Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive795

Spam attack on Evolutionary psychology

• Evolutionary psychology (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Evolutionary Psychology of Culture (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution and Culture
• Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jhicks0207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture

There is something very odd going on here with a huge amount of (spammed?) content beong added to this article by two brand new users. One of these new users has created the second drivel article. Mathsci (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci Just trying to update the old page with new information and formatting. The old article was insufficient. While the new one can definitely be further organized, I was just trying to make a new page with further information on evolutionary psychology and culture. I cannot speak for Masterofthepages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Is this some undergraduate project gone badly wrong? That's what appears to be happening. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire work is verifiable, and I believe it is much better than the alternative lack of information on wikipedia.

• Both new editors are out of control. They are both adding large amounts of gobbledegook content. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• One new page is not large amounts, please add specific problems with the new page. jhicks0207 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

All the content you are adding constitutes an WP:ESSAY, like the deleted article with its bizarre capitalization. Wikipedia is not a blog. It looks as if Jhicks0207 and Masterofthepages (who presumably created the deleted essay-article Evolution and Culture) are the same person. Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The cache on Google tells me that Evolutionary Psychology of Culture is an identical copy of the recently deleted article Evolution and Culture. Jhicks0207/Masterofthepages is abusing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I came into this imbroglio in the middle. I've deleted the article created by Jhicks (per WP:CSD#G4), but it took me a bit to figure out what was going on. Unfortunately, Mathsci, whose heart is in the right place, tagged the article as WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense), which, frankly, was a nonsense tagging. I removed the tag, read the talk page comments, which were also pretty silly. I finally traced it back to the article that had just been incubated per a deletion discussion. That article had been created by User:Psyc452-lrockwell, whoever that is. I assume there's a relationship between Jhicks, Masterofthepages, and Psyc452, but it's possible that they're just all fellow students, not a single individual. They do need to stop recreating the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It could be students, but it's hard to say. If so, they should not be let loose on articles like evolutionary psychology, which is a contentious and problematic article. I watch it, but do not usually edit it. The changes being made at the moment do not conform to normal wikipedia standards. I have requested full protection. As far as school projects go, I have seen students involved in fairly narrowly defined areas, such as certain parts of ecology, trying to add essay-like content in a prominent but WP:UNDUE way to top level articles such as Europe. Mathsci (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps somebody should give advice to Jhicks directly now that he is trying to recreate the content for a third time in the article incubator. Wikipedia is not the place for pseudoscientific "essays" of this kind. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like another undergraduate project that has got out of control, cf User:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality. It's Psychology 452 at San Francisco State University as far as I can tell. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Matsci, it is an educational project which unfortunately seems lacking in guidance. Please see Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology_.2F_Psyc452. I'm dropping a line on User talk:Psyc452-GGeorge--they're one of the students and seem like a nice person. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Possibly this could involve User:Memills, a long term editor of Evolutionary psychology. An account User:Psyc452-mmills created Evolution and culture. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Memills now blocked for a week for shenanigans in another field of interest. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I've been working on the article in the incubator, where hopefully I can get extensive help from the wikipedia community in order to make it presentable for wikipedia. I see your pointsMathsci, and I agree with Bbb23 that the problem was in how you tagged the content because I certainly see the flaws in the article itself. jhicks0207 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhicks0207 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, this work is part of a greater project to increase available information about evolutionary psychology which myself, User:Psyc452-lrockwell, and jhicks0207 are all involved in. We by no means wished to abuse wikipedia by adding our Evolution and culture page, and are working to have it meet wikipedia's standards. Thank you Mathsci for realizing our mistake, we sincerely appreciate your feedback and are only trying to contribute to wikipedia's greater mission to empower and engage people from around the world, to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. As the information on evolutionary psychology currently on the web is limited and inaccurate, including the current wikipedia page, we are trying to help correct and build upon it. We are not spammers or vandals, we are academics well educated and researched on the field. I am currently having all of our group members, as well as extending this to others working on our same project, the online seminar wikipedia provides for new editors. Incase other students are reading this, here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Training/For_students Thank you all for your contributions, myself and my team members will work all weekend to bring the page up to wikipedias standards. If there are any further issues please contact me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-cwlodarczyk (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions for Memills?

The usernames mentioned above, Psyc452-cwodarczyk and Psyc452-lrockwell, confirm that this editing to articles related to Evolutionary psychology was coordinated off-wiki by Memills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no doubt that those involved were editing in good faith as part of an educational project. It would appear that they have been misled about the purpose of wikipedia by Memills. He is currently blocked for one week for disruption on Men's rights movement. Adding content on a controversial subject in an uncritical and unbalanced way in the voice of wikipedia is unacceptable. There have been three unsuccessful but repeated attempts to add the same problematic essay-like content: Evolution and culture, Evolution and Culture and Evolutionary Psychology of Culture, and a fourth version of the content is being edited in the incubator. Given his past problematic editing and history of blocks, it would appear that something like a community ban for Memills might now be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into the issue but have interacted with Memills elsewhere. I thought it's worth noting that he has a second legit alt account User:Psyc-mmills (separate from User:Psyc452-mmills which is listed above). At this point these accounts are not linked but should be. Also a number of articles were created by this account and have since been deleted. User:Psyc-mmills was also warned by Yunshui in Feb 2013 regarding this issue--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Super strong support for sanctions on Memills & Co. He's incorrigible, and hundreds of discussion threads over many years have failed to get through to him. Memills only cares about Memills. He has no interest in Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

Collapsing off-topic discussion per administrative warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is the basis for the accusation that Memills deliberately misled and coordinated the others? The only evidence I see is that he has an alternate account with a similar username. Maybe he's participating in the same project as the other editors. Akuri (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Your Chinese open proxy was just blocked by Materialscientist. That ipv6 left a creepy trolling message on Memills' talk page.[1] Are you now editing using yet another illegal open proxy? Cailil carefully explained the problems with the alternative account of Memills (there are two other ones Psyc542-mmills and Pscy452-prjct) and the warnings he got from administrators for repeatedly re-creating deleted essay-articles. Why not go back to Timotheus Canens talk page (remember he's an arbitrator and checkuser) and explain to him why you think you have the right to edit using illegal open proxies. Mathsci (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I won't let you hijack this discussion with attacks on me the way you usually do. I asked you a simple question, which is whether you can support your accusation that Memills deliberately coordinated and misled the other editors. You haven't supported it. Memills was blocked for a week because he made an unsupported accusation against another editor, which counts as a personal attack. If you can't support your claim that he deliberately misled and coordinated the other editors, what you're saying about him here is just as bad as what he was blocked for. Akuri (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Your edits here are off-topic (eg User:Psyc-mmills/sandbox, etc) and show absolutely no clue about the education project. Having the same article or articles deleted and re-created 4 times in a two month period is not on. Please stop following me around in this creepy way. Hint for beginners: try doing some normal content editing for a change and stay away from project pages. Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC) The only reason I showed up is because you've been following me and The Devil's Advocate around for a few months (see my hatted comments here), and I've asked you to stop and you won't. I think your conduct is a problem in a lot of ways, and I hope maybe the community will be able to deal with it here. I don't care how many mistakes the newbies made, you still aren't supporting your claim that Memills coordinated and misled them. Akuri (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC) As far as these students are concerned, they have been misled because they have repeatedly created the same articles which have been repeatedly deleted. That is not a useful wikipedia experience. Mathsci (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC) If you really believe," I think your conduct is a problem in a lot of ways, and I hope maybe the community will be able to deal with it here," why not try getting me community banned here? Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC) A community ban would be excessive, wouldn't it? As far as I can see, you make useful edits to maths articles. I just want something to stop the battleground attitude and constant accusations of bad faith against editors you disagree with. Akuri (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) You have made 17 content edits in a month and most of those are in contentious R&I subjects. If you continue making unsubstantiated personal attacks on me, as you have just done, your account is highly likely to be blocked again. (Your range has been blocked twice, this time it could be your account.) If you want to write false statements, do it in your sandbox, not on this noticeboard. You have made it quite clear that you have no interest at all in student education projects and that your intent here was to sabotage this thread with your dreary and tiresome agenda. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Mathsci, please don't do actions that are supposed to be for uninvolved admins. I posted here to ask what the evidence was that Memills was responsible for the other editors' mistakes, you diverted the thread into a discussion about me, and then your removed all my comments as "off-topic". I tried to keep the discussion on the original topic of the thread, but you couldn't avoid bringing up my editing history etc. If you're going to do that, and then remove all of my posts (including my original posts about Memills) as "off-topic", it looks like the whole thing was just a pretense to get rid of what I had to say. Akuri (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Since your contributions became off-topic, you now have your own separate section where you can add whatever kind of content you want. You can propose arbcom cases; can propose ex-arbitrators who request arbcom cases on your behalf; can propose administrators at AE who propose arbcom cases on your behalf; complain about editors supposedly frightened off wikipedia; complain about abusee of administrative powers by Timotheus Canens, Future Perfect at Sunrise, MastCell, Dougweller, KillerChihuahua, etc. You can express your feeling about the injustices of not being allowed to use open proxies. You can feel free from the unnecessary distraction of either adding content to wikipedia or discussing Memills and his alternative account Psyc-mmils, which he has edited as Memills. You can shout out "battleground" to your heart's content. The best of British luck to you. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Akuri is showing strong signs of WP:IDHT. As Cailil commented, it is clear Memills has an alternative account Psyc-mmills, where the info page for the project is kept. As Memills he edited the info page here.[2] This is a legitimate alternative account. On his user talk page Pstc-mmills explains that he is supervising the student project. The accounts are not linked either way. As Cailil says, they should be. As Yunshui commented on User talk:Psyc-mmills#Please stop, the project was run improperly in several ways and should have involved WP online ambassadors. Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC) As a point of information, Akuri received a specific warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise two weeks ago: I didn't actually notice Mathsci reverted me, but I now see he reinstated the hatting, though in a slightly different form, a short time after. Surely, you noticed that too, did you not? And now to the substance: Hijacking noticeboard threads for in-fighting and pursuing grudges between commentators, in ways that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the actual topic of the thread, is seriously disruptive. I saw you doing that on AN (or was it ANI) the other day and hatted you off there; now I'm seeing you do it here. Don't do it again. Please take this as another official warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The initial comment in the above section: "What is the basis for the accusation that Memills deliberately misled and coordinated the others? The only evidence I see is that he has an alternate account with a similar username. Maybe he's participating in the same project as the other editors. Akuri (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)" is not off topic and should not be hatted. (The rest of the conversion pretty much is). NE Ent 18:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section above it is disclosed that Memills edited the project subpage of Psyc-mmills. That second account is a legitimate but undeclared alternative account of Memills. On their talk page they state that they are the professor responsible for this wikipedia educational project. It's a trivial matter to check what's going on off-wiki, but because of WP:OUTING issues we do not discuss that publicly. Nevertheless it does indeed confirm the identification. The on-wiki edvidence, however, is completely adequate and water-tight. (Some trusted administrators and arbitrators are aware of the off-wiki information.) Cailil confirmed the identification on-wiki which is very easy (see above). As regards Akuri's postings, Future Perfect at Sunrise warned him about misusing noticeboards in exactly the way he has above (hijacking a discussion to move onto an unrelated topic). Akuri has ignored that warning and proceeded to replay the previous performance on this noticeboard that resulted in his first narrow range block by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Timotheus Canens blocked a much wider range a second time because the reasons Akuri gave for editing through a webhosting site did not add up, particularly in a contentious subject. He has declared himself to be mostly interested in R&I, with a special interest in WP:ARBR&I. Akuri is currently editing through open proxies. He has not sought or received permission from the arbitration committee. Instead he has accused Timotheus Canens of "wheel-warring." The diffs I gave above concerning the topic of the thread (an educational project) speak for themselves and are unambiguous. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Akuri has not helped here, nor his advocate-apologist NE Ent. Memills has now confirmed that he used these alternative accounts. However, he has not addressed the problem of why he did not declare his main account when questioned on the talk page of the alternative account. As the main editor of Evolutionary psychology and its talk page, that is unhelpful. The problem is that the article is on a controversial topic and not really the place to let students loose. Memills has also not addressed the creation-deletion cycle for the fork articles. With Akuri's intervention, Memills has now made a personal attack on me, while following NE Ent's advice to post an unblock request. There he stated,[3] "These edits were made under the auspices of the APA Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, Mathsci is, IMHO, a malicious editor, and does not respect or appreciate Wikipedia's mission, or its policy on good faith edits." But Memills has already been told in great detail by administrators what the multiple problems have been with the way his class project has proceeded. Here is what Yunshui wrote:[4] "From the notices you've been given above and the pages that have been deleted, it is clear that you are not sufficiently conversant with Wikipedia's content guidelines and editing policies to be running a class here. If you want to use Wikipedia editing as an educational tool - and believe me, we want you to do that - then please sign up to the Wikipedia Education Progam, get a course page set up and work with one or more of our Online Ambassadors to create a suitable course for your students. If you continue creating inappropriate content, then we will - with some regret - be obliged to block your account from editing. There are ways of using Wikipedia for the purposes you intend, but if you continue to insist on disregarding them, you will not be permitted to continue editing here." So the problem is two-fold. As the principal editor of Evolutionary psychology, Memills is using his students to "help" him, effectively as proxies, with his favourite article on wikipedia; there has been little openness or transparency. Memills himself started the cycle of create-delete for new fork articles; his students, editing in good faith, have followed that pattern. That certainly must have marred their experience of wikipedia. Memills should have taken the advice of Yunshui and others concerning how to run an educational project. What positive benefit can there have been to his students from this experience on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for anything in the past, but as one of the students I can discuss this project. I believe this whole educational assigmnent and Memills' behavior concerning it can be characterized by one word: Ambition. The whole project was Ambitious because Memills was indeed advised that creating articles in a controversial field was challenging; many editors chimed in by saying that content editing and improving current articles were better alternatives for new users. However, through a firm belief in one of the pillars of Wikipedia, Memills forged ahead with the project, one that would allow students to dive right in to Wikipedia. Of course, this was a trial by fire and we ran into many difficulties. Yet all these difficulties could be managed through talk pages, discussion on the articles for deletion page, and eventually the Educational Noticeboard. I do apologize for any confusion or editor inconvenience that was caused by our project, especially at the onset, as I admit clear lines of communication would have smoothed over many of these difficulties.

However, the only blatant and repeated infraction of Wikipedia policy was the continued creation of the "Evolution and Culture" page, which I stress was not endorsed by Memills. It was the result of confused, well-meaning students who were concerned about their performance in the course. Memills did inform us that the articles could be mercilessly edited and/or deleted and that it was our responsibility to work with the editors to make progress. If it falls to Memills to take responsibility for one group's repeated rule infractions, then I also ask you to also consider groups that DID cooperate with editors as a sign of good faith for Memills and his proactive attempts to inform students of their responsibilities.

In the context of this project, the claims that Memills is incorrigible and using students as proxies to further his agenda are baseless. Sure, Memills is passionate about the topic, stubbornly so sometimes, yet I never felt like a pawn carrying out some grand scheme. I felt like I was part of a drafting and editing process. When my group's article was accused (rightfully so) of being a content fork, it forced me to think critically on how to improve the article, on whether to merge it with another etc. It's unfortunate that so many articles ended up being essaylike and uncritical. I assure you, that was not the intention. There was no intentional 'misleading'. Quite the contrary, Memills provided us with links to wikipedia's policies and even quizzed our understanding with a small test of wikipedia knowledge.

There's no doubt that using the Educational Assignment Guidelines would have been much easier on everyone involved in this project. However, the resulting trouble seems to just be a misunderstanding. With his ambitious project, Memills seemed to overestimate the student's commitment to quality articles and understanding wikipedia; this created the current dilemma for wikipedia editors. On the other hand, most wikipedia editors seem convinced that Memills is hellbent on raising trouble for wikipedia through his students by disregarding policies meant to help them. I'm personally convinced that this project was well-meant but not properly executed. The things we should take from this is that students MUST know what is inappropiate (repeatedly creating deleted articles) and that this message should be reinforced by both the instructor and editors, preferably working together with clear communication.Psyc452-GGeorge (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But your own deleted-re-created article has just been deleted at an AfD.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of non-kin group interactions I'm sorry, no matter how passionate Memills might be at your educational institution, that does not excuse the fact that he has been consciously ignoring wikipedia rules, despite warnings. On the talk page of the alternative account the following articles were listed as having been deleted:

• Evolutionary Psychology of Ethics and Morality
• Evolutionary Psychology of Kinship and Family
• Evolutionary Psychology of Consciousness
• Evolutionary psychology of emotion and motivation
• Evolutionary psychology of abnormal behavior
• Evolutionary psychology of sex differences

Two articles mentioned on his talk page survived, Evolutionary Psychology of Group (Non-kin) Interactions (but only as a redirect to a deleted article) and Evolutionary Psychology of Language (also recreated [5]): whether they would survive AfD's is another thing. Evolutionary psychology of language seems to be a content fork of Evolutionary psychology#Language. I do not know how many other articles were deleted and possibly recreated. Anyway Memills knows that this is a controversial topic, so choosing it as the topic of an educational project was not a good idea. Here is another deleted-re-created essay:Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (including logged out edits [6]). These problems surfaced already in February, when Yunshui warned Memills (as Psyc-mmills). After two and a half months it has finally registered that making incremental changes to existing non-controversial articles is a better way to proceed. The constant deletion/re-creation of fork articles and the more recent "major updating" of evolutionary psychology was unhelpful, no matter how well intentioned. There's also Evolutionary psychology of parenting and Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating (with logged off edits [7][8]).

So the three surviving fork articles are:

• Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Family and kin, recreation of deleted article Evolutionary Psychology of Kinship and Family)
• Evolutionary psychology of language (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Language) (deleted in February [9])
• Evolutionary psychology of parenting (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Parenting)
• Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating (fork of Evolutionary psychology#Mating; listed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Psychology of Sex Differences / Mating, already deleted in February as Evolutionary psychology of sex differences)

Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

APS Wikipedia initiative

For background here, there are a number of groups editing Wikipedia articles as part of an initiative sponsored by the Association for Psychological Science (APS). See http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative for more information. I'm not sure the group here is part of that, but probably it is. Some of the groups are working under the auspices of the Education project and are well organized, others are sort of hacking around. However it is worth emphasizing that nearly all of these people are acting in a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Kwamigami reverts to "better version"

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

---

Hi there, The last couple of days, I've been working on improving the article on Dravidian languages as I've found endless problems there, structurally, contentwise and the writing style. I've been specifically concentrating in cleaning up and enhancing the quality of the history section, since it was (it is) a total mess. I used the most reputed scholars to source everything. For a better view compare the current history section with the reverted one: Current vs Reverted . I did a lot of other improvements, all significant changes had a decent enough edit summary. I feel sabotaged and I hope someone hears me, since I want to continue this epic task. He also didn't react on his talkpage. -- Dravidian  Hero  22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that your edits introduced quite a bit of controversial material into the article, it might be more appropriate to open a discussion on the article's talk page rather than coming directly here. Also I note that your message was left on Kwami's talk page a whopping three hours ago, and he has not edited anything in the meantime. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

what in your sense is "quite a bit controversial material"? My content is totally undisputed by anyone. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti was one of the most respected Indian linguists, his book The Dravidian languages most authoritive in the field. Please check the validity of your statement again as it shields the person who exactly knows this going by his linguistic track record on wiki. I came here to get neutral and qualified opinions on his deliberate action (rollback). If there was a problem with my content, he could have discussed it before on the talk page without making me look like a piece of crap by rollback everything. In my opinion Kwamigami should be banned for disruptive behaviour without question -- Dravidian  Hero  00:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and also please bear in mind that "banned" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, vs. "blocked". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Enhanced interest in Dravidian studies came through the identification of a Dravidian authorship of the Indus Valley Civilization by leading scholars." is undisputed by anyone? I hardly think so. No serious linguist accepts this idea. The Indus script hasn't even been deciphered and in fact, some linguists doubt the script has any linguistic value at all. The many theories on the affinities of the Harappan language are educated guesses at best and rank nationalist propaganda at worst. Contentious claims of this nature indeed should have been reverted after which you can try to defend them on the article talk page if you wish.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence doesn't look too great. I'm fine with a discussion on that.-- Dravidian  Hero  08:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Er, Dravidian has said 'rollback' twice. Rollback is not meant to be used to revert good faith additions. Was rollback used in this case? As I cant see how any reasonable person would consider those additions vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, rollback has not been used here so there isn't an issue of misusing the tool. In fact, neither Kwamikagami or Dravidianhero have rollback currently. Chamal ^T•C 06:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I thought Kwami was still an admin. Ignore above then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have Twinkle and it let's me "rollback" or "restore" an older version.-- Dravidian  Hero  09:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I hate automated tools. Twinkle rollback as I recall isnt actually dependant on 'rollback'. So it will revert to an earlier version but not using the rollback right if you dont have it. I havnt used it recently so someone with more experience might want to comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Again he reverted everything after I addressed William Thweatt's concern and opened a talkpage discussion. Could somebody please get him out of that article? -- Dravidian  Hero  09:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like a straight content dispute to me, on which admins cannot rule. You need to discuss it on the article talk page and only make further changes when you have a consensus in support - discussions need to be developed and completed, not just opened. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Copying from WP:AN3

I've copied the following content from WP:AN3. The situation was definitely not a 3RR violation, and it really didn't qualify for an edit-warring block for anyone. However, the allegations are serious enough that it shouldn't simply be let go. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copied text

== [[User:Inhakito]] and [[User:Johnnytwet]] reported by [[User:Kodosbs]] ==

Page: White Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Good day, I am aware that wikipedia is a place to post information referenced neutral, what happens in this product is that the numbers of white people in Colombia are continually modified without reason. In the country there are many studies on these estimates made by the Congress of the United States where as I said "estimated" the total percentage of white ancestry in the country, which are referenced in the website of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA )https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html and a study of the Library of Congress of the United States of the 80's, again by an estimated 25% http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID co0050) This last issue is the previous users constantly create and publish relevant in deleting my reference page study again by the Library of Congress of the United States but in the year 2010, in which he cites:

The 2005 census reported that the “nonethnic population,” consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry, including almost all of the urban business and political elite), constituted 86 percent of the national population. The 86 percent figure is subdivided into 49 percent mestizo and 37 percent white.

— Colombia: A Country Study, Colombia: A Country Study; pp. 86-87

Besides other study of self-recognize gives a 37% of white population in the country http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/coesion_etnia.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodosbs (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the population is analyzed in terms of 86% is divided into 49% mestizo and 37% white, which makes an allusion to the general census conducted in 2005 in the country conducted by DANE, clearly an allusion to a census and a study of 2010 is more relevant than the above references, the user User:Johnnytwetchange my edits without reference, I first told my talk page in English that was Colombian, who had lived here and it was the correct figure, however on their website claims to be Venezuelan discucion a discucion with another user, similarly the user User:Inhakito constantly reverses the data of 37% to 25% of the old estimated for no reason, he have evidence on their website in both Spanish discucion http://Usuario_discusión:Inhakito Usuario_discusión:Inhakito as its English page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inhakito constantly vandalizing ethnographic data on all nations as Chile and Colombia where inserts and deletes data without explaining why. I first wrote them as they should be on their website discucion no response from them. What I was unworthy becouse User:Johnnytwet accused me of vandalism usuuario what led me to settle my case determination to be saying here and I must do to continue to make an encyclopedia Wikipedia neutral data as far as possible the most reliable as possible. thank you very much --Kodosbs (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

End copied text

I've left a note at AN3 mentioning that I'm moving it here, and I'll notify all parties. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Long-running disputes at the Barelvi article, and similar articles.

I'm going to try and avoid as much of the content dispute as I can here, but obviously I cannot fully avoid this. I'm going to primarily talk about the Barelvi article, as that is where I've been party to. Now, this has been at ANI a couple of times in the last few months, and doesn't really seem to have been resolved, despite various temporary blocks, and full-protections of the page. There has been multi-way edit warring - of which I am guilty of, to a degree, although I've tried to keep the article to the version established by a consensus. The primary offenders are Msoamu (talk · contribs), whom is currently part-way through a one week block for edit warring, and Am Not New (talk · contribs).

Msoamu is constantly warring to remove what he views as non-neutral views, regardless of the consensuses at the talk page, and has often referred to MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs), whom has been diligently working to try and get a neutral article, with inflammatory comments and edit summaries, predominantly centering around what Msoamu believes MezzoMezzo's religious stance is, or accusations of bias aimed at MezzoMezzo. Examples of this include:

• [14] - "wahabi views are written in various wahabi pages.It is Barelwi article,rv wahabi invalid undue criticism"
• [15] - "Now there is consensus,In Terrorism heading at least.also i have demanded RS for blatant MezzoMezzo's POV"
• [16] - "There are relation headings/barelvis practices must be about their practices only.NOT POV of Wahabis"
• [17] - "Terrorism heading is 100% relevant and important.MezzoMezzo you have added here minute details of events to show it in bad light and now opposing highly relevant heading"

It must be noted that Msoamu and MezzoMezzo have been involved, on and off, in this dispute since 2007, as can be viewed here.

Am Not New is a different kettle of fish, but no less of a problem. The user's name claims that they are not a new user, yet they have also made the statement that they are - I cannot remember where that was, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. This user seems to be disruptive across a lot of articles, but again, I'm sticking primarily to the Barelvi dispute, which is where I have witnessed the dodgy edits. Examples of POV-pushing include:

• [18] - "Many people say many things about barelvi.it dosent mean to add everything here.it is barelvi article" - ignoring the fact that a consensus had been established on the talk page to include this information. It also made that paragraph far more biased to the Barelvi sect, and generally less informative. Upon being reverted, they then re-removed a (slightly smaller) amount of content, this time without any edit summary: [19]. That removal was also reverted by another editor, whom I haven't seen edit the article before (which is generally a sign that ANN's edit was bad)

"a consensus had been established on the talk page" where is consensus on talk page regarding this passage? mr lukeno the consensus was made on history topic see.you,MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and Msoamu (talk · contribs) were fighting on history topic.the passage which i edited was totally different.i was particulary editing beliefs.which was my main subject as i improved it before.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• [20] - removed as WP:OR by User:Qwyrxian. It had previously been added,[21] and removed by MezzoMezzo.
• [22] - an edit that was quite promotional of the added person. The excessive info was removed, then re-added [23], then removed again (by me, this time), readded once more [24], and removed by me again.

Obviously, there's a lot more than just this, and it's spread over quite a few articles, but I digress. I have two proposals for each user:

• Proposal 1: Both editors are topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 1 year. Any violations of this topic ban would result in a resetting of the ban to its original length, and potentially a block. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).
• Proposal 2: Msoamu is blocked for 3 months, then topic-banned from all religious articles, broadly-construed, for the period of 9 months. Am Not New, due to their lack of positive edits generally (in my experience), should get a 6 month block, and then a 6-month topic ban. Msoamu is also prohibited from making any comments on an editor's religious stance indefinitely, and violation of this would trigger a mid-length block (probably around a month).

Since some of these disputes date back all the way to 2007, it's high time this ended. Due to Msoamu's long history in this area, I'm more than happy to see a lengthier topic ban, if that's what consensus states (including an indef topic ban). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose i think the proposal is abit harsh and seeing that i have offered to meditate afew days ago..i say we give these editors a second chance before topic bans Baboon43 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• With respect, and let's leave ANN out of this, how is this proposal harsh on Msoamu? If anything, it's lenient - as this sort of thing has been going on since 2007. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

why didnt you wait till he was unblocked to pursue this case? at this moment he cant defend himself obviously & im sure you have seen my pledge to help calm things down over there. Baboon43 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I left a message on his talk page, specifically stating that I, or another editor, would bring any of his comments here. As for your pledge, it's very good, but remember that, several months ago, I made an identical pledge, got things sorted for a bit, only for it to kick off even more. Forgive me, but I can't see anything short of a topic ban sorting this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As that user already said that i am not related to this discussion and i didnt made any such edits for which i should be block.these last two edits related to tahir ul qdri is not related to this dispute.as concerned with edit of grave worshipping i had seen it irrelevent so i removed.but let me tell you two other names which are part of this dispute.which are engaged in edit war since years.these are Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) and MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) both of these are main personalities behind this warr.and an important part of this disputes.especially MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs).i request you to see the edit history of Barelvi.

• seriously these users too should also be blocked.

Proposal: 3 years block of all religious articles for MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) and 1 year for Lukeno94 (talk · contribs)

• i want you to look at my edits.i dont deserve that.
• please get comments from Msoamu (talk · contribs)Dil e Muslim talk 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've not hidden the fact I've been marginal at times. MezzoMezzo has actually not edit warred very much at all, in recent times: it's mostly other users restoring his edits. Your proposal is pretty damn POINTy to say the least. In fact, MezzoMezzo has only reverted you a couple of times, IIRC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am talking on this dispute and edit warr running from years.Sir admin.MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) Msoamu (talk · contribs) are three users are fighting from years on this article and similar type of articles(as they accepted it).where msamu tried to show his prospective(barelvi) there these two were trying hard to show thier(non barelvi) side.i am talking about years.look at thier talk page archives.here you will find many warnings and fights.dear respected admin if you block only masamo i will be unjust,you should also ban these twoo users.to cool this topic it is necessary to block both parties.thanks Dil e Muslim talk 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who's been trying to adjudicate this mess, a little bit, and who blocked Msoamu for edit warring...Am Not New's explanation is simply wrong. MezzoMezzo and Lukeno94 have been inserting neutral, well-sourced info. Msoamu has edit warred, made arguments based entirely on his personal opinions, and regularly introduced "sources" that don't even come close to WP:RS.

Regarding sanctions, I do have to agree with Am Not New, however, that this is the wrong time to ask for sanctions on Msoamu. I know that if I were blocked for a week, I would probably walk away from Wikipedia and not even look at my page until my block was up. There's no reason to believe that he is aware of this conversation and thus able to offer a defense. As for Am Not New, I'll need to review the exact extent of his edits before commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should've waited a week, but Am Not New's continued dodgy edits meant that I put both up at the same time. If you like, I can withdraw the Msoamu part until they return from their block. Am Not New's statements about me edit warring for years are blatantly incorrect - I only started editing this article a couple of months ago. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Am Not New, care to explain what's going on here? [25] - information inserted (which I left there initially, for a more religiously-experienced editor to analyse), it was then removed by GorgeCustersSabre, readded by an IP with an incomprehensible reason,[26] removed by me, then re-added again by this IP here.[27] Did you forget to log in again, Am Not New? Because it's pretty blatantly obvious this is you, and I don't want to have to file an SPI unless it is necessary, for WP:AGF reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI already filed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

well i realy think it is you coz there is a complaint against me and you are trying to blame me by making different type of dramas by some ips.i didnt made any edit even.Dil e Muslim talk 05:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I think banning Am Not New (talk · contribs) will be a bit harsh. Although he has been involved in some edit wars and been engaged in conflicts with me, he seems to have seized his edit warring. I think that an Administrator giving him a strict warning will be more appropriate. I think that assuming his good faith is the best option as I think that he can make important contributions. Tommyfenton (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Am Not New, an IP makes the same edit as you 3 or 4 times in a row, and you expect it not to look suspicious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As i already said may be it is your ip.as you are trying to prove me problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Holy shit. IP's most recent edit summary: "all that editors are wahabi or either sockpuppets.my demand is again same." I'd like to see evidence that I'm a sockpuppet, and I'd also love to know how I'm a Wahabi when I'm not a Muslim... Can someone block this IP, because this is just pathetic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have blocked the IP, but chose to semi-protect the article for a week instead. The article doesn't really have a history of useful IP edits, and this editor seems to only be going after this page...but I don't mind at all if someone wants to switch this to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And dear user lukeno90 in your edit you are using abusive words like "kettle of fish" "dodgy" for me.this is a straight personal attack.Dil e Muslim talk 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry? Kettle of fish and dodgy are personal attacks? Really? If you think kettle of fish[28] is a personal attack, then I'm not sure that your English is good enough for you to edit on the enwiki, and you should go to your native wiki, for WP:COMPETENCE reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Luke here...neither of those are even remotely personal attacks in any context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Luke, I will buy you an Amazon gift card if you stop using asterisks for your comments and start using colons. It's a personal preference thing obviously which is why I'm offering a bribe. Laugh out loud. Anyway, damn man...I left Wikipedia for three days so I could spend time with my family and...well, what happened? The sock puppet investigation is very necessary and I will post more diffs there shortly but that's neither here nor there - if there is sockpuppetry involved, it would be a separate thing and the behavior here is a separate thing.
Msoamu's block will be finished by tomorrow and I think this discussion needs to continue. I can bring diffs, but I think Qwezrxian as the supervising admin - yes, I'm putting you on the spot unfortunately - can either confirm the following as true or deny: Msoamu has, at multiple times, blatantly edit warred against consensus. Hell, it's why he was blocked most recently. He received a final warning along with myself (I volunteered to submit myself to such a warning, FYI) which Qwerxian can also attest to. Qwerxian, as the supervising admin, I would also like to put you on the spot to confirm or deny: Msoamu hurls personal attacks frequently and has not ceased doing so over the years.
Alright, that's the factual stuff. Now, from objective to subjective: Msoamu isn't here to help Wikipedia. He's here to push a certain POV. That's one. He is rude when people disagree with him. That's two. He will edit war even against consensus to support that POV. That's three. I am willing to go through every single edit he's made since 2007 to prove that he has never, ever added constructively to Barelvi or related articles, I mean that. That's four. He's been warned enough. He deserves a topic ban. Let him comment on talk pages if he can be civil, but there is no reason to allow him to edit because he has not ever edited constructively to improve the encyclopedia, and we now have reason to believe that he will not ever do so.
Regarding Am Not New, then I need to go to the bathroom and do some stuff and I will get to that in a minute. But regarding Msoamu, we need to hear his defense and I would like some community input - obviously, wide community support is needed for a topic ban. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, regarding Am Not New. In the beginning, he started out like a typical newbie which is totally excusable. A number of editors have tried to work with him in order to explain various site policies, and the process has been difficult. Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabe tried to explain the WP:OR violations he was committing and encouraged him to take things to Talk:Barelvi, as did I. Lukeno was then forced to revert further instances of POV pushing by Msoamu and original research by Am Not New, at which point TommyFenton also got involved in defending the page. Even the admin Qwezxian has to revert the constant insertions of OR on the part of Am Not New, with more diffs by GorgeCustersSabre and Lukeno than I care to link here. The ever-present Mathew Vanitas also randomly showed up to revert Am Not New's OR pushing, as did Darkness Shines. The previous two never had much involvement or interest in the page as far as I can tell and probably just recognized aggressive, tendentious editing when they saw it. It finally ended with Qwerxian protecting the page again which I'm sure annoys the hell out of him. Qwexzian, Lukeno and GorgeCustersSabre tried to explain to Am Not New why his edits were wrong on the relevant talk page (more than just the above diffs but I'm tired of sifting through everything) to no avail.

So, yeah. If the SPI turns out positive, that's a different thing. Even if it doesn't, Am Not New's tendentious editing and refusal to accept advice from more experienced editors is a problem and smacks of someone who just doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it. I'm actually leaning toward Lukeno's suggested topic ban simply because I've seen the Barelvi page and how it's been manipulated by followers of the movement such as Msoamu, Shabiha and others for the past seven years and considering that YaNabi.com (a website for which Shabiha appears to be the owner or an admin - check that article's related discussions) has an army of zealous young Barelvis who speak...well, I won't say passable English but enough to respond, I don't see why we should assume this case is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since we are looking at a topic ban here in general, Am Not New's OR pushing and tendentious editing on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri can be attested to, and perhaps should be attested to, by User:Justice007. I'm exhausted from sifting through diffs now but suffice to say that the article's history alone is indicitave of a spurt of tendentious editing warring against at least three experienced editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've just seen above that Am Not New has accused me of a deliberate attempt to slander them, via usage of an IP. They've made this accusation twice, possibly three times.[29][30] That's fairly tendentious editing, especially considering that the style of English is nothing like mine, I was logged in at the times the IP was making edits, and the fact it most definitely isn't my IP, which begins with 31. I feel like you are only digging yourself into a deeper hole, Am Not New. I'm beginning to wonder if just a standard indef under WP:NOTHERE is in order, whether you're a sockpuppet or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• well there is a sockpuppet investigation.i will love to see even its relation with me.btw language can be coppied.Dil e Muslim talk 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, an investigation which was not started by me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So MezzoMezzo everyone is wrong you are right?infact you are a person which always stop people to make constructive edits since years including lukeno.you want to show negitive side of these articles from years.and as accepted by Qwyrxian and Lukeno94 that both(lukeno and mezzomezzo) are the major and important part of this dispute.and always engaged in edit wars with users.you not left any stone unturned to do war(with mosamu and other users) and show your side.apart from mosamu i again request block of these two users MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Lukeno94 (talk · contribs). Mr admin this topic will not cool if only mosamu is blocked.you must block his opponts.and will be unjustice with mosamu. As concenred with my edits on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri that was a misunderstanding and is not related to this dispute.Dil e Muslim talk 06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke. Yes Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, everybody is wrong, because apparently you and Msoamu = everybody. Anyway, I said my piece and I would like community feedback regarding the admittedly large paragraphs above. I feel that the information up there is pertinent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No everybody=Shabiha and others for the past seven years.Dil e Muslim talk 07:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. Again you make the completely incorrect statement that I have been disrupting the topic for years: Firstly, I've only ever edited to keep the consensus in place, secondly, I started editing these articles a couple of months ago. If you're going to make accusations like this, at least bother to make them correctly. As to "everybody" agreeing with Msoamu's views, that is patently incorrect. Whilst some users have agreed (Shabiha, yes, and Hassanfarooqi), all neutral outsiders - which I was, when I first came to the dispute, as is Qwyrxian, and several other users - have agreed that MezzoMezzo's edits are neutral, and Msoamu's aren't. Qwyrxian voiced his opinion in this very thread: your failure to pay attention to that shows a WP:IDHT attitude. In addition, your edits have often been so poorly written that they would need a substantial rewrite to remain valid - Msoamu also suffers from this fact. MezzoMezzo does NOT constantly add in negative material: they add in neutral material with reliable sources - and I've seen Msoamu remove some positive bits about Barelvi in their reversions of MezzoMezzo, and then add in their own poorly-sourced POV. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dil e Muslim/Am Not New, what do you mean by seven years? Your account is only 18 days old. In only eighteen days, in addition to engaging in your regular edits, you already went through the history of the Barelvi article and took a comprehensive enough survey of the edits and discussions that you're now able to make such a judgment call...after only having a Wikipedia account for 18 days? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr admin let me clearify some points from above discussion. which are accepted by all the users here.

• i am(am not new) is not a part of this dispute.as accepted by all these.
• user am not new is not part of these sanctions.(tahir ul qadri sanction are not related to this dispute and that was a misunderstanding even i now provided some authentic sources on Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadris talk page that he is a barelvi.)
• user mezzomezzo is a major part of these dispute from years
• user mezzomezzo is envolved in enforcement from 7 years
• user mezzomezzo is engaged in edit war from years
• as related with behaviour of mezzomezzo.mr admin only people associated with it think that he is right.many of users think that he always try to show negitive side on these article barelvi and related articles.his edits are not constructive and often doesnt let anyone to add constructive edits.
• user luken94 is major part of this dispute.
• user lukeno94 is envolved in enforcement wether it is from years or months.
• use lukeno94 work hand to hand with user mezzomezzo wether he is right or wrong.
• user lukeno94 is engaged in edit war from months.

• from all above parts i demand block of these two users on religious articles.
• and claim that i doesnt deserve that block.Dil e Muslim talk 14:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really getting fed up of you making the same arguments, even when they've been proven to be wrong. I do not go around "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo, in fact, I can remember at least one AfD where I expressly disagreed with him. Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark. You most definitely are part of this debate, and I have no idea why you're claiming you're not. MezzoMezzo hasn't edit warred (I possibly have, to keep the consensus) for quite a while. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• point to be noted "lukeno94 told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark"Dil e Muslim talk 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you're now going to try and manipulate my posts to suggest something else? I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down when Msoamu's POV pushing has really got them riled. Again, if you actually go and look at my talk archives and find the thread, rather than just deliberately quoting me out of context, you'll find that there's nothing untoward. Can we have an admin deal with this WP:POINTy behaviour please? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

dear luken94,cool! Where i manipulated just copy paste.perhaps you should explain it while writing.why didnnt you explained earlier.Dil e Muslim talk 16:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because there should've been absolutely no need to. I pointed you to where you'd need to go for evidence that I don't go "hand in hand" with MezzoMezzo: instead, you deliberately manipulated my words in a WP:POINTy way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

mr lukeno94 every person which will see your above paragraph will conclude the same as i did.Dil e Muslim talk 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dil e Muslim, I have read what Lukeno94 wrote, and I agree entirely with him: you are trying to manipulate what he wrote. Sadly, I am now convinced that you are a partisan and provocative editor who will not accept advice. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hence the consideration of a topic ban; we're seeing major issues of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right before our eyes here, on ANI of all places. Even beyond the fact that Am Not New seems to be an agenda account, the extremely combative nature he's displaying here is enough for some sort of action to be taken, even if community support isn't enough for a topic ban. And it might not be enough; what I've noticed with Msoamu's own ANI discussions in the past is that when someone floods the discussion with enough blatant personal attacks, random accusations and manipulation as Am Not New is doing now, outside observers don't take interest because there's simply too much text to read. For my part, my three comments here, here and here express my own position clearly. Lukeno has been the target of some rather nasty personal attacks by Am Not New right here, in the middle of ANI, so I understand why he has responded though I myself will try to minimize comments from here on; I don't want others to be scared away. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Look through my talk page archives, and look at the times I've told MezzoMezzo to calm down, because they've overstepped the mark" dear admin please read the above passage and decide please. mr luken used the line that they have overstepped the mark.here lukeno included both persons mezzomezzo and mosamu.mr admin do you find any word here in the favour of mezzomezzo which lukeno explained later.Dil e Muslim talk 09:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont try to blame me by some pretty team workDil e Muslim talk 09:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please stop being WP:POINTy every time you respond here? Again, you're trying to manipulate my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New has received two warnings for violating WP:NPOV today from User:Pass a Method:[31][32] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

After seeing how this has played out here, and how Am Not New's edits have continued to be problematic since after this report was filed, I have to support some sort of sanctions. There is no question that he either misunderstands Lukeno's comment he's quoted above twice (which indicates a lack of the required English language competence), or he's deliberately and transparently trying to manipulate words to tarnish editors who are doing extremely important work in making our religion articles more NPOV. As George Custer say's above, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter; the bans he is calling for are simply absurd. That type of lashing out is generally a sign of behavior incompatible with collaborative editing. I don't know if another admin is willing to step in here (I'm probably WP:INVOVLED), but it does look like something should be done. I'd even be happy with a clear "final warning" from an uninvolved admin that any further POV pushing or tendentious editing will be met with blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that any discussion involved Am Not New/Dil e Muslim, Msoamu or even Shabiha results in them posting walls of repeated text which kills any interest outside observers might have had. Bbb23 has some experience with this issue but I don't know if contacting them about this would violate WP:CANVASSING or not.

