenda being pursued: a, b, c, d, e, f, and g, which is a dishonest edit summary given the source material.
   

There's other matters worthy of mention, for example lying about me outing an editor with a COI when that user had clearly and previously identified himself long ago on WP, lying about me when stating the need for page protection, and removing sourced material after the article page was protected. Skyring has also been baiting me edit-warring again here and here, although I admit that I screwed up when using the (undo) function and accidentally removing a comment he'd made in the interim. He's still bating me by moving my responses around and right here, he's at it again with another act of pure pedantry. I hope the point has been made that Skyring's behavior warrants attention again, and leave the matter in your hands. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: added the wrong diffs; struck-though and amended.

• - @User:Skyring - As for your NPOV content creations that resulted imo in undue violations that created BLP violating content, you created this content - and I WP:NPOV'ed it as per the citation you used, to this - Please see the difference - Youreallycan 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, thanks. Could you provide the diff, please? And what is the precise problem? Remember, you're asking admins to examine the evidence. They aren't mind readers. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Um - Actually I am not asking admins anything - I am asking the community/experienced users (some of them may well be admins) to look at your history and your disruptive content creations and talkpage contributions and to support topic banning you as a simple resolution to this disruption and your content violations.- Youreallycan 06:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In these particular circumstances—where political matters in Australia are highly unstable—this does not seem appropriate. There seem to be more problems with the edits of the IP who does not appear to understand wikipedia policy properly (looking at the report on WP:RSN amongst other things). The IP also posted links to messages on an external blog and to another external message from 2005 posted by David Gerard, seven years ago. That kind of editing seems disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has never made a single content addition; never mind a policy violating one and has never been banned by arbitration from the project for similar related policy violations in the same topic area like User:Skyring has - Youreallycan 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP has extensively edited Craig Thomson affair and its talk page. The IP has also suggested using dubious sources that fail WP:RS. Linking to external blogs and outdated messageboards was also not particularly helpful. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference in attempting to NPOV content and creating clear policy violating additions in regards to living people - I suggest if you support action about the IP that you open a separate thread about the user , this thread is an attempt to address and resolve the issuers created by User:Skyring -If you support User:Skyring;s contributions please make that clear. Youreallycan 07:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thread about the IP user is on this page, above, and has been open for several days. This discussion is actually a subthread of that one. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Youreallycan. I am commenting on the IP, whose edits seem to be problematic. I don't personally know how any particularly objective article could be written on this particular political brouhaha, before matters are resolved (e.g. in a year's time). If Skyring had been reported or blocked for edit-warring since 2008, perhaps you might have a point. But that is not the case. A far more convincing case of disruption over a prolonged period would have to be presented to justify a topic ban on such a wide range of articles. Here only two articles are being discussed, the subject of the original report, whom I believe some newspapers refer to as a "disgraced politician". Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Australian head of state dispute, Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government, and Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government for another Australia-related discussion, where unfortunately informal mediation only led to rehashing the same discussion points again. isaacl (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Pete appears to be unaware that WP:BLP is a very strong policy, and that his desire to use articles as some sort of weapon to make sure people know just how bad any "Satan" is, is not how Wikipedia operates. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that aligns with my view that Pete isn't really deliberately breaking the rules. He truly believes that he's editing within the rules, unless simple diffs can show otherwise, as he and his fans here frequently demand. But he DOES break the rules on NPOV and, when one looks at the sum of his Talk page and article updates in sequence, is very disruptive and confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Given my participation and input into the recent Jim Hawkins affair, I reject the view that I'm unaware of BLP restrictions. Again, I ask for diffs that demonstrate the allegation made. This matter was raised at WP:BLPN, examined and rejected with no violation found. (See also this earlier mention, where an IP editor threatened legal action if we inserted sourced material.)

Collect, as you labelled the Craig Thomson affair, "classic silly season stuff",[232] when in fact it's been ongoing for three years of front page news with intense public interest in Australia, and the ongoing notability is that it could cause a fall of government in the tightly-balanced parliament where Thomson has been removed from the governing party[233] and now sometimes votes with the opposition, could I ask if you've read through some of the sources that demonstrate that this is not some passing scandal. It may sound like sleazy mud-slinging, but like the Profumo affair, it's been prostitutes in the headlines since day one. Just google "Craig Thomson" to see what I mean. There are reliable sources for all of my edits, and a government body has produced a report listing and detailing 150 findings made against Thomson.[234] It took three years to gather the material, and over a thousand pages to put the case. Thomson was given the opportunity to refute the report in Parliament - in a speech which was carried live throughout Australia and put the Twitter hashtag #thomson into global number one trend for a time[235] - but brought no evidence to counter the claims against him. His position was that he had been somehow set up by his enemies, who had gained control over his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone, hotel room phone and forged his signature.[236] Repeatedly without his knowledge over several years while he continued to approve the credit card bills, sometimes for thousands of dollars at a time. All of this is supported by reliable sources from the leading Australian news agencies and the subject of keen public interest.[237] This isn't a case of Wikipedia smearing a person out of all balance - what I produced was mild compared to the mainstream reports. Thomson sued the first publisher to break the story for defamation, but dropped the case two years later before it could be heard, and paid $240 000 in settlement.[238] That newspaper - and every other within Australia - continues to publish the allegations against him and no apology or retraction was ever made. I invite you and others to examine our coverage at Gillard Government#Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper, which has the same sourced story, occasioning no controversy on the discussion stage, and no input from me except to provide a link to the Craig Thomson affair main story. I invite review and criticism of my actions in writing an article on a notable matter, but I do ask that the sources be read, and my edits examined before making a hasty judgement. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for so spendidly showing the problem. It is, in fact, the fact that you edit with a specific intent which is so wondrously limned that this proposal has been made by others. The policy of WP:BLP requires articles to be conservatively written, which is not what your edits seem to have been intended to follow. Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Coffee, actually, in a 20oz "Americaware" mug I bought last year just outside St Louis at the Route 66 State Park. I'm onto my second Aeropress coffee maker, which I heartily recommend to all. Big mug of sweet coffee - makes working here a pleasure! Just out of curiosity, just what do you see as my "specific intent"? I would describe it as "summarising a major Australian political scandal for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers", and I invite you to start at the top of the Talk:Craig Thomson affair page for what is virtually a blog of my stated specific intentions and read on down. I copied across the relevant material from the Craig Thomson article and set to work on expanding it using the just-released 1 100 page Fair Work Australia report as an authoritative source. Three years in the making and a wealth of forensic detail. I urge you to at least thumb through it. But you have a different perception of my "specific intent", apparently. Do you have any diffs to illustrate your opinion? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In a period of just over an hour there, Pete made 17 separate edits to this page to create that content above. He has digressed all over the place, delving right into the nitty gritty of detailed content for the Craig Thomson affair article. He has completely missed the point of THIS discussion, clearly demonstrating his total obsession with Craig Thomson, and an inability to look more broadly at the issues under discussion HERE. A total lack of perspective. In the broader Wikipedia context, this editor simply does not know what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I make three points:

1. I have asked for diffs to be provided, demonstrating the claimed non-compliance with wikipolicy. After a day of discussion the evidence provided has been scanty, but I invite inspection by any admin. I stand by my edits.
2. This is a subthread of an ANI request launched against a recently-arrived SPA:IP editor. I invite examinations of the contributions of that editor, which are best described as relentlessly abusive against myself and any other editor opposing his or her view. I also note the behaviour of other users involved in the article referenced by the first sub-thread. User:HiLo48's contributions are also disruptive, containing frequent personal attacks[239]. User:Collect, as outlined above, has in my opinion made a serious error, removing most of the material from Craig Thomson affair, which had already been advised and dismissed at WP:BLPN, especially the material contributed by other diverse editors which had been copied across from Craig Thomson and formed the starting material of the new article. If the material had survived two notifications on WP:BLPN and been worked over by many other editors, where is the BLP violation? Massive removal of reliably sourced material during collaborative editing is disruptive in the extreme. Any disruption to editing has been the product of more editors than one, I suggest.
3. It has been mentioned above that I was banned for a year. Yes, I was. I did not enjoy the experience, but I learnt from it, and my edits over the past few years have been productive, in accordance with wikipolicy, and polite and coöperative despite serious provocation.

I ask that any admin involving themselves here look at all the material. If this needs to be referred to ArbCom, I have no objection to my edits being scrutinised in a more formal manner. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. ALL the material. Especially Pete/Skyring's editing style, which is confrontational rather than consensus seeking, impossible to explain using standard Diffs, and involves a rapid fire, scattergun approach. And, you describe some editors as opposing your view. My opposition has nothing to do with what I think of Craig Thomson. It an opposition to his unhealthy trial by media and politicians, and now by Wikipedia, handled here with an unseemly haste. It's an opposition to keeping up with every scandalous tidbit obviously involved media and politicians release on a day to day basis. Wikipedia doesn't need this indecent haste. We could write a much better article in fifteen months time, when all the emotion and political ambition has gone. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Skyring has a long history of treating Wikipedia as a soapbox for his political views, and making edits which are obviously motivated by his political leanings. Many editors (including myself) have asked him to stop this, but without success. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be sorted out by discussion. So little evidence is supplied here that a topic ban is not needed. Living in Canberra does not mean a propensity to be politically biased. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to very firmly disagree with you there. Discussion with Pete/Skyring is pointless. Rational discussion is almost impossible. He does not comprehend the problems his editing style creates here. He ignores what others say. So how can it be sorted out by discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion including Skyring, and I'm sorry to say that it generally makes things worse. Skyring has an unfortunate tendency to use article talk pages as a forum to discuss his political views rather than to propose concrete improvements to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you provide some diffs, please? --Pete (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's another bloody annoying habit of his. One presents a well explained, comprehensive explanation of the problem, then Pete/Skyring (and some of our Admins who want this to be simple) just ask for Diffs. As I've also explained many times, Diffs on their own will never tell the whole story here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me put it another way. Should this matter go to ArbCom, they'll be wanting evidence, not personal attacks or gripes. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples from Talk:Kevin Rudd: [240], [241] [242], [243] [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249]. The common thread in most of these posts is that you make a vague suggestion about changing the article as part of a post which is mainly about your personal views on Rudd. There are lots more posts from you like this in the talk page's history, and it adds up to POV pushing and an attempt to include negative material in a BLP on the grounds that you don't like the guy. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not quite! It was his deputy Julia Gillard didn't like Rudd, moved against him and became Prime Minister without benefit of any ballot or election. For our readers looking at the article painting Kevin Rudd in a saintly glow, there was no explanation. In the eyes of Wikipedia, the guy was a hero! NPOV doesn't mean merely reprinting every media release out of someone's office. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no need for an election for Gillard to replace Rudd. What happened was legal, and completely ethical in the Westminster system. The Libs have used the same process themselves. That you post this line pushed by the Liberal Party's tame shock jocks shows that either you are ignorant, are deliberately pushing a POV yourself, or are easily manipulated by others pushing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have used the word election there because Pete/Skyring used that word in the previous post. He has now changed his post to say ballot instead, perhaps because of my post. He hasn't explained, or apologised. I won't change my wording. It made sense before Pete/Skyring again abused and confused the discussion process. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Diff here shows the change was made well after HiLo48's response.One21dot216dot (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. See my apology below. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for any misunderstanding. By using the word "election", I meant to highlight that Gillard became Prime Minister without either the processes of a general election or an internal party ballot, both of them perfectly normal. She did, however, topple Rudd, and she said that "Rudd's government had lost its way" as her explanation for action. Our article did not provide any such reason, despite heavy media criticism since the Copenhagen thing. Barack Obama is supposed to have rung Rudd after news reached the White House and asked if there had been a coup! --Pete (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider Holt, Gorton, and McMahon and the lack of howls of illegitimacy about them. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Any primary investigation of your talkpage contributions supports the Admins comment - such as diff, diff - the second one is a clear verification of the Admins comment - Youreallycan 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps these diffs may may also assist to illustrate the points more clearly which Youreallycan and Hilo48 have already clearly made wrt to the opposing admin, that discussion is not going to solve this issue. Skyring has an agenda at work; these diffs all relate to a simple statement which 3 different editors all agree is supported by the reliably-sourced reference: talkpage a; talkpage b; and talkpage c. The result on the article has been article a; article b; article c; article d; article e; and last I saw it, article f. People try to work with Skyring to achieve consensus but it's not happening because it conflicts with his POV and let the facts be damned. It seems to me as though Skyring wants to be left at liberty to bias the article the way he wants. Circular discussion seem to be one of the methods he uses to remove any balance and annoy other editors with this behavior so that they either inappropriately blow a gasket in frustration (as I must confess I have) or give up on the mess and walk away (as I nearly did). One21dot216dot (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You only provided one diff of mine, which looks perfectly reasonable. Your own contributions on that page don't show you in a good light, but it's tough sometimes being a raw editor, and I forgive you. You're learning fast. For the record, if anybody here wants to have a go at getting the statement discussed on the page to agree with the source, feel free. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not all about just your posts. It about how your posts relate (or don't relate, as is more frequently the case) to what others say. So showing what others have said is important in showing your inability to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Still, I believe the diffs I showed above illustrate the point, and using the arrows back and forth can illustrate it further. Anyway, this appears to me to be a dishonest edit summary from our friend per WP:ME as the change seems a bit more than minor and involved more than an indent. But maybe I am being over-sensitive here given the history. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to my knowledge never directly interacted with this editor, but came across some of his edits at the Julia Gillard talk page when it was nominated at WP:GAN last year. I remember reading through the threads here and here and thinking that, although exceedingly polite, Skyrings comments were aimed more at expressing his personal opinion on the Government than any real meaningful improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the links - for which thanks - my comments there go to the question of balance in Australian politics articles. The opinions I expressed are those of established political commentators using reliable sources. The bad news for Gillard] keeps rolling in, but our article does not reflect the reality. How can our readers rely on Wikipedia when our political coverage is tilted? Looking at comparable USA articles, for example Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, they read more like balanced biographies than the choppy and incomplete pieces on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott which are the Australian counterparts. Wikipedia is best served by input by editors from all views, and seeking to exclude those with whom one disagrees through topic ban proposals is poor practice indeed. If the diffs supplied showed a pattern of abuse, of acting against consensus, of pushing views unsupported by reliable sources, then maybe. But where is it? Those most strident in their criticism of me are hardly shining examples of model wikihaviour and might look to their own hearts before stabbing mine. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, this post is a good example of the problems with the talk page posts you make in regards to these article. You tend to start posts with commentary on your views about recent political developments and then complain about articles not being up to scratch without offering concrete amendments to the text (with supporting reliable sources) for how to fix this. The political commentary turns people off right away, and the complaints without solutions are unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not my singular views, but those of the mainstream sources I quote, and have sprinkled liberally through discussion above. I'm sorry if some editors are upset at my highlighting the gap between our article and the reality, but as noted, political discussion attracts partisan editing behaviour, and Australian political articles are notorious for incivility and personal attacks, as may be seen in other comments in this set of threads. I'd like to improve the standard of our articles and discussion, and the first step in improvement is identifying the problem and accepting a need for change. What you are saying above is that I supply reliable sources, but not the content? --Pete (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've done it again! It would be great if you could provide reliable sources and NPOV wording. However, starting things off with discussions of your political views and vague allusions to significant problems with articles is exactly the wrong way to go about this. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing baiting and harassment from User:Skyring (Pete)