Anyway, if something is to be done about Am Not New/Dil e Muslim then what about Msoamu? Am Not New's account is only three weeks old. Msoamu has displayed that same behavior for seven years and after every block and warning before the last one, he was unrepentant. I'm still convinced they're the same person but since the SPI isn't getting anywhere, I suggest that both accounts receive some sort of repercussion. Although Msoamu hasn't edited since his last block, we all know he stalks Wikipedia because he magically appears any time I edit Barelvi. I have no doubt that he has been reading this thread while laying low, just as he does with the discussions on Talk:Barelvi without commenting yet swooping in to revert out of nowhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu's dormant for now. We can re-open a thread on them if this one is dealt with, and they return. As to CANVASSING, I requested Qwryxian to take a look into this again, since no other admin appears to want much to do with this case - which were pretty much my words. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Qwezxian is correct about being somewhat involved. All of it is legitimate involvement as Am Not New/Dil e Muslim has been edit warring across half a dozen articles, and Qwerxzian is one of about six or seven editors now trying to clean up the mess, but nonetheless if he isn't comfortable enacting sanctions on his own perhaps we could contact someone else. As it stands right now, I doubt many of the admins are reading this thread any more. Who could blame them, I think I need prescrption glasses after going over this so many times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Am Not New/Dil e Muslim is apparently harassing Pass a Method due to Method's reversion of Am Not New's POV pushing/OR on Sunni Islam, plastering his talk page with templates like some noob. Am Not New is now consistently being reverted by at least half a dozen editors plus one admin across more than half a dozen articles as of mid-day April 30th. Some of his comments are even bordering on trolling at this point. Please, if another admin does take the time to look at the end of this discussion, please take the time to check a bit more. This is ridiculous. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My edits are under discussion even now.Mr admin they are trying to prove me problmatic by making such long paragraphs against me.i didnt even broke any rule for which they are complaining.even many admin are seeing me they should block me if my edits are so problmatic.Dil e Muslim talk 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I mention your long paragraphs and you accuse me of the same. Great tactic. Anyway, you've been reverted by half a dozen editors for violations of policies ranging from WP:OR to WP:NPOV to WP:IRS, including by the admin Qerxian, who only hasn't blocked you because reverting you across multiple articles means he is involved and he would prefer another admin does it...per his words above. And I know you read all this, so please don't play dumb. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr admin my appolojy that was previous edits in which i was not aware of wp:or policy because i was a new user.i had given some evidences that he is barelvi.that was proved OR.even these is a discusion established on the talk page of Muhammad Tahir-ul-qadri that wether he is barelvi or not.and i didnt made any revert after this on that page.and for your information that page is not related to this dispute.i didnt broke any rule there alsoDil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

as you are now talking about my revert by Qwyrxian.mr admin i added some contents with sources.user qwyrxian reverted that by questioning on sources.then i didnt reverted that.after sometime i collected more authentic sources and added it again and now it is accepted by users.even my sources are accepted my users see hereeven my sources are accepted my admin qwyrxian.just want to tell you that my edits are normal and i didnt broke any rule.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin please dont believe on thier long discussion.if i am a rule broker then an admin should block me but i didnt happend.even now these two are only users which think me problematic as problem is different.Dil e Muslim talk 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

mr admin now about my edit on topic sunni islam .i added something with refrence from oxford dictionary of religion.that was reverted by user pass a method without reason.see here history.i am right even at that place (discusion is here).as other users is just deducting thier own logics.Dil e Muslim talk 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected (but nearly confirmed) sockpuppet of Seanharger

I would like to report 184.21.73.166 because he is a suspected sockpuppet of Seanharger (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seanharger). One piece of evidence is his contribution. His only contribution is at Seanharger's talk page, which he claims for it to be "ridiculous" that I reverted two of his edits. But when I saw the contributions, that comment was his only contribution.

Now, while he has not done any harm yet, Seanharger has already been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. This IP needs to be blocked indefinitely, especially if CheckUser confirms that it is indeed, a sockpuppet (though already, he is suspected by many users as a sockpuppet of Seanharger). Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 22:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that checkuser will not, in general, disclose a connection between an IP and a registered account. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhm. Then is it possible that he is just logging out and then using the IP address, Is there any way to figure it out? Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

IPs cannot shouldn't be blocked indefinitely, as per WP:IPBLENGTH.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The IP was temporarily blocked anyway. Thanks, though. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 23:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hang on a second - we have blocked the wrong person. WorldTraveller - who has a history of hounding behaviour - interprets WP:SOCK in a bizarre manner and aggressively attackes Seanharger about it - won't let him go. Seanharger admitted freely that he was editing while logged out, was not violating any of the abusive aspects as per SOCK. WorldTraveller would not stop harassing him about it. Finally, Seanharger basically says "fuck it ... I can't deal with harassers like you, I'm going to WP:CLEANSTART to get away from you" and suddenly it's him who's blocked for Socking and NPA? See the discussion from User talk:Toddst1, but FFS we have to stop allowing baiting like this - ArbCom has already said baiting is not permitted. I'm prepared to unblock Seanharger and indef-block WorldTraveller. Yeah, Sean should not have called anyone an "asshole", but look at what he was pushed to (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One way or the other, WorldTraveller won't last long, specially considering their latest contributions, all of them intended at being judged as a good contributor in order to get easier to their adminship aspirations. I'll invite Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) to join this discussion. The messages WorldTraveller left at this admin's talk page speaks for themselves.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I followed a link to this ANI by accident, but now that I'm here: Jesus wept. Sean pretty much got screwed over here. I've unblocked Sean, unblocked the IP, warned Worldtraveler that if he mentions Sean again he will be blocked, and tried to clarify the situation at the surreal SPI. But surely the damage is already done. Whether or not to indef block Worldtraveller now or not is a discussion I'll leave to others. My instinct says yes, but that's probably caused by the toxic environment of ANI seeping into my soul; a warning is probably more appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have given a week - generously. Let's close this up, and deal with future issues with WorldTraveller should they occur in the future - which hopefully will not be the case. In the meantime, Sean will be somewhat free to recover a little bit from the ordeal, and WT will recognize that such hounding will not end well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block is actually best, here. As I said above, I would have preferred a clear warning. Along the lines of the warning I'd given him a little before your block: that he is to not mention Seanharger again. I think the pendulum swung too far in the the other direction here. Consider unblocking and leaving a clear warning, perhaps more general than mine, instead? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I just saw the previous block for the User:SirFart ridiculousness, so I no longer oppose a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock

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 nominated an ariticle for deletion [33]. My nomination was quickly declined, no problem there. Declining editor quickly protected the article claiming "Seems to attract unwanted attention from vandals" My call for deletion was valid. I have a long term contribution to Wikipedia. I have started a lot of articles that remain here at Wikipedia. I am not a vandal. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My semi-protection wasn't intended to imply that you're a vandal, and I apologize if you took it that way. I protected the article after looking at its history, and noticing an unusual amount of blocked editors and unconfirmed accounts in that history. Assuming those were what you were referring to when you nominated the page for deletion, I semi-protected the article. As to speedy deletion, the article clearly does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. There is no unambiguously promotional content, and the topic appears to be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)While Amatulic has the right to decline a speedy (and I agree with that decline - your concerns would be better-off raised in an AFD) - protecting a page indefinitely out-of-policy is concerning. I've unprotected the page. m.o.p 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Amatulic - blocked editors and uncomfirmed accounts (which I can barely find any of in the history unless I go back months at a time) are not a reason to indefinitely protect an article as low-traffic as this one. Please try to use protection more sparingly. m.o.p 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeer - Why did you see fit to nominate an article for speedy deletion that was clearly well-sourced and, for the most part, objectively written?--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets has unprotected the page now. I have to agree with his decision as the article hasn't had a severe problem with vandalism in the recent past. Duffbeerforme, the protection wouldn't have affected you anyway as it was only semi-protected. On a side note, the GA review seems to be incomplete although the article has been listed as a GA. Chamal ^T•C 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not "clearly well-sourced". duffbeerforme (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's merits (or lack of) should be discussed at WP:AFD if you see fit, Duffbeerforme. That's not a discussion for ANI. m.o.p 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn added the GA. [34] I believe the GA should be removed and delisted as the placement was not by the reviewer and the GA did not meet standards. I will not do it personally, I do not have time to answer questions about 'why' as I will be offline shortly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article's merits should be discussed elsewere. This ANI was not about the content of that article, It was about the declining of a speedy and the accusations that went with that. Amatulić has addressed that concern. Time to move on and close this. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:MrFalala - persistent violation of WP:SOAP

Please see Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014, Talk:The Blitz, [35], etc. Extremely tedious presentation of his opinions as "facts" without sourcing or relevance to the articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Plus Michael Collins (Irish leader) ([36], [37]), Irish War of Independence ([38], [39], [40], [41]) and Partition of Ireland ([42]) The Banner talk 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Indef this guy

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.

---

Keted6 has resumed edit-warring immediately after being unblocked on the same article. We need a quick indef. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor blocked indefinitely. m.o.p 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Milowent has engaged in unsupported personal attacks, insults and disruptive emptying of categories under discussion

User:Milowent has engaged in multiple very reude actions. This user has called me "The Unintentional He-man women haters club president". I do not appreciate this rudeness. This user has lied about what I said in a facebook discussion on the discussion which had no relevance to wikipedia, and used this to personally attack me on the discussion. In this [43] eduit she implied that those of us who do not see eye-to-eye with her "do not live in the real world. She has called me "the primary source of the problem", when I did not create the discussed category, was not the first person to add to it, I was not the first person to move people into it and out of Category:American novelists. Here persistent attempts to blame me for it and insult me and malign me in the process are very disturbing. They also suggest that their comparison to Nazis and to the support for slavery were both meant to be personal insults at me since she claims that I am personally resposnsible for the problem. Here [44] is where she calls me out with "do you admit or deny" that " your public facebook page you advocated that a female president should be called "presidentess"" I emphatically deny that as a false representation of what I actually advocated. What I advocated is people know as "mission president's wives", and officially identified with that title in the most relevant publications on the matter, such as this [45] Deseret News article that discusses their added role, should be called "presidentesses". This editor did not aplogize for comapring me to those who massively exterminated the Jews and Gypsies. This editor's rhetoric rhetoric of claiming I am "the most responsible" shows that their statements on the discussion of Category:Americn women novelists at CfD that those involved there were like the Nazis, shows that they are trying to specifically compare me to a Nazi. I do not appreciate such personal attacks. This [46] posting of a statement from my private facebook page was totally inaprpriate and clearly constituted a personal attack. Their false explanation of what I said, both on that page and in the discussion of Category:American women novelists is even more disturbing. Here [47] is where they bring up her totally personal attack on me, but falsely representing my postion on titles. Here [48] is where they bring in slavery, Here [49] is where she compares wikipedia editos to "Nazi soldiers". Here [50] is a diff where they trie to ban me from editing an article because the subject has supposedly "directly called into question John Pack Lambert". Tht is a new one, a-I have still to see where the subject personally attacks me, and b-when did it become possible to personally attack an editor and thus ban them from editing your article, and c- All I did was move the person to a more specific, by genre article, yet they have acted like I am somehow the one who has removed text from the article involved, which is totally not true. I find the tone of their comments on JohnHinsdales user page seen here [51] also disturbing. To call other editors edits "fecal matter" is needless rude and combative. I find the personal attacks very disturbing. Editors should not have their comments on wikipedia attack on false represenatations of what they have said elsewhere. To do so is a personal attack that is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Milowent's behavior is out of control, as indicated by the cited diffs. Some action is appropriate to stop the disruptiveness and incivility. There are multiple parties to the situation, though, so there may be other editors whose behavior needs to be addressed. (I haven't looked to see who else might be at fault here.) --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Orlady, I have responded to JPL below. Hopefully you will not cuff me. I invite more editors to be aware of the substantive issues we are facing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that is quite the paragraph. To respond to all this would take quite some time. The short version: John Pack Lambert is the primary editor defending Category:American women novelists despite the NYTimes op-ed and numerous other respected commentators uniformly decrying this unfortunate event. Jimbo (whose first comment on the whole drama was titled "WTF" - ban him now for uncivility, btw!) basically suggested he might be banned for this behavior, though there's been no real push for a ban (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WTF.3F). What does need to be done is that the problem needs to be fixed. John, unfortunately, has also been willy-nilly creating other new categories since the "scandal broke", including putting the author of the NYTimes op-ed (Amanda Filipacchi) into another new category he created (Category:American humor novelists, also now at CfD). Indeed, I did empty most of the Category:American men novelists category because it was created as a JOKE by an editor who put two females who use initials into it. JohnHinsdale, an infrequent editor, then put about 50 of the best known male American novelists of all time into the category; I believe he did it as a joke, though he has not confirmed that. My actions have been in good faith, the "NAZI OMG" aspersions cast against me have come in the back and forth of discussions and not as personal attacks. I admit that I misunderstood JPL's promotion of the term "presidentess", which is an archaic term for a female president, but not the way he apparently intended it to be used in a context outside wikipedia. I also admit I used the term "fecal matter".

Lastly, I admit, though JPL calls me "she" four times above, that I am male. If I've been a little heated, I promise to calm down. But the most uncivil actions on Wikipedia are deeds, not words. And the deed that has been done recently to female novelists, even if done unintentionally, must be rectified.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An editor holding opinions different than yours is not grounds to compare them to those who put people in slavery or to Nazis. The bottom line is that disagreement with actions does not justify personal attacks. I do not think Milowent understands this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See John, this is why you have trouble interacting with folks around here. The way the slavery/nazi references came in was because Obi-Wan Kenobi pooh-poohed the whole categorization problem by saying the U.S. Library of Congress was just as guilty and sexist as Wikipedia. The comparison was ridiculous, so I noted the US Government also supported slavery, but that's wasn't a reason to endorse it. Obi then replied to my comment by saying I basically went Godwin in no time flat by referencing slavery--Godwin is a reference to invoking a Nazi comparison, as I noted in response. I did not EVER compare any editor to a slavery supporter or nazi. I tried to maintain good humor throughout a very very disturbing situation, which you have exacerbated in many ways since the "scandal" broke.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct what Milowent said, my intent in these edits [52], [53], was to point out that the world was making a lot of noise about one particular cat, but ignoring the much larger structural issues, both in wikipedia and in the broader world, over which those writing articles in the NY times should be even more incensed. I wasn't joking when I said why aren't they attacking the Library of Congress - these are professional librarians, professional category experts, and even they have so-called "ghettoized" categories for female novelists. Thus either they are also guilty of rampant sexism, or the whole thing is overblown and just a misunderstanding of the nature of categorization and sub-categorization. In any case, Milowent quickly turned the Nazi/slavery thing into a joke, and I don't think the whole Nazi thing is worth exploring further - it was a pecadillo and definitely worth moving on.

Milowent has however (a) admittedly emptied categories that were currently being discussed at CFD, in contravention of policy and (b) behaved in an uncivil manner, throwing around the terms racist and sexist with abandon. For this at least a trout is certainly merited.

In any case, I invite all here, especially Milowent, to take the categorization quiz I put together, so we can see if anyone, on any side of this issue, can correctly and fully categorize a single bio without falling prey to a situation that would get you accused of either "sexism" or "racism". I've spent about an hour in total now sorting out all of the possible categories, and I'm quite sure no-one will pass the test (even my answer key is likely flawed!) - that's the challenge with this domain- you can correctly and in a non-sexist manner categorize someone in 32 different categories, but if you miss one - BOOM - you're a sexist. Non-diffusing gender/ethnic cats are actually quite hard to do really well, that's my main point - so accusations of sexism and racism are uncalled for and serve only to fan the flames rather than help us move forward with a workable solution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• • If saying "this whole activity is akin to nazi soliders "just carrying out orders," glad to see you make the comparison." Is not saying that those who created a category are like Nazis doing massive executions than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Can we please not fill this [soon to be] unmercifully long thread with you two going back and forth on this particular sub-point? Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• lol, Shadowjams. You just e/c'ed on following from me: "If you want to get in the weeds all day, I know the admins who work on this page really love it. Let's back-and-forth with increasing indents until we need 50 inch wide screens to read our debate. No need to talk about the substance underlying things."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hopefully someone with some sense will come along and close it right away - otherwise it will go and and on and on and might get ugly. I've been asked on my page to adhere closely to policy, (especially civility and AGF), which has had a chilling effect so won't say any more at this time. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The disruptiveness over this issue is not limited to these two editors. There are a few others who have been fanning the flames with personally insulting comments and/or allusions to ignominious historical events. It wouldn't do much good to block several editors. I suggest that the experienced users who have been misbehaving (including JPL and Milowent) should withdraw from the battlefield (stay away from the discussions for 24 hours) -- but only after you excise the personally offensive comments you have made. A renewal of hostilities may lead to more severe sanctions. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Surely the best response to this debacle. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, "mission presidents' wives" is a somewhat unwieldy term to be using, so I can see why someone would want a shorter alternative. "Presidentesses" would probably be too much of a neologism though to be using in articles though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this one - that is another reason for a nice wet trout for Milowent. Going off-wiki, finding a random facebook posting an editor made having nothing whatsoever to do with wikipedia or the articles under discussion, and then mis-representing the intent of that posting in several places is going too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten's comment illustrates why the issue is totally irrelevant. Facebook and news article comment board comments I have made were with the intention of creating a new use of a term. I fully accept that terms are not to be created on wikipedia, and have not to my knowledge tried to do so. I edited the article on Mission (LDS) to reflect the most recent policy changes but did not try to insert the new term into it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to Obi, I did not go trolling around off-wiki for the presidentess thing, it was posted by others on twitter. But I can't believe anyone is focusing on that tiff rather than the underlying problems. And for anyone still interested in the weeds, I am discerning JPL didn't know the pop-culture source of my one edit summary joke referencing him as "the unintentional He-man women haters club president" for doing most of the editing work removing women from the American novelists category, which is what triggered the controversy. Its from a 1937 Little Rascal's episode.[54].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, *you* grabbed it off twitter, and then *you* posted it in various forms and made various accusations about it on several pages. I see that you've apologized about that, so I would also consider that closed - once the wet trout is applied. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, there is now a Salon piece [55] decrying the recent treatment of Amanda Filipacchi's page as "revenge editing" since the 1st op ed appeared. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but off-topic for this particular discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic? What about this detailed expose of JohnPackLambert's actions in the The New York Review of Books by James Gleick?[56] He concludes, "People of Wikipedia! You have a problem." No one rational, absolutely no one, is complaining about editors like myself who have raised the red flags and tried to stop this fiasco.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Milo, you're still engaging in the same sort of behavior which brought you to ANI in the first place - for example, going off wiki and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Now, the James Gleick piece clearly relevant, but the Salon link has *nothing* to do with JPL. You seem really obsessed and upset with what the media is writing about us here, but it is all going to blow over, and once several hundred women have been put back in the famous Category:American novelist category, everyone will go away - even as endemic ghettoization remains. There won't be more exposes in the NY Times or Salon or anywhere else about ghettoization of Christians, of native americans, of male prostitutes, of gay people, etc etc. Those people out there, that are writing this stuff? They don't care enough to fix it, so I tend to ignore them more or less...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I got brought to ANI by the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem. I love how when Wikipedia is the subject, some editors wish to ignore all those same sources on which the project is built. Its pathetic, which is why most people are staying away from this thread. Let it be closed and let the CfDs continue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, out in the real world, people are asking questions about Wikipedia's culture, how the use of procedural tactics to shut down disagreement is why many people are inclined to not help, but just to complain. A direct quote is not a personal attack, but it did provide relevant context to the matter under discussion, and this procedural attack on Milowent is entirely disingenuous. Certainly Milowent's research here is not "unsupported" or "baseless" or whatever. Avt tor (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a "proecudral attack". This is a legitimate complaint about persistant lines like "those of us who live in the real world". The attack implied, that anyone who disagrees with you does not "live in the real world" is an unacceptable personal attack. If you disagree with decisions or policies, voice views on those. However to engage in personal attacks on other users, as this editor has done, is totally unacceptable. This is a requirement of civility in wikipedia, and when a user has been persistently insulted, lied about and attacked, it is reasonable for them to respond. It is a lie to claim that someone advocated something that they never did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I brought up very specific complaints about personal attacks. This diff [57] is not civil dialogue at all. People should not be summarizing edits with personal attacks, as was done there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL, you need to let it go immediately, rather than continuing to berate Milowent here at the same time you complain about him to a third party while deleting comments you don't like on your talk page and creating another edit war over a category. What your doing is a textbook example of not being able to take criticism at all. You cook lots of omlettes at CfD, it's hardly surprising that you've broken a few eggs, Milowent's being one of them. pbp 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some outside media have claimed that Category:American women novelists was the work of "one misguided editor". This is clearly not so. To take an easy to study example, there are two articles under the letter E in that category, added by two different users. I probably added the most articles to that category, but I added neither of the articles under the letter E. Both of the articles under the letter E were transfered from the parent Category:American women novelists. On the other hand, the claim that it is "edit warring" to add someone back to a category they clearly fit in, while it is under discussion is a strange claim, when the person was removed while the category had a tag on it that said "Please do not empty the category" and no comparable direction that says "please do not expand the category".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Filapacchi is sort of defending you John, she agrees you were not alone, the problem is more widespread (and I agree), even if you went on a "spree" in early April.[58] She also does note, however, "The editor who went on his spree in early April (username Johnpacklambert) did something particularly interesting and annoying after I'd been put back in the "American Novelists" category. He took me out of it again and put me in a new category he had just created: "American Humor Novelists." He also added three men to it, probably to make it look ok. Another editor then came along and undid what he had done."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:American humor novelists still exists and still has most of its original contents. The fact of the matter is at one point we opened our article on Filipacchi by saying "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." At least to me that line said "she belongs in Category:American humor novelists." The whole rhetoric of "probably to make it look ok" suggests there is something wrong with sub-cats, which is a very problematic view. However a search for "humor novel" on wikipedia turns up multiple results, so it is clearly a term that is used. Whether it is one that is well used enough to justify a category is another question, but the rhetoric of "make it look ok", with its claims that this is all vendentta driven is ridiculous. Filipacchi has clearly failed to assume good faith, and we should not be repeating her poisonous attacks on editors who are trying to abide by rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

User has a history of contentious and frowned-upon practices regarding WP:CfDs and categories. His talk page is littered with requests to change his behavior, and notices of edit-warring regarding the addition or removal of categories. There have been numerous instances of him mass-adding pages to categories he wants kept, and mass-deleting pages from categories he wants deletion. Oftentimes, the adds or deletions are of dubious correctness, and often occur when consensus is forming against him. But also troubling is his OWNership of CfD. JPL responds to almost every CfD out there (a bad practice in and of itself), and often makes 5-10 comments in CfDs, usually deriding detractors. Most troubling is that he's dug in on a number of CfD discussions over a number of months, often making 40 or 50 comments in a single CfD and berating almost everyone who disagrees with him. The combination of this attitude combined with the general dismissiveness of comments on his talk page (when I asked him to tone it down one time, he asked a mop to block me) indicates that JPL has problems getting along with other Wikipedia editors. A perfect example of this is how he's reacting to Milowent above; someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted. Jimbo himself has noted that JPL is giving Wikipedia a black eye. It's time for JPL to be forced to step away from WP:CfD for a spell. pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response If This user really does not think responding over and over again to people who differe from their views at a CfD nomination is appropriate, then why exactly did they do it on the discussion of Category:People from Los Angeles, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For one, because it is patently ridiculous that that category is at anything but Category:People from Los Angeles. For two, had you actually looked at the discussion, you would see numerous comments I haven't responded to. By contrast, in this last discussion and the American female writers discussion a few months back, you combined for about 150 comments. That's 150 comments in TWO discussions. Overblown? I think so. Did people tell you to cool down? Yes. Did you ignore them? Yes. pbp 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the other hand this editor has been going around doing things like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Hampton_Brewster&oldid=553080371&diff=prev} which are totally inapropriate removals of a category while it is still under discussion. It has the added result of excluding the person involved from the Category:American women writers tree, a tree that is not even nominated for deletion (it is possbily going to be renamed, but that is another matter).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The antecedent in this discussion is you, JPL, and you're correct in that you have been inappropriately adding categories to Brewster and other categories in violation of BRD. In other words, you've been edit-warring. This is particularly egregious on Brewster as at least three editors have reverted your BOLD edit, and you've undone all of them. You're yet again nearing 3RR regarding categories pbp 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against adding categories that exist to people that clearly fit in the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is against edit-warring, though. Edit-warring knows no right or wrong. pbp 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban Johnpacklambert from CfD?

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.

---

1. Support as nom pbp 18:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Orlady (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Note that User:Purplebackpack89 previously took this to an RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert. There are a lot of broader issues here and singling out one editor will do no good. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - No Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
5. No, absolutely not. Disagreed w/ John in the past, but nothing justifies a ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Comment: Nobody has yet to give a valid reason as to why Johnpacklambert's actions are acceptable. "No" or "Oppose" is not a valid reason, sorry. JPL has clearly been a disruptive influence at WP:CfD for months. As such, the one-word "No" or "Oppose" votes should be stricken unless someone can provide a better reason why JPL's disruptive influence should continue pbp 19:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Hm. You haven't given reasons, so what exactly should one say other than "no"? Your personal rants aren't reasons. Diffs are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) No, the onus is on you (pbp) to substantiate your claims, not them to substantiate theirs. Also, "someone disagrees with him, therefore that person should be booted": pot calling the kettle black? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   The burden of proof is on the person asking for the ban. Nobody needs to give a reason not to ban. You need to provide a compelling reason why it should. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   My reasons are pretty clearly delineated in the section entitled "User:Johnpacklambert" above. The general reasoning is his tendency to edit-war over categories, his tendency to mass-add or mass-delete categories from pages when he's losing at CfD, his tendency to respond to almost every comment in CfDs he's started where others disagree with him, and in general major, major, major OWNership issues at CfD pbp 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Another rant w/o reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Excuse me? Ownership and disruption at CfD are perfectly acceptable reasons to be banned from there. pbp 20:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   When are you going to provide reasons/diffs? Prolonged unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks and could very much lead to your own block or ban. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

6. oppose what looks like an opportunistic attempt at settling an old grudge. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Note that Jimbo suggested something akin to this on his page. Please comment on JPL's actions, not irrelevant past history between him and me. pbp 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   Pretty sure we consider argumentum ad Jimbonem to be a rhetorical fallacy around here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

   We even have a page on the topic: Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose - per Timroll. There are bigger issues here, and I don't think this solves enough of them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
8. oppose I have respect for JPL and the work he does on categorization, and even though I sometimes disagree with him I think his heart is in the right place. Also a note: if JPL has emptied cats currently under discussion, please provide diffs - I haven't seen that. I would however, respectfully, ask that he (and I!) slow down on comments on this CFD - the world has probably heard enough from both of us. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose, where is the fire. I looked at the log for the discussions to be normally closed today. In there JPL had one comment in a discussion that had varied opinions and it just so happens that the position he advocated, with a reason, was how it was closed. There is no evidence in that days log of domination or ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose, close, and trout PBP for this - regardless of the merit of the rest of the case (which I will not comment upon one way or the other), this has the smell of "opportunistic score-settling" all over it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Evidence, Please. Pbp/Purplebackpack89 has been asked several times to provide diffs to prove his case. I think that it is fair to assume that if someone won't provide proof it is because they can't provide proof. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Consider the following:

    • Here,
    • there
    • everywhere.
    • and more

    In four days of CfD discussions, I count over 270 edits. And of those 270, the majority are in only a handful or two of CfDs. Ownership? Yes. Also, I went to his talk page, I counted no fewer than four separate notices about edit warring, and that's in the last six months alone pbp 03:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    And yet, despite being asked repeatedly, you have yet to provide a single diff (the above links are not to diffs). Why is that? Why are you unable or unwilling to pick two or three examples and post diffs to them? WP:DIFFSPLEASE. Also see: WP:DIFF and WP:D&L. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    I consider those to be diffs, and they most certainly are examples. Would you rather I posted all 270 diffs those pages represent? I didn't think so! The very problem here is that, in those four days of CfDs, JPL generated a TLDR amount of content in each of them. This much more succintly proves my point about his OWNership issues on those four days of CfDs, and in particular in regards to discussions of gender and ethnicity. pbp 04:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    What part of "pick two or three examples and post diffs to them" are you having trouble understanding? Please read Wikipedia:Shut up and show them the diff. Please do not respond with another reason why you are unwilling to provide diffs. Please do not respond with any other non-diffs that you "consider to be diffs". As a matter of fact, if your response does not contain two or three examples with diffs, please save us all some time and don't bother replying at all. I cannot hear your words over the defining sound of your actions. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose, and trout Purplebackpack89 for this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose Not only is there insufficient basis, I am not even sure what is supposed to be achieved by banning him from CfD.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Alex2564 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose Also a bit pointless arguing about Cat-issues now anyway. Catagories are going to be dead as soon as wikidata is working as it intends to. Granted that could take awhile.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Related issues

Three days ago I posted the following about the whole broad area here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can some non-involved admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists, plus the CFD pages on subsequent days and the categories involved in the various discussions.

What we have here is:

• Controversy about the existance and/or method of population of Category:American women novelists, with the corresponding effect on the contents of Category:American novelists.
• Media attention and off-Wiki notification of the state of affairs.
• An initial CFD discussion that on my screen is already 36 screens long after just two days.
• Other categories being created and often rapidly nominated for deletion and/or merger. So far I've spotted Category:American male writers, Category:British men novelists & Category:American men novelists.
• Edit warring to add or remove articles from all the categories involved.
• Accusations of bad faith and sock puppetry. There's already been one investigation.

...and adding to the complications are not only the media interest but a lot of confusion about how category hierachies work and are understood to work, plus a number of contributors appear to have been dormant for years.

All this is causing some problems and possible violations. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Account sharing between Riley Huntley and Gwickwire

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.

---

During the course of DeltaQuad's checkuser duties, it came to his attention that Gwickwire had accessed Riley Huntley's account on 01:03 22 March 2013 to make a single edit to Riley Huntley's talk page. DeltaQuad spoke to Deskana and DoRD, who verified his findings. At present, we do not believe that any other access of Riley Huntley's account by Gwickwire has taken place, but we have no way of verifying the integrity of either of the accounts.

Due to the permissions on Riley Huntley's account, disclosing the password to his account represents a breach of trust that the community has put in Riley Huntley to keep his account secure. As Riley Huntley's login is unified with advanced permissions on other wikis, there was great potential for misuse in disclosing his password. Similarly, by accessing the account of another user, Gwickwire has shown disregard for policies and standards.

Gwickwire and Riley were invited to comment on the matter to Deskana. Gwickwire said that Riley asked him to make an edit for him with a temporary password when he was unable to do so. Riley said that he was on holiday and made his watchlist send him an email whenever a page was edited, and he couldn't use the website well on his mobile so he asked Gwickwire to edit for him.

In light of the above, we hereby propose to the community that all permissions on the Gwickwire and Riley Huntley accounts be revoked due to violation of community trust and standards on account sharing. Riley Huntley's rights are currently Account creators, Course online volunteers, File movers, IP block exemptions, Reviewers and Rollbackers. Gwickwire's has resigned his rights, so this discussion would label his resignation as "under a cloud". Please comment on this below.

We will also notify the other wikis which Riley Huntley and Gwickwire have advanced permissions on, so that they can also decide on what actions they wish to take.

On behalf of DeltaQuad, Deskana and DoRD,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Certifying this was the assessment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Further

Not having discussed this with my colleagues, I won't go into detail, but I will say that both users turned up incidental to a routine check. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally? As in there was another commonality between Riley or Qwickwire and another account related to the check?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Routine"? Are you routinely checking random people 'cause you're bored of picking your nose? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seb .. I think a lot of folks have concerns about CU types of checks, myself included; but I really do think that particular comment was way out of line. Please don't do that again. — Ched :  ?  07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I will whenever I see fit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You might just want to check that attitude at the door. Up to you, but I'm just sayin. — Ched :  ?  09:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You should check yours. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The natural response to this sort of needless hostility is that the perpetrator will find himself ignored outside of his own social circle. While this isn't quite as helpful as self-correction, it does help to ensure that the community as a whole is not unduly influenced by its ugliest commentary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment here on the comments by people who think that DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) or DoRD (talk · contribs) checks accounts for the fun of it. Among other things, running a checkuser investigation against anybody with more than a few edits is commonly a time-consuming task. I'm not a checkuser, so I don't know the real reason, but there are several possible scenarios in which a checkuser could have uncovered the account sharing.

1. DeltaQuad assigned IP block exemption to Riley Huntley due to an IP block affecting him. Checkusers will routinely go through the list of IP block exempt editors to see if they are still affected by IP blocks and remove unnecessary IP block exemptions. This would result in DeltaQuad getting Riley's IPs, and the fact that a different computer (Gwickwire's) accessed it would show up.
2. A checkuser may have been considering applying a rangeblock to stop abusive edits from an IP range. Naturally, he or she would want to ensure that any good-faith editors trapped in the rangeblock would receive IP block exemption. This could result in a check on Riley, Gwickwire, or even both and would show that a different computer accessed Riley's account at some point.
3. A checkuser could also have been investigating Gwickwire's IP range if disruptive sockpuppets were arriving en masse from it. In the midst of Gwickwire's edits, that edit from Riley's account would have shown up as using Gwickwire's computer, prompting further investigation that would prove the account sharing.

Thus, before you assume checkusers are horrible, abusive people, think of other possible scenarios. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, additionally, let's simply recall that Riley was an admin of the ACC interface, which in and of itself, as DeltaQuad told me (when I was previously involved in the program), causes one to be subject to frequent additional checks, due to...frequent additional risk. No need to create a mountain out of a molehill, friends. Theopolisme (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Reaper for that insight. That does change my perspective.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Just to note that Riley removed himself from toolserver account creator access where he had access to sensitive information. His account creator right is separate from that now. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• What reason was there to be scrutinizing either Gwickwire or Riley's account? Was there any behavior evidence to justify use of checkuser? As far as the violation -- really? I care why? Was there any harm to the encyclopedia?? NE Ent 02:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As Riley was a sysop on Wikidata, this was a serious security risk for us. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Risk of what? "Serious security risk"? It's a frickin' website, not the finish line of the Boston Marathon. NE Ent 02:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Risk of blocking all administrators, deleting several pages, etc. When admin accounts have been compromised on this site, the Main Page has been deleted, and arbitrators and Jimbo Wales were blocked, and this would have continued had the account not been emergency desysopped. --Rschen7754 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict × 3)Ok, thats a bit far fetched. Especially since Jimbo hasn't autocreated his account on Wikidata yet. Legoktm (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Well, account creators have, if I recall correctly, access to user IP data (considered private info, requiring IDing to the foundation to have access). So theoretically someone with AC access and bad judgment could do some real-world harm using people's personal data. IPBE is also considered by some to be sensitive, since it allows users to edit through hard blocks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Riley also had access to sensative information such as IP addresses and relevant information as an account creator on the toolserver, so sharing passwords is pretty serious. Also, administrators are also privy to information that is not public, and Riley is/was an administrator on two wikis. Also, downplaying the situation as "it's just a website" as compared to a terrorist attack, probably isn't the right response. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree. There could be severe repercussions on the entire project if immediate action isn't taken. The bombing comment was also unnecessary, and in very poor taste. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • @Ent: Probably about as serious as removing some permissions from an account on "just a website", so this is a pretty proportional reaction. I am curious as to why a CU was looking at this, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Riley has also resigned as a Wikidata sysop. [59] I believe that this would be considered under a cloud, but I am sure that we will be having a discussion related to the matter, once we are officially notified. --Rschen7754 02:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why discuss this? Both have retired which clearly means both agree with removing their rights. So remove them and stop the drama. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a technical matter, if one 'retires' it is different from 'fired' in a business sense if one wants to come back. If a major breach occurred and is taken to the community the prospects of a future RFA or other position of power can be scrutinized. I am concerned as to how a CU found this, though, but transparency is not something that we are privvy to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• One simple question: What led to the chck to be made? and I want DeltaQuad to please kindly explain how he considered that a check was needed, and that it fell within the boundaries of the CU policy. I understand that this should have never happened, but I'm now amazingly sad because after this unnecessary scandal, we've lost a great asset, and a very productive user. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 5)I honestly don't see the big deal. No damage came from this. And if it did, it could easily be reversed. The password that was set up for Gwickwire was temporary so the real password was never revealed. Yes, there was the potential for damage, but did Gwickwire abuse the trust Riley placed in him? No. According to Riley, as he puts, was simply trying to get Wikipedia to stop sending a flood of emails to his phone, while he was trying to get his phone to work. Since he couldn't do it himself with his phone, he asked Qwickwire to do it for him as his settings were set to receive an email when something on his watchlist had changed and he has over 30k pages on his watchlist. Honestly, wouldn't you be annoyed if you couldn't shutoff that email function?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Could someone from the checkuser team explain what led them to run checks in this case? Was it an e-mail tip or was this part of an SPI or something? I assume they weren't just going fishing, but it would be nice to have some reassurance about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • DoRD explained a little above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think I understand what triggered the CU investigation now. I'm totally satisfied that the checks were done appropriately, i.e. not part of a fishing trip. I believe it had to do with the WP:ACC, as someone points out above. I'm not totally sure why the results needed to be made public though. This reminds me a bit of the situation a few months back when Arbcom announced out of the blue that two accounts were using the same IP. I understand why they investigated, but not why they made the results public. Was community input really needed here? Could permissions have been revoked without an announcement? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The most obvious parallel between that case and this one is that there was obvious wrongdoing involved (more obvious in the other case than in this one, given the long history of faux retirements and the subsequent un-retirement of the master account) and yet a long line of editors queueing up to express outrage at the perpetrator having even been named, let alone acted against. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I too am concerned with due process here. On what grounds was a checkuser done in this case? The concern that Riley should not have let Gwickwire use his account may be valid, but of concern here also is that other people with advanced permissions (i.e. checkusers) are using those permissions commensurate with the regulations regarding them, and not just fishing. How is it possible that a checkuser could catch something like this unless either Gwickwire or Riley had some reason to be checked, or that there was a third account linking the two otherwise. I'm unclear on how this came to be found, and I have serious concerns of a Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? nature. --Jayron32 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no expectation of due process on Wikipedia, as we are not a government, but a private website. That's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is an expectation of privacy per WMF policy. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is absolutely an expectation that people entrusted by the community with advanced permissions like checkuser use those permissions persuant to the restrictions placed upon them, and that such people are ultimately accountable to the community to be able to justify their use of them. That is absolutely an expectation. We are not a government, we are a community who has entrusted checkusers with sensitive information, and as such, they are expected to use that trust appropriately and be able to justify their use of it when called to question. --Jayron32 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, the standard of expected behaviors for admins was WP:NOTPERFECT and a "pillar" of this community was WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. " (emphasis original). If editors / admins are to be sanctioned for hypothetical events that could have happened, the reductio ad absurdum implication is that every admin who ever edited outside a Faraday Cage such as the one used for the recent papal elections should be immediately desysoped. NE Ent 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Arbcom? Stewards? Jimbo?

• CU aside, it's clear there is a major security risk involved here, I believe some course of action is required here. ArbCom should probably be notified, as well as the WMF Stewards, due to the fact that this is a cross-wiki incident. Jimbo would probably have some valuable opinions to share as well. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Probably not needed. Riley was desysopped on Wikidata per his request, and the only place Riley holds advanced permissions anymore is testwiki and that probably isn't going to be much an issue. We probably shouldn't escalate it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The subject of his testwiki access is another matter. Escalation is probably inappropriate in my opinion, as both parties have acknowledged their mistake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and my guess is that ArbCom would have been slammed if they dealt with this issue. --Rschen7754 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)This entire incident has escalated too much as is. Nothing harmful came of it. If I were Jimbo, I would've treated this the same as adminship, no big deal.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much a hardliner when it comes to stuff like this, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the problem here. Given the extent of sockpuppetry on this site, I have no objection to CUs doing their job to protect us, but, if I'm understanding what happened, that gwickwire edited Riley Huntley's account using a temporary password, it doesn't seem much different from two people in the same room where one person edits on the other's account, with permission. It doesn't make much difference whose fingers are pressing the keys, the person with the account is responsible for the edit, and it becomes their edit. It may be technically disallowed (although I'm not sure how), but it also seems entirely innocent. No information was shared except a temporary password - I'm not seeing where that implies that sensitive information would potentially be improperly shared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is a temporary password even possible? I know nothing of how it worked, but Beyond My Ken raises a good point. What's done is done, no damage seems to have come of it, I'd say let the concerned parties explain the matter if they wish and WP:TROUT or such, now that the resignations have been sent in. While I think I may be in the minority here, editors are people and people make mistakes, let the punishment equal the crime. The resignation and shame of this action seems fair, but lets not lose two people (forever) over this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• The implication relates to the belief the password did not also allow access to the account creation system on toolserver or admin rights on the data project. I could tell you i changed the password before i give it to you but will you really know if it is actually new? Riley's toolserver password would not necessarily have been the same as his WMF SUL password but it could have been. Whether the password be new or not it was still a WMF SUL password which gave Gwickwire access to an admin account on a different project. Having admitted to doing it once after being caught for that one incident knowing it was inappropriate to have done in the first place the credibility is destroyed for claims that it really was only the one time and so limited in scope. If the password Riley supplied did actually allow Gwickwire access to the account creation system on toolserver then Riley violated the WMF Privacy Policy. All we have is Riley's word on the matter and right now that isn't so trustworthy.
  Notwithstanding all of that the edit Gwickwire made in Riley's name is hardly of such immediate concern it would require such measures. That alone shows some really poor judgement on Riley's part. If you're going to break the rules you really ought to have a really good reason and that isn't. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Moral of the story: Never, ever ... and I mean eeeeeeever give your password to another person. It happened in 2008 with the best of intentions, but the results were disastrous. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed they were.... Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how this violates the account sharing rules at all. That implies that the account was shared on a long-term basis, not for a single minor edit with a temporary password. Furthermore, I am also concerned about what started this CU check in the first place. Considering the very minor edit that took place, there should have been absolutely no reason to run a CU in the first place, which implies that constant CU's were being conducted on Riley and/or Gwickwire's accounts, which is a complete violation of CU protocol. If anything, we have a much larger incident here of abuse of CU privileges. Silverseren^C 06:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is all rather silly, but it is the Wikipedia way to create a dramacane over the things no one honestly cares about rather than the things that actually matter. Of course, you are just adding to the silliness with your illogical accusations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• How else would you explain why there would be a CU over this innocuous edit? An explanation of a "routine CU" is given above. Well, what the heck is that? Silverseren^C 07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I've misread what's been written above, no one has said that there was a specific CU about this edit, but that, in some way, evidence of the edit came up in the course of other CU business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's true. It is stated above that they came up "incidental to a routine check". Of course, that raises further questions, because there's been no evidence presented that this edit or either of these accounts have been involved with any others. How does one come up "incidental"? Does a CU check bleed over into other accounts when you run it? Are there sockpuppets involved here? The evidence above is presented in a fashion as if to not invoke any questioning, as if to say that, when running a CU, this sort of thing just falls into one's lap. I think the community deserves more information when this has caused two editors to retire from the project. Silverseren^C 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's perfectly natural that CUs would not be able to explain in graphic and gruesome detail what led up to the incidental discovery of the edit in question, given the personal and confidential nature of the data they have access to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody's asking for specific details. It's just that most people are under the impression that a justified CU check only brings up IPs and users in a narrow specified range or something like that. Now it sounds like any CU check "routinely" brings up most everybody's data now and then. That could be explained. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe yes, and maybe no. Not being conversant with how CU works (technically), I cannot tell one way or the other from the outside, but I certainly didn't get that impression from what the CUs have been able to tell us so far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• For those wondering how CU works, when I run a check on an account, the tool gives me all IPs used by the person operating it. I can then check each IP individually (or an entire IP range) and I can see all accounts that have edited from said IP. That's useful when looking for sleepers, for instance. I have not reviewed the CU log, but, from my experience with the tool, I'd say that DQ was checking someone who happened to edit from the same IP (or IP range) as Riley or Gwickwire, saw something suspicious and decided to investigate. It's not that rare to see many unrelated accounts when checking heavily used IPs... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, that was very helpful, and answered some long-standing questions I had not related to this situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• That was indeed helpful, Salvio. I'm pretty sure any of the three involved CUs could have provided such a simple explanation without going into specifics and compromising anybody's privacy or violating policy, and I only wish they had done so. In fact, if they can't give even a reason like that, then FFS they could have said so at least (the reasons can't be disclosed due to privacy blah blah). That would have been much better than the vague passing mention of a "routine" check which has created the mess of confusion and speculation above. Chamal ^T•C 17:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think rather that the "mess of confusion and speculation" was the result of a general lack of AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) My comment was made late at night, and I was tired, so perhaps it could have been more clear. I would have preferred to have had a discussion with the other two CUs, but they were both offline then, so I said what I was comfortable with at the time. I will add, though, that I err on the side of caution where the Privacy policy is concerned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Length of time is irrelevent. Sharing an account password is sharing an account password. IT security is based on potential harm. In most modern companies, sharing of accounts is prohibited on penalty of disciplinary. For much the same reason as the WMF requires identification - access to restricted personal info. While the WMF is not liable for content by editors, it IS liable for personal info it stores/holds on people who visit the various wiki sites hosted on its servers. It cannot take a 'relaxed' stance on this sort of thing. Having someone who isnt identified with access to 'personal' info is a major security breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Acting as an independent admin, I have just revoked Riley's permissions. I have not blocked either him or Gwickwire because both appear to have stopped editing and, so, for the moment, a block is, in my opinion, unnecessary. Unless the community wants to discuss further sanctions, I suggest this thread be closed. If you have concerns regarding how the checkuser tool was used in this instance, you should contact WP:AUSC. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Under what authority was this CU preformed? That is the policy-based reason why a CU was preformed on two editors in good standing? There must be a good reason why their private information was queried. Simply because a bad act was uncovered does not give justification to a warrant-less inquiry. Exclusionary rule, anyone? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some answers to your questions are provided in the discussion above. Reading the entire section would be profitable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is analogous to how the Paula Jones case led to the Lewinsky case and the subsequent Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are you attempting humor, or simply being absurd? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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 brought this thread to the attention of my colleagues on the ArbCom, to the extent that they are not already aware of it. No other comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I take exception to the closure statement, and to the closure of the discussion in general. There was not a complaint of anything. No one said that the checkusers did anything wrong. What there was is a request for the checkusers involved to answer some questions. That isn't complaining, that's asking people to action. As now, not one of the checkusers involved has responded to those multiple requests, indeed, not one has even acknowledged that the request has been made of them even to go so far as to refuse it. So no, not one person complained about anything a checkuser did. I didn't; and neither did anyone else. What we did was ask for some additional information, and this thread was closed without any response to those reasonable questions. So, please either open that section and/or revise the closing statement please. --Jayron32 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • User talk:DeltaQuad has a statement. --Rschen7754 05:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. For the record, after reading his statement I am now more than satisfied with DQ's statement on this, and consider my question fully answered. I have no further concerns regarding this issue. --Jayron32 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I just want to point out that I did acknowledge that there were questions by responding early on, and once again just before this was archived. Deskana also acknowledged the questions by pointing out my earlier comment. Unfortunately, neither of us could speak for DeltaQuad, so many questions were left unanswered until he was able to make the comments on his talk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

AfD Closure Requested

Please can an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean, Clean? Notability has been established, and the nomination has been withdrawn, but the nominator has made a bit of a (good-faith) hash of it. I'd perform a NAC myself, but there is one delete !vote outstanding, so I thought I'd bring it here for a 'proper' closure instead. Not really urgent! Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can't be closed as "withdrawn" unless you can convince the other delete !voter to remove their vote. As such, NAC would definitely be wrong, as would any other form of closure at this point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I guess we just sit tight then. Cheers! — sparklism ^hey! 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reporting self

Note : I have moved this discussion from AN to ANI as I started the discussion in the wrong location

I have been accused of making personal attacks multiple times regarding discussions on the Gun Control article. One of the complaints was formally made as part of a 3RR accusation against me which resulted as "not a violation" (as regards to 3rr, PA was not addressed), and another was recently made that the accuser has declined to post here. The topic is controversial, and tempers are high. WP:CIVIL is lacking all around (myself included), but I do not think it goes to the level of a personal attack, and I believe the accusers are attempting to win content disputes by making bureaucratic threats.

The editors in question are also attempting to systematically disqualify all sources they disagree with by calling them unreliable and self published, in spite of being published in multiple 3rd party sources, and being cited repeatedly (including by SCOTUS).

While calls for civility are justified and appropriate, I would like to put a stopper in this bureaucratic wikilawyering so that we can focus on the actual content dispute.

FACTS AND EVIDENCE

• Diff of most recent accusation [60]
• Accusation made at 3rr Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gaijin42_reported_by_User:SPECIFICO_.28Result:_No_violation.29

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• More diffs.. User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked) [61] SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A previous episode occurred at the same talk page yesterday in which Gaijin42 said that his opponents' arguments were "beyond the pale, and reeks of holocaust denialism and trolling".[62] — goethean 15:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

MAYONNAISE

That would be incident #2 that I already mentioned. The statement I was replying to was in regards to SPECIFICO's repeated unhelpful analgoy that nazi uses of gun control has as much relationship to the general concept of gun control as Hitler's use of Mayo does to the Mayo article. I called that trolling, and I stand by the statement.

• Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage
• If that were true, how would it be relevant to an article on gun control? Does the article on Mayonnaise discuss Nazi use of Mayonnaise?
• Using mayonnaise is an action -- like regulating gun usage
• Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst?
• (identical comment, again) Do you seriously deny that der Fuhrer spread Mayonnaise on his Blutwurst
• It's mayonnaise again, in spades
• Mayonnaise is complicated stuff.

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to Gaijin42's discussion of the content issue, the section in question is highly problematic in regards to NPOV. It was under an "Arguments" header until one editor overhauled the article, placing it in a "History" section. Now we have a group of editors contentiously arguing that the material is not an argument, but is a neutral presentation of history. — goethean 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So, because editors took concerns into account, and improved the article per critical suggestion, is a sign that we are acting inappropriately. gotcha. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving a section from "Arguments" to "History" is not improving the article. It is taking what were known to be contentious arguments and calling them history. It is inserting ideology into a article, and acting like it is not ideology. — goethean 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting note: First, this would normally belong on WP:ANI. However, since two of you are simply going to discuss it between you, why didn't you do that first on someone's talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been extensively discussed on user talk pages, and article talk pages, and continues to escalate. Hence my post here. I myself was attempting to clarify what I believe to be a slanted presentation of the facts (and I will assume AGF and that Goethean is doing the same on this report per his own perspective.) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the discussion be moved to ANI? That was an error on my part if so. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you're only interested in a content discussion, this should be at neither AN nor ANI, as neither board addresses content disputes. Take it to 3O or DRN, depending on the complexity and number of disputants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for having this derail. I was trying to give context to the statement which was described as a PA. I would like resolution on if my statements constitute a PA or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, it is not appropriate for you to recite a list of phrases and fragments for the purpose of characterizing them as evidence in whatever complaint you are making here. You wrote on my talk page that you were about to report yourself. I don't know what that means in the context of WP. Anyway if you wish to cite evidence please follow procedure here to help other editors and admins understand your view by providing links to diffs, adding whatever comments or context you think would be helpful. Also if this is a complaint against yourself, what is the accusation, please describe the remedy you propose, and why is such remedy not available to you acting alone, of your own will? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - General rule: if you (and others) think you might have acted like a WP:GIANTDICK then you probably were at least acting like a WP:DICK, so self-censure is easier than community/admin-imposed censure. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

While I admit minor incivility and possible dickishness, and resolve to improve, specific accusations that can lead to banning and blocking have been made against me, and I would like that issue put to rest. Either my statements constitute a PA or they do not, and I would like an answer to that question. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Try reading WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:WIAPA. ANI is not a place for test cases (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you want done here Gaijin? A declaratory judgment? Shadowjams (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm looking over that discussion and while it seems reminiscent of many similar contentious wiki arguments, I don't think there's anything (from what I saw) rising to the level of a personal attack that would require any action at ANI (unless you've got incredibly delicate sensibilities). Shadowjams (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats essentially what I am looking for. The accusations were interfering with content dispute resolution, and I wanted to be able to formally put them aside. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If someone called me a holocaust denier in real life, I would likely punch them in the nose. But since this is Wikipedia, I guess it's OK? Incivility isn't about using bad words, it's about casual slander like this. I don't know, or care, about any other portion of this dispute, but since you claim to be looking for outside feedback, Gaijin42, I'll say that calling someone a holocaust denier is a dick move, on many levels. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  Gaijin needs to temper his language (if you read that exchange though it's clearly more a poor choice of words than an accusation; you characterizing it as "call[ing] me a holocaust denier" is unfair at best). But if you regard those as fighting words you need to think about some anger management techniques. Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gaijin, at the risk of repeating myself, if you want the best feedback from others, it is important to furnish a complete set of facts and circumstances to those on whom you're relying for review and advice. Your brief, excerpted phrases and omission of the additional 3RR incident above do not give readers a full set of information on which to comment. The choice is yours, but I suggest you add diffs and links to excerpts with enough context to be most useful to those who may comment here. You may also wish to consider WP's established editor review process. To determine whether this is of interest to you, there is information at WP:ER. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

nazism sidebar disruption

user:DIREKTOR instead of disussing threatened me on the nazism sidebar talkpage that he is going to "request admin action" and he keeps edit warring by introducing new changes without consensus, i have also notified him Peterzor (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a discussion on that talkpage that has not yet formed wP:CONSENSUS to change it yet, and may not based on policy ... yet I see you making changes as if such consensus exists. What would you like us to do...block you? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

no, what do you mean? he is making the NEW CHANGES and claims am against consensus, you can block user:direktor or atleast warn him or something... something must be done because when he comes back to wikipedia i feel he would start with the wild accusations and successfully convince the admins here, so why should i recieve a punisment because he keeps edit warring, please note that i did not want this to go to ani i was forced because he was threatening me Peterzor (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Any editor has the same authority to issue a valid warning to any other editor (note the word warning, not threat). I have reviewed a handful of recent edits to the talkpage, and I've made a pretty clear statement as to your way forward. Indeed, WP:BRD applies to both of you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read anything i wrote here? in about some hours he probably will make a new thread here and will claim that i "was edit warring, "vandalism" etc, and you still did not answer my question why should i be punished by the same group adminastrators just becuase he did not agree with me (take in account everything i wrote here) Peterzor (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has punished you for anything - and I can't see how anyone can take any action regarding something that hasn't happened yet, and which only you seem to think is about to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do something about vandalism-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.

---

I undid a couple of edits by Placejuror and put a warning notice on their page (not the first) about non-constructive edits and they reverted one of the edits leaving a juvenile message on my talk page. I note that they've been up to other tricks today as their talk page shows. Intervention by an admin might be useful. asnac (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please take matters like this to WP:AIV. m.o.p 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Motors streetcar conspiracy

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

---

At the new Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Motors streetcar conspiracy there have been several requests for a Speedy Keep. How do we request an impartial Administrator to quickly review and close this matter? Trackinfo (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:HARASSment by user User:GDallimore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GDallimore#Possible_WP:HARASS_Violation

He also followed my edits around reverting them for being "factually incorrect" when in fact they were nothing of the sort.

After receiving a WP:HARASS warning for this, this user continues to send harassing and badgering messages to me, in retaliation for filing this complaint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=553067989&oldid=553025994 Damonthesis (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting obnoxious messages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=prev&oldid=553067989

After deleting that comment. this user has posted, again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=prev&oldid=553070258

This user has repeatedly reverted my good faith edits, which have added proper sources and corrected previously existing material, completely removing entire sections which existed before I edited them, because of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Directed-energy_weapon&diff=553069948&oldid=552982142

Damonthesis (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User warned. I'm leaving this topic open in case GDallimore would like to comment. m.o.p 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that warning was particularly appropriate. Damonthesis is the most disruptive editor I've encountered for quite some time, and it would be nice for administrators to be supportive of editors who have to deal with things like this rather than making things difficult for us. Fortunately he is now blocked for a week (see section above), but even so the blocking admin felt it necessary to give a chiding to editors who have been struggling to protect our articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's dealing with things appropriately and inappropriately. Harassing another editor isn't acceptable in any situation. m.o.p 22:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting his inappropriate edits across wikipedia is NOT harrassment but necessary cleanup. Making a single post on his talk page, posting a link to a relevant guideline is NOT harrasment, even if I did so in an ironically humorous way the first time shortly after he suggested I get a sense of humour over being called a commie spy. A clearly disruptive editor who has been accusing me of harrassment and censorship since I first reverted him in a measured and considered way (and I wasn't the first person either) does not get to have his own way for even an inch by making idle allegations and threats just because I was willing to stick my neck out to stop him at every turn. GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but this thread above deals with Damonthesis's conduct. Also, Damonthesis is currently blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tedland

Carol M. Highsmith eminently merits an article; but as has been pointed out on that article's talk page, the article she's got has been promotional and undersourced. SPA Tedland (contributions) has been adding material, some good, some so-so; some sourced well, some not. Nothing much out of the ordinary so far, but he's been repeatedly removing the odd "citation needed" flag, with no explanation. (To his credit, most of these flags he either leaves alone or replaces with sources.) He doesn't show any sign of having read any of the commentary on and requests for his edits. At this point, I think I'd be justified in addressing him rather more forcefully, but I hold back for two reasons. First, having attempted to ameliorate the article, I might be seen as an "involved" editor. (I'd deny this, but I want to keep this message short.) Secondly, I'm not even certain that he's noticing the existence of the messages directed to him. (The old "You have new messages" thingie was so easy to notice and understand.....) He certainly hasn't done anything calling for a block, but I'd appreciate comments to him by some admin who can't possibly be called "involved". -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll suggest sending it to WP:COIN where they are used to dealing with stuff much worse than this. I'd also like to ask Hoary to let somebody else handle it: you seem to be getting frustrated with a newby and be on the point of biting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copied this to WP:COIN as suggested, and added a short comment there. (Incidentally, I'm semipermanently on the point of biting, but I generally resist the urge.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Zmichas 140.247.0.11

The edits [65] [66] [67] [68] by Zmichas (talk · contribs) & 140.247.0.11 (talk · contribs) could be WP:Copyvio and have just exceeded 3RR. As Zmichas doesn't respond requests to talk, I ask here to have an eye on that, because I'll soon be logging off for today... --Trofobi (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones and User:MarnetteD and User:Glacialfox

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 first user has reverted me twice for something I haven't done, dismissing my contributions are "unimportant." I moved parts of the article to other parts, that's all I did. Anyone can see that if they check. However, this user cannot even when I have explained that I added nothing new. The user has then simply reverted my attempt to engage with them. Now someone else has come along and done the same. Apparently my contributions are not "clean." I'm quite tired of this approach when dealing with IP editors. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The second user has dismissed my attempt to engage with them as "trolling" which is ridiculous. Is no one around here capable of thinking for one moment that they might be wrong? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A third user has now deleted my attempt to engage with others here because they said it "didn't appear constructive to me" which is absurd. Is this the way all editors are treated? I trust these editors will be dealt with appropriately. I do not have all night to be wasting here. Luckily all this is available in the page's history. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I would kind of like to know what's going on. This is how we'd treat a vandal or a troll; this editor doesn't appear to be either. Glacialfox is, I assume, just Huggling too fast, but I'd like to hear from Gareth and MarnetteD (all three of whom I've notified, 86.40, which you should really do yourself when reporting people here). Is there a history here that isn't readily apparent? If not, I'd be very annoyed if someone did this to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting that my every attempt to engage with them (including this section) has been deleted. You hardly expected me to try again. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well nobody's going to do anything if they don't even know they've been reported here, and if you don't do it, then I have to. Gareth has already deleted my note, but now I know he knows he's being discussed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)In regards to your first two complaints - you may have better luck if you don't throw templates at other editors. If you feel you haven't received an adequate explanation as to why your edits were undone, feel free to ask the users on their talk page in a calm, reasonable manner. Giving them a template does not inspire cooperation. That being said, I can't see any reason for said reversions.

As for Glacialfox, I'm assuming that was just a product of over-zealous reversion. I doubt there's any malicious intent there. m.o.p 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what templates are for? I gave them one each, no more. Then I came here. Imagine if I'd spent hours carefully writing something to all of them. They'd have deleted that too because apparently I'm a troll and a vandal and so on. I despair. I was going to write a few stubs for some much-needed novels in this time but I can't be bothered now. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I apologize, I remember reverting that page because someone edited some other stuff into one of the things but I don't remember editing that, I'm still getting used to Huggle after using Igloo for some long and I'll be more careful. Glacialfox (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam. See? The first user just deleted again. The manners of these people. It would put anyone right off editing. I hope this isn't happening regularly but I fear it does. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

An IP editing my Wikipedia? Are you even human? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I have a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making me capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. Something many others around here appear to be without. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I only have a small brain. But I'd really like to know how Glacialfox can be allowed with impunity to revert a post by another user on this page. I have no idea whether 86.40 is a new user or an old one editing anonymously. But in the former case, the behaviour of the other editors involved is frankly despicable. We are supposed to welcome new editors, not eviscerate them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He can't do it with "impunity". It was a mistake due to Huggling too fast, he apologized for it above, and said he would slow down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Huggle? And no, the apology referred to "that page", not this page. I'm concerned that a new editor might have been mistreated here. I think you are too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. Huggle. The "vandalism reversion tool." Well I don't think anyone used the word but the fact that I've been Huggled indicates that I am/was regarded as a "vandal" as well as a "troll" and "unclean." These are evidently dangerous things when in the wrong hands. Oh, and it says, "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked from editing." Does anyone ever apply that or is it just a waste of space to have that notice at the top of the page? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the only page Glacialfox reverted 86.40 on. The wording of the apology is a little confused, but he's talking about this page. And yes, I'm concerned about the same thing. I'm more concerned about the article reverts, though, which were not due to using Huggle too fast, and which have resulted not in apologies, but in reverts of talk page notices, and silence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Silence? Most of us do not edit 24 hours a day. I only got back here an hour ago and it is midnight where Gareth lives. Also, I only just found this as the change away from our orange message bar caught me unawares and I had not looked at my talk page. I too apologize to the IP and will slow down. After a morning of dealing with the return of an IP of one of our longest term problem editors (Pé de Chinelo) I found an IP who was editing warring without any discussion (WP:BRD) on the talk page after their edits were reverted. Then templating the regulars occurred in place of any explanation as to what was going on. Nobody eviscerated anyone and WP:AGF is a two way street and it has not been any better applied to the editors named here than it was to the IP and, again, I apologize for adding to that. As much as people disliked the Wikiquette noticeboard this is a prime example of something that could have been handled easily there as this is hardly an ANI matter. MarnetteD | Talk 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Templating the regulars"? Coming to the wrong venue? These are somehow more offensive than being constantly reverted and considered unclean and a troll? I explained in the edit summaries that there had been some sort of mistake yet no one listened. But really? I offended because I came to the wrong place and I upset the "regulars"? That's what I get? This is what I must listen to? Who are these regulars? How does someone become a "regular"? How do you know I'm not a "regular"? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not say that you had come to the wrong venue. In fact because WQA was closed this was the only venue to come to. However you have yet to WP:AGF. There is, of course, no criteria for becoming a member but I can say that not treating Wikipedia as a battleground is a good place to start. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what you implied. And that last sentence too is absurd and insulting. I was quite happily editing, small things but nonetheless editing, oblivious to any battleground and not wanting to be in one. If you feel it is some sort of battleground then maybe you should be more careful and no one would have any reason to "battle" - my actions certainly are not indicative of a search for a battle. If I wanted a battle wouldn't I just vandalize all before me or call others some of the insulting names I have been called? Yet I have tried to remain calm as all around me descends into nonsense. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, I said "mistreated here" when what I meant was simply "mistreated". I didn't mean to imply that the mistreatment was on this page, but in this wiki in general. If, and I repeat if, 86.40 is a new user, then the reception he/she has received here (in Wikipedia) is instructive to say the least. "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that only established registered users can edit"; is that the message? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered another questionable revert and another insult to my time, effort and intelligence. The revert undid an edit of mine that removed some white space at the top and changed a name from this to this to reflect a move. Do I have to go through all my edits in very minute detail to see if they remain intact? Or is there any point at all since I'm so "unclean" and they've in all likelihood been eviscerated, to borrow the word from above... --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As to this last post please read the following notice that comes up whenever you edit "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." I have had 1000s of edits changed or even deleted entirely over the years. Not every edit that you make here is going to remain and getting used to that will make things easier in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 23:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. You simply don't get it. You cannot have read the above. You are comparing your revert of my harmless piffling little edit that actually improved it, never mind making no difference at all to it, never mind vandalized it into oblivion, to something else entirely. Your last sentence just sums up how ludicrous this situation is. You are basically telling me to get used to it. To get used to being reverted or to be called a troll or unclean or other humiliating names. To get used to then being censored when I object to this - as I was basically censored, right up to and including this section. Well, quite frankly, I don't think I will be getting used to it. Because I won't be contributing any further if this is the sort of atmosphere that prevails around here. And won't be encouraging anyone else to do so in future either. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit [69] simply removed blank spaces. It is considered a null edit and does not improve or damage the article. As to changing the qualifier in the authors article name that is discouraged by Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not .22fix.22 links to redirects that are not broken. Again it did not damage or improve the article. I have seen these kinds of edits performed in an attempt to get autocomfirmed. I now know that is not what you were trying to do but I didn't at the time. So, one last time, my apologies to you for not assuming AGF properly. If you cannot accept this that is fine, but, I will no longer be responding to further unfounded accusations of censorship and the like. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You thought an IP was trying to get autoconfirmed? It doesn't seem likely that that's what you thought. Is it even possible for an IP to be autoconfirmed? The definition seems to require an account. You and everyone else who was blindly reverting this IP editor really ought to try editing as an IP yourselves for a few days. It's really instructive to see how abominably one gets treated by the "regulars." — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If the user were to look at what happened they would see I was indeed subjected to apparent censorship several times, though perhaps not by them and perhaps not even actual censorship, but nonetheless something amiss was apparent to me at that time when it was very difficult to get through to anyone - this section was even deleted at one point(!) As for the "null edit" I'm baffled that the user considers the change from this to this, which occurred alongside the blank space, to be one of those. I am further baffled at why they would explicitly announce in their edit summary that they were reverting it, and reverting it to what they regarded as the "last clean version." It shows a further disregard for my contributions. The "attempt to get autocomfirmed" is further nonsense (what would I be doing moving pages and the like?) but this has been addressed by the above (much kinder and more understanding) editor. --86.40.205.105 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think Marnette is guilty of nothing more than a few sloppy edits. Marnette tackles a lot of destructive sock editing which is perpretrated by IP editors, and as such probably just saw a "regular" editor revert you and backed him up. I don't know why Gareth objected to your edits, but you didn't really try that hard to find out. I think you should start a discussion on the talk page to try and resolve the problem. I am sometimes on the receiving end of hasyt reverts being a "red link" so I can appreciate it's not pleasant when it occurs, but most editors usually respond positively when a sound explanation is brought forward. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. MarnetteD deals with a whole lot of vandals that simply churn through IPs. As a human being, MarnetteD is bound to make a mistake here and there. He apologized, as did others. Let's not turn this into a "how poorly IP editors are treated in general" thing any longer. Doc talk 03:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, "simply churn through IPs"? Why does this sound so ungrateful and degrading? As if IPs are subhuman? And these mistakes "here and there" - are you saying this is not the only time this is likely to have happened? --86.40.205.105 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just showing your true colors. Read that as you will.... Doc talk 05:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that often they are. And on that note I'll close this, with my apologies to IP86. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've undid that attempt to shut down the discussion because the closer tells me on my talk page that I am making "weird effects" which I am certainly not doing on purpose. They have undone some edits as well. [70] [71] --86.40.205.105 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is it that you are seeking? Blocks or other sanctions against the editors you are complaining about? Unlikely to happen. Open a discussion regarding the plight of IP editors elsewhere. Doc talk 05:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the users have apologised for their sloppiness, what else is there? A shoulder to cry on? a pat on the back? a sympathetic ear? This has gone beyond an incident into unproductiveness (if that is even a word). Discussion beyond what is required of admins is not conducted here. Take it to the user's talk page if you seek some sort of ritual abasement. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive i.p. on Mariano Rajoy and Spanish political party articles

For a good two months now a user with a dynamic i.p. has been adding this text to the article on Spain's prime minister, accusing him of Nazism, even though none of the sources which they tag on to their piece say this. This is a blatant violation of our WP:BLP policy. I raised the issue previously at WP:BLP noticeboard and the result was the article being semi-protected for one month. The i.p. has simply switched to adding the text to the article's talkpage, in contravention of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Worse they now seem to be branching out, making fairly unconstructive edits to other articles, mass adding the advertisement template to numerous Spanish political party articles, even when it clearly does not seem appropriate. For example the article on the People's Party contains this section on the controversy over illegal use of party funds, hardly something you'd find in an advertisement. Likewise I don't see any promotional text in others like Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Even when other users revert them, they simply edit war and add the text back. The text was originally added by User:Arpabone who may or may not be connected to later accounts such as Jimbomedia and various i.p.s including but not limited to 83.165.157.251, 87.223.42.72, 87.223.77.55 and 85.91.82.65. As this touches on numerous issues, such as WP:BLP, edit warring and sockpuppetry, I thought it better to ask about this here. Valenciano (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Lemon

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.

---

Lemon has been modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.155 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else as baffled as I was, I have figured out that the IP is simply alerting us that he/she reverted vandalism on the Lemon article. To the IP, many thanks for your help. Manning (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Repeated disruption by 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.

---

User talk:99.129.112.89 has repeatedly removed maintenance tagging for the IP that they are using which is covered under WP:BLANKING. By several user's including admin. I have myself added the maintenance template warning and am currently using a 3rr exemption to revert the continued Disruption/Vandalism issue. I would like to raise the issue of this and a history of NPA, AGF and failure to understand wiki policy on top of this, however the most serious at this time is the removal of encyclopedia maintenance templates. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That template is meaningless, and the only reason you're edit warring about it is to "win" against a perceived enemy. Leave it alone, and the encyclopedia will not be any worse off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great, I see the IP editor is blocked because they're removing a useless template from their talk page. How utterly fucking typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[EC] I blocked the IP for a short time (31 hours). As Floquenbeam notes, this is a pointless dispute. However, not only has the anon persisted in games on the user talk page, but their edits at User talk:Callanecc indicate an intention to disrupt and hint that this is a registered user editing anonymously. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: That's a false interpretation. Floquenbeam, thanks! The block should be removed. I am not being disruptive, people are just mad I remove there petty messages on my page then seek revenge. It's immature! I have ignored them and continued to be productive, but one can only take so much! Why can't they move on and leave me alone? They are clearly the ones needing warnings and blocks... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is funny, WP:BLANKING says "Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." So who is going to block HIAB for violating 3RR on that IP talk page, Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, I don't really care about the other stuff. I would ask though if it's meaningless why is it covered under WP:BLANKING? Specifically "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." Now I'm only asking this because of a striking similarity with [[72]] regarding Ip warnings/blocks and [[73]] here noting that there is an account if this isn't you editing yourself or someone you may be connected to? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Darkness Shine, shit yeah I didn't see that. If I have to take some licks for that one it would indeed be my fault. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem, people not paying attention and just bullying IPs and editors who are only trying to improve articles and mind their own business. I knew you were the one who was guilty, not me. You couldn't just leave it alone. Just keep pestring me and pestering me. This is why users run off and vandalize in the first place. I've maintained my peace throughout! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[EC] Floquenbeam removed the block I placed. I have no interest in continuing the wheel-war over this. However, I wish to point out these diffs indicating that the IP is a registered user who is deliberately editing logged out, and that their intent is disruption: [74] [75] [76] --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to do a good job as an editor but I keep getting resistance from stubborn editors (such as HIAB). I want them to leave me alone which is why I don't participate in their drama. Most of them are "quoting rules" that don't apply or matter while violating guidelines themselves. I'm being judged as an IP who has been on Wikipedia as different IPs/accounts over the years (started editing in 2007) since I travel and move, etc. That is not sock puppetry as I was accused of. I also wanted [him/them] to think I was using another account (or created one) in an effort to keep them from Wikihounding me anymore. This was yet another waste of all of our time! P.S. HIAB, I hope you and your camp move on and leave me alone so we can do what is the interest of Wikipedia! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Lemon

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.

---

Lemon has been modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.155 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else as baffled as I was, I have figured out that the IP is simply alerting us that he/she reverted vandalism on the Lemon article. To the IP, many thanks for your help. Manning (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Repeated disruption by 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.

---

User talk:99.129.112.89 has repeatedly removed maintenance tagging for the IP that they are using which is covered under WP:BLANKING. By several user's including admin. I have myself added the maintenance template warning and am currently using a 3rr exemption to revert the continued Disruption/Vandalism issue. I would like to raise the issue of this and a history of NPA, AGF and failure to understand wiki policy on top of this, however the most serious at this time is the removal of encyclopedia maintenance templates. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That template is meaningless, and the only reason you're edit warring about it is to "win" against a perceived enemy. Leave it alone, and the encyclopedia will not be any worse off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, great, I see the IP editor is blocked because they're removing a useless template from their talk page. How utterly fucking typical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[EC] I blocked the IP for a short time (31 hours). As Floquenbeam notes, this is a pointless dispute. However, not only has the anon persisted in games on the user talk page, but their edits at User talk:Callanecc indicate an intention to disrupt and hint that this is a registered user editing anonymously. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict: That's a false interpretation. Floquenbeam, thanks! The block should be removed. I am not being disruptive, people are just mad I remove there petty messages on my page then seek revenge. It's immature! I have ignored them and continued to be productive, but one can only take so much! Why can't they move on and leave me alone? They are clearly the ones needing warnings and blocks... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is funny, WP:BLANKING says "Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule." So who is going to block HIAB for violating 3RR on that IP talk page, Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, I don't really care about the other stuff. I would ask though if it's meaningless why is it covered under WP:BLANKING? Specifically "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." Now I'm only asking this because of a striking similarity with [[77]] regarding Ip warnings/blocks and [[78]] here noting that there is an account if this isn't you editing yourself or someone you may be connected to? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@Darkness Shine, shit yeah I didn't see that. If I have to take some licks for that one it would indeed be my fault. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem, people not paying attention and just bullying IPs and editors who are only trying to improve articles and mind their own business. I knew you were the one who was guilty, not me. You couldn't just leave it alone. Just keep pestring me and pestering me. This is why users run off and vandalize in the first place. I've maintained my peace throughout! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[EC] Floquenbeam removed the block I placed. I have no interest in continuing the wheel-war over this. However, I wish to point out these diffs indicating that the IP is a registered user who is deliberately editing logged out, and that their intent is disruption: [79] [80] [81] --Orlady (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to do a good job as an editor but I keep getting resistance from stubborn editors (such as HIAB). I want them to leave me alone which is why I don't participate in their drama. Most of them are "quoting rules" that don't apply or matter while violating guidelines themselves. I'm being judged as an IP who has been on Wikipedia as different IPs/accounts over the years (started editing in 2007) since I travel and move, etc. That is not sock puppetry as I was accused of. I also wanted [him/them] to think I was using another account (or created one) in an effort to keep them from Wikihounding me anymore. This was yet another waste of all of our time! P.S. HIAB, I hope you and your camp move on and leave me alone so we can do what is the interest of Wikipedia! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Soda drinker

Alright, let's assume for a moment that what this user is doing is perfectly alright and not against policy in any way. Let's assume that I'm lacking a sense of humor today. Still, I think this deserves some discussion because I'm not sure how else to proceed. Soda drinker has been making some rather questionable edits as of late, including, but not limited to: inserting jokes into pages (and yes, while this particular page itself is a joke, I'm not entirely sure whether or not it includes adding material that looks like it comes from Jimbo), inserting malicious links, reverting an edit to the sandbox then warning that same user for adding 'obscenities' (which we may remove, but shouldn't warn for since Wikipedia is not censored, especially in the sandbox and when not used as a personal attack), making unnecessary edits, spamming the sandbox (I know the sandbox is there for a number of reasons, but I'm fairly sure this isn't one of them), unnecessarily warning another user, [82], [83], another completely unnecessary "warning", and creating pages to 'mock vandals'. While I don't believe a block is necessary, I'm not sure if this is a case where the user doesn't seem to understand policy or just blatantly ignores it. Or maybe I just lack a sense of humor today. Admittedly, my involvement may have been a little over the top, but instead of continuing down that path, I figured it would be better to come here. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

At 01:43, this user was warned This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:127.0.0.1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This warning seems entirely justified in the circumstances. So, the next time the user disrupts Wikipedia, the user is blocked. All very simple. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He's my friend, actually. I have been screwing around with the sandbox majorly with him and I haven't received any warnings for it. Odd... Alex2564 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

His activity is not limited to the sandbox, though. Ansh666 04:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the posting on Stinson ely, his userpage was an advertisement. That is why he was warned.

Regarding spamming the sandbox, that was to test image loading times.

Regarding "admins" kiz and stjohn, username policy...

Your sense of humor is severely lacking, and in addition, you check every one of my edits, to see if I have broken some minor rule. wp:bite. wp:agf. Soda Drinker (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Guilty. I do look at some your edits. I look at others' edits too, and I'm sure you've looked at my edits since the chances of you making this edit just moments after I did are extraordinarily slim. However, WP:BITE does not apply to you since you are not a newcomer and should be aware of policy by now. I made sure to assume good faith, but as I mentioned above, it's not possible to AGF on some of your edits, particularly this one, even if it was in your own userspace. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Guilty of that edit; however I was unaware it would link. That website is actually harmless. Read Code Red (computer worm); that is why I put it there. Regarding being a newcomer or not, I have been a member for a while, but I have not used my account much until recently. Soda Drinker(talk) 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin impersonation: 198.228.228.36

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.

---

198.228.228.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be someone impersonating an administrator. They're going around posting user block templates and marking unblock requests as reviewed. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, had to go AFK for a few minutes and wasn't able to notify the user right away. Thanks to User:Ansh666 for taking care of that for me. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

IP refuses to adhere to consensus at Superpower

The IP refuses to acknowledge the consensus and continues to repeatedly restore content that was agreed upon to delete. How can we enforce the decisions of the consensus without the current edit warring? The IP has a battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus to reason with him have gone nowhere. Indeed it is impossible for the discussion to go anywhere as long as the IP refuses to acknowledge consensus. The IP address also jumps (albeit slightly) so a talk-page discussion or placing warning templates wont suffice. I requested semi page protection for a temporary period to prevent the IP restoring unsupported content and possibly (as a result of the PP) forcing the IP to create an account so any discussion could proceed more amicably and warning templates could be placed at the users talk page if he continued his disruptive behavioral pattern. However, PP was declined. Please refer to the consensus here.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for now, but this still needs attention. Any takers? (I was expecting to get to the article on Superpower (ability), else I wouldn't have followed that link at all. ;)).
Antiochus, you will want to read our policy on edit warring in the meantime: WP:EW.
Amalthea 22:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ip user "Antiochus the Great|" has been abusing the superpowers article by inserting information referring on consensus on potential superpowers and claiming he can change the content under superpowers but there is no consensus prior to the unconstructive edits by Antiochus the Great. Antiochus the Great has been on consistent war edits to say there is consensus but there is no consensus on that discussion on superpowers by saying this[84] as prior there has been no open discussion anything on the superpowers talks page since March 13, 2013 copy of history here of showing no consensus [85] and here showing that user talk keeps throwing out this section completely[86], leaving not one word or source from the original context of the proir discussion of this article. Antiochus the Great is blaming me for saying I am refusing to acknowledge consensus and blaming I am continuing to repeat restore content. First there is no consensus, none under Superpowers and second restoring when Ip user Antiochus the Great reverting back his content saying this was discussed but there is no discussion of it under Superpowers. Why didn't Ip user Antiochus the Great start a discussion under Superpowers talk? But to say there is consensus when there is clearly nothing to defend that claim. Third, to say "battleground mentality and initial efforts made my me and other editors involved in the consensus" again where. And to bring up something I was never involved in such as consensus here, I never opened any discussion there nor do I plan to. So there's no claim there.

Personally I am clued and I think Ip user talk is trying to make rules above law when making a consensus and forcing the content without prior knowledge (such as not using the same talk pages from the original articles you wish to change or etc). That's like an example if I could go over "US Marines talks page" for example and had a discussion about the "US Army" and consensus about them under the "Marine's[87] talk's page" instead then a 4 days later I came over and changed everything on the "US Army article"[88] claiming people were talking about it under the "US Marines talks page. That is precisely what is going on here but more so Ip user Antiochus the Great is not clear on his consensus and the content in question is not specifically stating the content is going to be written or consensus on to look like. He has provided no copy & paste history of discussions facts and I think that is really asserting the rules over rules here. I think it is forceful and disruptive to the editors to say nothing to the article editors of the very article you want to change; he hasn't done that where it needs to be said & done. I disagree with that and personally feel their is an nationality discrimination on color and authority by talk on his remarks made on Russian culture but I am not going to start anything on that nature. The article needs peaceful consensus without disruptive edits from talk and should be on superpowers article if there consensus of updating, it should be done in the very place of the article lays, is it's talk's page not another article talk page. Please maybe set a rule over this article to set that Ip user Antiochus the Great to calm down and work this out. He is really taking this matter over the edge and that is not the way the article should be handled.--180.92.187.207 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is now ridiculous. This is nothing short of trolling by the anon. IP editor. How difficult is it for other Wikipedia editors and indeed admins to see what's going on here? Please read through the relevant sections at Talk:Superpower and Talk:Potential superpower.

The editing of superpower and potential superpower articles go hand-in-hand. Consensus was reached by several editors after a lengthy discussion and analysis of references on the Talk:potential superpower page. It is a particularly academic subject and it seems some are getting confused about the terminology re: super v. great v. emerging powers. And there's also the usual nationalist POV pushing.

The argument put forward by the anon. IP editor is just silly. The changes made to the potential superpower page have to be reflected on the superpower page. Otherwise the superpower page will not reflect the consensus reached (which was actually a huge step forward, including the expansion of other pages on Wikipedia). I find it quite outrageous that the page has been protected with the version supported by a clearly trolling IP editor, rather than that supported by several long-standing editors. David (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance from an Administrator would be welcomed at this stage.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to assist us? We're clearly up against someone (and it really is just "one" - multiple IPs and even a few new accounts) who just wants an edit war and will not back down. David (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is going to help you here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I an IP, or several IP's? Or a new account? I have objected to your removal of Russia on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my removal of Russia - in fact, if you bothered to read through the discussions on Talk:Potential superpowers you'd see that I was ambivalent towards Russia's place in the article and would probably have cautiously left it in if it were purely left to me - however there was a consensus (a total consensus against Brazil, and a near-total consensus regarding Russia) and that's what is being reflected in the articles. Or rather it would be if it weren't for one, maybe two, editors (with a bit of sock-puppetry going on) and the superpower page being protected... but the old version protected, which actually results in a material conflict in the Wikipedia articles between the superpower and potential superpower articles (with only the latter reflecting the consensus view on Brazil, Russia and so on). Though it seems no one actually cares about this pretty serious disparency. David (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How obvious does sock puppetry have to be? David (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've full-protected Potential superpowers for the same period as Superpower was already full-protected, so that the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I will add my two cents here. First the problem began with ip user Antiochus the Great who apparently went on this quest to try to remove Russia superpowers on a very short period of less than 4 days notice on another article discussion. This ip user Antiochus the Great never brough up a single consensus discussion on the talk pages of Superpowers talk, not one word. Then he goes saying, there's consensus over in potantial superpowers saying we had a consensus there by leaving everybody in the dark over on the Superpowers article. He starts an edit war immidiately, changing the content on his context only that's his only and nobody elses, even consensus with nobody knowing the context is going to be written or how it will be said, then people revert back and he reverts back again, again and again. Turns out the consensus under potential superpowers never did consensus on the superpowers, second Ip user Antiochus the Great closes the discussion with no noticed, says it was discussed we're done. This is what we are going to do secretly. No notice, no given discussion, no replies either. He changes the content himself and pretends he is in control of this article and only him. You want to bring a source on board, he erases it like no tomorrow again and again doesn't matter if it's an acadamic source, he'll delete anything on Russia; showing a form a hate in my view because what would anybody call this kind of behavior. Talk about corruption considering Ip user Antiochus the Great has only used the Superpowers article for only a week with nothing on the talkpages, he wants to change everything with no notice, out comes Russia, just like that. Again Ip user Antiochus the Great is making these statements and then he goes filing disputes saying there was consensus, there was consensus, that was discussed, again and again but it wasn't. The problem is Antiochus the Great he is making the problems here on the superpowers and also it appears he is doing the same thing with potential superpowers too. When was the last time both of these articles was closed for disputes? A long time ago, it all started with Ip user Antiochus the Great and I agree with Darkness Shines that the article was objected on discussion and was objected without any consensus. I think there should be a block on Ip user Antiochus the Great, he is causing more trouble for these articles and is creating war campaign with the editors. Everybody is wrong, he is right, that's not how this matter works. I also will add the other Ip user is David has also stirred problems working as a tag team with Antiochus the Great as if the both are the same ip's with different user names. Both have deleted acedamic resources in a heart beat, not even taking the time to read the information, just look at the history, you see an article put in, 2 minutes later is removed, it is like they are set in there own ways to reject everything. You bring the source to the talkpage, these two Ip users Antiochus the Great and David act as wonder twins hurting the article and the editors were created them in the past. To eliminate Russia and it's acedamic sources without consensus, trust me there was no consensus as much as Antiochus the Great says no, it's simply not true with his opening of his dispute in this page and the censensus discussions are not entirely true what he is saying here is not what it says on the talkpages. I feel these articles should be closed for a while and let the air breathe. The fustrations of Ip user Antiochus the Great has made a mess of the article as it looks horrible what he has wrote in there that I wouldn't want a 5th grader to reading them as it is simply not true what he put in there and I defend my edits on what I have tried to bring to this this matter was rejected with not a wind in the sky. So I disgree with Antiochus the Great and David that we should to keep articles closed. They are bullying the talkpages and articles, that is completely unfair to everybody. Please extend the suspension on the articles longer until a length of time passed to see we if we can beta test the waters or continue to close. --103.22.129.165 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Silent Bob

Check out Cliff1911's talk page. I feel like I'm having a conversation with a wall. Is it a bot? If anyone thinks its worthwhile to try to get through to this fellow, be my guest. There are worse sins than what this guy is doing, so maybe he should just be let alone? Dunno, offered for your consideration. Herostratus (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the not listening/interacting than I am about the linking. In theory, a block would stop the activity - and perhaps force some sort of discussion about it. But that's going way too far for something this minor. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Cliff1911 has just over 20,000 edits (almost all to the mainspace). Based on my very rough count, I think there are approximately 200 links that Cliff1911 has made to disambiguation pages. That's a rate of one error for every 100 edits. The fact that the disambiguation link issue overwhelms the talk page partly indicates that most of the other edits this user makes are just fine. As the errors don't appear to be deliberate, I'm inclined to say that the benefits of letting this editor continue working under an apparent vow of silence outweighs the costs. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Universally productive edits, accompanied by a 1% rate of generating minor inconveniences that can be trivially resolved. In exchange, he's had at least two direct threats to block him (one for not using edit summaries, and one for linking to dabs, something I've had a good few notifications of myself while performing content work) and an ANI thread with a disparaging title? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but jeez. We're supposed to be a little bit responsive here. I'm not asking for him to be blocked or anything, but maybe somebody else can talk to him in a way gets through. I sure can't. Are there no arrows in yall's quivers besides "ignore" and "block". I mean after all, ya have to infer that he's either taken the position "I don't read my talk page" (he may not know that he has one) or "I have really no interest in learning or bothering with even very simple techniques to avoid glaring errors, at least as regarding links to dab pages" or "I like making links to disambiguation pages and will continue to do so, so stuff it". It's got to be one of these, and none of these are too good really, and kind of annoying actually. AFAIK links to dab pages can't be trivially resolved by a bot or something, each has to be discovered and fixed by hand; its true that they are are only a minor inconvenience, though. (PS the title is not disparaging, it's sporty and actually bemusedly affectionate, and Silent Bob is a popular figure. And I didn't threaten to block him (couldn't if I wanted to, which I don't), I warned that he might be blocked in future, which is possibly true (you never know).) Herostratus (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, when someone is totally noncommunicative, there really aren't any arrows other than "ignore" and "block". Every form of dispute resolution on wikipedia requires everyone involved to communicate. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well he's noncommunicative to me. But maybe an actual admin could give him a nudge or something. Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:99.129.112.89

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.