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

This user persists in moving my responses around to annoy and provoke, latest example of this is here; more available on request. He persists in this behavior after being asked to stop on several occasions. I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your problem right there! More experienced editors know where to place and indent their comments correctly. For example here, where I respond directly to HiLo. Your subsequent response should have been placed below mine. You've been told about this a couple of times, at least once by me. When I move my contribution back to its original position, that's not intended as a personal insult, it's just the regular practice. My apologies if any offence was taken - none was intended! --Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• He's done it again well after being asked to stop on numerous previous occasions. No one else except Skyring has had any issues with my indenting. Can an admin please respond to this? One21dot216dot (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: To support my comment of "I note he doesn't try this stunt with experienced editors," please that Skyring didn't dare move HiLo48's comments around when the chronological order of edits was post a / post b / post c, but the order displayed is (a) / (c) / (b), as post (c) was HiLo48's response to The Bushranger - in other words, the threading follows a logical pattern. The same applies to the matters complained of. One21dot216dot (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One21dot216dot (previously the IP) seems to be trying to create drama here unnecessarily. In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary. Yet One21dot216dot not only interpets it otherwise but opens a whole new subthread. What possible administrative action does he expect? Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci writes, "In the first diff produced above, Skyring is clearly moving his own contribution and states that in his edit summary." There's more to it than that, so I will try and explain the issue more clearly. Please carefully examine the difference here between lines 371 (left diff) /372 (right diff) and lines 384 (left) / 387 (right); Skyring is moving not only his own contribution, he's also moving mine. Note how the diff as shown there omits 38 intermediate revisions by 11 users, but when the differences are displayed in the way I set the diffs up to appear, it clearly illustrates the point - that is, he is disruptively editing, and he's doing it intentionally. Why? Maybe in the hope that I'll revert his edits and so I'll run afoul of the 3-revert rule. Or he's doing it because I won't otherwise respond to him. Yes, I opened a new subthread; should I have started a completely new case, considering all of these matters are inter-related? I do not know; I am learning. Ditto insofar as what kind of administrative action can be taken. Considering Skyring has created a defamatory attack page to supplement kooky blog pages while having a clear conflict of interest, and has had numerous problems with other editors - some now, some long before I began editing, do you think some form of administrative action is required? As for your other comments, thank you for showing me another amazing display of WP:AGF. One21dot216dot (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (PS - there was an edit conflict the first time I tried sending this.

The last change, however, did forget that the highest level of indent should not be moved to a position where the material to which it was a response is apparently changed - which is what Pete did. You need to count the colons, Mathsci! One's edit had more colons that did Pete's, so the move made it look like one response was to Pete's post and not to HiLo's post. Meanwhile. I think you should look at Pete's overal history with regard to Australian politics here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. He's still at it on the CTA talk page. I replied to you here, and it was moved again here. He is deliberately editing disruptively and I believe administrative intervention is now required to make him stop. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My reply to Collect is here, made (going by the page history) two and a half days before Onedot's post (which has my support, as noted there.) It is standard practice for second or subsequent responses to a comment to be placed below existing responses. Does this sort of stuff really need to be on AN/I? --Pete (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring, I think I and several others have asked you this before, but would you please stop with personal attacks? I get that you might not see what you just posted as one, but plenty of people would see your offhand pithy sarcasm as a personal attack. Even if it's not, it does not help foster a collegial atmosphere, so reign it in, please. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed seeing this personal attack completely - it was changed while I added a warning template to Skyring's Talk Page. Please note that Skyring reverted me again after the Level 3 template was added asking for this to stop]. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the part I was objecting to. In response to your edit summary, I do realize that you were commenting on behavior, not on the editor, but there are ways to do that more politely, as you did in your fixed version. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. It's just that the neighbour's cat strolled past a few moments earlier, and my thoughts followed it! --Pete (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• • The disruptive behavior from Skyring continues.

(a) He has opened a frivolous matter at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which was closed as a waste of time.

(b) He has been cited for badgering other editors in relation to the AfD discussion of his WP:COATRACK attack page.

(c) Now he has opened another sub-thread here to make more frivolous, outrageous and false allegations. Where is Skyring mentioned at all in this edit? Likewise this edit, which was a response to Doc9871 who posted a video clip about werewolves from "Young Frankenstein" - which is clearly different from Skyring's own personal attack: "... Onedot's behaviour reminds me of my terrier dog, who spends a lot of her day watching through the window in case the neighbour's cat should saunter past, at which point she begins yapping in gleeful indignation.".

(d) Skyring points to my edit here and misrepresents it as "label[ing] [him] as a member of an "extreme right wing racist hate group"...." This allegation is false; I have not labeled Skyring as any such thing, nor have I engaged in "...WP:OUTING behavior..." as alleged. While I have linked to "...external sources such as blogs and mail correspondence", these were all publicly available, and the blog I cited in the URL clearly admitted that the blogger was (quote) "...writing the "Craig Thomson Affair" on Wikipedia" (unquote) while further defaming the person who is the subject of the article. I posted to the URL to it since that blog showed clear evidence of WP:COATRACK behavior.

(e) It should also be noted that Skyring and his chum from the Liberal Party of Australia have accused me of being Craig Thomson on numerous occasions, of sock-puppetry, of having a partisan interest in the article, of "whitewashing" the living person being defamed, and of other nefarious and malicious activities. If a more specific statement is wanted as to who and what I am not, please respond. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Onedot appears to have been editing this page in an aggressive and disruptive way. Skyring can blank or modify his own edits, but Onedot could themselves be blocked if they insist on changing those edits. I have already said that Onedot's linking to external sites was problematic, because it is outside wikipedia policy. His continuation to do so, despite warnings, is not a good sign. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor, Onedot may not be aware of wikilawyering: ignoring the spirit of a rule or guideline in favour of pettifoggery. I quote from the nutshell, Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. --Pete (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci appears to have be supporting Skyring's editing this page in an aggressive and disruptive way. Skyring has blanked and modify his own edits, but Mathsci does not appear to want Skyring blocked after Skyring insists on making disruptive edits. I have already said that linking to the external sites indicated clear problems with a conflict of interest and using the "Craig Thomson affair" attack page as a coatrack because all of it is outside wikipedia policy. His continuation of supporting Skyring's disruption, despite the evidence, is not a good sign. Skyring and his friend from the Liberal Party persisted in stating that I had a conflict of interest and was, in fact, Craig Thomson; this is untrue. I shall also now state categorically, for the record, that:

(i) I have never been a member of any political party, let alone a State Branch President of one;

(ii) I have never violated any position of trust in relation to my employment;

(iii) I have never abused the trust of my employer to deliver confidential internal documents to Senator Amanda Vanstone with the intent to aid her and her party's agenda;

(iv) I have never been arrested and charged with any crime, let alone by the Australian Federal Police with five counts of communicating Commonwealth Government information wrongfully obtained or convicted of any offences;

(v) I have never been in prison, and I know for a fact that on this day in 1995, I was not confined in Goulburn Correctional Centre;

(vi) No person has ever applied to a court at any time to take out an AVO or similar upon me; and

(vii) I have never been blocked from Wikipedia.

The above needed to be stated, just so it's perfectly clear who and what I am not. One21dot216dot (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Misinformed is what you are. Can I get someone to have a quiet word to this promising editor about how to contribute productively, please? --Pete (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, both of you need stop beating the dead horse and leave each other alone for a little while. This is not a battleground, or a game. Skyring, stop provoking OneDot - you're biting a newbie, and although you've stopped outright personal attacks, you're not exactly being civil. OneDot, stop letting Skyring get to you, since responding in kind is only going to get you in (more) trouble, too. The best way to deal with provokation is to take a deep breath and refuse to be baited. Both of you apologize - Skyring for provoking OneDot, OneDot for losing your cool - and leave it be for a while. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise to Onedot for any offence caused. It was not intentional. I also forgive him any past behaviour, not as a newbie, but as a fellow human being. I do not believe I have made any personal attacks aimed at him - or anyone. Jorgath, I have done my best to help this editor along, but he is not listening. It is impossible to AGF, looking at some of his contributions, such as those which have had to be permanently removed, and I echo your comment that he is going to have trouble if he continues this way. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for losing my cool. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. Now if both of you can either be polite or leave each other alone in the future, and refrain from fighting fire with fire if the other one can't, I think this has been resolved. I hope it stays that way. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope so too. However, one facet of Onedot's behaviour has me concerned. He does not interact with those he considers to be opposing his views. No conversation, no responses to questions or suggestions or comments. Check out his edits - he does not respond directly to me, and if a third party is involved, and I reply first, he "pushes in" rather than place his post below mine. It's as if I don't exist - I'm maybe an aspect of the weather, or perhaps the "rabid dog" he mentions several times. Never a person to be acknowledged or dealt with in dialogue. The wording of his apology above is instructive. Reading his contributions with a fresh eye, I wonder if Onedot might be a bit further out on the spectrum than most. Historically, these editors have been incredibly valuable to Wikipedia, producing excellent content, well researched, over and over again until every article in a category has been covered. And then create a new category and fill that. Superb work. We are crying out for editors like this. But historically very difficult to deal with, unable to compromise, unwilling to accept consensus. These people see the world in black and white and if anybody presents a contrary view, they must be lying or serving some outside interest. Or both. Without naming names, I think we may all recall editors like this who have tens of thousands of edits to their credit, but are eternally the subject of complaint. The anguish they feel when challenged is very real, and my heart goes out to Onedot, and I again apologise for any distress inadvertently caused. I'm not out to get you, it's nothing personal, and I commend to you in the highest possible terms the body of wiki policy and guidelines that have built up here. They work. And they work precisely because they have evolved through interactions and conflict between diverse editors to smooth the way and make it possible to communicate and coöperate. I can say this because I'm a little that way myself. As, I think, are many other editors. The bottom line is that all of us are human beings, looking out on the world with the same human consciousness. We are not demons or saints. Just people, fallible and vulnerable, but capable of amazing things when we set our minds to it. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlasersonline

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.