---

Insists on keeping a hit list of users, with "knock it the fuck off, this is a talk page violation!!!!!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He says it is not a hitlist and that he is working on something regarding users who have stalked/harassed him. Which policy is he violating? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:UP Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not advocating a block here, and wish everyone involved would grow up and learn to let things roll off their back, but just to be clear: I would not consider a block for this to be wheel warring (since the IP was blocked by Orlady and unblocked by me already today). I'm playing Pontius Pilate here; I don't care what anyone does anymore. So if you don't block because this whole thing is dumb, I salute you. If you don't block because you're worried about being accused of wheel warring, don't worry (at least as far as I'm concerned). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, that seems... "wise", but if hit lists are merely "dumb", are we now allowed to have them? That's fine with me, then I'll make one myself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Spoken like a MMORPG player. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Which part of WP:UP? I see nothing there about what another user may consider a hitlist, I do see this WP:NOBAN Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. So what's the decision here now? Are these allowed or not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly in a situation like this the sharpest dagger you can pull out is to go to an article that needs help and add some great content to it... Zad68 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That might all be true, but in the past I've seen people blocked for keeping stuff like this. If there has been or is now a change in policy or behavioral guidelines, I'd like to know about it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(uninvolved; actually, I shouldn't even be here but whatever!) TRPoD tried to remove it twice again and the IP was obviously pissed off...also, IP removed the AN/I notice because "user did not sign". I'll add the shared IP notice back on top of the message and the AN/I notice back on the bottom and see what happens. Ansh666 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I remove the shared IP message as it is obviously pissing off the IP. Why on earth did you replace it? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured someone else might be using that IP in the future...is it static? (I'm not tech-savvy enough to know these things) Ansh666 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As a user listed on this list, I would simply like to know what exactly it exists for. If it's not definitively against policy, it certainly is rude to have that sort of list of users you dislike. TCN7JM 21:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It is static, but even they change. My point is that template is making the IP very very angry, so why keep adding it? As Flo said, this is all very silly. I'm going to bed.

Yeah, sorry about that, not thinking straight. Good night! Ansh666 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I really only find those IP tags useful when they identify specific groups such as school, so admins know to use a {{schoolblock}}; or when there's an obviously dynamic IP to help future users of the IP understand that messages posted may be leftover from prior users of the IP. Otherwise, especially for dynamic IPs, it just usually irritates them and can simply be left off. In the end, info about the IP is just a click away anyways by clicking one of the links in the IP user info box at the bottom of their contributions page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Be patient, everyone needs to slow down and wait to see what I was doing! What's a "hit list"? I've just now been able to get here and post this. I still need to read all this nonsense. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, your talk page is there for others to give you messages, not for you to give messages to others. Ansh666 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tell this user to give us all talk page messages. He'll more than gladly do so. This is the user that went to every baseball season talk page to comment that he wasn't going to contribute. TCN7JM 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Whoops. This is why I don't belong on AN/I, heh. Ansh666 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If talk pages were only for others to give messages to you, things would get ugly fast. Per WP:UP "User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content."

No, you're misinterpreting WP:UP. what you are describing is the User namespace (for you, User:99.129.112.89); the talk page is for others to leave notices or messages. For example, see my talk page, which should only have a message or two from SuggestBot right now (I have a custom signature; click the italicized numbers to see it). Ansh666 21:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Or, see my talk page (and that of several other users and admins) which have notices at the top of our talk pages. It's a pretty common practice that has never been disputed as far as I know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are general notes to everyone and no-one would complain about that. The question is can I keep a box naming specific people? Again, if that's the agreement now so be it. It wasn't so in the past. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the IP is clearly communicating to the listed individuals with whom they have prior involvement, which is a permitted use. It's not a "hit list", although when initially created it's true intent was unclear. At this point though, it's a non-issue and everyone should just move along. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Is this view the agreement here? E.g. users are allowed to post messages to others onto their own talkpages and keep them there? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM, the comments you and Redmen have about me on your talk page under a topic I started is what is rude. The fact you are here proves you are Wikihouding me. Those "lists" were to be messages to people. Everyone relax and leave me alone. I'm repeating myself... Pay attention before just going trigger happy. This is a misunderstanding based on people moving too quickly and not letting me edit my own talk page before you come in with your big hands and mess it all up. Knock it off, this is immature. Why pick on me? Am I that interesting? I can't keep up and therefore I am avoiding this topic. Reposting the same thing doesn't mean I didn't get it. P.S. Tell the whole story, TCN7JM. You are lying. Not all. I replied as a follow up to a message I left as you did about my contributions to the few articles. You are causing problems, please exclude yourself from this. That is why I addressed you on my talk page. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's throw out whether the disputed content should or should not be on the page. This much is clear to me:

1. WP:UP#NOT: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is mentioned, and "community-building activities that are not strictly 'on topic' may be allowed." I'm seeing this list of user as a soapbox to single out their behavior, and it is not building community as people are warring over this when they could be working on building WP.
2. WP:EW: Whether or not something is "right", we don't tolerate reverting back to preferred versions. We discuss and come to a consensus. This is not happening.
3. This whole thing is WP:DISRUPT to a tee, from everyone.

Frankly, there is too much trolling on both sides trying to make their WP:POINT. This is likely headed to a trainwreck where someone will get blocked and complain they were provoked when so-and-so got off. Perhaps, but (hopefully) it will stop the drama here. Just stop the trolling everyone.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's a spelling error in a Wikipedia article. Why doesn't everyone here go find it and correct it. --Jayron32 21:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OOH OOH WHERE WHERE! Ansh666 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't keep track of all these violations against me. All because I'm an IP. Ah, an editor without a country. Shame... Thanks Bagumba. I'm done, this is ridiculous and was pointless. I tried to explain but people continued to disrupt. Do research first, and if you want to know who is doing what, read the edit summaries and talk pages. TC, you have no room to talk. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is quite simple. Edit warring is not accepted; editors are instead advised to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Ad Hominem personal attack and Racism by User:Vsmith

Even if this was an issue, it'd be decidedly stale after three months. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Y-chromosomal Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Y-chromosomal Adam (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) Vsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff: [89] Vsmith has personally attacked me (ad hominem) and made racist comments about Eskimo people.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ? How do you construe that as a personal attack and racist? And it was back in January. Kinda late, no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Well, to be honest, your remark was pretty dumb. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Folks, this is obvious trolling. Please close and consider blocking. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Further Comments It's said Wikipedia became like this. Being labled "Dumb" and "Troll" for reporting discrimination? It is racist, because this person says "hmm perhaps Eskimo and should obviously be named Charley (as in Brown)." He is trying to say that Eskimo people are "irrelevant" and "collateral" and "invaluable". Similar to "Big in Japan." He is saying "Eskimo people are so lesser beings that Y-chromosomal Adam and Eskimo people may be associated only for teasing and for making fun of it" It is ad hominem, because he says, "Take your discrimination blather elsewhere, we just report what the reliable sources use." He is saying my expression is "blather" -which is an offense per se- and trying to dismissing or discrediting my views. From WP:NPA page: An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. — WP:NPA Hope these clarifications help.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request RFC closure

I requested FPP for Gun Control due to an edit war, so that a DR I opened could proceed. FPP has been granted. the DR is now being rejected, because there is an open RFC on the topic. IMO the RFC is stale without consensus. It was opened 15 days ago. No major commenting in the RFC section has been done in several days, (although extensive discussions are elsewhere on the same topics). I made a motion to close on the talk page 3 days ago, which was seconded, but no other comments. I made a request for closure yesterday on the noticeboard with no response. Very heated controversial topic and debate, so definitely need an uninvolved person to close.

If someone could either close the RFC so the DR can go forward (or to take action on the RFC I suppose), or make some other resolution to the current situation that would be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending

On the Stefan Molyneux article, SPECIFICO has unilaterally deleted material that was discussed on the article's talk page. No consensus was sought by SPECIFICO for these changes, and it seemed to me that it went against the consensus on the talk page, so I reverted the changes and added a section on the talk page in order to discuss the matter.

SPECIFICO then added a message that included the following to my talk page:

Please undo your recent edits and pursue your views on talk to seek prior consensus for your view that it should be reinserted. Merely asserting your rationale for your undo on talk is not sufficient. Please review WP:EW and be aware that such behavior can result in you being blocked. Thanks.

This is when I had reverted SPECIFICO's edits according to prior consensus, and SPECIFICO apparently hadn't yet commented at all on the talk page in order to try to change the consensus. The tone is threatening and condescending ("Thanks" for something I don't agree to). The initial message to me on a good faith edit on my part threatens me with a block.

SPECIFICO then responded on the article's talk page, including the following:

Please undo your recent edits and pursue your view here on talk to seek consensus for reinserting the content I reverted. Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns. Thank you.

It appears that SPECIFICO will only seek consensus once I comply with their demands and reinsert changes that were against consensus and that were made without seeking consensus. I responded, including my policy rationales. SPECIFICO then falsely claimed on my talk page that I had reverted them twice, that it appeared that I was engaged in an edit war because of that, and again threatened a block. It's quite clear from the edit history that I only reverted them once.

SPECIFICO then claimed on the talk page that:

Since you refuse to undo your edit, I will do it for you and once again ask you to respond to the specific policy-based reasons for my reversion of the unsourced, non-RS and trivial content. Just state your views as to why these policies do not apply or whatever other rationale you may have, but do not edit war. Please re-read WP:BRD Thanks.

This is again condescending ("I will do it for you" as if it was my job to comply). This is when I wasn't edit warring and the comment they were responding to was me "just [stating] my views as to why [those] policies do not apply apply".

I really don't appreciate being treated uncivilly, falsely accused, threatened with blocking very quickly and repeatedly, demanded to comply under those threats, and so on. I also don't like that SPECIFICO has ignored past consensus and refused to seek consensus on the changes made, preferring to demand that I comply with their desires before they'll contemplate following Wikipedia policy.

While I haven't discussed it with them on their talk page specifically, I have, as you can see above, discussed it elsewhere. — Olathe (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment – While SPECIFICO can be terse, I've always seen him as a cooperative editor most willing to engage in discussion. E.g., he'll engage in WP:BRD. He's not an admin, so threats of blocks (which I do not see in the discussion) are unfounded. The edits complained of (above) may have been better handled with kid gloves, but do not warrant ANI action. If there are disagreements between these two editors, WP:3O is a better COA. – S. Rich (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response — It's not that he's terse. I'm fine with that. It's not even that I think that he always acts like this. He might be generally fine. It's that in this instance he's bossily demanding and threatening, which shows up more on my talk page and in the sequence of events than on the article's talk page. This unpleasantness has apparently happened to at least one other user in the past. In that incident, he apparently accused a person who had reverted his changes only once of edit warring, which that user describes as slander. This sort of slander during what should be fairly minor editing disputes is apparently an ongoing problem that he has not corrected.

His false accusations look like a barrage to me. He's accused me twice of edit warring for one revert on my part, he accuses me of violating policies in my reverts, he says that I should discuss things on the talk page after I've already started to discuss things on the talk page months before, and he falsely accuses me of not trying for consensus on the talk page.

I've looked over the article's talk page before and after this incident. It has people talking a while back about the things he deleted because another user deleted them as well. The consensus certainly doesn't support his high level of deletion. He disregarded it.

More notably, he has no comments at all before he made his significant deletions. His only comments are responses to me, and they include demands that I must comply with before he will even discuss things with me. This is obviously not consensus-seeking on his part, which would appear as him discussing things with me even though I don't take back one revert I made.

The talk page does, however, include me seeking consensus for a change I made to the article a few months ago. He deleted what I'd added to the article without any comment in that section, which makes it quite hypocritical and false when he repeatedly informs me that I should discuss things on the talk page before I'm supposedly allowed to revert his changes. His demand applies directly to him. I have no reason to believe he even checked the talk page before I reverted him.

I don't mind trying a third opinion if that's what's supposed to be done, but the primary purpose of my bringing this up isn't to resolve the editing dispute, since that can be done through consensus. The primary purpose is that I don't want to continue to be bullied by him with the risk that people will believe his false accusations. — Olathe (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply – But we don't have to discuss WP:BB changes before we make them. We make them and then let others contend with us about what we did. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who want to insert or remove material. Seems to me, for the most part, SPECIFICO has been on sound grounds as I have watched him make edits. If he makes edits that contradict earlier consensus, point out the consensus and open up a new discussion. Contact me, if you like, and I'll take a look and help if I can (although this stuff gets pretty abstruse for my poor brain). Finally, I think SPECIFICO will take a look at this ANI and work on being more diplomatic. (Got that, SPECIFICO, these are opportunities for you to mentor.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response — I don't mind his being bold, but I was as well with my revert but was criticized by him for that with the associated threats. I didn't want an edit war, which is why I reverted once and haven't rereverted his unrevert. He's mentioned which policies he thinks the content violated, but not yet why he thinks those policies are applicable. I have a different understanding than him, but he may be right. I hope he'll explain on the talk page. — Olathe (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• As a co-participant with SPECIFICO at Talk:Bitcoin, I'd also ask him to lighten up a bit. I'm not alleging misconduct per se, but the atmosphere at the talk page is pretty unpleasant and SPECIFICO seems to be contributing to that. Here one of the maintainers (also mentioned in a usertalk diff above) quit being involved in the article after a conflict with SPECIFICO. The article itself is in terrible shape and I don't think the current approach is working. I've looked at old revisions, they had obvious POV problems needing straightforward cleanup, but they were otherwise clearer and more informative than the current version. So I think there's been a heavy-handed approach that has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• This user (SPECIFICO) has been demonstrating a similar pattern of disruptive behavior at the Gun control article. He even opened a couple of frivolous edit warring reports against two different editors, both of which were (thankfully) closed without action due to there being no 3RR violations involved in either case. ROG5728 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking as a totally uninvolved editor, SPECIFICO's conduct looks pretty rude. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Moved from the thread I just NAC'd about the same editor. My comments were made in the context of that thread but the tone is generally the same and you get my drift. Stalwart111 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC))

Commentary - People can see I've had plenty of interaction with both SPECIFICO and Steeletrap (on one talk page and the other). Steeletrap is a new WP editor but an intelligent and obviously well-educated person and SPECIFICO, myself and other editors have perhaps jumped into discussions with him at an advanced level, only to later go back and explain some WP acronyms, policies and the like. Bitey? Sure, maybe, but not intentionally so. In the "sink or swim" stakes, Steeletrap is breaking records and winning medals. To outside observers, even the conversations I have had with SPECIFICO might have seemed heated, but I can assure you (from my perspective at least) that they have not been; just detailed and mostly academic. I can certainly understand Mike's perspective but I would suggest he has perhaps seen 1 or 2 talk pages worth of a conversation that has been conducted across 3-4 user talk pages, 6-7 article talk pages and 2-3 AFDs between a whole group of editors.

As explained on some of those talk pages, I have no real prior understanding of any of the issues in which this "group" is interested (broadly; economics, libertarianism and firearms). I've come to much of this via various AFDs and have had prior interaction with some of the group with previous editors/AFDs. They are all issues where discussions can get heated and people can get emotional. I don't think it hurts to remind everyone to be WP:CIVIL, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place to elicit such a reminder. Stalwart111 04:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• IDHT Specifico does not agree with the result of the no original research noticeboard, yet is unwilling to address the matter there instead continuing to make his case on the articles talk page. [90] i dont know the correct term or if a violation has occurred and would ask the editor to use the correct venue or stop opposing the edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Inserting into edit history for locations

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.

---

IPs 58.7.120.193 and 58.7.249.218 have been entering non-encyclopedic material into location article in Perth, Western Australia calling it The Navigator (there may be owther ip numbers used

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northbridge,_Western_Australia&diff=553164954&oldid=553164932 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland,_Western_Australia&diff=552841784&oldid=552841716

I would suggest an admin might blank/remove the pages on which it can be seen to discourage the editor from thinking they can exploit page history to leave traces of this non-encyclopedic material inside article history. sats 08:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The acceptable criteria for revision deletion are detailed at WP:REVDEL#Criteria for redaction. Which of these do you believe pertains in this circumstance? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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.

---

• Answer for Finlay McWalter - number 3 is quite valid in REVDEL - the editor is gaming edit history to insert non-encyc material sats 14:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP has re-inserted the material again...

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northbridge,_Western_Australia&diff=next&oldid=553182805

obviously prepared to be persistent in putting non-encyclopedic material into an article history. sats 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• • In view of the above the Ip has been blocked - but could someone please understand that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northbridge,_Western_Australia&oldid=553182805 needs the magic revdel brush as well please? thanks to whoever can remove it. sats 14:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I REVDEL'd that edit. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that sats 02:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH (RE-SUBMITTED)

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.

---

Below is the blockquoted text of the previous discussion. I did not feel the discussion it generated was adequate. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I logged in to put a tag on a medical article that was full of primary non-MEDRS sources. I made the mistake of looking at my watchlist.
Mere days after the previous ANI discussion about User:Apostle12's editing behavior, he has inserted contentious material that had been removed from Huey P. Newton into Black Panther Party, though he is clearly aware of the substantial sourcing and credibility issues -- he took part in the discussions that led to their removal.
The edits at issue in Black Panther Party:
[91] -- assertions of criminality and a Kate Coleman SFGate piece
[92] -- portraying an allegation, never proven and based on hearsay, that appeared in Pearson's book "Shadow of the Panther" as fact
At Huey P. Newton, he took part in extensive discussions about the credibility of Coleman, both in reference to the SFGate piece and to his insertion of what were deemed non-RS allegations of a romantic relationship between Newton and a movie director: [93] [94] [95]
There have been discussions at RSN already about:
the John Frey "admission" (which was re-inserted here)
the Coleman/SFGate source (inserted here)
(in regards to the allegations of a romantic involvement, there was a DRN case as well, in which Coleman's use as a source was also at issue)
Rather than rewrite the claims to better reflect the sourcing issues, as he suggested he would do at one point on Talk:Huey P. Newton, he has simply re-inserted the contentious claims on Black Panther Party. This, especially given the history, seems as clearn an indicator of WP:POVPUSH as I can imagine.
I attempted to initiate enforcement actions through ArbCom. In the course of the previous ANI discussion Apostle12 received a warning, and I thought that this would qualify as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." ArbCom did not feel it was actionable.
I have not notified or engaged with Apostle12 other than place an ANI discussion tag on his page because the previous discussions should, quite frankly, have been enough of an indicator that this source was contentious, and that more care should have been taken with its use. We discussed these sources in excruciating detail, for an extended period of time. I am not willing to get more deeply involved in this discussion right now; I have not even reverted the edits in question, and they persist in the Black Panther Party article.
The reason I am unwilling to engage should be apparent from the Talk page discussions I have linked. If not, well, sanction me for not following protocol. I care more, at this point, about raising the issue of this disruptive, tendentious editing than i do about maintaining my own ability to edit.
And I will now be resuming my wikibreak, and if i have reason to make small edits in the future, such as the one I made at Eculizumab, I will not make the mistake again of checking my watchlist. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 05:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this complaint basically just posted to WP:AE and rejected, and with the same claim at the end that you'd be resuming your wikibreak? No comment on the merits of the case, but at a superficial glance it seems like forum shopping. Sædon^talk 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the last topic ban proposal Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#WP:NOTFORUM_at_White_privilege#Proposed topic-ban wasn't closed. Does someone want to resurrect it? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for a topic ban in that discussion, and this forum shopping makes me think this should be closed without any action (and I supported the topic ban). Seriously, you can't leave Wikipedia forever only to come back and keep trying to get the same person banned. Well technically you can, but don't expect to get good results. AniMate 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps "wikibreak" needs clarification. For me, in this context, its definition has been "an attempt to avoid dealing with things that make me upset by ignoring them and hoping the whole thing Just Goes Away." Yes, I've suggested it would be permanent. I was, still am, pretty much at the end of my rope with this nonsense, so it may happen, might not, but I will absolutely concede that it's not doing anyone any good by me being dramatic about it. I stayed away for two weeks and didnt have to think about any of this crap. It was a nice two weeks, and i hope next time it will be longer.

So, Mea culpa. my apologies.

All the same, I do want to clear some things up.

1. The AE filing was denied not on its merits, but because of scope. Sandstein's comments there clearly indicate that I was simply wrong in my judgement that these edits qualified as being about "race and intelligence, broadly construed." Personally, I think it was a reasonable mistake, but i am obviously self interested. I would like to think that if i saw another editor do the same, I would extend them the courtesy of chalking it up to a simple misunderstanding rather than assume they were forum shopping. Especially given that they put the link right there and werent trying to hide it somehow.
2. in the ANI case, I brought up NOTFORUM, and then from what i could tell a bunch of admins proceeded to make the issue about racism. this was facepalm-worthy. racism is something that people hem and haw about, and what's racist to one person seems totally normal to another person with different experiences. that is precisely why my complaint in the ANI case was about NOTFORUM, and likewise why my case here is about POVPUSH (and RS, and IDHT, and TE.) I mean, of course I thought the comments were incredibly offensive and racist. I mentioned that they were offensive at the time. but my complaint made reference to the policy specifically, and not to the offensive content on display.
3. in the event that you think my behavior was beyond the pale, I am more than happy to stand up and explain myself. but in the meantime, you have someone flaunting policy on contentious topics that is far more of a threat to the Project. Please, if you feel it warranted, open up an ArbCom case on my behavior, afterwards. I will be happy to comply in whatever way i can, in no small measure because at least then someone will be telling me which policies can be safely disregarded and which ones people actually give a shit about enforcing. which brings me to:
4. I don't give a rat's ass whether you ban Apostle12 or not. I supported it in the ANI filing because it seemed like a reasonable way to prevent the sort of behavior that was problematic, because talking it out seemed not to do anything but make matters worse. If i were itching for a topic ban, wouldn't I have asked for that in the RfC/U? Or in the ANI filing? In the RfC/U, we were asking for just the barest hint of respectful editing behavior from Apostle12, and yet somehow the whole thing got filled up with commenters who blew our concerns off, normalizing it as "frustrated" behavior. Even now I don't fucking care whether he has a topic ban or not. I CARE ABOUT THE POOR SOURCING, POVPUSHING, AND ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR HE DISPLAYS. If there's some way to prevent that, I will be happy as a clam, regardless of if the remedy is community ban or saying nice things about his mother (who I'm sure is a very nice person). Given history though, I don't think that scrutiny has to be off of him for very long before he pull some shit like I detailed above. In case it escaped anyone's notice, I extended multiple offers to him to help edit, to come to a consensus, which in practically every case was both fruitless and excruciatingly long. I did not suggest a topic ban in the ANI filing. I was sort of hoping the community would take what it thought was appropriate action, which in this case was doing nothing, at least so far.

So if you need to, ignore my comments about wikibreaks etc. I am trying to avoid additional stress, and this topic (THE POOR SOURCING AND POVPUSH, JUST TO BE CLEAR) is one that has a tendency to make me stressed, (partly because it's just so fucking obvious, like there is no craft or subterfuge or art to it, which i would still be upset about, but at least could give points for style).

So don't expect me to respond to anything in a timely manner for at least the next few months, e.g. respond to questions. I promise I will just leave it at that, and not spew more of this wikibreak drama crap (that i am sorry for, see above).

And in the meantime, how about addressing the substance of the complaint -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much for an administrator to do here. My advice is to perhaps take this to reliable sources noticeboard, file an request for comment, or simply remove the material. Another piece of advice is to embrace brevity. No one responds well to massive walls of text. Keep you complaint succinct and to the point, because a lot of editors and administrators see how much you've written and move on to the next issue because there is SO much to read through.

Also, even though it may be unpleasant, you have to engage with Apostle12. Following his edits and complaining here without engaging him on article talk isn't going to get the results you seek.

Finally, there are a lot of issues at work here, and there have been issues on multiple articles. I'd say kick this up the dispute resolution chain. You've participated in an WP:RFC/U in regards to this user, so perhaps a request for arbitration is in order. That's the best advice I can give you, because I really don't think you're going to get the result you want at this noticeboard. AniMate 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these options are acceptable to me. And you're misconstruing what my aim is. My aim is not to address the content issues directly, but to either:

make the mechanisms work (squeaky wheel, etc), or

demonstrate just how badly they are broken, such as by becoming such a nuisance here that I am sanctioned myself -- I aim to re-submit until either adequate discussion has been had, or I am banned from participation

If you have a mop, and "TLDR" is an acceptable way for you to deal with things, then you are part of the problem. If the mechanisms don't work, then we have a responsibility to figure out and create mechanisms that do.

I am, frankly, eager to get back to contributing to WP, particularly on medical articles. I have voluntarily limited my edits to article space.

And as for engaging Apostle12, he can engage here if he wishes. He is aware of the discussion. I have already wasted far too much time discussing these issues with him. read the discussions i have linked. I am in no hurry to waste more time -- if I edit, or revert, then I will be expected to adhere to WP:BRD, and participate in yet another interminable discussion. and if I don't that may be used as ammunition in future disputes.

Fuck that. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

UTCL, you are the only one using past editing history as "ammunition." One might even interpret your motive as retaliatory, something I do not wish to join in.

Always open to constructive editing on the various articles that capture our mutual interest: the proposal you submitted for a new lede sentence at "White privilege" is presently being discussed on Talk. Please note that I largely support your proposal, which is among many of your proposals and edits that I have backed. Another editor has commented that your proposal may not be supported by the source you provided; you might want to defend your choice or contribute another.

Regarding the other edits you mention here, I will be happy to discuss those too on their respective Talk pages. The less confrontation, and the more collaborative spirit, the better. Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is not about White privilege. As above, it is about your edit history and non-RS/POVPUSH at Black Panther Party and the discussion that established these sources and claim as non-RS at Huey P. Newton. The discussion at White privilege is irrelevant.

I will not be editing at any of these pages until some sort of consensus is established here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reposted

Reposted. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: If I remove these sources and claims which have been established (above) as non-RS without engaging in subsequent discussion, how do the administrators here suggest I react if these removals are reverted, without getting involved in an edit war? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Counter Question: What immediate Administrator action is required? The fact that your previous posting got archived without any sort of response is an indication that Administrators aren't seeing anything actionable. If it's a question about reliable sources, then Reliable Sources Noticeboard is the place to hash it out. If it's a content dispute, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is the appropraite place. If it's a conduct issue, you're going to have to make it clearer. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it not clear from the language and links above that this particular content has already gone to WP:RSN? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I've given diffs (of both the edits at issue and their previous discussions, including at RSN) of what seems, to me, like clear and unambiguous POVPUSH behavior -- taking sources that were deemed non-RS and removed from one article, and using them in a related article to support the same point of view. POVPUSH is right there in the post title. I have diffs. There is a previous ANI case about NOTFORUM behavior that I have linked. What more do you want? Just tell me. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your screed of text that is already archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Apostle12, again, and POVPUSH caused me to TLDR. The text claims not to want sanctions but is asking for sanctions and seems to be fairly obvious in what your next steps are. Let the natural death of the thread occur if that's what needs to happen, don't repost. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I got exactly one person suggesting i go to arbcom. is that what YOU suggest I do? I feel like action is necessary here, but I have no idea what that might look like. I have tried multiple times to get this underlying behavior issue addressed, and have found little in the way of help. I am unwilling to "let it die a natural death" (whatever that means) because I still do not have the information I am seeking -- specifically, what I should do next, and how to handle the inevitable difficulties that will arise from, say, just reverting those edits. I have no other recourse, as far as I can tell, other than making a nuisance of myself here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Making yourself a nuisance here will not accomplish anything but possibly a block for you. You're not getting any response here because, as was said above, there is nothing actionable here. This is not a board equipped to handle complex disputes, it's for more obvious policy violations. For complex conduct cases your options are WP:RFCU and Arbcom. For content disputes you need to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, including WP:3O and WP:DRN. Sædon^talk 05:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Disturbing Behaviour by User:SPECIFICO

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.

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Comment about another ANI is best posted and resolved at that ANI

Resolved

 – Question of seeking an off-wiki contact not a violation and contactee-editor has no objection

I first noticed this individual on this board and the 3RR board where they were attempting to report users involved in a debate over Gun control. I decided to provide a WP:CIVIL notice on their talk page and was met with justification for his actions [96]. I've just observed a discussion where he was requesting that a user he was involved in a dispute with "Hello Steeltrap. On a non-WP note, could you send me an email using the email link on the left maegin of my user page so that I can ask you a question about your academic work?". He has filed 3RR [97], [98] without basis, threatened users with blocks if they did not follow his direction to restore his version of an article [99] among numerous other WP:CIVIL and WP:Wikipedia:Wikilawyering encounters. This behaviour is not within the spirit of Wikipedia nor should users be intimidated by his treats and use of policy to push his point and I feel that experienced users/admins need to review this. Mike (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I can't speak to all of this stuff, but I can certainly say that SPECIFICO's request to me was completely in-bounds. I am paranoid about being "outed" so I didn't give him the email. :) But in the process of collaborating on edits that contribute to this community, we have -- even when we disagree --been cordial and friendly to one another. And I have discussed my thesis to him many times in the past. Given this context, his mild mannered request for my contact info should NOT, I insist, be characterized as improper in any way. Steeletrap (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Steeltrap and I have been colleagues here since he began editing here. He and I are both interested in the Austrian School and some related topics. As stated in my message on Steeltrap's talk page, I was interested in discussing his research with him. I am at a loss to understand how that prompted user:Mrfrobinson's complaint here and ask that it be closed. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that his interaction with steeletrap should not be considered out of bounds (although it can raise issues of suspicion). BTW, if you want to email him, I believe wikipedia does include some anonymous email tools where he can email you via the site without you revealing your address.

Also agreed that his behavior regarding 3rr is objectionable, and he is repeatedly on multiple articles attempting to win content disputes by technicality. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO's behavior as of late has been rude and disruptive. See the other ANI on him for more info. ROG5728 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment moved - Stalwart111 05:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruption by user:Damonthesis

This editor, whose first edit was on April 28, is an SPA whose sole purpose is to add material to a number of articles in support of the idea that electronic means can be used to interfere with brain function. The articles affected include psychotronics, stalking, psychotronic weapons (currently at AfD), thought identification, and electromagnetic weapon. Essentially all of his edits have been reverted, by about half a dozen editors, but he reverts back regardless. You can find some discussion of the problem at WP:FTN#Psychotronics. He has been warned for edit warring, copyright violation, and personal attacks. I believe the only way to solve this problem is admin intervention. I will notify him that I have filed this report. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I came across this editor in my AfD-trawling; I think I should point out this as well. Also, note my comment on the AfD (if you think the comment was a bit too pointed, let me know) Ansh666 04:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After attempting to to fix a completely broken wikipedia page, and having another user stalk every single one of my Wikipedia edits, this user, Looie496, followed me, first removing an entire page because I placed an edit, and then reverting another edit which was properly sourced and on topic. There appears to be a group of self proclaimed censors congregating here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Where they are kind enough to tell you in plain English, that is their goal. I think I've argued for my changes to the Psychotronics page enough, but for one last time, these users have conspired to remove well sourced material from the government of the United States and Russia, in order to leave that page non-reflecting of its true meaning. Again, afterwords, two of the uses on the "Fringe Theories" noticeboard followed me, from page to page, reverting edits to Bible Code (of all things) and Looie496 completely deleted the 7 year old page electromagnetic weapon without reading its Talk page. This user is apparently upset that I reverted his complete deletion of that page, as it had been discussed on its talk page, and the target merge page, and both pages had decided not to perform the merge, which he decided to take it upon himself to do, for no reason at all. This user is defacing wikipedia content, in order to harass me and incite a conflict. None of my edits today have been reverted on any page but Psychotronics, and Frankly, it appears this entire incident is intended to ensure that Psychotronics does not accurately reflect the Russian program's history, and instead continues to be a "fluff" piece, about basically nothing.

His representation of "half a dozen editors" is baseless, there is a group of 3 editors that are championing the use of the term "psychotronic" to refer to a single scientist from the Czech republic in the 1960s. It is a well known Russian program, that has been sufficiently documented in the US and abroad. As he states, I think admin intervention is necessary. It appears you have a group of people with a concerted agenda to suppress well sourced material... for whatever reason.Damonthesis (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looie496's other issue is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thought_identification where he again refuses to discuss content, and reverts for "bad sources" when the sources are anything but. His actions today have been to revert two good faith edits on Thought_Identification and then delete the entirety of electromagnetic weapons for no reason, then come here and file this complaint. Damonthesis (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note also the WP:HARASS warning that was issued to the other user, who appears to be gaming the revision system with Looie496, User:GDallimore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note Looie496's complete deletion here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=552977637 Immediately after I made an edit. He had either reverted something of mine on another page before, or after that. Honestly, I feel like I'm being WP:HARASSed, and it's hurting the community because of vigilante censorship.Damonthesis (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to scroll a bit further down and look at WP:AOHA. While User:GDallimore has received a warning as you pointed out, he has (following advice) stopped interacting with you for now; the other users to my knowledge have not recieved warnings. Ansh666 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the correct term is for following my edits around, and deleting the entire page I made a minor revision to is.Damonthesis (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(Involved contributor comment): it is worth noting that Damonthesis, who complains of "vigilante censorship", has repeatedly deleted sourced content in the Psychotronics article: [100][101][102][103]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could see Psychotronic weapons, which includes the content. I moved it because it did not belong associated with the Psychotronics page dealing with a single scientist.Damonthesis (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Psychotronic weapons article was clearly created by Damonthesis as a POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what POV fork means. Please look at the two pages:

Psychotronic weapons

Psychotronics at the time of the "Fork" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 05:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(note to Damonthesis: don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) to sign them. Ansh666 05:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

It's also worth noting that nearly all the additional information in Psychotronic weapons had been attempted to be merged into Psychotronics using properly sourced material, from the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, and a textbook written in conjunction with the NSA. These edits were removed, one by one, as the article returned to its state of having absolutely nothing to do with Psychtronics. Prior to this flurry of destruction this morning, Grumpy and I had a conversation going on the talk page, discussing the meaning of the word. This discussion was ignored, as GDallimore reverted the page without discussion, consensus, or attempt to merge information. That is the reason for the new page, which was, at the time, about a completely different subject. After the AfD, all parties attempted to merge information.. though I think they are in fact different subjects. The Soviet Psychotronics program has no place being "sandwiched" inside a parapsychology article about a scientist from 1960. It is an ongoing research program, that is documented not only in the sources I mentioned, but in numerous news sources in Russia, as well as MSM in the US.05:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs)

Note that contrary to what Damonthesis claims, the article at that time of the fork was not "dealing with a single scientist". I have yet to see a single source that asserts that 'psychotronic weapons' are anything but an application of 'psychotronics' - though having said that, it is hard to say exactly what 'psychotronics' actually is, other than technobabble. Unless and until it is properly defined (as I asked on the article talk page, see Talk:Psychotronics#What exactly is this article supposed to be about?), there can be no justification whatsoever for forking the article on the whim of a single contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided defining articles from the Army, Marines, NSA, and top Russian officials. I'm not sure where the confusion is now. I think the state of the articles above speaks for itself. Damonthesis (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

<outdent> Damonthesis's thesis is that mind control devices are real. I encountered him at Stalking, where he was busy (initially as an IP) trying to argue that victims of so-called "group stalking" who think they are victims of mind control (and some of whom actually line their hats with tinfoil to prevent this) really are victims of mind control. He was abusing a Washington Post article on victims of such delusions to state that it was real, since the article ran off onto a tangent that speculated about mind control devices, and was adding chunks of material on psychotronic weapons to the stalking article. He has since moved into the actual articles on such devices, which, since they are firmly in fringe territory, I've pretty much ignored, but I noted that he filed a retaliatory report at AN3 against GDallimore (talk · contribs), who had nominated Psychotronic weapons for AfD. He has repeatedly argued that criticism of his use of sources and editing agenda is a personal attack and that he's being harassed, when in fact he's just being disagreed with. Some counseling on constructive interaction with other editors, the role of consensus on Wikipedia, appropriate ways to deal with fringe and hypothetical material, and appropriate use of sourcing may be in order. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My argument had nothing to do with them "really being victims of mind control." If you read my edits on that page, the only thign I was asking you to do was follow WP:RS and include the opinion in the article that the victims delusional status was questionable, and that there was ample evidence for the weapons to exist. Your article makes it appear that the weapons themselves do not exist, which is clearly refuted by numerous military publications. Further, you cite only half of the medical opinion in both articles you sourced, saying that "support groups" worsen the problem--when in fact both articles note that its possible that they could, but no study has been done, and it is generally believed that support groups can be helpful. Your rendition of the Washington Post articles and NYTimes articles leaves out the majority viewpoint of the articles, which has been pointed out to you over, and over again. Despite that fact, you continually insist to only represent the minority viewpoint on wikipedia, and have locked down the page and ceased discussion. The articles speak for themselves, and the interpretation on Stalking is not consistent with the source material.Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that DMacks semi-protected stalking after one such addition by Damonthesis' IP: I've taken no action other than to revert once and to attempt engagement on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to you.. it appeared from my vantage that you semi-protected it, since no other admins were involved. The discussion there hasn't been very productive though, and it still appears to me that WP:RS is not being followed, as the secondary viewpoints of the sourced articles are not represented in Stalking at all. Please see Psychotronic weapons for a comparative section, which I believe to be unbiased, and more informative/useful. Damonthesis (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Acroterion, Damonthesis is convinced that mind control weapons actually exist *, and our articles are "biased" until he can "correct" them. The problem is, he consistently misinterprets sources, either mistakenly or deliberately. For example, the lead of the POV fork he created up until recently had Wikipedia definitively stating that mind control weapons exist and are "used" [104]. Another editor rightfully questioned the language implying that such weapons exist and are operational [105]. Damonthesis responded that "it's in the citation" [106]. I pointed out to him what's actually in the citation: the source only speculates that such weapons are being researched, it doesn't say they exist [107]. Damonthesis reluctantly modified it to say weapons were "reportedly" used [108].

* He interprets a law prohibiting malicious use of electronic devices such as lasers, tasers, unshielded microwave transmitters, etc. as proof that mind control "weapons" exist.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The source, from the United States Marine Corps, specifically says they exist and explains how they are used. The wording used in the article is nearly identical to the Marine Corps rendition, in addition there is support in a myriad of other Military and government publications to show that the program is 50 years old, and continually researched today. This is not accurately reflected still, despite the fact that you have merged much of the information from my "fork," your article still revolves around the psuedoscientific work of one scientist, rather than the Soviet military as a whole, and now makes it look as if the government is reacting to his long dead project. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Which source is that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time you have asked for it, and the third time it has been provided to you. If you look [here] at the history, I pointed out the URL, and then the specific section it was in. Again, it is in "Russian Views on Psychotronic War" from the Army publication "Parameters" http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/98spring/thomas.htm

Damonthesis (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That source is not "from the United States Marine Corps". It is written by "Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas (USA Ret.)...an analyst at the Foreign Military Studies Office". Nowhere does it state that psychotronics weapons actually exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's published by Parameters ("The U.S. Army's Senior Professional Journal"), and distributed at army.mil. Lt. Col. Thomas is a high ranking Army officer. The article states:

Russian Views on "Psychotronic War"

The term "psycho-terrorism" was coined by Russian writer N. Anisimov of the Moscow Anti-Psychotronic Center. According to Anisimov, psychotronic weapons are those that act to "take away a part of the information which is stored in a man's brain. It is sent to a computer, which reworks it to the level needed for those who need to control the man, and the modified information is then reinserted into the brain." These weapons are used against the mind to induce hallucinations, sickness, mutations in human cells, "zombification," or even death. Included in the arsenal are VHF generators, X-rays, ultrasound, and radio waves. Russian army Major I. Chernishev, writing in the military journal Orienteer in February 1997, asserted that "psy" weapons are under development all over the globe. Specific types of weapons noted by Chernishev (not all of which have prototypes) were:

There is confirmation from US researchers that this type of study is going on. Dr. Janet Morris, coauthor of The Warrior's Edge, reportedly went to the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations in 1991. There she was shown a technique pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy in which researchers electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words transmitted in "white noise" or music. Using an infra-sound, very low frequency transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction.[13]

While many US scientists undoubtedly question this research, it receives strong support in Moscow. The point to underscore is that individuals in Russia (and other countries as well) believe these means can be used to attack or steal from the data-processing unit of the human body.

Damonthesis (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say the weapons exist? A military analyst reporting the claims made by a Russian writer isn't authoritative proof that those claims are valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a U.S. Military analyst reporting on a Russian Army Officer and a Russian writers claims about a Russian development program. The page reflects the statements made by the analyst, and the article doesn't even say the "weapons exist." It says they are "used on the mind." If there's a problem with semantics, it can be edited, but the phraseology is taken directly from the source. What assuredly does exist is the program itself, as well as multiple decades of reporting on it. This has been confirmed, again, by U.S. researchers who have witnessed them in action. Damonthesis (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the text, they saw some Russians doing a research experiment that involved subliminal audio suggestion via bone conduction. Why do you interpret this to mean they witnessed psychotronic weapons "in action"? This is a good example of abusing a source, and is why a majority of your edits to articles have been reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I'm disengaging. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrative action needed

Counseling (suggested by Acroterion above) will not suffice here. This editor has been edit-warring on a range of articles and being disruptive in a variety of other ways. We currently have articles that are full of junk because I am not willing to engage in an edit war (thought identification, electromagnetic weapon). The absolute minimum that is needed is a stern warning that any further editing against consensus will lead to a block. I really feel that a block is already more than justified, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling my edits junk is OK? They are well sourced factual and relevant. Your actions, in deleting an entire page on a whim, despite talk conversations about merging them, is a bit more of a problem, I think. Damonthesis (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone experienced in mentoring editors who charge on here to support fringe theories? That's about the only alternative I can see. I'm inclined to believe that unless Damonthesis's behaviour improves by a truly dramatic degree within the next couple of days that an indef is the best way to end the disruption here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a topic ban on a range of articles broadly related to mind control, psychotronics, etc. is appropriate? That would end the disruption, give the editor a mandatory break from his crusade, and provide the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies by perhaps working on noncontroversial articles on unrelated topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot call a viewpoint that is supported by military sources, news articles in Russia and the USA, as well as a textbook endorsed by the NSA a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. This is the established viewpoint, and this group has repeatedly attempted to suppress sources which refer to it as such, instead opting to utilize sources which are much older, and refer to an unscientific and un-investigated invention of one person, rather than the truth--that "psychotronics" refers to a long running Russian military development program. Damonthesis (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to try mentoring Damonthesis. I have some experience with Wikipedia dispute resolution, and my knowledge of electromagnetic theory might come in handy. I would suggest a one-week block to stop the disruptive behavior, and that during the block he and I have a talk on his talk page about what behavior is expected of him if he wishes to continue editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What we are looking at is the "collective opinion" of 3 editors and an admin that since they do not believe something is possible, any source that disproves that opinion must be WP:FRINGE. These are not fringe sources, we are talking about congressional legislation, military analysis, and intelligence textbooks. The program is very real, and very well documented; despite fringe coverage which definitely does exist. Regardless, the sources here are factual, accurate, and authoritative, and its irresponsible to be fighting their inclusion because of the contrary opinion of an editor. Historical accuracy should be paramount, point in fact, the Soviet Psychotronic_weapons program was created as a parallel program to MK ULTRA at nearly the same time.. the only difference being that the psychotronics program was never shut down, as is well supported by U.S. Military literature throughout the 90's 00's and with recent comments by the Russians themselves in 2011 and 2012. This is being presented as "my opinion" or "my agenda," when in fact I am presenting well sourced facts, and those accusing me of pushing a POV are delivering only their uninformed and un-sourced opinions in response. Damonthesis (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, because The Men Who Stare at Goats was a documentary ... ? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? You liken sourcing Military publications and analysis to a fiction movie? Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Damonthesis, you can be completely right about what the article content of a page and still be end up indefinitely blocked because of your user conduct. Likewise, you can be completely wrong about article content, but if your user conduct meets our behavioral standards you can be a productive editor. You need to choose; are you willing to follow the same rules as everyone else or do you prefer to have your editing privileges revoked? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow the rules, the edits I made should have at least been looked at, but were summarily dismissed. I attempted to go to another page to provide a better "look" at the differences, and was followed there, having my edits deleted by the same users. I filed a complaint about that, and was subsequently attacked repeatedly. To date, it appears nobody has taken the care to look at the merit of the edits, or the discussion that created this problem. Damonthesis (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the report at WP:ANEW, I've blocked Damonthesis for one week (good number, Guy) for edit warring, canvassing, and personal attacks. Other editors were also edit warring, but I chose not to block them because the source of the disruption was Damonthesis. Nonetheless, those editors are advised to be more careful next time. Another admin may have reacted differently. If Guy wants to attempt to discuss mentorship with Damonthesis during the block, that would be much appreciated. I do not believe that the block is too long, but, obviously, the discussion here might result in greater sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Based on Damonthesis' user page, WP:OWB #72 seems to apply... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious canvassing pointed out here and by a new editor brought to the AfD, I'm guessing by the reddit thread. I don't know the related policy, but I'd suggest more than one week for Damonthesis. Ansh666 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also FYI, several sleeper accounts have been found and blocked [109]. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to follow up on Damonthesis' talk page and offer to mentor him. Feel free to follow along; it should be every bit as entertaining as Celebrity Apprentice... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have his talk on my watchlist for some reason...so I'll follow along. I'd offer to help out with anything, but as the one who filed the SPI and stuff I don't think he'd take it as help at all. Ansh666 03:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• He turned me down with a rant about how Fighting Evil Requires Violating Wikipedia's Rules. Sigh. (BTW, concerning that rather embarrassing revelation above, I just watch CA because Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller is on it. Really. Don't roll your eyes at me! (Smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, his final Talk page post [110] contains obscure references to Bible quotes, the Boston Marathon Bombing, Psychotronics, and a diff by User:AndyTheGrump. I don't know what that all means, but it's not good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In case there's any admins left looking at this, the AfD here is getting kind of out of hand; several new accounts have posted in response to a reddit post, probably by Damonthesis. Would anyone mind closing it to avoid all this unnecessary SPA traffic? Thanks. Ansh666 07:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Moving post below by Damonthesis from WP:AN, where it was misplaced. Admittedly there's perhaps not much point now that D is blocked, and I find it meritless in any case, but it doesn't feel right just deleting it. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC).)