---

Deathlasersonline (talk · contribs)

I honestly think that this user is here just to troll. To wit:

• A mass of improper G7's to various articles (such as Eleutherococcus gracilistylus), followed by a comment at User talk:LadyofShalott#Deletion which says, "So we got 2 ways of doin this-either you mass delete or I blank!"

• Creation of a Grawp-esque browswer crashing page at User:Deathlasersonline/revenge. Afterward, he submitted it to RFPP, where it got speedied per G3. After that, he claimed it was a test to see how much a page could hold ([250]). He then said others were assuming bad faith.

• A comment like "Every-one thinks I am traitor!" suggests he knows he's disrupting the project.

While the user has created some seemingly viable articles such as Dark radiation, their behavior in the past 24 hours suggests that they're not here for seriousness. Some of their edits are borderline vandalism, trolling and gaming of the system. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry, I don't know what got over me over the past 24 hours. I was actually editing and revising maths in 2 tabs at once. I will immideatly take a wikibreak and promise not to repeat this type of behaviour again!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You obviously knew what you were doing from the get-go, and your actions seem far too deliberate. You also seem to know way too much for an ostensibly new editor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I really was just testing the maximum amount of data you could put in a page. I was just curious-the canon picture was because it was 2.74MB which is the largest I temporarily found!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you call a browser-crashingly huge page "revenge", you are obviously pulling the same stunts that a certain banned editor used to do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you name it "revenge", link to it in reply to a warning from Lady on your talk page, and request protection for it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to voice my support for the above claims. Deathlasersonline previously signed up for the WP:GOCE backlog elimination drive in May, and the WP:WikiProject Wikify backlog elimination drive in June. In both cases, his contributions were determined to be either non-existent or actually worsened the articles he edited. He then joined the just-started GAN backlog drive, and his reviews have been lacking. I have serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns, outside of the possibility that he is simply trolling. Another example of the latter is this bizzare conversation he had with a handful of other editors last week. I was shocked that no one else realized that the simplest explanation was that he was just trolling everyone and making things up about the supposed e-mails as he went along. I honestly haven't seen him do much that was productive, and have spent a lot of time behind the scenes cleaning up after him or watching others do the same. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Deathlasersonline, if this is the case, why would you write "User:Deathlasersonline/revenge" at that moment at time? Also, calling it "/revenge" seems to instantly go over the borderline. ⇒TAP 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But it was not a threat nevertheless, why do you all think I am making a threat. I was also trying to come first in Wikipedia:Database_reports/Users_by_bytes_uploaded.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The hell it wasn't. You titled it "revenge", obviously making a threat. You seem to know too much for an ostensibly new editor, as I said before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If true, the above comment seems to fall into gaming territory anyway. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this user is young and perhaps quite immature and/or over-dramatic (no offense intended - just being blunt). I've spent some time offering this user guidance. This latest stunt, apparently intended as revenge towards LadyofShallot who has also spent a lot of time helping and offering advice to this user, is over the line. I'm not certain that they are Grawp/an experienced troll, but I wasn't convinced by several claims this user has made in regards to people emailing him. I have been assuming good faith, but the continuous questionable behaviour is really whittling away at my ability to AGF. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with OohBunnies here; I don't know that implications of sockpuppetry are warranted yet, but I think this is getting disruptive enough in its own right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I WAS NOT MAKING A THREAT, I CAME ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ATTENTION AND AWARDS, PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A THREAT!IT WAS NOT A THREAT, I TITLED IT REVENGE BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY THE THING THAT WOULD COME TO MY MIND AND INSERTED A LINK FOR A RED LINK SO THAT I COULD TEST HOW MUCH A PAGE COULD BE!--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been told before not to "shout" (i.e use caps lock). Sorry, but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to give you attention or awards. You can either help us build the encyclopedia or continue to cause drama in the community...the latter may earn you a block though. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The community has given Deathlasersonline the benefit of the doubt far more than most other editors, primarily because they have appeared to be making some positive contributions; however I believe that we have reached the point where their positive contributions to Wikipedia are outweighed by the negative contributions. It has been clear for some time that this editor has some Competence issues and even with a significant amount of help by several other editors, have been unable to address them. Deathlasersonline treats Wikipedia as a game/competition (and they aren't the only editor to do so) and it is becoming disruptive, this has also been accompanied with frequent dramatic bursts of anger/annoyance. I'm concerned that this editor may not be mature enough to edit Wikipedia at this time, the above comments suggest this is true. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am incredibly tempted to indef per WP:CIR. Anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• DO IT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please, last chance.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sure hope you do not get any more chances to troll. This: " I was also trying to come first in Wikipedia:Database_reports/Users_by_bytes_uploaded" after all your previous nonsense leading up it, puts my troll-meter squarely into the red. Zad68 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Plus this: "I WAS NOT MAKING A THREAT, I CAME ON WIKIPEDIA FOR ATTENTION AND AWARDS" is just about as good as typing "I AM A TROLL" on your user page. Zad68 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 7) I have large concerns over Talk:Worthington Brewery/GA1 and Talk:Thessaloniki/GA1. I would suggest Deathlasersonline withdrawing those, so a proper review can be done. I also see copyright concerns in the Brewery GAN, the editor quoting the public domain tag. I later added {{pd-old-100}} to the image.. In the past I have been assuming good faith with deathlasersonline, but this is too much now. LadyofShallot has gave Deathlaser(sonline) great guidance in the past, which they seem to not be following. I had also assigned Deathlasersonline tasks to do, like fix the interwiki errors in some of their stubs. This was not done. As a stub creator myself, who has fixed over seven-hundred stubs in my time, I do not seem convinced that this editor has enough care about their articles than they should. I will recuse myself from the block, as I have interacted with this editor much. I also think that because the editor was reluctant to forward the email threat to ArbCom and the fact that the sory of it kept growing, I think that there is an issue here. However, the user has had many 'last chance[s]'. Regards, ⇒TAP 18:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, after I come back from Wikibreak and troll again-block me! But not this time please.--Deathlasersonline (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlasersonline, with every issue you have, you always go on a wikibreak, then instantly come back after the dispute is over. ⇒TAP 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A wikibreak doesn't earn you any favours. So many editors have spent their free time offering you guidance and advice, including LadyofShallot - and your treatment of her is quite unacceptable, not to mention unfair and ungrateful. If you do get this "last chance" then bear in mind it really would be a last chance. You've been treated incredibly leniently. I do hope you realise this. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Quit going around in circles and block him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I block-conflicted with Jac16888... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocked for a year, hopefully a year from now they will be mature enough to edit--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:18, 19 June 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.

Sock puppet of User:WOLfan112

Deathlasersonline/Deathlaser is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of WOLfan112 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked before for abusing sockpuppets. --MuZemike 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, honestly would not have called that. Talk about a 3rd act twist--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that WOLfan112 is currently not blocked, presumably because nobody caught on until now. I will leave the sockmaster for the community to handle. --MuZemike 22:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Apart from being a sock, Deathlaser's behavior lately has been sufficiently disruptive that I'm not too pleased with the idea of the editor having an unblocked account under any name. As Deathlaser or as WOLfan112, this person needs that year off to mature. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Per the above, a minimum of a one year block is necessary. I think an indef block should be put in place. However we should refer to this person created the Deathlaser account one day after a one week block was put in place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Both have now been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Geez, I just loved being played for a fool. :( LadyofShalott 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Democracy112 (talk · contribs) was just confirmed as another sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk) 02:29, 20 June 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.

Unblock request

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

---

WOLfan112 requested unblocking. I declined and think I fairly represented the consensus here, but I invite any other admin to review my decline. LadyofShalott 18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No brainer to refuse here, I support your decision, and so would anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and a few minutes later he tried again, no luck. I'm debating taking away talk page access now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer to his question is, unfortunately, yes, we don't think they're competent enough or at the very least mature enough to be here. Maybe in a few years time. Blackmane (talk) 23:33, 21 June 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.

Blanking and MFD tag removal

User:KO.2 (whose his user and talk pages are under WP:MFD, in which he refuted the 'propaganda' claim by nominator, although others insisted that the problem is WP:NOTWEBHOST) was caught blanking his user page and consecuently removing the MFD tag, which is prohibited. User:Armbrust re-added the MFD tag, but he quickly removed it again and I have re-added the MFD tag.

To prevent KO.2 from removing MFD tags again, I decided to bring the issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs)

I read through the page in the history and KO, who identifies as Taiwanese, has some very strong opinions about administrators on Chinese Wiki and the Chinese government, who he thinks of as Russian puppets. In fact, he goes as far as listing out puppet governemnts through the different eras around the world. As it is, it violates WP:POLEMIC, not to mention WP:OR and most likely WP:BLP as well. Blackmane (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Of note; this user appears to have another account at User:KO.7. Could be a friend though. Either way, within the userspace of these accounts we find

• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2008
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2009
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2010
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2011
• User:KO.2/NBA Finals 2012
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2010
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2008
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2009
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2011
• User:KO.7/NBA Finals 2012
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1988
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2000
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2004
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 2008

all of which contain fictitious information, and some of which contain WP:NFCC #9 violations. There are also two additional pages which appear to be accurate, but given the presence of the other intentionally inaccurate pages, the existence of these pages is equally suspect:

• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1992 (1)
• User:KO.2/UEFA Euro 1996 (1)

Also, please be aware of User:KO.2/傀儡政權. This is effectively a copy of the main userpage puppet regime content.