User:LuckyLouie appears to use phrases like "Copyedit, according to what source actually says" when removing actual sourced content and placing a biased spin. I have noticed this on two occasions, on pages Thought insertion and Psychotronics. The oddity of using this phrase while at the same time improperly modifying well sourced content to "spin it" stands out. The two occasions I have noticed are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thought_identification&diff=553056368&oldid=553027521

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966766&oldid=552966437 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966437&oldid=552964397

All of these revisions did actually reflect "what the source actually says" prior to his edit, which spun them to be biased and to reflect his own opinion.

I am not sure if there is a larger pattern here, but these three instances are obvious cases of the edit description being deceptive. I imagine it is part of a larger pattern of biased editing; regardless the deceptive tagging is troubling to me.

Damonthesis (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible canvassing on Reddit to Votestack AfD?

Some new users showing up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. One hinted that this AfD is being discussed on Reddit. A Reddit search turns up this forum discussion, alleging that "a number of Wikipedia editors are conspiring in order to suppress the inclusion of the Psychotronics program" and giving links and pointers to affected article Talk pages, and soliciting comments to the AfD. (The posts originate from a Reddit user calling themselves "needle in eye".) Uninvolved admins might want to take a look at these new accounts, possibly connected to Damonthesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, this AfD is getting rather out of hand. I'd appreciate if an admin took some action to prevent the discussion from being flooded by SPAs (they're ignoring the warning up top) Ansh666 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass page moves: Greek transliteration

GreekAlex is mass-moving pages on Greek food to impose a specific transliteration of the Greek names: Special:Contributions/GreekAlex. He seems to have stopped for now, and I left him a note on his talk page, but since his very first edit was today and he started moving pages shortly after his tenth edits in what might well be a controversial way, this might bear watching. Huon (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

He must be warned and if he does not stop he should be blocked without delay. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all his page-moves and his terrible transliterations. If he persists he must be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr. K accuses me of vandalism, I demand an apology. The Greek "ου" transliterates to one single vowel "u" in the Latin alphabet, not in to two vowels. Dr. K says terrible transliterations and says he's right, no you are not. If you don't know, now you know.

The pages should be moved back to the single correct vowel form which also helps non-Greek speakers of the correct pronunciation.

And also Dr. K's threats of being blocked should be seen as a direct threatening of an other Wiki-member.GreekAlex (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Alex, we have naming conventions that were determined by WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe that an article needs a different title, then please use requested move and a valid policy-based argument, then wait until consensus is formed - do not move titles yourself based on your personal belief. Providing you a warning (not a threat) is valid, and is therefore not an attack. Again, please do not make further moves of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you BW. Here is some background: This user started edit-warring after two level 4 warnings concerning improper transliteration based on his original research. He calls longstanding, valid transliterations typos:

Typos fixed.

Changes Haloumi’s location from Turkey to Cyprus: In Cyprus, Halloumi

He is also reverting longstanding Turkish onomatology converting it to Greek onomatology at Yuvarlak: converting it to his Greek version "Yuvarlakia" despite “Yuvarlak” being a Turkish word. In talk:Loukoumades he says that the commonname is wrong and not scientific and that I should understand this:

Even in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Greek it states the following. Loukoumades is not the right way to write it, it just reinforces the wrong transliteration and spelling and also pronounciation (people pronounce it always wrong with the form Loukoumades (because this is not a scientific article, the form Lukumades should be used instead of the wrong form Loukoumades).

On his talk he replies to my warnings: It in not vandalism to have the will to correct the transliteration errors made by for example you.. Overall a very tendentious and disruptive editor so far with edits indicating he is trying to suppress longstanding Turkish onomatology which is in addition to the rest of his problematic edits. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Psst ... the warning above SHOULD have been the end of this thread (other than an "ok" from Alex)  :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify. (This would be obvious to linguistics people, but for the rest of us, here goes.) A distinction might be good to mention here, between "transliteration" and "transcription".

• In Japanese, the hiragana を is often transliterated as "wo". It's almost always pronounced "o".
• In Mandarin Chinese, "一, 二, 三, 四, 五" ("1, 2, 3, 4, 5") is transliterated in pinyin as "yī, èr, sān, sì, wǔ". Only "sān" is close to how it would be transcribed in the International Phonetic Alphabet; neglecting the tones, "yī" is pronounced /i/, "èr" is pronounced /aɹ/, "sì" is pronounced /(erm, next question please?}/ and "wǔ" is pronounced /u/.
• Transliterations are often close to the pronunciation of the source language, but they are not phonetic transcriptions. "Loukoumades" is the conventional transliteration of "λουκουμάδες", but is not a phonetic transcription of "λουκουμάδες".

Yum, loukoumades--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:PraetorianFury making personal attacks and being generally disruptive

Please see this diff and this diff for two examples of the personal attacks User:PraetorianFury has been repeatedly making toward other editors. Furthermore, this user has basically admitted that he is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Please note that latter diff by his second account also contains several more personal attacks aimed at the same editor. ROG5728 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI for these users. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the SPI is probably unnecessary because he has already admitted he owns both accounts. Regardless, his conduct has been incredibly rude and disruptive, so something will have to be done. ROG5728 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really evidence to say "here's one example, there are lots more." Please give as many diffs as you can to support your complaint here. Since the SPI is being handled separately, I suggest you remove that part of the complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided three diffs containing clear personal attacks against another editor and one of the diffs even contains more than one attack. Let me also point out that the only reason you're commenting on this ANI is because you (SPECIFICO) are currently the subject of an ANI yourself. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I spent a great half an hour looking at all this crap. The SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AzureFury, is going nowhere (for obvious reasons), and I don't think that the diffs provided here are enough reason for a block. I did find, however, that the attitude displayed by PratorianFury esp. on Talk:Gun control are snarky, bitey, baiting, and condescending--they're the mix of sarcasm and insult that makes working on some issues just not worth it. I have asked them on their talk page to stop--actually, I warned them. If this goes on, they should be blocked for a breach of civility. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The double-standard here is appalling. Where were your delicate sensibilities when I reported these same attacks and had admins complain about my report? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing to act in a way completely contrary to establishing consensus. I made some (many) assertions of notability listing some examples (unsourced). He asked for links. I asked him to clarify which ones he questioned or would find satisfactory. He responded saying "You typed many words on a talk page but have provided no links as required by WP:ONUS. Let the record show that I've given you the opportunity to change my position and you have rejected it". I am open to opinions and views other than my own, but he completely refuses to collaborate in any useful manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:168.190.80.40

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.

---

Only 34 edits, resulting in 8 warnings: great score. Could someone take a look at the behaviour of this IP? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this should be resolved through consensus -- because we all know that the collective agreement of the few are right. That's exactly what they said about Iraqi. User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Lova Falk are ruining Wikipedia -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a week after repeated disruption on this page, among other things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Could be an idea to revoke this IP's talk page access as well; certainly he isn't using it very constructively. Sideways713 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Best to ignore that kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP violations by two SPAs at Steven G. Kaplan

• Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs) have performed BLP violation and vandalism respectively, over a sustained period of time.
2. Both accounts appear to be WP:SPAs with the sole purpose of adding negative info to about this BLP to Wikipedia, and removing positive info about the same BLP individual.
3. The page itself has been cleaned up with sources and referenced info, as I had noticed it after doing a quality improvement project to WP:GA, on the article, Fuck (film).
4. Requesting admin intervention to address the numerous BLP violations and vandalism of a BLP page by VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs).

Selected diffs and evidence

• VINTON2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP violating edits including numerous edit-warring to insert negative allegations sourced only to a website "Ripoff Report": [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118]

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

Page blanking vandalism with odd edit summaries: [119] [120] [121]

---

Note: I was referred here from WP:BLPN at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steven_G._Kaplan.

And one of the accounts above did it again, just now.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The page has been protected and the users warned, I'll keep an eye on the page and the editors. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think more than a first-level warning is necessitated here, like either a block, or a final-warning. These are significant blatant BLP violations that have been going on for months with one account and years with another. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits and comments in the talk page by both accounts, it seems like they're using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta or off-site dispute. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:PraetorianFury making personal attacks and being generally disruptive

Please see this diff and this diff for two examples of the personal attacks User:PraetorianFury has been repeatedly making toward other editors. Furthermore, this user has basically admitted that he is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Please note that latter diff by his second account also contains several more personal attacks aimed at the same editor. ROG5728 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI for these users. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the SPI is probably unnecessary because he has already admitted he owns both accounts. Regardless, his conduct has been incredibly rude and disruptive, so something will have to be done. ROG5728 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not really evidence to say "here's one example, there are lots more." Please give as many diffs as you can to support your complaint here. Since the SPI is being handled separately, I suggest you remove that part of the complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided three diffs containing clear personal attacks against another editor and one of the diffs even contains more than one attack. Let me also point out that the only reason you're commenting on this ANI is because you (SPECIFICO) are currently the subject of an ANI yourself. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I spent a great half an hour looking at all this crap. The SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AzureFury, is going nowhere (for obvious reasons), and I don't think that the diffs provided here are enough reason for a block. I did find, however, that the attitude displayed by PratorianFury esp. on Talk:Gun control are snarky, bitey, baiting, and condescending--they're the mix of sarcasm and insult that makes working on some issues just not worth it. I have asked them on their talk page to stop--actually, I warned them. If this goes on, they should be blocked for a breach of civility. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The double-standard here is appalling. Where were your delicate sensibilities when I reported these same attacks and had admins complain about my report? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing to act in a way completely contrary to establishing consensus. I made some (many) assertions of notability listing some examples (unsourced). He asked for links. I asked him to clarify which ones he questioned or would find satisfactory. He responded saying "You typed many words on a talk page but have provided no links as required by WP:ONUS. Let the record show that I've given you the opportunity to change my position and you have rejected it". I am open to opinions and views other than my own, but he completely refuses to collaborate in any useful manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:168.190.80.40

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.

---

Only 34 edits, resulting in 8 warnings: great score. Could someone take a look at the behaviour of this IP? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this should be resolved through consensus -- because we all know that the collective agreement of the few are right. That's exactly what they said about Iraqi. User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Lova Falk are ruining Wikipedia -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.80.40 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• IP blocked for a week after repeated disruption on this page, among other things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Could be an idea to revoke this IP's talk page access as well; certainly he isn't using it very constructively. Sideways713 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Best to ignore that kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP violations by two SPAs at Steven G. Kaplan

• Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs) have performed BLP violation and vandalism respectively, over a sustained period of time.
2. Both accounts appear to be WP:SPAs with the sole purpose of adding negative info to about this BLP to Wikipedia, and removing positive info about the same BLP individual.
3. The page itself has been cleaned up with sources and referenced info, as I had noticed it after doing a quality improvement project to WP:GA, on the article, Fuck (film).
4. Requesting admin intervention to address the numerous BLP violations and vandalism of a BLP page by VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs).

Selected diffs and evidence

• VINTON2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP violating edits including numerous edit-warring to insert negative allegations sourced only to a website "Ripoff Report": [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]

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

Page blanking vandalism with odd edit summaries: [130] [131] [132]

---

Note: I was referred here from WP:BLPN at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steven_G._Kaplan.

And one of the accounts above did it again, just now.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The page has been protected and the users warned, I'll keep an eye on the page and the editors. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think more than a first-level warning is necessitated here, like either a block, or a final-warning. These are significant blatant BLP violations that have been going on for months with one account and years with another. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits and comments in the talk page by both accounts, it seems like they're using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta or off-site dispute. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Troller8000

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.

---

Troller8000 ( talk | contribs |Block )

Has an unacceptable username that could encourage Trolling. please siteban the account for the username. Trolling has hurt this wiki many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.238.157 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP:UAA is the place for this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

IP User 50.37.147.15

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

---

IP blocked for a week. Manning (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}}

IP User 50.37.147.15 (talk  · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) has been warned repeatedly to stop removing {{Marriage}} templates from articles without consensus. After proposing it for discussion/deletion (WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 3 § Template:Marriage), they went silent. The result of the discussion was no consensus, and the template is being actively worked on to resolve the issues that people have brought up.

I previously requested some attention to the issue, and the user's possibly being a sock, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793 § IP 50.37.147.15 disruption. The discussion was derailed into the details of the template dispute, and then died.

On May 2, the user made this edit to remove the {{Marriage}} template, again without comment or consensus. I've reverted the edit and request they be blocked from further such action, and checked to see if there is evidence of being a sock. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll note there is another IP with very similar behavior, including identical edit summaries - 69.166.47.99 (talk  · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). This IP has also edited the talk page of the blocked IP, suggesting a link. Manning (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Inspire (magazine)

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

Editors have repeatedly inserted links to archive copies of the magazine's articles.[133][134] This is abnormal. At most there would be one link to a magazine's official website. In this case, because the magazine promotes criminal activities, it is dubious whether Wikipedia should be linking to any copy of the magazine at all. We should not allow our high visibility site to be abused for promoting outside causes, especially causes that violate the laws in the country where Wikipedia is published (and in other countries where Wikipedia may be accessed).

I doubt that we have well formed policy about this case. Common sense would be not to link to this magazine at all, and that the article should rely exclusively on secondary sources. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and if appropriate place the article under permanent semi-protection to prevent the article from being abused as a means of spreading propaganda and inciting criminal activities. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding legality/morality of the activity the magazine promotes, copies archived on websites would be copyright violations, right? I would think we should keep them out for that reason at a bare minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted and semi-protected based on my understanding of the copyright issue, per WP:LINKVIO. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Copyvio is the easiest way to stop the publication. Though if it has a real website... chances are if pushed Wikipedia would have to include the link. This stops the problem for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do about AfD created by Paul Bedson sock?

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

---

I've just blocked QaraounCultureBuiltEden (talk · contribs) as a blatant sock of Paul Bedson (talk · contribs). He's created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Christianity (2nd nomination) for an article whose AfD just closed 2 days ago as Keep. Not sure what to do, I'd like to delete it, not just close it - I'm pretty sure the participants won't mind but I'll mention this there. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say delete, as one would do with any other page created by a blocked user in violation of their block (WP:CSD#G5). GiantSnowman 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, that seems sensible. This time he has reverted a lot of edits made by an earlier sock that I'd ignored, so I'm not reverting his edits. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I differ. A while back I tagged a Mangoeater AFD per G5, and the consenus at WT:CSD at the time was that if there'd been any !votes by other users, then the AFD should be either: 1) allowed to continue with a note reflecting the nominator's block (if there were any delete !votes) or 2) speedily kept (if there were none). (IIRC, in that particular case, no one had voted yet, and the AFD was deleted.) Someone should draw up a flowchart or something. But yeah, I'd say a speedy keep is in order. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing Bedsonsock trolling. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*PinkAmpersand's interpretation is logical. The rules state that the page can be deleted if the "majority" of it was written by other users. As soon as anyone voted with a longer sentence than the nomination, the page should not be deleted as per the law. This would also apply to certain other articles you are deleting Doug. (P.S. Time for the Zealot inquisition to re-open) General Urlov (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, WP:MFD then? GiantSnowman 18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• No need for an MFD, just speedy keep, per P&. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, what? A sock of a banned user is nominating for deletion articles another sock of the same user created? I still say just speedy keep, but now I also say "?" --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it's just trolling. Don't do an MFD, that would be feeding it. Just speedy keep, since people have commented, and speedy delete any subsequent AFD's by new socks as soon as they show up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've CSDed it under G5 and removed the template on the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why is it that, one way or another, I always wind up on the same side as the sockpuppets? Someday I wanna run for CU just so I can see how many times checks have had to be run on me. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Honestly, wouldn't that be an abuse of your assumed position. Sockpuppets aside, I love how obvious most of them are, but is it just me or is there good hand and bad hand socks lately, and sleeper ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 May 2013‎

• Struck through the comment of another Bedson sock. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And hatted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

DUCK block requested

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 have a Quacker Vietnamese Liberal Party (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

If the community actually cared about the excessive sockpuppetry on this article in general (let alone sockpuppetry altogether), then Dinh Bo Linh should be full-protected for a very long time. --MuZemike 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by user:Afg96

Afg96 has been disruptive in editing Mehmet Oz by ignoring the talk page discussion about whether the article should say that Oz is a Muslim. Instead, Afg96 has repeatedly undone the article changes called for in the talk page decision, despite four warnings that this behavior was inappropriate.

Here are some of the edits by Afg96 going against the talk page decision, and the corresponding warnings I placed on Afg96’s talk page:

• [135]
• Warning: [136]

• [137]
• Warning: [138]

• [139]
• Warning: [140]

• [141]
• Warning: [142]

Here is the latest edit by Afg96, which was made after the fourth warning:

• [143]

Afg96 has never participated in the discussion on the article’s talk page, but did leave this message on my talk page:

• [144]

Here is my response to Afg96’s message along with the response of another editor (the only one to respond to Afg96’s message):

• [145]

I appreciate any help you can provide with this conflict. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed content of George Maharis's arrest

The consensus agreed to have the arrest added. However, one user, Delicious Carbuncle, removes it, citing a policy as a reason to overcome consensus. Shall the "arrest" info be re-added or left out? --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the situation: Maharis was arrested in 1974 in a public washroom in Los Angeles. He plead "no contest" to a charge of trespassing. Detailing such a minor charge is completely out of proportion in the biography of a living person which does not even have a "personal life" section. We would not include a minor traffic violation in an actor's biography and this is no different. I believe that some editors may be motivated by a desire to use this incident to imply that Maharis is gay. I have removed the inclusion as a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), this seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to include this at all, 100 years from now this will not be regarded as significant to this man's career. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to disagree with DC's logic here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a collection of dirt, WP:BLP applies even if the matter is reliably source because this is so trivial. Its 'gay-connection' thing is a huge concern is creating suggestions of a particularly damaging nature. ANI does not handle content disputes, but it seems another RFC is open on it. This isn't a behavior matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

George is most kind to alert us that the locally established consensus on Talk:George Maharis is problematic. We should all find time to head over to that page in order to ensure that the consensus there pays more attention to WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I didn't want to be called out for my earlier point of content versus behavior focus. That's all, if I didn't mention such a thing I would surely hear about it later in my own content dispute. Though that is another topic entirely. I'll comment there about my stance, ANI really isn't the preferred spot to make high level decisions on content like this, so comments should go into the rfc. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

George Ho started this discussion because of my actions, not to discuss the underlying content dispute, and they were correct to do so. But it doesn't hurt to remind editors that consensus or RfCs on an article talk page cannot override policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with DC and the comments supporting him, with the caveat that if the article that DGG cites on the talk page came from a genuinely reliable source, rather than a non-notable family-friendly gossip columnist/celebrity journalism repackager, there might be a reasonable contrary argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally an edit like this must be scrutinized, criminal activity on a biography of living person should not be added unless it is significant to either their career or produced a significant amount of literature. When in question, I completely agree with DC's actions, the questionable material should be removed until a consensus that is in line with policy can be established. I think George did the right thing by looking for another venue of inquiry (although I would have gone elsewhere before the ANI), and I think he has his answer that a community of experienced editors questions the inclusion of this material. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also struggling to see where the consensus for this edit actually came from. I see a couple of people voting for it, and a couple voicing concerns, not anything like a cast-iron consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to eliminate restrictions

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.

---

Alright so it's been 18 months since User:Bwilkins gave me restrictions because I uploaded several non-free images that I tried to take full ownership of. I believe I can continue on Wikipedia without these restrictions and not get into any more trouble. Since September 2011, I have not been called upon at WP:AN/I and have been taking some wiki breaks as a result of my overall good behavior on Wikipedia. I understand what I did was wrong and promised not to ever do it again. I have a full understanding of Wikipedia's non-free content requirements and rules and need the ability to upload these as I begin to take articles I've expanded substantially to FAC which requires the use of non-free content to illustrate the article and to inform the reader. I've been asking several users on Wikipedia that I've been in good terms with to help me with artwork and/or music file uploading when the article I've expanded needs one. I believe I have demonstrated since 2011 that I won't be a menace on Wikipedia, and believe I can be counted on to take full responsibility of my actions and not act immature towards editors. Hope you guys can see the good in me and grant me back my full user rights . Best, Jona^{talk to me} 01:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support removing restrictions. NE Ent 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am at least a little bit worried at seeing rapid endorsements of this request when Jona (AJona1992) has not actually described to us (or even linked to) either the specific restrictions that he is editing under, or the circumstances that led to those restrictions being imposed. Does anyone have links to all the relevant discussions?

From what I can piece infer from Jona's user talk page archive, it appears that he created more than one sockpuppet to push article(s?) he was working on through GAR and to engage in deliberate copyfraud. (There was apparently also some personal nastiness, including an unblock request that included "but the bitch needs to know, well everybody, needs to know is that if you piss me off then I'm going to attack" as justification for his conduct.) I can't help but feel that we're being rushed to a decision while being kept in an information vacuum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Their block log has been clean since Bwilkins imposed the restrictions. The request is unambiguous in acknowledging their past mistakes as well as their promise to avoid such behavior in the future. I'm willing to AGF this is a sincere request. If Jona betrays this trust, then shame on them and call me a sucker.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the misbehaviour described by TenOfAllTrades is pretty strong. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  I actually apologized to those users I commented on when I was asking to be unblocked. That was years ago and my behavior is nothing like that anymore as you can tell in my more recent archives and has improved since those remarks were made. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 03:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not coming down one way or another on this request. I don't mean to torpedo it out of hand; my concern is that we're missing too much detail to make an informed decision in response to this request. Were there one or more noticeboard discussions that pull together the relevant history and evidence? (Sockpuppet checks, AN/I reports, any previous appeals, etc.?) The discussion on AJona's user talk page gives some hints about what the problems were, but doesn't tie it all together and put things in context. As I said, I do find it troubling that AJona didn't feel it necessary to provide that information – or even a clear list of the restrictions he seeks to have lifted – as part of his original request. Care and attention to process details matter—both for requests to lift or modify sanctions and in uploading non-free content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For some past history, I've posted the previous ANI's that Ajona was called up for.

The copyright issues started back in 2010 and were discussed in ANI. The ANI wasn't limited to just copyright, but the discussion at the time cleared the air of these other issues (incivility, edit warring, socking, the usual kitbag)

ANI was where AJona first appealed the restrictions. Ajona's name pricked my memory a bit and it was at the same time that Ajona also agreed to my proposal for a sort of mentorship as a precondition for a lifting of the upload restriction.

Ajona asked for advice this ANI, which wasn't really a request to lift sanctions, so shouldn't be really held against him.

Ajona was restricted from making any image uploads due to their lack of understanding of copyright and attempting to pass off copyrighted images as their own, which was noted in the 2010 ANI. I'd support a lifting of their restrictions since Ajona has managed to keep himself out of trouble with regards to image copyright, but would counsel that they return to image uploading very slowly and carefully. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions are on top of users' talk page User_talk:AJona1992. For me, all the relevant information is: a. date of restrictions and b. no blocks for violation in the intervening interval.NE Ent 09:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as their block log shows, their last block was in August 2011 and unblocked in Sept 2011 with the aforementioned restrictions. Nothing since then. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support My criteria is similar to Ent's although I consider more than just blocks. Lifting the restriction seems a worthwhile "risk" after this long. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• waiting for a comment from Bwilkins. (leaning support) — Ched :  ?  16:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't include those here because I've apologized to every user I badmouthed to so there's no need to bring my past back up if its patched up already. I still talk (from time to time) to several of them and they are okay with replying back especially User:Moonriddengirl who has given me several links to help me understand Wikipedia's non-free content and I sometimes go to her for advice. I also requested several non-free images on Commons to be deleted and worked there for a short time helping fight vandals. If this isn't enough proof then I don't know what else is. I know Bewilkins didn't approve of the loosen of my restrictions (the last time I requested it) because he felt that I didn't understand what I was doing was wrong, but this time around I did and even read several polices about non-free content. I hope you guys can see that I've changed over the past two years. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Question Which restrictions do you want removed ... all of them? I would disagree with removing the restriction to one account - it should stay. Obviously following CIVIL and NPA to the letter should still apply ... and I see no suggestions about what type of non-copyrighted images ant Ajona needs to upload all of a sudden. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that in his opening statement, Ajona says that he would like his upload restriction lifted, in a somewhat roundabout way. Following CIVIL and NPA should be a given and the single account restriction being lifted wasn't mentioned. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm just guessing here, but perhaps being allowed to remove that scarlet letter notice on their talk is an issue too. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to be able to upload images and music files as my main contributions relate to music-related articles especially ones that are stubs and turning them into FAs. I don't mind staying with the notice on my talk page if everyone here believes it should remind me to stay civil and only have one account. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you won't mind getting indeffed the first time you upload any copyrighted material...the block was your final warning - you don't get 3-strikes-and-out anymore ... so what I'm asking is that are you 110% certain you understand WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:IUP and all other vital policies related to images and files? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand and have made myself familiar with the non-free content polices. Jona^{talk to me} 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting upload restrictions, especially in light of his comment just as above. As one of the admins who was working cleanup during these issues, I've seen a huge turnaround in Ajona1992 since the restrictions were rightfully imposed and personally I have confidence that the problem will not repeat. That said, I think that this is in a way offering a bit of rope. I expect that Ajona will be very careful; I would encourage him to be extremely scrupulous about documenting where images come from and if in doubt seek feedback before uploading. I think he's being doing good work, and I'd be really disappointed if we lost that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per MRG and discussion above. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Its time to get the editor back to work. Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment so has the community come to an agreement? Am I granted back my privileges to upload media or remain with that restriction? Also there were concerns about the letter on my talk page needing to remain, is that still in affect or is it okay to remove? Best, jona^{talk to me} 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was reading through Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:General sanctions and don't see anything that prohibits your removal of the notice, and I believe that WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING would support that as well. However, there may be some items in some sort of WP:AE type of guidelines somewhere that I'm not familiar with, so I'm hesitant to say outright "yes you can remove the notice" (yes, I realize this was a community based situation rather than Arb based, I'm just using that as an example), but my belief is that you can remove it. As far as thread closure, it wouldn't be proper for those of us who have supported or opposed this to close the thread; so we must wait for a passing admin. who's not attached for that. I think the thread has been open long enough to be resolved - so now it's just a matter of WP:PleaseBePatient. Best of luck to you. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - What are the odds that this editor really secretly wants to misbehave and has decided that posting the one thing that is most likely to guarantee future scrutiny is a good way to accomplish that goal? Lift the restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support --MuZemike 02:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I've encountered Jona in the past, and he's a good guy with the best of intentions but has perhaps just been a bit too enthusiastic on occasion. I'm happy to trust him on the assurances he has given. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: He stayed on, stayed clean, wants to contribute. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Support is for removal of restriction no 2, about restriction no 1, I'm not sure why it was in place as isn't using more than one account surreptitiously not allowed for anyone? Regarding restriction no 3, NPA and CIVIL are general guidelines that ought to be followed by everyone and not just this editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So support is for taking the notice off from the talk page too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal: inclusion of Male privilege in Men's rights movement article probation status

• _{Please review the section on WP:NPOVN, as the discussion spills over into there, currently Rgambord (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}

full disclosure: I currently have a request in at WP:NPOVN regarding issues of content and WP:UNDUE at Male privilege.

Because two editors who have been involved in ongoing disputes at Men's rights movement, Kyohyi and Rgambord (the latter of which appears to have left) have over the last month or so become involved in editing Male privilege, I would like to propose that this article be considered part of these sanctions; I feel it relates substantially to "Men's rights (broadly construed)" but I want to get other input.

Maybe this doesn't need a formal proposal and is just discretionary, in which case feel free to let me know that's the case. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

for reference, here is the article probation information which I found in the list of general sanctions -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to post this to the neutrality board, but it's more appropriate here, since UTCL has brought the matter to ANI. I apologize for the extremely long comment, but I have a lot to say.

Let's clear up some misconceptions here. First off, I am not currently topic banned from any article as far as I am aware. There was a misunderstanding on Men's Rights Movement where I tried to clean up the talk page by merging multiple related section together; something went wrong, and the original sections I merged were not deleted, making duplicate sections. I noticed a few hours later and deleted the old sections, unknowingly deleting a new comment in the old sections. After that, I removed another user's comment on the same talk page (inserting text saying I had removed it for violation of WP:BDP), which violated WP:BDP (Calling a suicide victim a domestic terrorist as an insult). The person who's comment I had inadvertently deleted thought I was vandalizing the page, and asked why I deleted their comment; I assumed they were referring to the terrorist statement, and responded that I had removed it for WP:BPD violation. A series of miscommunications and misunderstandings later, and User:TParis hastily topic banned me without taking the time to try to get to the bottom of what had actually happened. Yes, I was rude and I apologize for that; I thought I was responding to someone who was indignant on being chastised for labeling an ideological opponent a terrorist. Now, if we can continue with the rest of this nonsense?

I am taking a break from wikipedia, especially the humanities (shudder), but I received an email notification, so that's why I'm here. UseTheCommandLine and I already argued over this page, and it already went to AN/I, and there seemed to be consensus that she was acting out of line and POV pushing. She got upset and decided to take a break, leaving this note on her talk page "I am tired of dealing with sexists and racists. I am taking an extended wikibreak. Perhaps it will be permanent.". I found it quite offensive, as it was clearly pointed at me. Here's the deal. I have been an editor on wikipedia for a very long time; this is a fairly new account. I have contributed quite a lot both logged in and as IP to various articles, mostly in history and science. Only within the last couple of months did I become aware of the extremely biased Feminism etc... pages on wikipedia, and I brought the same perspective I bring to all articles I edit in removing content that violates various clear wikipedia policies, as well as occasionally removing content that just plain old makes wikipedia into an unreliable encyclopedia (Per WP:IAR). I am by no means a perfect editor. I have always edited in good faith, and assumption that has not been granted to me by many editors on the feminism related pages, mostly because I am not a feminist, and don't adhere to or blindly accept any feminist beliefs without evidence. Neither am I an "MRA", racist, or sexist, as has been accused. I am simply one person who wants to see BETTER ARTICLES on wikipedia about this subject. I originally found out these articles because I was curious about their subjects, and then disgusted at the quality of information they provided.

One feminist belief is the existence of Male Privilege. There are quite a few very intelligent, (dare I say experts? Why not -- their credentials are no better or worse than mainstream feminist scholars), who argue for the exact opposite. UTCL pushed to deny those sources be included, and to remove evidence of the disagreement before, and she is doing it again. I have argued before, and I will argue now, that we should either have a legitimate (non-stub) male privilege and female privilege (currently a redirect to male privilege -- almost a slap in the face, really), or one article entitled Gender privilege. Both are notable and completely contradictory points of view, and no editor is qualified to determine which one is correct or which one deserves to be the main title of the page. Imagine the outrage if I changed the name of the article to Female Privilege, and just swapped the main article content and the criticism sections, changing a bit of the wording? I'd probably be banned for vandalism and POV pushing; but that sort of editing is perfectly accepted here if it's the other way around. There are other, similarly US and Feminism centric articles on wikipedia, such as White Privilege, and Christian Privilege-- which hardly applies in places like: China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Religious privilege, in general? --Yes, that exists, I agree, and that's the scope an encyclopedic article should cover. Gender is no different. There are numerous examples of female privilege in our society, and they are backed by WP:RS.

Finally, I posted in the Male privilege talk page my intentions for the article, before being distracted by school work, and the mess over at Men's Rights Movement. UTCL is aware of my intentions yet has avoided any attempts at consensus building, instead seeming to want to "protect" the previous state of the article before my arrival (which was absolutely abysmal and contained numerous unsourced paragraphs, as well as clear violations of WP:Synth/WP:OR). I don't believe that the article needs protection, something that should not just be doled out willy-nilly (This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit). I merely think that UTCL needs to have some mentoring, as mentioned in the previous AN/I topic, as well as possibly having her edits to Male Privilege placed under moderation or whatever it is they do here. Maybe then we can build consensus, like I tried to the first time around, instead of having constant edit wars. Rgambord (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, this sort of line "Well, it does help make it quite obvious that misogynists have overrun the page... that's how I ended up in here. Publicarch (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)" on Talk:Male privilege shows the sort of pre-polarized attitude editors are bringing into the page. It is exceedingly clear that User:Publicarch is calling me and User:Kyohyi misogynists. UTCL's behavior has been roughly the same. It's absolutely unacceptable and unprofessional conduct and has no place on wikipedia. Rgambord (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

my reasoning for the separate ANI and NPOVN cases was that the NPOVN query was about the content issues while this notification was about its relation to Men's rights and Men's rights movement. If there's a willingness to get everything sorted at once, fine, but I was trying to separate out the content from the behavior. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The behavior at issue is your history of repeated edit warring and revert warring [146][147][148]. Thank you for bringing it to the attention of ANI. Rgambord (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation RGambord

• Note: Rgambord (talk · contribs) is currently topic banned [149] from editing the article men's rights movement. Male privilege is certainly a related article as many men's rights activists argue that women are privileged (see section "female privielge" in the men's rights movement article) and men are not privileged relative to women (see lead section and "relation to feminism" section in the mrm article). Perhaps an uninvolved admin can take decide if Rgambord violated his topic ban. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not topic banned. I can only guess that TParis looked into the matter and saw that I made a good-faith mistake. I see you have an axe to grind, after I've repeatedly apologized for an honest mistake. I have no kind words for you considering you denied my repeated attempts to resolve the issue during and after. You're quite unconstructive, yourself. Rgambord (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[150] Rgambord (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "article ban" not "topic ban". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

With this edit Rgambord has violated his article ban [151][152]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You claimed there was a topic ban. That was false. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Topic banned from editing the article men's rights movement" is what was actually said. It is absolutely clear what was meant and splitting hairs over the phrasing is ridiculous. Rgambord, don't make any more edits to the article. AniMate 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To use the exact words of the blocking admin in the log of sanctions: "Rgambord (talk · contribs) topic banned from MRM article and talk page for 1 month until May 23, 2013." [italics mine]. Either way, Rgambord did violate his ban with today's edit in the mrm article. If we assume that it was a topic ban – and the blocking admin said that it was and if you look at the log of sanctions you'll see that the patrolling admins have issued topic bans rather than article bans – then I believe that there is reason to believe that Rgambord violated his ban by editing the male privilege article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. Admin told him he has to stay away from one article and then made a log entry entire topic without telling him about it... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a topic ban violation doesn't get more ovbious that this [153][154]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is notable, I think, that Rgambord him or herself describes their ban as "topic" rather than article in the initial (not meant to be derogatory) wall of text response, above (here). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that until now, he didn't even know what "ban" means, so I'd just not pick on words anymore. He self-reverted just now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

fair enough. stricken. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• We're not seriously contemplating blocking an editor for an innocuous formatting improvement, are we? Reyk _YO! 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, but this one nails it. Didn't see that until now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I don't understand what's going on here. Firstly, don't start saying I violated a topic ban for removing an extraneous space to show a point. That's ridiculously bureaucratic and unhelpful. If you're seriously going to start arguing about whether I violated my ban (which apparently isn't present) because of that, I'm just going to go ahead and actually leave wikipedia for good, because this nonsense is getting pretty damn ridiculous. Second, how do I formally appeal the ban, which was made in error? Especially considering TParis claimed two different time periods for the ban, and then never actually banned me? Considering that sonicyouth86 misrepresented my actions and TParis likely did not look much into the situation before "banning" me, considering it took him only a couple of minutes to make a quick decision. Rgambord (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) How do you explain this then? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. We are considering blocking him for violating his topic ban with a big side of WP:Point thrown in for good measure. AniMate 09:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What topic ban? I can still edit the article, so where is the ban? Explain, please. Seriously, this is getting old. And now I am not allowed to defend myself? Rgambord (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Article ban". And there's no doubt you were informed about that. And you violated it on the talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can still edit the page, so how am I banned? And WP:POINT doesn't even apply to my edit, so idk what animate is talking about. So what you're telling me is that I'm going to get blocked because I assumed that TParis removed whatever ban he threatened on me and then attempted to defend myself against lies? Just don't even bother. Don't even. This is disgraceful. What a waste of time. Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A ban is not a technical measure. You can, but you're not allowed. And you were told you're not allowed. But you did anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let's sloowwwwwwwww down a bit, ok? I'll undo both edits. No harm, no foul, turn off the sirens, put down the guns. Now that that is settled, the actual reasoning behind the ban "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive." just... isn't true. That's the problem. I wasn't in a dispute with these people. I didn't delete entire sections of an ongoing discussion. I clusterfucked a section move, and even put in the edit summary that I hoped I was doing it right. Clearly I did it wrong, and got shat on for it. So, I guess if I can't appeal that ban and if you're all intent on stringing me up for it, so be it. I can edit something else. It still seems ridiculous to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The patrolling admin TParis told you clearly and unambiguously that you are banned from editing the mrm article and the article talk page. Another user advised you to revert your edit in the mrm article [155]. Despite all this you went ahead and edited the mrm talk page [156] on top of the mrm article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you have tremendous experience with topic bans, but I had no idea that's how it worked. Thankfully the admins are reasonable towards newbies here. You sure have taught me a lot in the last couple of weeks Sonicyouth86!!! Forever in your debt xoxoxoxRgambord (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Most editors are reasonable towards newbies but you are not a newbie by your own admission [157]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be rude, but with all this hubbub about topic bans etc, I'm still left wondering if there is consensus that Male privilege qualifies as part of the Men's rights movement article probation. I feel like it's important that once this topic/article/etc stuff is sorted out, that we return to that subject. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What a night. My dog says hi. Rgambord (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to appeal the topic/article ban, I think the appropriate venue is WP:Arbitration enforcement. We don't do a good job at all of making that clear. AniMate 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also, there technically was a violation of the topic ban, but Rgambord didn't understand the restriction, so there won't be any block. UTCL, this has been open for such a short time. Consensus for or against hasn't even begun to form. You're stretching yourself awfully thin here. I'd concentrate on one thing at a time rather than opening an arbitration case while simultaneously trying to expand discretionary sanctions. You're really, really not doing yourself any favors. AniMate 10:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never once had to use any of these arbitration thingys in all the years I've been an editor here, nor have I ever had any warnings of any sort, let alone bans. I hope I never have to make my way to this page again. Holy monkeyballs this has been a really unnecessary nightmare!!!Rgambord (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rgambord writes that he has been an editor for many years. It is a stretch to argue that he does not understand the TParis' words ""Rgambord (talk · contribs) topic banned from MRM article and talk page" and "you are banned from participation on Men's rights movement and it's associated talk page". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time that Rgambord has described himself as an experienced editor ("I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a long time"). He also appeared to know the meaning of "ban" when he argued that my comments (he confused me with User:South19) on the mrm talk page would have gotten me banned [158]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For now I think the best thing to do is assume good faith, and believe that he thought an article ban was technically enforceable. If he violates it again, a block will be in order. AniMate 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not split hairs: an "article ban" and a "topic ban on an article" are identical in meaning, so it's obvious that Rgambord would understand that they meant the same. He has also been around long enough (and is able to follow wikilinks) to understand that bans are not technical implementations - it was part if his original warnings. I might be able to overlook a simple removal of a space (if I have my AGF tinfoil hat on) but nothing more significant. He has violated the article ban. Two options: 1) slap him on the wrist and extend the topic ban for a full month (and close his ridiculous AE request to have the topic ban removed), or 2) block him for a week AND extend the topic ban to indefinite. I !vote for 1. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• TP's comments I dont have a lot of time today to discuss this and I am sorry for that. Seb is correct, I made a discrepency. The intention at the time was an article ban for six months. The log is in error and I am very sorry that my oversight has caused this confusion. I have to go now, but I hope I've cleared some of this up. If my error is so huge that I should recuse from patrolling the topic area anymore, let me know. Also, because of the confusion, if ANI should see reason to come to it's own decision over the terms of Rgambord's sanctions, then I'd ask that up until this point that he be treated as if he were under an article ban. I appreciate those who have given this subject attention and I also apologize for the time wasted.--v/r - TP 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced changes by IPs in Chola Dynasty

Various IPs have been making repeated changes in the article Chola Dynasty regarding how big the empire was. They keep on adding all of the present-day Southeast Asian states, (see article history: [159]) which isn't supported by mainstream scholarship. I've tried to discuss the issue: Talk:Chola_dynasty and no one seems to object to my points. The page supposedly has 137 watchers as of today but I'm not sure how many of them are active users. No one else seems to be taking any action to check on these outlandish claims repeatedly being added in this former featured article, and these changes by IPs go unchallenged for days. Please look into it. Hybernator (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Abhaya Indrayan

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.

---

Abhaya Indrayan is a page created and maintained by what look like new SPAs. There could also be a possible COI. I don't say the page is a problem. Just reporting suspicious activity. May be a false call. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

He is notable by WP:PROF, but I've removed some puffery DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Stalking by IP hopper

I have dealing with an IP edit warrior from two ranges, 12.154.167.xxx and 12.46.106.xxx, on the BK Chicken Fries article. The contrib has been constantly adding trivia to the article which was reverted by myself and two other editors. Despite the removal and a couple of page protection on the article, he keeps reposting. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page and explain why this is inappropriate for inclusion, but the IP poster is sockpuppetting via various IP addresses from AT&T wireless and Charter (all assigned in central Massachusetts and Northern Rhode Island) to make it look as multiple editors are chiming in - a clear violation of policy. Obviously, no valid conversation can be had. The contrib has shown that he has no intention of good faith, truly discussing the issue, adhering to our standards of neutrality, or following any other policy of Wikipedia. Further he is lobbing personal attacks at me instead of discussing the issue.

Now he seems to have decided it is a good thing to wikihound/stalk me (example, minor). He has gone to several articles and reverted changes I have made to those articles using 12.46.106.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for vandalism). Additionally, he posted a rather rude commentary about my dyslexia making me ineligible to contribute to WP on the Talk:BK Chicken Fries page. This individual has me rather upset due to his constant personal attacks and tendentious editing patterns. The issue here is IP hopping, I believe that he is going to just jump around to continue his trolling.

Could some one put a temp range block on those two sets of IPs to discourage him?

I have not put a note about this posting on all 508 possible addresses of the two ranges, as that would be too time consuming. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• All those are obviously the same person, and I've blocked all three (extending the original) to two weeks. If he comes back with more IPs, then WP:RFPP for semi-protection is one option, along with longer blocks for the IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User conduct complaint - Sanctions Against Iran

I am seeking assistance and advice on how to deal with USER:KhabarNegar. I submitted this first as a dispute resolution request, but the request was closed by saying it was a conduct dispute.