In reviewing the editor's other contributions, I'm seeing some seriously problematic issues. In particular, creating Cao Yu (Three Kingdoms) and claiming this person was the son of Cao Pi. In fact, Cao Yu was the son of Cao Cao. I'm seeing a number of attempts at what appear to be subtle vandalism. Further investigation is needed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• This user is a LTA on Chinese wikipedia, see the LTA page and his block log (now permanently blocked).--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• And KO.7 is his sockpuppet, see zh:User:KO.7.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

File an SPI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary. This user has listed all the sockpuppet he used or is using (17 in total), see here on zhwiki.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's necessary to find WP:G4 mirrored content within user page English Wikipedia now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KO.2. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I reckon that everytime their political rant is MFD'd they blank that page and move it on to a different sub page. Playing whack-a-mole with subpages is going to be tedious. Oh, and I guess I'll put their latest one onto MFD as well. Blackmane (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keeps removing MFD tag - User:KO.2 has removed the MfD tag from his/her user page three times.[251] Any way (e.g., block) to keep that notification on that page for the duration of the MFD? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Their talk page now looks like a copy of their zh:wp talk page as there is a substantial amount of discussion, not to mention conspriacy theories and paranoia, present on that page all dating back to 08-09. That being said, Uzma, your rationale for the MfD of their talk page is not strictly correct as it's not a a promo. What would be the way to deal with a mirrored talk page from another language's wiki? Never mind me, I misread the mfd'd page160.44.248.164 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) <- this was me, forgot to log in Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I just had a read through of their LTA report on ZH:WP. K.O2 and all their socks were indef'd/banned for long term vandalism of various Taiwanese politician articles as well as other articles and pushing the POV that China is a Soviet puppet state. He also had a tendency to vandalise articles regarding the Qin dynasty and its various emperors generally comparing the modern PRC government with various acts that the Qin emperors committed during their reigns. He also has a tendency to personally attack other editors, generally with insults revolving around such and such an editor being a collaborator (PC way of saying it) with the PRC government. Has a major beef with an admin PhiLiP, most likely because said admin is pro-communist. Having had a re-read of the various MFD'd material, it looks like they're trying to shelter a preferred version of their target articles here on enwp. As each MFD is raised, they shift their material to another sub page by blanking and copy pasting. Affairs raised on another wiki do not translate onto this wiki, but nonetheless this user definitely needs to be monitored. (Of course, that would earn any of us the "collaborator" insult. Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've taken the page to CSD rather than leave it at MFD. Scrolling down the page, KO.2 has created a number of infobox entries for past and present Taiwanese presidents and vice presidents. That in itself wouldn't have been an issue, but he's associated all of these politicians with the World Taiwanese Congress, an organisation pushing for Taiwanese independence. This is a BLP violation as none of them would have openly associated themselves with a pro-independence group. Blackmane (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

French press

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

---

I recently became aware that the Canadian trade-mark "French press" is the subject of a large-scale trial in Federal Court in Vancouver that began some days ago; the trade-mark is impugned, it seems, although I don't have all the details. I note that an IP editor, 38.98.140.67, made a number of relevant edits to French press at about the time the trial began, with specific reference to this question, asserting something which is the subject matter of the trial, and I'm wondering what the propriety would be of reverting those edits. The judgment in the case will be some months away and may not be widely publicized. Before the IP's edits, the article stated that "In the United States and Canada, it is known as a french press" and I believe this is a more accurate statement, although evidence would not be easy to provide. My concern is that the outcome of the trial will not be reflected in the content of the article as assiduously as the respondent's side of the case has been represented in its current state. I'd appreciate an experienced editor or admin's guidance about what seems appropriate given this information. Ubelowme (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reference we should be using there is something from WP:Secondary sources discussing the trademark. The IP editor should not be trying to insert commentary based on the IPO registration page, a primary source. Too many trademarks are worthless or undefended or otherwise unimportant. The supposed "french press" trademark in Canada must be discussed in news items or similar. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and for reverting the material in question. I'll keep an eye on the article over the next while. Ubelowme (talk) 19:49, 21 June 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.

request mass rv blocked sock IP

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.

---

200.114.132.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Please mass-revert their edits. Now blocked as a sock. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While typing here, I received this wiki-threat [252] on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI sleeping? Where else to go for a quick response? -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all their edits have already been reverted? Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is in a kerfuffle in the thread above. WP:AIV and/or WP:SPA? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Disruptive edits: 23:11--23:27 (IP 200.x)

My ANI post here: 23:37

First reverts: ~23:53.

ANI response 1st: 23:57.

Indeed, then all work was done. Sorry I woke ANI up. Now for tomorrow morning: where do I go for a quick or urgent response? -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the next lot (201.235.248.84) were reverted in about a minute... Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, must be non-ANI then. My Q stays: where to go for quick or urgent reaction? -DePiep (talk)

AIV first, then here. Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::::WP:AIV is new to me, as new as I am at WP, but thank you for the hint. Where would I be without it (I'd be away as an editor, most likely). Sure next time I will give this sock puppet warnings. And wait for WP:AIV to react. And there is always, always, always an ANI admin whio will fuck my request. Most likely a day late. -DePiep (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest & request early closing (me the OP). Again I say: no ANI admin will come to the rescue when needed. -DePiep (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What is an "ANI admin"? You do realize that admins are volunteers, don't you? They're not paid for their work and can do, or not do, a requested task as it interests them, and no admin is assigned to work in a particular place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All this I know very well. My point is, that an admin here did not take action (and that cannot be an incident). But shurely they check the questioner out first (did you not? AGF not valid here, abuse prevails). My Q was: hey, a sock puppet, do something. And all you all ANI admins do is send me to another page. Great. (fact: someone else solved it yeah, someone not from this page). And so you do not get money? wow. must be horrible. I get payed, esp to troll you, you think? With or without money, an admin reading this ANI could act different. Same money. -DePiep (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep. In answer to your question:

• A standard way of getting the help of an admin is to put the {{adminhelp}} template on your talk page.
• If you want to actively seek out an admin, I've found that this works well. Go to Special:RecentChanges, then scroll until you see someone who has just performed an administrator action, like deleting or protecting a page or blocking a user, and contact them directly.

(And also: with Wikipedia generally, it pays to bear in mind what ha-Qoheleth said about knowledge.)

--Shirt58 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is yet another sock of Argentina-based AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has created at least a dozen sockpuppets this week.[253]. His activity has led to several rangeblocks. RolandR (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The point that volunteer administrator availability outside of UK and US "awake" timezones is very low to appallingly low is a serious matter that should be taken to the non "incident" administrator's noticeboard. I've experienced this frustration previously in the quality of administrative intervention, both at AN/I and AIV. It is both a volunteer project problem and a systemic bias problem--we have failed to recruit high quality Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Malaysian, Singaporean, HK Chinese, Australiasian and Oceanian editors and administrators (ie: core non UK-US timezone English language speaking communities). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do have them, but they don't really come here all that much. Most of the Indian and Pakistani admins I know are busy in the eternal struggle to knock some sense into the articles in that topic area, which is draining enough without having to end up at ANI too often. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we manage to recruit an excess of, for example, US administrators above and beyond those required to deal with US pop-culture sports and politics bruhahas. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We're not going to overcome systemic bias any time soon. It's a broader problem than just "Why do we have lots of content on Playstation games but barely anything on Kurdish poetry?" In the meantime, we just have to chip away at the problem, and work around it, rather than standing back and complaining. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The effect of not having excellent Kurdish poetry articles is a problem of coverage, but the effect of having 8 hours of administrative "downtime" is serious and disappointments editors who edit in the Fiji through Pakistan timezones, compounding our longer term systemic bias problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I stay up to odd hours sometimes, so I help then when I can, and I feel your frustration. It's also not fun for one or two of us to be striking out on our own trying to handle everything that comes up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, we can't force admins to be "on duty" at AN/I 24-7. It would be good to have folks here, but there's no way to enforce it and little way to encourage it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo could approve doubling their salaries. :D Dru of Id (talk) 19:02, 22 June 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.

Is "Yo Fuckbag" now a "civil" greeting

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.

---

[254] And I quote Yo Fuckbag, when trying to find a resolution I was advised to pursue WP:DR. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Nobody Ent 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP in question has a history of repeated aggressive editing, which they invariably refuse to discuss on the relevant Talk pages, often going straight to spurious RFCs or other administrative measures. Either that, or they leave offensive messages such as the one to WCM (e.g. [255]). A check of the IP's Talk page history shows a pattern of vandalism warnings, which they immediately delete and issue counter-warnings. So much smoke, but no fire? About time their wings were clipped. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That IP's taking a week long break now. T. Canens (talk) 14:34, 22 June 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.

No, actually, he doesn't seem to be, as you unblocked him an hour later. Unless I am misunderstanding something? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute was full protected. The other articles where this editor has presented similar issues are not, and that he is continuing to edit war on those articles. This issue is not resolved. Kahastok talk 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IP now reblocked for the original week following consideration of other instances of edit warring. Kahastok talk 18:05, 22 June 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.

Disruption at Shenmue

• Trumancox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.22.168.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.183, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.118.204.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.188.111.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.52.32.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Urem2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Uwright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over a year now, some guy using various IP's and throwaway accounts, has a thing against this particular sentence. He claims the different IP's are "friends" rather than himself, even though he constantly gets caught up in his own lies when he forgets what he said with which account. With 173.22.168.213 at 3RR, they've now created the Trumancox account to continue reverting. Someone please semi-protect or block the current IP and account, I don't care which. I'm pretty much done with the pointless discussion going on at Talk:Shenmue#Series' Developement status.--Atlan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. IP 172 blocked for edit-warring, Trumancox and the other two registered accounts blocked for socking. Consider filing an SPI. Drmies (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Well, the accounts are stale, except for Trumancox. Besides, it's a very obvious WP:DUCK case anyway.--Atlan (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For future reference, such things are useful even if just for formality's sake, but that's up to you. Drmies (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree with Drmies, as someone who works at SPI, just call the oldest account the master, present the diffs, say they are already blocked and you want for the history and ask for a simple close. This way, if they come back and it gets reported to SPI, it makes it easier for us. CU can always choose to connect the dots on the name accounts now if they feel like it. Doing this isn't required, but may help in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Jannike Kruse Jåtog

Users Uzma Gamal (talk · contribs) and Mentoz86 (talk · contribs) are campaigning against me. They put out rumors that my project is to get all of my relatives on Wiki, view Talk:Jannike Kruse Jåtog (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). User Mentoz86 praises the job of deleting Just Kruse, Erling O. Kruse, Astrid Kruse, Dag Kruse, Anine Kruse and Benedikte Kruse from Wiki, at discussions in Norwegian Wiki and gives warnings about me as a writer. I want this to come to an end! Knuand (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not going to look at no.Wikipedia, their comments here at AfD and Deletion review seem on-topic and other than noting the articles are related and have the same author, are about the content and en.Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please stop signing your edit summaries; signatures are for talk pages, and edit summaries are for text. Dru of Id (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the comments here, it appears the OP suspects that the cabal is attempting to "erase" his family, and has a distinct lack of good faith in the matter, alas, as this, this (a personal attack) and this demonstrate. Also he didn't notify anyone... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to use much time on this, while celebrating Midsommar, but I guess I should comment on this. Yes, I have notified my Norwegian colleagues about User:Knuand's COI in deleting discussions at no:wp. But here on en:wp, (I might have voted delete in a previous Kruse-AfD) I haven't interacted with this editor before the AfD of Jannike Kruse Jåtog, where I was one of the firrst that voted to keep the article. Why would I keep this article is I was on a campaign against this editor and his family? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work at WP:COIN and haven't seen any COI editors react with a "campaigning against me" perspective. They usually react by saying something like "I dont' have a COI" or "I have a COI but am editing per NPOV." Ironcally, my involvement with the Kruse topic matter first was at DRV and not COIN. In preparing my response at DRV, at some point I noticed the multiple article common topic/COI issue and directed my comments towards that to give an additional perspective than already provided by other posters. Later, I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Kruse, where another editor had independently made the same observation in May 2012, about a month ago.[256] OPs English Wikipedia reactive edits began 20 June 2012,[257] which is when his article space posts first were challenged. He's been given plenty of feedback on this from a number of people, but OP is a relatively new user to English Wiliepdia, it's only 23 June 2012 (it's only been three days since OPs English Wikipedia first reactive edit), and there's a lot of policy and guideline info for OP to digest. If we still are dealing with this "campaigning against me" issue a month or two from now, then I'd be concerned. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Emails from arbcom-banned user Glkanter

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.

---

Having been banned and then indef blocked from editing, including his own talk page, Glkanter has decided to take his battle to email. I suspect that he is emailing a lot of people. See emails I posted at User talk:Glkanter#Recent Emails from Glkanter.

Let me know if this is the wrong place for this. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reblocked with email disabled. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the advice I got at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Glkanter, I boldly blanked the page. We can only hope that Glkanter will have an easier time moving on with his life without having the page sitting there as a frozen monument to a bunch of year-old arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 22 June 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.