Since that request is set to be archived, here is the full discussion:

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sanctions Against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• KhabarNegar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is no single issue in dispute, but a seemingly unending series of issues, which will be evident by looking at the article's history and discussion page.

I have tried to edit the article so that it is factually correct, supported by reliable sources, and balanced. I have explained every edit in the description and often on the talk page. Though I have tried to meet KhabarNegar halfway and work with the valid substantive elements of his additions, he/she has repeatedly reverted my edits and insists on having every word exactly as he wants it. And he typically adds insult to injury by reverting my edits and then adding further dubious content.

I have the impression that few if any other editors look at this page or, if they do, they have given up because of the seemingly intractable dispute.

I also have the impression that KhabarNegar has limited English proficiency, as many of his/her edits and comments on the discussion page are ungrammatical and he/she often seems not to understand what I am saying.

Finally, i have the impression that he/she is motivated by a strong political bias - taking the side of Iran against the United States.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve on the discussion page, to handle things step-by-step. For awhile it seemed like we were making progress, but the dispute has returned to a standoff.

How do you think we can help?

First, review the history and provide an independent view of the dispute. I hope you will conclude that KhabarNegar is being unreasonable, uncivil, and has violated Wikipedia standards of conduct, and I hope you will make this clear to him/her. Ultimately, if he/she refuses to budge, the only solution may be to block him from further edits.

Opening comments by KhabarNegar

Well, Above you see a 1754 character insults from first line till the last line without a single link of what is really going on.

FIRST OF ALL, the biggest lie he is telling is the last line which he is telling.

That is so unfortunate which instead of relying on the facts he makes this discussion USA Vs. Iran discussion, This points of view and injecting national patriotism in to the articles is I think the core problem that above user have,... & its obvious to anyone by using the last line he is trying to make a team to influence the article by his patriot views.

Mr. NPguy instead of insulting and trying to just put views of some current U.S administration foreign policies in to articles try to know the facts from reliable international sources.

If anyone see the history, you can see what he is doing, deleting the reliable sources for example like Al Jazeera & The Christian Science Monitor...KhabarNegar (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The exchange illustrates one aspect the conduct in question: verbal insults instead of substantive replies. If you look at the history of the article in question, you will see a certain amount of edit warring (in which I am not entirely blameless), but also that my efforts to reach a constructive compromise have been persistently rebuffed. Please advise. NPguy (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27] (again)

Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) under the IP of 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Guatemalan IP that's under a six month IP range block for adding dates despite repeated warnings. This IP was blocked from another IP range 190.106.222.0/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was blocked for three days but has continued again to add dates. At this point, do I continue reporting here or at SPI? EDIT: And this IP too: 190.106.222.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) EDIT2: Add this 190.106.222.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

190.106.222.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing reverting my edits despite go against the MOS regarding linking dates. I need help! Erick (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This person changes their IP easily. I am reverting 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs) and 190.106.222.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at the same time. Or s/he is in a computer centre or there are more than a person within this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked 190.106.222.0/25 for two weeks (talk · contribs) (up to 128 users would be blocked). I have to go to the gym now so someone else will have to widen the range while I am away if the activity does not stop. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. Erick (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Kwamikagami

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 previous ANI was about his behaviour, when he reverted my version of the Dravidian languages article without solid reasoning: Link to Archive795
After a couple of days of discussion at the talkpage, I come to the conclusion, that he has no interest in seeking any form of consensus, which doesn't equate his own opinion. In the discussion, he uses only false information to "argument" his case, whatever this may be. He also reverted to his own version again, after I implemented, what most people thought, a consensus version. This misunderstanding happened because he chose to completely abstain from the main discussion! And only after another reverter Taivo helped to sustain the edit war, and I started a RFC, he chose to come to limelight again, only to spread false information again, in a most destructive manner possible to mislead the general public! Please read the talkpage there. Users have called it a farce already. I hereby request an appropriate action against Kwamikagami, which prevents him to do such activities again. Thanks!-- Dravidian  Hero  05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that Dravidianhero read WP:NPA. I clearly stated my reasons for reverting this unprofessional and uninformative map in the infobox. You, Dravidianhero, fail to understand Wikipedia procedures as expounded in WP:BRD. You made a bold change, but when you were reverted, rather than discussing reasonably and trying to build a consensus, you simply tried to force your will upon the article by edit warring. When your proposed change fails to achieve a consensus, then you must abandon it. Your map is inferior to the map that has been in the article for a long time. That has been plainly stated to you. Indeed, you have initiated an RfC at the article, so rather than letting the RfC play itself out, you have now initiated an ANI. That smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me, another violation of Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What others could do easily, you couldn't. Frame legit reasons for reverts. That's why I needed assistance by filing an RfC. To better understand your problem. Anyone, who reads the talkpage discussion will discover that I took everyone into confidence with ease. You consequently denied any serious discussion until RfC was opened. Suddenly you guys actually talk, wasted hours over hours of my and yours time in the process.-- Dravidian  Hero  07:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI sometimes goes off on wacky tangents, so I figure I'd better ask: Is there anything for me to respond to here? — kwami (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Our Navajo friend is right. --Taivo (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the subject as it vaguely contained a personal attack, which was not intended.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Taivo is colorblind" is not "vaguely a personal attack". --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's be fair. I said "Maybe" and you guys provocated me to use strong words. I deleted those.-- Dravidian  Hero  18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Close this please..-- Dravidian  Hero  21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Talkpage list

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.

---

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

Ok so a continuing issue from several ANI postings regarding conflicts an Ip is having with a large group of editors[[160]], a few of which have been administrators. As seen here [[161]] several editors have expressed concerns about it being a "hitlist". I don't really care if they want to make a shrine of people they hate that's up to them, however it is causing significant disruption both for the editors and the IP who also claims to have a registered account with admin rights [[162]], so in essence a possible good hand, bad hand account situation. Either way this comes out without this discussion someone will come out with blocks if it's not stopped and a consensus is made to if it's allowed or not. Heres some history.

• Adding [[163]]
• Removing [[164]]
• Adding [[165]]
• Removing [[166]][[167]]
• Adding [[168]]
• Removing [[169]]
• Adding [[170]]
• Removing [[171]] and the other side of the diff readding.

I may have missed a few in there but either the registered users need to be told to let him have his list or we need to have it removed to end the silliness. I'm not even opposed to contact bans for all involved because at this point I'm fairly certain the IP will dig their own grave with other editors. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

All editors on the list including Ip have been notified of this thread. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I personally consider such a list to be highly inappropriate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I consider what you're all doing inappropriate. Of all the things you're blaming me for, I'm not doing anything wrong. It is you all doing wrong. I will not participate in this nonsense again. When are you going to move on? I have. That notice is to avoid this very thing, yet you can't let it go. You leave all sorts of inappropriate messages on talk pages and revert my edits, and I'm wrong? Be productive on here for once! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I don't think the IP has any right to ban someone from their talk page and then proceed to use said talk page to attack the banned person. Don't discuss/malign someone and then tell them they cannot defend themselves. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment For reference, ANIs involving the same IP in the last week include Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#99.129.112.89 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#User_talk:99.129.112.89. Unfortunately, the IP's actions is only inviting scrutiny by removing the user list and then adding it back the next day, while other's won't unwatch the talk page either. A disruption for sure.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Such a list is not appropriate and the IP should not be able to try to ban us from his talk page just because we've had past arguments. I don't mean to be harsh here, but this IP is probably the most disruptive good faith user I've ever crossed paths with. TCN7JM 03:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• I was told by Bagumba that the list is allowed and in order for me to remove the list or individual users from it, I will have to go through dispute resolution which requires certification by at least one other user, and consensus needs to be established via an RfA or the like on whether my being on said list is appropriate. I don't have the nerve to do that, but anyone else who doesn't want to be on the hitlist is apparently required to take these steps. If needed, I will certify the DR-request. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that is a fair summary of our discussion at User_talk:Bagumba#clarification. My takeaway is that I explained I was issuing a reprieve in all parties in the last ANI and I was not inclined to issue a block at the time. It was not an endorsement of the content.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for linking to the section. Others can read it. You did tell me to go to WP:DR which is quite a process. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I was hoping the earlier steps like "Discuss with the other party" or "Disengage" would be attempted. There is also the less complicated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.—Bagumba (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Bagumba, I understand where you're coming from, but when someone's name is being mentioned on a list such as this one, he might not be so inclined to disengage and let it stay there. Also, the discuss with the other party option wasn't really on the table as the IP had pretty much banished everyone he didn't like from his talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • (ec) The IP explicitly rejects discussion; I have now disengaged simply because Dispute resolution is a tedious process and like I said I don't have the nerve for it. The end result is that, effectively, the list is, well, maybe not "allowed", but tolerated. I am here because I was notified of this section. My main point here stands for others to read: If somebody wants to start the DR and needs a signature to certify it, ping me, I'll sign it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • (double ec) Why must we go to such measures to delete the list when it is so obviously inappropriate to everyone but the one who created it? Can't we call community consensus on this or something? TCN7JM 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• This is so many kinds of inappropriate, and the hysterical edit summaries of 92.129.... make me think they are deliberately steering this into the realm of WP:POINT. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have deleted the list. I will now leave you all to determine what further action, if any, is necessary. Good night. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like others to comment on this because if we just delete it based on one uninvolved opinion it would literally be a lynching mob justice. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

comments on metaphor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, it would not be a lynching. For God's sake, mind what you type. Tiderolls 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Take a look and see if you want to revise that statement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Don't get so offended over a figure of speech. TCN7JM 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Not saying it was correct to type. Just don't think you guys needed to get so riled up over it. </disclaimer> TCN7JM 04:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I was literally just using it as the term as an idiom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP has removed the AN/I notice claiming that Hell in a Bucket is WikiHounding him. TCN7JM 04:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Coming from a guy who admitted to being wrong, apologized, gave me "wiki love" then turned on me. Great character! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain how that is relevant to this discussion? TCN7JM 04:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be an ad hominem attack, and would not be the first time anon did so. The point is not relevant Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• First notify the IPuser that the page will be deleted and if the list of editors, any list of editors, is recreated, they will be blocked. Wait an appropriate period. Follow through. Apteva (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can see why anon dislikes me but I'm not sure what we're seeking here.

I don't mind being on the list. Claiming that a block list for his talk page is allowed by WP:NOBAN is ridiculous and unsupported. It's clearly not permitted. I'm fine with ignoring it if I need to warn anon for inappropriate edits. I won't be engaging the editor in general discussion since the anon's arguments are incomprehensible and childish. I have nothing to discuss with the anon on the anon's talk page apart form that so it's unnecessary on my part. I speak only for myself, not for the others on the list. I also don't speak to the precedent that it may set. It's certainly not the sort of behaviour we want to encourage. So if we're just requesting that anon not keep the list, it may be appropriate with the grand scheme of things in view.

With all that said, the anon is clearly not a good member of the Wikipedia community, and the edits I have seen are intriguing blog posts, but not good Wikipedia contributions. I would support a temporary block based on the anon's poor behaviour, that has lasted half a year (starting in November 2013 November 2012). This behaviour includes repeated taunts and behaviour similar to this block list (see the Talk:Contemporary Christian music#About.com paragraph and "Diversity in CCM" section and other locations on the talk page. If the anon is blocked, the account that the anon claims to have should also be discovered and then blocked. I would also support a removal of the list to prevent others from creating similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had to tag anon for a personal attack. This is behaviour for which anon has been blocked in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this IP has been very disruptive and disrespectful for no real reason. Please remove 99.129.112.89 (talk) list and I hope there is real considerations of suspending/banning this IP from future edits. Thank you. Redmen44 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an indef this is way too minor. But if the list is ok then we all just go our way until the next time. Baguma is right and the IP has said as much themselves they'll just come back differently. I think we are dealing with an Admin logging out good hand bad hand account style or a dishonest and disruptive person. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

TC and Redmen, you are mad that you left a compliment/comment and I removed it without a reply. You argued with me over it and reverted it on my talk page. You were both wrong and admitted that. You are the ones who have left disruptive talk page messages and bothered me. When I ignore you, it makes you angry and "jump the band wagon" of others who are trying to cause me problems for no reason. WG, you are now being warned per "incomprehensible and childish" being personal attacks according to yourself. You are all just mad that an IP knows so much about Wikipedia and rules that it scares you so you want to silence me. Well, I don't need the IP address to be productive on here and it will not stop me. If anything, it will only make things worse for you since I'm trying to do the right thing on here, and you're all being busy bodies instead of being productive. You are all in violation, so coming here to cry wolf and blame me is a smoke screen. I don't want contact with you, what part of that can you not get? That is why the list is there. You all have said mean things, and not been civil on these talk pages, yet you point the finger at me? What's that part in the bible about taking the logs out of your own eyes first? Shalom! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what it comes down to: you didn't like that I defended myself and just do what you said and lied about on my talk page. You're mad I called you out on not properly disputing content and getting a consensus first. You wanted me to just "lay down" and take your abuse and do what you said. To accept your reverts and nonsense messages on my page. And when I didn't, you scream "disruptive" and whatnot. Truth be told, it is you who are guilty. Your hands are dirty. I am the one trying to do right and learn. I may not have been perfect, but at least I admit it. My talk page messages priort to this mess have been nice and supportive. I realize that is strange on here since most people are "mean", but spotting things you do wrong is not personal attacks, no more than yours here and in the past. You want me to go back and show people the things you've typed to people WG? The belittling things on articles you're working on right now? Do you want to open that can of worms? Let's go there, you have the worst history. SO don't point your finger at me, as there are four pointing back at you. How about we all just go our own way (repeating myself) and edit a page instead of wasting everybody's time over petty false issues? Best wishes! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you will disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, is sure sounded like 99.129.112.89 (talk) is and will disrupt wikipedia to male a WP:POINT. My hands are clean so why is this IP still posting? Someone please end his/her "reign of terror". Redmen44 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I really am not sure why you're still attacking me, but I definitely agree with the other three above. TCN7JM 07:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're being disruptive. You put stuff on my page that doesn't belong. I remove it, you got mad. You edit warred and violated three rule revert. I was friendly, and you were just mad I removed your messages without "acknowledging" you. I've done nothing wrong, it's all in your heads! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

remember what you were just telling WG? Let me help refresh your memory "SO don't point your finger at me, as there are four pointing back at you." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've spent entirely too much time reviewing the circumstances of this thread. There's plenty of questionable conduct and it is not exclusive to the IP. Every opportunity to deescalate tension was instead handled by conduct practically guaranteed to increase the turmoil. My76Strat (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you. Finally some sense. I'm going to say it again, I'm moving on like I tried to do before. So if you come back to me a third time with more nonsense because I'm ignoring you and your articles you watch, it will for sure not be my fault again. I tried to leave you alone and be diplomatic by posting messages as a group on my talk page. You all just took it personal. Your complaints hold no water. I was just your scapegoat, that's it. I feel pity for those who conducted themselves as bullies by attacking me. (There's no such thing as a "hit list" violation on Wikipedia. For you to come up with that notion, concerns me though.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

the needed diff

The needed diff just came in [172]. Edit summary: "they're guilty". Violation: WP:UP#POLEMIC. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

...and he just realized the faux pas and removed the list. Looks like we're done. For now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup Resolve away. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Too soon Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd offer him a shovel but damn... lol I had to laugh at that! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm confused. Does that rule he mentions legitimately state that we are not to post on his talk? TCN7JM 07:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's states it's probably best but also warns that it doesn't cover administrative related stuff, ie. warnings. It's still better to not post anything other then what you absolutely have to. So vandalism, or warnings certainly not discussing a specific change probably not. That's why templates are so great especially if used properly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:NOBAN is a section on the Wikipedia:User pages guideline page. The overarching principle of user talk pages is that they "are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users." (emphasis mine). No one can block another editor from a talk page. An admin could potentially block someone from an entire topic, including related talk pages, but I have never seen an admin enforce a block from someone's talk page. The idea of NOBAN is that editors should only make necessary and helpful edits on another user's talk page. If an editor requests that editors not discuss on a talk page, editors should respect that. If the editor behaves in a way that requires notification, that must be placed despite requests of non-contact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. TCN7JM 07:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Specifically WP:NOBAN states "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)."
• FYI it is my guess that the editor in question is relatively new, and would sincerely like to contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner, but is currently feeling harassed by the maze that is involved in the learning curve of how to do that productively. A mentoring would help, but not a tutor who is just going to give them a pass/fail. Everyone can learn to productively contribute. On further reflection, I am not sure they are relatively new, but they clearly want to contribute positively. Apteva (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• And please stop edit warring over this section heading. Section headings are required to be neutral and there is no way that the word "hitlist" can be construed as a neutral section heading. I have added an anchor for the original heading in case anyone is coming here from a link. Apteva (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Pïragarul; Revoking talk page access

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.

---

Take a look at this revision ID of vandalism only account Pïragarul. It's obviously profane and attacking Bongwarrior and Jimbo Wales, plus severe unblock spam before I courtesy blanked it. Also, I noticed that he is a self-admitted sock of banned user User:YinYangJihad and he is whining to get it unblocked. I think it's time to remove his talk page access. Make sure to notify the user with {{uw-voablock|notalk=yes}}. Alex2564 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I also just blocked Antrasarul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who appears to be connected (and was affected by the autoblock for Pïragarul). —C.Fred (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Coordinated vandalism

There's currently a vandal attack with a modus operandi of redirecting random articles and user pages (originally targetted at User:Bongwarrior) to Jimmy Wales - see my block log. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User CarolMooreDC making false accusations of libel/threats of banning

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 hope this is the right forum in which make this complaint! I am new to Wikipedia (have been here 17 days) and I feel as if most of my additions to the community have contributed positively to it. I am concerned about the conduct of user CarolmooreDC. She recently accused me of "libelous" conduct and threatened me with bans here, writing "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (elsewhere on my talk page she implies that my getting banned is "just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue", which I regarded as an attempt at intimidation.)

Her attacks re: "bias" stem from a personal admission of mine that I am studying fringe political groups for a Master's thesis, and don't like some of them; an *unprompted* admission I made in good faith when I was trying to understand WP's COI policy.

Her attacks re "libel" stem from my changing a sub-title of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe piece from "Allegations of Homophobia" to "Allegations of promoting anti-gay violence." As can be seen from the history page, this title was simply a paraphrase of text within that section -- CON text which had been accepted for weeks by editors as a fair characterization (she is of course entitled to disagree with the CON text and argue that it is WP:Synth, but calling someone -- particularly a noob -- "libelous" and threatening a ban for his/her simply paraphrasing accepted CON text in a title sub-section is, in my judgment, extremely inappropriate. This follows a broader history of demeaning, insulting conduct and personal attacks she has leveled against me. She has formed a sort of tag team to attack me with commentator S. Rich, who previously accused me of "bad-mouth[ing] the various people you are writing about in WP" based on a "subtle" motivation "to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steeletrap/Archive_1). His comments have not been quite as egregious as Carol's, but given his history of personally attacking me, it is also a cause for concern.

Thank you for hearing my reply. I apologize if this isn't written in the proper format! Please let me know if you want any more information surrounding Carol's previous comments to me or mine to her. Steeletrap (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems it wasn't just your change of the title, you added the entire section which does not have adequate sourcing: [173][174]. CarolMooreDC's accusation of libel, unless I am mistaken, seems to fall afoul of WP:NLT. That doesn't mean the text in the article should not have not been removed, which it should be per WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My edits you refer to (from April 17-18th) definitely should have been removed. But please note that that was my first/second day on Wikipedia, when I was not yet appraised to WP rules such as WP:OR and WP:SYN. Also note that she was accusing me of libel for changes I made related to the title I added yesterday, not for the older stuff. I appreciate your remarks agreeing that Carol violates WP:BLP WP:NLT. Steeletrap (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You misread what I said, I did not agree that Carol violated WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I misspoke, and meant to say: "I appreciate your agreeing that Carol violated WP:NLT." I encourage anyone to strike my previous comment through to avoid confusion (I don't know how). Steeletrap (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can do that yourself using <s> and </s>. NE Ent 23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOLT would apply in this case, I think, negating the perceived spuriousness of the libel threat. I think both of you need to take a step back from the article; I'm getting a sense there are issues of WP:OWN here.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the charge should be carefully evaluated and I encourage everyone to read the edits I made to the page to verify that they match my characterization of it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• To make a long story short, I've been having a problem with New User:SteeleTrap's admitted strongly negative POV on WP:Biographies of Living Persons of various individuals involved with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute expressed through unbalanced editing and negative comments about them on talk pages. He admitted his biases at User_talk:Steeletrap#Clarification_on_thesis (from this diff on). And I still do wonder if he's told the adviser to his MBA thesis what a great job he's done on wikipedia working on their shared POV on these individuals.
• I have been thinking of making a report to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about all his negative POV edits to a number of related WP:BLPs, including that "final straw" one which I think is the kind of "libel" we are supposed to remove immediately and tell people not to engage in, which was my intent. So I did write at this diff which is the talk page section User_talk:Steeletrap#Libelous_edits_on_Hans-Herman_Hoppe. It didn't occur to me anyone would take it as a legal threat since I can't sue him for libeling someone else.
• But I did write: As I wrote above: "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (To clarify some of language in arbitration link: they don't usually go straight to a ban, unless for example you keep reverting libelous material; they would explain WP:BLP policy, watch you and even give you some mentorship; maybe give you blocks a bit quicker if you do something naughty; and if you don't improve your behavior, then they'll consider topic bans.)
• Anyway, I do have a feeling he has crossed the line a few times where he would get a stern talking to from and admin and he seemed to have no interest in changing his behavior, so I felt a stern warning was in order. I have a feeling people don't want to see all the BLP-related diffs in the here and now and I'd prefer not to have to provide them. Instead User:Steeletrap should read WP:BLP carefully and step back from articles where his POV is so strong he just is becoming disruptive. I'm not the only one to tell him that, if you look at his talk page and that of articles he's worked on. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You falsely state that "admins" have "a few times" given me a "stern talking to." To my knowledge, no admin has ever criticized me for my edits. Please correct the record. Also: it is not material whether or not you personally can or will sue me. What is material is that you used a word that WP indicates can be reasonably taken to represent an accusation of a crime. Per WP:NLT policy, your claim can be reasonably interpreted as a legal accusation. Therefore, you should defend that claim (i.e, that I broke the law by libeling Hoppe in a legal sense) or apologize to me for your poor use of terms and inadvertent insinuation (note that this apology would not equate to an admission that your reverting my edit was wrong). Finally, I have maintained collegial and friendly relationships with virtually all editors apart from you and SRich, both of whom (I allege) have engaged in improper harassment of me. Steeletrap (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I know I've told you admins SHOULD give you a stern warning; you'd have to provide a diff otherwise. In the US where I live libel isn't against the law, you only can get sued for it. Tell me if I'm wrong, please! People can decide for themselves their opinion on things they read on talk pages. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No. That does not work. PER WP:NLT, the statement that someone is makng "libelous" edits can be reasonably construed as a legal threat (or at least, the claim that the author is breaking the law). If you didn't mean that, you should apologize for inapt and inflammatory use of language. (Again, proving that I used SYN is not proof of libel.) You are claiming that the statement (to paraphrase) "Block accused Hoppe of advocating coercion against homosexuals" is libelous. The burden of proof is on you to justify this. (Good luck meeting that, since Block says 1) Hoppe's call to "ban gays from polite society" violates libertarianism, and 2) that *all* violations of libertarianism entail coercive violence.)I await your apology. Steeletrap (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this seriously your argument? The context of WP:NLT makes it clear that it's only talking about legal threats against users. In fact it states explicitly right at the top that A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly. You might also have a look at WP:LIBEL for the WMF's position on removing libelous material from the biographies of living people. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the rules. Please see WP:NLT. "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation." In other words, Carol's repeated use of "libelous" in regards to my edits can be reasonably construed, per the rules, as a legal threat, even if not intended. Steeletrap (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you now understand that Carol did not mean to imply any legal threat against you? GB fan 01:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Steeltrap, when someone tells you (rightly or wrongly) that you are libeling an article subject, that does not trigger a reasonable understanding that you would be subject to legal action from the user telling you that. As CaroleMooreDC correctly points out, she can't sue you for libeling a third party. Note the section you quoted recommends softer language in personal contexts ("about me"), which should also have been a clue. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. It seems like the page isar pretty clear in saying that libel is an inadvisable word to use because it carries a certain legal connotation. It seems to follow from this that it should only be used in the process of alleging a relevant legal accusation (which is not the same thing as threatening or committing oneself to suing someone). Steeletrap (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR: If I say "you are libelling me" I violate WP:NLT. If I say "you are libelling the living subject of an article" I act in line with WP:LIBEL. See the difference? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NLT says "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation." The italicized general statement doesn't specify who the comments are about. The fact that the example used to illustrate it fits "you are libeling me" does not mean the applicability is confined to those sort of situations. Steeletrap (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll update the policy page to make this a bit more clear. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So the original subject of this thread (perceived legal threats) has been dealt with. Is there anything else that needs done here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

"...one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia"

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

---

Jeppiz made the following comment—

• DanielTom is one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia.

Is that a personal attack? If not, then I don't know what is. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

you have wrongly been accusing me of abuse and harassment...are you sure you want to open this can of worms? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not about you, User:Bwilkins. You are more than welcome to open a new thread dealing with the issues that you would prefer to discuss, such as the one you mention regarding your abusive threat/warning to me, classified by other experienced users as a Ridiculous warning, and an Amazing display of abusiveness and vacant argument designed to intimidate, from Admin Bwilkins, but as those are quite separate issues, I will not comment on them here (see my Talk page for details). BTW, do you not think calling someone "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia" is a personal attack? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

How can a complaint be concluded to have complexity ("can of worms") before any evaluative investigation has been done or even started? (That's cart-before-the-horse invalid thinking. Unless you feel that *all* ANI cases are "cans of worms".) And apparently cautioning that you may volunteer as evaluator at same time reminding the user that you remember and resent his earlier statements to you ... (Man, do I really have to point out what is wrong with that?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, the drama is at User talk:Bwilkins#User:DanielTom, so it is entirely reasonable (indeed, exemplary behavior) for Bwilkins to point out everyone involved is examined in an ANI report. This report is just a continuation of some issue, the last chapter of which was on Bwilkins' talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I do not know User:Jeppiz, nor have I had any previous interactions with him. Today was the first time that I even saw his username, when I noticed the above cited comment, where he accuses me of being "profoundly dishonest". As I use my real name (Daniel Tomé) on Wikipedia, being publicly insulted like this is particularly disturbing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this coming straight to ANI? There's no need to draw further people into the fold of your dispute. You haven't even discussed this with the editor who made the remark; you asked about it and, without giving them time to reply, brought this here. This noticeboard is only for extraordinary incidents. Please make an attempt to talk with the other editor first. m.o.p 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets, I do think that calling someone "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia" is an extraordinary incident. Let's say you were accused of being "one of the most profoundly racist users found on Wikipedia". Of course you aren't, but if you had been the target of such a personal attack, I don't think you would discuss it first with the user making the accusation (or try show him that you are not racist), instead of bringing it straight to ANI. Indeed, you would probably just block him right away. Here it's almost the same incident, except that "profoundly dishonest" is more overarching. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you could be the adult and walk away; that way the comment says more about him than it does about you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, if you were called "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia" would you just walk away? ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'm pretty sure he would -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what HJ would do, but, depending on context and my mood that day I'd either Heimstern it or say please provide diffs. NE Ent 11:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would walk away. Having people call you names is one of the costs of having an uncensored Internet. The Wikipedia community has put a lot of thought and discussion into the question of civility and personal attacks, and the consensus is documented at Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility. I strongly suggest that you follow the advice found there. You may also find WP:IAD to be of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment DanielTom accuses me of making a personal attack, and I agree that the language I used about him is the strongest I've used about any user during all my years on Wikipedia. However, I do stand by it. While it may be seen as a PA taken out of context, I would argue that it is not a PA if it is actually true. For example, it would be a PA to call most people "terrorists", but in the hypothetical case that the Boston bomber had an active Wikipedia account, it would hardly be wrong to use it about him. In other words, if I have reason to believe that DanielTom is a dishonest user, then I don't see this as a PA. Which leads to next question "Is DanielTom dishonest?". Based on what I've seen of him, I must say that he is. For example, there was a long discussion on AN about Strangesad. Strangesad had a history of disruptive editing and, even worse, of actively encouraging sockpuppetry to avoid blocks. For this reason, there was a long discussion about Strangesad in April and while opinions differed about whether this was enough for an indefinite block, nobody disagreed that Strangesad's behavior was inappropriate. Nobody except DanielTom, that is. Not only that, DanielTom decided to award Strangesad a barnstar [[175]] claiming that Strangesad would be banned for "disagreements with some admins" (a blatant lie, the reason Strangesad might have been banned was for actively encouraging sockpuppetry) and congratulating Strangesad "for standing up for what you believe" (what Strangesad believed was that it was "right to break the rules" (her own words) and that sockpuppetry was justified). If anyone can show that DanielTom's representation of that incident wasn't profoundly dishonest, I'll gladly retract my comment. In the meantime, I stand by it.Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeppiz, for being specific. Please let me address your concerns:

I had never thought that the simple act of awarding users with Barstars would be seen as "profoundly dishonest". I have so far awarded more than 10 users with barnstars to "promote WikiLove", but that does not mean that I endorse every position they have taken (or will take). For example, I remember giving a Barnstar to the admin The Rambling Man even when my only interaction with him had been one of strong disagreement.[176] Similarly, when I awarded User:Strangesad a Special Barnstar, I was not actually endorsing his "sockpuppetry" advice — I was simply trying to show him kindness during his AN discussion (which I now discover was opened by you — I am sorry that I didn't remember your name). That discussion was closed by Bwilkins without User:Strangesad being sanctioned or indef blocked, but in any case, even if you may disagree with me, there was no need for you to insult me by calling me "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia", nor to question my sincerity... It would be kind of you to retract that "comment". Yours truly, DanielTom (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You are of course free to award barnstars to whomever you want, I have no problem at all with that. On the contrary, it's a nice practice. It is not the barnstar I object to, it's the text you wrote. It was not an accurate picture of the situation, to put it mildly. You claimed Strangesad was being punished for standing up for what she believed in and for disagreeing with some admins, when the true reason her behavior was under discussion was her encouragement of sockpuppetry. You might view it differently, but I do not think that was an honest representation of the situation.Jeppiz (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's okay to have a different interpretation of events but characterizing someone whose viewpoint you disagreeing with as "dishonest" is inappropriate and it wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Strangesad was advocating violating policy and admins were disagreeing that it was a good idea. NE Ent 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz, even if it is true that the text I wrote in said Barnstar was not "an accurate picture of the situation", that text was addressed to Strangesad and it was most definitely not an attempt to properly summarize the then ongoing discussion at AN. You may disagree with the text, you may disagree with that user, and you may disagree with me, but questioning my sincerity and calling me "one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia" is just offensive and completely uncalled for. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom has provided the backdrop to both the meaning of the barnstar and his motive for reaching out to said user. Jeppiz felt this was "giving comfort to the [his AN-drafted] enemy", didn't like it of course, and somehow transposes/translates his frustration into a clear PA ("profoundly dishonest editor"). I think everyone except Jeppiz can see this is wrong, and short of sanctioning Jeppiz, shouldn't there be a clear admonishment from the community, and even a request or strong suggestion that he redact/apologize? (By not admonishing, isn't it emboldening him, evinced by his "I stand by it" position?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not think Jeppiz should sanctioned, nor do I expect him to apologize to me. However, questioning other people's motivations and sincerity/honesty is just not acceptable, so I would like him to retract that comment ("DanielTom is one of the most profoundly dishonest users found on Wikipedia") because it is by its very nature a personal attack. I don't think that is asking too much. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not too much to ask, and I encourage Jeppiz to do so -- but it is probably too much to demand. (The reason being that it's a patently absurd statement about a historic event placed in an unrelated user talk page discussion; per no justice the community generally wants one editor to be the bigger person and just blow it off. Continuing a protracted effort to force Jeppiz to change a lame comment they made isn't going to improve the content of the encyclopedia.) NE Ent 13:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Am a little confused. (It's a clear personal attack. How does it matter what page it was on, or to what event it referred, or how long ago the event? Is there a policy against PAs or isn't there? Here's Jeppiz stated position: "This is not a personal attack, I should add, as the statement that DanielTom is a dishonest person isn't a personal opinion [...]". This reminds me of a Pope's claiming infallible knowledge. If no community rebuke is in store for Jeppiz, please tell me how this doesn't just encourage him to think his slurs are okay on the Pedia, and to do it again with free abandon to another user, having the comfort there will be no recourse?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with NE Ent, for the most part; I just brought this matter here because Jeppiz's comment (calling me "a dishonest person") seemed to me to be a very personal attack, and quite clearly so, but if no admin action is warranted here, then I do not object to the closing of this thread. I do hope this will not have been a waste of time, and that Jeppiz will refrain from making other such defamatory and insulting statements in the future. Truly, DanielTom (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have retracted my comment. I do not know DanielTom and cannot say, and should not have said, that he is a dishonest person. I apologize to DanielTom for that overreaction. The part I stand behind is that the edit by DanielTom to which I referred was ill-judged. By awarding a barnstar to a user who was actively encouraging sockpuppetry and saying that the the AN-discussion was about punishing the user for what she believed in, DanielTom implicitly stated that those of us objecting to sockpuppetry were somehow driven by other motives. I do not think that it was an accurate description, and I do not think it was an honest one. Extrapolating from that comment to make suggestions about DanielTom as a person was certainly an overreaction on my part, one I have retracted and I again apologize both for the comment and for the loss of time it has cost the community.Jeppiz (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it and accept your apology. I suppose this thread can be closed now that the comment I objected to has been retracted. Thanks again ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

InconvenientCritic not here to contribute

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 an admin please block InconvenientCritic (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE? He does not seem to be interested in helping construct the encyclopedia, and in fact seems just to be here to try to stir up trouble on talk pages, as Tarc points out. If InconvenientCritic does want the help with the encyclopedia, by all means we should let him. But we don't need more people here to just create more drama. 75.147.18.214 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to propose a community ban WP:AN is usaully the place to do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the user's contributions and have taken a firm decision to completely ignore them. I strongly suggest everyone else does likewise. --Shirt58 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the contributions are close to blockable. While I'm mildly curious about who it might be, if the editor doesn't have the courage to be honest, then their contributions get the reduced credibility they deserve.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Barisan Nasional

• Barisan Nasional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of soapboxing, unsourced and BLP violations in the wake of recent election. I first requested page protection, then copy edited the lede with sources provided by another editor. Now the disruption is coming from the other direction, with attempts to delete sourced content. More eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm asking again for some administrative oversight to this. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you must be a little bit patient. It's Sunday morning in the USA, where the majority of admins live, and not many are active. (I'm not an admin.) Also you should be aware that if any administrative action is taken, it will most likely be to fully protect the page for a few days, in whatever state it happens to be at the moment protection is applied. In the meantime it might be helpful if you would write a brief description of the problem on the talk page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I know--I'm on the east coast, and always thought that admins stay up 24/7 in the service of our venture here. And I trust that an admin will take the time to check the status of content before protecting the article. But for all the moderation I've tried to provide at the article I get this [177], so not everyone is sleeping in. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looie's right about admin activity, but some of us are around and performing thankless tasks. @99, I disagreed with a portion of your edit. I felt that the referral back to the "scandal", which was sourced to an article in January, smacked of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't see any mention of it in the current sources cited about the election itself. I've therefore edited the problematic material to remove that and, in my view, to improve it otherwise but in less important ways. I then semi-protected the article for 5 days. If necessary, I will lock it, but I'm hoping that won't be required. I did not feel I could leave it in the state it was in before protecting it because of the WP:BLP issues involved. You are, of course, welcome to argue that it should be reinserted, but, if so, it would be best for you to find a more current source that ties the issues to the election (or tell me where I missed something). (The warning on your talk page was not from an admin.) As I write this, I see another admin took a different view and removed all of the material. Fine by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb, though I can't imagine what could take precedence over maintaining an article about a Malaysian political party, but there you go. I know that the warning didn't come from an admin, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. As for content, I've no problem with the removal of material--I thought some of it was adequately sourced, but understand your point re: synthesis. Mostly I got the sense that this needed shutting down because of partisanship on both sides. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on User:Diannaa's talk page in case she was unaware of this thread (she removed the material). As I think more and more about the issues, Dianna's removal was the right action. I think perhaps the best thing to do might be to wait until the election is over and put in the results for the party, just as was done for the 2008 election.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I was drawn to the page is because I saw the RFPP request. I often patrol that board on the weekends, when there are few admins around. Sorry you experienced delays in getting a response. Regarding the content, the reason I removed it is because if material about voter fraud is placed into an article about one particular political party, it implies that they are the ones engaging in the activity. The source does not say that, and we should not imply it. Here's the source: Allegations of Foul Play in Cliffhanger Malaysia Election -- Dianna (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't run through all the sources from this search [178], but it appears that the allegations of voter fraud are being made by the opposition against the incumbents. Even if the claims are verified I agree, per Bbb above, that it's better to wait before adding this in. Even then, placing it in the lede looks undue. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

InconvenientCritic not here to contribute

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 an admin please block InconvenientCritic (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE? He does not seem to be interested in helping construct the encyclopedia, and in fact seems just to be here to try to stir up trouble on talk pages, as Tarc points out. If InconvenientCritic does want the help with the encyclopedia, by all means we should let him. But we don't need more people here to just create more drama. 75.147.18.214 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to propose a community ban WP:AN is usaully the place to do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed the user's contributions and have taken a firm decision to completely ignore them. I strongly suggest everyone else does likewise. --Shirt58 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the contributions are close to blockable. While I'm mildly curious about who it might be, if the editor doesn't have the courage to be honest, then their contributions get the reduced credibility they deserve.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Barisan Nasional

• Barisan Nasional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of soapboxing, unsourced and BLP violations in the wake of recent election. I first requested page protection, then copy edited the lede with sources provided by another editor. Now the disruption is coming from the other direction, with attempts to delete sourced content. More eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm asking again for some administrative oversight to this. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you must be a little bit patient. It's Sunday morning in the USA, where the majority of admins live, and not many are active. (I'm not an admin.) Also you should be aware that if any administrative action is taken, it will most likely be to fully protect the page for a few days, in whatever state it happens to be at the moment protection is applied. In the meantime it might be helpful if you would write a brief description of the problem on the talk page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I know--I'm on the east coast, and always thought that admins stay up 24/7 in the service of our venture here. And I trust that an admin will take the time to check the status of content before protecting the article. But for all the moderation I've tried to provide at the article I get this [179], so not everyone is sleeping in. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looie's right about admin activity, but some of us are around and performing thankless tasks. @99, I disagreed with a portion of your edit. I felt that the referral back to the "scandal", which was sourced to an article in January, smacked of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't see any mention of it in the current sources cited about the election itself. I've therefore edited the problematic material to remove that and, in my view, to improve it otherwise but in less important ways. I then semi-protected the article for 5 days. If necessary, I will lock it, but I'm hoping that won't be required. I did not feel I could leave it in the state it was in before protecting it because of the WP:BLP issues involved. You are, of course, welcome to argue that it should be reinserted, but, if so, it would be best for you to find a more current source that ties the issues to the election (or tell me where I missed something). (The warning on your talk page was not from an admin.) As I write this, I see another admin took a different view and removed all of the material. Fine by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb, though I can't imagine what could take precedence over maintaining an article about a Malaysian political party, but there you go. I know that the warning didn't come from an admin, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. As for content, I've no problem with the removal of material--I thought some of it was adequately sourced, but understand your point re: synthesis. Mostly I got the sense that this needed shutting down because of partisanship on both sides. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on User:Diannaa's talk page in case she was unaware of this thread (she removed the material). As I think more and more about the issues, Dianna's removal was the right action. I think perhaps the best thing to do might be to wait until the election is over and put in the results for the party, just as was done for the 2008 election.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason I was drawn to the page is because I saw the RFPP request. I often patrol that board on the weekends, when there are few admins around. Sorry you experienced delays in getting a response. Regarding the content, the reason I removed it is because if material about voter fraud is placed into an article about one particular political party, it implies that they are the ones engaging in the activity. The source does not say that, and we should not imply it. Here's the source: Allegations of Foul Play in Cliffhanger Malaysia Election -- Dianna (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't run through all the sources from this search [180], but it appears that the allegations of voter fraud are being made by the opposition against the incumbents. Even if the claims are verified I agree, per Bbb above, that it's better to wait before adding this in. Even then, placing it in the lede looks undue. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Block of Blackcountrygirl

I'm concerned to note the recent block of Blackcountrygirl (talk · contribs), a good-faith editor, with no apparent prior discussion, and allegations of spamming. She last edited on April 8.

Disclosure: She's writing about the Black Country Museum, where I have previously run a Wikipedia "backstage pass" event. I don't know that I've ever met or corresponded with her, and have not been asked by them to intervene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There were a number of articles created by Blackcountrygirl which were deleted around the time she was blocked, they were all promotional in nature (and as far as I can tell, all concerning the Black Country Museum) but these were created back in April, around the time she last edited. I'm not convinced a block serves any useful purpose in this case given the user hasn't been editing at all for a month. There are other issues here, it looks like Blackcountrygirl has been uploading copyright material from the Black Country Museum too, so someone is going to have to spend time going over the various policies with her. A generic copyright violation template, a CSD tag and block notice are almost certainly going to leave this user confused and disheartened, indeed I wouldn't be too surprised if that's why they've not been back to edit in a month. Nick (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, if some other admin want to unblock her and take her by the hand, I'm not going to get all pouty about it; but it appears to me that she really, really doesn't understand the limits on promotion, WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. She basically created a whole article on every little display in the museum, sourced solely to her venue's own website and often copyright-violative. (Yes, some kind soul did give her links that could have been used to waive copyright.) There's a line between AGF and allowing shameless advocacy, and it seems to me that she crossed it long ago. Nick: "back in April" can mean "four days ago". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the point of blocking someone who hadn't edited in weeks for 31 hours for an offense committed weeks ago? That's not a preventative block, that's a nonsensically weak punitive block. If you were going to block, it should have been indefinite; and, you should not have blocked. --Golbez (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

She last edited on April 8 - hardly "four days ago". Please explain why you blocked someone who has not edited for almost a month; and why you did so with no warning, let alone an offer of advice. Your reference to "every little display in the museum" is a gross exaggeration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy - Seven articles - now deleted - on exhibits at the museum. I agree with Mike's assertion that a line has been crossed with regards to promotion and shameless advocacy. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Seven articles - each of which will meet WP:N with a little more research - is not "every little display in the museum". She's not blocked for breaching WP:N, nor copyvio, but for spamming, With no warning or discussion of that. Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I put to Mike? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how e.g. Lench's Oliver Shop would ever meet WP:N, let alone "with a little more research". The only reliable source for this is the Museum, which is not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your false claim about a supposed "only reliable source" ignores journal and press articles, in print not online, about the relocation of the shop. How is this relevant to a block based on an undiscussed allegation of spamming, made a month after the event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a false claim at all: the article had only this to offer, "Black Country Museum (2012) Black Country Museum Guide, p21". Deletion was valid. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic was the potential for evidencing the article's notability in the future, not its state when deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Lench's Oliver Shop opens up a rich seam of important topics which we have poorly covered. Industrial history is a neglected field and we should be supporting a museum which covers it, rather than persecuting them. The editor in question should be unblocked and an apology given. Warden (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike, sorry, meant to say a month ago rather than last month. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked. I'm not really sure I see where the surprising or unusual aspect of this case comes in. That said, their whole problem relates to this one museum, so I would support an unblock with a firm agreement not to edit within that area again in the future. I think the risk of this account doing other, generalised spamming is low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." You realize that blocking is preventative, not punative, right? Blocking for only 31 hours nearly a month after their last edit makes no sense whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." Where? Where were they warned for it? I see no reason or policy basis to topic ban a new editor for being enthusiastic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the museum or its contents - the articles may or may not have ended up acceptable over time, I dunno. But the user's talk page runs as follows: Copyvio notice, Copyvio notice, Link to Donating Materials, Copyvio notice, Block. Not once is the editor told that she may be blocked, nor is she told to discuss the matter. Now, if I post repeated copyvio, damn straight I expect to be blocked - but I'm not an editor who registered in March 2013 and has 81 undeleted edits. The block may be valid, but I think that one note saying "Stop posting this and discuss the matter" would have sufficed rather than a block. Of course, that note may not have had an effect since the editor stopped editing a month ago! What urgency was there in blocking her today? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps an experienced admin could advise OrangeMike on the appropriate use of his tools; and the potential harm caused by misusing them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The two factor test applies: 1) is the name promotional, or violating the username policy. In this case, without looking at the edits it's borderline. Test 2) is the promotional/COI edits, which in this case is apparent (whether or not the possible articles are "notable"). In this case, the articles are promotional/COI and provide a direct link to the inadmissibility of the username. As such, the block appears correct - no matter when the block has been made (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor had stopped editing on April 8th, what harm to the project was prevented by this block? Even if it was a correct block (a fact I do not stipulate), what purpose is served by blocking in this instance without issuing a final warning, as is standard? Put another way, if this was sent to AIV I would have likely warned the editor - but would also have declined the report as stale. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you said, if there was any block, an indefinite block would apply - but a 31 hour block? That makes no sense at all. What do you mean "no matter when the block has been made"? How does a 31 hour block a month after they last edited prevent any further damage? --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Utter tosh. The Black Country is a geographical region of the United Kingdom; the username is no different to "NewYorkGuy" or "BerlinBabe". The alleged "promotional/COI" nature of the articles has not been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. It has been demonstrated by the mentions of their speedily-deleted articles, and you know as well as anyone else does that, in this case, it very much appears that the Black Country part of their name references the museum as much as it does the area. The reason it's a borderline username issue is that it IS ambiguous, even with the apparent COI nature of this account. That said, I do agree that the block is rather too late and rather odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles were deleted as copy vios, not for promotional content. As for your assertions about what I know, it appears that you neither understand my mind, nor the culture of the Black Country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have more idea than you imply, but whatever. Copyvios of primary sources are automatically promotional anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that all the questions about this central issue are being studiously ignored. Instead the answers are all "promotion is very wrong, mmmkay". Wikipedia is in dire need of outreach, particularly to cultural institutions We have absolutely no need for this kind of mildly xenophobic , principled clamp-down on minor, easily fixed mistakes.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• How the hell does xenophobia come into this? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect because suddenly someone thinks we're parsing the name as "Black, Country Girl" and blocking due to racial overtones? It would be patently ridiculous to suggest such ... but it's the only possible explanation I can see for the use of "xenophobic" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the unmotivated bureaucratic hostility aimed at an outsider who obviously was not a threat to Wikipedia. At the very least not to an extent that merited a block. If you find the wording too harsh, then perhaps "insular" is a more appropriate description.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so simply trying to strengthen your personal opinion by including incendiary rhetoric - Peter, I'm surprised - I thought that you were above such action (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No shock intended. And I assume you have an opinion about this too.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The block was bad, because it was clearly punitive and not preventative. GiantSnowman 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• A couple of us have already greeted her on her talk page and offered to assist her. As she hasn't edited in a bit, she likely hasn't even seen the block. I do think the block was unnecessary and less than optimal, considering all the circumstances, but I'm more concerned about helping the editor, rather than debating the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

IP Making Death 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.

---

See this threat on User talk:Bagumba. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a little stale, since they were subsequently warned by another administrator and they stopped, but I've blocked as obviously unacceptable behavior. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Slow edit war at International Academy of Macomb

International Academy of Macomb has had unencyclopedic content persistently added. (hist) The disputed text contains peacock language and is more appropriate to a social media site than an encyclopedia. Not sure where to take this; it doesn't seem appropriate for WP:AIV since recent history shows four different accounts adding the content in question. I've kept reverting, have templated the talk pages of the two most recent editors doing this, and had a request for page protection turned down. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've left a detailed note on their talk page, with a proper warning. Lets just see if that starts discussion. If they keep putting the fluff back in without even discussing, it might require a block at that point, but I want to at least give them fair final warning first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It now looks like things are moving in a constructive direction there. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Imran Nazar Hosein has been reposted multiple times

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 article Imran Nazar Hosein has been deleted three times, and it is still being reposted. I proposed it for speedy deletion and I suggest that the page be protected from writing/creating it again. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This should also apply to Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use RFPP next time. m.o.p 20:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Mau Mau Uprising

I have someone who is transparently using multiple IPs to remove material, add rubbish, falsify sources, and so on. The most recent beauty was my adding material from John Lonsdale—probably the leading scholar on African political history, a historian at Cambridge—indicating that part of what Mau Mau achieved was helping to secure African rule after decolonisation. The sock puppet's response? It deletes the sourced material with the explanation that "African rule was guaranteed once the British left." If you can discern any logic here, then do enlighten me.

His whole tendentious approach is Mau Mau is 100% evil, and achieved nothing. The Mau Mau Uprising is a contentious topic, and so may I request some permanent semi-protection for it? at least to save me what is now really the quite tedious task of constantly challenging persistent IP vandalism. LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the IP editor is not behaving so badly. It doesn't help your case that the phrase the IP editor removed is indeed a bit silly: "...or at least secured the prospect of African rule once the British left". As the IP's edit summary explained, African rule was guaranteed once the British left. Nobody except Africans were around at that point. Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if you choose to ignore the sense in which Lonsdale is using the term African (Black Kenyan, a member of the Black majority). Anyway, I changed the article to remove the ambiguity that Lonsdale's terminology appears to generate, and now I must bow out, since you and others have not found in my favour. Thank you for getting back to me. LudicrousTripe (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. There's no vandalism that I can see, and semiprotection isn't an option here. Please take your content dispute to the talkpage. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

Not sure what title to put here

Hello. I am largely unfamiliar with administrative processes on wikipedia, though I am a longtime editor, so please assume good faith if I say something erroneous.

This all started with me Boldly removing content which did not meet wikipedia's criteria for RS. [181] Sonicyouth86 demanded that I reach consensus before making edits, which is not part of wikipedia policy WP:EDITCONCENSUS. He then accused me of "arbitrary removals of people's comments [182][183]".

1. In the first case, I removed a small section of South19's comment, in which he referred to a suicide victim as a domestic terrorist, in violation of WP:BDP. I made the edit as transparent as possible, inserting red text in brackets that I had redacted it for violating WP:BDP, and by leaving a message on South19's talk page [184]. My comment was arguably uncivil, though I wonder what sort of reaction South19 expected when calling a suicide victim a terrorist. I quickly struck out the contentious part of my comment [185]
2. In the second case, I wasn't arbitrarily removing anything. I was attempting to delete a section I had accidentally duplicated, when attempting to refactor the talk page. It just so happened that in the time between duplication and my deletion, Sonicyouth86 had posted a single comment, which I then deleted and re-deleted without knowing.

Initial argument and confusion on my part

Now, in that context, I also didn't closely look at who's username I was responding to, assuming that it was South19 complaining about me editing his terrorism statement, since that was the only comment I was aware I had removed. At the time, there was a large amount of editing on the talk page, and I kept running into edit conflicts, so I did not take the time to carefully read nor carefully reply as I normally would. Here is how I responded [186] Insinuating that Sonicyouth86 is dense was due to my misunderstanding, in thinking that he was South19 and really trying to put up an argument that calling someone a domestic terrorist isn't a violation of WP:BDP. I was also responding to his incredulity regarding my edits, in calling them arbitrary, when they most certainly were not, and in demanding that I adhere to his personal editing rules. I would hope that a reasonable observer understands that I had good reasons for both of my edits, though one had unintended consequences, and that I was following WP:BOLD and WP:Consensus in edits to the actual article. A reasonable observer should also see that I should not have called him dense. I take responsibility for that, and I almost immediately redacted it, as well: [187]. WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is the relevant policy for properly retracting uncivil statements.

Escalation to ANI

Now, Sonicyouth86 immediately took the matter to ANI [188]. He claimed that I had been warned by two seperate editors (himself and User:Slp1), when slp1 had in fact been the editor involved in a small revert war over the duplicate section, which I admitted my error to immediately upon realising it. I don't think Slp1 was complaining that I was deleting Sonicyouth86's comments, but that I was deleting the entire duplicate section, and I think he quickly realised why I was removing the section. I replied to him saying that. Sonicyouth86 then [189] claimed that I "deleted comments by User:South19 because you dislike to his opinions [3]. "People like you disgust me", that's what you wrote as an explanation why you removed his comments.", which is not true. I deleted it because he violated WP:BDP, which Sonicyouth86 was well aware of, because I said that exact thing in the edit summary, in the replacement text of the comment, and on South19's talk page. Sonicyouth86, knowing full well this fact, decided to frame it as me POV pushing by deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. That, itself, is a violation of WP:Civil section "2.(d). Lying" and "2.(e). quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;".

My attempts to explain myself and resolve the dispute

I responded to his post on ANI [190] by attempting to clear up all of the confusion, in a civil manner. He took offense to me saying he was confused, which I don't really see how it's an insult to say that someone doesn't have all the facts. It was then, at the first mention that I had been uncivil, that I agreed to and promptly stuck out the edits which Sonicyouth86 had identified as being uncivil. Does that mean I'm absolved of all wrongdoing? No, not at all. It does show that I admitted I was wrong and wanted to reconcile. I also immediately posted this apology [191] to Sonicyouth86's talk page, attempting to explain my actions and defuse the situation. Sonicyouth86 immediately deleted my apology and continued to argue with me. I then admitted my error on AN/I [192], in mixing up who I was talking to, and that that might explain why I reacted so strongly to Sonicyouth86's rebukes, since I thought he was the one who had called someone a terrorist.

Sonicyouth86 then reiterated [193] that I had acted uncivilly, which I had both admitted to, apologized for, and redacted. I don't know why he continued to push that point when it was already settled. Based off of his edit summary, I think it's safe to assume he wanted to "teach me a lesson".

Here was my final response: [194] before being topic banned by User:TParis. I still stand by what I said. South19 should be ashamed of what he said. South19 should apologize and redact his statements. It is reprehensible to say such a thing about another person. It is a violation of wikipedia policy. WP:Civil says nothing about calling out a person's behavior for what it is, but it does say something about the type of comment South19 left originally, which started this whole ordeal. Here is my complete justification for my first edit: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -WP:BLP TParis told me that I should have brought the violation to his attention instead of editing South19's comment, which contradicts this very clear policy.

Topic Ban appeal and continued WP:Harassment by sonicyouth86

The reason TParis provided for the topic ban was such: [195] "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive. In the future, when you feel there is a violation of WP:BDP to address, feel free to take the issue up to myself or another uninvolved administrator." Since I did neither in the manner that he understood me as having done, I argue that this ban was placed erroneously and should be removed. I have also posted an apology for my behavior to both Sonicyouth86's talk page [196] and to TParis's talk page [197]. Sonicyouth86 proceeded to delete that apology immediately, and continue to attack me, adding unnecessary confusion to an already confusing AN/I discussion by repeatedly demanding that other editors discard good faith assumptions [198]. He then went on to post on my talk page [199], showing that he still fails to Wikipedia:Forgive_and_forget and continues to push the same tired points which have already been discussed in great detail. He's essentially beating a dead horse hoping candy will fall out. The threat to take me to AN/I (when we're already there?) was a cute touch. So, here I am, taking this to AN/I, so that I have a chance to take the time to fully explain my action and the series of events that led to the situation we have now.

Discussion of AN/I topic this morning, in which I accidentally violated the topic ban due to my own confusion

Also, relevant reading might be the above AN/I topic from earlier today. As I said numerous times, though Sonicyouth86 repeatedly denies I could be telling the truth, I did not understand the nature of a ban on wikipedia. In every other sphere, a ban is an enforced ban from editing content. As I was still able to edit the page I was supposedly banned from, I was very confused. Because TParis was inconsistent in notifying me of the ban, and because I had posted on his talk page asking him to reconsider, I incorrectly believed that he must have either decided not to ban me, or had removed the ban. I checked my block log, and seeing that it was empty, made the assumption that he had decided not to follow through with banning. Considering that I made two edits, one to show that I was not banned (lol oops) and another under the assumption that I was not banned, and that Sonicyouth86 was just trying to stir up trouble, I think it's hardly fair to impose further punishment on me for such a thing, especially considering I immediately reverted the edits when it became clear to me that I was in fact not allowed to have done that. Please take into account the fact that I have been an editor for many years, yes, but that I have never been involved with administrative action until very recently, and am still pretty unfamiliar with it. I am also unfamiliar with the pace of some of these more contentious articles, and I am unfamiliar with some of the distinctions between how editors in the social sciences expect others to act and how hard scientists (which I am) expect others to act.

Also, I have made this case to WP:AE to appeal the ban, and they redirected me here. Rgambord (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [200][201][202]

Hi. I'm gonna respond to this before someone in a crabby mood does. Currently several of your diffs are incorrect (probably just misadventures in copy-pasting), and there are several things you reference that you don't link to any diffs for. While a lengthy ANI post is usually a bad idea, I understand it's your first time posting here, and would strongly encourage other editors to not respond to this with a simple "TL;DR" or the ever-ridiculous "massive wall of text—block nom". I, for one, would happily read through all this, but at the moment it's too hard to tell what you're talking about. I'd also suggest that if you can find any way to make your post a bit shorter, you do so. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into the diff issues and try to shorten things. I know it's a lot of text, but it's a big complicated scenario full of misunderstandings and animosity that all needs to be addressed, IMO. I ask that commenting is refrained until I have fixed the diffs. Thanks. !Rgambord (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found one diff that was incorrect. The others seem to work for me? A couple links are to sections on old revisions of pages so that it's easy to see the whole discussion as it progressed. Hopefully this is ok? If I'm still missing something please point it out and I'll fix it as best I can. I've added section headers to divide up the text into more comprehensible chunks. Hopefully this helps. I don't want to get TL;DR! Thanks again. Rgambord (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rgambord didn't just merge section on Talk:Men's rights movement. He also refactored comments of editors he was in a dispute with [203] and deleted others' comments [204] so that I had to restore [205] them. He also removed sections [206].
  Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy states that any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I made an ANI thread [207] on April 23 about Rgambord's personal attacks against editors involved in the men's rights movement article including "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" and "you should be ashamed of yourself. People like you disgust me." Other instances of personal attacks and/or incivility on April 23 include [208][209][210][211] in addition to assumptions of bad faith [212].
  Today Rgambord violated his topic [213] or article ban [214] twice [215][216] and continues to accuse me and others of wrongdoing, including harassment and erroneous admin actions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was not involved in a dispute with the editor who's comment I edited as per wikipedia policy WP:BDP, which I stated many, many times, and you continue to post boldfaced lies about me to the contrary and it's a very clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Not once did I comment in that section, yet you continue to lie saying I was in a dispute with him. You are using the fact that I deleted a section which I created to request that the talk page be cleaned up, as evidence of me making disruptive edits, even though that makes no reasonable sense to anyone except you. You are a liar. you are lying. You have been caught lying. I have pointed it out multiple times that you are not telling the truth. How many different ways do I need to say this before admins take appropriate action? You are now harassing me. Did you even bother to read the post that I made? Or did you just copy and paste the same thing, as you've been doing this entire time? How many times can you beat a dead horse before it's dead? You have not responded AT ALL to any attempts I have made to reconcile. You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta. I may be sanctioned for this comment, so be it. I want nothing to do with a place that supports "contributors" like yourself. Rgambord (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sonicyouth is also disingenuously accusing me of violating my ban when everyone else can apparently see that I made a mistake, which I even addressed in this post, yet he somehow failed to respond to. This guy is simply making things up and twisting the evidence to paint me as a bad guy. I have done nothing to deserve that sort of treatment. I am being bullied and I am being harassed. Again, he's violating sections 2.d and 2.e of WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You violated your topic ban twice today. The diff links show that you violated your topic ban. The only question is whether you are experienced enough – you have stated on mutiple occasions that you've been an editor for many years – to know that you are not allowed to edit an article and its talk page if you are told by an administrator on your talk page that you are banned from editing the article and its talk page. Nothing about this simple chain of events – you were banned, your were informed that you were banned, you edited the article and talk page although you were banned – involves making things up. I provided diff links that you refactored and removed a comment and deleted a section on the mrm talk page. Prior to that you argued that the SPLC criticism should be removed and South19 disagreed with you (see talk "Is this section really necessary?") and you disagreed with me on various issues. You removed my comment and altered Soouth19's comment and the patrolling admin saw that as altering comments by users' you were in a dispute with.
I believe that it is quite obvious who is being abused. "You are a liar", "You are now harassing me", "You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta." I'll just add that to your other personal attacks including "jerk" [217], "People like you disgust me" and "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Provide the diff which you think proves I was involved in an argument with this editor. Could it perhaps be that upon going in to merge the three sections, I saw his top comment, in which he called someone a goddamn domestic terrorist, and corrected the material as it violates wikipedia policy which DEMANDS ITS IMMEDIATE REMOVAL. END OF STORY. PERIOD. NADA. I don't need to ask an admin. I don't need to ask you. I need to delete the material. I am objectively right that it violates WP:BLP, and so far NO ONE has argued that it does not and I was in the wrong in removing it. Provide an argument for WHY THAT EDIT VIOLATES SOME POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA. SHOW PROOF. Why are you defending those comments? Why are you defending South19's behavior? Why am I the bad person, when I'm not running around calling people terrorists. I ask again, did YOU MISS THAT PART? WHERE HE CALLS THE MAN A TERRORIST. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT KIND OF COMMENT AND THE SORT OF ATMOSPHERE IT CREATES ON WIKIPEDIA? That is the atmosphere you are arguing to perpetuate.

So far, your entire argument has rested on the premise that I removed his comment due to a disagreement (false). That my reasoning was because he "disgusts me" (false -- the reasoning was provided 3 different places). That I maliciously removed sections on the talk page (false -- that was my own section, which had been created by me to request someone clean up the talk page. Do you think that if I was so skilled at talk page cleanup that I would have requested that someone else did it? Is it not such a stretch that given my lack of skill, that I would have deleted it, not thinking it particularly important to archive?). That I maliciously removed your comments from the page because I was in a disagreement with you (False -- we both know that was accidental, and I have explained myself numerous times, yet you persist in your claims).

Personal attacks: do you understand that lying about what I did, what my actions were, and failing to assume good faith, all of which you have done, are all violations of wikipedia policy which should require your removal from the articles in question? Do you you understand that following me around to different pages and constantly pushing for my punishment especially with a bunch of made up non-issues clearly trying to frame me as some horrible vandal IS harassment? Do you have some sort of obsession with me? I have tried to apologize on numerous occasions, but that would be too easy, right? Yes, I should not have called south19 disgusting, even though he is. I should not have called you dense, though everything you have posted tells me you are. I should not have called TParis a jerk, cause I was pissed off at the time. The really interesting thing here is that as of now, South19 has not been reprimanded for calling this man a terrorist. You've managed to completely distract everyone from the real issue here, which is South19's behavior. My response to it was not savory, but I did not run around calling people terrorists.

Now, I have wasted the better part of a day on this bullshit. And that is, in no uncertain terms, what it is. I am done trying to defend myself; I am done trying to stay civil with you, because insults and swearing were invented to express emotions, and that's what I am going to use them for. You are the greatest troll I have ever seen. Bravo. I come on here for fun because I am interested in the subjects and what better way to become better acquainted with them than through editing an encyclopedia on them. I do not come in here to see people calling other people terrorists because they disagree with their actions. I do not come in here to spend all of my time on ANI like I have (which seems to be your favorite fucking thing). I come in here to collaborate with other people. I neuter my language by imagining I am talking to a person face to face. In no uncertain terms, I held back a lot of negative comments for South19 and for the type of environment people like him create on wikipedia, and if we had spoken face to face, I would have said exactly what I posted on his talk page. I stand by what I said. South19 disgusts me, and should be ashamed of himself. So, I am done. You win. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The real issue is that you continue to personally attack editors, that you violated your article ban twice today, got caught, and started this thread to argue that you are the wronged party because I had the audacity to point out your ban and your behavior that led up to it. Yes, you called TParis a "jerk", you said repeatedly that people like User:South19 disgust you, you called me all the screw-ups under the sun – "You are the greatest troll I have ever seen" and "You are a liar" deserve extra-extra-special mention to show the originality of the insults – and you continue to accuse me of this and that (e.g., harassment, abuse, attacks, that I called you a "vandal", and what not) without providing any evidence in the form of diff links. Your violations of WP:NPA are so extreme as to be comical and I assume that that's the reason why you haven't been sanctioned yet.
I agree that you have wasted people's time with the attempt to get your ban rescinded, your denial that you are article banned, and this thread. Not to mention your verbose commentary on my and others' alleged character flaws and intellectual shortcomings. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment It looks like admin RHaworth deleted Rgambord's talk as a U1, but U1 specifically excludes talk pages. Unless Rgambord plans on WP:VANISH it's important we keep the talk page as a record. Sædon^talk 20:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and no. It's been archived elsewhere before deletion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Where has it been archived? There are no subpages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Rgambord/. Found it, for the record it's in the history of User_talk:Rgambord/adkljsdklsfi. Sædon^talk 09:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Sædon^talk 09:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wine origins

Regarding the WINE page: I was able to trace the information from the corrupt reference link (reference link 2) that has been included, and it actually provides very little to promote the Georgian hypothesis In fact, that research, by Patrick Mcgovern and Jose Vouillamoz, suggests South Eastern Anatolia as the origin of wine making, although they make it very clear that they cannot rule out (due to lack of sampling) Iran and Trans-Caucasia, as the source of origin of wine-making. Furthermore, on his Penn Museum webpage, Mcgovern notes, "The earliest chemically attested grape wine in the world was discovered by my laboratory at Hajji Firuz in the northwestern Zagros Mountains of Iran, ca. 5400 B.C. (Early Neolithic Period)". However, he concludes with, "The upland areas of the Caucasus, Taurus, and Zagros Mountains are all possibilities for the earliest domestication and the beginning of winemaking. What especially makes me think that the origins of viniculture may be found here is that there is a great deal of archaeological and historical evidence for what can be called a “wine culture” gradually radiating out in time and space, from small beginnings in the northern mountains of the Near East in the Neolithic, to become a dominant economic, religious and social force throughout the region and later across Europe in the millennia to follow". - So basically, the editor for this page, is using a fake (intentionally broken) link, in order to support his Georgian hypothesis. Even worse, reference link 3, is in plain contradiction to the Georgian Hypothesis Today, when I made the prudent revisions to remove the bad links, I was blocked. Please help in resolving this issue, and unblock that IP address. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see anything of interest to admins, here, but WP:ANI is certainly more appropriate than WP:AN or WT:AN, so I deleted those sections. It does refer to a block of an IP (which may or may not have actually occured), which would be relevant to this board. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the IP in question: 209.16.113.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How could there be nothing wrong with using a broken and a working link, both which were/are unquestionably contradictory to one's view? The wine page needs better monitoring against fascist editors. Please review the information for yourself and take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, I can see the problem here. Regardless of the accuracy of the claims and the merits of your edits, your edits (I'm presuming you were IP 209) removed 2 sources and changed the dates and place with no edit summary or explanation. To your credit, after your first attempt, you did attempt to engage in discussion in the talk page (and later some's user page). Unfortunately you also continued to edit war against multiple other editors in very quick time and still left no edit summary. While I suspect it didn't help you are an IP which isn't fair, ultimately people are not mind readers. If you leave no edit summary, it's difficult to know what you're trying to do and people may not realise you've left comments on the talk page, even more so if you've already done the edit once without any explaination. And leaving comments in the talk page is no excuse to edit war. Even if a named account, if you try to force changes in such short time, particularly those that remove refs, people are generally going to be wary. You should give time for discussion and to come to consensus rather than trying to force your changes in such a short time. If you agree to stop edit warring and continue discussion in the talk page until consensus is achieved, it's possible your IP will be unblocked (although I see suggestions it's shared so perhaps not).

BTW, please take a read of WP:NPA. Calling editors fascists, does not help your case, it harms it. Also take a read of WP:AGF. You've made the claim 'fake (intentionally broken) link' yet I see no evidence presented for this claim. You haven't even provided a diff of when the reference was first added and I don't see how you've ruled out the reference working at the time. Furthermore, even if the reference never worked, are you sure it wasn't an error copying or whatever? Since the reference seems to exist, it's fairly difficult to claim someone is using a fake/intentionally broken link without good evidence so if you don't have good evidence you need to assume that the error, if there was an error, was not intentional. As for misrepresenting what a reference says, that's more complicated but again, it's difficult to make the claim with only one example even if we accept that the reference doesn't say what we're saying it says (which often could be an unfortunate but unintentional error). You'd generally need evidence from multiple cases that someone continually misrepresents what the reference says but considering I'm still not sure if you know who added the reference in the first place, I'm not sure that you can make the claim.

Anyway, as Arthur Rubin said, there doesn't seem to be anything here for ANI to deal with. As I said earlier, it's possible your IP will be unblocked if you agree to behave well, but there's an established process for that outlined at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which doesn't involved ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Be careful when blocking

As per Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Orange_bar.2C_prominent_talk-page_notifications, the famous Orange Talk Page Notification Bar (tactfully and lovingly nicknamed the OBOD) has been deactivated. Until the issue is fixed next workweek (hopefully), I suggest that administrators be much gentler with good-faith editors that appear to be ignoring messages on their talk pages--they probably legitimately are not noticing them through no real fault of their own. My suggestion is, for the short term, to avoid blocking editors except where there is clear, outright vandalism or other evidence of outright bad faith. Red Slash 16:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea even with the orange bar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Although note that the bar is working for IPs. What does OBOD stand for, anyway? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Orange bar of Death. Tiderolls 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do have a suggestion, if community consensus is in favor, Writ Keeper wrote a script that can be installed in the common js page so it's re-enabled again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC may as well close already. Even though it's only been four days, consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of restoring it, and I really can't see it swinging away from that stance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that consensus is fine, but we are talking about the developers and the Foundation. They are not obligated to follow consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • True, but perhaps we should remind them what happens when the owners of the website thumb their noses at the community. It's sickening to see the lack of respect shown by the WMF people; this isn't some legal thing, and it's not even a good idea that conflicts with a few higherups' blindly-held positions — it's a simple formatting thing over which they're toying with us. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Where on earth have you got that viewpoint from? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The saga over Sign In To Edit (requested via a heavily-supported petition by the community, lolno'd by WMF) says it all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• My impression is that the Foundation and developers are being responsive to the community, but they sometimes have different timetables than we do, so I'm just saying the changes may not be instantaneous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In a previous position,after I told someone one evening that I would take action to restore missing access to a single journal the following day, I received such a response from my supervisor that I learned to be ready to immediately start to actually do something however temporary, while an underlying problem was being addressed, rather than promise to do it in the future. What is currently promised is they will meet early next week to discuss how to fix it, and propose some possibilities. I am not sure what we should do about it here, but I think the failure of those responsible to take action for a week to correct what by great consensus is a serious problem is essentially passive vandalism against the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that the Foundation doesn't have a supervisor. Even Jimbo is relatively powerless to force them to do anything, in any given time period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseless allegations of PA/threats to block from user S.Rich

Resolved

 – My misunderstanding that Srich had admin powers -- and the ability to block me -- led me to incorrectly believe that his statement was a threat. Given that he lacks this power, our dispute has no relevance to admin. Steeletrap (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to a spurious public accusation of libel made against me by user CarolmooreDc, made on my talk page and the talk page for Hans Hermann Hoppe (the person I supposedly libeled), I wrote the following message(posted to my talk page and the Hoppe talk page):

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title (of "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence") I created merely restated and summarized what CON text in the sub-article said and what was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

USer S.Rich -- who has acted in an intimidating manner toward me, including making imputing bad faith and speculating on my motives without evidence, despite my being a noob, responded thusly --

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've posted your notice on the editors board. That's enough! Let that discussion, in that forum, run its course. But for you to repeat the commentary here [218] and here: [219] and above is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

His threats are unacceptable given that my comments constitute no personal attack. As can be seen, my words were solely focused on refuting a particular accusation. I ask that he be rebuked for his intimidating/harassing behavior against me, a noob someone who has been here for 17 days. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• 17 days, and you're already making multiple postings to the admin boards? That's a new one. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've got a plugged up garbage disposal at home and some plumbing is needed. So, rather than deal with 2 aggravations at the same time, I'll respond tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While Srich is welcome to defend himself, I must say that I no longer think this is an issue where admin intervention is needed. As a noob, I was under the false impression that SRich actually had the power to block me, and that this was an "appeal" of sorts. His above threat, detached as it is from WP Policy, is effectively meaningless, and I do not care enough about this to pursue it, and wouldn't have wasted Admin time if I knew yesterday what I know now. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect to characterize my messages as "threats", when they are in fact template warnings. (That means the basic messages are pre-written.) But with your willingness to drop the matter, I think the discussion here can be closed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

CACook7 threat of legal action

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

---

After previous discussion and warnings, user has now repeated his intention to bring legal action against WMF. See [220] --_nonsense ferret 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) See previous AN/I discussion at [221] the eventual outcome of which is noted here [222]. --_nonsense ferret 00:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. And just for the record, the editor went through his talk page and deleted all of his comments, while leaving everyone else's. Not sure of the intent, but here's the diff anyway. Manning (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Be careful when blocking

As per Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Orange_bar.2C_prominent_talk-page_notifications, the famous Orange Talk Page Notification Bar (tactfully and lovingly nicknamed the OBOD) has been deactivated. Until the issue is fixed next workweek (hopefully), I suggest that administrators be much gentler with good-faith editors that appear to be ignoring messages on their talk pages--they probably legitimately are not noticing them through no real fault of their own. My suggestion is, for the short term, to avoid blocking editors except where there is clear, outright vandalism or other evidence of outright bad faith. Red Slash 16:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea even with the orange bar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Although note that the bar is working for IPs. What does OBOD stand for, anyway? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Orange bar of Death. Tiderolls 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do have a suggestion, if community consensus is in favor, Writ Keeper wrote a script that can be installed in the common js page so it's re-enabled again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC may as well close already. Even though it's only been four days, consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of restoring it, and I really can't see it swinging away from that stance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that consensus is fine, but we are talking about the developers and the Foundation. They are not obligated to follow consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • True, but perhaps we should remind them what happens when the owners of the website thumb their noses at the community. It's sickening to see the lack of respect shown by the WMF people; this isn't some legal thing, and it's not even a good idea that conflicts with a few higherups' blindly-held positions — it's a simple formatting thing over which they're toying with us. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Where on earth have you got that viewpoint from? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The saga over Sign In To Edit (requested via a heavily-supported petition by the community, lolno'd by WMF) says it all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• My impression is that the Foundation and developers are being responsive to the community, but they sometimes have different timetables than we do, so I'm just saying the changes may not be instantaneous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In a previous position,after I told someone one evening that I would take action to restore missing access to a single journal the following day, I received such a response from my supervisor that I learned to be ready to immediately start to actually do something however temporary, while an underlying problem was being addressed, rather than promise to do it in the future. What is currently promised is they will meet early next week to discuss how to fix it, and propose some possibilities. I am not sure what we should do about it here, but I think the failure of those responsible to take action for a week to correct what by great consensus is a serious problem is essentially passive vandalism against the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that the Foundation doesn't have a supervisor. Even Jimbo is relatively powerless to force them to do anything, in any given time period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseless allegations of PA/threats to block from user S.Rich

Resolved

 – My misunderstanding that Srich had admin powers -- and the ability to block me -- led me to incorrectly believe that his statement was a threat. Given that he lacks this power, our dispute has no relevance to admin. Steeletrap (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to a spurious public accusation of libel made against me by user CarolmooreDc, made on my talk page and the talk page for Hans Hermann Hoppe (the person I supposedly libeled), I wrote the following message(posted to my talk page and the Hoppe talk page):

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title (of "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence") I created merely restated and summarized what CON text in the sub-article said and what was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

USer S.Rich -- who has acted in an intimidating manner toward me, including making imputing bad faith and speculating on my motives without evidence, despite my being a noob, responded thusly --

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've posted your notice on the editors board. That's enough! Let that discussion, in that forum, run its course. But for you to repeat the commentary here [223] and here: [224] and above is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

His threats are unacceptable given that my comments constitute no personal attack. As can be seen, my words were solely focused on refuting a particular accusation. I ask that he be rebuked for his intimidating/harassing behavior against me, a noob someone who has been here for 17 days. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• 17 days, and you're already making multiple postings to the admin boards? That's a new one. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've got a plugged up garbage disposal at home and some plumbing is needed. So, rather than deal with 2 aggravations at the same time, I'll respond tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While Srich is welcome to defend himself, I must say that I no longer think this is an issue where admin intervention is needed. As a noob, I was under the false impression that SRich actually had the power to block me, and that this was an "appeal" of sorts. His above threat, detached as it is from WP Policy, is effectively meaningless, and I do not care enough about this to pursue it, and wouldn't have wasted Admin time if I knew yesterday what I know now. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect to characterize my messages as "threats", when they are in fact template warnings. (That means the basic messages are pre-written.) But with your willingness to drop the matter, I think the discussion here can be closed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

CACook7 threat of legal action

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

---

After previous discussion and warnings, user has now repeated his intention to bring legal action against WMF. See [225] --_nonsense ferret 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) See previous AN/I discussion at [226] the eventual outcome of which is noted here [227]. --_nonsense ferret 00:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. And just for the record, the editor went through his talk page and deleted all of his comments, while leaving everyone else's. Not sure of the intent, but here's the diff anyway. Manning (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Notifying on ANI

With the new notifications system, all you have to do is mention them here to get their attention. Should we still notify users?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• We could mandate the linking of a user's name as an alternative.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI. When my name was mentioned here - and it was in the section header - the new system did not notify me. Also, as mentioned on several other message boards the new notification system is easy to miss (especially if someone were color blind) so I would suggest that we continue to notify users and IPs with a message on their talk page. It is a simple courtesy to perform. MarnetteD | Talk 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. NE Ent 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at the talk page? I've had the same problem as Marnette; I've not yet gotten any notifications except for messages at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had at least one person on the noticeboards use my linked user name, and I did not receive a notification. Can someone test it to see if it actually works? I thought it only worked on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you getting a notification, Viriditas or Nyttend? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just got one from this message; it's the first I've received. Thank you, King of Hearts. Something must have changed, since Writ Keeper's orange bar script just came back. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's working now. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would still suggest that we keep the instruction to notify manually for a couple reasons. My username often gets shortened by people leaving off the capital D at the end. Perhaps they thing it is a smile or something else. Also we have any number of users whose full username does not match the visible username in their signature. Thus if I opened a thread about "user Manning" "user Manning Bartlett" would not be notified about it - and my apologies to MB if this turns on an ANI notification for you yours was simply the first name I came to on this page to use as an example. IMO If any of use are going to take the time to bring an IP or user to this noticeboard we should take the extra minute or so to inform them. MarnetteD | Talk 05:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The policy on notifying people hasn't changed, and I would expect it will not change since adding text at the bottom of their page is better than a blip at the top. I would be against changing the policy, although it is doubtful it will be modified due to Notifications/Echo. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I stumbled on this thread by accident. @MarnetteD, Just for the record, I got no notification that my name had been mentioned. In this reply, I deliberately linked your name, I'm curious if you get an alert or not. Regards, Manning (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another point to consider is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no publicly available archive of a user's notifications - whereas I can link to the diff of their talk page showing that they were notified. A minor thing, surely, but useful to keep a record. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did get a notice this time Manning Bartlett. It look like you do have to link the name (which is why I linked yours to see if it works for you) rather than just type it in. It seems that Dennis Brown's assurance that notifying users on their talk page is still policy should take care of our concerns. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 12:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good point Ultraexactzz, I hadn't thought of that. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to see each other's notifications, as that would be too easy a target for wikihounding. Even more so than contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

@MarnetteD - yes, I got it. The new system is cool, and certainly useful. (I pity any AN/I admin who takes a wikibreak however). To the main point, and as Ultra correctly points out, formal notification still remains necessary for targets of a discussion, else we'll have no record. Manning (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

IP Harassment

Hello, I reported this a few days ago, but the IP editor is at it again. An IP editor with whom I had a content dispute has been wiki hounding me. He has posted yet another personal attack on the Talk:BK Chicken Fries stating that my dyslexia makes me unfit to edit Wikipedia. This follows him going throuh my edit history and reverting several dozen edits. He has also posted comments on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink page just to be an ass. The most recent posting came from 12.154.167.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has been using these ranges:

• 12.154.167.xxx - registered to AT&T mobile
• 98.182.53.46.xxx - Registered to Cox
• 72.209.2.xxx - Registered to Cox

All of these addresses are in the Warwick, Rhode Island area.

Is there any way to make this guy quit? And I did not notify him. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to lay a range block on 12.154.167.128/25 (up to 128 users would be blocked). I will watch-list the problematic talk page and your talk page to collect further IPs. Repeated blocks do work; just be patient. If the person bothers you on other pages please collect the IPs and post on my talk page once you have at least two in the same range. -- Dianna (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jenks

OP has rethought their position. Tiderolls 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The person Jenks has been moving pages and entering the wrong information on the American Dad! seasons. I putted the dispute box on top of all the pages but the user User:davejohnsan that the person teamed up with keeps taking them off. I told him to stop but he still keeps doing it. --Archcaster (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You starting this page Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Jenks (I sent to MfD) is more than a little inappropriate, particularly since this use hasn't edited here since 20 January 2010. You just got here, have a few dozen edits to your name, and now filing a complaint against someone who hasn't edited in over three years....something isn't right here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I've just about deciphered that this is supposed to be about User:Jenks24 and is probably related to this RM, but lack of diffs anywhere make analysis of this report very difficult. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Jenks24 has one cite fix of an American Dad article, March 29 [228] in his last 500 edits, so I can't see how this is him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Duh, me. But still, the claims of the socks in that (now deleted) LTA was over the top. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I'm trying to deal with this on my and his talk page, after getting one page deleted, deleting another, etc. Jeez. Will see if Jenks24 was notified (probably not) and do so now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC) He means Jenks24 and the issue concerns the requested move that is already linked above. However, aside from reverting Archcaster's unnecessary use of the factual accuracy dispute tag, I have no involvement in this matter whatsoever. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) And as far as I'm concerned, this issue does not need to concern any administrator - at least not yet. I've already explained to Archaster that he is more than welcome to reopen the issue on whether there are eight or nine seasons of the show. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I WANT THIS POST TO BE OFF THE PAGE IMMEDIATELY! --Archcaster (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Parappa664

WP:DENY sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Who is Parappa664? I've stumbled across some interesting users today. I was looking through a gallery and found something uploaded by a user, Parappa664. This user is a cross-wiki vandal, apparently. He attacked this wiki Wikimedia Commons MediaWiki Simple English. Extended content Wikimedia is not the only trolling bait for him. Within some research, I found that he doesn't just abuse accounts on wikis. I've stumbled across a forum, revealing that all of the accounts listed below have YouTube channels (or had). Parappa66- pattern; Parappa661 (most recent in the Parappa66- pattern), Parappa 662, Parappa663, Parappa664 (the one who started it all), Parappa665, User:Parappa 667, Parappa 668; user/Parappa664 Cuddles734; user/Cuddles734 Petunia465; user/Petunia465 Flaky465; user/Flaky465 Toothy7465, T7465; Closed BulbasaurCharmander6; Closed I noticed a pattern, obviously indicating Flaky465, Cuddles734, and Petunia465 are the same person. Take a look at their channel icons. They are all based off of Happy Tree Friends and they have the same type of funny drawn icon with minor changes to match the character in their name. That's definitely not a coincidence. Please compare these names and characters in the list of HTF characters. Toothy7465 matches as well, who escaped the check user and range block when Parappa's sock-puppetry was first revealed (but later blocked as soon at it expired). One of his videos was reuploaded. Why would someone reupload a video from a closed account without permission, and how? And then, the earliest YouTube account is Parappa664 (joined February 2008), the one who started it all. He seems to have survived his (suspected) other 2008 accounts being suspended, apparently (these might be connected to users like CaptianOlimar1234567890, Sunny Chan 564, etc.), though he claims them as his buddies. He has the longest pattern on here, containing accounts Parappa661-Parappa668 (minus Parappa666, I might know why). There is also Boingerbox, who has a YouTube channel, but the forum post contained no evidence of him (or...her?) being a sock, even after joining during the era of the other 2009 accounts, so she's not a sock. Also, the forum posted another sock, Flippy454, vur no user like that exists. He might be under one of these other people, though. Ezekiel53746 Please note Versageek claimed all of these accounts as Pickbothmanlol, but, judgung by "the IPs differ from the usual geolocation for Pickbothmanlol.", I think the wrong sockmaster was chosen. Now, let's look at our friend, Ezekiel53746. He was a good user in 2010, but went on a downfall in 2011, where he was just too...funny. He later tried appealing his block 2 months ago, and no luck. He then decides to accept it. The "coincidence"? After his autoblock expires, several more accounts go on the run. This includes newest addition Parappa661, "Pickbothanlol on cylinders", "Parappa664 on cylinders", "Mozilla Firefox", "Begindryly" (talk page abuser), and "Computeruser345", a user who was a constructive editor and got caught in collateral damage, getting "accidentally" blocked. Later, Ezekiel53746 got caught and every account got locked. I think it's time to ban this user from the community for failing to change. All of his accounts Here's his full list of accounts within some research. There is a pattern connected to all of the accounts with similarities. SunnyChan465 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (oldest account which never got noticed or blocked) Petunia465 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My name is the master of all of the 6's (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Vanlalism warner (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa663 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Vanlalizer warner (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) BulbasaurCharmander6 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) CaptianOlimar1234567890 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) BC6 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Giggles3254 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Flaky465 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Cuddles734 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa664 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa665 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa662 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Sunny Chan 564 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Handy2843 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My edits will not be constructive (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Toothy7465 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Bulbasaur the pokemon (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Squirtle the pokemon (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My name is the master of all of the 5's (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Toothy the beaver (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Petunia the skunk (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Ezekiel63745 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (original Ezekiel account before the password got lost) Ezekiel53746 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Begindryly (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Computeruser345 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa661 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa 668 (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) The password is judahgrave (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Canibeblockedplease (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) My edits will be constructive (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Computer Technologies Inc. (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Speerboys (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Jokesstone (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Uw-usernameblock (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Mozilla Inc. (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) J delanoy on tires (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Chekusers on tires (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Gimbo on tires (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Isis on tires (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parappa664 on tires (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Pickbothmanlol on tires (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) That adds up to 45 accounts. This is spiraling way out of control, and this has gone cross-wiki. I think it's time to community ban Parappa664 and end this. Also, all accounts should be hardblocked (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page). Alex2564 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Support as the proposer. Alex2564 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Not entirely sure I support hardblocking but yes, do block all as unauthorised sockpuppets.--Launchballer 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I think all should be hardblocked as a long term abuser. Alex2564 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Question: Alex, please explain how a community ban would, in your words, "end this". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) All of the accounts have made abusive unblock reports, so Parappa664 should be banned since there's no benefit in unblocking any of his accounts. Alex2564 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) That doesn't answer Floquenbeam's question. How will a community ban prevent the creation of sockpuppets or the filing of disruptive unblock requests? If not, why waste the time "discussing" this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones and Eugene Plotkin

Changed header from "User Smallbones is Blocking any Attempts to Modify an Article" for neutrality; as the top of the page says, "New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral". Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User Smallbones has blocked any attempts to make edits or revisions to the article concerning Eugene Plotkin. Most recently, he has taken my significant revision of the article, including an expansion of scope, an addition of multiple new references, a streamlining of the writing, an incorporation of a broader NPOV, and he has rolled back all of those changes. A reading of the Talk Pages shows that user Smallbones has treated this article as Smallbones' private domain, aggressively rolling back any changes made to the article over many months. Smallbones has bullied any editors making changes on the article's Talk pages. An administrator's intervention would be greatly appreciated. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't bothered to notify Smallbones (I have done this for you). Also their most recent edit was reverting your page move, while WP:BOLD they are within their right to revert and open discussion. There also seems to be a big issue with sock puppets on this article. I suggest you try to discuss more on the talk page. Mike (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not notifying Smallbones sooner. I was planning on doing that. Thank you for making the notification.Factchecker25 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Factchecker25 has also posted about this article on BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - Plotkin is notable for nothing but his involvement in an insider trading scheme, along with other individuals. There can be no justification whatsoever for a 'biography', but no article on the scheme. Either the scheme meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, or nothing does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just say for now that I won't be prepared for a careful detailed discussion of this case for a few days. Everything I say here is just what I recall without checking diffs, etc. There are some quite delicate issues here that are difficult to discuss, e.g. BLP and OTRS issues. I'll just say for now that:

• About 5 years ago I wrote most of the Eugene Plotkin article based on a massive amount of material - articles in all the best financial sources from 3 or 4 continents.
• Almost all the info back then was on Plotkin with little or nothing on the other guy (There are also 4-5 "little fish" in the scheme, but these folks don't need to be highlighted). The amount of new info may have changed relatively but there are not so many new sources around, except perhaps the "American Greed" episode on the scandal which is a bit flamboyant and is perhaps a border-line reliable source.
• Near a fairly easily identifiable date, some very strange things began happening with the article, involving a whole flock of sockpuppets. The first adventure involved about 80% of the content and sources being deleted and then having the article nominated for deletion.
• On a fairly regular basis strange things keep on happening to the article.
• A request was made through OTRS about the article. I believe the thrust of the complaint was that Plotkin didn't plead guilty to many of the things the article said he did. A quick check of the press release issued by the *Federal Court* showed that he did plead guilty to everything I was asked about. The OTRS volunteer quietly disappeared.
• There are some incredibly bizarre aspects of this case that I haven't highlighted in the article and don't see any need to, e.g. the stripper scheme. The grand juror scheme should probably be highlighted as it seems to be a first in insider trading - but - if I remember this correctly - the juror turned state's evidence and got off with probation, and Plotkin only pled guilty to something related to what appears to be part of that scheme. Info on that part of the scheme is fairly hard to get. The really bizarre part is the movie that those convicted made before getting caught.
• The most believable criticism that I have heard of the article during these regular strange periods is that this is about a single event - after all, only one trial for Plotkin - just one scheme. Well actually not - there were convictions on about 25 individual stocks spread out over a year's trading, multiple schemes, e.g. trading on pre-publication info and the schemes mentioned above.