List of Presidents and List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan

Hi everyone! I have a problem which, hopefully, will be solved here. User:Plutonics try to edit List of Presidents of Pakistan and List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan by adding uncorrected data which, previously, wasn't part of these articles. He also delete right party color templates and put instead his "version" of party colors, which aren't correct. He also refuse to mark acting officeholders by their respective party and to put appropriate party color template, putting instead yellow color and marking them simply as "Caretaker". He even "threat" me that he'll report me if I don't stop working on these articles, and even accuse me of "attacking" them, although I didn't made any vandalizing act on them. I hope someone here can help to resolve this issue. Cheers!--Sundostund (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see his comment to you, but I don't see where you've atrempted to discuss this with them before bringing this here, and neither of you are routinely using edit summaries. Dru of Id (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought there's no point to engage in discussion with someone who is ready to make such drastic changes to an article, and then try to push them, although his changes are opposed (he's obliged, according to WP:BOLD, to stop with his edits if they're opposed). I decided to raise this issue here in order to avoid an edit war with him.--Sundostund (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you haven't notified him of this AfD, which is required; I have done so for you, but in the future please do so yourself. Secondly, the way you resolve an editing dispute on Wikipedia is not by coming directly to AN/I; you need to discuss the issue on the article talk page, and, failing that, at WP:DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I appreciate all of your advices and I'll try to implement them in the future. As I said, I decided to raise this issue here in order to avoid an edit war with Plutonics. I have no desire to engage in such activity. Now, I want to return this discussion to its essence:

1) Plutonics's adding of uncorrected data which, previously, wasn't part of these articles.

2) Plutonics's deletion of right party color templates and putting instead his "version" of party colors, which aren't correct.

3) His refusal to mark acting officeholders by their respective party and to put appropriate party color template, putting instead yellow color and marking them simply as "Caretaker".

So far, he showed no desire to correct this and I was sure its the right thing to do to come here instead of engaging in an edit war.--Sundostund (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The threats of "reporting" might rise to AN/I level; I'll leave that to others to handle, not being familiar with the issue. But the Talk:List of Presidents of Pakistan and Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan (aside: should those be capitalised like they are?) pages are where discussion should, in most cases, happen first. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I request the Admins to allow only those users who have sound knowledge on the subject. I have noticed that Mr. Sundostund has edited the said articles without any credible reference. Whereas, I have put reference in List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan against Ayub Khan, who had been prime minister for 4 days. While Mr. Sundostund had deleted this entry. Beside this the article is poorly maintained, which I tried to fixed, but again Mr. Sundostund revert this without considering any discussions with me on this topic.--Plutonics (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Harassment

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 June 20 I began receiving variations on the same message from User:Kensternation advising me to, among other things, get a life. If I deleted the message they simply reinserted it. I considered giving them a 3RR warning, but ultimately decided to leave their last message alone hoping that would end the issue. Today I deleted their message after User:68.239.177.235 began leaving similar posts on my Talk page. I believe the IP may be a sock and have launched an SPI[258]. I would appreciate it if you could look into this and either take action to prevent them from speaking on my Talk page or advise as to what actions I should take to get them to knock it off.

Diffs-

Kensternation - [259],[260],[261][262]

IP - [263], [264]

Thank you for your assistance. Doniago (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If asking for a user to stop summarily deleting other people's works is harassment then so be it. I believe the CIVIL way of getting people to use sources is to ask for a source not simply deleting the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensternation (talk • contribs) 14:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked both the IP editor and Kensternation for 31 hours. This is a rather clear-cut case of  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt assistance! Doniago (talk) 14:33, 22 June 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.

Eyes on possible 4chan raid

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

 – Thread dead, crisis averted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

See /b/res/407738030 (can't add full URL due to spam filter). Normal 4chan not safe for work caveats apply. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is when preliminary semi-protection is actually justified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I reckon we should just semi any article mentioned in the thread for a few hours. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This could be the possible target. Eyes on. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we don't do preemptive page protection at Wikipedia. Except when we do, of course. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pleeease? Just this once? Looks like User:Bongwarrior is on it anyway. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:32, 22 June 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.

120.61.51.41 Reported by Electriccatfish2

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 has attempted to blank its talk page. It is currently blocked, but it should now be hard blocked as the user is abusing its IP's talk page. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 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.

Appeal

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.

---

Arbitrary header

Magog the ogre has just imposed a restriction on my editing, he has banned me from editing Battle of Chawinda for two months[265] even though I have committed no violations, there was an Iban violation on the part of the other editor with who I have the Iban yet again Magog sees fit to restrict me. His policing of this dispute has been suboptimal since the start had has gotten worse. I demand he remove himself from policing this dispute, and this restriction lifted. Ok here is the timeline [266] Added by Mar4d. [267] Removed by Dbigrayx. [268] Restored by Nangparbat. [269] I revert back to Mar4d. [270] removed again by DBRX. IP reverts himhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chawinda&diff=next&oldid=496114020] which I revert assuming it was a sock, I self reverted this once I checked the IP. I have now edited this content twice. TG first revert of this quote was two days after I had worked it twice[271]. There has been no violation on my part Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone (other than someone with skin in this dispute) is actually interested in the events that led to this block, I will be happy to provide them. I'm not going to do so unless requested, because I'm not going to waste my time when most non-involved who are familiar with this dispute will instantly recognize that the community has been more than patient with both of these users, and that any sanction on them, especially when one of them has been continually trying his hardest to get around the spirit of his interaction ban, is more than fair, given the alternative remedies that could be produced. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Late comment This was a really good answer; it's unfortunate you felt unable to follow through. What I recommend in future similar circumstances is to temporarily let the other party have the last word and wait for a third party editor to respond. If the third party validates your position, no further action is needed on your part. If they don't validate your position it's highly likely they'll phrase their concerns in a way that allows a specific response to any perceived misdeed or lack of clarity on your part. Nobody Ent 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why you have not even warned the other side of this Iban when it was he who committed a violation, instead choosing to sanction me again. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am stuck between a rock and a hard place in a response to that. I really don't want to respond per WP:NOTTHEM, because I'm really tired of always talking about the other party, and because I don't want to WP:SOUP up the conversation for the community. On the other hand, I really want to be fair and give a full explanation. So here it is: TopGun did not violate the ban. As I indicated to you by email, a reversion of vandalism (or, in this case, socking) by one editor is not sufficient to rise to the level of placing a block on the other editor's actions for said content - especially when the first editor self-reverted. And even if it is enough - you yourself have made such edits in the past and indicated you thought they were OK, so you kind of knew better, right? Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One of those edits was not by a sock, the quote in question was first edited by myself, TG editing if it is a violation and again you choose to restrict and berate me though I had done nothing wrong. You continually do this, all anyone need do us look at the two warnings you gave out after the last ANI thread, one was nice and friendly, the other aggressive. Guess who got the aggressive one though again I had not commited the violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess you caught me, Darkness Shines. I am a proud American; Pakistan is as virulently anti-American parts of the Pakistani population is as anti-American as any nation in the world, save parts of the Afghan population. They harbored a mass-murderer of American civilians in their equivalent of West Point, and then threw the guy who helped out the US in jail for 30 years. They do things like throw US government agents in jail for the crime of being stuck up at an ATM.[272] Their nuclear arsenal scares the daylights out of me, like no one else's. I harbor no such thoughts towards India. And yet, despite all of these thoughts going through my head, I have thrown my hat in the ring with a pro-Pakistan POV-pusher. Or could it possibly be that you are just acting disruptively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Having spent some time in Pakistan, and having written a series of articles about it, I would have to say that classifying Pakistan as a whole as "virulently anti-American" is plain wrong - period. The reality is that they try to have their cake and eat it too. Indeed, they will do actions to appease their US friends, then turn around and do actions to appease the Islamic congress. They're a massive double-agent, but everybody knows they're a double-agent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've redacted the statement a bit. Although it's a rabbit trail. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Of course, it's also detracting from the apparent purpose of this ANI anyway, which is apparently to review the editing restriction? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Magog please stick to the facts. Explain why you sanctioned me when I had done nothing wrong and have not even warned the editor who commited the Iban violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So, let's take this from the beginning again. Darkness Shines was sanctioned because he reverted TopGun, from whom he is interaction-banned. DS claims that his revert was justified because TG's previous edit was itself a breach of the interaction ban. True? Well, in that case, DS is wrong: even if TG's edit had also breached the ban, that doesn't give DS the right to revert again. We can now proceed to investigating whether TG should also be sanctioned, but the sanction on DS is sound. And, insofar as it's restricted to this one article, it's rather on the lenient side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If one is in an interaction ban, and observes a violation by the other party, the appropriate thing to do is to privately notify one's most trusted admin, and let the admin take it from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Am I now to Check content to see if an Iban violation occurred before? It is not my job to check if the other part of an Iban has edited content I had previously edited, and if my revert of content I had edited beforehand is a violation why did Magog not sanction or warn for this[273]? Sorry but with Magog it has been one way at all times, I did not violate the Iban, I should not be sanctioned. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question, "Am I now to Check content...?", is YES. Once you are in an interaction ban, if you take that ban seriously and to heart, then you should pay very close attention to the other party's edits, so as to avoid any risk of breaching the ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DS was told this more times than I can count. He's playing coy if he is to pretend he doesn't know better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions?

By the way, do we currently have a general regime of discretionary sanctions on Afghanistan and Pakistan issues? Given the intensity of multi-party disruption in this area (multiple POV warriors fighting on multiple ideological fronts, plus no end of serial sockpuppeters in between), we surely ought to have one. If we don't, let's get one now (community-imposed), and then apply it on a zero-tolerance basis until the appropriate proportion of editors in this field is gone (that is, at my rough estimate, about 70% of all editors active in the field now). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't comment on Afghanistan, but Pakistan-India sanctions would also be useful in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on this. There is clearly a lot of tension in the set of articles that overlap India and Pakistan but, I think, this tension is actually quite productive. A lot of useful content is being generated in this area and the tension is kind of important in maintaining neutrality. TopGun and DarknessShines are leading this content charge and, quite naturally since they have opposing points of view, these two editors are constantly in conflict but, properly managed, this is a productive conflict. Right now, both these editors are being given a lot of rope (thanks to Salvio!) and I think that's a good model for us to follow. Clamping down on both editors is not a good idea (sort of like shooting ourselves in the foot) and, with regard to the current discussion, clamping down on only one editor is a really bad idea. One look at the talk page of Battle of Chawinda does, I think, support my view. A lot of the talk is about pov but a lot is about sourcing and reliability of sources as well. Very healthy and very productive, imo and we should be encouraging this sort of thing. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't share this assessment. I'm not seeing anything useful being done here. What I'm seeing is tons of awfully poor quality content being created, and tons of time being wasted. The "productive conflict" model of NPOV is a failure. We can't get NPOV through encouraging POV warriors to keep up a balance of power among each other. What we need is editors who actually strive for neutrality on their own, and I'm not seeing many of those now. Maybe if we get the abusive elements out, those few that might be able to do positive work could finally come to the fore. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is working, albeit in a dysfunctional sort of way and that's not entirely their fault. The problem with editors who strive for neutrality on their own is that the are unwilling to push the boundaries while POV editors are usually happy to do so (no 'neutral' editor would have created a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article but, despite the fact that the article still has neutrality issues, and despite the fact that my first thought was 'delete this crap", I can see now that it is topic worthy of an article). Both TG as well as DS are excellent boundary pushers and are very good at pushing back on each others POV and the resulting discussions are usually quite productive because they are forced to find sources, discuss source neutrality, etc. as a larger body of editors gets involved. You're going to disagree with me even more but I actually think that the interaction ban between these two editors is part of the problem because they are unable to directly address each other and are forced to approach pov edits indirectly and in an oblique way which makes things worse (templating non-IBAN editors, many pointy reverting and then undoing the revert immediately, things like that). Both editors discuss the IBAN extensively and, unfairly in my opinion, get into trouble for doing so. Though I had at one point advocated a strong topic ban on both editors, I would now advocate repealing the interaction ban completely, letting them address each other directly and focus admin attention on treating civility issues with blocks. A much better way of dealing with editors then by discussing the finer points of what is or is not an interaction accompanied by long lectures on behavior that are better left to school teachers. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right on many points, but if the IBAN is removed the hounding will start again leading to much worse than this. You know DS never edited almost any article I edit before December? Now he edits all following me to each one of them from my contributions list. That is harassment, and I don't want to edit in such environment. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Slam-dunk, emphatic support - I called for these a long time ago. Unfortunately, at that point I was a lone voice crying out in the wilderness; perhaps now people are willing to entertain my point? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose in favour of swift blocks: vios should be dealt with swift blocks, not with further sanctions that will again be reported once they are violated to yet even receive further sanctions. If the admins can not handle violations from the sanctions that are already present, there's no way we can trust that allowing them to throw on more sanctions will help. Taking action on violation of sanctions is the issue here, this solution seems to increase the problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  The problem with "vios should be dealt with swift blocks" TG is that you wikilawyer the heck out of things. This thread is a good example where you managed to weasel out of a block. Perhaps what is needed is for you to agree to be blocked, without question, by any one of a group of admins for anything the perceive to be an iban violation. Are you willing to go with that? --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

By swift blocks I do not mean invalid blocks. If I unambiguously violate, block me. The case you pointed out was not taken as a violation before and later reported as a vio, I don't think it is fair to block in a case like that or on something previously never clarified. Each and every vio I report is well clarified and is not blocked on either because admins call it stale (only to see it later again) or because it is self reverted (also only to happen again else where). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty in all this is your expectation that the interaction ban be clearly spelled out in advance. In my opinion, if a ban is in place, then the onus is on you to assume that anything that touches on DS is a violation of the ban and to explicitly get clarification before you make the edit. Your expectation that clarifications will come only after the violation and that you'll always be given the opportunity to correct it is unrealistic and is part of the slippery slope that is pushing you toward a site ban. I should also point out that, in the example I give above, you contested the opinion of several admins that the edit was a violation and only reverted when confronted with a revert or be blocked choice. That too is not helping. You (as well as DS) want to have a small footprint at ANI and on admin talk pages but, instead, the two of you are leaving a giant footprint. As you can see, enough people are getting sick of seeing you on ANI (though, since many of them don't actually deal with the two of you I'm not sure why that is in itself so bothersome) and when that happens - .... - I hope you know what happens. --regentspark (comment) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about making clarifications before hand in case of edits that might have issues, but we're past that in most reports; which are about clear cut violations after clarification... 3-4 present on Magog's talkpage. Some thing needs to be done about handling those... the ambiguous ones have been dealt well by Salvio without blocks for both sides (though he too was some times lenient though, to let go the clear cut ones if they were self reverted). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal: TopGun and DarknessShines

• The obvious, yet unfortunate response to this whole thing - seeing as various admins talkpages and ANI are all littered with tattling on each other, suspected and real Iban violations, etc, is to just fricking BAN the both of them (DS and TG) from Wikipedia for 6 months. During that time, they can learn that childish bickering is verboten and undesired from our editors. During that time they can learn to treat others and their skills/opinions with respect, no matter what. During that time, they can realize that we're fricking serious with our restrictions, and that FUTURE bullcrapola will be met with permanent bans from the project. During that time they can try and get over their ethnic/nationalistic crap. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody Ent 14:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What ethnic nationalist crap? I am neither Indian or Pakistani, my mother is Irish and father English. I have no nationalist views on this whatsoever. But well fucking done on proposing an editor be banned when he has done fuck all wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban for recurrent need for dispute resolution; not endorsing Bwilkins description of editors. Nobody Ent 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Neutral for iTopGun -- to be fair, I have not seen the editor on ANI/WQA recently. Nobody Ent 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• How soon they forget [274] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This was being done before and never clarified, it was a reasonable conflict which I reverted. That thread is self explanatory. Also, I've not started any of the threads at ANI since months even to report... I was dragged here. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Very reluctant support - we've been dragged to AN/I far too often for this. This is an extreme solution but if it's the only way to put a stop to this then sobeit. Would it be possible to impose a topic ban on Indo-Pakistani topics instead though? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to oppose this ban. Although I would have preferred a topic ban, but WP:TBAN says,"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." I believe that although both of them do get in many conflicts, but one can't say their edits on India/Pakistan related articles as disruptive. Please correct me if I am wrong. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Nobody Ent. Not sure editorializing the issue is helpful. I've been just inside the sidelines enough to see that this ban is needed to prevent disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support if and only if six month bans are the only way to stop this disruption, reluctantly - it seems that blocks are the only way to put an end to this. →Bmusician 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Both the 6 month ban as well as the topic ban, the IBAN was placed due to a reason, enforcing IBAN with a block when a IBAN violation has been proved is the correct thing to do. Problem only erupts when the wikilawyering starts. I also agree with RegentsPark's comment below. Blocking for six month is way to harsh and seeing the interference of Nangparbat socks in the incidents, it is highly likely that more socks will erupt.

Also there is a Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan going on where all the concerned parties are participating and the discussion appears promising. I dont see any benefit in derailing the hard work done so far in mediation, by forcing a Block or Topic ban when things can be handled in a better way using existing options on collaboration. --DℬigXray 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering the recent comments I would also add a Strong Oppose for blocking User:Darkness Shines as proposed above, from what I see is a clear bias against DS and ignoring the faults of TopGun. --DℬigXray 09:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A ban is like going up a blind alley, seeing the block logs. Has it worked previously? And the answer is no, so why not try something that may effectively end this problem once for all? In my opinion a Topic Ban is necessary here more than anything else. But first the following needs to be identified:
  1. Topics which both editors edit mostly
  2. Topics where both editors have been in disputes

After identifying above I guess it will be easy to move forward with a topic ban that was suggested many a times before too. --SMS ^Talk 17:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban rather than a site ban at this point. Hopefully a topic ban would prevent the drama, but still permit editors to do useful work elsewhere (unless it later turns out that their days are consumed by incompatible but passionately-held beliefs on oceanography or on 18th century French literature). If a topic ban has been tried (I'm not aware of this having been done but I might have missed something) but failed to stop the drama then I would support progression to a site ban. bobrayner (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Nah. I agree that life will be much easier without these two but this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Both editors are primarily adding content and, I think, there are sufficient checks and balances on neutrality that they are a net plus for Wikipedia. A simpler solution would be to require them to only use email when reporting or querying iban violations - take the drama off wiki so to speak. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I reiterate that this ban is wrong headed. The conflict between these editors is productive, it forces them to defend their povs with a larger audience and with stronger references and that is a good thing. The interaction ban has been a problem because it has not been evenly applied and has been symptomized by blocks being reduced after extensive wikilawyering and talk (I plead guilty to that sin as well, mainly because I'm amazed by the content they're generating and don't want either editor to be blocked or banned). That's our fault as admins, we should discourage wikilawyering, not second guess the decisions of another admin, and firmly crack down on iban and/or civility violations. It is unfair to penalize these editors for the mistakes made by admins. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that we ought not support a ban of editors just because the issue is brought up a lot. Deal with the issue where there is disruption; if it is shown that DS has been disruptive enough to enjoy a topic-ban or site-ban, go for it. Ditto with TopGun. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Heartily support for DarknessShines, whose presence has, from what I've seen, been thoroughly disruptive (and whose block log speaks for itself); not so sure about TopGun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Much too broad. A topic ban on the article in question might be enough, with an expansion to articles involving Pakistan if necessary. No reason to remove them from the rest of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for TopGun TopGun has never violated his IBAN, even once. This ban serves no purpose. On the other hand, Darkness Shine's treatment of the IBAN has been suboptimal; consult his block log for proof. The only person who should be scrutinized is Darkness Shines. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes he has, quite a few times and has again done so in this very thread Darkness Shines (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll further note that one can not violate the IBAN when discussing the IBAN itself (forexample in this discussion). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you can - once you changed from supporting simply a ban on both of you, to removing yourself as that made it a discussion about them, or made any individual discussions about DS as opposed to defending the proposal against yourself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with that. This is a report about the IBAN and it's appeal. All the discussion here is relevant to that, and I should be allowed to freely discuss or support/oppose. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic bans This drama was interesting sometime ten years ago for roughly a nanosecond. When a conflict gets so bad that ANI is disrupted by constant, childish bickering we have reached the point where stronger restrictions are necessary. I am Neutral regarding a full site ban; what ever gets the drama to stop is the correct action. SÆdon^talk 04:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• oppose too harsh.-- altetendekrabbe  07:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for Darkness Shines and oppose generally in favour of alternative proposal below. The Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan should be given a chance to work. Especially Darkness Shines has worked hard to present dozens of reliable sources there to further the mediation process. JCAla (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support of indefinite topic bans on pain of long blocks. This has gone on long enough, and both involved editors have been repeatedly told to back off. This acting-like-six-year-olds "he started it, no he started it" crap is getting tiresome. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? Where have I been wrong about the violations? Reporting violations is not an offense.... making them is. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you were obeying the terms of the IBAN and not constantly checking, you wouldn't be reporting violations. Right now you're both looking at each other and waiting for the other to mess up so you can tattletale to ANI, and regardless of who started it (and I think I speak for everyone here), it is really getting old. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is getting contradicting, an admin above said you should be paying close attention to each others' edits so as not to violate the ban, that automatically means I'll be aware of any violations that are made and will be bound to report them so that I'm not later accused of making vios my self when I later edit the content I added. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support in the case of DarknessShines, neutral in the case of TopGun. DarknessShines has become much too frequent a flyer on ANI, and I think we've gotten to the stage where enough is enough. One would think that someone in the thick of so many disputes would learn to take especial care to edit with the utmost respect for civility, neutrality and consensus. Ravenswing 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just a question. There was another TopGun who also edited Middle East subjects. I hope this is another user? My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it is definitely another user. →Bmusician 08:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The user name is different, his has a space. I usurped this username as I couldn't create it (the previous holder didn't have any contributions). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Darkness Shines - unrepentant violations of his interaction ban, blaming everyone but himself, which is where the blame lies. I turned down numerous chances to block him, and he still blames me for his situation (chutzpah!). Oppose for TopGun, but place TopGun on civility parole for the recent conduct which got him blocked - meaning any non-involved admin can block him at any point for handling himself with anything but the utmost of care . Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've always been civil. My recent tangential remarks were due to three bad blocks thrown on me consecutively (one even being for reverting the banned user Lagoo sab), and all three were reverted. My comments other wise have all followed WP:CIVIL, always. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a look on User talk:TopGun and the past ANI threads concerning TG and DS one can clearly see that even TopGun indulges in blaming everyone but himself, extensive wikilawyering and comments such as No , he did it, you did not block him and similar comments. A lot of people here at ANI will agree that TopGun is not as clean and innocent as Magog is trying to prove above. Moreover TG's 1 week block has been lifted already and DS is still blocked for 2 weeks. I am sorry to say this but, what I see here, is a clear bias against User:Darkness Shines.--DℬigXray 09:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You of all should not be commenting on me, because you're the one doing the blaming right now. My block was lifted because it was not a violation (and esp, it was not a symmetrical block related to that vio either in the first place). And reporting a vio with a diff is not "blaming everyone but myself". Furthermore, you have a history of coming to ANI discussions that do not concern you to make comments on me... it is quite telling that you labeled my caution of that as a threat last time. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Prove that blanket statement Magog. Whenever I have erred I have immediately self reverted. There has been no wikilawering, no argument, just straight revert. I have never blamed anyone when I have made a mistake and have always corrected those mistakes. As for turning down numerous chances to block me, I believe my block log tells a different story. You first blocked me for doing a single revert, my first revert on that particular article ever and my first revert in three or four days. Your excuse? Edit warring. You have threatened and blocked me at even the slightest chance. So prove that this is "all my fault" and that I have been unrepentant when a mistake was made. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• People need to remain fair and balanced here. Darkness Shines should be unblocked like TopGun to have similar possibility for defending himself. BOTH committed a violation of the IBAN and both recently had a similar number of violations (DS being blocked more often for them) but only one editor has been unblocked. The good faith gestures shown by Darkness Shines should be taken in account. Darkness Shines has agreed to a topic ban and thereby to not edit in the topic area until mediation is concluded. If the other editor were to show a similar good faith gesture people could all move forward to mediation and leave this unpleasant litigation behind. The mediators have raised interesting questions which, if addressed, could create a framework from which to work from. Darkness Shines has provided dozens of reliable academic sources in the topic area and people in the mediation are waiting for others to do the same. JCAla (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. India-Pakistan edits are contentious and I agree with Regentspark that the dialectic is keeping the other's crappy references out. Disclaimer:I have had differences of POV with TG in the past. AshLin (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for Darkness Shines Conditional Topic Ban until Mediation is completed (as proposed below) seems quite fine.Agree with JCAla. It doesn't look fair to give one of the two involved users'..chance to defend himself while the other is deprived of the same.Since DS agreed for a topic ban until mediation is completed, it is now time to lift the punitive block from DS so that he can participate here. This also follows neutrality. Thanks ƬheStrikeEagle ^AMRAAM 12:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support for Darkness Shines as his only purpose here seems to add strong ant-Pakistan POV (examples: [275], [276]) to Pakistan related articles. He has been in disputes with most of the editors who are working in this topic area and TopGun is one of them. I did suggest "Pakistan" topic ban for DS previously but his continuous POV editing, hindrance in improving articles in this topic area and hounding has forced me to support an indefinite site ban. --SMS ^Talk 14:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with User:Smsarmad "Lets Start Banning editors who disagree with Pakistani POV", perfect way to go --DBigXray 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why is there no content between the "Appeal" and "Arbitrary header" headers? Was content removed from there, or did someone just put a level-3 header immediately below the level-2 header? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I just added it to make editing the first section easier. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