Frankly, I feel a bit constrained discussing this at all in public - the sources speak for themselves (when not removed!). Is there a way to have a private hearing on this, short of the Arb Committee. Actually I'd be willing to have it go to the Arb Committee if we could get a final ruling, and I wouldn't have to deal with it every 6 months.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Arb Committee doesn't decide content disputes. Can you explain why we have an article supposedly about Plotkin, rather than about an insider trading scheme involving multiple individuals - the one thing that Plotkin is supposedly notable for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that this has died down, but the article refers to both and it's at the name of one of them. I say either move the page to Eugene Plotkin and David Pajčin (or something else! Goldman Sachs insider trading controversy is not unreasonable) or separate the two articles - I'm quite happy to do either, but I want consensus one way or another before I do anything.--Launchballer 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User Smallbones makes a number of factual errors in his discussion of the article above. The Grand Juror that he notes got off with probation is Jason Smith, who actually received 33 months for his involvement. When the case initially broke in the news in 2005, it focused on Pajcin and his aunt. There were multiple news stories at the time, which are easily accessible via a simple Google search. Plotkin did not appear until April of 2006, when he was arrested. Coverage at that time centered on not only Plotkin, but also Shpigelman. In any event, whether or not there are bizarre components to this article's history or its story is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here. Factchecker25 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason the article was originally written about Plotkin was because all the information from reliables sources was about Plotkin. The other guy was just a shadowy figure who appeared in passing in the multitude of reliable sources. There may be better information now, but I haven't seen it. So-called Factchecker hasn't offered any good sources as far as I can tell - but what he seems to have done is put in vague, undocumented accusations against the other guy and in the process hide or confuse the documented facts (that Plotkin pled guilty to, or appeared in the Wall Street Journal together with other sources such as the Financial Times and New York Times, etc.) I frankly don't have anything to say about the other guy - most of what Factchecker says could be made up as far as I can tell. Before you start an article entitled "Joe X and Bob Y" please make sure you have documented facts and you've checked them yourself personally. If it turns out to be then case that the other guy has as much to do with the case, then please go ahead and write it. I certainly haven't seen anything that says they got equal sentences.

As far as a Z company insider trading conspiracy I don't think that would work because the perhaps 2.5 guys who seemed to have run it, seem to have worked for at least 4 companies. Also note that it can't be named a "controversy", there's nothing controversial about their convictions, it was a conspiracy or perhaps a scheme. If you were to pick the most commonly used name - there's no true nifty name here - it would probably be "Plotkin's insider trading" or the "Underwear seamstress insider trading conspiracy". I'm very serious about the last, that little juicy detail seems to have caught everybody's imagination but nobody would actually publish that name (all the while emphasizing the not so important detail), so a catchy name was never thought up. I've asked Factchecker for a better name, but haven't seen one yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The name is irrelevant. Either the insider dealing scheme (which involved more than just Plotkin) was notable, in which case we should have an article on it, or it isn't, in which case we cannot have an article on Plotkin. This bogus 'biography' simply doesn't comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A note for those unfamiliar with the subject: the so called "other guy [who] was just a shadowy figure" is David Pajčin, Plotkin's co-conspirator, who's trading first attracted the SEC's interest. It was the investigation of Pajčin that led them to Plotkin. [229] Far from being a 'shadowy figure',Pajčin was central to the case. Furthermore, there are sources dating from 2006 which cover Pajčin's involvement perfectly well. Smallbones' arguments simply don't add up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy's being a bit grumpy here. I don't think there is any rule that says you have to have an article on the insider trading case before you can have an article on the insider trader. Michael Milkin and Ivan Boesky are handled by us under the person's name with no articles on either case. And yes, there were many other people involved in each of those cases. The weight that I put on the different people in the case reflects the weight of the sources I had when I wrote it. It would probably be slightly different now, but I'll say that "Eugene Plotkin" gets more than 2 times the google hits than "David Pajcin" and "Stanislav Shpigelman" gets almost none. We should just take this to the article's talk page. There's no great injustice or violation of the rules. There's just a convicted con man ... or two or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Before we "take this to the article's talk page", would you care to expand on why you accused Factchecker25 of having a "possible COI" in an edit summary? [230] Given that Factchecker25 hadn't edited the article previously, it is difficult to see how you could have arrived at such a conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Factchecker25 edited the article and the talk page last August 23. This was about the same time somebody sent in an OTRS request, which as far as I can tell was about the article saying "was convicted of" when the OTRS sender wanted the wording "was accused of". A brief review of the court documents showed that Plotkin pled guilty and was "convicted of" in every case I was asked about. The diff shows Factchecker25 changing "convicted of" to "accused of" and a similar or same edit was done later by an anon. There is a history of SPAs and sockpuppets making similar types of obstructive edits. Looks like a possible COI to me.

I'd like to ask everybody who is involved in this to take some reasonable precautions. Plotkin pled guilty and was convicted of a couple of dozen counts of fraud - theft by deception. The words "insider trading" are commonly used in the papers, but the actual crime is fraud, "insider trading" is just one way to prove fraud (sorry for being a bit technical). Given that there is a history of deception in the actual case, and a history of sockpuppets and similar tricks here on Wikipedia, I'll suggest that you occasionally ask yourself - "Am I being deceived here?" You can still AGF, but just check everything very carefully and in detail. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If previous edits of an article imply COI, then surely Smallbones you ought to explain why you have such a vested interest in keeping the article in the original form in which it was created. Surely you will agree that Wikipedia is about being objective and presenting the most unbiased viewpoint available. Its power is in its community of editors working together. You are fighting tooth and nail to preserve a particular version of the article, which you yourself created, even though there is a tremendous amount of objective coverage which suggests that a Plotkin biography alone does not meet the BLP1E guideline. You also claim repeatedly that there was no coverage prior to the coverage of Plotkin and you make outrageous claims that "most of what Factchecker says could be made up". My edits, which you chose to indiscriminately roll back, were based on references, which were listed and which you also chose to delete. Here are just a few stories dealing with Pajcin well before Plotkin even came into the picture: [231] [232] [233] [234] [235]. And here are stories dealing with Pajcin well after Plotkin disappeared from the news: [236] [237] [238] [239]. My concern here is that you clearly have a reason to be fighting tooth and nail against any change to the article. I cannot find any objective explanation for this behavior other than that you have some personal vested interest. Otherwise, why would you be against a more objective article with more references that considers the conspiracy as a whole, and is consistent with the media coverage. As far as your argument that a search for Eugene Plotkin brings up more results, it is a specious argument at best, as Eugene Plotkin is a far more common name than either David Pajcin or Stanislav Shpigelman, so you are seeing results related to many Eugene Plotkins who are not THIS Eugene Plotkin. Rather than focus on the community feedback, Wikipedia guidelines, and the actual media coverage, you resort to making accusations regarding other editors' motives. Your implication that because the article deals with a case of fraud, this implies that editors (other than you) contributing to this article are themselves engaged in fraud is absurd and, once again, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I would like to try and bring the discussion back to the issue so well-elucidated by others: if the conspiracy is notable, then there should be an article about the conspiracy. A BLP does not apply here. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think factchecker25 needs to read WP:NPA. I think I should respond to his writting that "My concern here is that you clearly have a reason to be fighting tooth and nail against any change to the article. I cannot find any objective explanation for this behavior other than that you have some personal vested interest."

Like most long-time Wikipedia editors I tend to specialize in various topics. My specialties include photography and writing about buildings on the NRHP, Quaker meetinghouses, local history, public art, MOOCs, and insider trading and other financial con games. I'm sure that nobody on Wikipedia will find fault that I have my specializations. Since I have some academic and professional background in financial scandals (no-not the way you might be thinking!), I think some of these articles may be among my best work. For example, I started the Bernard Madoff article and wrote about the first 4.5k of the article in the 4 hours or so that I had the article mostly to myself. Then I guided it through several months where everybody wanted to edit it, including anti-Semites, those seeking revenge, and the generally clueless. There are particular challenges writing articles on financial scandals - for some reason some folks think that insider trading is not a real crime and just delete material on it. It worked this way for a long time with the apparent fans of Martha Stewart in her article. There was another case where an editor had a username of a famous insider trader and claimed to be that trader and a couple of times removed well documented material. He calmed down quite a bit when he learned that somebody was watching the article. So in this area - even more so than other areas of Wikipedia - I've learned to check my facts, and check "facts" offered up by SPAs. I don't think that anybody on Wikipedia will fault me on that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with specializing in certain topics, as long as an editor is able to remain objective and not bully others whose views may differ from his or her own. I was very surprised to discover Smallbones rolling back my revision of an article when my revision provided significantly more facts, significantly more material, and significantly more references. Upon a detailed review of the article's history, I was sufficiently concerned as to refer the incident to this Noticeboard. Since that time, watching the Talk Page for that article, my concern has unfortunately only increased. Factchecker25 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Alrofficial uploading copyrighted images with invalid, sometimes outright phony, PD claims

User:Alrofficial, over the last few days, had added images claimed as PD to quite a few articles. These images are their own uploads to commons, also made over the last few days. Many of the uploads have inadequate justifications, but that is, I suppose, a problem for Commons to deal with. However, because the editor's primary reason for uploading the images is to add them to en-Wiki articles, I believe it is appropriate and important to address the most serious misbehavior here.

First, User:Alrofficial has taken several images bearing copyright notices, cropped the images to remove the copyright notices, and uploaded the images claiming they were originally published without copyright notices. See File:Constance McCashin.JPG and File:Constance McCashin 1981.JPG. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for this misconduct other than intent to deceive. Both images were then added to the infobox of the McCashin article (the second replacing the first), a BLP where such nonfree images are not allowed.[240][241].

Second, User:Alrofficial has repeatedly uploaded images bearing copyright notices and simply declared they did not carry copyright notices. See, for example, File:Shelley Long 1987.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [242]) and File:Marsha Mason 1982.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [243]).

Third, User:Alrofficial has repeatedly uploaded recent copies/prints of older publicity photos, with sources providing no information regarding their original publication, and simply declared they were originally published without copyright notices. See, for example, File:Pamela Sue Martin.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [244]) and File:Shelley Long Publicity photo.JPG (added to an en-wiki article here [245]).

I therefore proposed that User:Alrofficial be blocked (indefinitely), until they acknowledge that this behavior is grossly inappropriate and agree to refrain from it in the future; and that when the block is lifted, the editor be placed under a one-year topic ban on adding images to en-wiki BLPs.

I believe the block is justified by the gross misbehavior represented by removing copyright notices from images and uploading the as free, and that the topic ban would justified by the editor's failure to understand the importance and the substance of our policies regarding nonfree content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for downloading these images, but I thought that they meet the license about older publicity photos. I not will upload images with unknown license status --Alrofficial (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Since you are already familiar with which images are a problem, as well as copyright policy, and he seems to understand that he can't do this now, will you help him along a bit Hullaballoo? Just help tag them, revert usage in articles and explain the policy just a bit? I might have missed it, but I didn't see where you discussed it previously, and this would be the fastest way to conclude this as he has already stated how he will move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Discussion had been going on at Commons, and the user had been apprised of the problems there, going back to last year. While the user's understanding of policy details might have contributed here, I find it hard to believe that an experienced editor couldn't understand that chopping a copyright notice off an image, then claiming it never had one, or simply denying the existence of plainly visible copyright notices -- both matters that arose, so far as I could tell, only in the last few days -- were not appropriate editing. The editor stopped responding at Commons once I pointed it the cases where they removed copyright notices, but were still editing actively on en-Wiki without acknowledging the problems at either wiki. There are several hundred uploads to review there, plus a few dozen nonfree images here (which, to be fair, appear less problematic at first glance). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Oy. I didn't check commons (and what happens there is a bit out of our jurisdiction) , but saw a lack of recent images from him here. You might want to ping User:INeverCry, who is an admin both here and at Commons (and he will probably curse me for putting this off on him..;) so we can clean up all around. Now that he has clearly said he will not upload infringing images, I'm willing to give a little rope. The next time he does upload obviously copyright infringing material, he will likely get blocked quickly, however. He is probably better off if he doesn't upload any images, and request it instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this image with back is good for commons and this not? Okay, i not will work in commons now. --Alrofficial (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
        • The Kelsey image looks OK because no copyright notice is present, both the entire front and back of the image are shown, and the back of the image contains enough information for us to reliably determine the circumstances of the original publication. All three of these elements are necessary. The Harrison image fails both the second and third part of this test. I think it's prudent for you not to upload images to Commons, at least for a while; the rules for nonfree content can be very intricate, and it's easy to overlook essential details. But, as Canoe1967 points out below, it's better to stick to images before 1978, because it's very, very difficult to determine if copyrights for images were ever registered. I'm not familiar with the details of what Commons policy requires for such images. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to stop uploading or leave commons. Just find images like File:Annette Funicello on beach Frankie Avalon Dick Clark 1977.jpg. They need to be 1977 or earlier and show both sides to prove that there was no copyright notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why User:Jahoe nominated for deletion all my ebay images? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many others is ok for Commons licenses.--Alrofficial (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of those don't show the back of the photo. Again, I recommend not uploading until you become more familiar, to prevent any more unintentional violations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Most files was with back of the photo. Jahoe says what eBay is not good as source for images, but why many another users upload images from ebay like me? If eBay not good source for publicity stills, maybe should all images in commons? this, this, this, this and others eBay stills not good, per Jahoe. --Alrofficial (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Commons, I have no ability to do anything about what they accept there. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies as well. That other copyright infringing photos exist doesn't allow us to simply add more. But again, we have no authority over what they do at Commons. Not our jobs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I uploaded fronts uncropped and backs showing no notice on 46 of your uploads that may help to keep them as PD-US-no notice. The PD-US-not renewed are far harder to prove as I think we did with File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg. You may wish to read and follow the DR on Nighthawks to see how thorough we need to be on commons. As a good faith effort you may wish to tag your obvious copyvio uploads yourself as speedy delete to save DRs on them. Some of the ones I fixed may yet be deleted as not enough proof.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic admin closes

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.

---

Copied here from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

LFaraone, an admin, hasn't made a significant number of edits in about 4 years [246]. Yet he has returned and started closing discussions where there are only a few comments.

In the article I nominated, based on policy and guidelines I can see no justification for closing that discussion as keep, rather than relisting for more input Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott_(3rd_nomination). The justification made here: User_talk:IRWolfie-#AFD seems, quite frankly, a bit bizarre. Especially considering that when he says "User:Dricherby were reasonable insofar as that there has been critical commentary on his work combined with non-trivial mentions in sources. User:Phaedrus7 builds upon that", even though Dricherby panned Phraedrus's reasons; what consensus was he reading? If this was an isolated case I would take it to deletion review, but there appear to be many other discussions closed by the now-active editor which I think are problematic.

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Powerking One comment of "Per nom" and it was deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Writopia_Lab One comment which says they have press coverage and links to their page resulted in a keep
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments No comments actually address notability, yet it was kept
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vince_Conti One comment, said they couldn't find sources, was deleted

This list is not an exhaustive one, I only selected a minimum number for demonstration. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, when editors brought up closings they felt were incorrect, I have occasionally revised the outcome. However, I believe in general that my actions in interpreting consensus are reasonable and fall within the realm of administrative discretion. If you have issues with specific deletion discussions, couldn't you have otherwise resolved them amicably by bringing them up at deletion review? I disagree that my gap in editing indicates, as you said on your talk page, being "out of touch" with policy, and stand by these closures. LFaraone 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a large amount of problematic closes; and it would be non-trivial to bring them all to deletion review.

Many are where there is little input but they are closed, here are some more examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Courchaine_(ice_hockey_b._1989)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Smith_(Charity_CEO): one comment
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Wolf_At_Your_Door_Records: one comment, basically a per nom, was deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saving_Aimee_(3rd_nomination) I fail to see the consensus.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

David Talbott close seems to reflect consensus. NE Ent 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I looked through the examples here, which I assume are the "worst of the worst". Some were relisted twice, others once. I also think it was kind of quick to bring it here. We can debate each close individually at WP:DRV but from what I see, the main problem was low participation, even after relisting. In this one, the nomination was weak, this didn't have a single keep, this one didn't have a delete, etc. I don't see abuse nor obviously bad judgement. I do think that DRV would have been the better venue. Some AFDs just don't get any attention, which can be evidenced by at least one of the examples being relisted twice. I don't agree that we should run every AFD until it gets $x votes, which is the only other alternative. And the David Talbott article you nominated? This was the third AFD, and the first two closed as "keep", so I can't see a third keep as being all that unusual.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, you are telling me, that in your opinion: this is an appropriate close? Closing with keep or delete when there was a lack of participation is bad judgement, if there isn't enough participation we have "no consensus" or relisting.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments did have a delete; the nom and noone addressed the points he raised. Also with the Talbott article, saying that discussions years ago were closed keep and that means the current case is justified is rather strange justification. Read the actual keep arguments; one hints at possible reviews of a book, one of the keeps makes irrelevant points that the first keep voter countered as well, and the third keep voter said he would have voted delete if this wasn't a third nomination. These aren't the worst of the worst, since I didn't look through all their recent closes. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, that is an entirely appropriate close in my book. Perhaps it should have been WP:SOFTDELETEed - i.e. treated as if it were an expred PROD - but I don't see anything wrong with that closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with IRWolfie on this. The level of participation and the number of keep "votes" should have nothing at all to do with the closing decision. An AfD is not a vote! That is a core Wikipedia policy. AfDs should be closed with reference to the stated policy positions, not the popularity of the subject. Policy should always triumph over votes or sentiments. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an anarchy, but anarchy is surely the result when policy is thrown out the window. Qworty (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary must be a concern with the participants — if policy were always to triumph over votes, we would have no need for deletion discussions. An admin taking your perspective will frequently exercise a supervote. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with a slight clarification that if the participation is very low, people can't generally gauge the general consensus, and it should probably be relisted, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm certainly not against relisting. Qworty (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, relisting is definitely the best strategy if there are very few !votes, especially if it hasn't gotten already got two relists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

However, if it's already had two relists and zilch on the participation front, that's what a WP:SOFTDELETE is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, an admin is expected to weigh up the discussion in the eyes in of policy (WP:NOTAVOTE and all that). The number of votes are mostly irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The only "incident" I see here is that IRWolfie didn't like the outcome of an AfD debate, and is trying to turn that into a completely unwarranted attack on the closing admin. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I echo this. Pick five of what you think are the worst and haul them to deletion review. If you go 5-for-5 there overturning the closure, then maybe you have a case. The Saving Aimee close was fine, for example — just making a laundry list of things one disagrees with does not an actual problem make. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was about to make an observation but Carrite beat me to it. While I appreciate the point that IRWolfie used as justification to bring it here (one or two odd results should go to DR, but this looks like a pattern), however, I agree with Carrite that the sequence is wrong. Go to DR, get several overturned, and then you have the evidence to raise the wider question . Instead, we are having a mini-DR review here, with mixed results.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Carrite does nail the solution. These AFDs are less than optimal, but I still maintain that participation was the issue, not the close. As closer, you are stuck with what you are given below the close, and if no one participates and it has already been relisted once, you do the best you can. There is nothing that is sticking out that says "problem" with them as a whole. And while we don't count votes, the count isn't completely irrelevant when they are based in sound reasoning, particularly when the votes are all on one side of delete or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a few to DRV if that is the consensus here. Separately I assume? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You can mention the others, but I think 1 per is best for 4 or 5 of them since the issue isn't the sum total yet, just the individual closes. Since this isn't about abuse, we are always better to first answer "is there a problem?" at the right venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Samuel, considering you were edit warring to attack me at my own editor review in the past [247][248][249] and made your feelings towards me abundantly clear, don't be offended if I ignore what you say, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a huge problem here - a bit of one, but only that I don't think the closer is quite evaluating individual votes properly. Votes that don't relate to policy must be ignored. There are a few here I would have closed as "No Consensus" rather than Keep/Delete (thus borderline) but the only ones I'd have completely closed differently is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Courchaine (ice hockey b. 1989) where the "Keep" vote was refuted and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (3rd nomination) where none of the Keep votes actually made any policy-based reason to keep. These should probably be relisted. Apart from that, there's nothing outrageously improper here. The closer does need to make themselves clearer on deletion policy, though. Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Has any of this been at WP:DRV before bringing it to AN/I? — Ched :  ?  21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The obvious answer to that, of course, is that if hardly anyone cared enough to comment on the AfDs, there's really unlikely to be anyone who'll bother to take them to DRV. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The point of bringing it to AN (it was at AN originally but was moved) was because of there being a large number of AfDs involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• question 2 - ok, (and ty for the replies) after reading a bit more here, my next question is: What administrative action is being requested? — Ched :  ?  21:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

the necessary action is a reminder to the admin that, while 4 years ago we did routinely close afds in the manner he has been closing them, now we commonly expect a greater degree of participation. This has been a gradual change in custom, not in rules, and it's just a matter of updating ones expectations. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DGG - that's exactly what I wanted to know. — Ched :  ?  00:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's reasonable. This whole thread has been quite informative, and will enable me to do a better job of closing discussions going forward. LFaraone 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo

I think I need some advise from more experienced administrators. Earlier today I closed the AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Cairo, which I guess nobody wanted to close for two days since the most possible outcome implied merging seven articles. I closed it as merge, and started merging [250]. I got reverted [251] by Aquintero82, who then explained on my talk page that addition of this text breaks the structure of the page. Whereas I understand their argument, I am not quite sure what I should do now. Redirect all articles without merging? Withdraw my closure? Trying to impose some other consensus? I would appreciate some advise on this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure looks correct. You could redirect and let those who seem to think they know the target well to do the merge (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do like you suggest. It is a pity we lose references, but I probably can not do anything about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing an AfD as merge doesn't require YOU to do the merge; you can put {{Afd-merge to|destination article|debate name|debate closure date}} at the top of the page and {{Afd-merge from|nominated article|debate name|debate closure date}} on the target's talk page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close and hopefully someone else will do it. Normally if it's an easy one I'll just do it, if I think it will never get done I close as redirect and in my comments will offer to userfy it to anyone who wants to merge it, and will only use the templates if it is more work than I want to do but I think someone else will do it. J04n(talk page) 19:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think in this case I will indeed go for redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Attention needed at User talk:81.91.195.4

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 needs admin attention ASAP to shut off talk page rights and possibly take further action: dif. Clearcut disruptive editing. Not a threat, per se, but a possible copyvio. Andrew³²⁷ 10:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:LarryTr7

LarryTr7 (talk · contribs) is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. They've been previously blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry, and their raison d'etre is to spew bile and violate WP:BLP in a crusade against Ping Fu. I thought they'd lapsed into inactivity, but they've come back again, with [252] and [253]. Given their history, and the fact they've never contributed anywhere else, I'm asking for an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• His previous statements on that talk page before being blocked for socking are more worrisome than these, which he attempts to use sources for. Unreliable sources, but sources. There does seem to be an inner POV warrior attitude at play here. His previous comments there to Yworo [254] [255] border on at attempt at outing, if they don't outright violate it, and are at the very least personal attacks. Had he not already been blocked for socking back then, he might have been blocked or at least strongly warned for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• After reviewing the case more, including the activity of his socks, it seems apparent that he is here for a single purpose, and that single purpose isn't the topic of Ping Fu, but rather to insure his particular perspective of Ping Fu is represented in the article (WP:NPOV). In other words, I think Luke is right here. I'm inclined to indef the editor as there isn't any specific time limit that will prevent the disruption, but would prefer input from others first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Those diffs were simply today's two edits, I wasn't portraying them to be the worst this user has posted. I thought about providing more diffs, but the contributions of this user are small enough and focused enough on disparaging Ping Fu, that I didn't feel the need to. And that's not listing anything this user has made in deleted articles, or with their socks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor has made four edits in last two months; none are particularly disruptive. Yes there's some oblique reference to off wiki Amazon stuff, but multiple editors have done so. Talk:Ping Fu is a cesspit of Ad hominem attacks, so picking LT77's out of the heap isn't compelling to me. WP:NOTHERE isn't a blockable offense but rather a shorthand for actual policy violations (e.g. disruptive editing), and "Focusing on niche topic areas" is in the WP:NOTNOTHERE rather than "not here", anyway. Sockpuppetry is historic; editor was already sanctioned for it so bringing it up ANI again is escalatory. I encourage OP to stay focused on content discussion and don't think there's anything actionable. NE Ent 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is certainly a factor when determining a block duration or necessity. The underlying problem in different cases might be spam, or disruptive edits, or POV warrioring, but when someone is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and doesn't mind disrupting the entire encyclopedia to push their agenda, it does form part of the rationale to block them. This kind of disruption goes beyond the boundaries of a single article, affects retention, and wastes time. The sockpuppetry was just a vehicle to continue doing what is the primary problem, pushing a POV agenda, so it absolutely part of a pattern. I'm not inclined to not block someone simply because other POV warriors exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent, I presume you haven't realized that a vast majority of the SPAs at the Ping Fu article turned out to be related to LarryTr7 - and confirmed by CU, not just a "likely". As such, all the confirmed socks' edits may be treated as this editor's, and you get gems such as [256]. Bringing up sockpuppetry is perfectly relevant when discussing the history, especially with a CU confirmed set of socks, which means that the accounts belong to one person. It's apparent to me that LarryTr7 is going to keep popping up, just when it seems the battles have died down, to relight the fires (so to speak... why am I being poetic? :D) and the user is not a benefit to the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence of socking after 13 March? (If yes, it should be added to the existing SPI.) NE Ent 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not to my knowledge, and there doesn't need to be. I think you're missing the point; CU confirmed socks' edits should be treated alongside the master's edits, especially when they're one and the same format. Even aside from the sockpuppeting, we've got an SPA with an agenda that violates BLP, almost all of their edits are POV-pushing, if not downright unacceptable, so they don't benefit the encyclopedia and should not be able to remain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ent, if the events were unrelated, I would agree, but they are actually all acts in the same play, all connected to the same problem, all indicating a singular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• They've posted again with another POV push: [257] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• And I won't link their latest message here, but I did send it to Dennis Brown on his talk page, and NE Ent has seen it (and removed a BLP-violating section) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since no one else has opined here, and Ent appears to be firmly of the belief that a block isn't the proper solution (a belief I respect, but don't share) I will refrain. Ent has left a message on his talk page pointing him to read WP:BLP. Future problems are likely to have a different result, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I guess I'll have to take this then. I do hope that any further POV-pushing/BLP violations from this user very quickly get them the sanction they clearly deserve though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

71.40.204.186

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.

---

71.40.204.186 (talk · contribs), after a block, is back and his edits have been these [[258]] and [[259]] (latest [[260]] so edit warring too). Seems he intends to be disruptive and offensive. Also vandalising another (related) page [[261]]Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 71.40.204.186 (talk · contribs) blocked by Ultraexactzz. Next time, please use AIV. m.o.p 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

IP genre waring

A series of genre changes to articles connected to classic heavy heavy metal bands, especially Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Uriah Heep, and usually including the removal of heavy metal music from the genre description in the infobox, have been a major problem over the last few months. The last two, today, were by 46.159.182.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 46.159.112.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Previous numbers include 46.159.15.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I could give diffs, but it much easier to just look at the contributions as this is the only purpose of these accounts and there is no response to talkpage requests or edit summaries. Is it possible to ban a range of ip numbers? This is a persistent issue and takes a great deal of work by myself and other regular editors since the IP routinely makes 20 to 40 changes at a time.--SabreBD (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is - see WP:RANGEBLOCK. On this occasion, the range to block is 46.159.0.0/16 (65,536 IPs).--Launchballer 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy has become a significant nuisance over the past few months, and this activity needs to stop. Reasoning with the individual has not worked, and this person may not stop this loathsome activity until if and when (s)he is forced to stop. Now to realize the editor has usurped two IPs in one day makes the matter quite pressing. I would support that range block. Is it possible to contact the person's ISP about this issue? Considering how (s)he has been at it since February or March, this is a long-term issue; this, however, does not have to continue to be long-term, because he or she can and must be halted. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alert! Live activity from 213.132.75.89! He's not stopping yet. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

213.132.75.89 was blocked, but was there a rangeblock? If not we will be doing this all again very soon.--SabreBD (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Another tranche of edits as ‎46.159.104.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The issue is not going away.--SabreBD (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree something needs to be done. I have reverted many edits made by 46.159.15.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thyis account is SPA, to adjust genre's to their liking. I support a range block as the user is not heeding warnings. (barrowed your templates SabreBD, thanx ) Mlpearc (powwow) 18:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Block range for now and block one odd IP. In a minute I will be getting an admin - I thought this was closed yesterday!--Launchballer 18:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everybody above. This is becoming a major nuisance and we need action soonest. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a range block is extremely appropriate in this case. This individual is pervasively wasting the time of so many people in order to push his or her ever so frivolous agenda upon others. Also, since this has proven to be a long-term issue, it is also appropriate to contact the ISP about this. I remember dealing with a dynamic IP disruptor just like this individual for 3 years. I brought this discussion up at the policy village pump, and the ISP was contacted. I heard via e-mail that the ISP expelled the offender, and I haven't seen a trace of that person since April 2012. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, and not a right, and some people, like #46/#213, abuse that privilege in an abhorrently immodest fashion. This activity needs to be derailed immediately, for the sake of encyclopedic quality. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Range blocked for 72 hours. I appreciate that this may need longer, but I would like a second opinion before deciding on a longer block of so large a range, and that will give time to get one. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

IP sock of IP sock of KellyPhD

Anyone want to block?[262] If not for the socking at least for this being said about FPaS ab nach Buchenwald, du Untermenschverrater Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP has now made an OUTING attempt on Jimbo's talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Revdeled, sent to oversight, and I think someone else already got the IP as a proxy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the heads-up. For the record, it's not actually KellyPhD, but the usual User:Wikinger lunatic. All the IPs he uses are open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out for him. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Retaliation

There has been an ongoing issue with a very large amount of sockpuppets involved in WP:SPAM and WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Focusing around this article: Wedlock (band)

The socks were banned in these SPIs: 1 2 3

Today, a new sock has arrived using a slight variation of my username: PeteWesco

This new sock is removing AfDs and page blanking.

PeteWesco here

PeterWesco (talk)

• The IP was actually correcting the problem. I blocked Pete as a likely sock of User:Nickaang and for username violation, obviously trying to cause confusion with your name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I corrected my original response and removed the complaint against the IP at about the time you were responding. It was done in error and I realized after I reviewed all of the contributions again. Thanks for the fast action. PeterWesco (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I had just worked a large case against Nickaang last night at his SPI, blocking over a dozen socks, and that article was one in question, so it was an easy call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User:johncheverly

A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Wikipedia talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Wikipedia does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" [263], rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", [264] and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Wikipedia talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks

And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks.

Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later [265]. This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Censorship---

2.11 Wikipedia is not censored [edit] Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

See also: Wikipedia:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Wikipedia

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The attacks on a subject of a Wikipedia article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well. John was just here a few weeks ago for incivility and disruptive edits. Whereas he can be given leeway with respect to those issues as he intends to improve, we cannot countenance ongoing BLP violations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban from all BLPs would also extend to edits relating to living persons that found their way to articles like England, for example - and that might be as precise as we're gonna get. The alternative is to topic ban him from edits relating to Savile and all the others listed above - and then re-up the ban when he finds someone else to go after. Better the blunt instrument. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I was (and I guess technically still am) John's mentor/adopter. Right now I am having a discussion with him via email. Would an admin please just hold off 24 hours to see if I can work something out with him that is not an indef block but that is enforceable with one? Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He told me that he is done and wants his up and whatnot deleted. May as well indef block to enforce it. Go Phightins! 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point in indeffing him if he has no intent to return, or even if he does return. We aren't even proposing a community ban, just editing restrictions, such as a topic ban, logged at WP:RESTRICT. If he really wants to leave the community there's nothing we can do to stop him though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If he'd really still like to draft up "a section on English law as it relates to the Savile case" (preferably in his own sandbox first), I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see it, as would all the guys (and gels) down in the dark woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mendaliv, if you would rather simply topic ban him at BLP, that would be fine too, but he has a history of questionable conduct no matter where he is. He notified me via email in no uncertain terms that he is fed up with Wikipedia, so at this point, I agree, it doesn't so much matter what we do. He's adamant that he's done. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people might call that a result. If only all interventions were as productive? I'd have nothing against him if he calmed down a bit and followed policy - editors can hold "unusual views" about justice if they wish to. But, since he started as an editor, how many main space edits has he made that could be considered "useful"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate his enthusiasm but in addition to policy he needs to listen to what other edits are saying. Martin, and other editors, asked him not to paste entire news articles into talk pages and to not spam other pages loosely related to the subject but he still continued to do so, including to my own talk page. Working with other editors to work towards consensus is really what wikipedia is all about and it seems that john is so passionate and got so excited that he disregarded that. It's hard to have a conversation about a subject when you have to scroll through long walls of text and several subsections all about the same subject.LM2000 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. We need more enthusiastic editors, but that enthusiasm must be tempered. I understand that you've tried to mentor him, Go Phightins!, which is in part why I think an indef block-cum-community ban is inappropriate: I'd rather not see someone in whom other members of the community see potential sent packing because of a couple, or even a handful of incidents of butting heads. If we were so inflexible with our standards, there would be little doubt as to the fate of many other individuals on this page. :-) But BLPs and articles on high profile scandals are a big deal. So that's why I support a topic ban. But if John is actually gone, well, this all seems kind of moot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note that he has only been "gone" for two days, and nothing stops him from coming back the moment this is archived. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems you're right: never went anywhere. He's taking on a backlog of proposed merges. Noble work; he'll learn a lot there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Research, "Infobox Public Service", etc

Mogaio (talk · contribs) is engaged in a project of "research in how the wikipedia can play an important role in enhancing the information retrieval for the different domain" (here) and has created an elaborate template {{Infobox public service}} which appears to include far more "how to" detail than is appropriate for the encyclopedia, along with articles in which every word of text is lifted from the Irish Government's copyright website. See Public Services Card (Ireland) (currently nominated for deletion G12) and User:Mogaio/Apply for Driving Test in Ireland. Could an admin have a look and give some guidance as to what's appropriate here? PamD 22:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And while I was typing this he removed the db-g12 and two other maintenance tags. PamD 22:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

... which has been reverted. PamD 23:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rejedef again?

131.251.133.25 (talk · contribs) triggered my suspicion with an edit on Tripe soup to be a reincarnation of Rejedef, a blocked sockpuppetteer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rejedef/Archive. Known for his dislike of Eastern Europe and preferral of Central Europe, this edit triggered my suspicion. Similar edits were made on Sorrel soup, Sour rye soup, Zurek, Symbols of Europe, Western world and Ashkenazi Jews. Fair suspicion? (WP:SPI won't work on an IP) The Banner talk 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Raintheone

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 User:raintheone has accused me of being abusive. I 100% refute this allegation and would like to point out that this user has not made any attempt to justify this accusation. When i informed him that I wouls report any such further allegations, he accused me of making threats. Please make it clear to raintheone that this is unacceptable. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable, Smurfmeister. Stop reverting and go to the article talk page. Tiderolls 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of being abusive and ignoring the principle of assume good faith are also unacceptable. Please have the courtesy to look at what the complaint is actually about. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And you called them a "cockhead"; very mature. You should take a moment and examine your actions. You're not serving yourself well here, your talk page or the article's revision history. Tiderolls 23:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong. Picking out comments I made on my own talk page is just tacky. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've edit warred, added unsourced content and generally behaved with disregard to the principle of collaborative editing. Your account is older than mine; you should know that discussion doesn't take plaace in edit summaries. The first time you were reverted you should've immediately gone to the article talk page. My best advice would be to self revert on the article and post to the talk page. Tiderolls 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your 'advice'. I have sourced the info - and I've done it without making unnecessary, rude knocks at others. Age of account regardless, you and others should know that is just plain cheap. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You have not sourced the content. I'm telling you, to avoid a block for edit warring you need to self revert. Understand what I'm saying; I'm explaning how to avoid being blocked. Tiderolls 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove it then if you must; I'm past caring. But whilst doing it you should probably take a look at the wider article - the same source you don't think is acceptable for my content (the BBC website) is the source used for most of the article. Hell, you'll probably have to delete the whole thing! Smurfmeister (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about the acceptability of the source. Your citation does not support the content you added. You're letting your frustration blind you to the obvious. Tiderolls 00:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine - in that case please do as I suggested and check whether that same source supports the rest of the article. I think you'll find it doesn't. You will then have to make a decision on whether having the article itself or having every simgle word independently sourced is more important. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This does not appear to be productive. You are now disregarding Tide Rolls' good advice. You are also edit warring on a separate article that JuneGloom07 edited. You cannot just start edit warring elsewhere. You have caused a considerable amount of disruption tonight. This board is to find a resolution rather than creating a new dispute.Rain the 1 00:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment was addressed to Tide Rolls, not to you. I'm sure he or she is more than capable of responding for him or herself. Smurfmeister (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Smurfmeister for 72 hours for edit warring and disruptive editing. The edit warring at the second article was essentially retaliatory and probably should have merited a longer block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Ozarkhog7

Ozarkhog7 (talk · contribs) is a very busy editor who makes a lot of edits, but they are all completely unsourced and many of questionable nature (among the most persistent is the eidts that tries to include the claim that Qatar is a constitutional monarchy 1, 2) as well as a lot of unsourced edits that makes changes to figures in "Demographics of ..." articles.

I have tried engaging this editor in discussion on the talk page of the first article where I encountered this editor (3, and also on their own talk page (4) but despite the editor has made numerous edits since they have not responded. And I am quite sure that they have read my post on the Constitutional monarchy talk page (so no go on blaming this on the unfortunate lack of the OBOD) because I have linked to absolute monarchy there and they began editing that article soon after my post.

I am sure this is a good faith editor (though with some agenda issues) and that this is perhaps a case of beginner issues, but they have never edited a talk page or used an edit summary. And since I can't get a response from this editor, and since they persist in continuing their problematic behaviour I bring this issue here, where hopefully some administrators are capable of reaching through to them or else of putting a pause to their editing until such time they acknowledge that they have learned the art of adding citations and engaging in discussions on talk pages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Qatar has a constitution does it not? That constitution mandates a monarchy? Certainly there is a gradient between absolute and constitutional monarchies, but in the absence of other sourcing/evidence I would have to say it is a constitutional monarchy according to definition? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting flurry of edits, a lot for the last 2 days, which is as long as the account's been around. From what I can see they haven't been out of line... although I share the OPs concern about some dramatic changes (changing the absolute monarchy link to constitutional monarchy in the lead, with few other substantive changes on that point), and the lack of communication. This is probably a little premature for ANI, but they need to show some engagement when challenged on major changes, irregardless of their accuracy. Ideally the OP (or someone) would watch them for a while and see what they do... if this keeps up there needs to be some dialogue. Shadowjams (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

They had a constitutional referendum in 2003, which approved a constitution, so the Emir was obviously a constitutional monarch recently and presumably is today. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You and Gaijin misunderstand the term constitutional monarchy. It does not mean just any monarchy with a constitution (by that respect a lot of the absolute monarchies in early modern Europe could be termed constitutional monarchies as well, since they were monarchies and had constitutions). The constitution of Qatar grants all executive and legislative power to the king, the assembly only has an advisory function, that is rahter straightforward absolute monarchy. No source has been provided that back up any claims of Qatar having a constitutional monarchy, and all sources I have found calls the government type emirate (for example the CIA Factbook) which is a certain Arabic variant of absolute monarchy.

Anyway I received some emails from the editor in question that contained some links to among other Qatar government websites, which the editor apparently means to be use as sources for their claims. That is good since it shows the good faith of the editor, however none of the sites can be said to be reliable sources for this question (copy pasted from the emails: http://www.globalsecurity.org/miltary/world/gulf/qatar (404 error link) http://qatartourism.gov.qa/discover/index/1/208 http://qatarembassy.net/psystem.asp) and the method of communication, via email instead of replying on their talk page or the article talk page, does reveal that there are some competence issues to be taken care of. Perhaps someone would be willing to volunteer as mentor? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The official tourism site of Qatar, and the embassy site says they are a constitutional monarchy. Thats a fairly strong source. What sources do you have asserting otherwise? The CIA factbook says Emirate, which would require further sourcing to say either constitutional or absolute. While I sympathise with your subjective opinion (and think it has argumentative merit), such an argument is original research unless you can find reliable sources making that argument for you. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The official tourist site of North Korea also claims it is a democratic people's republic. We don't use that as a reliable source for their type of government either. As for the emirate/absolute monarchy equation that is taken from reliable sources which describes Qatars current form of government like these 1, 2. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ozarkhog7 has now resorted to editwarring via IP socking: 5.82.248.128 (talk · contribs) --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

Audriust (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding an inappropriate external link at Chemtrail conspiracy theory and just planted a legal threat [266] on my talkpage under the impression that his free speech is being oppressed. Perhaps some patient person might explain why this is wrong? Acroterion (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You wanna try that again? The user you name is not a registered user. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. The old freedom of speech thing huh? Maybe I'll try an explanation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've posted an explanation; feel free to correct/add your own as necessary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Doubt it will do much good. There are many bad signs here. [267] [268] EEng (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That first link was deleted as "non-controversial cleanup".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) shouldn't {{subst:Uw-lblock}} be placed on his/her talk page? I know y'all left a note on the bottom of the talk page but most people probably look for the block notice thing.If I have no idea what I'm talking about feel free to rant at me or ignore me. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The template isn't required by policy. Actually, they are explaining it in full detail, which is superior to the template anyway. The template is just a quick, dirty and inferior substitute for a detailed explanation, when an explanation isn't required. All of the automated scripts for sockpuppets, for example, do not automatically give the template or an explanation, just a tag on their user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me :) Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the patient explanations on their user talk. Acroterion (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely love it when people say that vandalising Wikipedia is illegal. If only... — Richard BB 08:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)