More violations

I've reported a few more vios on my talk page in a report. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hounding

• The interaction ban was placed because I was being admittedly hounded (first saying things like RC patrol and later admitting to following me around) and I was in full support of it... even got the thread reopened when it was being closed. This was where I proposed a site ban before but due to my own conflict, it appeared retaliatory. Hopefully it doesn't now that I've not made a violation myself here. [277]. This hounding has still continued and has violated the spirit of IBAN: [278] (an article I'm a major contributor to where DS just appeared), [279] (appeared here right after I edited for the first time), [280] (and another one where he never edited before). There are many more and would take up useless diff digging. This has not been reciprocated by me. And not to mention calling it a violation when ever I report one, contest one reported against me or get involved in an IBAN related discussion like this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• This is another Ivan violation. One was already explained I was reverting Nangparbat, the other was on RC patrol which anyone. can see I do occasionally and self reverted once I looked at the articles history so as to warn that user. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to indef both of you now and end this time sink once and for all... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that the proposal at hand, basically? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean unilaterally do it and see what happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I've been against it, I'm beginning to think I'm mistaken. If TG and DS can't figure out what's what when faced with a site ban, I don't see this ever working out. An indef is beginning to look like the only sane solution. --regentspark (comment) 03:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative: Conditional topic ban until mediation has concluded

These folks (TG, DS, along with JCAla and Mar4d) are currently involved in mediation. So far the mediation hasn't gone far due to skirmishes between them elsewhere. One approach might be to give TG and DS a conditional topic ban. The condition would be that they work out their differences and show that they can edit harmoniously in accordance with WP policies. One of the ways that they might achieve a more collaborative approach would be through mediation. The mediators are willing to try that, if they are. Sunray (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Thanks Sunray. I for one am willing to let them try this restricted approach. Unfortunately, they're both currently blocked, so, assuming this has traction at all, if someone could ping them with this as a question, that would be great. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "By Sunray. I will go along with a topic ban until mediation has concluded." - Darkness Shines (brought over from here) 09:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The mediation is the right venue to determine the honesty of the editors with regards to abiding by the rules of wikipedia (sourcing, civility, etc.) and gives both editors (and the others) the chance to work out a common basis to work from which could prevent extensive future disputes. JCAla (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: for myself as it will hinder general progress, most of my edits are in this topic area only and also because this thread is not here because I made a violation; I've made no violations atleast on those things previously clarified and my block was reverted as not a vio. To be serious, the disputes follow me around. I'll try not to engage in the same dispute on different articles while the mediation is on, but I can not say the same for unrelated disputes or for conduct disputes which are the prime issue. Also I think the mediation is kind of failing (not due to the content itself, but because of the conduct disputes that are there going in the parallel and out right denial of each others' views at different venues including the mediation). I will, however, still make good faith attempts to continue the mediation until it is rendered impossible due to the conduct scenario (I will withdraw though if a topic ban is implemented on me due to this thread as I had no part in starting this other than correctly reporting a vio). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support This will be reasonable, both can be topic banned until the meditation process is over. Site banning one or both while the mediation process is running is clearly not the best option. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Wholehearted Support This is in fact a constructive way, that will actually be beneficial to the project. Blocking is only a final option when everything else fails. Admins needs to be specially careful while dealing with promising and good article contributors such as User:Darkness Shines. The process of mediation had been proposed for reasons such as this. Lets rise above from the mob mentality of lynching editors and think wisely and allow people who are willing to handle it in a better way.--DℬigXray 09:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I hesitated to support the proposal above as I felt that was draconian, but I find it unbelievable that these two can still continue to bicker even when facing a full site ban. Time for a holiday for us all - they are both clearly incapable of acting like adults towards each other and so I support this restriction. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Completely agree with DBigXray.Block should be the final action when everything other than it fails to achive the objective.Let mediation be given a chance.I'm sure Darkness Shines would try to settle any disputes whatsoever so that he continues his great contributions in sock-puppetry fighting here.Blocking for 6 months doesn't seem fair as it is not the case of any serious sock-puppetry or abusing.Just another part of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts.....so can be resolved with mediation.Thanks ϮheჂtriԞeΣagle ^Sorties 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I am more than willing to refrain from editing existing articles in the topic area until such a time as mediation has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, despite TopGun's declaration that he'll withdraw from mediation (in fact, that statement makes me even more certain that this is necessary). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER might the more appropriate one to link to "declaration", I don't want this as an excuse to be construed all over the topic area that I edit. I'm already burned out on this dispute which lingers forever starting again after being resolved numerous times. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, bans are too heavy. As Regentspark & AshLin have said, these two editors are constantly in conflict but, properly managed, this is an overall productive conflict - adding new info to the projects while keeping the others POV in check. The main negative result of the conflict is excessive wiki-lawyering that consumes the time of other editors, but a ban is not a solution, tho it may seem very tempting and desirable to some editors who are tired of the long and constant boxing match, which sometimes results in halt of progress of an article. A temporary conditional topic ban seems right, but what is really needed is more one on one direct interaction between the two. Disclaimer:I have had one instance of difference with TopGun in the past, which was amiably solved immediately by edits by Darkness Shines. Anir1uph (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Establishing conditions for successful dispute resolution

I'm glad to see that the idea of a conditional topic ban is generally supported. However, I am somewhat concerned about TG's comments above (particularly the "disputes follow me around" statement). IMO mediation will not work unless participants cease pointing at others and take responsibility for their own behaviour. In an earlier section, regentspark said: "There is clearly a lot of tension in the set of articles that overlap India and Pakistan but, I think, this tension is actually quite productive." I agree that the tension has the potential to be productive under certain conditions. The key will be to get conditions that the participants can all buy into. My co-mediator, Lord Roem, and I, are considering this question. In the meantime I would like to hear from TopGun as to what conditions he thinks would work, bearing in mind that the alternative proposed, above, is a six-month topic ban. While I am looking for comment by TG, I welcome others' comments. Sunray (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am just defending my self when I say that disputes follow me rather than pointing fingers. Even the above proposal doesn't seem to point much at me - the alternate above of six month site ban is already being opposed as it is not nearly the appropriate solution to this... I really don't see why I would be banned for anything at this moment. The reason I would not support a conditional topic ban on myself is that all my edits are in this topic area and I don't want the mediation to be used as an excuse to stop me from editing other wise. I have previously given diffs that I was editing all the Pakistan related articles and the opposing editors followed up there and it would be inappropriate to now ask me to stop editing there. Also, the mediation can not override the consensus already attained previously at different venues by more than just these editors who are involved in the mediation. As far as that is respected, I will not start the Taliban dispute elsewhere and continue at the mediation, all the other disputes are unrelated and were never included in the agreement that I made to the mediation when it started... other wise the simple alternate proposal is to let RFCs handle it by involving other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Different RFCs have yielded opposite results. So, mediation is warranted. Sunray, I think a condition for the mediation to be finally successful is for the participants to finally present the reliable sources which they base their positions on in the mediation. The disputes which end up in litigation have very much to do with sourcing or lack thereof and how to correctly represent what reliable sources are saying. JCAla (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think RFCs have yielded opposite results. If you are pointing to the one at Taliban article, that also was closed as more need for discussion to attribute the POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

TG, you haven't suggested any alternate conditions. JCAla points out the need for mediation and the importance of sources. I agree with that. The issues identified on the mediation talk page focus on WP:NPOV and WP:VER. Looking at sources will be crucial to our getting anywhere. However, there have been continuous interruptions for disputes in article space and WP space.

Therefore, the mediators suggest the following conditions:

Participants voluntarily agree to:

1. Cease major edits to Taliban articles and Pakistan articles related to the Taliban, and avoid refrain from making complaints about one another, or disputes on article talk pages or Wikipedia pages other than according to agreements on the mediation talk page.
2. Remain civil in the process (subject to the mediators' discretion, to terminate the arrangement if participants violate after a warning)
3. Agree to freeze editing on the subject matter in future instances (post-mediation) *unless* they reach consensus on the talk page. This would be similar to a voluntary 1RR rule for these editors, as an extra safety net. Sunray (talk)

Discussion

I am already not making any major content edits to the Taliban dispute in question but this thread has nothing to do with that dispute. I will continue to normally edit rest of the Pakistan related topic area as that is unrelated to this and I did not take any other dispute up at this mediation either (on purpose so that the dispute at hand is resolved), so this would be an irrelevant suggestion as far as I'm concerned (and my not editing there will not make any difference). So, seriously I don't see the point of the alternate proposal which is on the mediation matter rather than on the conduct; the violations are not occurring in just one topic area. Remaining civil should be fairly easy for every one... Magog asked for us to stick to such an agreement about civility and not commenting on the editors before at Talk:Taliban but JCAla withdrew from it later. The issue here is the IBAN vios... I'm already in favour of blocking right away when they are made. The mediation can not continue anyway if the editors involved are disrupting wikipedia at other places, that is what should be avoided. If the editors can't keep themselves from disruption they should be blocked in the first place; if they can, good.. let's resolve the content dispute civilly. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds promising. I've modified the first condition along the lines suggested by regentspark. Sunray (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, could you make it clear that the restriction applies only to Taliban related articles and Pakistan articles that are related to the Taliban? TopGun is a major contributor to Pakistan articles and restricting him from editing those articles is onerous. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• In "Participants voluntarily agree to: Cease major edits..." can the definition of major edits be explained? Also, in "avoid complaints about one another", can it be made clear what avoid means; when' and to whom can they complain in case of a violation. Only so there are no loopholes in the future. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd presume 'major edits' means 'anything that isn't a minor edit'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for those suggested changes to the wording. The general principle is that issues are discussed on the mediation talk page. I've tightened up "avoid" to "refrain from." I like the distinction The Bushranger makes, about major/minor, though we might extend it to "non-controversial edits." Sunray (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question, "freeze editing on the subject matter in future instances" As in I cannot add content to an article after mediation? That seems a little much. It is not a 1r restriction on such articles, it means I cannot add content to them. I am currently working on getting an article up to GA, it involves both Pakistan and the Taliban. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to leave it at 1RR? Sunray (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If possible yes, or even on articles only I edit I would not be able to add content. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm already on 1RR. But I don't think why the articles shouldn't be edited after the mediation has concluded. More things always come up. But I see the principle, don't want to overrun the mediation effort.. so talkpage discussions should be used instead of sneaking in content like was done before. I do not agree however to refrain from making valid complaints and fully intend to observe and make sure that the previous community restrictions are enforced. Anyone making a bad complaint is dealt with accordingly anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "after" restriction should be dropped. One purpose of mediation is to get the two editors to learn to work together. If, after mediation, they haven't learned that, then we'll probably need to revisit the ban proposal above anyway. --regentspark (comment) 02:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, that should address the concern. Sunray (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that the recent reports and appeals with regards to DS's and TopGun's IBAN were brought forward not because of disputes related to the Taliban, but because of articles dealing with Pakistan/India battles and wars especially Battle of Chawinda. There seems to be a general question with regards to proper sourcing or lack thereof [281] as well as how to properly represent sources on several articles. JCAla (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Phew... I tried to bring that up quite a few times above but was ignored. This dispute even though the first and the core dispute, has nothing to do with the IBAN violations per se, which are not limited to any single topic area. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There exists a general problem with sourcing or lack thereof beyond the Taliban issue which shows how much mediation is warranted to deal with the general question of verifiability and proper source representation in the topic area with some issues such as Taliban (as the first dispute) serving as an example. Once a common basis is established and if editors adhere to it, this might reduce disputes. JCAla (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Following this discussion and with the above adjustments, it sounds like you are both o.k.with the conditions. Are you ready to sign the agreement now? Sunray (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The conditions do not mirror the issue of dispute. The issue is not the Taliban. The issue is Pakistan, its connection to the Taliban and its battles/territorial disputes with India. It makes no sense to issue a restriction for the Taliban. There has never been a dispute between these editors with regards to Taliban edits except for those edits dealing with the Taliban's relationship to Pakistan. Let's say people want to make an edit about the Afghan "peace process" and the Taliban (without mentioning Pakistan) or the Taliban's philosophy there should be no problem with it. The real topic is how to describe Pakistan's role in world affairs, results of wars involving Pakistan and whether some groups are/were associated with the country or not. The major problem is the sourcing issue as mentioned above. Can you adjust the conditions accordingly? JCAla (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If one of the major issues is the Chawinda page, then why have no major attempts been made for dispute resolution? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The major issue is the question of appropriate sourcing with regards to Pakistan (not Taliban - can the mediators change that?). This attempt at dispute resolution at the Chawinda talk page shows the same problem with regards to sourcing or lack thereof as this attempt at dispute resolution on another article. Mediation is needed to come to a common understanding with regards to sourcing based on examples. JCAla (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And how's that related to IBAN? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreement

Participants signify their agreement below (~~~~)

• Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Remove the interaction ban

A drastic solution perhaps but I'm proposing this because I believe that the interaction ban is actually making matters worse. An interaction ban on two editors who edit in mainly the same areas makes little sense, especially considering that they are the lead editors in those areas. What we get instead is a game of "gothca" where each editor is busy trying to catch the other one in a technical violation of the interaction ban (leading to their overarching presence on noticeboards and Salvio's talk page). Instead we should let them get back to content writing while enforcing good behavior through civility and tendentious editing warnings and/or blocks, and by encouraging them to settle disputes through RfCs. (I Note also that TopGun hasn't agreed to the proposal above - he is a bit of a Gandhian! - and that proposal, limited as it is, is not going to fly without his agreement.) Whether this gets any traction or not, I'm putting this forward as one solution. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I had not caught up in a couple of days, was reading through and was about to propose the same thing. The iban has failed, it is causing massive amounts of bureaucratic headaches for admins and the boards, and perhaps the traditional way of dealing with the problems is warranted: block where needed, as needed, for as long as needed, like you would any other editor. The iban has become a fallback to justify bad behavior and is creating even more of it. If we can't agree to block them for 6 months after all of this, we need to release them from the obligations of it. We spend more time determining if actions do or don't apply to iban, instead of determining what is simply unacceptable behavior for any editor, and applying common sense to each situation. If they can't get along without the iban, then they will both likely see a series of blocks, as any admin will feel more free to apply them without worrying about being bogged down in a debate over the terms of the iban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is a waste of time and gets in the way of constructive editing Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, plus alternative: Not only this, but replace the interaction ban with an NPA/civility probation on both of them - any negative interaction by one of these two, if observed by an uninvolved admin, can result in escalating blocks. The idea is to just say that they have to stay completely civil or else - which is best accomplished by minimizing their interaction with each other - instead of having to monitor each other in order to avoid the other one. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question: The heading says "Alternative proposal:" Alternative to what? There is a possibility that mediation could succeed. If conduct disputes do not stop, arbitration would seem to be an option. I would support this proposal on the condition that participants return to mediation. Regentspark, would you be able to clarify this? Sunray (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed mediation would carry on regardless of whichever outcome here? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my assumption as well. Except that the editing restrictions suggested by the mediation proposal above will no longer apply. --regentspark (comment) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on - the interaction ban was partially placed in the first place due to the fact that Darkness Shines had a habit of following Topgun's contributions to the point that it became harassment. How can we make sure that Darkness Shines does not engage in stalking? If this can be answered for me to my satisfaction, I will support the removal. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  Stalking can easily be dealt with through escalating blocks. --regentspark (comment) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly. There's no need for the IBAN; it's unworkable anyway. However, if you put them on a probation for any kind of bad behavior - personal atttacks, stalking, hounding, harassment, battleground behavior, etc. - and make it so that it's not just for interaction between them, but rather is especially for interaction between them, you attack the root of the problem, which is not that they can't interact well with each other, but that they've gotten obsessed with their little feud. Probation forces each of them to pay attention to their OWN behavior, not to pay attention to whether the other one is present. Escalating blocks are the logical sanction for violating that probation. 02:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)That was added by me, but it didn't sign properly. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support This as well, as I agree with reasoning given by regentspark, User:Dennis Brown and Jorgath Although I completely disagree with the Regentspark's statement that he(TopGun) is a bit of a Gandhian! . Was it Regentspark ?

Also I would stress the word uninvolved admin from Jorgath's comment, because Admin Shopping was prevalent and several claims of bias had been made in the past, by the two editors while the IBAN was in force. --DBigXray 11:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We might just need a bigger boat more admins. :D </snark> - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's a bold proposal, certainly, but I can't support it unless some alternative measure takes the place of the interaction ban. The underlying problem is the friction between the editors (though I won't pretend they're identical); when interaction-banned this friction finds the outlet that regentspark describes, but when they weren't interaction-banned the friction still caused problems. The iban didn't fall from the sky; it was a response to ongoing problematic editing. Removing it would replace the current flavour of drama with the problems we had before (or perhaps some new variation), and I'll bet €10 there would be another AN/I thread within a week...

bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• And I bet if there is, there will be a two week block 5 minutes later, which is a hell of a lot faster than the process is currently working since we are burdened with debating how the iban applies to that situation, instead of using common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: And to address Bobrayner's concerns, in a certain sense, another AN/I thread next week is what we want (absent the two of them suddenly becoming model Wikipedians). But this time, the ANI report will be about specific, sanctionable behavior, and won't require us to figure out whether an iban has technically been violated. If one of them is uncivil, we block that person. If one of them is edit warring (fast or slow), we block that person. And if one of them reports the other for something trivial or something that's not a violation, we block that person (the one making the false report). In other words, we'd be saying "Okay, sending you to your corners didn't work (since you refuse to leave the same small room), so now, do what you will, but you've both been given all the rope you need and we've got no more patience for bad behavior." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Wait a minute, before you open the Pandora's box, go through this: the main reason for why the IBAN was placed in the first place [282]. DS admittedly followed my edits, he almost never edited in any of the Pakistan related articles and now he does almost all that I do. I gave a long list of diffs where DS followed me in this link and also his admission of following me. The siteban proposal was opposed because I proposed it, but the IBAN was unanimously placed as a result. You have to know that the IBAN did not fall out of the sky as some one stated above. There was very similar situation to this when admins could not deal with the reports of hounding, editwarring, etc etc anymore... do you mean to say that now you can not handle the IBAN reports and would like to continue reviewing the previous kind of reports that you could not handle as they had so much wikilawyering and smoke screen in them? I will support lifting of the IBAN if the actual problem is addressed. Also if you see the problems even persisted through the IBAN. Removing the ban will get rid of the issue of technical IBAN vios and bring in tens of problems and we'll have this discussion again. I guess Magog raised the same point above. Also, before some passing admin decides to block me on this very comment for an IBAN vio like the last time, do know that the discussion about IBAN itself (specifically abolishing it) is an exemption and the block was reverted for the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, if the IBAN was primarily because DS was following you around then it should go anyway. There is no reason to impose an interaction ban on you because some other editor is stalking you. Removing the ban is a much better solution. In the example of your unblock that you quote above, there was disagreement amongst admins as to whether your comment was a violation or not and I see many more such disagreements looming, ending up with a site ban for you, DS or both not because of what you're doing but because editors are sick of seeing you both on ANI or on admin talk pages. If DS stalks you, he'll be blocked. If he continues to stalk you, he'll be banned. Much simpler. The problem with an IBAN is that we all get stuck on technicalities and that is not useful. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The iban has made a bad problem worse and no matter how the iban came into effect, it is an utter failure at preventing disruption, and is itself responsible for more disruption and less accountability. It also ties the hands of admins, and makes them less inclined to get involved because they don't want to have to dig up the details and determine who did what. Shake the Etchasketch a few times, start over, and if he stalks, he will be blocked with no political iban considerations to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Regentspark said, the IBAN is limiting my editing too but I still supported it because not much was being done about the issues and other than just this, all the discussions went back and forth and were disruptive. It was placed so that admins did not have to dig up through the actual conduct issues. That is what I exactly asked here, do you want to do that now? ANI doesn't help in anything because they don't want to see us again and again just as you said. It actually helps me if I can edit all the content which I could previously not. The ban was suppressing other problems, now what if they come back and drag me back to ANI even when I don't start threads here like now... some body will come up with another site ban proposal or a topic ban proposal that doesn't even actually address the problem (I don't know, to get peer praise? - not referring to sunray but the one that was proposed once before). Most solutions suggested here at ANI seem to be to get rid of the editors instead of the disputes. If this is removed I'll try staying away from DS anyway for the better but I guess that will not be possible in the main space (and likely not on article talk). The thing is those who support removing the IBAN should be ready to deal with the actual problems should they come back (and they did persist with the ban, so they will). I'm not supporting the removal, but I'll not oppose it either - it's on you. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support The only thing the IBAN is doing is making the things worse. I can't see any benefit of it in regards to these dispute. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing: It seems we have consensus above. If an uninvolved admin could close this, perhaps with the condition that TopGun and DarknessShines return to mediation as well, that would be great. Time to take this off ANI. --regentspark (comment) 14:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I Second, as it has progressed long enough that a consensus should be clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:21, 21 June 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.

IPs deliberately inserting false information

(I moved this thread from WP:AN, where it was titled False "Stage Musical" edits on Dork Diaries, because the disruption continues on multiple articles, by multiple IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

71.183.182.11 (talk · contribs) has created a false "Stage Musical" section on the Dork Diaries article, complete with casting and musical numbers. There is no such musical, and several editors have tried to remove the information, but it is reposted within a few days. This information is never cited. Upon visiting the User Talk page, I discovered that this user has created other uncited and possibly false musicals on other pages.

Dork Diaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dork_Diaries

Thanks. HtownCat (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor is question has done the same thing -- invented entirely fictitious musicals or otherwise inserting fallacious information -- on other articles as well, including Megan Hilty, Betty Boop, Matilda the Musical, Nice Work If You Can Get It (musical), Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (musical), and others. Perhaps this editor needs a time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Glass half full -- at least he/she shows some style! --Drmargi (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no style points on false content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IP editor restored the fake musical using 96.224.22.162 (talk · contribs). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

76.225.140.11 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same person (note edits to Vanessa Baden. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to start handing out SPPs? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)